In cooperation with the Ohio Emergency Management Agency

Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in 

a Watershed with Dredged and Leveed Stream Channels, 

Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio 

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5133
Cover. Looking downstream at cross-section C-5 on Wheeling Creek in Maynard, Ohio, after dredging was completed in 1985. (Photograph 

by G.F. Koltun, U.S. Geological Survey)

Above. Looking downstream at cross-section C-5 (photograph taken from same location as cover photograph) on Wheeling Creek in 

Maynard, Ohio, summer 2006. (Photograph by James M. Sherwood, U.S. Geological Survey) 
Morphological Analyses and Simulated 

Flood Elevations in a Watershed with 

Dredged and Leveed Stream Channels, 

Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio 

By James M. Sherwood, Carrie A. Huitger, Andrew D. Ebner, and G.F. Koltun 

In cooperation with the Ohio Emergency Management Agency 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5133 

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation: 

Sherwood, J.M., Huitger, C.A., Ebner, A.D., and Koltun, G.F., 2008, Morphological analyses and simulated flood elevations in a watershed with dredged and leveed stream channels, Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5133, 67 p. 
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Background and Previous Studies ....................................................................................................3

Study Approach.....................................................................................................................................5

Setting and Land Use ...........................................................................................................................6

Collection of Field Data in Study Reaches.................................................................................................8

Resurvey of Previously Surveyed Cross Sections in Dredged Reaches.....................................8

Bankfull Profile and Cross-Section Surveys in Undredged Reaches ..........................................8

Survey of Bridges and Open-Channel Cross Sections for Step-Backwater Models................9

Morphological Data Analyses ............................................................................................................9

Long-Term Changes in Mean Streambed Elevations in Previously Dredged Reaches ............9

Bankfull Characteristics from Field Surveys Compared to Regional Estimates in 

Undredged Reaches .............................................................................................................15

Bankfull Characteristics Determined from Field Surveys...................................................17

Measured Bankfull Characteristics Compared to Equation Estimates and 

Regional Curves............................................................................................................17

Step-Backwater Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations ................................................................19

Development of Step-Backwater Models ......................................................................................19

Flood Elevations for Existing Conditions in Previously Dredged Reaches................................20

Flood Elevations for Simulated Levee Conditions in Previously Dredged Reaches ................24

Flood Elevations for Simulated Dredging and Aggradation Conditions in 

Undredged Reaches .............................................................................................................27

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................30

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................30

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................30

Maps and Water-Surface Profiles............................................................................................................33

Data Tables ...................................................................................................................................................49

Figures

[Those at back of report are flagged with an asterisk (*) next to the page number(s).]

1. Map showing locations of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow-gaging 

station 03111548, 12 sites selected for bankfull surveys, and dredged and 

undredged reaches studied in the Wheeling Creek Basin..........................................4

2a–5a. Maps showing locations of cross sections used to create stepbackwater models of dredged reaches of Wheeling Creek in the 

communities of 2a, Lafferty, Ohio; 3a, Crabapple, Ohio; 4a, Maynard, Ohio; 

and 5a, Crescent, Ohio...................................................................................34, 36, 38, 40*
iv

2b–5b. Graphs showing water-surface profiles estimated from step-backwater 

models for existing conditions of dredged reaches of Wheeling Creek in the 

communities of 2b, Lafferty, Ohio; 3b, Crabapple, Ohio; 4b, Maynard, Ohio; 

and 5b, Crescent, Ohio...................................................................................35, 37, 39, 41*

6. Graph showing annual peak streamflows for 1983 through 2006 and peak 

streamflows for 2004 greater than a 5-year recurrence interval for USGS 

streamflow-gaging station Wheeling Creek below Blaine, Ohio (03111548)............5

7. Schematic diagram showing geomorphic features of a stream valley 

and channel .........................................................................................................................8

8–11. Plots showing cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel 

surveys for Wheeling Creek cross sections in the communities of 8, Lafferty, 

Ohio; 9, Crabapple, Ohio; 10, Maynard, Ohio; and 11, Crescent, Ohio......................10

12. Schematic diagram showing method used to compute width-averaged 

bed elevation .....................................................................................................................15

13. Plots showing measured bankfull characteristics for 12 sites on 

Wheeling Creek compared to 50 sites and regional curves from an Ohio 

statewide study.................................................................................................................19

14. Schematic diagram showing levee heights above the water-surface elevation 

and flooding on the landward side of the levees by water submerging or 

flowing around the levees, in plan view and cross-sectional plots.........................23

15. Plot showing cross-sectional data for a previously dredged site with 

(A) current conditions and (B) simulated levees required to contain a 

100-year flood....................................................................................................................24

16. Plot showing cross-sectional data for an undredged site showing current 

conditions and selected conditions where the streambed was lowered or 

raised to simulate dredging and aggradation..............................................................27

17a–19a. Maps showing locations of cross sections used to create stepbackwater models of undredged reaches of Wheeling Creek: 

17a, below the community of Lafferty, Ohio; 18a, between the 

communities of Maynard and Crescent, Ohio; and 19a, below the 

community of Crescent, Ohio..............................................................................42, 44, 46*

17b–19b. Graphs showing water-surface profiles estimated from stepbackwater models for existing conditions of undredged reaches of

Wheeling Creek: 17b, below Lafferty, Ohio; 18b, between Maynard 

and Crescent, Ohio; and 19b, below Crescent, Ohio.......................................43, 45, 47*

20. Plots showing cross-sectional data for an undredged site with current 

conditions and changes in bed elevations, and the corresponding 

water-surface elevations for the 2- and 100-year flood recurrence intervals .......29

Tables

[Those at back of report are flagged with an asterisk (*) next to the page number.]

1. Land-cover classifications from 1979, 1992, and 2001 land-cover datasets for the 

Wheeling Creek watershed, and the aggregated classification used to compare 

datasets..........................................................................................................................................7

2. Percentages of land cover from 1979, 1992, and 2001 datasets for the Wheeling 

Creek watershed...........................................................................................................................7
v

3. Width-averaged bed elevation data and thalweg elevation data for April 1987 

and August 2006 for 21 sites in four reaches of Wheeling Creek.......................................16

4. Measured bankfull characteristics from field surveys for 12 sites on 

Wheeling Creek selected for geomorphic data analyses....................................................17

5. Measured and estimated bankfull characteristics for 12 sites on 

Wheeling Creek selected for geomorphic data analyses....................................................18

6. Basin characteristics and flood-peak streamflow estimates at selected sites 

along Wheeling Creek in Belmont County, Ohio....................................................................20

7. Flood elevations for selected recurrence intervals with existing conditions in 

the four previously dredged reaches, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio.................21

8. Flood elevations for simulated levee conditions, current conditions, and the 

change in water-surface elevations from the current conditions for indicated 

recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches near Lafferty, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio..................................................................................50*

9. Flood elevations for simulated levee conditions, current conditions, and the 

change in water-surface elevations from the current conditions for indicated 

recurrence interval in previously dredged reaches near Crabapple, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio..................................................................................52*

10. Flood elevations for simulated levee conditions, current conditions, and the 

change in water-surface elevations from the current conditions for indicated 

recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches near Maynard, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio..................................................................................53*

11. Flood elevations for simulated levee conditions, current conditions, and the 

change in water-surface elevations from the current conditions for indicated 

recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches near Crescent, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio..................................................................................55*

12. Summary of the measured levee elevation and the distance from top of measured 

levee to the water surface for indicated recurrence intervals in previously 

dredged reaches of Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio...................................................25

13. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, 

and the change in water-surface elevations from current conditions for indicated 

recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach below Lafferty, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio..................................................................................56*

14. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, 

and the change in water-surface elevations from current conditions for indicated 

recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach between Maynard 

and Crescent, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio........................................................59*

15. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, 

and the change in water-surface elevations from current conditions for indicated 

recurrence interval for the previously undredged reach below the community 

of Crescent, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio ...........................................................66*

16. Change in water-surface elevations, in feet, for indicated flood recurrence 

intervals, in years, and change in bed elevation, in feet, for three undredged 

reaches, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio .................................................................28
vi

Conversion Factors and Vertical Datum 

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2

)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88). 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 
Abstract

The USGS, in cooperation with the Ohio Emergency 

Management Agency, conducted a study in the Wheeling 

Creek Basin to (1) evaluate and contrast land-cover characteristics from 2001 with characteristics from 1979 and 1992; 

(2) compare current streambed elevation, slope, and geometry 

with conditions present in the late 1980s; (3) look for evidence 

of channel filling and over widening in selected undredged 

reaches; (4) estimate flood elevations for existing conditions 

in both undredged and previously dredged reaches; (5) evaluate the height of the levees required to contain floods with 

selected recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches; 

and (6) estimate flood elevations for several hypothetical 

dredging and streambed aggradation scenarios in undredged 

reaches. 

The amount of barren land in the Wheeling Creek 

watershed has decreased from 20 to 1 percent of the basin area 

based on land-cover characteristics from 1979 and 2001. Barren lands appear to have been converted primarily to pasture, 

presumably as a result of surface-mine reclamation. Croplands 

also decreased from 13 to 8 percent of the basin area. The 

combined decrease in barren lands and croplands is approximately offset by the increase in pasture.

Stream-channel surveys conducted in 1987 and again 

in 2006 at 21 sites in four previously dredged reaches of 

Wheeling Creek indicate little change in the elevation, slope, 

and geometry of the channel at most sites. The mean change 

in width-averaged bed and thalweg elevations for the 21 cross 

sections was 0.1 feet. 

Bankfull widths, mean depths, and cross-sectional areas 

measured at 12 sites in undredged reaches were compared 

to estimates determined from regional equations. The mean 

percentage difference between measured and estimated bankfull widths was -0.2 percent, suggesting that bankfull widths 

in the Wheeling Creek Basin are generally about the same as 

regional averages for undisturbed basins of identical drainage area. For bankfull mean depth and cross-sectional area, 

the mean percentage differences between the measured and 

estimated values were -16.0 and -11.2, respectively. The predominantly negative bias in differences between the measured 

and estimated values indicates that bankfull mean depths and 

cross-sectional areas in studied reaches generally are smaller 

than the regional trend. This may be an indication of channel 

filling and over widening or it may reflect insufficient representation in the regional dataset of basins with characteristics 

like that of Wheeling Creek.

Step-backwater models were constructed for four previously dredged reaches to determine the height of levees 

required to contain floods with recurrence intervals of 2, 10, 

50, and 100 years. Existing levees (all of which are uncertified) were found to contain the 100-year flood at only 20 percent of the surveyed cross sections. At the other 80 percent of 

the surveyed cross sections, levee heights would have to be 

raised an average of 2.5 feet and as much as 6.3 feet to contain 

the 100-year flood. 

Step-backwater models also were constructed for three 

undredged reaches to assess the impacts of selected dredging 

and streambed aggradation scenarios on water-surface elevations corresponding to the 2-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year floods. 

Those models demonstrated that changes in water-surface 

elevations associated with a given depth of dredging were 

proportionately smaller for larger floods due to the fact that 

more of the flood waters are outside of the main channel. For 

example, 2.0 feet of dredging in the three study reaches would 

lower the water-surface elevation an average of 1.30 feet for 

the 2-year flood and 0.64 feet for the 100-year flood. 

Introduction

Many communities experience occasional damages 

due to stream flooding. Rural communities in some areas of 

eastern Ohio may be especially prone to damaging floods due 

to the fact that narrow valleys with steep walls resulted in 

preferential development of communities in the flatter floodplain areas adjacent to streams. In addition, historical and (or) 

current land uses (such as strip mining or logging) have the 

potential to exacerbate flooding as a result of instream aggradation (fill) and (or) increased runoff. 

Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in 

a Watershed with Dredged and Leveed Stream Channels, 

Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio 

By James M. Sherwood, Carrie A. Huitger, Andrew D. Ebner, and G.F. Koltun 
2 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

In response to significant flooding, it is not uncommon 

for citizens and local officials alike to identify stream dredging, along with construction of ad hoc levees from dredged 

materials, as an approach to mitigate flooding. However, there 

exists little scientific data as to how effective such measures 

are, especially with regard to large, infrequent events such as a 

50-year or 100-year flood. Thus, government agencies tasked 

with evaluating and (or) designing dredging plans have little 

information about the long-term stability of such mitigation 

practices or even about the effectiveness of such practices on 

flood mitigation during periods of moderate to severe flooding. 

In 1985, dredging and the construction of uncertified 

levees1 were completed in reaches of Wheeling Creek passing 

through the communities of Lafferty, Crabapple, Maynard, and 

Crescent in an attempt to help alleviate flooding of the type 

that had occurred between 1979 and 1981. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources (ODNR), later completed a study that 

assessed the short-term channel stability of those reaches 

following dredging (Koltun, 1988). As part of that study, 

21 stream cross sections were monumented and surveyed to 

evaluate post-dredging changes in geometry. 

In 2004, an unusual number of large floods occurred in 

the Wheeling Creek Basin. As had happened in the 1980s, 

some residents and local officials suggested that sedimentation 

was an exacerbating factor and called for dredging as a means 

to mitigate flooding. Information previously collected in the 

Wheeling Creek Basin by USGS presented a unique opportunity to evaluate claims regarding sedimentation. In addition, a regional study on geomorphic stream characteristics 

completed by USGS in 2005 and a concomitance of factors 

that facilitate the construction of hydraulic models permit 

other aspects of the sedimentation and flooding questions to 

be evaluated. Consequently, the Ohio Emergency Management Agency (Ohio EMA) approached the USGS to conduct a 

study in an attempt to address questions about (a) land-cover 

changes in the Wheeling Creek Basin, (b) long-term changes 

in channel morphology, (c) evidence of stream sedimentation, 

(d) the efficacy of existing dredging and levees to mitigate 

overbank flooding, and (e) the effects of various depths of 

dredging and (or) heights of levees on the ability to contain 

flood water in the main channel and (or) on the resulting 

elevations of the water surface.

1

 The levees constructed in 1985 are not certified levees (U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, 2006) and were not designed or intended to contain floods of 

large magnitude, such as the 100-year flood, but rather the piling of dredged 

materials along the streambanks was an attempt to reduce flood-plain flooding. The levees generally ended at tributaries and road crossings where, during 

large floods, water might flow around the levee and onto the flood plain.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present the methods and 

results of a study to — 

1. Contrast land-cover characteristics in the 

Wheeling Creek Basin from 2001 with land-cover 

characteristics from 1979 and 1992;

2. Resurvey cross sections2 in Wheeling Creek that had 

been surveyed in a previous USGS study (Koltun, 

1988) and document changes in channel-bed elevation, slope, and geometry;

3. Determine bankfull widths, mean depths, and 

cross-sectional areas in selected undredged reaches 

and compare them to characteristics expected for 

relatively pristine (undisturbed) basins of similar 

size and character;

4. Use step-backwater techniques to estimate watersurface elevations for existing conditions for floods 

with recurrence intervals of 2, 10, 50, and 100 years3

(exceedence probabilities of 0.5, 0.1, 0.02, and 0.01) 

in both previously dredged and selected undredged 

reaches;

5. Use step-backwater techniques in previously 

dredged reaches to estimate the height of the levees 

required to contain floods with recurrence intervals 

of 2, 10, 50, and 100 years; and

6. Use step-backwater techniques in selected 

undredged reaches to estimate the effect of varying 

amounts of hypothetical instream aggradation and 

dredging on flood elevations corresponding to floods 

with recurrence intervals of 2, 10, 50, and 100 years.

While results presented in this report are specific to 

Wheeling Creek, conclusions drawn from the hypothetical 

assessments are expected to be applicable to other basins 

in eastern Ohio with characteristics similar to the Wheeling 

Creek Basin.

2

 In this report, a “cross section” is defined as “A representation of a vertical 

section across and through a landscape or landscape feature, as in a cross-valley profile—a section of a valley drawn at right angles to the course of a river 

at a given point.” From A Dictionary of Geography: Oxford University Press, 

1992, 1997, 2004., Answers.com, available online at http://www.answers.com/

topic/cross-section. (Accessed on March 14, 2008.)

3

 The recurrence interval is the inverse of the probability that the given 

event will be equaled or exceeded in any given year and is an estimate of the 

average time span between large floods at a particular site. For example, a 

50-year flood would have an exceedence probability of 0.02 (2 percent) in any 

given year and, on average, should be equaled or exceeded once in 50 years. 
Introduction 3

Background and Previous Studies

Flash flooding is not uncommon on streams in Belmont 

County. Historical accounts indicate that as many as nine 

major floods may have occurred in the area since the early 

1800s (Shindel, 1991). Most of the small streams in the area 

have never been gaged as part of a systematic streamflow 

data-collection network, so there is limited streamflow data 

in the area. One of the earliest floods of record occurred on 

August 12, 1866, in which nine people were killed and several 

bridges were destroyed (McKelvey, 1903). Other years with 

major floods include 1818, 1881, 1884, 1913, 1919, 1936, 

1949, and 2004. 

Since 1949, there has been considerable residential 

development within the Wheeling Creek Basin. A large portion of this development has occurred on the valley flood 

plains, which in the past had been used for farming (Margaret 

Kirkland, Belmont County resident and local historian, written 

commun., 1990). 

The Wheeling Creek Basin experienced three damaging 

floods and four less severe floods during the 29-month period 

from February 1979 through June 1981. In 1982, the USGS, 

in cooperation with the ODNR, initiated a study (Kolva and 

Koltun, 1987) in response to residents’ concerns about factors 

that could have affected the severity and frequency of outof-bank flooding. The objectives of that initial study were to 

(1) estimate flood-peak streamflows and recurrence intervals 

for the seven floods of interest, (2) provide information on 

current and historical mining-related stream-channel fill or 

scour, and (3) examine storm-period subbasin contributions to 

the sediment load in Wheeling Creek. As part of that study, a 

streamflow-gaging station was established on Wheeling Creek 

below Blaine, Ohio (USGS station number 03111548, fig. 1). 

The major findings of the Kolva and Koltun (1987) study 

are summarized as follows: 

1. Flood-frequency analyses indicated that a statistically unusual number of floods with recurrence 

intervals of 2 years or more occurred within the time 

period from February 1979 through June 1981. 

2. Stream-channel surveys on Wheeling Creek and four 

tributaries over a period of approximately 2 years 

indicated no evidence of appreciable net streamchannel fill or scour, although minor changes were 

apparent at some locations. 

3. Excavation and examination of stream-bottom materials indicated little evidence of appreciable miningrelated sediment deposition in the Wheeling Creek 

main channel. 

In 1984, the USGS, in cooperation with the ODNR, 

undertook a second study (Koltun, 1988) to collect and document evidence of net streambed fill or scour by periodically 

surveying stream-channel cross sections at a total of 21 sites 

in four stream reaches scheduled for dredging in an effort 

to reduce the frequency of out-of-bank flooding. Because of 

the presence of unreclaimed and actively operating surface 

mines, State and County officials were concerned that the 

dredged reaches would rapidly fill with sediments, thus reducing or eliminating the benefits gained by dredging. Dredging 

and levee construction was done between July and September 1985. Six sets of cross-section surveys were completed 

at the 21 sites between September 1984 and April 1987—one 

just before dredging, one soon after dredging, and semiannually after that. The four dredged reaches are located in or near 

the communities of Lafferty, Crabapple, Maynard, and Crescent, as shown on the map in figure 1. More detailed maps of 

the communities showing the locations of the 21 sites are in 

figures 2a–5a (at back of report). 

The major findings of the Koltun (1988) study are summarized as follows: 

1. A bed-stabilization period of less than 6 months 

was observed following dredging in each of the 

four reaches. During that period, the bed materials 

changed from poorly consolidated to firm. 

2. After the bed-stabilization period at the 21 sites, 

changes in width-averaged bed elevations ranged 

from -0.1 to 0.4 ft, with 19 sites exhibiting changes 

in the range of -0.1 to 0.1 ft. 

3. Thalweg4 elevations similarly exhibited little change 

after the bed-stabilization period. The maximum 

change in thalweg elevation observed after the bedstabilization period was 0.3 ft. Changes at 17 of the 

21 sites were 0.1 ft or less during the same 6-month 

period.

Several large floods occurred in 2004 for which gageheight data were recorded at the streamflow-gaging station 

on Wheeling Creek below Blaine, Ohio (station 03111548). 

Those data indicate that the largest flood of 2004 occurred 

on September 17. The flood was a result of heavy rains 

from the remnants of Hurricane Ivan. As shown in figure 6, 

the peak streamflow for the September 17, 2004, flood was 

8,500 ft3/s with a corresponding peak gage height of 12.54 ft, 

which exceeded the previous peak of record of 5,470 ft3/s 

(gage height of 8.21 ft) that occurred on June 28, 1998, and 

was slightly less than the 100-year recurrence-interval peak 

streamflow of 8,730 ft3/s published in Koltun and others 

(2006). Two other large floods occurred in 2004. 

4

 A line within the stream channel that joins the lowest points along the 

entire length of a streambed, thus defining the deepest channel of the stream.
4 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Figure 1. Locations of U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 03111548, 12 sites selected for bankfull surveys, and 

dredged and undredged reaches studied in the Wheeling Creek Basin. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Figure 1. Locations of USGS streamflow-gaging station 03111548, 12 sites selected for bankfull 

 surveys, and dredged and undredged reaches studied in the Wheeling Creek Basin. 

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, variously scaled 

Ohio South State Plane Projection 

JEFFERSON 

COUNTY 

BELMONT COUNTY

HARRISON COUNTY

03111548 

 0 2 4 6 KILOMETERS 

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MILES 

Lafferty 

 810 00’ W 

400 11’ N 

OHIO 

Crabapple 

Maynard

Crescent

Wheeling Creek 

Blaine

400 06’ N 

 800

 55’ W 

Saint Clairsville

BF-1 

BF-12 BF-9 BF-10

BF-11

BF-8

BF-12

BF-5 

BF-6

BF-7

BF-4 

BF-3 

BF-2

Wheeling

Bridgeport

Ohio River
Introduction 5

Figure 6. Annual peak streamflows for 1983 through 2006 and peak streamflows for 2004 greater than a 5-year 

recurrence interval for U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station Wheeling Creek below Blaine, Ohio (03111548). 

Recurrence-interval data from Koltun and others (2006). (A water year is the 12-month period from October 1 through 

September 30 and is designated by the calendar year in which it ends.). 

On January 5, 2004, there was a flood with a peak streamflow 

of 4,380 ft3/s and corresponding peak gage height of 7.65 ft 

and on September 9, 2004, there was a flood caused by heavy 

rains from the remnants of Hurricane Frances with a peak 

streamflow of 5,350 ft3/s and corresponding peak gage height 

of 9.86 ft. From 1983 through 2003 there were four annual 

peak floods with peak streamflows in excess of the 5-year 

recurrence-interval peak streamflow of 4,140 ft3/s published 

in Koltun and others (2006), and in 2004 alone there were 

three flood events that had peak streamflows that exceeded the 

5-year recurrence interval and one that exceeded all previous 

floods of record (fig. 6). Thus, an unusual number of large 

floods were recorded at the streamflow-gaging station on 

Wheeling Creek below Blaine (station 03111548) in 2004. 

Study Approach

Land-cover characteristics of Wheeling Creek from 1979 

(Kolva and Koltun, 1987) were compared with land-cover 

characteristics from the 1992 National Land Cover Dataset 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2000) and the 2001 National Land 

Cover Database (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001) to determine 

whether land use in the basin has changed appreciably in the 

last 25 years (item 1, p. 2). Differences in scale and land-cover 

classification schemes of the various datasets made it impossible to make an exact comparison; however, classification 

categories were aggregated as necessary to improve comparability.

Following successful recovery of monuments from the 

previous surveys (Koltun, 1988), 21 cross sections were 

resurveyed by means of conventional differential surveys and 

(or) surveys conducted with survey-grade Global Positioning 

System (GPS) equipment. These data were compared to 

survey data collected in 1987 after the dredging of the reaches. 

Width-averaged changes in bed elevations and thalweg 

elevations that occurred since the 1987 survey were computed 

to assess changes in bed elevation and channel slope (item 2, 

p. 2). 

Bankfull widths, mean depths, and cross-sectional areas 

were determined for selected undredged reaches by means of 

methods described by Harrelson and others (1994). Equations 

from Sherwood and Huitger (2005) were used to estimate 

bankfull-width, mean-depth, and cross-sectional-area characteristics that might be expected for a relatively undisturbed 

basin with characteristics otherwise similar to the Wheeling 

Creek Basin. Measured characteristics were compared to 

characteristics estimated for relatively undisturbed basins to 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

WATER YEAR

PEAK STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Annual peak streamflows

2004 peak streamflows greater than a 5-year recurrence

interval and less than the 2004 annual peak streamflow

100-year flood

50-year flood

25-year flood

10-year flood

5-year flood

 Figure 6. Annual peak streamflows for 1983 through 2006 and peak streamflows for 2004 greater than a 5-year recurrence 

 interval for USGS streamflow-gaging station Wheeling Creek below Blaine, Ohio (03111548). Recurrence-interval data from 

 Koltun and others (2006). (A water year is the 12-month period from October 1 through September 30 and is designated by 

 the calendar year in which it ends.) 
6 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio 

provide insight into whether or not Wheeling Creek has over 

widened and (or) aggraded as might be expected if there were 

excessive sediment deposition (item 3, p. 2).

Surveyed open-channel cross-sectional data representing 

present conditions were used along with open-channel crosssectional data from a digital elevation model (DEM) to help 

develop HEC-RAS (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2002a and 2002b) step-backwater models in four previously dredged and three selected 

undredged reaches (fig. 1). The open-channel cross-sectional 

data were supplemented with surveyed cross-sectional data at 

bridge openings to permit consideration of their influence on 

the water-surface elevations. Roughness data for the stepbackwater models were determined based on field inspections. 

In both previously dredged and selected undredged reaches, 

the step-backwater models were used to estimate water-surface 

elevations corresponding to floods with recurrence intervals of 

2, 10, 50, and 100 years for existing conditions (item 4, p. 2). 

In the four previously dredged reaches, the step-backwater 

models were used to determine the height of levees required 

to contain floods with recurrence intervals of 2, 10, 50, and 

100 years (item 5, p. 2). This was accomplished by systematically raising the elevations of simulated levees in the models 

to the height required to contain the flood within the main 

channel. In the three selected undredged reaches, the stepbackwater models were used to estimate the effect of varying 

amounts of hypothetical instream aggradation and dredging on 

flood elevations corresponding to floods with recurrence intervals of 2, 10, 50, and 100 years (item 6, p. 2). This was accomplished by systematically raising or lowering bed elevations in 

the step-backwater model by amounts that might reasonably 

be associated with aggradation or dredging processes. 

Setting and Land Use

The Wheeling Creek Basin is located in parts of Belmont, 

Harrison, and Jefferson Counties in eastern Ohio (fig. 1). The 

drainage area of the basin is 108 mi2. Wheeling Creek empties 

into the Ohio River at Bridgeport, Ohio, opposite Wheeling, 

West Virginia. The City of Saint Clairsville, the Belmont 

county seat, lies partially within the basin and is the largest 

urban area. 

The climate of the basin is temperate; summers are 

warm to hot, and winters are moderately cold. Average annual 

precipitation is approximately 43 in/yr. For the period 1961 

to 1990, the average precipitation was 3.6 in. per month, with 

January (2.5 in.) being the driest month, and July (4.8 in.) 

being the wettest month (Schumacher and others, 1993). 

Floods can occur during any season. Severe storms in the 

narrow valleys of the basin can result in flash flooding 

(Wheeling Creek Watershed Action Committee Agency Task 

Force, 1983). 

The topography of the basin is hilly and characterized 

by V-shaped valleys and broad, rounded ridges. The basin is 

unglaciated and the headwater tributaries have generally shallow, broad valleys. The valley of the main stem of Wheeling 

Creek is generally deep and narrow, but broadens toward the 

mouth. Relief on Wheeling Creek is approximately 360 ft 

from source to mouth, a distance of approximately 32 river 

miles. 

The geology of the basin is characterized by horizontally layered sedimentary rock. Exposed strata include shale, 

sandstone, siltstone, limestone, and coal. These strata are part 

of the Conemaugh and Monongahela Formations of Pennsylvanian age and the Dunkard Group of Pennsylvanian and 

Permian age (Berryhill, 1963). 

The soils of the upper and middle parts of the basin 

generally are part of the Lowell-Westmoreland association and 

their related soils. The lower reaches of the basin contain soils 

of the Elkinsville-Nolin Variant-Brookside association. All of 

these soils are moderately erodible. Soils composed primarily 

of broken bedrock resulting from surface-mining activity also 

are present, especially in the upper reaches (Wheeling Creek 

Watershed Action Committee Agency Task Force, 1983). 

In general, land use in the Wheeling Creek watershed 

consists mostly of rural farmland and forest landscapes. In 

the upper reaches of the watershed, strip mining of coal has 

played a role in altering the natural landscape. Surface-minereclamation laws (Office of Surface Mine Reclamation and 

Enforcement, 1977) have led to many of these areas being 

reclaimed into pastures, cropland, or forests.

To evaluate temporal changes in land use, comparisons 

were made between 1979 land-cover data summarized from 

the ODNR Ohio Capability Analysis Program (OCAP) dataset 

(Kolva and Koltun, 1987), the 1992 National Land Cover 

Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2000), and the 2001 National 

Land Cover Database (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001). It 

should be noted that the three land-cover datasets used (1979, 

1992, and 2001) do not contain identical classifications, and 

so they were reclassified in order to document the changes 

in land cover over time. The 1979 OCAP summary data had 

8 land-cover classes, the 1992 dataset had 13 classes, and the 

2001 dataset had 15 classes (table 1). Table 1 shows how each 

class from the 1979, 1992, and 2001 datasets was reclassified.

Changes in land cover in the Wheeling Creek watershed 

from 1979 to 2001 are marked most notably by a decrease in 

barren land and an increase in pastures. In 1979, barren land 

accounted for 20 percent of the land cover in the watershed 

(table 2). By 1992, barren land only accounted for 1 percent 

of the land-cover in the watershed due in part to surfacemine reclamation practices in the watershed. Reclamation of 

barren land into pastures accounted for the increase of over 

13,000 acres of pasture from 1979 to 1992. From 1992 to 

2001, the percentage of the basin in pasture decreased slightly, 

being offset by an increase in cropland and other land covers. 
Introduction 7

Table 2. Percentages of land cover from 1979, 1992, and 2001 datasets for the Wheeling Creek watershed.

Land-cover classification 1979 

(percent)

1992 

(percent)

2001

(percent)

Forest 46 46 48

Barren land 20 1 1

Cropland 13 6 8

Pasture 8 42 33

Other uses (developed, 

water, etc.)

13 5 10

Total 100 100 100

Table 1. Land-cover classifications from 1979, 1992, and 2001 land-cover datasets for the Wheeling Creek watershed, 

and the aggregated classification used to compare datasets. 

[OCAP, Ohio Capability Analysis Program; NLCD, National Land Cover Dataset; aggregate land-cover classifications used in this study (in 

grey) with previous classifications (below aggregate classification) from indicated land-cover datasets]

1979 

(OCAP summary)a 1992 NLCDb 2001 NLCDc

Forest

Forested Deciduous forest Deciduous forest

Shrubs and brush Evergreen forest Evergreen forest

Mixed forest Mixed forest

Shrub/scrub

Barren land

Unreclaimed surface mines Quarries, strip mines, gravel pits Barren land (rock/sand/clay)

Active surface mines Transitional

Cropland

Cropland Row crops Cultivated crops

Pasture

Pasture Pasture, hay Grassland/herbaceous

Totally reclaimed surface mines Pasture/hay

Other uses

Other uses (residences, 

industries, bodies of water, etc.)

Water Open water

Low intensity residential Developed, open space

High intensity residential Developed, low intensity

Commercial, industrial, transportation Developed, medium intensity

Woody wetlands Developed, high intensity

Emergent herbaceous wetlands Woody wetlands

Emergent herbaceous wetlands

a

 The 1979 land-cover data are summarized from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Ohio Capability Analysis Program (OCAP) 

dataset (Kolva and Koltun, 1987).

b

 The 1992 National Land Cover Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2000).

c

 The 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001).
8 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Collection of Field Data in Study 

Reaches

Three different surveys were conducted in the field to 

accomplish the study objectives: (1) resurveys of previously 

surveyed cross sections in dredged reaches, (2) bankfull 

profile and cross-section surveys in undredged reaches, and 

(3) surveys of bridges and open-channel cross sections for 

step-backwater models. All surveys were conducted by means 

of conventional differential surveys and (or) survey-grade 

GPS equipment.

Resurvey of Previously Surveyed Cross Sections 

in Dredged Reaches 

The 21 cross sections in dredged reaches that were 

surveyed from 1984 to 1987 (Koltun, 1988) are located in or 

near the communities of Lafferty, Crabapple, Maynard, and 

Crescent (fig. 1). Cross sections were surveyed at one location 

upstream and downstream from each of four dredged reaches 

and at two to five locations within each of four dredged 

reaches. Of the 21 cross sections, four are located in Lafferty, 

five in Crabapple, seven in Maynard, and five in Crescent 

(figs. 2a–5a, at back of report). A cross-section survey consists of a set of ground-point elevations and their associated 

horizontal distances from some fixed reference point. As 

part of the Koltun study (1988), the cross sections had been 

monumented with 0.75-in. rebar to serve as elevation reference marks (ERM) and to facilitate relocation and resurveys 

of the cross sections. The ERMs had been established using 

third-order differential-leveling methods and referenced to 

the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). 

All survey data from Koltun study (1988) were converted 

from NGVD 29 to the North American Vertical Datum of 

1988 (NAVD 88) for use in this study. Cross sections were 

located as part of this study by either recovering the ERMs at 

each site or by referring to documents from the 1988 study, 

such as maps, sketches, and aerial photographs showing the 

cross-section locations. By convention, horizontal stationing 

was assumed to increase from left to right when looking in the 

downstream direction. At a minimum, ground-point elevations 

and their corresponding horizontal stations were determined at 

those points that marked significant changes in slope. A photograph was taken looking downstream and upstream at each 

cross section. Photographs are not presented in this report; 

however, they are on file in the USGS Ohio Water Science 

Center.

Bankfull Profile and Cross-Section Surveys in 

Undredged Reaches

Twelve sites were selected for field surveys in undredged 

reaches to determine geomorphic characteristics such as bankfull width, mean depth, and cross-sectional area. The measured 

characteristics were compared to geomorphic characteristics 

expected for relatively undisturbed basins of similar size and 

character. 

The concept of “bankfull” is important for an understanding of morphology of stream channels. Bankfull stage (fig. 7) 

is the elevation of the water surface that would fill the main 

channel to an elevation equal to that of the active flood plain. 

It is also defined as the elevation at which a stream first begins 

to overflow its natural banks onto the active flood plain (Wolman and Leopold, 1957). The active flood plain is a relatively 

flat depositional surface adjacent to a stream. The active flood 

plain is continually formed by sediment entrained and deposited during flooding. An abandoned flood plain (or terrace) is 

a flat surface adjacent to and higher than the active flood plain 

and it floods infrequently, if at all. 

Bankfull stage 

Median stage 

Thalweg 

Active flood plain Active flood plain 

Natural levee Natural levee 

Abandoned flood plain (terrace) 

Figure 7. Figure 7. Schematic diagram showing geomorphic features of a stream valley and channel. Schematic diagram showing geomorphic features of a stream valley and channel. 
Collection of Field Data in Study Reaches 9

Bankfull discharge (streamflow) is the discharge that 

would fill the main channel to an elevation equal to bankfull 

stage. Bankfull discharge has often been referred to as the 

“effective discharge” or “channel-forming discharge.” This 

concept is misleading because there is no single channelforming discharge but rather a wide range of flows that might 

be considered effective in the formation of the main channel. 

More appropriately, the bankfull discharge can be considered 

a surrogate for this range of flows (Emmett, 2004). Over 

time, moderate flood flows near bankfull stage do much work 

in terms of moving sediment and forming the main channel 

(Leopold and others, 1964). Large floods move great amounts 

of sediment, but they are rare; small floods occur frequently 

but move lesser amounts of sediment with each flood (Wolman and Miller, 1960). Under average conditions, bankfull 

discharge might occur about every 1 to 2 years; for some 

streams, however, bankfull discharge could be associated with 

recurrence intervals of less than 1 year or greater than 2 years. 

As flood flows overtop the streambanks, the abrupt decrease 

in velocity over the active flood plain often results in deposition of sediments just past the tops of the banks, resulting in 

the formation of natural levees (fig. 7). The thalweg is a line 

within the stream channel that joins the lowest points along the 

entire length of a streambed, thus defining the deepest channel 

of the stream.

At each of the 12 sites (fig. 1) selected for field surveys 

in undredged reaches, bankfull indicators and cross-section 

locations were identified, evaluated, and flagged. Longitudinal profiles of bankfull stage (hereafter referred to as 

bankfull profiles) and stream cross sections were surveyed. 

Bankfull widths, mean depths, and cross-sectional areas were 

determined for the undredged reaches by methods described 

by Harrelson and others (1994) and Sherwood and Huitger 

(2005). Bankfull profiles were surveyed along the left and 

right streambanks. Each bankfull ground point was rated 

good, fair, or poor, depending on the reliability of the bankfull 

indicators near the ground point. One cross section that was 

representative of the general physical characteristics of the 

stream was surveyed at each site. All bankfull cross sections 

were surveyed perpendicular to the bankfull flow direction at 

the crests of riffles. Photographs were taken looking downstream and upstream at each cross section (not shown).

Survey of Bridges and Open-Channel Cross 

Sections for Step-Backwater Models 

As part of this study, step-backwater models were 

developed for previously dredged reaches of Wheeling Creek 

to estimate water-surface elevations for simulated levee 

conditions. Step-backwater models were also developed for 

undredged reaches to estimate water-surface elevations for 

simulated dredging and aggradation scenarios. Detailed surveys of the main channel, flood plains, and contracted bridge 

openings were completed at seven bridges in the modeled 

reaches. As is common for such surveys, open-channel cross 

sections were surveyed at the bridge approach section (approximately one bridge width upstream from the bridge), the 

bridge section (smallest cross-sectional area under the bridge), 

and tailwater section (just downstream from the bridge). A 

common practice for step-backwater modeling is to have fieldsurveyed open-channel cross sections at least every mile to 

verify the cross sections derived from a triangulated irregular network5

 (TIN). In this study, three open-channel cross 

sections were surveyed in the modeled reaches to meet this 

requirement. Photographs were taken at all cross sections, and 

Manning’s n roughness coefficient was estimated for all cross 

sections by use of a method developed by Cowan (1956). The 

locations of all cross sections are shown in figures 2a–5a (at 

back of report). 

Morphological Data Analyses 

The morphological analyses include an assessment of 

long-term changes in mean streambed and thalweg elevations 

in previously dredged reaches and a comparison of bankfull 

characteristics in undredged reaches to regional estimates. 

Long-Term Changes in Mean Streambed 

Elevations in Previously Dredged Reaches 

Cross-sectional data from the August 2006 resurveys of 

21 sites (figs. 2–5, at back of report) in the four previously 

dredged reaches were compared to cross-sectional data from 

the April 1987 final surveys from Koltun (1988) to document 

evidence of net streambed aggradation (fill) or degradation 

(scour) from 1987 to 2006. To accomplish this, both graphical 

and quantitative methods were used. The graphical comparison 

made by overlaying plots of cross sections surveyed in 1987 

and 2006 provides a qualitative indicator of change within a 

given cross section. Plots of cross-sectional data for the 1987 

and 2006 stream-channel surveys, and locations of the left and 

right toes of the channel banks in 2006, for Wheeling Creek 

cross sections at the 21 sites in the dredged reaches, are shown 

in figures 8–11. Vertical exaggeration in the cross-section plots 

is 2:1. Plots were visually inspected to evaluate the change 

in the elevation, shape, and location of the channel cross 

sections. With a few exceptions, many of the changes that 

did occur were near the streambanks and not in the channels, 

with most of the plots indicating only slight changes in the 

elevation, shape, and horizontal location of the streambed. 

Three notable exceptions are (1) cross section A-1 in Lafferty, 

where channel widening and degradation of the streambed is 

evident (fig. 8); (2) cross sections B-2 and B-3 in Crabapple, 

where aggradation of the streambed is evident (fig. 9) 

(possibly due to the cross sections being located immediately 

downstream of a tributary and spoil pile); and (3) cross section 

D-2 in Crescent, where some aggradation of the streambed is 

evident (fig. 11). 

5

 A triangulated irregular network (TIN) is a digital data structure used in a 

geographic information system (GIS) for the representation of a land surface.
10 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Lafferty A-1

1,005

1,015

1,025

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

70

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

Lafferty A-2

1,005

1,015

1,025

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

70

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

Lafferty A-3

1,005

1,015

1,025

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

70

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

Lafferty A-4

1,005

1,015

1,025

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

70

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

 Figure 8. Plots of cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel surveys 

 for Wheeling Creek cross sections in Lafferty, Ohio. (Data plots that extend beyond 

 edge of plot indicate the existence of additional data.) Figure 8. Plots of cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel surveys for Wheeling Creek cross 

sections in Lafferty, Ohio. (Data plots that extend beyond edge of plot indicate the existence of additional 

data.) 
Collection of Field Data in Study Reaches 11

 

Crabapple B-1

915

925

935

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

80

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

 

Crabapple B-2

915

925

935

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

0

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

 

Crabapple B-3

915

925

935

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

0

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

 

Crabapple B-4

915

925

935

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

0

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

 

Crabapple B-5

915

925

935

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEET

0

1987

2006

Bank toe

 Figure 9. Plots of cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel 

 surveys for Wheeling Creek cross sections in Crabapple, Ohio. (Data plots 

 that extend beyond edge of plot indicate the existence of additional data.) Figure 9. Plots of cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel surveys for 

Wheeling Creek cross sections in Crabapple, Ohio. (Data plots that extend beyond edge of 

plot indicate the existence of additional data.) 
12 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Maynard C-1

825

835

845

855

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

0

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

 

Maynard C-2

825

835

845

855

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

0

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

 

Maynard C-3

825

835

845

855

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

0

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

 

Maynard C-4

825

835

845

855

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

0

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

 Figure 10. Plots of cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel 

 surveys for Wheeling Creek cross sections in Maynard, Ohio. (Data plots 

 that extend beyond edge of plot indicate the existence of additional data.) Figure 10. Plots of cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel surveys for 

Wheeling Creek cross sections in Maynard, Ohio. (Data plots that extend beyond edge of plot 

indicate the existence of additional data.) 
Collection of Field Data in Study Reaches 13

 

Maynard C-5

825

835

845

855

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEE

0

T

1987

2006

Bank toe

 

 

Maynard C-6

825

835

845

855

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEET

0

1987

2006

Bank toe

 

 

Maynard C-7

825

835

845

855

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEET

0

1987

2006

Bank toe

 Figure 10. Plots of cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel surveys 

 for Wheeling Creek cross sections in Maynard, Ohio. (Data plots that extend beyond 

 edge of plot indicate the existence of additional data.) —Continued 

Figure 10. Plots of cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel surveys for 

Wheeling Creek cross sections in Maynard, Ohio. (Data plots that extend beyond edge of plot 

indicate the existence of additional data.)—Continued
14 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Crescent D-1

795

805

815

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEET 

0

1987

2006

Bank toe

Crescent D-2

795

805

815

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEET 

0

1987

2006

Bank toe

Crescent D-3

795

805

815

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEET 

0

1987

2006

Bank toe

Crescent D-4

795

805

815

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEET 

0

1987

2006

Bank toe

Crescent D-5

795

805

815

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 11

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEET 

0

1987

2006

Bank toe

 Figure 11. Plots of cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel surveys 

 for Wheeling Creek cross sections in Crescent, Ohio. (Data plots that beyond edge 

 of plot indicate the existence of additional data.) Figure 11. Plots of cross-sectional data for 1987 and 2006 stream-channel surveys for Wheeling Creek cross 

sections in Crescent, Ohio. (Data plots that beyond edge of plot indicate the existence of additional data.) 
Collection of Field Data in Study Reaches 15

Trends in stream-channel aggradation and degradation 

also were assessed by computing changes in width-averaged 

bed elevations from April 1987 to August 2006. To accomplish this calculation, the area bounded by an arbitrary fixed 

upper datum on the top, the streambed on the bottom, and the 

left and right toes of the streambanks was determined. For the 

purpose of this study, the toes of the streambank are the crosssection ground points at the point of inflection (point where 

the greatest change in slope occurs) between the streambed 

and streambank. That area was divided by the width (as 

defined by the distance between the toes of the streambanks) 

to determine the average distance from the upper datum to the 

streambed. The width-averaged bed elevation was then determined by subtracting the average distance to the streambed 

from the elevation of the upper datum (fig. 12). Areas within 

the aforementioned boundaries were computed by means of 

the trapezoidal rule (Burden and Faires, 2000), a numerical 

method for approximating the area under a curve. Figure 12 

shows a schematic illustrating the concept of a change in the 

width-averaged bed elevation. 

Changes in width-averaged bed elevations and surveyed 

thalweg elevations from April 1987 to August 2006 are 

reported for 21 cross sections in the four previously dredged 

reaches of Wheeling Creek (table 3). 

The change in width-averaged bed elevation, if positive, 

indicates aggradation from April 1987 to August 2006, and, if 

negative, indicates degradation. Although three cross sections 

(one in Lafferty and two in Crabapple) exhibited changes 

of over 1 ft, the 0.1-ft mean change in width-averaged bed 

elevation indicates that, on average, there has been little net 

aggradation or degradation of the streambed at the 21 sites. 

Likewise, on average, there has been little net change in the 

thalweg elevations. 

Bankfull Characteristics from Field Surveys 

Compared to Regional Estimates in Undredged 

Reaches

Bankfull widths, mean depths, and cross-sectional areas 

were measured for 12 sites (fig. 1) in undredged reaches following methods described by Harrelson and others (1994) 

and Sherwood and Huitger (2005). Equations presented in 

Sherwood and Huitger (2005) were used to estimate bankfullwidth, mean-depth, and cross-sectional-area characteristics 

that might be expected for relatively undisturbed basins. 

Comparison of the measured characteristics to estimated 

characteristics for relatively undisturbed basins is intended 

to provide insight into whether or not undredged reaches of 

Wheeling Creek have over widened and (or) aggraded as 

might be expected if there were excessive sediment deposition 

(item 3, p. 2). 

835

840

ON, IN FEET

1987 Surveyed bed profile

2006 Surveyed bed profile

1987 Width-averaged bed elevation

2006 Width-averaged bed elevation

Left horizontal boundary Ri ht h i t l b d

Arbitrary upper datum

830

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

ELEVATI

O

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

Left toe of channel bank

Right toe of channel bank

Left horizontal boundary Right horizontal boundary

Figure 12. Schematic diagram of method used to compute width-averaged bed elevation. 
16 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Table 3. Width-averaged bed elevation data and thalweg elevation data for April 1987 and August 2006 for 21 sites in four reaches of 

Wheeling Creek. 

Community Site 

code Latitude Longitude

Distance 

from 

mouth of 

Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Channel 

width 

(feet)

Width-averaged 

bed elevationa

(feet)

Change 

in widthaveraged 

bed 

elevation 

(feet)

Thalweg 

elevationa

(feet)

Change 

in 

thalweg 

elevation 

(feet)

April 

1987

August 

2006

April 

1987

August 

2006

Lafferty A-1 40° 06’ 34” -81° 01’ 24” 28.09 19.7 1015.6 1014.2 -1.4 1014.9 1013.3 -1.6

A-2 40° 06’ 36” -81° 01’ 02” 27.72 17.9 1012.1 1012.1 .0 1011.1 1011.1 .0

A-3 40° 06’ 44” -81° 00’ 55” 27.50 21.1 1010.9 1010.8 -.1 1010.0 1010.6 .6

A-4 40° 06’ 36” -81° 00’ 40” 27.17 22.0 1007.6 1007.1 -.5 1006.9 1006.8 -.1

Crabapple B-1 40° 06’ 51” -80° 57’ 36” 22.37 33.6 924.1 923.6 -.5 923.1 922.8 -.3

B-2 40° 06’ 52” -80° 57’ 29” 22.27 35.7 920.4 921.6 1.2 919.6 920.5 .9

B-3 40° 06’ 52” -80° 57’ 24” 22.19 35.5 919.6 921.0 1.4 919.1 919.8 .7

B-4 40° 06’ 52” -80° 57’ 19” 22.12 29.0 918.4 919.0 .6 918.0 918.6 .6

B-5 40° 06’ 51” -80° 57’ 16” 22.07 34.2 918.7 918.7 .0 918.0 918.2 .2

Maynard C-1 40° 07’ 07” -80° 53’ 13” 15.70 43.9 845.8 846.4 .6 844.9 845.7 .8

C-2 40° 07’ 26” -80° 53’ 04” 15.30 36.4 838.5 838.7 .1 837.9 837.8 -.1

C-3 40° 07’ 30” -80° 52’ 51” 15.08 34.0 835.6 835.8 .1 835.2 835.2 .0

C-4 40° 07’ 30” -80° 52’ 43” 14.97 46.0 835.6 836.1 .5 834.7 834.7 .0

C-5 40° 07’ 12” -80° 52’ 41” 14.60 40.1 831.7 832.0 .3 831.2 831.3 .1

C-6 40° 07’ 04” -80° 52’ 37” 14.44 40.1 829.9 829.8 -.1 829.4 829.2 -.2

C-7 40° 06’ 57” -80° 52’ 42” 14.24 39.7 828.5 828.5 .0 827.8 828.1 .3

Crescent D-1 40° 07’ 16” -80° 51’ 50” 12.39 61.0 803.8 803.7 -.1 801.9 801.8 -.1

D-2 40° 07’ 15” -80° 51’ 45” 12.29 64.3 802.9 804.0 1.0 801.8 803.0 1.2

D-3 40° 07’ 08” -80° 51’ 41” 12.16 38.0 800.4 800.0 -.5 799.9 799.3 -.6

D-4 40° 07’ 05” -80° 51’ 34” 12.04 55.7 800.1 800.0 .0 798.8 798.5 -.3

D-5 40° 06’ 60” -80° 51’ 27” 11.88 47.5 797.9 798.0 .1 797.4 797.3 -.1

Maximum 64.3 1.4 1.2

Minimum 17.9 -1.4 -1.6

Mean 37.9 .1 .1

Median 36.4 .0 .0

a

 All vertical coordinate information in this report is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Vertical coordinate information 

published in Koltun (1988) is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) and has been converted to NAVD88 in this table for 

comparison purposes.
Collection of Field Data in Study Reaches 17

Bankfull Characteristics Determined from Field 

Surveys

Geomorphic field data collected at 12 sites on Wheeling 

Creek were plotted in plan, profile, and cross-section views. 

Longitudinal profiles of bankfull stage were used along with 

qualitative ratings (good, fair, or poor) of bankfull features 

to determine final bankfull stage at each cross section. Some 

interpretation of the profile and cross-sectional plots was 

necessary for this process because field-determined bankfull 

stage did not always match the active flood-plain elevations. 

For example, natural levees that were not apparent in the field 

(because of masking by vegetation) were readily apparent 

in the cross-section plots at many sites. In those cases, the 

active flood-plain elevations just beyond the natural levees 

were used as the final bankfull stage. Frequently, the left and 

right bankfull stages were averaged to obtain the representative final bankfull stage used in subsequent computations of 

bankfull width, mean depth, and cross-sectional area. Bankfull width was computed as the horizontal distance between 

the two points on the cross section where the bankfull stage 

intersected the land surface. Bankfull cross-sectional area was 

computed as the area (measured perpendicular to the dominant 

flow direction at bankfull stage) between the bankfull stage 

and the land surface below as determined by application of the 

trapezoidal rule. Bankfull mean depth was computed as the 

bankfull cross-sectional area divided by the bankfull width. 

The bankfull characteristics determined from field surveys are 

listed in table 4 for the 12 sites on Wheeling Creek. 

Measured Bankfull Characteristics Compared to 

Equation Estimates and Regional Curves

Bankfull channel width, bankfull mean depth, and bankfull cross-sectional area are commonly estimated as a function of drainage area.6

 Plots of bankfull characteristics versus 

drainage area are commonly referred to as “regional curves.” 

Regional curves may also be accompanied by simple-regression equations (one explanatory variable) to estimate bankfull 

channel width, bankfull mean depth, or bankfull cross-sectional area (response variables) as a function of drainage area 

(explanatory variable). Simple-regression equations presented 

in Sherwood and Huitger (2005), in which drainage area is 

the only explanatory variable, were used to estimate bankfullchannel-width, mean-depth, and cross-sectional-area characteristics that might be expected for relatively undisturbed 

basins in Ohio. The equations are based on geomorphic and 

basin characteristic data collected at 50 study sites on unregulated natural alluvial streams in Ohio, of which 40 sites were 

near streamflow-gaging stations. The average standard error of 

prediction for the bankfull channel width equation is 24.8 percent; for the bankfull mean depth equation, 20.6 percent; and 

for the bankfull cross-sectional-area equation, 30.6 percent. 

6

 The surface area that contributes surface runoff to a specified location on a 

stream, measured in a horizontal plane. Computed (by planimeter, digitizer, or 

grid method) from U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle 

maps. A geographic information system (GIS) also may be used to determine 

drainage area, provided that the GIS data are of sufficiently high resolution.

Table 4. Measured bankfull characteristics from field surveys for 12 sites on Wheeling Creek selected for geomorphic data analyses. 

Site 

code Latitude Longitude 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Drainage 

area 

(square miles)

Field 

rating

Bankfull 

width 

(feet)

Bankfull 

mean depth 

(feet)

Bankfull 

crosssectional 

area 

(square feet)

BF-1 40° 07’ 17” -81° 02’ 09” 29.4 2.32 Good 17.4 1.5 26.1

BF-2 40° 06’ 22” -81° 00’ 00” 26.4 13.8 Good/Fair 39.7 3.2 127.0

BF-3 40° 06’ 27” -80° 59’ 47” 26.1 17.0 Good 59.7 2.3 137.3

BF-4 40° 05’ 49” -80° 58’ 36” 24.4 23.6 Good/Fair 56.0 2.6 145.6

BF-5 40° 06’ 34” -80° 58’ 15” 23.1 24.2 Fair 40.5 4.3 174.2

BF-6 40° 07’ 05” -80° 56’ 55” 21.3 45.5 Good 65.8 4.4 289.5

BF-7 40° 07’ 16” -80° 55’ 59” 19.9 51.3 Fair 78.3 3.3 258.4

BF-8 40° 07’ 39” -80° 54’ 19” 17.4 59.6 Good/Fair 76.1 4.0 304.4

BF-9 40° 06’ 43” -80° 52’ 46” 13.9 72.4 Fair 72.8 5.2 378.6

BF-10 40° 06’ 37” -80° 52’ 29” 13.6 76.4 Good/Fair 99.6 4.3 428.3

BF-11 40° 06’ 56” -80° 51’ 27” 11.8 81.77 Good/Fair 184.2 3.0 552.6

BF-12 40° 06’ 48” -80° 51’ 30” 11.6 81.82 Good/Fair 119.5 2.6 310.7

Maximum 81.8 184.2 5.2 552.6

Minimum 2.3 17.4 1.5 26.1
18 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Measured and estimated bankfull characteristics for the 

12 sites on Wheeling Creek selected for geomorphic data 

analyses are presented in table 5. Comparison of the measured 

data to the regression estimates indicates that the median 

percentage difference between the measured and estimated 

bankfull widths is -0.2 percent, which suggests that bankfull 

widths in the Wheeling Creek Basin are generally about the 

same as regional averages for undisturbed basins of identical 

drainage area. For bankfull mean depth and cross-sectional 

area, the median percentage differences between the measured 

and estimated values are -16.0 and -11.2, respectively. While 

the differences are smaller than the average standard error of 

prediction, the predominantly negative bias in percent differences suggests that bankfull mean depths and areas in the 

Wheeling Creek Basin are generally smaller than regional 

averages. Another comparison of measured and estimated 

bankfull characteristics for the 12 sites on Wheeling Creek 

was made by use of multiple-regression equations presented in 

Sherwood and Huitger (2005). That comparison (not shown) 

yielded results that are in agreement with the simple-regression results.

In figure 13, bankfull characteristics for the Wheeling 

Creek sites are plotted as a function of drainage area, along 

with data from the 50 Ohio study sites used by Sherwood and 

Huitger (2005) to develop the regional curves. Two observations may be made from the scatterplots. The first observation 

is that the two sites with the largest drainage areas (BF-11 

and BF-12) have measured bankfull channel width values that 

are considerably greater (average difference is +75.9 percent) 

than the estimated values, and measured bankfull-meandepth values that are considerably less (average difference 

is -42.7 percent) than the estimated values; however, the 

measured bankfull cross-sectional area values do not appear 

to be very different (average difference is +3.4 percent) from 

the estimated values—thus, it appears that the greater widths 

compensate for the lesser mean depths. The second observation is that most of the measured data fall within the scatter of 

data used to prepare the regional curves; however, most of the 

measured bankfull mean depths and cross-sectional areas lie 

below the regional curves. 

Table 5. Measured and estimated bankfull characteristics for 12 sites on Wheeling Creek selected for geomorphic data analyses. 

Site 

code

Distance 

from 

mouth of 

Wheeling 

Creek 

(miles)

Drainage 

area

(square 

miles)

Bankfull channel width Bankfull mean depth Bankfull cross-sectional area

Measured 

(feet)

Estimateda

(feet)

Percent 

difference

Measured 

(feet)

Estimateda 

(feet)

Percent 

difference

Measured 

(feet)

Estimateda 

(feet)

Percent 

difference

BF-1 29.4 2.32 17.4 24.3 -28.3 1.5 1.9 -21.0 26.1 45.7 -42.8

BF-2 26.4 13.8 39.7 45.9 -13.5 3.2 3.0 4.9 127.0 138.6 -8.4

BF-3 26.1 17.0 59.7 49.4 20.9 2.3 3.2 -28.6 137.3 157.6 -12.9

BF-4 24.4 23.6 56.0 55.5 .9 2.6 3.5 -26.0 145.6 193.2 -24.6

BF-5 23.1 24.2 40.5 56.0 -27.6 4.3 3.5 21.6 174.2 196.1 -11.2

BF-6 21.3 45.5 65.8 70.1 -6.1 4.4 4.2 5.3 289.5 290.0 -.2

BF-7 19.9 51.3 78.3 73.1 7.1 3.3 4.3 -23.5 258.4 312.5 -17.3

BF-8 17.4 59.6 76.1 77.1 -1.3 4.0 4.5 -10.9 304.4 343.1 -11.3

BF-9 13.9 72.4 72.8 82.7 -12.0 5.2 4.7 10.0 378.6 387.3 -2.2

BF-10 13.6 76.4 99.6 84.3 18.2 4.3 4.8 -10.3 428.3 400.2 7.0

BF-11 11.8 81.77 184.2 86.3 113.4 3.0 4.9 -38.6 552.6 417.5 32.4

BF-12 11.6 81.82 119.5 86.3 38.4 2.6 4.9 -46.8 310.7 417.7 -25.6

Maximum 113.4 21.6 32.4

Minimum -28.3 -46.8 -42.8

Mean 9.2 -13.7 -9.8

Median -.2 -16.0 -11.2

a

 Determined from simple-regression equations presented in Sherwood and Huitger (2005). 
Step-Backwater Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations 19

Step-Backwater Analyses and 

Simulated Flood Elevations 

Seven step-backwater models were used to simulate flood 

elevations for existing conditions corresponding to floods 

with recurrence intervals of 2, 10, 50, and 100 years (item 4, 

p. 2) on reaches in or near the Ohio communities of Lafferty, 

Crabapple, Maynard, and Crescent (fig. 1). Four of the seven 

models are of previously dredged reaches of Wheeling Creek

(item 4, p. 2). These four models were modified to determine 

the height of levees required to contain floods with recurrence 

intervals of 2, 10, 50, and 100 years (item 5, p. 2). Three of the 

seven models are of selected undredged reaches of Wheeling Creek. These three models were modified to simulate the 

effects of several dredging and aggradation scenarios on flood 

elevations corresponding to the 2-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year 

floods (item 6, p. 2). 

Development of Step-Backwater Models

Step-backwater modeling is a process whereby watersurface elevations are computed at a series of stream cross 

sections for a specific value of streamflow. The step-backwater model used in this study was the USACE’s Hydrologic 

Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS), 

Version 3.1.1, released in May 2003 (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2002a and 2002b). The computations are done 

progressively in an upstream direction (for subcritical flow) 

by use of the standard step method, for which the input data 

required are measures of channel geometry, channel slope, and 

roughness (for open-channel flow). The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (2003) explains the step-backwater 

modeling process in detail on their Web site. Quality-control 

procedures for the model output include checks for critical and 

sub-critical water-surface elevations, negative water-surface 

slopes, and excessive energy loss (headloss), conveyance 

changes, and distances between successive cross sections. For 

this study, most cross sections used in the models were derived 

predominantly from a TIN, which was generated from mass 

points7

 (grid spacing of 100 ft), contours8 (10-ft interval), and 

breaklines9 based on data collected in 2001 and obtained from 

the Belmont County Geographic Information System (GIS) 

coordinator. Because bridges commonly cause contraction of 

streamflow and backwater conditions, it is necessary to obtain 

more detailed geometric data for and around the bridges than 

is available from a TIN. Peak streamflows with recurrence 

intervals of 2, 10, 50, and 100 years were estimated using 

StreamStats10 (Koltun and others, 2006) and incorporated into 

the step-backwater models to compute corresponding flood 

profiles at selected locations along Wheeling Creek. 

7

 Mass points are the basic elements used to build a TIN. Each point has an 

X and Y location (horizontal coordinates) and a Z value (elevation).

8

 The 10-ft contours were used, but provided little information toward 

the generation of the TIN because of the large contour interval. Typically, a 

smaller contour interval (such as 2 ft or 5 ft) would have been used to generate 

the TIN, but is not available due to the high relief in Belmont County. 

9

 Breaklines represent linear features used to define and control surface 

smoothness and abrupt changes in slope, such as the top of a streambank. 

10 StreamStats is a Web-based tool that allows users to obtain streamflow 

statistics, drainage-basin characteristics, and other information for userselected sites on streams.

Figure 13. Plots of measured bankfull characteristics for 12 sites on Wheeling Creek compared to 50 sites and regional curves from

an Ohio statewide study (Sherwood and Huitger, 2005).

10

100

1,000

10,000

0 1 10 100 1000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

BANKFULL CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA, IN SQUARE FEET

Wheeling Creek measured

Ohio region A measured

 Ohio region A regional curve

Bankfull cross-sectional area

0

1

10

100

0 1 10 100 1000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

BANKFULL MEAN DEPTH, IN FEET

Wheeling Creek measured

Ohio region A measured

 Ohio region A regional curve

Bankfull mean depth

10

100

1,000

0 1 10 100 1000

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

BANKFULL CHANNEL WIDTH, IN FEET

Wheeling Creek measured

Ohio region A measured

 Ohio region A regional curve

Bankfull channel width

Figure 13. Plots of measured bankfull characteristics for 12 sites on Wheeling Creek compared to 50 sites and regional curves from 

an Ohio statewide study (Sherwood and Huitger, 2005). 
20 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Discharge estimates for sites near Maynard and Crescent are 

gage-weighted using 18 years (1983–1987, 1989–2001) of 

streamflow data from Wheeling Creek below Blaine (station 

number 03111548) using methods described by Koltun and 

others (2006) for ungaged sites on a stream where the drainage 

area is between 50 and 150 percent of the drainage area of a 

gaged site on the same stream. The peak streamflow estimates 

and values of the corresponding basin characteristics at the 

selected locations are listed in table 6. 

The four reaches that were previously dredged are located 

in and near the communities of Lafferty, Crabapple, Maynard, and Crescent (listed in upstream-to-downstream order). 

A total of 54 cross sections (including the 21 cross sections 

discussed previously) and 7 bridges were surveyed and used 

for model development. Additional GIS-derived cross sections 

were used to supplement the survey data. The locations of all 

cross sections are shown in figures 2a–5a (at back of report). 

The cross-section labels used for the hydraulic baseline for 

all reaches are referenced to river miles above the mouth of 

Wheeling Creek. The most upstream cross section near Lafferty is located 28.09 river miles above the mouth and the 

most downstream section, near Crescent, is located 11.88 river 

miles above the mouth. The starting water-surface elevation at 

the most downstream cross section of each reach was determined by means of a slope-conveyance calculation. 

Flood Elevations for Existing Conditions in 

Previously Dredged Reaches 

Water-surface elevations were calculated for floods having recurrence intervals of 2, 10, 50, and 100 years in four 

previously dredged reaches in the communities of Lafferty, 

Crabapple, Maynard, and Crescent (fig. 1) and are presented 

in table 7. All cross sections listed in table 7 were surveyed 

sections. 

Table 6. Basin characteristics and flood-peak streamflow estimates at selected sites along Wheeling Creek in Belmont County, Ohio. 

[mi2, square mile; ft/mi, foot per mile; ft3/s, cubic foot per second]

Nearest 

community Latitude Longitude

Drainage 

area 

(mi2

)

Mainchannel 

slopea

(ft/mi)

Water or 

wetland 

areab

(percent)

Flood-peak streamflow estimatesc

for selected recurrence intervals

(ft3

/s)

2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year

Lafferty 40° 06’ 35” -81° 01’ 10” 12.0 32.3 1.03 678 1,470 2,230 2,560

40° 06’ 40” -81° 00’ 59” 12.2 33.0 1.02 691 1,500 2,270 2,610

40° 06’ 43” -81° 00’ 53” 12.4 32.2 1.01 696 1,510 2,290 2,620

40° 06’ 38” -81° 00’ 31” 13.4 31.3 1.04 733 1,590 2,400 2,750

Crabapple 40° 06’ 52” -80° 57’ 22” 25.6 19.0 .79 1,170 2,440 3,640 4,150

40° 06’ 44” -80° 57’ 03” 45.3 17.8 1.10 1,750 3,580 5,280 6,010

Maynard 40° 07’ 15” -80° 53’ 08” 60.6 16.0 1.11 d

2,090 d4,230 d6,210 d7,070

40° 07’ 29” -80° 52’ 42” 68.2 14.9 1.22 d

2,200 d4,400 d6,460 d7,350

40° 06’ 40” -80° 52’ 43” 72.5 14.6 1.17 d

2,290 d4,560 d6,690 d7,610

Crescent 40° 07’ 17” -80° 51’ 47” 77.0 14.5 1.18 d

2,360 d4,690 d6,890 d7,850

40° 06’ 57” -80° 51’ 27” 81.0 14.1 1.14 d

2,430 d4,810 d7,060 d8,050

40° 06’ 45” -80° 51’ 31” 81.8 14.0 1.14 d

2,440 d4,840 d7,100 d8,090

a

 Computed as the difference in elevations (in feet) at points 10 and 85 percent of the distance along the main channel from the site to the topographic 

divide (following the longest path), divided by the channel distance (in miles) between the two points.

b

 Computed as the percentage of the total drainage area classified as water or wetlands in the 1992 National Land Cover Dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2000).

c

 Computed using StreamStats (Koltun and others, 2006). StreamStats is a Web-based tool that allows users to obtain streamflow statistics, drainage-basin 

characteristics, and other information for user-selected sites on streams.

d

 Discharge estimates for sites near Maynard and Crescent are gage-weighted using 18 years (1983–1987, 1989–2001) of streamflow data from 

Wheeling Creek below Blaine (station number 03111548) using methods described by Koltun and others (2006) for ungaged sites on a stream where the 

drainage area is between 50 and 150 percent of the drainage area of a gaged site on the same stream. 
Step-Backwater Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations 21

Table 7. Flood elevations for selected recurrence intervals with existing conditions in the four previously 

dredged reaches, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Bold font indicates flooding is out of the main channel by submerging the levee or from flowing around the levee; 

ROF, flow over road]

Distance from 

mouth of 

Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Site

Water-surface elevation for indicated recurrence interval

2 year 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

100 year 

(feet)

Lafferty

28.09 A-1 1,021.01 1,023.48 1,025.11 1,025.68

27.86 cross section 1,019.98 1,022.35 1,024.07 1,024.69

27.72 A-2 1,019.17 1,021.64 1,023.59 1,024.23

27.70 cross section 1,019.02 1,021.28 1,023.03 1,023.61

27.70 Brudzenski Road, Bridge ROF ROF

27.69 cross section 1,019.01 1,021.25 1,022.45 1,022.92

27.69 cross section 1,018.98 1,021.24 1,022.45 1,022.92

27.68 cross section 1,018.92 1,021.05 1,022.07 1,022.46

27.68 Railroad, Bridge

27.67 cross section 1,018.85 1,020.91 1,021.81 1,022.12

27.66 cross section 1,018.70 1,020.75 1,021.70 1,022.03

27.62 cross section 1,018.41 1,020.47 1,021.41 1,021.75

27.61 cross section 1,018.27 1,020.27 1,021.20 1,021.55

27.61 Park Entrance, Bridge ROF ROF ROF

27.60 cross section 1,018.07 1,019.87 1,020.99 1,021.46

27.60 cross section 1,018.02 1,019.86 1,020.98 1,021.44

27.50 A-3 1,017.04 1,019.14 1,020.55 1,021.08

27.17 A-4 1,015.18 1,016.22 1,016.98 1,017.18

Crabapple

22.37 B-1 928.73 931.20 932.67 933.25

22.27 B-2 927.65 930.01 931.81 932.48

22.19 B-3 926.98 929.52 931.27 931.93

22.12 B-4 926.22 928.39 929.79 930.32

22.07 B-5 925.64 927.95 929.44 930.01

Maynard

15.70 C-1 851.57 854.29 855.82 856.28

15.45 cross section 847.67 851.02 852.78 853.37

15.43 cross section 847.63 850.96 852.68 853.26

15.43 Fairport Road, Bridge ROF ROF ROF

15.42 cross section 847.48 850.85 852.29 852.76

15.42 cross section 847.32 850.73 852.27 852.76

15.30 C-2 845.89 849.14 850.90 851.47

15.08 C-3 844.43 847.28 848.84 849.51

14.97 C-4 843.63 846.33 848.66 849.37

14.95 cross section 843.40 846.11 848.40 849.14
22 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Table 7. Flood elevations for selected recurrence intervals with existing conditions in the four previously 

dredged reaches, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Bold font indicates flooding is out of the main channel by submerging the levee or from flowing around the levee; 

ROF, flow over road]

Distance from 

mouth of 

Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Site

Water-surface elevation for indicated recurrence interval

2 year 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

100 year 

(feet)

Maynard—Continued

14.94 Maynard Road, Bridge ROF ROF

14.93 cross section 843.22 845.98 847.79 848.55

14.92 cross section 843.06 845.73 847.74 848.51

14.60 C-5 838.90 841.25 842.22 842.55

14.44 C-6 837.45 840.08 841.34 841.80

14.24 C-7 835.57 838.13 839.48 840.00

Crescent

12.39 D-1 811.73 815.27 817.21 818.01

12.33 cross section 811.32 815.00 817.13 817.96

12.32 cross section 810.71 813.60 815.15 816.21

12.31 Crescent Road, Bridge ROF ROF

12.30 cross section 810.44 813.30 814.11 814.71

12.29 D-2 810.34 813.19 814.10 814.69

12.16 D-3 808.19 810.34 811.32 811.78

12.04 D-4 806.54 808.23 809.38 809.84

11.88 D-5 804.10 806.03 807.41 807.95

The bolded values in table 7 indicate water is on the 

flood plain11 beyond the levee (on one or both banks) at that 

particular cross section. The source of water on the flood 

plain may be from overtopping of the bank(s) or levee(s) at 

that cross section or from overbank flooding at an upstream 

or downstream cross section. At the bridges, the designation “ROF” (road overflow) indicates that flow overtopped 

the roadway. With the exception of the Lafferty reach, some 

flooding of the flood plain occurs in each reach, even at a 

2-year recurrence-interval flood. At a 10-year recurrenceinterval flood and larger, flood-plain flooding is widespread 

in all reaches studied. Additional GIS-derived cross sections 

were used in model development and tables 8–11 (at back of 

report) list water-surface elevations for the selected recurrence intervals for all cross sections used in the models for the 

previously dredged reaches. The locations of all cross sections 

are shown in figures 2a–5a (at back of report). Water-surface 

profiles estimated from the step-backwater models for existing 

conditions in dredged reaches of Wheeling Creek are shown in 

figures 2b–5b (at back of report).

11 A flood plain is the flat or nearly flat land that borders a stream and experiences occasional flooding.

The existing levees were constructed with the dredged 

channel material in 1985 and are not certified levees 

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006). They were not 

designed or intended to contain floods of large magnitude, 

such as the 100-year flood, but rather dredged materials were 

piled along the streambanks in an attempt to reduce (but not 

eliminate) flood-plain flooding. 

The levees ended at tributaries and road crossings where, 

during large floods, water can flow out onto the flood plain. 

At some cross-section locations, the levees are high enough to 

contain floodwater within the main channel, but because the 

heights of the levees are not uniform, water may flow around 

or over the levee at one or more locations upstream or downstream from the cross section. These conditions are illustrated 

in figure 14 where at cross section A, the levees on both sides 

of the channel are high enough to contain floodwater but 

water has spilled onto the flood plain at a location upstream or 

downstream from the levees. Cross section B shows the condition where floodwater has submerged the levee on the right 

bank and spilled onto the flood plain beyond. 
Step-Backwater Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations 23

Main channel 

Cross section B 

Cross section A 

Flood plain 

Flood plain 

Water surface 

Levee 

Levees 

Submerged levee 

Flood plain 

Flood plain 

Levee 

Submerged levee 

Flood plain 

Main-channel 

Flood plain 

Cross section B 

 flow 

Flood plain Cross section A 

Tributary 

Main channel 

Figure 14. Schematic diagram showing levee heights above the water-surface elevation and flooding 

on the landward side of the levees by water submerging or flowing around the levees, in 

plan view and cross-sectional plots. 

Figure 14. Schematic diagram showing levee heights above the water-surface elevation and flooding on the 

landward side of the levees by water submerging or flowing around the levees, in plan view and cross-sectional plots. 
24 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Flood Elevations for Simulated Levee Conditions 

in Previously Dredged Reaches 

The height of levees required to contain (within the main 

channel) floods with recurrence intervals of 2, 10, 50, and 

100 years was determined for the four previously dredged 

reaches (item 5, p. 2). The starting water-surface elevations 

used at the most downstream cross section for all profiles 

were the estimated water-surface elevations from the currentcondition models. As illustrated in figure 15, the levee heights 

were manually adjusted for each cross section by raising the 

top of the natural bank or the top of the existing levee using a 

2:1 ratio for the side slope of the levee extension. These manually raised levees will hereafter be referred to as “simulated 

levees.” If actual levees were constructed, it would be necessary to raise the levees further than indicated in this report to 

allow for freeboard and provide a margin of safety. Generally, 

levees were raised only at cross sections where man-made 

levees were already present. There were a few exceptions, 

discussed later, where levees were added to contain the flow 

within the main channel and to prevent water from flowing 

to a flood-plain area beyond the levee of an adjacent cross 

section. In cases where a valley wall near the bank provided 

natural containment, no levees were added. Each cross section 

was evaluated independently to decide if raising a levee was 

warranted. The openings of bridges were not modified so that 

current condition water-surface elevations could be compared 

to the simulated levee models. Additionally, levees were added 

(across the road) at some road crossings to contain all flow 

within the main channel and to prevent water from flowing to 

the flood plain. 

The models were constructed so that all flow was 

contained within the main channel on the streamward side of 

the levees so that flood-plain areas beyond the levees remain 

dry. For example, the models do not permit water from the 

main channel to spill out onto the flood plain at the mouths of 

tributaries. 

840

845

850

855

860

1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350

ELEVATION, IN FEET

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

Maynard, 15.43 miles upstream from the mouth of Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio

Current 100-year water surface

Flood plain

Existing levee Main channel

860

Maynard, 15.43 miles upstream from the mouth of Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio

100-year water surface with simulated levees

A

Existing levee

 Figure 15. Plot showing cross-sectional data for a previously dredged site with current conditions (A) and 

 with simulated levees (B) required to contain a 100-year flood.

840

845

850

855

1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350

ELEVATION, IN FEET

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

100 year water surface with simulated levees

Flood plain

Simulated levees

Main channel

B

Figure 15. Plot showing cross-sectional data for a previously dredged site with (A) current conditions and (B) simulated levees 

required to contain a 100-year flood. 
Step-Backwater Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations 25

The simulated levee models generally show an increase 

in the water-surface elevations as compared to the current 

conditions model, but in some cases the water-surface elevations were slightly lower. The lower water-surface elevations 

may result from having all flow contained within the channel, where composite roughness values tend to be lower and 

velocities are higher.

Table 12 shows a summary for the four reaches studied 

and the vertical distances between the existing top-of-levee 

elevations and the water-surface elevations determined in 

the simulated levee models. The distance from top of levee 

to the water surface for the selected recurrence interval was 

determined by subtracting the minimum of the left- and 

right-bank levee elevations from the water-surface elevations. 

Consequently, a positive value indicates the vertical distance 

the existing levee must be raised to contain the flood and a 

negative value indicates the vertical distance below the top of 

the existing levee to the water surface.

There are two areas were levees were added to cross 

sections where no levee existed before in order to contain the 

flow within the main channel and prevent water from flowing to a flood plain area beyond the levee of an adjacent cross 

section. At the lower end of the reach near Crabapple (cross 

sections B-4 and B-5), levees were added on the left flood 

plain to prevent water from flowing to upstream flood-plain 

areas. In Maynard, levees where added on the right flood plain 

at cross section C-4 and just upstream of cross section C-5 

(river mile 14.92) to prevent water from flowing to upstream 

flood-plain areas. 

There are two cross sections without existing levees 

where no simulated levees were added because the valley 

wall contained all simulated flood waters near the left bank 

and the right bank flood plain was undeveloped. One location 

was near Lafferty cross section A-3 and the other was near 

Maynard cross section C-7. Since these sites have no existing 

levees, they were not included in the percentage results for 

levee height needed to contain the selected recurrence intervals discussed below.

The existing levees contain the 100-year flood at only 

20 percent of the surveyed cross sections. At the other 80 percent of the surveyed cross sections, levee heights would have 

to be raised as much as 6.3 ft to contain the 100-year flood, 

with an average increase of 2.5 ft. The existing levees contain 

the 50-year flood at 32 percent of the surveyed cross sections. 

At the other 68 percent of the surveyed cross sections, levee 

heights would have to be raised as much as 6.2 ft to contain 

the 50-year flood, with an average increase of 2.2 ft. 

Table 12 shows the summary for only the surveyed cross 

sections used in the simulated levee models, even though 

additional GIS-derived sections were also used for model 

development. All cross sections used to develop models for 

current conditions and simulated levee conditions are shown 

in tables 8–11 (at back of report). The locations of all surveyed 

cross sections are shown in figures 2a–5a (at back of report).

Table 12. Summary of the measured levee elevation and the distance from top of measured levee to the water 

surface for indicated recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches of Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, 

Ohio. —Continued

[Bold font indicates the increase in levee heights, in feet, required to contain flood peak streamflows for the selected recurrence 

intervals; the heights shown include no freeboard]

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Site

Minimum 

measured 

levee 

elevation, 

current 

conditions 

(feet)

Distance from top of minimum measured 

levee elevations to water-surface elevations 

for indicated recurrence intervals 

(in feet)

2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year

Lafferty

28.09 A-1 1,021.3 -0.3 2.6 4.7 5.5

27.86 cross section 1,024.9 -4.9 -2.2 -.2 .6

27.72 A-2 1,021.2 -2.0 .4 2.3 3.1

27.70 cross section 1,022.6 -3.6 -1.2 .6 1.4

27.70 Brudzenski Road, Bridge

27.69 cross section 1,023.5 -4.5 -2.2 -.9 -.4

27.69 cross section 1,022.4 -3.4 -1.1 .2 .6

27.68 cross section 1,026.7 -7.8 -5.6 -4.4 -4.0

27.68 Railroad, Bridge

27.67 cross section 1,023.3 -4.4 -2.3 -1.3 -.9

27.66 cross section 1,019.5 -.8 1.4 2.3 2.7

27.62 cross section 1,019.1 -.6 1.5 2.4 2.8

27.61 cross section 1,020.0 -1.7 .4 1.4 1.8
26 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Table 12. Summary of the measured levee elevation and the distance from top of measured levee to the water 

surface for indicated recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches of Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, 

Ohio. —Continued

[Bold font indicates the increase in levee heights, in feet, required to contain flood peak streamflows for the selected recurrence 

intervals; the heights shown include no freeboard]

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Site

Minimum 

measured 

levee 

elevation, 

current 

conditions 

(feet)

Distance from top of minimum measured 

levee elevations to water-surface elevations 

for indicated recurrence intervals 

(in feet)

2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year

Lafferty—Continued

27.61 Park Entrance, Bridge

27.60 cross section 1,020.0 -1.9 0.1 1.3 1.7

27.60 cross section 1,020.6 -2.5 -.5 .7 1.1

a

27.50 aA-3 a1,018.2 a-1.2 a.9 a2.3 a2.9

27.17 A-4 1,019.0 -3.8 -2.8 -2.0 -1.8

Crabapple

22.37 B-1 931.8 -3.1 -.4 1.5 2.2

22.27 B-2 931.7 -4.1 -1.3 .7 1.4

22.19 B-3 931.3 -4.3 -1.8 -.1 .5

22.12 B-4 926.2 .0 2.4 3.9 4.5

22.07 B-5 925.2 .4 2.8 4.2 4.8

Maynard

15.70 C-1 851.8 -.3 2.5 4.5 5.4

15.45 cross section 851.9 -4.4 -1.0 1.8 2.7

15.43 cross section 852.1 -4.7 -1.3 1.6 2.5

15.43 Fairport Road, Bridge

15.42 cross section 851.4 -4.2 -.7 1.6 2.5

15.42 cross section 852.4 -5.3 -1.9 .3 1.1

15.30 C-2 848.7 -3.1 .2 2.3 3.1

15.08 C-3 849.8 -5.6 -2.7 -.6 .1

14.97 C-4 849.1 -5.7 -2.9 -.9 -.2

14.95 cross section 848.5 -5.4 -2.5 -.5 .2

14.94 Maynard Road, Bridge

14.93 cross section 845.7 -2.8 .2 2.1 2.9

14.92 cross section 845.7 -3.0 .0 1.9 2.7

14.60 C-5 842.0 -3.4 -.6 .9 1.4

14.44 C-6 838.5 -1.3 1.3 2.5 2.9

a

14.24 aC-7 a836.8 a-1.2 a1.3 a2.7 a3.2

Crescent

12.39 D-1 813.8 -2.3 .7 3.9 4.1

12.33 cross section 811.3 -.3 2.9 6.2 6.3

12.32 cross section 814.3 -3.6 -.7 2.8 2.8

12.31 Crescent Road, Bridge

12.30 cross section 813.2 -2.8 .1 2.1 2.9

12.29 D-2 815.3 -5.0 -2.1 -.1 .6

12.16 D-3 812.8 -4.6 -2.5 -1.1 -.6

12.04 D-4 810.6 -4.1 -2.4 -1.2 -.8

11.88 D-5 811.8 -7.7 -5.8 -4.4 -3.8

a

 No existing levee at this site. The elevation at the top of the right bank was used as the minimum measured levee elevation and 

no simulated levees were added to this site.
Step-Backwater Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations 27

Flood Elevations for Simulated Dredging and 

Aggradation Conditions in Undredged Reaches

Step-backwater models corresponding to 2-, 10-, 50-, and 

100-year floods were developed for three undredged reaches 

(fig. 1) to estimate the effect of selected hypothetical instream 

dredging (without levee construction) and aggradation scenarios (item 6, p. 2). The dredging and aggradation processes 

were modeled by systematically lowering or raising all current 

bed elevations between the toes of the existing streambanks. 

This resulted in a change in the cross-sectional area of the 

channel (fig. 16). The channel and overbank roughness were 

not changed from existing conditions.

To simulate dredging, the streambed was lowered in 1.0 ft 

increments to a minimum elevation 4.0 ft lower than the existing streambed. In this part of the state of Ohio, the streambed 

typically is dredged 2 to 3 ft, but generally no more than 4 ft 

(Steven Porter, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington, 

W.V., oral commun., 2006). To simulate the aggradation 

process, the streambed was raised in 1.0-ft increments up to an 

elevation 2.0 ft higher than the existing streambed. Each cross 

section was evaluated individually to identify the toe of the 

streambank, and all points between the toes of the streambank 

were lowered or raised by the appropriate 1.0-ft increments to 

simulate dredging or aggradation.

The flood elevations at each cross section for the current conditions and the dredging and aggradation simulations 

are shown in tables 13–15 (at back of report). The locations 

of cross sections in the three undredged reaches are shown 

in figures 17a–19a (at back of report). Water-surface profiles for existing conditions of dredged reaches of Wheeling 

Creek estimated from the step-backwater models are shown 

in figures 17b–19b (at back of report). Summary statistics 

(maximum, minimum, mean, and median) for the dredging 

and aggradation simulations are presented in table 16. 

As illustrated in table 16, modifications to the channel, 

such as dredging and aggradation, have the least effect on 

the 100-year water-surface elevations and the greatest effect 

on the 2-year water-surface elevations. This is because for 

the 100-year flood, a larger portion of the total flow is over 

the flood plains where the change in water-surface elevation 

results in a relatively large change in flow area and conveyance relative to the main channel. For example, as indicated in 

table 16, lowering the streambed by 2.0 ft (simulated dredging) in reach 2 between Maynard and Crescent would, on 

average, lower the mean 2-year water-surface elevation within 

the reach by 1.41 ft and lower the mean 100-year water-surface elevation within the reach by only 0.77 ft. Similarly, raising the streambed by 1.0 ft (simulated aggradation) in reach 2 

would, on average, raise the mean 2-year water-surface elevation within the reach by 0.63 ft and raise the mean 100-year 

water-surface elevation within the reach by only 0.39 ft. 

Undredged Reach 2, 13.89 miles upstream from the mouth of Wheeling Creek, 

Belmont County, Ohio

820

822

824

826

828

830

832

834

836

838

840

290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

ELEVATION, IN FEET 

Raise bed 2 feet 

Raise bed 1 foot

Current cross-section profile

Lower bed 2 feet

Lower bed 4 feet

Toe of streambank

Figure 16. Plot of cross-sectional data for an undredged site showing current conditions and selected 

conditions where the streambed was lowered or raised to simulate dredging and aggradation.

Figure 16. Plot of cross-sectional data for an undredged site showing current conditions and selected conditions 

where the streambed was lowered or raised to simulate dredging and aggradation. 
28 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Table 16. Change in water-surface elevations, in feet, for indicated flood recurrence intervals, in years, and change in bed 

elevation, in feet, for three undredged reaches, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. 

Recurrence 

interval

Reach 1 near Lafferty Reach 2 between 

Maynard and Crescent Reach 3 below Crescent

2 10 50 100 2 10 50 100 2 10 50 100

Statistic

Raise bed 2 feet Raise bed 2 feet Raise bed 2 feet

Maximum 1.17 0.59 0.46 0.43 1.59 1.60 1.34 1.45 1.21 0.93 0.84 0.82

Minimum .60 .49 .38 .34 .88 .36 .28 .25 .93 .77 .73 .72

Mean .93 .55 .42 .38 1.23 .90 .81 .78 1.12 .86 .79 .78

Median .94 .55 .41 .38 1.25 .91 .81 .80 1.15 .88 .79 .79

Raise bed 1 foot Raise bed 1 foot Raise bed 1 foot

Maximum .52 .31 .24 .22 .78 .82 .69 .66 .65 .47 .42 .41

Minimum .31 .23 .19 .17 .44 .18 .14 .12 .48 .38 .36 .35

Mean .41 .28 .21 .19 .63 .45 .40 .39 .59 .43 .39 .39

Median .41 .28 .20 .19 .63 .45 .40 .39 .63 .43 .38 .39

Lower bed 1 foot Lower bed 1 foot Lower bed 1 foot

Maximum -.76 -.34 -.26 -.24 -.82 -.73 -.71 -.68 -.77 -.47 -.40 -.39

Minimum -.32 -.23 -.20 -.18 -.50 -.14 -.13 -.12 -.49 -.38 -.34 -.33

Mean -.58 -.30 -.22 -.20 -.68 -.45 -.40 -.38 -.65 -.43 -.38 -.36

Median -.59 -.31 -.22 -.20 -.69 -.45 -.40 -.39 -.67 -.42 -.38 -.36

Lower bed 2 feet Lower bed 2 feet Lower bed 2 feet

Maximum -1.32 -.73 -.54 -.49 -1.68 -1.40 -1.45 -1.38 -1.66 -1.00 -.83 -.80

Minimum -.68 -.36 -.40 -.36 -1.05 -.32 -.27 -.24 -1.00 -.79 -.69 -.66

Mean -1.11 -.62 -.46 -.41 -1.41 -.94 -.80 -.77 -1.38 -.91 -.77 -.74

Median -1.17 -.63 -.45 -.40 -1.43 -.93 -.82 -.77 -1.47 -.89 -.78 -.74

Lower bed 3 feet Lower bed 3 feet Lower bed 3 feet

Maximum -2.16 -1.55 -.83 -.76 -2.61 -2.04 -2.22 -2.11 -2.55 -1.61 -1.29 -1.23

Minimum -1.42 -.72 -.60 -.56 -1.63 -.57 -.42 -.37 -1.52 -1.24 -1.05 -1.01

Mean -1.88 -1.10 -.71 -.64 -2.18 -1.45 -1.19 -1.15 -2.14 -1.47 -1.19 -1.13

Median -1.89 -1.08 -.69 -.62 -2.20 -1.44 -1.25 -1.16 -2.31 -1.45 -1.21 -1.15

Lower bed 4 feet Lower bed 4 feet Lower bed 4 feet

Maximum -3.05 -2.07 -1.15 -1.05 -3.59 -2.67 -2.85 -2.87 -3.48 -2.40 -1.79 -1.68

Minimum -2.25 -.98 -.81 -.75 -2.36 -.94 -.52 -.52 -2.27 -1.74 -1.44 -1.38

Mean -2.71 -1.56 -.97 -.87 -3.02 -2.00 -1.62 -1.53 -3.00 -2.12 -1.65 -1.55

Median -2.68 -1.58 -.95 -.85 -3.07 -2.03 -1.65 -1.57 -3.19 -2.17 -1.64 -1.59
Step-Backwater Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations 29

Figure 20 illustrates the effect of lowering the bed elevation 2.0 ft (fig. 20A) and raising the bed 1.0 ft (fig. 20B) on 

the water-surface elevations corresponding to the 2-year and 

100-year recurrence-interval floods. It is evident from fig. 20 

that the change in water-surface elevation due to the change 

in bed elevation is smaller for the 100-year flood than for the 

2-year flood.

In general, as the proportion of flow in the flood plain 

increased, the change in water-surface elevation decreased 

for a given increase or decrease in the bed elevation. Consequently, stream channels with wide flood plains will likely 

experience proportionally smaller changes in water-surface 

elevation due to dredging or aggradation than reaches where 

the valley is narrow and the flood plains are small or nonexistent. 

Figure 20. Plots of cross-sectional data for an undredged site with current conditions and changes in bed 

elevations, and the corresponding water-surface elevations for the 2- and 100-year flood recurrence intervals. 

822

824

826

828

830

832

834

836

838

840

290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

Undredged Reach 2, 13.89 miles upstream from the mouth of Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio

822

824

826

828

830

832

834

836

838

840

290 310 330 350 370 390 410 430 450 470 490

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

Current 100-year water surface

100-year water surface with bed lowered 2 feet

Current 2-year water surface

2-year water surface with bed lowered 2 feet

Current cross-section profile

Streambed lowered 2 feet

Toe of stream bank

A

B

Undredged Reach 2, 13.89 miles upstream from the mouth of Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio

ELEVATION, IN FEET ELEVATION, IN FEET

100-year water surface with bed raised 1 foot

Current 100-year water surface

2-year water surface with bed raised 1 foot

Current 2-year water surface

Streambed raised 1 foot

Current conditions

Toe of stream bank
30 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Summary and Conclusions

Wheeling Creek in eastern Ohio has a long history of 

flooding that has resulted in several deaths and extensive 

damage to public and private property. In 1985, in response 

to residents’ concerns about flooding that occurred in 1979 

through 1981, portions of Wheeling Creek were dredged 

and the dredged materials were used to construct uncertified levees. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted 

stream-channel cross-sectional surveys before and after the 

dredging (1987) to assess stream-channel stability. 

In 2004, an unusual number of large floods occurred. As 

a result of these floods, the USGS, in cooperation with the 

Ohio Emergency Management Agency, conducted a study 

in the Wheeling Creek Basin to (1) evaluate and contrast 

land-cover characteristics from 2001 with characteristics from 

1979 and 1992; (2) compare current streambed elevation, 

slope, and geometry with conditions present in the late 1980s; 

(3) look for evidence of channel filling and over widening in 

selected undredged reaches; (4) estimate flood elevations for 

existing conditions in both undredged and previously dredged 

reaches; (5) evaluate the height of the levees required to 

contain floods with selected recurrence intervals in previously 

dredged reaches; and (6) estimate flood elevations for several 

hypothetical dredging and streambed aggradation scenarios in 

undredged reaches. 

The amount of barren land in the Wheeling Creek 

watershed has decreased from 20 to 1 percent of the basin area 

based on land-cover characteristics from 1979 and 2001. Barren lands appear to have been converted primarily to pasture, 

presumably as a result of surface-mine reclamation. Croplands 

also decreased from 13 to 8 percent of the basin area. The 

combined decrease in barren lands and croplands is approximately offset by the increase in pasture.

Stream-channel surveys conducted in 1987 and again 

in 2006 at 21 sites in four previously dredged reaches of 

Wheeling Creek indicate little net change in the elevation, 

slope, and geometry of the channel at most sites. The mean 

change in width-averaged bed and thalweg elevations for the 

21 cross sections was 0.1 ft. 

Bankfull widths, mean depths, and cross-sectional areas 

measured at 12 sites in undredged reaches were compared 

to estimates determined from regional equations. The mean 

percentage difference between measured and estimated bankfull widths was -0.2 percent, suggesting that bankfull widths 

in the Wheeling Creek Basin are generally about the same as 

regional averages for undisturbed basins of identical drainage area. For bankfull mean depth and cross-sectional area, 

the mean percentage differences between the measured and 

estimated values were -16.0 and -11.2, respectively. The predominantly negative bias in differences between the measured 

and estimated values indicates that bankfull mean depths and 

cross-sectional areas in studied reaches generally are smaller 

than the regional trend. This may be an indication of channel 

filling and over widening or it may reflect insufficient representation in the regional dataset of basins with characteristics 

similar to Wheeling Creek. 

Step-backwater models were constructed for four previously dredged reaches to determine the height of levees 

required to contain floods with recurrence intervals of 2, 10, 

50, and 100 years. Existing levees (all of which are uncertified) were found to contain the 100-year flood at only 20 percent of the surveyed cross sections. At the other 80 percent of 

the surveyed cross sections, levee heights would have to be 

raised an average of 2.5 ft and as much as 6.3 ft to contain the 

100-year flood. 

Step-backwater models also were constructed for three 

undredged reaches to assess the impacts of selected dredging 

and streambed aggradation scenarios on water-surface elevations corresponding to the 2-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year floods. 

Those models demonstrated that changes in water-surface 

elevations associated with a given depth of dredging were 

proportionately smaller for larger floods due to the fact that 

more of the flood waters are outside of the main channel. For 

example, 2.0 ft of dredging in the three study reaches would 

lower the water-surface elevation an average of 1.30 ft for the 

2-year flood and 0.64 ft for the 100-year flood. 

While results presented in this report are specific to 

Wheeling Creek, conclusions drawn from the hypothetical 

assessments are expected to be applicable to other 

basins in eastern Ohio with characteristics similar to the 

Wheeling Creek Basin.

Acknowledgments

This report represents a compilation of information supplied by many agencies and individuals. The authors acknowledge the general support and contributions of the Belmont 

County Engineer’s Department and the Belmont County GIS 

Department. 

References Cited

Berryhill, H.L., Jr., 1963, Geology and Coal Resources of Belmont County, Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 380, 113 p., 29 pls.

Burden, R.L., and Faires, J.D., 2000, Numerical Analysis 

(7th ed.): Pacific Grove, Calif., Brooks/Cole Publishing 

Company, 841 p.

Cowan, W.L., 1956, Estimating hydraulic roughness coefficients: Agricultural Engineering, v. 37, p. 437–475.

Emmett, W.W., 2004, A historical perspective on regional 

channel geometry curves: Fort Collins, Colo., Stream Systems Technology Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Stream 

Notes January 2004, 2 p.
References Cited 31

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2003, Guidelines 

and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, 5 p., 

available online at http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.

do?id=2206, accessed December 26, 2007.

Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., and Potyondy, J.P., 1994, 

Stream channel reference sites—An illustrated guide to 

field technique: USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report RM–245, 61 p.

Koltun, G.F., 1988, Analysis of postdredging bed-level 

changes in selected reaches of Wheeling Creek, eastern 

Ohio, 1985–87: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 88–4119, 14 p.

Koltun, G.F., Kula, S.P., and Puskas, B.M., 2006, A Streamflow Statistics (StreamStats) Web Application for 

Ohio: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2006–5312, 62 p.

Kolva, J.R., and Koltun, G.F., 1987, Flooding and sedimentation in Wheeling Creek basin, Belmont County, Ohio: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 87–4053, 33 p.

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, W.G., and Miller, J.P., 1964, Fluvial processes in geomorphology: San Francisco, Calif., 

W.H. Freeman, 522 p.

McKelvey, A.T., 1903, Centennial history of Belmont 

County: Chicago, Ill., Biographical Publishing Co., 833 p., 

(Reprinted 1977, Knightown, Ind., by Bookmark)

Office of Surface Mine Reclamation and Enforcement, 1977, 

Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), Public Law 95–87, available online at http://www.osmre.gov/

aml/inven/z411_in.htm, accessed April 28, 2008.

Schumacher, S.D., Boone, K.M., and Brown, L.C., 1993, 

Belmont County Water Resources: Ohio State University 

Extension AEX–490.07, 9 p.

Sherwood, J.M., and Huitger, C.A., 2005, Bankfull characteristics of Ohio streams and their relation to peak streamflows: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2005–5153, 38 p.

Shindel, H.L., 1991, Flood of June 14–15, 1990, in Belmont, 

Jefferson, and Harrison Counties, Ohio, with emphasis on Pipe and Wegee Creek Basins near Shadyside: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 91–4147, 33 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering 

Center, 2002a, HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Hydraulic 

Reference Manual, Version 3.1, 377 p., available online at 

http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/documents/

HEC-RAS_Reference_Manual.pdf, accessed March 17, 

2008.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2002b, HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Applications 

Guide, Version 3.1, 356 p., available online at http://www.

hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/documents/HEC-RAS_

Applications_Guide.pdf, accessed March 17, 2008.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006, Levee Certification for 

the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Fact Sheet 10–2–2006, 2 p., available online at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/nfrmp/docs/

USACE%20Levee%20Certification%20Fact%20Sheet_

Oct06.pdf, accessed March 31, 2008.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2000, National Land Cover Dataset 

1992 (version 03-16-2000): U.S. Geological Survey data, 

available online at http://landcover.usgs.gov/natllandcover.

php, accessed July 3, 2007.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2001, National Land Cover Database: 

U.S. Geological Survey database, available online at http://

www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k_nlcd.asp, accessed April 10, 2007.

Wheeling Creek Watershed Action Committee Agency Task 

Force, 1983, Wheeling Creek watershed flooding and 

sedimentation investigation: Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources, 121 p.

Wolman, M.G., and Leopold, L.B., 1957, River flood plains—

Some observations on their formation: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 282–C, 107 p.

Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1960, Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes: Journal of Geology, v. 68, p. 54–74.

Maps and Water-Surface Profiles
34 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Figure 2a. Locations of cross sections used to create step-backwater model of dredged reaches of Wheeling Creek in the 

community of Lafferty, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of Wheeling Creek in yellow. Sites are labeled in 

white. 

Wheeling Creek Basin Road

 EXPLANATION

Wheeling Creek

Cross sections surveyed in 2006

Cross sections from triangular irregular network

Cross sections surveyed in 1987 and 2006

81°01'20" 81°01' 81°00'40"

40°06'50"

40°06'30"

0 0.1 0.2 MILE

0 0.1 0.2 KILOMETER

Base digital orthophoto from Belmont County,

Base digital line graph from Belmont County, scale 1:2,400

Other digital data from U.S. Geological Survey,

State Plane Ohio South Projection

C10 Harrah St

C72 Mt Hope Rd

T392 Chini-Orchard Rd

28.09

28.04 27.99

27.94

27.91

27.87

27.86

27.84

27.80

27.76

27.74

27.72

27.70

27.69

27.69

27.68

27.67

27.66

27.62

27.61

27.6027.60

27.56

27.50

27.46

27.44 27.41

27.40

27.38

27.35

27.30

27.27

27.22

27.21

27.19

27.18

27.17

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4
Maps and Water-Surface Profiles 35

Figure 2b. Water-surface profiles estimated from step-backwater models for existing conditions of dredged reach of 

Wheeling Creek in the community of Lafferty, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of Wheeling Creek. 28.09 28.04 27.99 27.94 27.91 27.86 27.84 27.80 27.76 27.74 27.72 27.69 27.56 27.50 27.46 27.44 27.41 27.38 27.35 27.30 27.27 27.18 27.19 27.21 27.22 27.17 27.60 27.62 27.61 27.6027.66 27.67 27.70 27.68 27.87 27.40

990

995

1,000

1,005

1,010

1,015

1,020

1,025

1,030

28.20 28.10 28.00 27.90 27.80 27.70 27.60 27.50 27.40 27.30 27.20 27.10

DISTANCE FROM MOUTH OF WHEELING CREEK, IN RIVER MILES

ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

990

995

1000

1005

1010

1015

1020

1025

 Water-surface elevation for indicated recurrence interval

 Minimum channel elevation at indicated cross section

 Surveyed cross section

 Bridge

Brudzenski Road

Railroad

Park Entrance

100 year

50 year

10 year

2 year

EXPLANATION
36 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Figure 3a. Locations of cross sections used to create step-backwater model of dredged reach of Wheeling Creek in the community 

of Crabapple, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of Wheeling Creek in yellow. Sites are labeled in white. 

Wheeling Creek Basin

C10 Crabapple Rd

22.37

C10 Crabapple Rd

22.31

22.27 22.23

22.19

22.16

22.12

22.09

22.07

B-1

B-2 B-3 B-4

B-5

80°57'30" 80°57'20"

40°07'

40°06'50"

0 0.05 0.1 MILE

0 0.05 0.1 KILOMETER

Base digital orthophoto from Belmont County,

Base digital line graph from Belmont County, scale 1:2,400

Other digital data from U.S. Geological Survey,

State Plane Ohio South Projection

Road

 EXPLANATION

Wheeling Creek

Cross sections surveyed in 2006

Cross sections from triangular irregular network

Cross sections surveyed in 1987 and 2006
Maps and Water-Surface Profiles 37

Figure 3b. Water-surface profiles estimated from step-backwater models for existing conditions of dredged reach 

of Wheeling Creek in the community of Crabapple, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of 

Wheeling Creek. 

22.07

22.09

22.12

22.16

22.19

22.27

22.31

22.37

22.23

910

914

918

922

926

930

934

938

22.44 22.40 22.36 22.32 22.28 22.24 22.20 22.16 22.12 22.08 22.04

DISTANCE FROM MOUTH OF WHEELING CREEK, IN RIVER MILES

ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

990

995

1000

1005

1010

1015

1020

1025

1030

22.40 22.30 22.20 22.10 22.00

 Water-surface elevation for indicated recurrence interval

 Minimum channel elevation at indicated cross section

 Surveyed cross section

100 year

50 year

. 10 year

2 year

EXPLANATION
38 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Figure 4a. Locations of cross sections used to create step-backwater model of dredged reach of Wheeling Creek in the 

community of Maynard, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of Wheeling Creek in yellow. Sites are 

labeled in white. 

80°53' 80°52'30"

40°7'30"

40°7'

0 0.1 0.2 MILE

0 0.1 0.2 KILOMETER

Road

 EXPLANATION

Wheeling Creek

Cross sections surveyed in 2006

Cross sections from triangular irregular network

Cross sections surveyed in 1987 and 2006

Base digital orthophoto from Belmont County,

Base digital line graph from Belmont County, scale 1:2,400

Other digital data from U.S. Geological Survey,

State Plane Ohio South Projection

Wheeling Creek Basin

C56 Maynard Rd

15.70

Crescent Rd

C56 MaynardC10 Fairport-Maynard Rd

15.65

15.60

15.55

15.49

15.45

15.43

15.42

15.42

15.38

15.34

15.30

15.25

15.19

15.13

15.08 15.02 14.97

14.95

14.93

14.92

14.87

14.82

14.76

14.72

14.66

14.63

14.60

14.54

14.49

14.44

14.39

14.34

14.29

14.24

C-1

C-2

C-3

C-4

C-5

C-6

C-7
Maps and Water-Surface Profiles 39

Figure 4b. Water-surface profiles estimated from step-backwater models for existing conditions of dredged reach 

of Wheeling Creek in the community of Maynard, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of 

Wheeling Creek. 

14.24

14.29

14.34

14.39

14.44

14.54

14.60

14.63

14.66

14.72

14.76

14.87

15.25

15.30

15.34

15.38

15.49

15.55

15.42

15.45

15.43

15.70

15.65

15.60

15.19

15.02

15.13

15.08

14.9714.95

14.82

14.93

14.49

810

815

820

825

830

835

840

845

850

855

860

865

15.90 15.70 15.50 15.30 15.10 14.90 14.70 14.50 14.30 14.10

DISTANCE FROM MOUTH OF WHEELING CREEK, IN RIVER MILES

810

815

820

825

830

835

840

845

850

855

860

865

 Water-surface elevation for indicated recurrence interval

 Minimum channel elevation at indicated cross section

 Surveyed cross section

 Bridge

Maynard Road

100 year

50 year

10 year

. 2 year

Fairport Road

ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

EXPLANATION
40 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Figure 5a. Locations of cross sections used to create step-backwater model of dredged reach of Wheeling Creek in the 

community of Crescent, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of Wheeling Creek in yellow. Sites are 

labeled in white. 

C10 Maynard-Crescent Rd

11.88

C5 Crescent Rd

11.95

12.04

12.10

12.12

12.14

12.16

12.18

12.21

12.26

12.29

12.30

12.32 12.33 12.39

D-1

D-2

D-3

D-4

D-5

Wheeling Creek Basin

Base digital orthophoto from Belmont County,

Base digital line graph from Belmont County, scale 1:2,400

Other digital data from U.S. Geological Survey,

State Plane Ohio South Projection

80°51'50" 80°51'30"

40°7'20"

40°7'

0 0.05 0.1 MILE

0 0.05 0.1 KILOMETER

Road

 EXPLANATION

Wheeling Creek

Cross sections surveyed in 2006

Cross sections from triangular irregular network

Cross sections surveyed in 1987 and 2006
Maps and Water-Surface Profiles 41

Figure 5b. Water-surface profiles estimated from step-backwater models for existing conditions of dredged reach of 

Wheeling Creek in the community of Crescent, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of Wheeling Creek. 11.8811.9512.0412.10 12.12 12.1612.1812.21 12.26 12.29 12.30 12.3312.32 12.14

786

790

794

798

802

806

810

814

818

822

12.50 12.40 12.30 12.20 12.10 12.00 11.90 11.80

DISTANCE FROM MOUTHOFWHEELINGCREEK, INRIVER MILES

ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

786

790

794

798

802

806

810

814

818

 Water-surface elevation for indicated recurrence interval

 Minimum channel elevation at indicated cross section

 Surveyed cross section

 Bridge

100 year

50 year

10 year

2 year

Crescent Road

EXPLANATION
42 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Figure 17a. Locations of cross sections used to create step-backwater model of undredged reach of Wheeling Creek below the 

community of Lafferty, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of Wheeling Creek in yellow. Site is labeled in 

white. 

Wheeling Creek Basin

81°00'30" 81°00'20" 81°00'10"

40°06'40"

40°06'30"

0 0.05 0.1 MILE

0 0.05 0.1 KILOMETER

Road

 EXPLANATION

Wheeling Creek

Cross sections surveyed in 2006

Cross sections from triangular irregular network

Base digital orthophoto from Belmont County,

Base digital line graph from Belmont County, scale 1:2,400

Other digital data from U.S. Geological Survey,

State Plane Ohio South Projection

C10 Lafferty Rd

27.04

27.04

26.98

26.94

26.90 26.87 26.86

26.86 26.85

26.80

26.74

26.70
Maps and Water-Surface Profiles 43

Figure 17b. Water-surface profiles estimated from step-backwater models for existing conditions of undredged reach 

of Wheeling Creek below the community of Lafferty, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of 

Wheeling Creek. 

26.70

26.74

26.80

26.90

26.94

26.98

27.0427.04

26.85

26.86

26.87

26.86

990

992

994

996

998

1,000

1,002

1,004

1,006

1,008

1,010

1,012

1,014

1,016

27.08 27.04 27.00 26.96 26.92 26.88 26.84 26.80 26.76 26.72 26.68

DISTANCE FROM MOUTH OF WHEELING CREEK, IN RIVER MILES

ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

990

992

994

996

998

1000

1002

1004

1006

1008

1010

1012

1014

 Water-surface elevation for indicated recurrence interval

 Minimum channel elevation at indicated cross section

 Surveyed cross section

 Bridge

100 year

50 year

10 year

2 year

Industrial site #1

EXPLANATION
44 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Figure 18a. Locations of cross sections used to create step-backwater model of undredged reach of Wheeling Creek between the 

communities of Maynard and Crescent, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of Wheeling Creek in yellow. 

Sites are labeled in white. 

80°52'40" 80°52'20" 80°52'

40°07'

40°06'40"

0 0.1 0.2 MILE

0 0.1 0.2 KILOMETER

 EXPLANATION

Road

Wheeling Creek

Cross sections surveyed in 2006

Cross sections from triangular irregular network

Bankfull cross sections 

Base digital orthophoto from Belmont County,

Base digital line graph from Belmont County, scale 1:2,400

Other digital data from U.S. Geological Survey,

State Plane Ohio South Projection

C10 Maynard-Crescent Rd

14.18

C5 Crescent Rd

14.12

14.06

14.00

13.95

13.89

13.83

13.80

13.76

13.72

13.69 13.63

13.58

13.53 13.47

13.41

13.36

13.30

13.24

13.18

13.12

13.07

13.03

13.00

12.95

12.90

12.85

12.79

12.73 12.68

12.62

12.56

12.51

12.46

BF-9

BF-10

Wheeling Creek Basin
Maps and Water-Surface Profiles 45

Figure 18b. Water-surface profiles estimated from step-backwater models for existing conditions of undredged reach of 

Wheeling Creek between the communities of Maynard and Crescent, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the 

mouth of Wheeling Creek. 

12.46

12.51

12.56

12.85

12.90

12.95

13.12

13.63

13.72

13.76

14.00

14.06

13.69

13.00

13.03

12.62

12.68

12.79

13.80

13.95

13.89

14.18

14.12

13.58

13.41

13.53

13.47

13.36

13.30

13.07

13.24

12.73

785

790

795

800

805

810

815

820

825

830

835

840

845

850

14.40 14.20 14.00 13.80 13.60 13.40 13.20 13.00 12.80 12.60 12.40

DISTANCE FROM MOUTH OF WHEELING CREEK, IN RIVER MILES

ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

785

790

795

800

805

810

815

820

825

830

835

840

845

850

14.40 14.20 14.00 13.80 13.60 13.40 13.20 13.00 12.80 12.60 12.40

 Water-surface elevation for indicated recurrence interval

 Minimum channel elevation at indicated cross section

 Surveyed cross section

100 year

50 year

10 year

2 year

EXPLANATION

13.18

13.83
46 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Figure 19a. Locations of cross sections used to create step-backwater model of undredged reach of Wheeling Creek below 

the community of Crescent, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the mouth of Wheeling Creek in yellow. Sites are 

labeled in white. 

Wheeling Creek Basin

C5 Crescent Rd

11.84

C10 Crescent-Barton Rd

11.80

11.76

11.72

11.68

11.66

11.63

BF-11

BF-12

80°51'30" 80°51'20"

40°7'

40°6'50"

0 0.05 0.1 MILE

0 0.05 0.1 KILOMETER

Road

 EXPLANATION

Wheeling Creek

Cross sections surveyed in 2006

Cross sections from triangular irregular network

Bankfull cross sections 

Base digital orthophoto from Belmont County,

Base digital line graph from Belmont County, scale 1:2,400

Other digital data from U.S. Geological Survey,

State Plane Ohio South Projection
Maps and Water-Surface Profiles 47

Figure 19b. Water-surface profiles estimated from step-backwater models for existing conditions of undredged 

reach of Wheeling Creek below the community of Crescent, Ohio. Cross sections are labeled in river miles from the 

mouth of Wheeling Creek. 

11.63

11.66

11.68

11.72

11.76

11.84

11.80

786

788

790

792

794

796

798

800

802

804

806

808

810

812

11.90 11.85 11.80 11.75 11.70 11.65 11.60

DISTANCE FROM MOUTH OF WHEELING CREEK, IN RIVER MILES

ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

786

788

790

792

794

796

798

800

802

804

806

808

810

812

11.80 11.60

 Water-surface elevation for indicated recurrence interval

 Minimum channel elevation at indicated cross section

 Surveyed cross section

100 year

50 year

. 10 year

. 2 year

EXPLANATION

Data Tables
50 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio Table 8. Flood elevations for simulated levee conditions, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations from the current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches near Lafferty, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued [Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] Distance from mouth of Wheeling Creek (river miles) Site code Water-surface elevation, in feet, for simulated levee, current conditions, and the difference in water-surface elevations of simulated levee condition from current-condition profiles 2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) 28.09 A-1 1021.03 1021.01 0.02 1023.91 1023.48 0.43 1025.97 1025.11 0.86 1026.76 1025.68 1.08 28.04 cross section 1020.83 1020.80 0.03 1023.70 1023.25 0.45 1025.77 1024.85 0.92 1026.56 1025.41 1.15 27.99 cross section 1020.71 1020.68 0.03 1023.59 1023.09 0.50 1025.68 1024.68 1.00 1026.48 1025.24 1.24 27.94 cross section 1020.53 1020.53 0.00 1023.39 1023.00 0.39 1025.45 1024.61 0.84 1026.24 1025.18 1.06 27.91 cross section 1020.39 1020.38 0.01 1023.20 1022.87 0.33 1025.25 1024.52 0.73 1026.04 1025.09 0.95 27.87 cross section 1020.05 1020.04 0.01 1022.86 1022.67 0.19 1024.93 1024.39 0.54 1025.73 1024.97 0.76 27.86 cross section 1019.99 1019.98 0.01 1022.73 1022.35 0.38 1024.71 1024.07 0.64 1025.48 1024.69 0.79 27.84 cross section 1019.86 1019.85 0.01 1022.60 1022.26 0.34 1024.61 1023.98 0.63 1025.39 1024.59 0.80 27.80 cross section 1019.68 1019.67 0.01 1022.34 1022.13 0.21 1024.30 1023.95 0.35 1025.06 1024.57 0.49 27.76 cross section 1019.48 1019.47 0.01 1022.02 1021.93 0.09 1023.98 1023.82 0.16 1024.74 1024.46 0.28 27.74 cross section 1019.30 1019.29 0.01 1021.70 1021.75 -0.05 1023.59 1023.70 -0.11 1024.34 1024.34 0.00 27.72 A-2 1019.19 1019.17 0.02 1021.57 1021.64 -0.07 1023.51 1023.59 -0.08 1024.27 1024.23 0.04 27.70 cross section 1019.04 1019.02 0.02 1021.36 1021.28 0.08 1023.22 1023.03 0.19 1023.95 1023.61 0.34 27.70 Brudzenski Road, Bridge 27.69 cross section 1019.03 1019.01 0.02 1021.33 1021.25 0.08 1022.57 1022.45 0.12 1023.06 1022.92 0.14 27.69 cross section 1019.00 1018.98 0.02 1021.31 1021.24 0.07 1022.56 1022.45 0.11 1023.05 1022.92 0.13 27.68 cross section 1018.94 1018.92 0.02 1021.15 1021.05 0.10 1022.26 1022.07 0.19 1022.68 1022.46 0.22 27.68 Railroad, Bridge

27.67 cross section 1018.87 1018.85 0.02 1021.02 1020.91 0.11 1022.01 1021.81 0.20 1022.37 1022.12 0.25

27.66 cross section 1018.73 1018.70 0.03 1020.86 1020.75 0.11 1021.82 1021.70 0.12 1022.17 1022.03 0.14

27.62 cross section 1018.45 1018.41 0.04 1020.59 1020.47 0.12 1021.53 1021.41 0.12 1021.89 1021.75 0.14

27.61 cross section 1018.30 1018.27 0.03 1020.44 1020.27 0.17 1021.41 1021.20 0.21 1021.79 1021.55 0.24
Data Tables 51

Table 8. Flood elevations for simulated levee conditions, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations from the current conditions for indicated 

recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches near Lafferty, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from 

mouth of 

Wheeling 

Creek 

(river 

miles)

Site 

code

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for simulated levee, current conditions, and the difference in water-surface elevations of 

simulated levee condition from current-condition profiles

2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

27.61 Park Entrance, 

Bridge

27.60 cross section 1018.10 1018.07 0.03 1020.14 1019.87 0.27 1021.28 1020.99 0.29 1021.73 1021.46 0.27

27.60 cross section 1018.06 1018.02 0.04 1020.13 1019.86 0.27 1021.27 1020.98 0.29 1021.72 1021.44 0.28

27.56 cross section 1017.64 1017.64 0.00 1019.61 1019.65 -0.04 1020.73 1020.82 -0.09 1021.20 1021.30 -0.10

27.50 A-3 1017.04 1017.04 0.00 1019.14 1019.14 0.00 1020.55 1020.55 0.00 1021.08 1021.08 0.00

27.46 cross section 1016.37 1016.37 0.00 1018.51 1018.51 0.00 1020.12 1020.12 0.00 1020.70 1020.70 0.00

27.44 cross section 1016.11 1016.11 0.00 1017.94 1017.94 0.00 1019.34 1019.34 0.00 1019.90 1019.90 0.00

27.41 cross section 1015.94 1015.93 0.01 1017.57 1017.57 0.00 1018.74 1018.74 0.00 1019.16 1019.16 0.00

27.40 cross section 1015.90 1015.90 0.00 1017.51 1017.51 0.00 1018.69 1018.69 0.00 1019.11 1019.11 0.00

27.38 cross section 1015.81 1015.81 0.00 1017.43 1017.43 0.00 1018.66 1018.66 0.00 1019.11 1019.11 0.00

27.35 cross section 1015.74 1015.74 0.00 1017.38 1017.38 0.00 1018.64 1018.64 0.00 1019.10 1019.10 0.00

27.30 cross section 1015.62 1015.61 0.01 1017.23 1017.23 0.00 1018.50 1018.50 0.00 1018.96 1018.96 0.00

27.27 cross section 1015.56 1015.56 0.00 1017.16 1017.16 0.00 1018.42 1018.42 0.00 1018.88 1018.88 0.00

27.22 cross section 1015.41 1015.40 0.01 1016.92 1016.92 0.00 1018.17 1018.18 -0.01 1018.63 1018.63 0.00

27.21 cross section 1015.36 1015.35 0.01 1016.81 1016.81 0.00 1018.02 1018.02 0.00 1018.46 1018.46 0.00

27.19 cross section 1015.27 1015.26 0.01 1016.50 1016.51 -0.01 1017.51 1017.51 0.00 1017.85 1017.85 0.00

27.18 cross section 1015.22 1015.22 0.00 1016.36 1016.37 -0.01 1017.26 1017.26 0.00 1017.55 1017.55 0.00

27.17 A-4 1015.18 1015.18 0.00 1016.22 1016.22 0.00 1016.98 1016.98 0.00 1017.18 1017.18 0.00
52 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio Table 9. Flood elevations for simulated levee conditions, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations from the current conditions for indicated recurrence interval in previously dredged reaches near Crabapple, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. [Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] Distance from mouth of Wheeling Creek (river miles) Site code Water-surface elevation, in feet, for simulated levee, current conditions, and the difference in water-surface elevations of simulated levee condition from current-condition profiles 2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) 22.37 B-1 928.73 928.73 0.00 931.41 931.20 0.21 933.29 932.67 0.62 934.00 933.25 0.75 22.31 cross section 928.09 928.09 0.00 930.82 930.51 0.31 932.70 931.98 0.72 933.42 932.59 0.83 22.27 B-2 927.65 927.65 0.00 930.42 930.01 0.41 932.37 931.81 0.56 933.11 932.48 0.63 22.23 cross section 927.33 927.32 0.01 929.94 929.89 0.05 931.64 931.66 -0.02 932.27 932.33 -0.06 22.19 B-3 926.99 926.98 0.01 929.53 929.52 0.01 931.18 931.27 -0.09 931.79 931.93 -0.14 22.16 cross section 926.87 926.86 0.01 929.39 929.24 0.15 931.03 930.79 0.24 931.64 931.37 0.27 22.12 B-4 926.23 926.22 0.01 928.58 928.39 0.19 930.10 929.79 0.31 930.68 930.32 0.36 22.09 cross section 926.09 926.08 0.01 928.48 928.26 0.22 930.07 929.70 0.37 930.68 930.26 0.42 22.07 B-5 925.64 925.64 0.00 927.95 927.95 0.00 929.44 929.44 0.00 930.01 930.01 0.00
Data Tables 53

Table 10. Flood elevations for simulated levee conditions, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations from the current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches near Maynard, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from 

mouth of 

Wheeling 

Creek 

(river 

miles)

Site 

code

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for simulated levee, current conditions, and the difference in water-surface elevations of 

simulated levee condition from current-condition profiles

2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

15.70 C-1 851.55 851.57 -0.02 854.25 854.29 -0.04 856.34 855.82 0.52 857.19 856.28 0.91

15.65 cross section 850.59 850.64 -0.05 853.69 853.70 -0.01 856.23 855.46 0.77 857.19 855.98 1.21

15.60 cross section 849.95 850.02 -0.07 853.23 853.25 -0.02 855.79 854.87 0.92 856.74 855.30 1.44

15.55 cross section 849.06 849.18 -0.12 852.15 852.18 -0.03 854.67 853.76 0.91 855.56 854.30 1.26

15.49 cross section 848.17 848.30 -0.13 851.27 851.23 0.04 853.85 852.94 0.91 854.76 853.56 1.20

15.45 cross section 847.52 847.67 -0.15 850.88 851.02 -0.14 853.68 852.78 0.90 854.64 853.37 1.27

15.43 cross section 847.40 847.63 -0.23 850.84 850.96 -0.12 853.67 852.68 0.99 854.64 853.26 1.38

15.43 Fairport Road, 

Bridge

15.42 cross section 847.24 847.48 -0.24 850.74 850.85 -0.11 853.02 852.29 0.73 853.88 852.76 1.12

15.42 cross section 847.09 847.32 -0.23 850.47 850.73 -0.26 852.66 852.27 0.39 853.47 852.76 0.71

15.38 cross section 846.56 846.80 -0.24 849.86 849.99 -0.13 851.98 851.41 0.57 852.77 851.87 0.90

15.34 cross section 846.15 846.39 -0.24 849.42 849.52 -0.10 851.56 850.97 0.59 852.38 851.49 0.89

15.30 C-2 845.65 845.89 -0.24 848.91 849.14 -0.23 851.03 850.90 0.13 851.83 851.47 0.36

15.25 cross section 845.34 845.58 -0.24 848.47 848.59 -0.12 850.52 849.81 0.71 851.30 850.34 0.96

15.19 cross section 845.06 845.31 -0.25 848.18 848.29 -0.11 850.25 849.40 0.85 851.04 850.00 1.04

15.13 cross section 844.67 844.91 -0.24 847.66 847.93 -0.27 849.66 848.96 0.70 850.41 849.58 0.83

15.08 C-3 844.19 844.43 -0.24 847.14 847.28 -0.14 849.17 848.84 0.33 849.92 849.51 0.41

15.02 cross section 843.83 844.08 -0.25 846.67 846.79 -0.12 848.62 848.74 -0.12 849.36 849.43 -0.07

14.97 C-4 843.36 843.63 -0.27 846.23 846.33 -0.10 848.19 848.66 -0.47 848.93 849.37 -0.44

14.95 cross section 843.10 843.40 -0.30 846.02 846.11 -0.09 847.98 848.40 -0.42 848.72 849.14 -0.42
54 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio Table 10. Flood elevations for simulated levee conditions, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations from the current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches near Maynard, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued [Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] Distance from mouth of Wheeling Creek (river miles) Site code Water-surface elevation, in feet, for simulated levee, current conditions, and the difference in water-surface elevations of simulated levee condition from current-condition profiles 2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) Levee (feet) Current (feet) Difference (feet) 14.94 Maynard Road, Bridge 14.93 cross section 842.89 843.22 -0.33 845.88 845.98 -0.10 847.85 847.79 0.06 848.59 848.55 0.04 14.92 cross section 842.71 843.06 -0.35 845.70 845.73 -0.03 847.65 847.74 -0.09 848.39 848.51 -0.12 14.87 cross section 841.95 842.29 -0.34 845.08 845.33 -0.25 847.10 847.41 -0.31 847.84 848.21 -0.37 14.82 cross section 841.22 841.57 -0.35 844.46 844.64 -0.18 846.48 846.77 -0.29 847.21 847.60 -0.39 14.76 cross section 840.44 840.78 -0.34 843.68 843.63 0.05 845.69 845.52 0.17 846.40 846.28 0.12 14.72 cross section 839.96 840.29 -0.33 843.20 843.02 0.18 845.04 844.63 0.41 845.68 845.30 0.38 14.66 cross section 839.39 839.70 -0.31 842.49 842.04 0.45 844.07 842.95 1.12 844.67 843.23 1.44 14.63 cross section 839.06 839.34 -0.28 842.03 841.40 0.63 843.70 842.30 1.40 844.33 842.59 1.74 14.60 C-5 838.58 838.90 -0.32 841.40 841.25 0.15 842.85 842.22 0.63 843.38 842.55 0.83 14.54 cross section 838.14 838.43 -0.29 840.81 840.64 0.17 842.07 841.77 0.30 842.53 842.19 0.34 14.49 cross section 837.85 838.11 -0.26 840.37 840.30 0.07 841.43 841.52 -0.09 841.80 841.98 -0.18 14.44 C-6 837.20 837.45 -0.25 839.76 840.08 -0.32 840.95 841.34 -0.39 841.39 841.80 -0.41 14.39 cross section 836.89 837.11 -0.22 839.55 839.90 -0.35 840.84 841.19 -0.35 841.30 841.65 -0.35 14.34 cross section 836.66 836.85 -0.19 839.15 839.31 -0.16 840.50 840.66 -0.16 840.99 841.15 -0.16 14.29 cross section 836.30 836.45 -0.15 838.82 838.95 -0.13 840.22 840.36 -0.14 840.74 840.88 -0.14 14.24 C-7 835.57 835.57 0.00 838.13 838.13 0.00 839.48 839.48 0.00 840.00 840.00 0.00
Data Tables 55

Table 11. Flood elevations for simulated levee conditions, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations from the current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals in previously dredged reaches near Crescent, Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. [Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from 

mouth of 

Wheeling 

Creek 

(river 

miles)

Site 

code

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for simulated levee, current conditions, and the difference in water-surface elevations of 

simulated levee condition from current-condition profiles

2 year 10 year 50 year 100 year

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

Levee 

(feet)

Current 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

12.39 D-1 811.53 811.73 -0.20 814.54 815.27 -0.73 817.70 817.21 0.49 817.89 818.01 -0.12

12.33 cross section 811.05 811.32 -0.27 814.15 815.00 -0.85 817.48 817.13 0.35 817.63 817.96 -0.33

12.32 cross section 810.71 810.71 0.00 813.60 813.60 0.00 817.10 815.15 1.95 817.11 816.21 0.90

12.31 Crescent Road, 

Bridge

12.30 cross section 810.44 810.44 0.00 813.30 813.30 0.00 815.33 814.11 1.22 816.14 814.71 1.43

12.29 D-2 810.34 810.34 0.00 813.19 813.19 0.00 815.18 814.10 1.08 815.94 814.69 1.25

12.26 cross section 809.93 809.93 0.00 812.78 812.78 0.00 814.76 813.56 1.20 815.52 814.13 1.39

12.21 cross section 809.21 809.21 0.00 811.82 811.82 0.00 813.63 812.47 1.16 814.34 812.97 1.37

12.18 cross section 808.75 808.75 0.00 811.30 811.30 0.00 813.07 811.91 1.16 813.76 812.39 1.37

12.16 D-3 808.19 808.19 0.00 810.34 810.34 0.00 811.67 811.32 0.35 812.17 811.78 0.39

12.14 cross section 807.77 807.77 0.00 809.80 809.80 0.00 811.08 810.80 0.28 811.55 811.24 0.31

12.12 cross section 807.46 807.46 0.00 809.39 809.39 0.00 810.57 810.44 0.13 811.01 810.88 0.13

12.10 cross section 807.14 807.14 0.00 808.91 808.91 0.00 809.96 809.93 0.03 810.35 810.35 0.00

12.04 D-4 806.54 806.54 0.00 808.23 808.23 0.00 809.36 809.38 -0.02 809.81 809.84 -0.03

11.95 cross section 805.53 805.53 0.00 807.21 807.21 0.00 808.45 808.45 0.00 808.95 808.95 0.00

11.88 D-5 804.10 804.10 0.00 806.03 806.03 0.00 807.41 807.41 0.00 807.95 807.95 0.00
56 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Table 13. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach below Lafferty, Wheeling Creek, 

Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

27.04 + 2.0 1010.97 0.93 1012.65 0.57 1013.58 0.46 1013.91 0.43

+ 1.0 1010.49 0.45 1012.37 0.29 1013.35 0.23 1013.69 0.21

Current conditions 1010.04 0.00 1012.08 0.00 1013.12 0.00 1013.48 0.00

- 1.0 1009.45 -0.59 1011.77 -0.31 1012.89 -0.23 1013.26 -0.22

- 2.0 1008.87 -1.17 1011.46 -0.62 1012.65 -0.47 1013.05 -0.43

- 3.0 1008.15 -1.89 1011.01 -1.07 1012.40 -0.72 1012.82 -0.66

- 4.0 1007.37 -2.67 1010.57 -1.51 1012.15 -0.97 1012.59 -0.89

27.04 + 2.0 1010.95 0.94 1012.61 0.57 1013.51 0.45 1013.83 0.42

+ 1.0 1010.47 0.46 1012.33 0.29 1013.29 0.23 1013.62 0.21

Current conditions 1010.01 0.00 1012.04 0.00 1013.06 0.00 1013.41 0.00

- 1.0 1009.42 -0.59 1011.73 -0.31 1012.83 -0.23 1013.19 -0.22

- 2.0 1008.84 -1.17 1011.42 -0.62 1012.59 -0.47 1012.98 -0.43

- 3.0 1008.11 -1.90 1010.97 -1.07 1012.35 -0.71 1012.75 -0.66

- 4.0 1007.33 -2.68 1010.52 -1.52 1012.09 -0.97 1012.52 -0.89

26.94 + 2.0 1010.10 0.94 1011.92 0.54 1012.76 0.39 1013.05 0.35

+ 1.0 1009.51 0.35 1011.66 0.28 1012.57 0.20 1012.88 0.18

Current conditions 1009.16 0.00 1011.38 0.00 1012.37 0.00 1012.70 0.00

- 1.0 1008.58 -0.58 1011.07 -0.31 1012.16 -0.21 1012.51 -0.19

- 2.0 1008.11 -1.05 1010.76 -0.62 1011.94 -0.43 1012.32 -0.38

- 3.0 1007.42 -1.74 1010.26 -1.12 1011.71 -0.66 1012.12 -0.58

- 4.0 1006.67 -2.49 1009.81 -1.57 1011.47 -0.90 1011.90 -0.80

26.90 + 2.0 1009.92 1.17 1011.81 0.56 1012.62 0.38 1012.90 0.34

+ 1.0 1009.14 0.39 1011.54 0.29 1012.43 0.19 1012.73 0.17

Current conditions 1008.75 0.00 1011.25 0.00 1012.24 0.00 1012.56 0.00

- 1.0 1008.03 -0.72 1010.93 -0.32 1012.03 -0.21 1012.37 -0.19

- 2.0 1007.60 -1.15 1010.60 -0.65 1011.81 -0.43 1012.18 -0.38

- 3.0 1006.90 -1.85 1010.02 -1.23 1011.57 -0.67 1011.97 -0.59

- 4.0 1006.18 -2.57 1009.48 -1.77 1011.31 -0.93 1011.75 -0.81

26.87 + 2.0 1009.83 1.17 1011.75 0.56 1012.55 0.39 1012.82 0.35

+ 1.0 1009.05 0.39 1011.48 0.29 1012.36 0.20 1012.65 0.18

Current conditions 1008.66 0.00 1011.19 0.00 1012.16 0.00 1012.47 0.00

- 1.0 1007.90 -0.76 1010.86 -0.33 1011.95 -0.21 1012.29 -0.18

- 2.0 1007.43 -1.23 1010.52 -0.67 1011.73 -0.43 1012.10 -0.37

- 3.0 1006.58 -2.08 1009.87 -1.32 1011.48 -0.68 1011.88 -0.59

- 4.0 1005.65 -3.01 1009.31 -1.88 1011.22 -0.94 1011.65 -0.82
Data Tables 57

Table 13. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach below Lafferty, Wheeling Creek, 

Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

26.86 + 2.0 1009.63 1.16 1011.69 0.59 1012.48 0.40 1012.76 0.37

+ 1.0 1008.83 0.36 1011.41 0.31 1012.28 0.20 1012.58 0.19

Current conditions 1008.47 0.00 1011.10 0.00 1012.08 0.00 1012.39 0.00

- 1.0 1007.72 -0.75 1010.76 -0.34 1011.86 -0.22 1012.19 -0.20

- 2.0 1007.28 -1.19 1010.37 -0.73 1011.62 -0.46 1011.99 -0.40

- 3.0 1006.49 -1.98 1009.55 -1.55 1011.36 -0.72 1011.76 -0.63

- 4.0 1005.65 -2.82 1009.03 -2.07 1011.08 -1.00 1011.52 -0.87

26.86 Industrial site # 1, Bridge

26.86 + 2.0 1008.44 0.62 1009.72 0.49 1010.54 0.38 1010.83 0.35

+ 1.0 1008.14 0.32 1009.46 0.23 1010.35 0.19 1010.65 0.17

Current conditions 1007.82 0.00 1009.23 0.00 1010.16 0.00 1010.48 0.00

- 1.0 1007.50 -0.32 1009.00 -0.23 1009.96 -0.20 1010.30 -0.18

- 2.0 1007.14 -0.68 1008.87 -0.36 1009.76 -0.40 1010.12 -0.36

- 3.0 1006.40 -1.42 1008.51 -0.72 1009.56 -0.60 1009.92 -0.56

- 4.0 1005.57 -2.25 1008.25 -0.98 1009.35 -0.81 1009.73 -0.75

26.85 + 2.0 1008.36 0.60 1009.68 0.49 1010.50 0.38 1010.79 0.35

+ 1.0 1008.07 0.31 1009.44 0.25 1010.32 0.20 1010.62 0.18

Current conditions 1007.76 0.00 1009.19 0.00 1010.12 0.00 1010.44 0.00

- 1.0 1007.43 -0.33 1008.95 -0.24 1009.92 -0.20 1010.26 -0.18

- 2.0 1007.06 -0.70 1008.68 -0.51 1009.71 -0.41 1010.07 -0.37

- 3.0 1006.30 -1.46 1008.43 -0.76 1009.50 -0.62 1009.87 -0.57

- 4.0 1005.46 -2.30 1008.16 -1.03 1009.28 -0.84 1009.67 -0.77

26.80 + 2.0 1007.88 0.83 1009.24 0.54 1010.10 0.43 1010.40 0.39

+ 1.0 1007.51 0.46 1008.98 0.28 1009.90 0.23 1010.21 0.20

Current conditions 1007.05 0.00 1008.70 0.00 1009.67 0.00 1010.01 0.00

- 1.0 1006.49 -0.56 1008.40 -0.30 1009.43 -0.24 1009.79 -0.22

- 2.0 1005.76 -1.29 1008.05 -0.65 1009.17 -0.50 1009.55 -0.46

- 3.0 1004.94 -2.11 1007.63 -1.07 1008.88 -0.79 1009.29 -0.72

- 4.0 1004.06 -2.99 1007.11 -1.59 1008.57 -1.10 1009.01 -1.00
58 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Table 13. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach below Lafferty, Wheeling Creek, 

Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

26.74 + 2.0 1007.39 0.89 1008.69 0.54 1009.53 0.46 1009.82 0.42

+ 1.0 1006.99 0.49 1008.43 0.28 1009.31 0.24 1009.62 0.22

Current conditions 1006.50 0.00 1008.15 0.00 1009.07 0.00 1009.40 0.00

- 1.0 1005.90 -0.60 1007.84 -0.31 1008.82 -0.25 1009.17 -0.23

- 2.0 1005.19 -1.31 1007.48 -0.67 1008.56 -0.51 1008.92 -0.48

- 3.0 1004.36 -2.14 1007.06 -1.09 1008.27 -0.80 1008.66 -0.74

- 4.0 1003.48 -3.02 1006.54 -1.61 1007.97 -1.10 1008.39 -1.01

26.70 + 2.0 1006.97 0.93 1008.26 0.56 1009.10 0.46 1009.39 0.42

+ 1.0 1006.56 0.52 1008.00 0.30 1008.87 0.23 1009.19 0.22

Current conditions 1006.04 0.00 1007.70 0.00 1008.64 0.00 1008.97 0.00

- 1.0 1005.44 -0.60 1007.38 -0.32 1008.38 -0.26 1008.73 -0.24

- 2.0 1004.72 -1.32 1007.01 -0.69 1008.10 -0.54 1008.48 -0.49

- 3.0 1003.88 -2.16 1006.58 -1.12 1007.81 -0.83 1008.21 -0.76

- 4.0 1003.00 -3.04 1006.06 -1.64 1007.49 -1.15 1007.92 -1.05
Data Tables 59

Table 14. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach between Maynard and Crescent, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

14.18 + 2.0 836.44 1.41 838.50 0.73 839.85 0.68 840.40 0.69

+ 1.0 835.78 0.75 838.15 0.38 839.50 0.33 840.05 0.34

Current conditions 835.03 0.00 837.77 0.00 839.17 0.00 839.71 0.00

- 1.0 834.21 -0.82 837.30 -0.47 838.84 -0.33 839.38 -0.33

- 2.0 833.36 -1.67 836.73 -1.04 838.49 -0.68 839.05 -0.66

- 3.0 832.46 -2.57 836.08 -1.69 838.12 -1.05 838.71 -1.00

- 4.0 831.53 -3.50 835.35 -2.42 837.67 -1.50 838.34 -1.37

14.12 + 2.0 835.94 1.48 838.05 0.78 839.43 0.73 840.00 0.75

+ 1.0 835.24 0.78 837.67 0.40 839.05 0.35 839.62 0.37

Current conditions 834.46 0.00 837.27 0.00 838.70 0.00 839.25 0.00

- 1.0 833.64 -0.82 836.75 -0.52 838.34 -0.36 838.90 -0.35

- 2.0 832.78 -1.68 836.13 -1.14 837.98 -0.72 838.55 -0.70

- 3.0 831.88 -2.58 835.46 -1.81 837.58 -1.12 838.18 -1.07

- 4.0 830.94 -3.52 834.71 -2.56 837.08 -1.62 837.79 -1.46

14.06 + 2.0 835.21 1.49 837.49 0.94 838.99 0.86 839.60 0.87

+ 1.0 834.47 0.75 837.04 0.49 838.55 0.42 839.16 0.43

Current conditions 833.72 0.00 836.55 0.00 838.13 0.00 838.73 0.00

- 1.0 832.95 -0.77 835.96 -0.59 837.72 -0.41 838.32 -0.41

- 2.0 832.13 -1.59 835.31 -1.24 837.28 -0.85 837.91 -0.82

- 3.0 831.27 -2.45 834.63 -1.92 836.81 -1.32 837.48 -1.25

- 4.0 830.35 -3.37 833.93 -2.62 836.25 -1.88 837.03 -1.70

14.00 + 2.0 834.49 1.41 836.80 1.16 838.49 1.04 839.15 1.02

+ 1.0 833.81 0.73 836.22 0.58 837.96 0.51 838.64 0.51

Current conditions 833.08 0.00 835.64 0.00 837.45 0.00 838.13 0.00

- 1.0 832.33 -0.75 835.10 -0.54 836.93 -0.52 837.63 -0.50

- 2.0 831.53 -1.55 834.53 -1.11 836.40 -1.05 837.13 -1.00

- 3.0 830.67 -2.41 833.92 -1.72 835.88 -1.57 836.61 -1.52

- 4.0 829.76 -3.32 833.26 -2.38 835.34 -2.11 836.10 -2.03

13.95 + 2.0 834.08 1.48 836.41 1.14 838.05 1.02 838.69 1.01

+ 1.0 833.36 0.76 835.85 0.58 837.54 0.51 838.19 0.51

Current conditions 832.60 0.00 835.27 0.00 837.03 0.00 837.68 0.00

- 1.0 831.84 -0.76 834.70 -0.57 836.52 -0.51 837.19 -0.49

- 2.0 831.02 -1.58 834.10 -1.17 836.00 -1.03 836.70 -0.98

- 3.0 830.15 -2.45 833.44 -1.83 835.49 -1.54 836.20 -1.48

- 4.0 829.23 -3.37 832.75 -2.52 834.94 -2.09 835.71 -1.97
60 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Table 14. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach between Maynard and Crescent, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

13.89 + 2.0 833.31 1.48 835.60 1.13 837.10 1.00 837.68 1.00

+ 1.0 832.57 0.74 835.05 0.58 836.60 0.50 837.17 0.49

Current conditions 831.83 0.00 834.47 0.00 836.10 0.00 836.68 0.00

- 1.0 831.06 -0.77 833.88 -0.59 835.58 -0.52 836.19 -0.49

- 2.0 830.22 -1.61 833.24 -1.23 835.07 -1.03 835.70 -0.98

- 3.0 829.33 -2.50 832.55 -1.92 834.58 -1.52 835.22 -1.46

- 4.0 828.39 -3.44 831.87 -2.60 834.02 -2.08 834.76 -1.92

13.83 + 2.0 832.20 1.26 833.97 0.82 834.83 0.51 835.08 0.41

+ 1.0 831.60 0.66 833.57 0.42 834.59 0.27 834.89 0.22

Current conditions 830.94 0.00 833.15 0.00 834.32 0.00 834.67 0.00

- 1.0 830.24 -0.70 832.75 -0.40 834.01 -0.31 834.41 -0.26

- 2.0 829.43 -1.51 832.23 -0.92 833.68 -0.64 834.15 -0.52

- 3.0 828.56 -2.38 831.65 -1.50 833.38 -0.94 833.86 -0.81

- 4.0 827.64 -3.30 831.02 -2.13 832.94 -1.38 833.58 -1.09

13.80 + 2.0 831.84 1.30 833.45 0.78 834.51 0.76 834.99 0.79

+ 1.0 831.23 0.69 833.07 0.40 834.13 0.38 834.59 0.39

Current conditions 830.54 0.00 832.67 0.00 833.75 0.00 834.20 0.00

- 1.0 829.77 -0.77 832.31 -0.36 833.38 -0.37 833.81 -0.39

- 2.0 828.88 -1.66 831.77 -0.90 833.05 -0.70 833.45 -0.75

- 3.0 827.93 -2.61 831.14 -1.53 832.81 -0.94 833.17 -1.03

- 4.0 826.95 -3.59 830.43 -2.24 832.38 -1.37 832.95 -1.25

13.76 + 2.0 831.04 1.21 832.45 0.62 833.65 0.82 834.18 0.88

+ 1.0 830.46 0.63 832.10 0.27 833.21 0.38 833.72 0.42

Current conditions 829.83 0.00 831.83 0.00 832.83 0.00 833.30 0.00

- 1.0 829.12 -0.71 831.59 -0.24 832.49 -0.34 832.93 -0.37

- 2.0 828.28 -1.55 831.00 -0.83 832.27 -0.56 832.60 -0.70

- 3.0 827.39 -2.44 830.40 -1.43 832.18 -0.65 832.45 -0.85

- 4.0 826.48 -3.35 829.75 -2.08 831.73 -1.10 832.36 -0.94

13.72 + 2.0 830.14 1.35 832.04 1.11 833.42 1.01 833.98 0.99

+ 1.0 829.48 0.69 831.53 0.60 832.91 0.50 833.49 0.50

Current conditions 828.79 0.00 830.93 0.00 832.41 0.00 832.99 0.00

- 1.0 828.06 -0.73 830.24 -0.69 831.89 -0.52 832.48 -0.51

- 2.0 827.24 -1.55 829.63 -1.30 831.30 -1.11 831.94 -1.05

- 3.0 826.41 -2.38 829.01 -1.92 830.62 -1.79 831.34 -1.65

- 4.0 825.52 -3.27 828.36 -2.57 830.00 -2.41 830.66 -2.33
Data Tables 61

Table 14. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach between Maynard and Crescent, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

13.69 + 2.0 829.52 1.38 831.52 1.24 833.06 1.14 833.66 1.10

+ 1.0 828.82 0.68 830.90 0.62 832.48 0.56 833.12 0.56

Current conditions 828.14 0.00 830.28 0.00 831.92 0.00 832.56 0.00

- 1.0 827.42 -0.72 829.70 -0.58 831.34 -0.58 832.01 -0.55

- 2.0 826.65 -1.49 829.10 -1.18 830.74 -1.18 831.43 -1.13

- 3.0 825.87 -2.27 828.51 -1.77 830.17 -1.75 830.84 -1.72

- 4.0 824.96 -3.18 827.89 -2.39 829.63 -2.29 830.27 -2.29

13.63 + 2.0 828.76 1.39 830.83 1.24 832.34 1.12 832.92 1.07

+ 1.0 828.05 0.68 830.19 0.60 831.78 0.56 832.38 0.53

Current conditions 827.37 0.00 829.59 0.00 831.22 0.00 831.85 0.00

- 1.0 826.66 -0.71 829.02 -0.57 830.68 -0.54 831.33 -0.52

- 2.0 825.92 -1.45 828.46 -1.13 830.14 -1.08 830.80 -1.05

- 3.0 825.16 -2.21 827.90 -1.69 829.61 -1.61 830.27 -1.58

- 4.0 824.28 -3.09 827.30 -2.29 829.10 -2.12 829.76 -2.09

13.58 + 2.0 827.78 1.12 829.40 0.84 830.64 0.81 831.14 0.81

+ 1.0 827.22 0.56 828.97 0.41 830.22 0.39 830.72 0.39

Current conditions 826.66 0.00 828.56 0.00 829.83 0.00 830.33 0.00

- 1.0 825.99 -0.67 828.15 -0.41 829.45 -0.38 829.96 -0.37

- 2.0 825.25 -1.41 827.70 -0.86 829.08 -0.75 829.59 -0.74

- 3.0 824.48 -2.18 827.22 -1.34 828.70 -1.13 829.23 -1.10

- 4.0 823.59 -3.07 826.67 -1.89 828.31 -1.52 828.86 -1.47

13.53 + 2.0 827.03 1.08 828.95 0.97 830.49 0.95 831.09 0.93

+ 1.0 826.49 0.54 828.45 0.47 830.01 0.47 830.61 0.45

Current conditions 825.95 0.00 827.98 0.00 829.54 0.00 830.16 0.00

- 1.0 825.27 -0.68 827.53 -0.45 829.07 -0.47 829.71 -0.45

- 2.0 824.52 -1.43 827.04 -0.94 828.62 -0.92 829.26 -0.90

- 3.0 823.72 -2.23 826.54 -1.44 828.17 -1.37 828.80 -1.36

- 4.0 822.82 -3.13 825.96 -2.02 827.71 -1.83 828.35 -1.81

13.47 + 2.0 826.37 1.37 828.56 1.13 830.25 1.04 830.89 0.99

+ 1.0 825.72 0.72 827.97 0.54 829.73 0.52 830.38 0.48

Current conditions 825.00 0.00 827.43 0.00 829.21 0.00 829.90 0.00

- 1.0 824.25 -0.75 826.90 -0.53 828.67 -0.54 829.40 -0.50

- 2.0 823.44 -1.56 826.25 -1.18 828.13 -1.08 828.87 -1.03

- 3.0 822.57 -2.43 825.53 -1.90 827.58 -1.63 828.32 -1.58

- 4.0 821.64 -3.36 824.79 -2.64 827.02 -2.19 827.76 -2.14
62 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Table 14. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach between Maynard and Crescent, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

13.41 + 2.0 825.31 1.59 827.92 1.60 829.81 1.34 830.49 1.21

+ 1.0 824.49 0.77 827.14 0.82 829.16 0.69 829.88 0.60

Current conditions 823.72 0.00 826.32 0.00 828.47 0.00 829.28 0.00

- 1.0 822.99 -0.73 825.59 -0.73 827.76 -0.71 828.60 -0.68

- 2.0 822.24 -1.48 824.92 -1.40 827.02 -1.45 827.90 -1.38

- 3.0 821.46 -2.26 824.28 -2.04 826.25 -2.22 827.17 -2.11

- 4.0 820.59 -3.13 823.65 -2.67 825.62 -2.85 826.41 -2.87

13.36 + 2.0 824.49 1.52 826.75 1.31 828.43 1.33 829.17 1.45

+ 1.0 823.71 0.74 826.08 0.64 827.69 0.59 828.38 0.66

Current conditions 822.97 0.00 825.44 0.00 827.10 0.00 827.72 0.00

- 1.0 822.24 -0.73 824.83 -0.61 826.54 -0.56 827.18 -0.54

- 2.0 821.50 -1.47 824.24 -1.20 826.00 -1.10 826.64 -1.08

- 3.0 820.72 -2.25 823.66 -1.78 825.46 -1.64 826.12 -1.60

- 4.0 819.86 -3.11 823.07 -2.37 824.94 -2.16 825.61 -2.11

13.30 + 2.0 823.67 1.45 825.82 1.14 827.24 1.01 827.78 0.99

+ 1.0 822.94 0.72 825.24 0.56 826.72 0.49 827.26 0.47

Current conditions 822.22 0.00 824.68 0.00 826.23 0.00 826.79 0.00

- 1.0 821.52 -0.70 824.14 -0.54 825.77 -0.46 826.35 -0.44

- 2.0 820.79 -1.43 823.61 -1.07 825.30 -0.93 825.91 -0.88

- 3.0 820.04 -2.18 823.08 -1.60 824.83 -1.40 825.46 -1.33

- 4.0 819.21 -3.01 822.54 -2.14 824.37 -1.86 825.01 -1.78

13.24 + 2.0 822.64 1.33 824.72 1.12 826.18 1.08 826.75 1.09

+ 1.0 821.97 0.66 824.14 0.54 825.62 0.52 826.19 0.53

Current conditions 821.31 0.00 823.60 0.00 825.10 0.00 825.66 0.00

- 1.0 820.64 -0.67 823.11 -0.49 824.60 -0.50 825.17 -0.49

- 2.0 819.93 -1.38 822.64 -0.96 824.14 -0.96 824.70 -0.96

- 3.0 819.20 -2.11 822.18 -1.42 823.70 -1.40 824.27 -1.39

- 4.0 818.38 -2.93 821.70 -1.90 823.30 -1.80 823.85 -1.81

13.18 + 2.0 822.00 1.26 824.13 1.11 825.67 1.12 826.28 1.13

+ 1.0 821.37 0.63 823.55 0.53 825.09 0.54 825.70 0.55

Current conditions 820.74 0.00 823.02 0.00 824.55 0.00 825.15 0.00

- 1.0 820.08 -0.66 822.55 -0.47 824.04 -0.51 824.63 -0.52

- 2.0 819.34 -1.40 822.11 -0.91 823.57 -0.98 824.15 -1.00

- 3.0 818.58 -2.16 821.68 -1.34 823.14 -1.41 823.70 -1.45

- 4.0 817.75 -2.99 821.22 -1.80 822.76 -1.79 823.29 -1.86
Data Tables 63

Table 14. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach between Maynard and Crescent, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

13.12 + 2.0 821.40 1.24 823.44 1.08 824.94 1.14 825.54 1.17

+ 1.0 820.80 0.64 822.87 0.51 824.35 0.55 824.94 0.57

Current conditions 820.16 0.00 822.36 0.00 823.80 0.00 824.37 0.00

- 1.0 819.49 -0.67 821.92 -0.44 823.30 -0.50 823.85 -0.52

- 2.0 818.73 -1.43 821.52 -0.84 822.84 -0.96 823.37 -1.00

- 3.0 817.94 -2.22 821.14 -1.22 822.45 -1.35 822.95 -1.42

- 4.0 817.09 -3.07 820.70 -1.66 822.12 -1.68 822.58 -1.79

13.07 + 2.0 820.56 0.95 821.88 0.53 822.69 0.48 822.98 0.47

+ 1.0 820.13 0.52 821.61 0.26 822.43 0.22 822.72 0.21

Current conditions 819.61 0.00 821.35 0.00 822.21 0.00 822.51 0.00

- 1.0 819.01 -0.60 821.14 -0.21 822.01 -0.20 822.32 -0.19

- 2.0 818.29 -1.32 820.92 -0.43 821.82 -0.39 822.14 -0.37

- 3.0 817.53 -2.08 820.66 -0.69 821.64 -0.57 821.97 -0.54

- 4.0 816.71 -2.90 820.30 -1.05 821.49 -0.72 821.80 -0.71

13.03 + 2.0 820.14 0.88 821.26 0.36 821.92 0.28 822.15 0.25

+ 1.0 819.76 0.50 821.08 0.18 821.78 0.14 822.02 0.12

Current conditions 819.26 0.00 820.90 0.00 821.64 0.00 821.90 0.00

- 1.0 818.66 -0.60 820.76 -0.14 821.51 -0.13 821.78 -0.12

- 2.0 817.95 -1.31 820.58 -0.32 821.37 -0.27 821.66 -0.24

- 3.0 817.22 -2.04 820.33 -0.57 821.22 -0.42 821.53 -0.37

- 4.0 816.41 -2.85 819.96 -0.94 821.12 -0.52 821.38 -0.52

13.00 + 2.0 819.64 1.01 820.87 0.46 821.75 0.40 822.10 0.39

+ 1.0 819.23 0.60 820.64 0.23 821.54 0.19 821.90 0.19

Current conditions 818.63 0.00 820.41 0.00 821.35 0.00 821.71 0.00

- 1.0 818.00 -0.63 820.18 -0.23 821.14 -0.21 821.52 -0.19

- 2.0 817.31 -1.32 819.92 -0.49 820.94 -0.41 821.32 -0.39

- 3.0 816.60 -2.03 819.63 -0.78 820.72 -0.63 821.12 -0.59

- 4.0 815.80 -2.83 819.24 -1.17 820.50 -0.85 820.91 -0.80

12.95 + 2.0 818.64 1.04 820.04 0.48 820.99 0.39 821.37 0.37

+ 1.0 818.13 0.53 819.81 0.25 820.79 0.19 821.18 0.18

Current conditions 817.60 0.00 819.56 0.00 820.60 0.00 821.00 0.00

- 1.0 817.02 -0.58 819.30 -0.26 820.41 -0.19 820.81 -0.19

- 2.0 816.38 -1.22 818.99 -0.57 820.20 -0.40 820.62 -0.38

- 3.0 815.73 -1.87 818.63 -0.93 819.98 -0.62 820.42 -0.58

- 4.0 814.97 -2.63 818.20 -1.36 819.73 -0.87 820.21 -0.79
64 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Table 14. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach between Maynard and Crescent, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

12.90 + 2.0 817.80 0.99 819.48 0.50 820.52 0.37 820.94 0.36

+ 1.0 817.30 0.49 819.24 0.26 820.34 0.19 820.76 0.18

Current conditions 816.81 0.00 818.98 0.00 820.15 0.00 820.58 0.00

- 1.0 816.26 -0.55 818.67 -0.31 819.96 -0.19 820.39 -0.19

- 2.0 815.68 -1.13 818.34 -0.64 819.75 -0.40 820.20 -0.38

- 3.0 815.07 -1.74 817.98 -1.00 819.52 -0.63 820.01 -0.57

- 4.0 814.35 -2.46 817.57 -1.41 819.25 -0.90 819.79 -0.79

12.85 + 2.0 817.20 0.88 819.16 0.51 820.26 0.36 820.70 0.35

+ 1.0 816.76 0.44 818.92 0.27 820.08 0.18 820.52 0.17

Current conditions 816.32 0.00 818.65 0.00 819.90 0.00 820.35 0.00

- 1.0 815.82 -0.50 818.32 -0.33 819.71 -0.19 820.16 -0.19

- 2.0 815.27 -1.05 817.96 -0.69 819.51 -0.39 819.98 -0.37

- 3.0 814.69 -1.63 817.59 -1.06 819.28 -0.62 819.79 -0.56

- 4.0 813.96 -2.36 817.19 -1.46 819.01 -0.89 819.58 -0.77

12.79 + 2.0 816.55 1.09 818.88 0.58 820.01 0.38 820.45 0.36

+ 1.0 816.01 0.55 818.61 0.31 819.82 0.19 820.27 0.18

Current conditions 815.46 0.00 818.30 0.00 819.63 0.00 820.09 0.00

- 1.0 814.87 -0.59 817.89 -0.41 819.43 -0.20 819.89 -0.20

- 2.0 814.24 -1.22 817.36 -0.94 819.21 -0.42 819.69 -0.40

- 3.0 813.60 -1.86 816.79 -1.51 818.94 -0.69 819.49 -0.60

- 4.0 812.81 -2.65 816.25 -2.05 818.62 -1.01 819.25 -0.84

12.73 + 2.0 815.77 1.10 817.97 0.70 819.26 0.54 819.77 0.50

+ 1.0 815.24 0.57 817.64 0.37 818.99 0.27 819.53 0.26

Current conditions 814.67 0.00 817.27 0.00 818.72 0.00 819.27 0.00

- 1.0 814.05 -0.62 816.84 -0.43 818.44 -0.28 819.00 -0.27

- 2.0 813.39 -1.28 816.39 -0.88 818.15 -0.57 818.72 -0.55

- 3.0 812.69 -1.98 815.91 -1.36 817.82 -0.90 818.43 -0.84

- 4.0 811.89 -2.78 815.42 -1.85 817.44 -1.28 818.13 -1.14

12.68 + 2.0 814.54 1.01 816.84 0.82 818.51 0.70 819.08 0.59

+ 1.0 814.04 0.51 816.44 0.42 818.17 0.36 818.80 0.31

Current conditions 813.53 0.00 816.02 0.00 817.81 0.00 818.49 0.00

- 1.0 812.97 -0.56 815.59 -0.43 817.43 -0.38 818.15 -0.34

- 2.0 812.40 -1.13 815.16 -0.86 817.05 -0.76 817.79 -0.70

- 3.0 811.79 -1.74 814.73 -1.29 816.66 -1.15 817.42 -1.07

- 4.0 811.04 -2.49 814.28 -1.74 816.27 -1.54 817.04 -1.45
Data Tables 65

Table 14. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence intervals for the previously undredged reach between Maynard and Crescent, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

12.62 + 2.0 813.56 1.00 816.13 0.91 818.06 0.80 818.69 0.65

+ 1.0 813.07 0.51 815.67 0.45 817.67 0.41 818.39 0.35

Current conditions 812.56 0.00 815.22 0.00 817.26 0.00 818.04 0.00

- 1.0 811.99 -0.57 814.77 -0.45 816.83 -0.43 817.64 -0.40

- 2.0 811.42 -1.14 814.33 -0.89 816.40 -0.86 817.23 -0.81

- 3.0 810.81 -1.75 813.89 -1.33 815.97 -1.29 816.81 -1.23

- 4.0 810.07 -2.49 813.44 -1.78 815.53 -1.73 816.38 -1.66

12.56 + 2.0 812.88 1.08 815.66 0.99 817.60 0.80 818.24 0.68

+ 1.0 812.36 0.56 815.17 0.50 817.22 0.42 817.91 0.35

Current conditions 811.80 0.00 814.67 0.00 816.80 0.00 817.56 0.00

- 1.0 811.15 -0.65 814.18 -0.49 816.37 -0.43 817.18 -0.38

- 2.0 810.52 -1.28 813.70 -0.97 815.92 -0.88 816.76 -0.80

- 3.0 809.85 -1.95 813.24 -1.43 815.45 -1.35 816.33 -1.23

- 4.0 809.12 -2.68 812.77 -1.90 814.98 -1.82 815.89 -1.67

12.51 + 2.0 812.37 1.07 815.03 0.91 816.81 0.73 817.34 0.57

+ 1.0 811.87 0.57 814.57 0.45 816.47 0.39 817.07 0.30

Current conditions 811.30 0.00 814.12 0.00 816.08 0.00 816.77 0.00

- 1.0 810.61 -0.69 813.67 -0.45 815.69 -0.39 816.43 -0.34

- 2.0 809.96 -1.34 813.22 -0.90 815.29 -0.79 816.06 -0.71

- 3.0 809.28 -2.02 812.78 -1.34 814.88 -1.20 815.67 -1.10

- 4.0 808.56 -2.74 812.33 -1.79 814.47 -1.61 815.29 -1.48

12.46 + 2.0 811.55 1.09 814.07 0.89 815.79 0.76 816.34 0.65

+ 1.0 811.05 0.59 813.62 0.44 815.42 0.39 816.02 0.33

Current conditions 810.46 0.00 813.18 0.00 815.03 0.00 815.69 0.00

- 1.0 809.74 -0.72 812.74 -0.44 814.64 -0.39 815.34 -0.35

- 2.0 809.08 -1.38 812.29 -0.89 814.25 -0.78 814.98 -0.71

- 3.0 808.40 -2.06 811.86 -1.32 813.85 -1.18 814.60 -1.09

- 4.0 807.68 -2.78 811.43 -1.75 813.45 -1.58 814.22 -1.47
66 Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio

Table 15. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence interval for the previously undredged reach below the community of Crescent, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

11.84 + 2.0 804.43 0.93 806.20 0.77 807.54 0.73 808.07 0.72

+ 1.0 803.98 0.48 805.81 0.38 807.17 0.36 807.70 0.35

Current conditions 803.50 0.00 805.43 0.00 806.81 0.00 807.35 0.00

- 1.0 802.99 -0.51 805.05 -0.38 806.47 -0.34 807.02 -0.33

- 2.0 802.44 -1.06 804.64 -0.79 806.12 -0.69 806.69 -0.66

- 3.0 801.83 -1.67 804.19 -1.24 805.76 -1.05 806.34 -1.01

- 4.0 801.06 -2.44 803.69 -1.74 805.37 -1.44 805.97 -1.38

11.80 + 2.0 803.47 1.04 805.31 0.92 806.65 0.84 807.18 0.82

+ 1.0 802.95 0.52 804.84 0.45 806.23 0.42 806.76 0.40

Current conditions 802.43 0.00 804.39 0.00 805.81 0.00 806.36 0.00

- 1.0 801.94 -0.49 803.97 -0.42 805.42 -0.39 805.98 -0.38

- 2.0 801.43 -1.00 803.53 -0.86 805.01 -0.80 805.59 -0.77

- 3.0 800.91 -1.52 803.06 -1.33 804.60 -1.21 805.19 -1.17

- 4.0 800.16 -2.27 802.56 -1.83 804.17 -1.64 804.77 -1.59

11.76 + 2.0 802.75 1.21 804.59 0.93 805.90 0.84 806.41 0.82

+ 1.0 802.18 0.64 804.13 0.47 805.48 0.42 806.00 0.41

Current conditions 801.54 0.00 803.66 0.00 805.06 0.00 805.59 0.00

- 1.0 800.87 -0.67 803.20 -0.46 804.66 -0.40 805.20 -0.39

- 2.0 800.18 -1.36 802.69 -0.97 804.23 -0.83 804.80 -0.79

- 3.0 799.45 -2.09 802.09 -1.57 803.78 -1.28 804.37 -1.22

- 4.0 798.54 -3.00 801.38 -2.28 803.27 -1.79 803.91 -1.68

11.72 + 2.0 802.10 1.21 803.64 0.88 804.66 0.80 805.06 0.81

+ 1.0 801.53 0.64 803.19 0.43 804.24 0.38 804.64 0.39

Current conditions 800.89 0.00 802.76 0.00 803.86 0.00 804.25 0.00

- 1.0 800.15 -0.74 802.34 -0.42 803.51 -0.35 803.92 -0.33

- 2.0 799.35 -1.54 801.87 -0.89 803.14 -0.72 803.58 -0.67

- 3.0 798.52 -2.37 801.31 -1.45 802.75 -1.11 803.22 -1.03

- 4.0 797.65 -3.24 800.59 -2.17 802.32 -1.54 802.83 -1.42

11.68 + 2.0 801.11 1.07 802.57 0.84 803.59 0.79 803.98 0.79

+ 1.0 800.60 0.56 802.14 0.41 803.18 0.38 803.58 0.39

Current conditions 800.04 0.00 801.73 0.00 802.80 0.00 803.19 0.00

- 1.0 799.38 -0.66 801.31 -0.42 802.42 -0.38 802.83 -0.36

- 2.0 798.57 -1.47 800.84 -0.89 802.04 -0.76 802.46 -0.73

- 3.0 797.73 -2.31 800.28 -1.45 801.64 -1.16 802.08 -1.11

- 4.0 796.85 -3.19 799.65 -2.08 801.19 -1.61 801.68 -1.51
Data Tables 67

Table 15. Flood elevations for simulated dredging and aggradation, current conditions, and the change in water-surface elevations 

from current conditions for indicated recurrence interval for the previously undredged reach below the community of Crescent, 

Wheeling Creek, Belmont County, Ohio. —Continued

[Shaded river miles indicate surveyed cross sections and non-shaded river miles indicate TIN-derived cross sections] 

Distance 

from mouth 

of Wheeling 

Creek 

(river miles)

Elevation 

difference 

from current 

conditions 

(feet)

Water-surface elevation, in feet, for indicated recurrence interval and the difference in water-surface 

elevations of simulated profiles from current-condition profiles

2 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

10 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

50 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet))

100 year 

(feet)

Difference 

(feet)

11.66 + 2.0 800.94 1.15 802.39 0.83 803.41 0.77 803.80 0.76

+ 1.0 800.42 0.63 801.97 0.41 803.02 0.38 803.42 0.38

Current conditions 799.79 0.00 801.56 0.00 802.64 0.00 803.04 0.00

- 1.0 799.02 -0.77 801.12 -0.44 802.26 -0.38 802.68 -0.36

- 2.0 798.13 -1.66 800.60 -0.96 801.86 -0.78 802.30 -0.74

- 3.0 797.24 -2.55 799.95 -1.61 801.42 -1.22 801.89 -1.15

- 4.0 796.31 -3.48 799.16 -2.40 800.91 -1.73 801.44 -1.60

11.63 + 2.0 800.42 1.21 801.86 0.88 802.89 0.79 803.29 0.76

+ 1.0 799.86 0.65 801.42 0.44 802.50 0.40 802.91 0.38

Current conditions 799.21 0.00 800.98 0.00 802.10 0.00 802.53 0.00

- 1.0 798.47 -0.74 800.51 -0.47 801.70 -0.40 802.14 -0.39

- 2.0 797.62 -1.59 799.98 -1.00 801.27 -0.83 801.73 -0.80

- 3.0 796.74 -2.47 799.37 -1.61 800.81 -1.29 801.30 -1.23

- 4.0 795.82 -3.39 798.66 -2.32 800.32 -1.78 800.85 -1.68


Sherwood and others—Morphological Analyses and Simulated Flood Elevations in Wheeling Creek, Eastern Ohio—Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5133

Printed on recycled paper