Gilkey Creek Analysis

Lippincott Blvd, Roat Ct, & Lapeer Rd

Group 8
Paul Christner
Ryan Kunkel
Timothy Panzigrau
Silvia Sutkowski

4/29/2011
 Table of Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Assessment ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 6

Appendices
APPENDIX A: Location Maps ......................................................................................................................... 7
APPENDIX B: Flood Flow Data ..................................................................................................................... 10
APPENDIX C: Review of As-builts and Engineering Plans............................................................................ 12
APPENDIX D: Existing Inundation and Cross Sections................................................................................. 14
APPENDIX E: Proposed Floodplains and Cross Sections ............................................................................. 21
APPENDIX F: GIS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 27
 Abstract
Due to urbanization, the upper 7.1 miles of Gilkey Creek, located in the City of Burton, Genesee
County, Michigan, frequently floods. A location map is provided in APPENDIX A. Flow data for the
project area was used from a previous project that simulated both the 10-year and 100-year flood along
Gilkey Creek and is attached as APPENDIX B. Engineering plans and “as-builts” were reviewed and
APPENDIX C contains the information gathered. A survey crew also gathered information pertaining to
the existing crossings and typical drain cross sections. The specific crossings studied were Lippincott
Boulevard, Roat Court, and Lapeer Road. All information was evaluated using ArcMAP, HEC-RAS, and
HEC-GeoRAS. Existing conditions for the 10-year and 100-year flood events can be found in APPENDIX
D. Upon analysis it is recommended that the following improvements be made:

 Replace existing structure at each crossing with bridges.

 Excavate Roat Ct crossing to have new, lower bottom elevation.
 Institute a maintenance schedule to maintain flow capabilities.

Resulting outcomes with the above recommendations during the 10-year and 100-year floods for the
studied crossings can be found in APPENDIX E.
Introduction
Group 8 was retained by the City of Burton to analyze 3 crossings over Gilkey Creek due to its
frequent flooding. Gilkey Creek is located in the City of Burton, Genesee County, Michigan. A location
map can be found in APPENDIX A. Originally the creek and its tributaries served as a drainage route for
the adjacent farmlands. Urbanization has resulted in significant changes in the 8.7 square mile
watershed and now contains residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural land uses. This
increase in urbanization has resulted in a runoff spike, which needs to be properly modeled to manage
flood waters. There are 43 total crossings over the main branch of Gilkey Creek. Group 8 was contacted
to analyze the existing crossings at Lippincott Blvd, Roat Ct, and Lapeer St. The location of this section of
the creek can be found in APPENDIX A. Flow data for the project area was used from a previous project
that simulated both the 10-year and 100-year flood along Gilkey Creek and is attached as APPENDIX B.
From this data, the existing floodplains were created and are depicted in APPENDIX D. All information
gathered was evaluated and manipulated using ArcMAP, HEC-RAS, and HEC-GeoRAS.

Discussion

Methods
In order to start analysis of the creek, information was gathered from a variety of sources. A
survey crew was retained to analyze the existing crossings and typical drain cross sections.
Engineering plans and “as-builts” were also reviewed. The information gathered from this review
can be found in APPENDIX C. FEMA flood maps effective September 25, 2009 were studied to
understand the flood effects on the surrounding area. Existing conditions, such as land use types and
topographic data, useful in ArcGIS were obtained through Genesee County. APPENDIX F shows a
screen shot of the GIS Table of Contents with a sample layout. Flow data for the project area was
used from a previous project that simulated both the 10-year and 100-year flood along Gilkey Creek.
The flow data is attached as APPENDIX B. Using the GIS data obtained, a concise map was created to
include only the area of interest. Through HEC-GeoRAS modeling techniques the creek geometry was
created and imported into HEC-RAS. Effectively, a model of the section of stream being analyzed was
created. Adding the flood flow data allowed for an existing floodplains map to be created in ArcMAP.
The existing floodplain maps and cross sections at the crossings can be found in APPENDIX D. Steady
flow analyses were run. The effects of different structures at the crossings were evaluated and the
most effective designs were chosen to properly manage the flood flows.
Findings
For the existing culverts and pipes, both the 10-year flood and 100-year flood overtopped the
roadways. The resulting floodplain and cross sections of the existing flows can be found in APPENDIX
D. Several structural options were evaluated. Size increases in the box culverts and pipes were tried
but no options were viable with the given elevations of the roadway. The only feasible options
appeared to be the construction of bridges to replace the existing structures. For Lippincott Blvd,
Roat Ct, Lapeer Rd a bridge effectively managed the flow coming through the crossing. In addition,
an excavation of the channel bottom at the Roat Ct crossing would improve the flow.

Assessment
The mapped inundation using the existing results differed from the provided FEMA floodplain
data, both in APPENDIX D. The differences mainly exist due to the program’s predilection for linearly
connecting cross-sections. Some of the curvy features of the creek were not correctly depicted in the
model and therefore allowed for a slightly skewed map of the inundations.

Comparing the existing conditions to the proposed conditions shows a significant change in the
management of the flood waters. With existing conditions, each crossing was overtopped during
both the 10-year and 100-year flood events. By changing the structures at each crossing from box
culverts and pipes to bridges, the flood flows were adequately managed at all three crossings. The
effectiveness in managing the 10- and 100- year flows can be seen by comparing the cross-sections in
APPENDIX D and APPENDIX E.

The impacts of the proposed changes are social, environmental, and economic. Some of the
social impacts will occur during construction. Unfortunately many travel routes will be temporarily
alternated to accommodate for construction at the crossings. The outcome of this construction will
end up being socially beneficial due to the decrease in flooding. Homes, businesses, and roadways
will no longer be affected by the overflowing waters and therefore will allow for people to still travel
and live without worrying about their homes flooding. The reduction in flooding will also be
economically beneficial. Businesses and roadways will be able to stay open instead of closing due to
flooding. One downside of the flooding will be the reduction in nutrients provided to surrounding
farmlands and wetlands. Also, by not allowing the creek to naturally flood, downstream crossings
may be adversely affected because more flow will go through the studied cross sections.
 Environmental impacts can be vast. With the decrease of floods, less loose sediment from
surrounding lands will be taken downstream and affect other crossings and the creek in general.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Upon analysis it is recommended that the following improvements be made:

 Replace existing structures at each crossing with bridges.

 Excavate Roat Rd crossing to have new, lower bottom elevation.
 Institute a maintenance schedule to maintain flow capabilities.

Resulting outcomes with the above recommendations during the 10-year and 100-year floods for the
studied crossings can be found in APPENDIX E. Flooding conditions for both the 10-year and 100-year
predictions may be slightly inaccurate due to the cross-sections being drawn somewhat small. This
eliminated some of the possible flooding that should occur, therefore making it look less expansive.
Also, more cross sections along the stream would have provided a more accurate map of the inundation
compared to the actual stream. However, by comparing the flooding extent from before and after
modifications, it is easy to see that the newly implemented bridges significantly help contain the
majority of flood water from overtopping the banks and corresponding roadway. The first attempt was
to increase the dimensions of the culverts, but it was quickly realized for them to accommodate the
flooding the culverts had to be so large they resembled bridges. For this reason three bridges were
implemented to solve the flooding problem of the Gilkey Creek over Lapeer, Roat and Lippencott roads.
APPENDIX A: Location Maps
 Genessee County, Mighigan

Approximate Watershed of Gilkey Creek

APPENDIX B: Flood Flow Data
 10-YR 100-YR
STA (ft) (cfs) (cfs)
-1+66 866 1256
0+79 887 1282
24+39 854 1243
26+98 854 1243
37+03 868 1307
58+38 864 1321
67+94 689 1043
112+89 683 1052
116+29 666 1155
127+39 670 1159
148+78 662 1137
169+44 580 981
219+39 511 996
237+54 410 780
269+81 325 602
283+25 304 563
326+48 248 450
348+77 58 114
373+21 35 71

0+00 located 306 ft downstream of Center Road

APPENDIX C: Review of As-builts and Engineering Plans
 Span Rise # of Length Parallel to Headwall Sediment in
Crossing Type Surface Structure Type (ft) (ft) Openings Flow (ft) Skew Condition Headwall Type Condition Culvert (ft)
Center Corrugated Metal
Road Bituminous 13 9 1 80 90 Fair 90-deg Concrete Wingwalls Fair 4
Road Pipe Arch
Concrete Pipe 7 7 d/s - steel and concrete
Rail,
Railroad Rail CMP 9.5 9.5 3 243 90 Poor wingwalls Poor 1.5
Ballast
CMP 9 9 u/s - projecting
Concrete Box 10 7 90-deg Concrete Wingwalls
I-69 Highway Bituminous Concrete Pipe 8 8 3 262 90 Fair for Box Culvert, Projecting Fair --
Concrete Pipe 8 8 for Concrete Pipes
Lapeer
Road Bituminous Concrete Box 13.3 7 1 45 90 Poor 90-deg Concrete Wingwalls Poor --
Road
Corrugated Metal
Roat Court Road Dirt 7.5 7.5 1 54 90 Good Mitred to Slope Fair --
Pipe
Lippincott Concrete Box 8 6.4 1.5
Road Bituminous 2 74 90 Fair Concrete Wingwalls Poor
Blvd. Concrete Box 8 6.4 1.5
Atherton
Road Bituminous Concrete Box 11.7 6.4 1 46 90 Good Projecting Poor --
Road
Belsay Road Road Bituminous Concrete Box 14 6 1 60 90 New 45-deg Concrete Wingwalls New --
Corrugated Metal
Bristol Road Road Dirt 5 5 1 43 90 Poor Concrete Wingwalls Poor 1
Pipe
APPENDIX D: Existing Inundation and Cross Sections
FEMA Floodplain
Existing Inundation – 10 yr Flood

Existing Inundation – 100 yr Flood

 Lippincott Blvd – 10yr Flood
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Lippincott Blvd
.045 .045 .045
772 Legend

EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
Bank Sta
770

768
Elevation (ft)

766

764

762

760
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)

Lippincott Blvd – 100 yr Flood

GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Lippincott Blvd
.045 .045 .045
774 Legend

EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
772 Bank Sta

770

768
Elevation (ft)

766

764

762

760
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
 Roat Ct – 10yr Flood
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Roat Ct
.045 .045 .045
770 Legend

EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
769
Ground
Bank Sta

768

767

766
Elevation (ft)

765

764

763

762

761
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)

Roat Ct – 100yr Flood

GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Roat Ct
.045 .045 .045
772 Legend

EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Bank Sta
770

768
Elevation (ft)

766

764

762

760
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
 Lapeer Rd – 10yr Flood
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011

.045 .045 .045

768 Legend

EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
766 Bank Sta

764

762
Elevation (ft)

760

758

756

754
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)

Lapeer Rd – 100 yr Flood

GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011

.045 .045 .045

770 Legend

EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr

768 Ground
Bank Sta

766

764
Elevation (ft)

762

760

758

756

754
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
 Existing Section Profile
GilkeyCrk Plan: 1) Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Gilkey Creek Group8
775 Legend

EG 100yr
WS 100yr
EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 100yr
Crit 10yr

770 Ground

765
Elevation (ft)

760

755

750
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Main Channel Distance (ft)
APPENDIX E: Proposed Floodplains and Cross Sections
Inundation with Proposed Changes – 10 yr Flood

Inundation with Proposed Changes – 100 yr Flood

 Lippincott Blvd – 10yr Flood
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Lippincott Blvd
.045 .045 .045
772 Legend

EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
Bank Sta
770

768
Elevation (ft)

766

764

762

760
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)

Lippincott Blvd – 100 yr Flood

GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Lippincott Blvd
.045 .045 .045
774 Legend

EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
772 Bank Sta

770

768
Elevation (ft)

766

764

762

760
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
 Roat Ct – 10yr Flood
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Roat Ct
.045 .045 .045
770 Legend

EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
Bank Sta

768
Elevation (ft)

766

764

762
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)

Roat Ct – 100yr Flood

GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Roat Ct
.045 .045 .045
772 Legend

EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
Bank Sta

770

768
Elevation (ft)

766

764

762
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
 Lapeer Rd – 10yr Flood
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011

.045 .045 .045

770 Legend

EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 10yr
Ground
768 Bank Sta

766

764
Elevation (ft)

762

760

758

756
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)

Lapeer Rd – 100 yr Flood

GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011

.045 .045 .045

770 Legend

EG 100yr
WS 100yr
Crit 100yr
Ground
768 Bank Sta

766

764
Elevation (ft)

762

760

758

756
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
 Existing Section Profile
GilkeyCrk Plan: Gilkey1 4/28/2011
Gilkey Creek Group8
775 Legend

EG 100yr
WS 100yr
EG 10yr
WS 10yr
Crit 100yr
Crit 10yr

770 Ground

765
Elevation (ft)

760

755

750
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Main Channel Distance (ft)
APPENDIX F: GIS Table of Contents