Lansing Urbandale FPMS Report - 15 Feb 2018

Urbandale Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Study
City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Floodplain Management Services
Hydraulic & Hydrology Analysis Report
15 February 2018
Prepared by: USACE – Detroit District

Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Topography ..................................................................................................................................... 5
3 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Statistical Analysis .................................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Hydrographs ......................................................................................................................... 10
4 Hydraulics ..................................................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... 11
4.2 Modeling Limits .................................................................................................................... 11
4.3 River Reaches ....................................................................................................................... 11
4.4 2‐D Flow Areas .................................................................................................................. 11
4.5 Boundary Conditions ............................................................................................................ 13
4.6 Manning’s n Values .............................................................................................................. 14
4.7 Structures ............................................................................................................................. 14
4.8 Contraction/Expansion Coefficients .................................................................................... 14
4.9 Ineffective and Obstructed Flow Settings ............................................................................ 14
4.10 Calibration ............................................................................................................................ 14
4.11 Proposed Conditions ............................................................................................................ 15
5 Results .......................................................................................................................................... 16
6 Additional Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 21
6.1 3 feet of sandbags for the 10% flood event ........................................................................ 21
6.2 5 feet of sandbags for the 5% flood event .......................................................................... 22
7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendices
Appendix A – USGS Flood‐Inundation Maps Report February 2016
Appendix B – USGS Gage Annual Peak Discharge Data
Appendix C – SSP Computed Plots
Appendix D – Referenced MDEQ Discharge Requests
Appendix E – HEC‐RAS Model Output
i

Figures
Figure 1 – Study Extent
Figure 2 – Study Area Location
Figure 3 – Flood Skew Regions for Michigan
Figure 4 – SSP Generated Probability Plot
Figure 5 – Hydrographs from 1996 Peak Discharge Event
Figure 6 – 2‐D Flow Area Geometry
Figure 7 – Boundary Condition Hydrographs Scaled for 100‐Year Peak Discharge
Figure 8 – 2‐D Flow Area Connection for Proposed Conditions
Figure 9 – Modeled Flood Inundation for 1% Chance Annual Flood
Figure 10 – 2‐D Flow Area Connection for 3 ft. Sandbags
Figure 11 – 2‐D Flow Area Connection for 5 ft. Sandbags

Tables
Table 1 – USGS Stream Gage IDs and Drainage Areas
Table 2 – SSP Stream Gage Computational Parameters
Table 3 – Results from SSP Stream Gage Analysis
Table 4 – MDEQ Discharge Values
Table 5 – Multipliers Applied to Scale Hydrographs
Table 6 – HEC‐RAS Modeled Results
ii

Lansing Floodplain PAS Study – February 2018

1 Introduction
The Floodplain Management Services (FPMS) Program provides the full range of
technical services and planning guidance that is needed to support effective
floodplain management. The program's authority stems from Section 206 of the
1960 Flood Control Act (PL 86-645), as amended. Its objective is to foster public
understanding of the options for dealing with flood hazards and to promote prudent
use and management of the Nation's flood plains. Upon request, program services
may be provided to state, regional, and local governments, Native American Indian
Tribes, and other non-federal public agencies without charge.
The main objectives of the project was to determine the feasibility of:
Keeping floodwater out of the Urbandale Neighborhood completely and understanding

the impacts associated with that, and possibly finding some temporary flood risk
reduction measures that may be feasible to protect the Urbandale study area.
This report serves to document the hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) analysis to
assess conceptual flood management designs for the Urbandale neighborhood
within the City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan. The study area is on the
east side of Lansing, defined by boundaries at Saginaw Street to the north, US-
127 to the east, I-496 to the south, and Pennsylvania Avenue to the west. Figure
1 illustrates the study extent overlaying the USGS National Map. The specific
study area location of the Urbandale neighborhood is shown on zoomed-in image
provided as Figure 2.
The Urbandale neighborhood exists within a low-lying topographic area and has
been subject to damaging flood events, with a notable historic flood in April 1975.
Located near the convergence of the Grand River, Red Cedar River, and
Sycamore Creek, the study area currently acts as flood storage during large
events. Flood waters are able to enter the neighborhood from the Red Cedar
River through underpasses along US-127 for Kalamazoo Street and Michigan
Avenue. This study was designed to assess the impacts associated with blocking
off the neighborhood as a flood storage area to understand potential effects
elsewhere on the river system.
To complete this study, a model previously developed by the United States

Geological Survey (USGS) Ohio Water Science Center in 2015 was updated. The
original was a one-dimensional (1-D) steady state model completed using the
Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) used to create
flood inundation maps. A report developed by USGS documenting this modeling
effort is provided as Appendix A.
In order to evaluate the flood storage capacity of the study area, the original model
was altered to create an unsteady flow simulation that incorporates a two-
dimensional (2-D) storage area to represent the neighborhood. Two alternative
scenarios were modeled for this project and are described as follows:
1

1. Existing Conditions – assumes that no project would be implemented by the

Federal Government or by local interests to achieve the planned objectives.
2. Proposed Conditions – a conceptual design to prevent flood flows from
entering the study area through the US-127 underpasses on Kalamazoo
Street and Michigan Avenue.
The analysis included gathering and evaluating hydrologic and hydraulic data
necessary to update the existing hydraulic model with proposed project conditions
to determine potential flooding impacts. This report details the methodology and
results of the hydraulic modeling effort completed.
2

3

4

2 Topography
The hydraulic model received from the USGS was the basis of analysis for this
study. Topographic data for the original model was obtained by the USGS in the
form of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) in March of 2010 from the Tri-County
Regional Planning Commission encompassing Clinton, Ingham, and Eaton
Counties. The topographic data was provided as point data in the Michigan State
Plane South projection referenced to NAD83 horizontal datum. Vertical datum is
based in North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88). Both horizontal and
vertical LiDAR coordinates are expressed in international survey feet.
Field surveys to collect bathymetric data of the channel were conducted by USGS
during the summer of 2013. USGS combined the LiDAR data with the surveyed
bathymetry data to create a Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) surface. HEC-
GeoRAS was utilized to import cross sectional data for the original 1-D hydraulic
model.
To expand the previously developed 1-D hydraulic model, USACE utilized the
existing TIN created by USGS and added in the areas of interest for floodplain
storage. Topography for the additional floodplain storage areas was taken from
the LiDAR data, which was provided as a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with a grid
resolution of four feet in the Michigan State Plane South (feet) NAD83 horizontal
projection/datum and two feet in the NAVD88 (feet) vertical datum.
3 Hydrology
In order to convert the existing USGS steady state model into one with unsteady
flow required for computation of 2-D areas, a hydrologic analysis was necessary.
The scope of this study did not include the completion of a hydrologic model;
therefore an evaluation of existing data was completed. Discharge information
was obtained from USGS stream gages installed on the Grand River (04113000),
Red Cedar River (04112500) and Sycamore Creek (04112850). Annual peak
discharge data was extracted for each of the stream gages and are provided as
Appendix B.
Available data varies for each stream gage, with records on the Grand and Red
Cedar Rivers dating back over 100 years to the early 1900’s, while data for
Sycamore Creek is fairly limited with sporadic data collect since the 1970s and
only twelve years of peak annual discharge available. The drainage area
calculated by USGS at each gage station, provided in Table 1.
5

Table 1. USGS Stream Gage IDs and Drainage Areas
Channel Grand River Red Cedar River Sycamore Creek

USGS Stream Gage 04113000 04112500 04112850
Drainage Area
1,230 355 80.6
(square miles)
3.1 Statistical Analysis

An analysis of the annual peak discharge data for each USGS stream gage was
completed using HEC’s Statistical Software Package (SSP) version 2.0. This
software allows users to perform statistical analyses of hydrologic data including
flood flow frequency analysis based on Bulletin 17B (Interagency
Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982).
Based on the input annual peak discharge data from each USGS stream gage, a
probability (or return period) was calculated for each discharge value specific to
each gage record. This analysis was performed using multiple skew
methodologies; a station skew based on the gage record, a regional skew
developed for the geographic area, and a weighted skew which finds the most
apporpriate balance of the station and regional skew values.
The regional skew coefficient was determined based on USGS’ Estimating

Generalized Flood Skew Coefficients for Michigan Report published in 1983. A
regional skew coefficient value of 0.081 and an associated mean-square error of
0.2 was selected from the map provided as Figure 3, which details the regional
skew areas for the state of Michigan.
SSP parameters were computed for each study gage including the mean, standard
deviation, data outliers, number of events, and historic peroid. This data, in
addition to the skew values for each gage is provided in Table 2. When comparing
the station, regional, and weighted skew values, it should be recognized that the
gages on the Grand and Red Cedar Rivers have a more robust record than the
gage on Sycamore Creek. As a result, the weighted skew values for the Grand
and Red Cedar Rivers more closely match the station skew values, whereas the
weighted skew for Sycamore Creek is closer to regional skew value due the limited
record for that gage.
6

Figure 3. Flood Skew Regions for Michigan
Table 2. SSP Stream Gage Computational Parameters

SSP Parameter Grand River Red Cedar River Sycamore Creek
Mean 3.715 3.292 2.817
Standard Dev 0.204 0.203 0.195
Station Skew 0.216 0.358 1.882
Regional Skew 0.081 0.081 0.081
Weighted Skew 0.186 0.289 0.381
Historic Events 0 0 0
High Outliers 1 0 1
Low Outliers 0 2 0
Zero Or Missing 0 0 0
Systematic Events 116 108 12
Historic Period 116 113 42
7

Plots were generated for each USGS gage using the three skew methods
discussed. An example SSP plot of the Red Cedar River gage using a weighted
skew is provided as Figure 4; the entire set of SSP generated plots are provided
as Appendix C. Viewing these plots, each ranked peak annual discharge data
value for the gage is displayed as a blue circle on the chart. The computed
discharge versus probability curve is shown as a red line with dashed green lines
representing the 95% confidence limits.
Figure 4. SSP Generated Flood Frequency Probability Plot
Results from the SSP analysis displayed in the plots are also generated into a
table format. Discharge values were computed for a variety of specified
probabilities, ranging from a 0.2% annual chance event (500-year return period),
down to a 99% annual chance event (1-year return period). These results for each
skew method are provided in Table 3.
8

Table 3. Results from SSP Stream Gage Flood Frequency Analysis

Annual Discharge (Cubic Feet per Second)
Chance Grand River Red Cedar River Sycamore Creek
Probability
(%) Station Regional Weighted Station Regional Weighted Station Regional Weighted
0.2 22,731 21,039 22,351 9,242 7,890 8,884 6,433 2,493 2,938
0.5 19,162 18,058 18,916 7,648 6,777 7,422 4,337 2,155 2,443
1 16,684 15,932 16,518 6,570 5,983 6,420 3,216 1,912 2,107
2 14,378 13,908 14,275 5,589 5,227 5,498 2,382 1,680 1,801
5 11,560 11,364 11,518 4,423 4,275 4,387 1,600 1,386 1,435
10 9,570 9,514 9,559 3,622 3,582 3,614 1,181 1,170 1,183
20 7,661 7,690 7,668 2,874 2,898 2,881 870 955 946
50 5,099 5,153 5,111 1,905 1,946 1,915 575 652 637
80 3,476 3,484 3,477 1,313 1,318 1,314 460 449 447
90 2,872 2,850 2,867 1,098 1,079 1,093 433 370 377
95 2,465 2,418 2,454 954 917 944 420 317 330
99 1,871 1,785 1,852 746 678 729 410 237 262
The discharge values generated through the SSP analysis were compared to
discharge frequency values from the effective Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) completed in 2011, as well as
previously fulfilled discharge requests documented by the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Discharge values from the FEMA FIS and MDEQ
discharge requests were in general agreement. The MDEQ discharge values are
provided in Table 4. The referenced MDEQ discharge requests are provided as
Appendix D.
Table 4. MDEQ Discharge Values

Annual Chance Discharge (Cubic Feet per Second)
Probability (%) Grand River Red Cedar River Sycamore Creek
0.2 26,800 9,740 2,700
0.5 22,000 8,200 2,500
1 19,400 7,200 2,200
2 16,600 6,200 2,000
10 10,700 4,120 1,500
For the purposes of this study, it was determined that focusing on the 1% annual
chance flood event (100 year return interval) would be the most appropriate for
accessing floodplain impacts associated with the subject neighborhood; this row is
highlighted in blue for both Tables 3 and 4. The SSP results generated using the
weighted skews were directly compared with the MDEQ discharge values for the
1% annual chance flood event. It was determined that the values were within
approximately 20% with the discharge values from the MDEQ being slightly
greater than those generated through the SSP analysis. Therefore, is was
determined to use the 1% annual chance MDEQ/FEMA values for the peak
9

discharge in the study as a conservative approach and to facilitate coordination

and comparison between agencies.
3.2 Hydrographs
Unsteady flow models require the use of hydrographs represent the change in
discharge of the river over time. Instantaneous discharge data was available from
all three USGS gages during the 1990’s at a 30 minute reporting interval.
Hydrographs were generated to document the peak annual discharge flood events
during the available period of record and were compared to determine a set of
typical, representative hydrographs for the river system. Ultimately the
hydrographs generated from the peak event of June of 1996 shown on Figure 5
were selected for use in this study.
Figure 5. Hydrographs from 1996 Peak Discharge Event
4 Hydraulics
Hydraulic modeling was performed for this study using HEC-RAS Version 5.0.3.
HEC-RAS modeling software can perform both one and 2-D hydraulic calculations
using steady and unsteady flow. The original HEC-RAS model created by USGS
consisted of 1-D steady flow based on the solution of the 1-D energy equation.
Unsteady flow modeling utilizes the St. Venant equations instead of the energy
equation in order to provide more accurate results concerning attenuation of the
flood wave and floodplain storage.
10

For the purposes of this study, an unsteady flow file was created and 2-D flow
areas were incorporated into the existing 1-D channel cross sections. This level of
detail was necessary to achieve the study objectives due to the hydraulic
complexities associated with this river system to compute the effects of backwater
from the Grand River upstream on the Red Cedar River and to understand the
impact of the subject neighborhood as flood storage. The 1-D steady flow HEC-
RAS hydraulic model received from the USGS was created based on the USGS
survey data and LiDAR DEM as described in Section 2. USACE updates were
based on the LiDAR DEM, aerial imagery, and the 2011 National Land Cover
Database (NLCD).
4.1 Existing Conditions

The premise for the existing conditions plan was to update the USGS 1-D model to
properly demonstrate how floodwaters access the subject neighborhood, as the
original modeled cross sections did not extend past US-127 into the neighborhood,
using 2-D flow storage areas. The following sections detail the modeling
specifications utilized to develop the revised existing conditions model.
4.2 Modeling Limits

Limits for the extent of the HEC-RAS model span the three USGS stream gages
identified in Table 1, with gages located at the upstream end of the Red Cedar
River and Sycamore Creek, and the third gage located at the downstream model
extent on the Grand River. These modeling limits remain the same as those
established for the original USGS model. Refer to Figure 1 for the modeling
extents overlain on aerial photography.
4.3 River Reaches

Reaches developed by USGS for the original model were also maintained, with
five total reaches in the model; Grand River upper and lower, Red Cedar upper
and lower, and Sycamore creek. The divisions between upper and lower reaches
distinguish junctions, which were calculated in unsteady computations by forcing
equal water surface elevations.
4.4 2-D Flow Areas

To incorporate the neighborhood of interest into the study, 2-D flow areas were
created from the DEM data and connected to the existing 1-D channel cross
sections. Two separate 2-D flow areas were created to simulate the flood area
connected to the Red Cedar River with the US-127 freeway separating them;
these two flow areas are named ‘Upstream US-127’ and ‘Downstream US-127’. A
computation point spacing of 200 feet by 200 feet was used to generate the cell
mesh for each 2-D flow area as shown in Figure 6.
11

Figure 6. 2-D Flow Area Geometry
To connect the 1-D channel cross sections along the Red Cedar River to the
Upstream US-127 2-D flow area, a lateral weir structure was used. A broad
crested weir with a coefficient Cd of 1.0 was used for this connection; this lower
value for a weir coefficient was selected as flow over natural high ground based on
information in HEC’s Hydraulic Reference Manual. Elevation for the lateral weir
structure was taken from the terrain profile and adjusted to increase the elevation
in low points to maintain an elevation greater than or equal to the tailwater cell
surface elevation. This lateral weir connects at the 1-D river station 21590 on the
Red Cedar Upper reach at the upstream connection and at river station 16719 at
the downstream connection.
The connection between the 2-D flow areas was made using a storage area/2D
area connection named ‘US-127 Connect’ to represent the freeway and the flow
paths under it due to the Kalamazoo Street and Michigan Avenue underpasses.
Weir elevations for the connection were set to the elevation of the terrain while
maintaining an elevation greater than the headwater and tailwater surface
elevations. A broad crested weir with a coefficient Cd of 1.0 was also used for this
connection applying the same rationale as the weir coefficient as the lateral weir.
For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the deck elevation of US-127
was sufficiently high such that flood water surface elevations would not contact the
structure.
12

4.5 Boundary Conditions

Flow hydrographs from the June 1996 flood event were used as the upstream
boundary conditions for the Grand River, Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek.
The flow hydrographs were input using HEC’s Data Storage System (DSS) file
types. Using the flood frequency analysis generated in SSP, the peak 1996
discharge values can be equated to approximately a 50% annual chance or 2-year
event. In order to use the 1996 hydrographs for the 1% annual chance floodplain
study, a multiplier was applied in HEC-RAS to scale the discharge to match the
MDEQ peak 1% annual chance discharge. The multipliers used to scale the
hydrograph for each channel are provided in Table 5 and the resulting scaled
hydrographs are shown on Figure 7. The downstream boundary condition used
for Grand River was normal depth with a slope of 0.00026 based on the water
surface profile generated from the initial steady state model as an estimate of the
slope of the energy grade elevations.
Table 5. Multipliers Applied to Scale Hydrographs

Grand River Red Cedar Sycamore Creek
1996 MDEQ Multiplier 1996 MDEQ Multiplier 1996 MDEQ Multiplier
Peak 1% Peak 1% Peak 1%
4,910 19,400 3.95 2,020 7,200 3.56 592 2,200 3.72
Figure 7. Boundary Condition Hydrographs Scaled for 1% ACE Peak Discharge
13

4.6 Manning’s n Values

Manning’s n is an empirically derived coefficient used to represent the surface
roughness. Values used for Manning’s n in the channel and overbanks were
maintained from the existing USGS model. For the added 2-D flow areas, land
use categories were imported from the 2011 NLCD. Manning’s n values were
assigned to the NLCD categories using Chow’s 1959 Open-Channel Hydraulics
reference manual.
4.7 Structures
Several structures exist throughout the 1-D portion of the model, including road
crossings, railroad bridges, footbridges, and dams. Geometry for the structures
within the model were maintained from the existing USGS 1-D model. The North
Lansing Dam located within the lower Grand River Reach contains four manually
operated gates to control water elevations; for the purposes of this study, the gates
were modeled in the fully open position.
4.8 Contraction/Expansion Coefficients

The typical values of 0.1 for contraction and 0.3 for expansion were used for all
cross sections, with the exception of the cross sections surrounding modeled
structures. For these cross sections, the contraction and expansion coefficients
were increased to values of 0.3 and 0.5, respectively.
4.9 Ineffective and Obstructed Flow Settings

Ineffective flow settings were used for situations where there is no active water
conveyance in the cross-section, typically in the extreme ends of the overbanks
due to topographic constrictions. Ineffective flow was modeled as non-permanent
in these situations, such that those areas will become part of the effective channel
to convey flow once a set elevation is overtopped.
One instance of obstructed flow was added to the model to better represent the
area corresponding to the fish passage ramp adjacent to the Heritage Dam on the
Grand River lower reach for river stations 2633 through 2672. This also helped to
facilitate the stability of the unsteady flow computations.
4.10 Calibration
The existing conditions model was calibrated through a comparison of water
surface elevations generated by the model against those available within the
USGS stage-discharge rating curves for the Grand and Red Cedar River gages.
Due to the upper limits of the rating curves, the unsteady flow file generated from
the original June 1996 hydrographs were used for model calibration; the
hydrographs scaled for the 100 year discharge surpass the extent of the rating
curves during peak flows.
The slope input as the normal depth boundary condition on the lower Grand River
reach was adjusted to best fit the rating curve data representing observed water
surface elevations, while maintaining model stability. Resulting water surface
elevations modeled at the downstream boundary condition river station are within
14

approximately 0.5 foot of those in the stage-discharge rating curve throughout the
June 1996 hydrograph.
Stage-discharge rating curve data from the Red Cedar River gage was also used
for calibration by adjusting values for Manning’s n within the Upper Red Cedar
reach. The difference in modeled water surface compared to observed stage-
discharge is more significant at this upstream gage throughout the hydrograph.
Modeled water surface elevations transitions from approximately 0.5 foot below the
observed stage-discharge gage values, to tracking at approximately equal during
the peak of the hydrograph, and ultimately rise approximately 1.5 feet above the
observed through the remainder of the hydrograph. It was determined that due to
the location of the gage near the two dimensional flow area that this calibration
was adequate for the purposes of this conceptual study; if this model is to be used
in the future for design of a structure, however, calibration for the Red Cedar River
reach should be revaluated to meet specific project needs at that time.
4.11 Proposed Conditions

The purpose of this study is to assess the potential impacts to the Red Cedar River
and the Grand River associated with alternatives to mitigate flooding of the
Urbandale neighborhood.
A proposed conditions geometry file was created to simulate the conceptual design
of completely blocking the flow of floodwater at US-127 by utilizing levees to block
off the underpasses of US-127 along Kalamazoo Street and Michigan Avenue.
This geometry edit was completed by adjusting the terrain elevation of the storage
area/2D area connection weir connecting the two dimensional flow areas such that
a high-ground was created for the Kalamazoo Street and Michigan Avenue
underpasses as shown in Figure 8.
15

Figure 8. 2-D Flow Area Connection for Proposed Conditions
5 Results
A summary of the HEC-RAS modeled output is provided as Table 6 to compare
water surface and energy grade elevations to demonstrate the effects of the
proposed conditions on the Upper Red Cedar reach. This assessment focused on
the maximum water surface elevation generated for the model run during the 1%
annual chance peak flow event (ACE). Based on the proposed conditions of
adding levees to fully block the flow connectivity along Kalamazoo Street and
Michigan Avenue, both water surface and energy grade elevations increase in
every cross section modeled for the Upper Red Cedar River reach where the 2-D
storage connection exists, in addition to impacts in the downstream Grand River
reaches. Furthermore, these impacts are propagated beyond the current
upstream limit of the model at the USGS gage on the Red Cedar River, therefore
additional cross sections would be necessary to extend the model in order to
determine the full extent of impact for the proposed conditions.
The HEC-RAS model output for the entire model containing all river reaches for
the maximum water surface elevations generated during the 1% annual chance
peak flow is provided as Appendix E. The modeled flood inundation for the
existing and proposed conditions for the 1% annual chance peak discharge are
shown on Figure 9.
Based on the inundation mapping shown on Figure 9, the proposed conditions

geometry is successful in containing the flood flows to prevent water from passing
below US-127 into the Urbandale Neighborhood. Increases in water surface
elevations shown in Table 6 do not visually translate to a significantly increased
16

inundation area between the existing and proposed conditions on a large project-
scale view, but they do increase the flood consequences for those already in the
floodplain in those mapped areas.
Table 6. Max 1% ACE Hydraulic Model Results for Red Cedar River
Red Cedar Water Surface Elevation (feet) Energy Grade Elevation (feet)
River Station Existing Proposed Change Existing Proposed Change
28300 837.60 837.67 0.07 837.925 837.987 0.062
28128 837.52 837.59 0.07 837.823 837.881 0.058
27882 837.39 837.47 0.08 837.677 837.748 0.071
27647 837.32 837.40 0.08 837.535 837.608 0.073
27452 837.10 837.18 0.08 837.449 837.523 0.074
27376 836.93 837.02 0.09 837.402 837.479 0.077
27357 Bridge
27330 836.87 836.95 0.08 837.306 837.380 0.074
27291 836.85 836.93 0.08 837.285 837.360 0.075
27151 836.81 836.89 0.08 837.145 837.222 0.077
27112 Inl Struct
26990 836.69 836.77 0.08 836.948 837.030 0.082
26639 836.67 836.76 0.09 836.793 836.878 0.085
26566 836.64 836.73 0.09 836.774 836.859 0.085
26548 Bridge
26516 836.55 836.64 0.09 836.689 836.775 0.086
26413 836.54 836.63 0.09 836.657 836.744 0.087
26282 836.54 836.63 0.09 836.621 836.708 0.087
25911 836.50 836.59 0.09 836.545 836.635 0.090
25570 836.47 836.56 0.09 836.501 836.593 0.092
25490 836.46 836.55 0.09 836.492 836.584 0.092
25469 Bridge
25388 836.42 836.51 0.09 836.454 836.548 0.094
25333 836.41 836.51 0.10 836.451 836.545 0.094
25226 836.41 836.51 0.10 836.435 836.530 0.095
25049 836.41 836.51 0.10 836.425 836.521 0.096
24622 836.40 836.49 0.09 836.408 836.505 0.097
24377 836.39 836.49 0.10 836.401 836.497 0.096
24068 836.38 836.48 0.10 836.393 836.489 0.096
23676 836.38 836.47 0.09 836.383 836.480 0.097
23528 836.37 836.47 0.10 836.380 836.478 0.098
23170 836.37 836.46 0.09 836.377 836.474 0.097
22728 836.35 836.45 0.10 836.377 836.475 0.098
22656 836.35 836.44 0.09 836.381 836.478 0.097
22640 Bridge
22607 836.32 836.42 0.10 836.360 836.458 0.098
17


22489 836.32 836.42 0.10 836.359 836.456 0.097
22365 836.30 836.40 0.10 836.357 836.455 0.098
22289 836.29 836.39 0.10 836.354 836.452 0.098
22279 Bridge
22236 836.21 836.32 0.11 836.266 836.371 0.105
22109 836.11 836.22 0.11 836.293 836.396 0.103
21806 836.02 836.13 0.11 836.200 836.323 0.123
21695 835.99 836.09 0.10 836.189 836.314 0.125
21689 Bridge
21593 835.94 836.05 0.11 836.089 836.200 0.111
21590 Upstream limit of Lateral Structure
21531 835.98 836.09 0.11 836.085 836.194 0.109
21260 835.96 836.08 0.12 836.054 836.167 0.113
21002 835.87 835.99 0.12 835.957 836.070 0.113
20625 835.98 836.09 0.11 835.995 836.111 0.116
20139 836.06 836.18 0.12 836.070 836.187 0.117
19874 836.04 836.15 0.11 836.043 836.158 0.115
19606 835.99 836.10 0.11 835.994 836.108 0.114
19396 835.93 836.05 0.12 835.940 836.054 0.114
19133 835.91 836.03 0.12 835.916 836.029 0.113
18934 835.92 836.03 0.11 835.919 836.033 0.114
18582 835.92 836.03 0.11 835.923 836.036 0.113
18120 835.80 835.92 0.12 835.806 835.922 0.116
17656 835.81 835.92 0.11 835.813 835.922 0.109
17612 835.83 835.93 0.10 835.826 835.935 0.109
17609 Bridge
17531 835.82 835.93 0.11 835.818 835.927 0.109
17485 835.83 835.94 0.11 835.829 835.938 0.109
17126 835.85 835.96 0.11 835.855 835.965 0.11
16719 835.78 835.89 0.11 835.795 835.908 0.113
16321 835.69 835.81 0.12 835.750 835.863 0.113
16089 835.57 835.69 0.12 835.739 835.853 0.114
16066 Bridge
15843 835.48 835.59 0.11 835.627 835.742 0.115
15580 835.48 835.59 0.11 835.572 835.687 0.115
15215 835.39 835.50 0.11 835.517 835.632 0.115
15006 835.32 835.44 0.12 835.477 835.593 0.116
14988 Bridge
14741 835.28 835.39 0.11 835.398 835.514 0.116
14558 835.27 835.38 0.11 835.365 835.481 0.116
14275 835.22 835.34 0.12 835.319 835.436 0.117
18


13917 835.20 835.32 0.12 835.271 835.388 0.117
13900 835.19 835.31 0.12 835.268 835.385 0.117
13868 Bridge
13812 834.99 835.10 0.11 835.061 835.169 0.108
13784 835.00 835.11 0.11 835.058 835.167 0.109
13618 835.02 835.13 0.11 835.039 835.148 0.109
13206 835.02 835.13 0.11 835.026 835.135 0.109
13150 835.02 835.13 0.11 835.025 835.133 0.108
13142 Bridge
13120 835.02 835.12 0.10 835.019 835.127 0.108
12758 835.01 835.12 0.11 835.018 835.126 0.108
12609 835.01 835.12 0.11 835.017 835.125 0.108
12175 835.01 835.12 0.11 835.014 835.122 0.108
11973 835.00 835.11 0.11 835.010 835.118 0.108
11638 835.00 835.11 0.11 835.005 835.113 0.108
11529 835.00 835.11 0.11 835.004 835.113 0.109
11518 Bridge
11472 834.92 835.03 0.11 834.92 835.031 0.111
11439 834.92 835.03 0.11 834.919 835.030 0.111
11141 834.91 835.02 0.11 834.916 835.028 0.112
10816 834.91 835.02 0.11 834.912 835.023 0.111
10471 834.91 835.02 0.11 834.908 835.020 0.112
10069 834.90 835.01 0.11 834.905 835.017 0.112
9955 834.89 835.00 0.11 834.907 835.018 0.111
9936 Bridge
9850 834.85 834.96 0.11 834.851 834.962 0.111
9765 834.85 834.96 0.11 834.849 834.961 0.112
9441 834.84 834.96 0.12 834.847 834.959 0.112
9310 834.84 834.96 0.12 834.846 834.958 0.112
9293 Bridge
9265 834.84 834.95 0.11 834.843 834.954 0.111
9219 834.84 834.95 0.11 834.842 834.954 0.112
8898 834.84 834.95 0.11 834.841 834.952 0.111
8699 834.83 834.95 0.12 834.839 834.950 0.111
8489 834.83 834.94 0.11 834.837 834.948 0.111
8209 834.83 834.94 0.11 834.833 834.945 0.112
19

20

6 Additional Analyses
While the alternative of fully blocking off the Urbandale study area causes some
significant impacts to the 1% ACE flood elevations on the Red Cedar River and
Grand River, it was thought that temporary sandbagging of the Kalamazoo Street
and Michigan Avenue underpasses to US-127 to protect the Urbandale study area
from some of the smaller, more frequent, flood events would be possible.
6.1 3 feet of sandbags for the 10% flood event
The July 1996 flood hydrographs were multiplied by a factor of 2 to give a peak
discharge of 4040 cfs on the Red Cedar River at the Upper Red Cedar River
USGS gage. This corresponds to approximately the 10% ACE (10-year) flood. To
stop this discharge from flooding the Urbandale Study Area, sandbags at about an
elevation of 829.8 feet would be needed. This corresponds to sandbags of about 3
feet high required across Kalamazoo Street under US-127. See Figure 10 below
for the modification of the weir elevation at Kalamazoo Street at the storage
area/2D area connection which connects the two dimensional flow areas.
Figure 10. 2-D Flow Area Connection for 3 ft. Sandbags
This 3 feet sandbag berm for the 10% ACE flood event scenario would protect the
Urbandale study area from flooding, but would increase the 10% flood event water-
surface and energy grade elevations by a maximum of 0.04 ft. on the Red Cedar
River.
The 3 feet high sandbag berm was also run with the 1% ACE flood event to see
what the impacts would be if the sandbags were in place while the flood intensified
into a major flood event. The 1% water-surface and energy grade elevations
21

would actually decrease on the Red Cedar River by a range of 0.02 to 0.01 ft. This
is most likely due to changing the storage availability of the Urbandale study area
and the timing of the flood wave. While the sandbags will get overtopped by the
1% flood event and the area will flood, the sandbags would protected the area from
the initial flooding leading up to the peak flow, and more storage would be available
during the peak of the flood event. This could cause the flood waters
which overtop the sandbags to have a higher velocity entering the Urbandale study
area than what those flood waters would be if they were not in place.
6.2 5 feet of sandbags for the 5% flood event
The July 1996 flood hydrographs were multiplied by a factor of 2.5 to give a peak
discharge of 5050 cfs on the Red Cedar River at the Upper Red Cedar River
USGS gage. This corresponds to approximately the 5% ACE (20-year) flood. To
stop this discharge from flooding the Urbandale Study Area, sandbags at about an
elevation of 831.8 feet would be needed. This corresponds to sandbags of about 5
feet high required across Kalamazoo Street under US-127 and about 0.75 feet high
across Michigan Avenue under US-127. See Figure 11 below for the
modification of the weir elevations at Kalamazoo Street and Michigan Avenue at
the storage area/2D area connection which connects the two dimensional flow
areas.
Figure 11. 2-D Flow Area Connection for 5 ft. Sandbags
This 5 feet high sandbag berm for the approximately 5% ACE flood event scenario
would protect the Urbandale study area from flooding, but would increase the 5%
flood event water-surface and energy grade elevations on the Red Cedar River by
a maximum of 0.07 ft.
22

The 5 feet sandbag berm was also run with the 1% ACE flood to see what the
impacts would be if the sandbags were in place while the flood intensified into a
major flood event. The 1% water-surface elevations would actually decrease by a
range of 0.04 to 0.08 ft. This is most likely due to changing the storage availability
of the Urbandale study area and the timing of the flood wave. While the sandbags
will get overtopped by the 1% flood event and the area will flood, the sandbags
would protected the area from the initial flooding leading up to the peak flow, and
more storage would be available during the peak of the flood event. Again, this
could cause the flood waters which overtop the sandbags to have a higher velocity
entering the Urbandale study area than what those flood waters would be if they
were not in place.
7 Conclusions
The threshold discharge for flood flows to pass below US-127 along Kalamazoo
Street was determined to be approximately 1,500 cfs for the upper Red Cedar
River reach near the USGS stream gage for existing conditions. Based on the
SSP hydrologic analysis conducted, this discharge value corresponds to a flood
event with approximately a 60% annual chance return interval (about a 1.67-year
event) for the weighted skew results. Therefore, this statistical analysis of historic
data indicates that some amount of flooding is probable in the study neighborhood
near Kalamazoo Street approximately once every other year.
The hydraulic model demonstrated that installing large levees along the
Kalamazoo Street and Michigan Avenue underpasses at US-127 to fully block all
flow for the 1% ACE flood event would result in increases in water surface and
energy grade elevations on the Red Cedar River that would not be acceptable to
permit under current MDEQ floodplain management laws and hydraulic guidance.
If this is a desired alternative, then the situation appears to warrant further
evaluation. In order to offset the impacts associated with levee installations, it is
likely that a retention basin would be necessary to provide adequate flood storage
capacity if disconnecting the study neighborhood from the floodplain. Due to the
limited scope of this study, a hydrologic model was not completed. A hydrologic
model such as HEC’s Hydrologic Modeling Software (HEC-HMS) would be
required to adequately model a retention basin within this riverine system. An
appropriate upstream location for the retention basin would need to be determined,
which may be hard to find in an urbanized area.
The additional analyses run to determine if temporary measures such as sandbags

placed across the Kalamazoo Street and Michigan Avenue underpasses to US-
127 to fight the lower, more frequent flood events that flood the Urbandale study
area shows that while there are impacts to the water surface and energy grade
elevations Red Cedar River for those smaller flood events, the impacts associated
with the 1% flood event with the measures in place are not harmful. This may be
acceptable to the current MDEQ floodplain management laws and hydraulic
23

guidance, and should be a local municipality decision on flood risk management

based on the slight increases to the water surface and energy grade elevations for
the studied flood events.
24

Urbandale Neighborhood Floodplain Assessment

USACE Hydraulic & Hydrology Analysis Report
February 2018
APPENDIX A
USGS FLOOD-INUNDATION MAPS REPORT

FEBRUARY 2016

Prepared in cooperation with the
City of Lansing, Michigan, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Flood‐Inundation Maps for Grand River, Red Cedar River, and
Sycamore Creek near Lansing, Michigan

Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5101
Version 1.1 February 2016

U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey

Cover: View looking west across Grand River near the North Lansing Dam at Lansing, Michigan. (Photo by U.S. Geological Survey, June 2013)

Flood‐Inundation Maps for Grand River,
Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek near
Lansing, Michigan

By Matthew T. Whitehead and Chad J. Ostheimer

Version1.1, February 2016

Flood-Inundation Maps for Grand River, Red Cedar River, and

Sycamore Creek near Lansing, Michigan

Version 1.1 February 2016

Cover: View looking west across Grand River near the North Lansing Dam at Lansing, Michigan. (Photo by U.S. Geological Survey, June 2013)
Flood-Inundation Maps for Grand River,
Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek near
Lansing, Michigan


Version1.1, February 2016

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

Suzette M. Kimball, Director
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

First release: 2015
Revised: January 2016 (ver. 1.1)
For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living
resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.
For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,
visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the
U.S. Government.
Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials
as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
Suggested citation:
Whitehead, M.T., and Ostheimer, C.J., 2015, Flood-inundation maps for Grand River, Red Cedar River, and
Sycamore Creek near Lansing, Michigan (ver 1.1, February 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2015–5101, 23 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155101.
ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

iii
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the many local, state, and Federal agencies that have cooperated in the fund-
ing for the operation and maintenance of the streamgages throughout the country. We espe-
cially thank the City of Lansing, the Michigan Department of Transportation, and Michigan State
University for their support of the three gages referred to in this report.
iv
Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Scope...............................................................................................................................2
Study Area Description.........................................................................................................................2
Previous Studies....................................................................................................................................2
Creation of Flood-Inundation-Map Library.................................................................................................5
Computation of Water-Surface Profiles.............................................................................................5
Hydrologic Data............................................................................................................................5
Topographic and Bathymetric Data...........................................................................................5
Hydraulic Structures....................................................................................................................6
Energy-Loss Factors.....................................................................................................................9
Hydraulic Model............................................................................................................................9
Model Calibration.........................................................................................................................9
Selection of Final Flood Profiles...............................................................................................10
Development of Flood-Inundation Maps................................................................................10
Flood-Inundation Map Delivery................................................................................................13
Disclaimer for Flood-Inundation Maps...................................................................................13
Uncertainties and Limitations Regarding Use of Flood-Inundation Maps........................13
Summary........................................................................................................................................................13
References Cited..........................................................................................................................................14
Appendix 1 Modeled stage combinations for Grand River, Red Cedar River, and
Sycamore Creek......................................................................................................................15
Figures
1. Map showing locations of selected streamgages and rivers and creeks...........................3
2. Map showing locations of increased flows due to increased drainage area....................7
3. Map showing locations of selected USGS streamgages and stage sensors near
Lansing, Michigan.........................................................................................................................8
4. Graph showing percentages of tributary flows to main stem flows for selected
streams near Lansing , Michigan .............................................................................................11
5. Diagram showing a modeled and approximated water-surface profile for
Red Cedar River...........................................................................................................................12
v
Tables
1. Description of study reaches......................................................................................................4
2. U.S. Geological Survey streamgage information for the Grand River, the
Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek near Lansing, Michigan...........................................4
3. Minimum and maximum target water-surface stages and National Weather
Service designated stages for Grand River, Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek........4
4. Selected stages and associated streamflows for respective stage-discharge
relations for the Grand River, Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek streamgages
referred to in this report...............................................................................................................6
5. Drainage areas at selected locations for the Red Cedar River and Sycamore
Creek................................................................................................................................................6
6. Range in Manning’s roughness factors for selected streams...............................................9
7. Calibration of model to target water-surface elevations at selected
U.S. Geological Survey streamgages.........................................................................................9
8. Calibration of model to water-surface elevations at selected locations along
selected streams for the flood of May 16, 2014......................................................................10
Conversion Factors
Inch/Pound to SI
Multiply By To obtain
Length
foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)
mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area
square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate
cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.0283 cubic meter per second (m3/s)
Vertical coordinate information is referenced to (1) stage, the height above an arbitrary datum
established at a streamgage, and (2) elevation, the height above the North American Vertical
Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).
Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
Flood-Inundation Maps for Grand River, Red Cedar River
and Sycamore Creek near Lansing, Michigan
Abstract Introduction
Digital flood-inundation maps for a total of 19.7 miles of Low-lying areas adjacent to the Grand River, the Red
the Grand River, the Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek in the Lansing, Michigan,
were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in coop- area are subject to periodic flooding. A history of significant
eration with the City of Lansing, Michigan, and the U.S. Army and repetitive flooding is well documented for these low-
Corps of Engineers. The flood-inundation maps, which can be lying areas within central Lansing and East Lansing (City
accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Sci- of Lansing, 2015). The City of Lansing estimates that about
ence Web site at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/, 1,700 residents and 250 businesses are at risk for flood dam-
show estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding age (Ronda Oberlin, City of Lansing, oral commun, 2012).
corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at three USGS Prior to this study, emergency responders near Lansing
streamgages: Grand River at Lansing, MI (04113000), Red relied on several information sources to help make decisions
Cedar River at East Lansing, MI (04112500), and Sycamore on how to best alert the public and mitigate flood damages.
Creek at Holt Road near Holt, MI (04112850). Near-real-time One source is the Federal Emergency Management Agency
stages at these streamgages can be obtained on the Internet (FEMA) flood insurance study (FIS) for Ingham County (Fed-
from the USGS National Water Information System at http:// eral Emergency Management Agency, 2011). A second source
waterdata.usgs.gov/ or the National Weather Service (NWS) is U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamgage data for the
Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service at http:/water. Grand River, the Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek, for
weather.gov/ahps/, which also forecasts flood hydrographs at which current (U.S. Geological Survey, 2015a, b, c) and his-
all of these sites. torical (U.S. Geological Survey, 2015d) water levels and flows
Each set of flood profiles was computed by means of (including annual-peak flows) can be obtained. A third source
a one-dimensional step-backwater model. Each model was of flood-related information is the National Weather Service
calibrated to the current stage-discharge relation at each (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS),
streamgage and to water levels determined with stage sen- which displays the USGS stage data from the streamgages and
sors (pressure transducers) temporarily deployed along each also shows forecasted stages for each of the three streamgages
stream reach. The hydraulic model was used to compute a set (National Weather Service, 2015a, b, c).
of water-surface profiles for flood stages from nearly Action Although the current stage at a USGS streamgage can be
Stage to above Major Flood stage, as reported by the National useful for residents in the immediate vicinity of a streamgage,
Weather Service. The computed water-surface profiles were it is less useful to residents farther upstream or downstream
then used in combination with a geographic Information Sys- because the water-surface elevation is not constant along
tem digital elevation model derived from light detection and the entire stream reach. Knowledge of a water level at a
ranging (lidar) data to delineate the approximate areas flooded streamgage is not easily translated into depth and areal extent
at each water level. of flooding at points distant from the streamgage. One way to
These maps, used in conjunction with real-time USGS address this problem is to produce a library of flood-inunda-
streamgage data and NWS forecasting, provide critical infor- tion maps that are referenced to stages recorded at the USGS
mation to emergency management personnel and the public. streamgages. By examining the appropriate maps, emergency
This information is used to plan flood response actions, such responders can estimate projected severity of flooding (depth
as evacuations and road closures, as well as aid in postflood of water and areal extent), identify roads that are or may soon
recovery efforts. be flooded, and make plans for notification or evacuation
2 Flood-Inundation Maps for Grand River, Red Cedar River and Sycamore Creek near Lansing, Michigan
of residents in harm’s way for some distance upstream and Previous Studies
downstream from the streamgage. In addition, visualizing the
potential extent of flooding motivates residents to take precau- The current FIS for Ingham County, Michigan (Federal
tions and heed warnings that might otherwise be disregarded. Emergency Management Agency, 2011) was published in
2011. Areas prone to major floods, corresponding to 10-, 2-,
1-, and 0.2-percent annual chances of flooding (also referred to
Purpose and Scope as the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods) were redelineated
as part of the revision of the FIS. The redelineations were
This report describes the development of a series of
based on topographic information developed using light detec-
flood-inundation maps for the Grand River, the Red Cedar
tion and ranging (lidar) data collected in 2003. The 2011 FIS
River, and Sycamore Creek near Lansing, Mich. (fig. 1).
did not include any new hydrology or hydraulics, only a rede-
Report findings may also be downloaded for a total of
lineation of the flood-plain boundaries on the newest (2003)
19.7 miles (mi) (table 1) of study reaches. The maps associ-
topography.
ated with this report were produced for flood levels refer-
The regulated flood elevations are based upon hydraulic
enced to 1-foot (ft) stages recorded at each of the three USGS
data and hydrologic analyses completed in May 1978. In par-
streamgages (table 2) and have a range of near Action Stage
ticular, field surveys of stream channels and bridge geometry
to above Major Flood Stage (table 3) as designated by the
reflect the conditions of more than 35 years ago. The topogra-
National Weather Service (National Weather Service, 2015d).
phy of overbank areas was determined from topographic maps
For the remainder of this report, the USGS streamgage
developed from aerial photography in 1978. These data were
Grand River at Lansing, MI (04113000) will be referred to as
entered into a hydraulic model used to compute flood eleva-
the “Grand River streamgage.” The Red Cedar River at East
tions based on flow values established from flood frequency-
Lansing (04112500) streamgage will be referred to as the
magnitude computations. These frequency-magnitude compu-
“Red Cedar River” streamgage, and the Sycamore Creek at
tations were themselves based on data available through 1978
Holt Road, near Holt, MI (04112850) will be referred to as the
at U.S. Geological Survey (2015a, b, c) streamgages Grand
“Sycamore Creek streamgage.”
River at Lansing, MI (04113000), Red Cedar River at East
Drainage areas were obtained from the NHD version 2
Lansing, MI (04112500), and Sycamore Creek at Holt Road
catchments (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
near Holt, MI (04112850).
Geological Survey, 2012), selected by tracing upstream from
As a result, the 2011 FIS report does not include updated
a point of interest. The catchment for a point of interest was
hydraulic modeling to reflect changes in the natural channel
clipped to remove downstream area by referencing USGS
and (or) hydraulic structures since 1978, nor does it include
topographic maps for the appropriate area.
updated hydrologic analyses reflecting an additional 35 years
of annual peak-flow data. Given the limitations of the FEMA
Study Area Description 2011 FIS revision, the inundation maps for the Lansing area
described in this report are based on a new hydraulic model
Lansing is in the lower peninsula of Michigan, about incorporating data from new field surveys of the three stream
70 mi north of the Ohio-Michigan State line. Lansing is channels, current geometries of hydraulic structures, and over-
mostly contained in the northwest corner of Ingham County, bank geometry obtained from the latest Tri-County Regional
with a small portion in the county to the west, Eaton County. Planning Commission lidar survey (2010).
The largest river in Lansing is the Grand River, which bisects
the city’s downtown area. The Red Cedar River enters the
Grand River just upstream (south) from the downtown area of
Lansing. Sycamore Creek enters the Red Cedar River about
1 mi upstream (southeast) from the mouth of the Red Cedar
River.
The drainage areas of the three streams include both rural
and urban areas. Within the study limits of this project, the
Grand River drainage is in an entirely urban area (Lansing),
the Red Cedar River drainage is mostly urban (Lansing and
East Lansing), and the Sycamore Creek drainage is mostly
marshy wetlands.
Introduction 3
84°36' 84°34' 84°32' 84°30' 84°28' 84°26'
04113000
East Lansing
River
42°44'
Cedar
Gran 04112500 Riv

d er
Red
42°42'
Sy
Lansing
ca
mo
re
42°40'
Creek
INGHAM COUNTY
EATON COUNTY
04112850
Holt
42°38'
Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, variously scaled,
2014 Geographic projection, North American Datum of 1983.
0 1 2 3 MILES
0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS
EXPLANATION
Corporate limits
Rivers and creeks studied

(arrow denotes flow direction)
MICHIGAN
Study area
Stream study limits
Ingham County
USGS streamgage and identifier
04112850
Figure 1. Locations of selected streamgages and rivers and creeks.

Table 1. Description of study reaches. Table 3. Minimum and maximum target water-surface stages
and National Weather Service designated stages for Grand
River or Reach Upstream Downstream River, Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek.
creek length limit of study limit of study
name square mile reach reach [ft, feet]
South USGS Minimum Maximum

Washington streamgage, Major
River or stage stage Action
Grand River 2.3 Avenue bridge, Grand River flood
creek included in included in stage1
Lansing, at Lansing, stage1
name this report this report (ft)
Michigan Michigan (ft)
(ft) (ft)
USGS
streamgage, Mouth Grand
13.0 21.0 10.0 15.0
Red Cedar Red Cedar (confluence River
5.4
River Creek at East with Grand
Lansing, River) Red Cedar
Michigan 8.0 14.0 7.0 10.5
River
USGS
streamgage, Mouth Sycamore
Sycamore Sycamore (confluence 6.0 11.0 6.0 10.0
12.0 Creek
Creek Creek at Holt with Red
Road near Cedar River) 1
As reported by the National Weather Service at http://water.weather.gov/
Holt, Michigan
ahps2/index.php?wfo=dtx.
Table 2. U.S. Geological Survey streamgage information for the Grand River, the Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek near Lansing,
Michigan.
[DA, drainage area; mi2, square miles; ft, feet; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988]
Maximum
Period of Maximum Gage datum
Station Station DA recorded
Latitude Longitude peak-flow flows (ft3/s) (ft above
name number (mi2) stage (ft)
record and date NAVD 88)
and date
Grand River at 18.60 24,500

4113000 1,230 42°45′02″ 84°33′19″ 1901–2014 804.92
Lansing, MI Mar. 26, 2004 Mar. 26, 2004
Red Cedar
1903–1904 13.40 8,0001
River at East 4112500 344 42°43′38″ 84°28′41″ 823.96
1911–2014 Mar. 24, 2004 Mar. 24, 2004
Lansing, MI
Sycamore Creek
10.00 2,110
at Holt Road, 4112850 80 42°38′25″ 84°28′58″ 1975–1997 844.89
Apr. 19, 1975 Apr. 19, 1975
near Holt, MI
1
Flow is an estimate.
Creation of Flood-Inundation-Map Library 5
Creation of Flood-Inundation-Map streamflows were increased at selected downstream locations

(fig. 2) to account for the gradual increase in drainage-area
Library size (table 5). Because there are no drainage-area-only equa-
tions for peak flows at ungagged locations in Michigan, a
The USGS has standardized the procedures for creating straight drainage-area ratio was used to compute increases in
flood-inundation maps for flood-prone communities (U.S. discharge downstream of the gages. In addition, the stream-
Geological Survey, 2015e) so that the process followed and flows for the Red Cedar River below Sycamore Creek were
products produced are similar regardless of which USGS increased to include inflows corresponding to the various
office is responsible for the work. Tasks specific to devel- target stages of Sycamore Creek. Because the Grand River
opment of the flood maps were (1) reestablishment of one streamgage is at the downstream end of its study reach,
streamgage (table 1) on Sycamore Creek, (2) collection of streamflows were decreased above the Red Cedar River to
topographic and bathymetric data for selected cross sections account for inflows corresponding to the various target stages
and geometric data for structures and bridges along each study of the Red Cedar River.
reach, (3) estimation of energy-loss factors (roughness coef-
ficients) in the stream channel and flood plain, (4) computa-
tion of water-surface profiles using the U.S. Army Corps of Topographic and Bathymetric Data
Engineers’ Hydrologic Engineering Center – River Analysis Cross-section elevation data were obtained from a digital
System (HEC–RAS) computer program (U.S. Army Corps elevation model (DEM) that was derived from lidar data col-
of Engineers, 2010), (5) production of flood-inundation maps lected during March 2010. The original lidar data have hori-
corresponding to selected stream stages by use of the U.S. zontal resolution of 3.8 ft (1.2 meters) and vertical accuracy
Army Corps of Engineers’ HEC–GeoRAS computer program of 0.49 ft (15 centimeters) at a 95-percent confidence level
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009) and a geographic for the “open terrain” land-cover category. By these criteria,
information system (GIS), and (6) preparation of map products the lidar data support production of 2-ft contours (Dewberry,
for a USGS floodinundation mapping application that show 2012). The 4- by 4-ft-resolution DEM was provided to the
the areal extent of flooding and water depths for display on a USGS by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission
USGS floodinundation mapping application. (2010), and the USGS created 1-ft contour lines from the
DEM data using ArcGIS.
Computation of Water-Surface Profiles By using HEC–GeoRAS (USACE, 2009)—a set of
procedures, tools, and utilities for processing geospatial data
The water-surface profiles used to produce the flood- in ArcGIS—elevation data were extracted from the DEM for
inundation maps in this study were computed by using 422 cross sections and input to the HEC–RAS model. The
HEC–RAS, version 4.1.0 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, cross-sectional spacing is 210 ft on average, and the maximum
2010). HEC–RAS is a one-dimensional step-backwater model distance between sections is 497 ft.
used for simulation of water-surface profiles with steady-state Because standard lidar data do not provide ground eleva-
(gradually varied) or unsteady-state flow computation options. tions below a stream’s water surface, channel cross sections
were surveyed by USGS field crews during 2013. Cross-
sectional depths were measured by conventional (total station)
Hydrologic Data surveying techniques or by using hydroacoustic instrumenta-
tion at 176 locations. A differential global positioning system
The study reaches include three streamgages (table 2).
(DGPS) with realtime kinematic (RTK) technology was
Two of the gages were already in operation with continuous
used to derive horizontal locations and the elevation of the
recorders, and one streamgage (Sycamore Creek) was rees-
water surface at each surveyed cross section. Elevations deter-
tablished for this project. Stage is measured every 15 minutes,
mined by RTK DGPS at six benchmark locations were within
transmitted hourly by a satellite radio in the streamgage, and
0.02–0.13 ft of the known elevations, an error range that is
made available on the Internet through the USGS National
better than the accuracy of the lidar data.
Water Information System (NWIS; U.S. Geological Survey,
DEM-generated cross sections were colocated with the
2015a, b, c).
locations of the within-channel field-surveyed cross sections.
For each streamgage, the current1 stage-discharge relation
In these cases, within-channel data were directly merged with
(rating) was used to determine the flow for each study reach
the DEM data. For all other cross sections, the within-channel
corresponding to the target stage value. For each stream, the
data were estimated by interpolation from the closest field-sur-
rating (table 4) was extended (using HEC–RAS) to include
veyed cross section. In-channel data were surveyed upstream
target stages higher than the current rating provided. Because
and downstream from every hydraulic structure. Additional
the streamgages for the Red Cedar River and Sycamore Creek
cross sections were surveyed to ensure that no reach length
are at the upstream ends of their respective study reaches,
between surveyed cross sections was greater than 1 mi.
1
At the time of this report, the current rating for Grand River is 15.0, Red
Cedar is 16.0 and Sycamore Creek is 6.0.
Table 4. Selected stages and associated streamflows for respective stage-discharge relations for the Grand River, Red Cedar River,
and Sycamore Creek streamgages referred to in this report.
[ft, feet; ft3, cubic feet per second; bolded values indicate data that exceed the range of the current ratings1]
Grand River Red Cedar River Sycamore Creek

rating #15, effective 10/2006 rating #16, effective 10/1999 rating #6, effective 10/1995
Stage Streamflow Stage Streamflow Stage Streamflow
(ft) (ft3/s) (ft) (ft3/s) (ft) (ft3/s)
13 8,390 8 2,650 6 170
14 9,520 9 3,440 7 317
15 10,700 10 4,240 8 599
16 12,000 11 5,130 9 944
17 13,200 12 5,970 10 1,550
18 14,600 13 6,960 11 2,270
19 16,000 14 8,070
20 17,500
21 19,000
1
At the time of this report, the current rating for Grand River is 15.0, Red Cedar is 16.0 and Sycamore Creek is 6.0.
Table 5. Drainage areas at selected locations for the Red Hydraulic Structures
Cedar River and Sycamore Creek.
Along the selected stream reaches, there are 43 struc-
[DA, drainage area] tures (road crossings, railroad bridges, and walk paths) and
2 dams that may affect water-surface elevations during floods.
Structure-geometry data were obtained from field surveys
DA Percentage conducted by personnel from the USGS Michigan-Ohio Water
River
Location (square of DA Science Center using RTK DGPS and conventional surveying
station1
miles) (percent) techniques.
It should be noted that the North Lansing Dam (fig. 3),
Red Cedar River which is maintained and operated by the Lansing Board of
Water and Light, has multiple (manually operated) gate set-
Streamgage 28,300 344 100.0 tings that affect water-surface elevations. The dam has four
gates that are usually positioned in one of three configurations:
Below Kalamazoo Street 17,485 349 101.5
(1) all gates up, (2) gate 1 down with gates 2, 3, and 4 up, and
(3) all gates down (Jessica Harbitz, Lansing Board of Water
and Light, written commun., 2012). At the request of the study
Below Sycamore Creek 7,805 459 133.4 partners, and assuming a “worst-case scenario” with respect
to flood elevations, all hydraulic modeling (and subsequent
Sycamore Creek
flood-plain delineations) included in this report reflect only the
Streamage 63,320 80.0 100.0
configuration of all gates up (closed).
Below College Road 43,256 83.9 104.9
Below unnamed tributary from

21,586 88.1 110.1
west
River stations are referenced to the longitudinal baseline used in the

1
hydraulic model, referenced to the mouth.

84°36' 84°34' 84°32' 84°30' 84°28' 84°26'
04113000
Red Cedar River
River
below Kalamazoo
42°44' Grand River Street Cedar
below Red
Gran Cedar River Riv
d 04112500 er
Red
Red Cedar River

below Sycamore
Creek
42°42'
Sy
ca
Sycamore Creek below

mo
re
unnamed tributary from

the west
Sycamore Creek
42°40' below College Road
Creek
INGHAM COUNTY
EATON COUNTY
04112850
42°38'
0 1 2 3 MILES
0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS
EXPLANATION
Streamflow change location

MICHIGAN
Study area
04112850 USGS streamgage and identifier
Ingham County
Figure 2. Locations of increased flows due to increased drainage area.

84°36' 84°34' 84°32' 84°30' 84°28' 84°26'
04113000
North Lansing Dam
River
Low-head Dam
42°44' Cedar
Gran Riv
d 04112500 er
Red
42°42'
Sy
ca
mo
re
42°40'
Creek
INGHAM COUNTY
EATON COUNTY
04112850
42°38'
0 1 2 3 MILES
0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS
EXPLANATION

Study reaches
MICHIGAN Dams
Study area
Ingham County Stage sensors
04112850 USGS streamgage and identifier
Figure 3. Locations of selected USGS streamgages and stage sensors near Lansing, Michigan.
Energy-Loss Factors conditions from both the Grand and Red Cedar Rivers. To
account for concurrent flooding from multiple streams, the
Hydraulic analyses require the estimation of energy hydraulic model joined the three streams together by means of
losses exerted by a channel on flow. These energy losses are junctions. As a result, the model used water-surface elevations
quantified by the Manning’s roughness coefficient (“n” value). from the Grand River as downstream boundary conditions for
Initial (precalibration) n values were selected on the basis of the Red Cedar River and used water-surface elevations from
field observations and high-resolution aerial photographs. the Red Cedar River as downstream boundary conditions for
As part of the calibration process, the initial n values Sycamore Creek.
were adjusted until the differences between computed and
observed water-surface elevations at the streamgage and stage
sensors were minimized. The final n values ranged from 0.040 Model Calibration
to 0.048 for the main channels and 0.036 to 0.100 for the over-
In addition to the target stages at each of the three
bank areas modeled in this analysis (table 6).
streamgages, calibration information was obtained by install-
ing stage sensors (pressure transducers) at eight locations
Hydraulic Model along the modeled reaches of the three streams (fig. 3) in
March 2014. Surveys were conducted to establish the vertical
The HEC–RAS analysis for this study was done by using datum of each stage sensor relative to NAVD 88. The stage
the steady-state flow computation option. Steady-state flow sensor elevations were checked, data were downloaded, and
data consisted of flow regime, boundary conditions, and peak the sensors were cleaned twice during their deployment. The
flows that produced water-surface elevations at the streamgage stage sensors were removed in July 2014.
cross section that matched target water-surface elevations. Stage data collected during a runoff event in May 2014
These target elevations (table 7) coincided with 1ft increments provided additional data for model calibration. Streamflow
of stage. A subcritical (tranquil) flow regime was assumed for values used to calibrate the HEC–RAS model for the event
the simulations. The Grand River streamgage is at the down- were obtained from the current rating for each streamgage.
stream end of the study reach, so the boundary condition is a After calibration, the modeled elevations and measured
known water-surface elevation, with the values taken from the elevations (from sensors and streamgages) had a root mean
current rating for the streamgage for each profile. The peak square error of 0.29 ft, with a maximum difference of 0.61 ft
flows that were used in the model were discussed in the sec- (table 8). For reference, this runoff event had the following
tion, “Hydrologic Data.” stages at each of the three stream gages: Grand River, 9.1 ft;
The Red Cedar River is subject to backwater conditions Red Cedar River, 7.3 ft; and Sycamore Creek, 8.1 ft.
from the Grand River. Sycamore Creek is subject to backwater
Table 6. Range in Manning’s roughness factors for selected Table 7. Calibration of model to target water-surface
streams. elevations at selected U.S. Geological Survey streamgages.
Manning’s n Manning’s n [ft, feet; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988]
Stream
for main channel for overbank areas
Stage of Target Modeled
Difference
Grand River 0.040–0.042 0.040–0.062 water-surface water-surface water-surface
in elevation
profile elevation elevation
(ft)
Red Cedar River 0.040–0.046 0.036–0.090 (ft) (ft, NAVD 88) (ft, NAVD 88)
Red Cedar River

Sycamore Creek 0.042–0.048 0.042–0.100
8 831.96 832.11 0.15
9 832.96 833.05 0.09
Sycamore Creek
6 850.89 850.70 0.19
7 851.89 851.91 −0.02
8 852.89 853.00 −0.11

Table 8. Calibration of model to water-surface elevations at selected locations along selected streams for the flood of May 16, 2014.
[ft, feet; NAVD 88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988]
Measured Modeled Difference

River station1
Description elevation elevation in elevation
(ft)
(ft, NAVD 88) (ft, NAVD 88) (ft)
Grand River
Lansing Streamgage 68 814.02 814.02 0.00
Stage sensor 3,016 817.41 817.68 0.27
Red Cedar River
Stage sensor 6,892 821.88 821.78 −0.10
Stage sensor 16,321 825.12 824.81 −0.31
Stage sensor 26,639 829.96 830.02 0.06
East Lansing streamgage 28,300 831.29 831.31 0.02
Sycamore Creek
Stage sensor 13,605 829.13 829.15 0.02
Stage sensor 21,586 835.40 834.88 −0.52
Stage sensor 43,387 844.11 843.50 −0.61
Stage sensor 55,176 848.26 848.21 −0.05
Holt Road streamgage 63,320 853.00 853.07 0.07
1
River station numbers are referenced to the longitudinal baseline used in the hydraulic model, referenced to the mouth.
Selection of Final Flood Profiles of the Red Cedar River and Sycamore Creek was less than 72
percent of the flow for the Grand River and (2) the flow for
The total number of possible combinations of profiles Sycamore Creek was less than 59 percent of the flow for the
is the product of the 9 stages for the Grand River (table 4), 7 Red Cedar River. This resulted in a total of 305 profiles. (See
for the Red Cedar River, and 6 for Sycamore Creek, or 378 appendix 1 for a table of modeled stage combinations.)
possible combinations. The flow values from table 4 were
analyzed to determine combinations that would be likely to
occur. Of the 378 combinations, 8 represent combinations
Development of Flood-Inundation Maps
where the sum of discharges from the Red Cedar River and A method was devised to map calculated flood-plain
Sycamore Creek exceed the total flow in the Grand River. For boundaries corresponding to each of the 305 final profiles,
example, the combination of stage 14 (Red Cedar River) and resulting in approximated flood-plain boundaries. For each set
stage 11 (Sycamore Creek) represent a combined discharge of of two adjacent cross sections in a given profile, an average
10,340 ft3/s , which exceeds the 8,390 ft3/s associated with water-surface elevation was calculated and rounded to the
stage 13 on the Grand River —and, therefore, is an illogical nearest foot. This water-surface elevation was then represented
combination (assuming no storage). Removing these 8 illogi- by the topo line between adjacent sections. An example of an
cal combinations leaves 370 possible combinations. approximated flood profile for the Grand River is shown in
Coincident peak-flow data were obtained from multiple figure 5.
sources for all three stream gages and analyzed (fig. 4). Most An error analysis of this approximate mapping method
data were obtained from USGS records; however, some data showed that, as expected, the maximum and minimum errors
were obtained from the National Weather Service (National between the average water-surface elevation and those
Weather Service, 2015a, b, c ). rounded to the nearest whole foot were 0.50 ft and −0.50 ft,
The highest percentage of flow from the Red Cedar River respectively. The average and average absolute errors were
and Sycamore Creek to flow in the Grand River occurred 0.00 ft and 0.25 ft, respectively. This analysis indicates that,
in 1975 at 72 percent. The highest percentage of flow from on average, the approximately mapped water-surface eleva-
Sycamore Creek to flow in the Red Cedar River occurred in tion is within 0.25 ft of the average water-surface elevation or
1979 at 59 percent. Final flood profiles for this report include ¼ of the base mapping contour interval and the mapped stage
combinations (flow distributions) where (1) the sum of flows interval.
80
Contribution of flow from indicated tributary (or tributaries) as a percentage of main stem flow
70
60
50
40
30
20 EXPLANATION
Contribution of Sycamore Creek to Red Cedar River
Contribution of Sycamore Creek to Red Cedar River
to Grand River
10
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Calendar Year
Figure 4. Percentages of tributary flows to main stem flows for selected streams near Lansing , Michigan
In order to create the approximate flood-plain boundaries After the flood-plain boundaries for the approximated
for the flood profiles, the contours created from the DEM pro- flood profiles were created, checks were performed to ensure
vided (see “Topographic and Bathymetric Data” section) that logical transitions. Any inundated areas that were detached
matched the rounded elevation for each set of adjacent cross from the main channel were examined to identify artificial
sections were selected to produce the flood-plain boundary connections with the main rivers, such as through culverts
for each adjacent cross-section segment. The segments were under roadways. Where such connections existed, the mapped
then combined to produce a continuous flood-plain boundary. inundated areas were retained in their respective flood maps;
The amount of longitudinal error for the flood-plain boundar- otherwise, the disconnected inundation areas were deleted.
ies (fig. 5) for the approximated water-surface elevation varies The flood-inundation areas were superimposed on high-
depending on the width of separation for adjacent topographic resolution, georeferenced aerial photographs of the study
lines. The flood-plain boundaries resulting from mapping the area. Bridge surfaces are not shown as being inundated until a
approximated water-surface elevations can show (depending flood stage is reached that either intersects the lowest struc-
on the scale at which the mapping is viewed) disjointed edges tural chord of the bridge or completely inundates one or both
or “jumps” in the flood-plain boundaries. Figure 5 shows an approaches to the bridge. Estimates of water depths can be
example of the estimated flood-plain boundary “jumping” as determined from the depth-grid data that are included with
the approximated water-surface elevation changes from 828 ft the flood-inundation maps on the USGS mapping application
to 829 ft. No error analyses were conducted for the longitu- described in the following section, “Flood-Inundation Map
dinal errors of the “jumps” along the edges of the flood-plain Delivery.”
boundaries.
830
829
Elevation, in feet NAVD 88
828
EXPLANATION
Modeled water-surface elevation
Approximated water-surface elevation
327
20,850 20,900 20,950 21,000 21,050 21,100 21,150
River stationing, in feet above the mouth
13,088,400 13,088,450 13,088,500 13,088,550 13,088,600 13,088,650
448,240
448,210 831 feet
448,180
Red Cedar River

448,150
448,120
448,090
832 feet
833 feet
448,060
Base from Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 2010 and 0 10 20 FEET
U.S. Geological Survey, 2013, variously scaled State Plane Michigan
South projection, international feet, North American Datum of 1983
EXPLANATION 0 10 20 METERS
Approximated flood-plain boundary Red Cedar River (arrow denotes

flow direction)
Elevation contours
Hydraulic model cross section
Figure 5. Modeled and approximated water-surface profile for Red Cedar River.
Summary 13
Flood-Inundation Map Delivery assumed during a flood, which may lead to deviations in the
water-surface elevations and inundation boundaries shown.
A Flood Inundation Mapping Science Web site (U.S. Additional areas may be flooded due to unanticipated condi-
Geological Survey, 2015e) was established to deliver USGS tions such as changes in the streambed elevation or roughness,
flood-inundation study information to the public. The site backwater into major tributaries along a main stem river, or
links to a mapping application that presents map libraries and backwater from localized debris or ice jams. The accuracy of
provides detailed information on flood extents and depths for the floodwater extent portrayed on these maps will vary with
modeled sites. The mapping application enables the produc- the accuracy of the digital elevation model used to simulate
tion of customized flood-inundation maps from the map the land surface.
library for each of the three streamgages. A link on this Web If this series of flood-inundation maps will be used in
site connects to the USGS National Water Information System conjunction with National Weather Service (NWS) river
(U.S. Geological Survey, 2015a, b, c), which presents the cur- forecasts, the user should be aware of additional uncertainties
rent stage and streamflow at each of the USGS streamgages that may be inherent or factored into NWS forecast proce-
to which the inundation maps are referenced. A second link dures. The NWS uses forecast models to estimate the quantity
connects to the NWS Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service and timing of water flowing through selected stream reaches
(AHPS) site (National Weather Service, 2015a, b, c) so that in the United States. These forecast models (1) estimate the
the user can obtain applicable information on forecasted peak. amount of runoff generated by precipitation and snowmelt, (2)
The estimated flood-inundation maps are displayed in suffi- simulate the movement of floodwater as it proceeds down-
cient detail so that preparations for flooding and decisions for stream, and (3) predict the flow and stage (and water-surface
emergency response can be performed efficiently. Depending elevation) for the stream at a given location (AHPS forecast
on the flood magnitude, roadways are shown as shaded (inun- point) throughout the forecast period (every 6 hours and 3 to
dated and likely impassable) or not shaded (dry and passable) 5 days out in many locations). For more information on AHPS
to facilitate emergency planning and use. A shaded building forecasts, please see http://water.weather.gov/ahps/pcpn_and_
should not be interpreted to mean that the structure is com- river_forecasting.pdf. Additional uncertainties and limitations
pletely submerged but rather that bare-earth surfaces in the pertinent to this study are described elsewhere in this report.
vicinity of the building are inundated. In these instances, the The hydraulic modeling and subsequent mapping of
water depth (as indicated in the mapping application by hold- flood-plain boundaries assumed coincident flood peaks for the
ing the cursor over an inundated area) near the building would three streams studied. Actual flood-peak timing is dependent
be an estimate of the water level inside the structure, unless upon factors not limited to drainage-area size, slope, storage,
floodproofing measures had been implemented. and precipitation patterns. Coincident flood-peak timings were
chosen to represent more conservative flooding scenarios. If
the peak flood timing of the three streams is not coincident,
Disclaimer for Flood-Inundation Maps the actual flooding boundaries may be different than those
The flood-inundation maps should not be used for represented in this study.
navigation, regulatory, permitting, or other legal purposes.
The USGS provides these maps “as-is” for a quick reference,
emergency planning tool but assumes no legal liability or Summary
responsibility resulting from the use of this information.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation
with the City of Lansing, Michigan, and U.S. Army Corps of
Uncertainties and Limitations Regarding Use of Engineers, developed a series of digital flood-inundation maps
Flood-Inundation Maps showing estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding
Although the flood-inundation maps represent the bound- corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at three USGS
aries of inundated areas with a distinct line, some uncertainty streamgages: Grand River at Lansing, MI (04113000), Red
is associated with these maps. The flood boundaries shown Cedar River at East Lansing, MI (04112500), and Sycamore
were estimated on the basis of water stages and streamflows at Creek at Holt Road near Holt, MI (04112850). Altogether,
selected USGS streamgages. Water-surface elevations along the mapped areas include 19.7 stream miles. The U.S. Army
the stream reaches were estimated by steady-state hydraulic Corps of Engineers’ HEC–RAS and HEC–GeoRAS programs
modeling, assuming unobstructed flow, and using stream- were used to compute water-surface profiles and to help delin-
flows and hydrologic conditions anticipated at the USGS eate estimated flood-inundation areas and depths of flooding
streamgages. The hydraulic model reflects the land-cover for selected stream stages. The HEC–RAS hydraulic model
characteristics and any bridge, dam, levee, or other hydraulic was calibrated to the current stage-discharge relation at each
structures existing as of January 2015. Unique meteorological streamgage and to water-level data measured with pressure
factors (timing and distribution of precipitation) may cause transducers during a runoff event in May 2014. The model was
actual streamflows along the modeled reach to vary from those used to compute water-surface profiles for flood stages from
nearly Action Stage to above Major Flood Stage, as reported
by the National Weather Service. The computed water-surface National Weather Service, 2015d, Advanced Hydrologic
profiles were then used in combination with a digital eleva- Prediction Service, High water level terminology, accessed
tion model (DEM), derived from light detection and ranging January 5, 2015, at http://aprfc.arh.noaa.gov/resources/docs/
(lidar) data to delineate estimated flood-inundation areas and floodterms.php.
depth grids. These flood-inundation areas were superimposed
on high-resolution, georeferenced aerial photographs of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission—Clinton, Ing-
study area. The flood maps are available through a mapping ham, and Eaton Counties, Michigan, 2010, Aerial imagery,
application that can be accessed on the USGS Flood Inunda- LiDAR capture, and digital elevation model.
tion Mapping Science Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/osw/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering
flood_inundation). Center, 2009, HEC–GeoRAS, GIS Tools for Support of
Interactive use of the maps on this mapping application HEC–RAS using ArcGIS—User’s manual, version 4.2
can give users a general indication of depth of water at any [variously paged].
point by using the mouse cursor to click within the shaded
areas. These maps, in conjunction with the real-time stage U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering
data from the USGS streamgages, and forecasted flood stage Center, 2010, HEC–RAS River Analysis System, Hydraulic
data from the National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic reference manual, version 4.1 [variously paged].
Prediction Service can help emergency planners and the public
make more informed decisions about flood risk. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, 2012, National Hydrography Dataset
Plus—NHDPlus version 2.1, accessed July 2014 at http://
www.horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/NHDPlusV2_home.
References Cited php.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2015a, USGS 04113000 Grand River

City of Lansing [Michigan], 2015, Flooding: City of Lansing at Lansing, MI: U.S. Geological Survey National Water
Web page, accessed May 11, 2015, at http://www.lansingmi. Information System, accessed January 5, 2015, at http://
gov/floods. waterdata.usgs.gov/mi/nwis/uv?site_no=04113000.
Dewberry, 2012, National Enhanced Elevation Assess- U.S. Geological Survey, 2015b, USGS 04112500 Red Cedar
ment: Fairfax, Va., 84 p., accessed July 9, 2013, at http:// River at East Lansing, MI: U.S. Geological Survey National
www.dewberry.com/files/pdf/NEEA_Final%20Report_ Water Information System, accessed January 5, 2015, at
Revised%203.29.12.pdf. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mi/nwis/uv?site_no=04112500.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2011, Flood Insur- U.S. Geological Survey, 2015c, USGS 04112850 Sycamore
ance Study for Ingham County, Michigan (All Jurisdic- Creek at Holt Road near Holt, MI: U.S. Geological Sur-
tions): Flood Insurance Study Number 26065CV000A, vey National Water Information System, accessed January
93 p. 5, 2015, at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mi/nwis/uv?site_
National Weather Service, 2015a, Advanced Hydrologic no=04112850.
Prediction Service, Grand River at Lansing, accessed Janu- U.S. Geological Survey, 2015d, USGS surface-water data
ary 5, 2015, at http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph. for the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water
php?wfo=grr&gage=lnsm4. Information System, accessed January 5, 2015, at http://
National Weather Service, 2015b, Advanced Hydrologic waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw.
Prediction Service, Red Cedar River at East Lansing, U.S. Geological Survey, 2015e, USGS Flood Inundation Map-
accessed January 5, 2015, at http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/ ping Science: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed January 5,
hydrograph.php?wfo=grr&gage=elnm4. 2015, at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation.
National Weather Service, 2015c, Advanced Hydrologic Pre-
diction Service, Sycamore Creek near Holt, accessed Janu-
ary 5, 2015, at http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.
php?wfo=grr&gage=hhtm4.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Modeled stage combinations for Grand River, Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek.
Appendix 1. Modeled stage combinations for Grand River, Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek.—Continued
[Combinations (total of 305) were generated by holding stage constant for two of the three streams and varying stage for the third by 1-foot increments for the
range of stages selected for this study]

Combination
stage stage stage
1 13 8 6
2 13 8 7
3 13 8 8
4 13 8 9
5 13 8 10
6 13 9 6
7 13 9 7
8 13 9 8
9 13 9 9
10 13 9 10
11 13 10 6
12 13 10 7
13 13 10 8
14 13 10 9
15 13 10 10
16 13 11 6
17 13 11 7
18 13 11 8
19 14 8 6
20 14 8 7
21 14 8 8
22 14 8 9
23 14 8 10
24 14 9 6
25 14 9 7
26 14 9 8
27 14 9 9
28 14 9 10
29 14 10 6
30 14 10 7
31 14 10 8
32 14 10 9
33 14 10 10
34 14 10 11
35 14 11 6
36 14 11 7
37 14 11 8
38 14 11 9
39 14 11 10
40 14 12 6
Appendix 1 17

Combination
stage stage stage
41 14 12 7
42 14 12 8
43 15 8 6
44 15 8 7
45 15 8 8
46 15 8 9
47 15 8 10
48 15 9 6
49 15 9 7
50 15 9 8
51 15 9 9
52 15 9 10
53 15 10 6
54 15 10 7
55 15 10 8
56 15 10 9
57 15 10 10
58 15 10 11
59 15 11 6
60 15 11 7
61 15 11 8
62 15 11 9
63 15 11 10
64 15 11 11
65 15 12 6
66 15 12 7
67 15 12 8
68 15 12 9
69 15 12 10
70 15 13 6
71 15 13 7
72 15 13 8
73 16 8 6
74 16 8 7
75 16 8 8
76 16 8 9
77 16 8 10
78 16 9 6
79 16 9 7
80 16 9 8
81 16 9 9

Combination
stage stage stage
82 16 9 10
83 16 10 6
84 16 10 7
85 16 10 8
86 16 10 9
87 16 10 10
88 16 10 11
89 16 11 6
90 16 11 7
91 16 11 8
92 16 11 9
93 16 11 10
94 16 11 11
95 16 12 6
96 16 12 7
97 16 12 8
98 16 12 9
99 16 12 10
100 16 12 11
101 16 13 6
102 16 13 7
103 16 13 8
104 16 13 9
105 16 13 10
106 16 14 6
107 16 14 7
108 17 8 6
109 17 8 7
110 17 8 8
111 17 8 9
112 17 8 10
113 17 9 6
114 17 9 7
115 17 9 8
116 17 9 9
117 17 9 10
118 17 10 6
119 17 10 7
120 17 10 8
121 17 10 9
Appendix 1 19

Combination
stage stage stage
122 17 10 10
123 17 10 11
124 17 11 6
125 17 11 7
126 17 11 8
127 17 11 9
128 17 11 10
129 17 11 11
130 17 12 6
131 17 12 7
132 17 12 8
133 17 12 9
134 17 12 10
135 17 12 11
136 17 13 6
137 17 13 7
138 17 13 8
139 17 13 9
140 17 13 10
141 17 13 11
142 17 14 6
143 17 14 7
144 17 14 8
145 17 14 9
146 18 8 6
147 18 8 7
148 18 8 8
149 18 8 9
150 18 8 10
151 18 9 6
152 18 9 7
153 18 9 8
154 18 9 9
155 18 9 10
156 18 10 6
157 18 10 7
158 18 10 8
159 18 10 9
160 18 10 10
161 18 10 11

Combination
stage stage stage
162 18 11 6
163 18 11 7
164 18 11 8
165 18 11 9
166 18 11 10
167 18 11 11
168 18 12 6
169 18 12 7
170 18 12 8
171 18 12 9
172 18 12 10
173 18 12 11
174 18 13 6
175 18 13 7
176 18 13 8
177 18 13 9
178 18 13 10
179 18 13 11
180 18 14 6
181 18 14 7
182 18 14 8
183 18 14 9
184 18 14 10
185 18 14 11
186 19 8 6
187 19 8 7
188 19 8 8
189 19 8 9
190 19 8 10
191 19 9 6
192 19 9 7
193 19 9 8
194 19 9 9
195 19 9 10
196 19 10 6
197 19 10 7
198 19 10 8
199 19 10 9
200 19 10 10
201 19 10 11
Appendix 1 21

Combination
stage stage stage
202 19 11 6
203 19 11 7
204 19 11 8
205 19 11 9
206 19 11 10
207 19 11 11
208 19 12 6
209 19 12 7
210 19 12 8
211 19 12 9
212 19 12 10
213 19 12 11
214 19 13 6
215 19 13 7
216 19 13 8
217 19 13 9
218 19 13 10
219 19 13 11
220 19 14 6
221 19 14 7
222 19 14 8
223 19 14 9
224 19 14 10
225 19 14 11
226 20 8 6
227 20 8 7
228 20 8 8
229 20 8 9
230 20 8 10
231 20 9 6
232 20 9 7
233 20 9 8
234 20 9 9
235 20 9 10
236 20 10 6
237 20 10 7
238 20 10 8
239 20 10 9
240 20 10 10
241 20 10 11

Combination
stage stage stage
242 20 11 6
243 20 11 7
244 20 11 8
245 20 11 9
246 20 11 10
247 20 11 11
249 20 12 7
250 20 12 8
251 20 12 9
252 20 12 10
253 20 12 11
254 20 13 6
255 20 13 7
256 20 13 8
257 20 13 9
258 20 13 10
259 20 13 11
260 20 14 6
261 20 14 7
262 20 14 8
263 20 14 9
264 20 14 10
265 20 14 11
266 21 8 6
267 21 8 7
268 21 8 8
269 21 8 9
270 21 8 10
271 21 9 6
272 21 9 7
273 21 9 8
274 21 9 9
275 21 9 10
276 21 10 6
277 21 10 7
278 21 10 8
279 21 10 9
280 21 10 10
281 21 10 11
282 21 11 6
Appendix 1 23

Combination
stage stage stage
283 21 11 7
284 21 11 8
285 21 11 9
286 21 11 10
287 21 11 11
288 21 12 6
289 21 12 7
290 21 12 8
291 21 12 9
292 21 12 10
293 21 12 11
294 21 13 6
295 21 13 7
296 21 13 8
297 21 13 9
298 21 13 10
299 21 13 11
300 21 14 6
301 21 14 7
302 21 14 8
303 21 14 9
304 21 14 10
305 21 14 11
Publication services provided by the U.S. Geological Survey
Science Publishing Network
Columbus Publishing Service Center
West Trenton Publishing Service Center
For more information concerning the research in this report
contact the
Director, Ohio Water Science Center
6480 Doubletree Ave
Columbus, OH 43229-1111
http://oh.water.usgs.gov/
Whitehead and Ostheimer— Flood-Inundation Maps for Grand River, Red Cedar River, and Sycamore Creek near Lansing, Michigan—Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5101, ver. 1.1
http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155101
ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
February 2018
APPENDIX B
USGS Gage Annual Peak Discharge Data

Annual Peak Discharge Values for USGS Stream Gages
Peak Discharge (CFS)
Water Year
1901 8,650 ‐ ‐
1902 6,700 ‐ ‐
1903 8,490 2,700 ‐
1904 24,500 8,000 ‐
1905 12,800 ‐ ‐
1906 6,900 ‐ ‐
1907 4,380 ‐ ‐
1908 12,200 ‐ ‐
1909 8,540 ‐ ‐
1910 6,450 ‐ ‐
1911 3,340 990 ‐
1912 9,290 4,100 ‐
1913 6,770 2,740 ‐
1914 6,760 2,660 ‐
1915 4,800 2,920 ‐
1916 11,100 4,700 ‐
1917 5,670 2,490 ‐
1918 15,800 5,130 ‐
1919 7,700 3,080 ‐
1920 6,870 3,680 ‐
1921 2,190 1,110 ‐
1922 5,010 2,160 ‐
1923 3,880 1,920 ‐
1924 4,120 1,760 ‐
1925 2,060 990 ‐
1926 6,870 2,660 ‐
1927 2,250 824 ‐
1928 3,110 1,290 ‐
1929 3,980 1,840 ‐
1930 4,480 2,160 ‐
1931 1,610 222 ‐
1932 2,690 1,610 ‐
1933 4,470 2,310 ‐
1934 4,190 1,340 ‐
1935 4,020 1,800 ‐
1936 2,490 1,020 ‐
1937 7,170 2,330 ‐
1938 7,050 4,020 ‐
1939 5,450 1,760 ‐
1940 4,180 1,970 ‐
1941 2,960 1,020 ‐
1942 7,530 2,660 ‐
1943 8,130 2,490 ‐
1944 6,220 2,320 ‐
1945 7,410 2,930 ‐
1 of 3
Water Year
1946 5,120 2,320 ‐
1947 16,400 5,920 ‐
1948 12,000 4,960 ‐
1949 5,890 2,580 ‐
1950 8,280 3,170 ‐
1951 4,770 2,240 ‐
1952 6,200 2,740 ‐
1953 2,260 878 ‐
1954 4,850 2,490 ‐
1955 3,280 1,440 ‐
1956 7,700 3,310 ‐
1957 4,100 2,400 ‐
1958 2,380 895 ‐
1959 4,650 1,950 ‐
1960 8,070 3,580 ‐
1961 3,780 1,170 ‐
1962 4,520 2,300 ‐
1963 3,450 1,380 ‐
1964 1,580 351 ‐
1965 4,730 2,420 ‐
1966 2,990 1,050 ‐
1967 3,600 1,480 ‐
1968 8,560 2,960 ‐
1969 4,350 1,590 ‐
1970 4,060 1,220 ‐
1971 5,460 2,150 ‐
1972 3,910 1,430 ‐
1973 6,160 2,510 ‐
1974 7,330 2,110 ‐
1975 11,200 5,940 2,110
1976 6,840 2,250 596
1977 2,760 785 380
1978 4,670 1,650 499
1979 5,280 1,980 1,150
1980 3,240 1,090 506
1981 6,360 2,710 ‐
1982 8,800 3,640 ‐
1983 3,920 1,280 ‐
1984 2,650 950 ‐
1985 9,660 3,840 ‐
1986 5,960 2,250 ‐
1987 4,280 1,290 ‐
1988 4,060 1,190 ‐
1989 4,650 1,720 ‐
1990 5,370 1,700 674
2 of 3
Water Year
1991 3,930 1,150 ‐
1992 4,360 1,530 ‐
1993 6,020 2,120 ‐
1994 4,780 2,040 ‐
1995 4,190 1,560 522
1996 4,920 2,020 592
1997 4,390 1,560 602
1998 5,120 1,680 ‐
1999 6,090 2,200 ‐
2000 3,480 1,140 ‐
2001 6,900 3,380 ‐
2002 3,680 1,060 ‐
2003 3,240 1,290 ‐
2004 8,150 2,260 ‐
2005 5,950 2,060 ‐
2006 4,260 1,750 ‐
2007 4,020 1,460 ‐
2008 7,420 2,280 ‐
2009 6,920 2,090 ‐
2010 4,390 1,700 ‐
2011 6,370 1,870 ‐
2012 3,810 1,050 ‐
2013 6,460 2,550 ‐
2014 5,050 2,160 ‐
2015 6,020 1,410 595
2016 3,430 1,200 608
3 of 3
February 2018
APPENDIX C
SSP Computed Plots

February 2018
APPENDIX D
Referenced MDEQ Discharge Requests

DEQ - Flood Frequency Discharges Page 1 of 1
Joint Permit Application DEQ Home | MiWaters | Online Services | Permits | Programs | Contact DEQ
Flood Discharge Request Record 20100167-3 8/3/2017

| Home | Water Management | Lowflows | Discharge Requests | Watersheds Map |
Discharge Information
Watercourse: SYCAMORE CREEK
Location: Willoughby Road Drainage Area: 81.44 mi2
Basin Name: 14A - Red Cedar Contributing Area: 81.44 mi2
County: Ingham Tn/Rng/Sec: 03N01W/18
Township: Alaiedon Latitude: 42.654935
Quad Name: East Lansing Longitude: -84.478833
Quad ID: T25NW
Requested By: Bergmann Associates Received Date: 4/19/2010
Request Type: Trans. - County Issued Date: 4/26/2010
File Number: 20100167-3 Reference Number:
Discharge Frequencies: Volume Frequencies:

10%: 1500 cfs
2%: 2000 cfs
1%: 2200 cfs 1%:
0.5%: 2500 cfs 0.5%:
0.2%: 2700 cfs
Access to the Flood Flow Database is provided as a service to allow you to check the status of your flood flow requests or to view discharges from previous
requests for preliminary design purposes. The discharges values are only valid for the original requestor and for one year after the original request date. To
obtain discharge information from the Hydrologic Studies Program, a flood flow discharge request form may be submitted electronically to the DEQ. A written
or email response to your request will be returned to you and must accompany your permit application.
Michigan.gov Home | DEQ_Home | Online Services | Permits | Programs | Contact_DEQ

State Web Sites | Privacy Policy | Link Policy | Accessibility Policy | Security Policy
Copyright © 2011-2017 State of Michigan
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/flow/hflow.asp?FileNumber=20100167-3 8/3/2017
Flood Discharge Request Record 20100161 5/31/2017

Watercourse: GRAND RIVER
Location: Saginaw Street Drainage Area: 1243.12 mi2
(M-43/Business I-96)
Basin Name: 14 - Grand Contributing Area: 1243.12 mi2
Township: City of Lansing Latitude: 42.740901
Quad Name: Lansing South Longitude: -84.549384
Quad ID: T24NE
Requested By: Richard Miller (MDOT) Received Date: 4/15/2010
Request Type: Trans. - MDOT Issued Date: 6/26/2010
File Number: 20100161 Reference Number:

10%: 10700 cfs
2%: 16600 cfs
1%: 19400 cfs 1%:
0.5%: 22000 cfs 0.5%:
0.2%: 26800 cfs

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/flow/hflow.asp?FileNumber=20100161 5/31/2017
Flood Discharge Request Record 20080361-3 5/31/2017

Watercourse: RED CEDAR RIVER
Location: Farm Lane Drainage Area: 342.99 mi2
Basin Name: 14A - Red Cedar Contributing Area: 342.99 mi2
Township: City of East Lansing Latitude: 42.72756091
Quad Name: East Lansing Longitude: -84.47786283
Quad ID: T25NW
Requested By: Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Received Date: 10/1/2008
Huber, Inc.
Request Type: Trans. - County Issued Date: 10/8/2008
File Number: 20080361-3 Reference Number:

10%: 4120 cfs
2%: 6200 cfs
1%: 7200 cfs 1%:
0.5%: 8200 cfs 0.5%:
0.2%: 9740 cfs

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/flow/hflow.asp?FileNumber=20080361-3 5/31/2017
February 2018
APPENDIX E
HEC-RAS MODEL OUTPUT

February 2018
Existing vs. Proposed (full blockage)

1% Annual Chance Flood
HEC-RAS Profile: Max WS
River Reach River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft)
Sycamore Sycamore 63412 Max WS 2D Existing 100-YR 2202.24 843.80 855.90 856.260 0.001399 4.95 495.96 71.26 0.28
Sycamore Sycamore 63412 Max WS 2D Proposed 100-YR 2202.24 843.80 855.90 856.260 0.001399 4.95 495.96 71.26 0.28
Sycamore Sycamore 63386 Max WS 2D Existing 100-YR 2202.24 844.00 855.89 850.71 856.216 0.001319 4.62 508.71 71.93 0.27
Sycamore Sycamore 63386 Max WS 2D Proposed 100-YR 2202.24 844.00 855.89 850.71 856.216 0.001319 4.62 508.71 71.93 0.27
Sycamore Sycamore 63384 Bridge
1
HEC-RAS Profile: Max WS (Continued)
2
3
4
5
6
7
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 28300 Max WS 2D Existing 100-YR 7155.60 821.20 837.60 837.925 0.000628 4.72 1636.42 136.34 0.21
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 28300 Max WS 2D Proposed 100-YR 7155.01 821.20 837.67 837.987 0.000618 4.69 1645.26 136.54 0.21
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 27376 Max WS 2D Existing 100-YR 7057.05 821.30 836.93 829.21 837.402 0.000966 5.62 1391.82 304.93 0.27
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 27376 Max WS 2D Proposed 100-YR 7071.77 821.30 837.02 829.21 837.479 0.000948 5.58 1409.14 315.75 0.27
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 27357 Bridge
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 27112 Inl Struct
8
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 21590 Lat Struct
9
10
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 7805 Max WS 2D Existing 100-YR 8491.15 810.10 834.83 834.837 0.000021 1.22 14709.27 2298.28 0.04
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 7805 Max WS 2D Proposed 100-YR 8621.34 810.10 834.94 834.949 0.000021 1.23 14821.21 2303.29 0.04
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 5215 Max WS 2D Existing 100-YR 8327.40 809.50 834.75 816.72 834.780 0.000039 1.66 7501.15 1691.80 0.06
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 5215 Max WS 2D Proposed 100-YR 8492.69 809.50 834.86 816.79 834.892 0.000040 1.68 7569.50 1695.05 0.06
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 5196 Bridge
11
Grand Grand Upper 12307 Max WS 2D Existing 100-YR 19046.89 810.20 834.11 834.710 0.000534 6.28 3126.39 382.31 0.24
Grand Grand Upper 12307 Max WS 2D Proposed 100-YR 19062.70 810.20 834.20 834.796 0.000527 6.25 3141.14 383.86 0.24
Grand Grand Lower 10979 Max WS 2D Existing 100-YR 27108.15 809.50 834.31 834.515 0.000213 4.20 9573.11 1463.42 0.16
Grand Grand Lower 10979 Max WS 2D Proposed 100-YR 27324.17 809.50 834.40 834.610 0.000211 4.19 9692.91 1466.88 0.16
Grand Grand Lower 10579 Max WS 2D Existing 100-YR 27095.02 803.90 834.12 819.12 834.431 0.000273 4.91 7470.91 727.61 0.18
Grand Grand Lower 10579 Max WS 2D Proposed 100-YR 27315.65 803.90 834.21 819.19 834.528 0.000271 4.91 7541.78 728.32 0.18
Grand Grand Lower 10558 Bridge
12
Grand Grand Lower 2655 Inl Struct
13
US-127 Connect Lat Struct
14
February 2018
Existing vs. Proposed (3 ft Sandbags)

July 1996 flood x 2 (approximately 10% ACE)
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 28300 Max WS 2D Prop 3.0 ft sandbag 100-YR 7155.60 821.20 837.59 837.92 0.000630 4.72 1635.14 136.31 0.21
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 28300 Max WS 2D Unsteady June1996x2 4040.00 821.20 833.71 833.92 0.000591 3.76 1133.26 122.30 0.20
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 28300 Max WS 2D Prop 3.0 ft sandbag Jun1996 x2 4040.00 821.20 833.74 833.95 0.000586 3.75 1136.40 122.34 0.20
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 27376 Max WS 2D Prop 3.0 ft sandbag 100-YR 7013.06 821.30 836.92 829.19 837.38 0.000958 5.59 1388.89 302.44 0.27
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 27376 Max WS 2D Unsteady June1996x2 4039.58 821.30 832.98 827.22 833.31 0.001063 4.68 886.01 103.07 0.27
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 27376 Max WS 2D Prop 3.0 ft sandbag Jun1996 x2 4039.66 821.30 833.01 827.22 833.35 0.001050 4.67 889.45 103.18 0.26
1
2
3
4
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 7805 Max WS 2D Prop 3.0 ft sandbag 100-YR 8480.60 810.10 834.81 834.82 0.000021 1.22 14696.26 2297.70 0.04
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 7805 Max WS 2D Unsteady June1996x2 4821.04 810.10 828.52 828.53 0.000034 1.26 8371.09 1419.55 0.05
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 7805 Max WS 2D Prop 3.0 ft sandbag Jun1996 x2 4828.31 810.10 828.56 828.57 0.000034 1.25 8408.08 1424.92 0.05
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 5215 Max WS 2D Prop 3.0 ft sandbag 100-YR 8415.12 809.50 834.74 816.76 834.77 0.000040 1.68 7493.14 1691.42 0.06
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 5215 Max WS 2D Unsteady June1996x2 4741.48 809.50 828.39 814.63 828.43 0.000070 1.79 3641.45 1235.11 0.08
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 5215 Max WS 2D Prop 3.0 ft sandbag Jun1996 x2 4767.59 809.50 828.43 814.65 828.47 0.000070 1.80 3663.78 1237.14 0.08
5
6
7
February 2018
Existing vs. Proposed (5 ft Sandbags)

July 1996 flood x 2.5 (approximately 5% ACE)
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 28300 Max WS 2D Unsteady June1996x2.5 5048.75 821.20 834.99 835.25 0.000625 4.15 1292.35 126.76 0.21
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 28300 Max WS 2D Prop 5.0 ft sandbag Jun1996 x2.5 5050.00 821.20 835.02 835.28 0.000620 4.14 1296.31 126.88 0.21
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 27376 Max WS 2D Unsteady June1996x2.5 5023.93 821.30 834.23 827.96 834.63 0.001076 5.11 1018.01 107.56 0.27
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Upper 27376 Max WS 2D Prop 5.0 ft sandbag Jun1996 x2.5 5049.33 821.30 834.27 827.97 834.67 0.001076 5.12 1021.67 107.73 0.27
1
2
3
4
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 7805 Max WS 2D Unsteady June1996x2.5 5812.26 810.10 830.45 830.47 0.000028 1.22 10315.09 1575.71 0.05
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 7805 Max WS 2D Prop 5.0 ft sandbag Jun1996 x2.5 5828.54 810.10 830.48 830.50 0.000028 1.22 10344.35 1577.82 0.05
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 5215 Max WS 2D Unsteady June1996x2.5 5735.19 809.50 830.35 815.31 830.38 0.000057 1.74 4818.52 1356.54 0.07
Red_Cedar Red_Cedar Lower 5215 Max WS 2D Prop 5.0 ft sandbag Jun1996 x2.5 5759.85 809.50 830.38 815.32 830.41 0.000057 1.74 4836.32 1357.72 0.07
5
6

Lansing Urbandale FPMS Report - 15 Feb 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lansing Urbandale FPMS Report - 15 Feb 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urbandale Neighborhood Flood Risk Reduction Study

City of Lansing, Ingham County, Michigan

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Floodplain Management Services

Hydraulic & Hydrology Analysis Report

Prepared by: USACE – Detroit District

Keeping floodwater out of the Urbandale Neighborhood completely and understanding

To complete this study, a model previously developed by the United States

1. Existing Conditions – assumes that no project would be implemented by the

Table 1. USGS Stream Gage IDs and Drainage Areas

Channel Grand River Red Cedar River Sycamore Creek

3.1 Statistical Analysis

The regional skew coefficient was determined based on USGS’ Estimating

Figure 3. Flood Skew Regions for Michigan

Table 2. SSP Stream Gage Computational Parameters

Figure 4. SSP Generated Flood Frequency Probability Plot

Table 3. Results from SSP Stream Gage Flood Frequency Analysis

Table 4. MDEQ Discharge Values

discharge in the study as a conservative approach and to facilitate coordination

Figure 5. Hydrographs from 1996 Peak Discharge Event

4.1 Existing Conditions

4.2 Modeling Limits

4.3 River Reaches

4.4 2-D Flow Areas

Figure 6. 2-D Flow Area Geometry

4.5 Boundary Conditions

Table 5. Multipliers Applied to Scale Hydrographs

Figure 7. Boundary Condition Hydrographs Scaled for 1% ACE Peak Discharge

4.6 Manning’s n Values

4.8 Contraction/Expansion Coefficients

4.9 Ineffective and Obstructed Flow Settings

4.11 Proposed Conditions

Figure 8. 2-D Flow Area Connection for Proposed Conditions

Based on the inundation mapping shown on Figure 9, the proposed conditions

Red Cedar Water Surface Elevation (feet) Energy Grade Elevation (feet)

Red Cedar Water Surface Elevation (feet) Energy Grade Elevation (feet)

6.1 3 feet of sandbags for the 10% flood event

Figure 10. 2-D Flow Area Connection for 3 ft. Sandbags

6.2 5 feet of sandbags for the 5% flood event

Figure 11. 2-D Flow Area Connection for 5 ft. Sandbags

The additional analyses run to determine if temporary measures such as sandbags

guidance, and should be a local municipality decision on flood risk management

Urbandale Neighborhood Floodplain Assessment

USGS FLOOD-INUNDATION MAPS REPORT

Prepared in cooperation with the

Flood-Inundation Maps for Grand River, Red Cedar River, and

Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5101

U.S. Department of the Interior

Prepared in cooperation with the

Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5101

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

84°36' 84°34' 84°32' 84°30' 84°28' 84°26'

Gran 04112500 Riv

Rivers and creeks studied

Figure 1. Locations of selected streamgages and rivers and creeks.

South USGS Minimum Maximum

Grand River at 18.60 24,500

Creation of Flood-Inundation-Map streamflows were increased at selected downstream locations

Grand River Red Cedar River Sycamore Creek