Beaver_Dam_Road_Hydraulics_Report_100__Stamped.pdf

Federal Highway Administration – Central Federal Lands Highway Division Beaver Dam Road October 2018 (100%) Hydraulics Report

Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Location

This project is located on a 2.2-mile segment of Beaver Dam Road within Beaver Dam State Park, located in Lincoln County in southeast Nevada, near the Nevada/Utah state line. The project extends along the road from just south of the second campground to the southern boundary of the park. Nevada State

Parks is the project applicant under the Nevada FLAP.

Beaver Dam Road is the single access point into Beaver Dam State Park and the surrounding Clover

Mountain Federal BLM lands. Beaver Dam Road is a narrow gravel local road varying in width from approximately 12-feet to 15-feet. The road has experienced significant damage in the vicinity of the major drainages due to clogging and overtopping. Please see the project Location Maps below.

1.2 Project Background and Objectives

The road has experienced numerous flood events over the past decade during the monsoon seasons.

Monsoon rain events after the summer 2014 wildfire caused severe damage to the road in all major drainages. Large volumes of rocks, silt, and sand clogged the roadway culverts, causing water to overtop the road and damage the road embankment. Five culverts were replaced in 2014 to keep the road open.

Each heavy rain event results in significant debris flow and related maintenance costs to the road and culverts. The project goal desired by Nevada State Parks is a more durable and maintainable road.

In some areas, the existing roadway is only 12-feet wide, making it difficult for two vehicles to pass. Rock outcroppings on the inside of curves limit site distance in some areas. The proposed roadway will be

Location Maps

October 2018 (100%) Hydraulics Report

Existing Conditions reconstructed in gravel with minor widening to allow for two vehicles to pass. The desired minimum roadway width is 14-feet. Soil and rock excavation on the inside of certain curves in select locations will help improve horizontal sight distance. New drainage culverts, box culverts, or low water crossings, as well as riprap armoring, will be installed at drainage crossings to protect the roadway and improve drainage.

The purpose of this hydraulics report is to present an analysis of the existing drainage conditions and recommendations for solutions.

1.3 Design Criteria

The drainage design for the proposed roadway improvements is based on historic drainage patterns, contributing basin peak flows, and technical criteria outlined in the Federal Highway

Administration/Central Federal Lands Project Development and Design Manual (Reference 1). These criteria are summarized in Appendix A. In general, drainage crossings will be designed to accommodate runoff from a 25-year storm event. Lincoln County, Nevada does not have applicable drainage design criteria, so the drainage design is based on the CFL Design Manual.

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 General

Numerous dry drainage channels and hillslopes flow west towards Beaver Dam Road before continuing to drain further east towards Schroeder Lake. These drainages are unnamed and range in basin area from less than 10 acres to over 500 acres. Due to the semi-arid climate of the region, these drainages can be expected to have high natural sediment yields, a condition which was exacerbated by the 2014 wildfire.

Many existing culvert crossings are completely silted in or have experienced downstream erosion/head cutting as a result of previous flood events and debris flows that overtopped the roadway. Soils and ground cover information can be found with the Hydrology Calculations located in Appendix C.

Because of the remote nature of the project site, none of the drainage areas are mapped as a Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain.

2.2 Identified Work Areas

A scoping visit in September 2015 identified potential work areas where existing drainage facilities may be deficient, based on the impacts of the previous flood events and debris flows. These specific areas of evaluation are identified below. In the scoping report, locations were identified by the distance from the northern project limit, which will be denoted below by Mile Point (“M.P.”). Locations below will also be denoted by the project reference stationing for Beaver Dam Road. Please note that these roadway stations are for reference only.

Please see Section 3.5 Summary of Proposed Design Elements for a more detailed description of the proposed improvements.

October 2018 (100%) Hydraulics Report

Existing Conditions

Identified Work Areas from Scoping Report:

M.P. 0.11: Potential new (approximately 24”) culvert with riprap outlet. [Roadway grading eliminates need for this culvert.]

Station 140+70/M.P. 0.17 (Culvert #1): Replace existing 12” PVC culvert with larger (approximately 48”) culvert with riprap outlet. The upstream end of the existing culvert is completely silted in/over. There is a steep roadside slope into the well vegetated ravine on the downstream side.

Station 151+91/M.P. 0.40: Add large boulder / riprap armoring at base of fill on outside of channel bend.

Approximately 150’ long and 4’ high.

Station 157+87/M.P. 0.50 (Culvert #2): Three drainages converge and cross here. Existing 48” CMP and

12” PVC relief pipe are both completely filled with sediment. Top of upstream sediment is above the road, up to 8-feet deep above the channel invert. Propose replacing existing pipes with a concrete box culvert

(approximately 12’ x 6’) with an upstream apron for maintenance and sediment removal, and a riprap outlet.

Station 167+55/M.P. 0.68 (Culvert #3): Within the burn area. Existing newer 36” CMP culvert is exposed on both ends. Head cut at outlet is approximately 6-feet tall. Propose rebuilding the road embankment with four rundowns for roadside ditches, replacing existing 36” CMP with a larger (approximately 48”) culvert with end sections, adding significant (possibly grouted) armoring at the downstream end to eliminate head cutting at roadway embankment / pipe outlet.

Station 171+93/M.P. 0.77: Potential new 24” +/- culvert with riprap outlet.

Station 176+11/M.P. 0.84 (Culvert #4): Within the burn area. Existing newer 48” CMP, installed in 2014.

There is a 6 to 8-foot high vertical scour at the outlet. A lot of sediment is deposited in an alluvial fan upstream of culvert. Culvert is exposed and is relatively clean. Propose a similar solution as at Culvert #3.

Consider armoring the road surface here also, but this is not a low water crossing candidate.

Station 181+43/M.P. 0.94 (Culvert #5): Within the burn area. Newer 48” CMP is clean with no erosion at the outlet because the channel is to bedrock. Propose confirming the size, adding a flared end section and a rundown for the ditch from the northeast and a riprap outlet.

Station 182+94/M.P. 0.97 (Culvert #6): Existing older 12” PVC needs to be replaced with a larger

(approximately 24”) culvert with riprap outlet or a low water crossing. Possibly bank road toward the upstream side.

Station 197+21/M.P. 1.24 (Culvert #7): Replace the existing newer 36” CMP with a low-water crossing that is approximately 120’ long. Downstream end of pipe is a foot above the invert of the channel. The upstream scrub oaks caught a large amount of sediment in the last flood.

Station 218+43/M.P. 1.64 (Culvert #8): Existing older culvert is a 48” CMP on the downstream end, and transitions to a 30” or 36” on the upstream end. The downstream end is about 20-feet below the road and is open with no erosion. The upstream end is plugged with 10 to 15-feet of sediment. Propose a

October 2018 (100%) Hydraulics Report

Existing Conditions concrete box culvert (approximately 8’ x 6’) with an upstream apron for maintenance and sediment removal, and a riprap outlet.

M.P. 1.71: Shore up large eroded drop at edge of road. [Roadway will be repaired and stabilized per roadway design cross section.]

M.P. 1.83: Install riprap rundown at eroded dropoff at edge. [Roadway will be repaired and stabilized per roadway design cross section.]

2.3 Hydrologic Analysis

A hydrologic analysis was conducted for each of the drainage basins that impacts the identified work areas. The drainage basin for each design point was delineated, and hydrologic calculations were tabulated. See Appendix C for a drainage basin map with contours and basin delineations. Based on drainage area size, either the Rational Method or SCS Unit Hydrograph methodology within HEC-HMS was used to determine the peak flows during 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year peak flow rates. Appendix C identifies which hydrologic method was used for each design point and contains the supporting hydrology calculations.

2.4 Existing Hydraulic Analysis

Each existing culvert/design point was evaluated to determine its current capacity prior to overtopping, using the computer program HY-8. Most existing culverts are undersized and are not able to convey the

25-yr design storm. Other culverts are able to convey the design storm “on paper”, but are currently silted in and will be upsized in order to help mitigate sediment problems. Below is a summary of the existing hydraulic analysis:

Station 140+70/M.P. 0.17 (Culvert #1): Existing 12” PVC, overtops at 2.01 cfs, which is between 2-year and 5-year capacity

Station 157+87/M.P. 0.50 (Culvert #2A): Existing 48” CMP, overtops at 100.20 cfs, which is less than 2-year capacity

Station 157+87/M.P. 0.50 (Culvert #2B): Existing 36” CMP, overtops at 47.84 cfs, which is less than 2-year capacity

Station 167+55/M.P. 0.68 (Culvert #3): Existing 36” CMP, overtops at 57.53 cfs, which is between 25-year and 50-year capacity

Station 176+11/M.P. 0.84 (Culvert #4A): Existing 48” CMP, overtops at 83.19 cfs, which is between 10-year and 25-year capacity

Station 176+11/M.P. 0.84 (Culvert #4B): Existing 18” CSP, overtops at 9.65 cfs, which is less than 2-year capacity.

Station 181+43/M.P. 0.94 (Culvert #5): Existing 48” CMP, overtops at 102.85 cfs, which is between 25-year and 50-year capacity

Station 182+94/M.P. 0.97 (Culvert #6): Existing 12” PVC, overtops at 6.08 cfs, which is 100-year capacity

October 2018 (100%) Hydraulics Report

Preliminary Design

Station 197+21/M.P. 1.24 (Culvert #7): Existing 36” CMP, overtops at 44.47 cfs, which is between 5-year and 10-year capacity

Station 218+43/M.P. 1.64 (Culvert #8): Existing 48” CMP, overtops at 163.32 cfs, which is between 2-year and 5-year capacity

3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN

3.1 General

Due to high sediment yields and peak flows from the steep adjacent drainageways, the general preliminary design of drainage improvements consists of the following:

• Where large offsite channels are flowing towards Beaver Dam Road, those flows will be conveyed across the roadway with culverts, box culverts, or low water crossings

• Culverts will be up-sized as much as possible (up to 25-year capacity) to lessen frequency of roadway overtopping

• Hydraulic calculations for culvert crossings were increased by a 20% bulking factor to account for sediment loading

• Culvert end sections, riprap outlet protection, and bank protection will be strategically added to protect the roadway and drainage crossings

• The roadway will be sloped (super-elevated) towards the topographically lower side to facilitate drainage of the roadway surface

• Minor roadside ditches will be added in areas where the roadway is topographically constrained on both sides

• The comment and response form from 30% Design, located in Appendix D, highlights the general hydraulic discussion for Beaver Dam Road.

3.2 Culvert Upgrades

Where feasible, culverts will be upgraded to provide additional capacity (up to the standard of 25-year capacity) to help prevent overtopping of Beaver Dam Road and associated erosion issues. All new circular culverts will be corrugated metal pipe (CMP) to maintain consistency with what is typically out there today. Hydraulic calculations for the culverts used the computer program HY-8. The recommendations are to replace two culverts with larger diameter culverts, replace two culverts with concrete box culverts, and replace one culvert with a low water crossing. Two existing culverts will remain, and will either be extended or improved with end sections and riprap protection. A summary of the proposed improvements can be found in Section 3.5 below, and the proposed culvert hydraulics calculations, along with a drainage summary, can be found in Appendix D. The comment and response form from 30% design, which discusses culvert updates is included in Appendix D as well.

Culverts were designed to meet CFL Headwater Criteria of maximum headwater to pipe depth ratio

(HW/D) of 1.5 for 48” or smaller pipes, and maximum HW/D of 1.2 for larger than 48” pipes. By controlling

October 2018 (100%) Hydraulics Report

Preliminary Design the headwater depth, the intent is to keep water contained within the culverts, and limit overtopping of the roadway and associated erosion issues.

3.3 Inlets

Because of the rural nature of the project, no new drainage inlets are proposed. Proposed Culvert entrances will include end sections, and proposed box culvert entrances will have headwalls and wing walls to convey water across the roadway and to protect the roadway embankment.

3.4 Erosion Protection

Two design methods were used to calculate the required riprap sizing for Beaver Dam Road. The first was a calculation from HEC-11, this calculation was used to determine the median riprap particle size (D50) for flows exiting culverts. The second calculation is the United States Corps of Engineers (USCOE) method for sizing riprap in mild slopes. This method was used to calculate the riprap required along the bank for STA

151+87 to STA 153+67. Due to the environment of Beaver Dam State Park, a revet mattress, in lieu of grouted riprap, will be used at the low water crossing. Discussion of this can be seen in the 30% Comment and Response form in Appendix D where both sets of riprap calculations can also be referenced.

3.5 Roadway Adjustments

In many areas, the roadway will be adjusted to remove the existing windrows that have built up to allow runoff to drain off the roadway. The roadway grading will also be adjusted to provide a cross slope/super-elevation to improve drainage and to prevent roadway erosion. In some spots where the roadway is topographically constrained on both sides, a small roadside ditch will be added to collect the local roadway drainage and convey it to the nearest outlet point.

3.6 Summary of Proposed Design Elements

As outlined in the previous sections, several culverts will be enlarged or replaced with box culverts or a low water crossing. Several drainage areas along the roadway embankment will also have riprap protection. The table below gives a more detailed outline of the proposed design elements.

October 2018 (100%) Hydraulics Report

Preliminary Design

Summary of Proposed Design Elements

Reference Station Culvert Number from Scoping Report Proposed Design

135+00 to 140+50 - Ditch reconditioning, Lt.

140+69 Culvert #1 Remove existing 12" PVC, Install 36" x 38' CMP; End Section, Lt. and

Rt.; Riprap Class 4 ,Rt.

151+87 to 153+67 - Install Riprap Class 4, Rt. [4' wide starting at bottom of embankment, 30" thick]

152+11 to 152+21 - Install Riprap Class 4, Rt. [10' wide, 30" thick]

157+87 Culvert #2

Remove existing 48" CMP. Remove existing 36" CMP. Install 12' x 6' x 34' CBC; Headwalls and Wingwalls, Lt. and Rt.; Concrete Apron, Rt., Riprap Class 8, Lt.

167+56 Culvert #3 Remove existing 36" CMP, Install 42" x 31' CMP; End Section, Lt.

and Rt.; Riprap Class 4, Lt.

167+42 to 167+79 - Install Riprap Class 4 Lt. [6' wide, 30' long, 30" thick]

171+84 [New Culvert] Install 36" x 35' CMP; End Section, Lt. and Rt.; Riprap Class 4, Lt.

175+98 Culvert #4

Remove 6-LF existing 48" CMP, Lt., Remove 2-LF existing 48" CMP, Rt., Install End Section, Lt. and Rt., Riprap Class 4 Lt. [22' wide, 26' long x 30" thick]

175+81 to 176+30 - Install Riprap Class 4 Lt. [8' wide, 20' long, 30" thick]

181+20 Culvert #5 Existing 48" CMP to remain, Install End Section, Lt. and Rt.

182+69 Culvert #6 Remove existing 12" PVC, Install 24" x 35' CMP; End Section, Lt. and

Rt.; Riprap Class 4 Lt.

196+95 Culvert #7 Remove existing 36" CMP, Install new Low Water Crossing Pad and

Apron in roadway [25' bottom length]

217+09 to 217+79 - Install Riprap Class 4, Lt. [10'wide, 30" thick]

218+11 Culvert #8 Remove existing 48" CMP, Install 8' x 6' x 53' CBC; Headwalls and

Wingwalls, Lt. and Rt., Concrete Apron, Rt., Riprap Class 8, Lt.

(Lt = Left, Rt = Right)

October 2018 (100%) Hydraulics Report

CONCLUSIONS

4 CONCLUSIONS

The current design for drainage improvements along Beaver Dam Road includes the extension or replacement of existing culverts, the addition of two box culverts and one low water crossing, and the protection of the roadway embankment at key areas. Drainage crossings will have up to a 25-year design capacity, and will be have an additional 20% capacity to help mitigate the expected sediment loading.

The project aims to continue historic drainage patterns, while limiting overtopping and erosion at the roadway crossings.

5 REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Highway

(FLH) Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), Chapter 7 Hydrology and Hydraulics, 2011.

2. NOAA Atlas Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates. NOAA Atlas 14. Volume 8, Version 2. 2014

APPENDICES

A. Design Criteria

B. Photographs (from September 2015)

C. Drainage Basin Map

Soils Map & Information

NOAA Rainfall Data

Hydrology Calculations

D. Existing Culvert Hydraulics

Proposed Culvert Hydraulics

Riprap Calculations

30% Comment Response Form

October 2018 (100%) Hydraulics Report

Appendix A Design Criteria

Hydrologic Criteria Federal Lands Highway

(FLH)

Project - Applied Criteria PDDM

Rainfall

Depth N/A NOAA Atlas

Design Frequency

Cross Drainage

Low-Standard road (Local Road) 25-year

Exhibit 7.1-A

25-year

Check Flood Overtopping

Flood Overtopping

Flood

Floodplain encroachments 100-year 100-year

Outlet Protection

For >/= 48” design flood

(25-yr) (reference:

HEC-14)

For <48” use detail C251-50

For >/= 48” design flood

(25-yr) (reference:

HEC-14)

For <48” use detail C251-

Headwater

Maximum HW/D = 1.5 for 48” or smaller;

HW/D = 1.2

larger than 48”.

Maximum

HW/D = 1.5

for 48” or smaller;

HW/D = 1.2

larger than

48”.

Minimum cross culvert size 24” 24”

Pavement Drainage

Capacity design (Low-Standard road, local road)

10-year. 50-yr in sump

Exhibit 7.1-A

10-year. 50-yr in sump

Spread (Low-Standard road, local road)

On grade and sags: half of travel lane, not to exceed curb height.

Sumps and

Parking areas:

6” depth.

On grade and sags:

half of travel lane, not to exceed curb height.

Sumps and

Parking areas: 6” depth.

Ditches

Capacity Design 10-year

Exhibit 7.1-A

10-year

Ditch Linings

Temporary:

2-year

Permanent:

10-year

Temporary:

2-year

Permanent:

10-year

Storm Drains

Capacity Design 10-year

(50-year in sumps) 7.3.4.2.1

10-year (50-year in sumps)

Minimum pipe size 15” 15”

Low-Water Crossings

Capacity Design Vented:10-year Exhibit

7.1-A

Vented:10-year

Stability Design 25-year 25-year

Hydrologic Procedure Selection

Un-gaged Watershed Peak Flow Methods

Based on drainage area (DA)

DA < 200

acres: Rational

Method

DA > 200

acres: NRCS

TR 55 or Regression Equations

7.2.4.3

DA < 200

acres:

Rational Method

DA > 200

acres:

NRCS TR

55 or Regression Equations

Gaged Watershed Peak Flow Methods

Minimum 10-year period of record Flood

Frequency Analysis

7.2.4.3 Flood

Frequency Analysis

Appendix B Photographs (from September 2015)

Culvert #1 – 12” PVC

Upstream side buried below sediment Downstream side

Culvert #2 – 48” CMP and 12” PVC

Sediment on upstream side Downstream side

Culvert #3 – 36” CMP

Upstream side Head cut at downstream outlet

Culvert #4 – 48” CMP

Upstream side Vertical scour at outlet

Culvert #5 – 48” CMP

Upstream side Bedrock at downstream side

Culvert #6 – 12” PVC

Downstream side

Culvert #7 – 36” CMP

Upstream side with debris in scrub oaks Downstream side

Culvert #8 – 48” CMP

Looking upstream – sediment about 15’ deep Looking downstream

0.40 Miles from North Limit

Erosion at base of roadway embankment at outside of channel bend

Appendix C Drainage Basin Map

Soils Map & Information

NOAA Rainfall Data

Hydrology Calculations

Hydrologic Soil Group—Lincoln County, Nevada, South Part; and Meadow Valley Area, Nevada, Part of Lincoln County

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

1/31/2018

746000 748000 750000 752000 754000 756000 758000 760000 762000 764000

746000 748000 750000 752000 754000 756000 758000 760000 762000 764000

37° 33' 32'' N

4°

3'

0' ' W

37° 33' 32'' N

4°

' 7

'' W

37° 26' 32'' N

4°

3'

0'

' W

37° 26' 32'' N

4°

' 7

'' W

N

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 4000 8000 16000 24000

Feet 0 1000 2000 4000 6000

Meters Map Scale: 1:91,300 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI)

Soils Soil Rating Polygons

A

A/D

B

B/D

C

C/D

D

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Lines A

A/D

B

B/D

C

C/D

D

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Points A

A/D

B

B/D

C

C/D

D

Not rated or not available

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Lincoln County, Nevada, South Part Survey Area Data: Version 13, Oct 5, 2017

Soil Survey Area: Meadow Valley Area, Nevada, Part of Lincoln County Survey Area Data: Version 8, Oct 5, 2017

Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey area. These survey areas may have been mapped at different scales, with a different land use in mind, at different times, or at different levels of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil properties, and interpretations that do not completely agree across soil survey area boundaries.

Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 5, 2010—Feb 27, 2017

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Hydrologic Soil Group—Lincoln County, Nevada, South Part; and Meadow Valley Area, Nevada, Part of Lincoln County

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

1/31/2018

Hydrologic Soil Group

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

1182 Decan-Acoma-Uana association

D 2,051.4 7.1%

1825 Acti-Cedaran-Turba association

D 920.9 3.2%

1898 Quazo-Motoqua very gravelly sandy loams, 30 to 70 percent slopes

D 138.8 0.5%

Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 3,111.1 10.7%

Totals for Area of Interest 29,098.3 100.0%

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

1182 Decan-Acoma-Uana association

D 11,064.5 38.0%

1186 Decan association D 1,665.6 5.7%

1250 Patter-Heist association C 145.0 0.5%

1290 Ravendog-Fanu- Fifteenmile association

C 29.8 0.1%

1825 Acti-Cedaran-Turba association

D 2,444.4 8.4%

1828 Cedaran-Wakansapa- Turba association

D 4,114.8 14.1%

1898 Quazo-Motoqua very gravelly sandy loams, 30 to 70 percent slopes

D 2,828.3 9.7%

1922 Quazo-Motoqua-Rock outcrop association

D 1,585.6 5.4%

1924 Wakansapa-Rock outcrop association

D 1,831.5 6.3%

2129 Stewval-Gabbvally-Rock outcrop association

D 277.8 1.0%

Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 25,987.2 89.3%

Totals for Area of Interest 29,098.3 100.0%

Hydrologic Soil Group—Lincoln County, Nevada, South Part; and Meadow Valley Area, Nevada, Part of Lincoln County

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Description

Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.

These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Rating Options

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Hydrologic Soil Group—Lincoln County, Nevada, South Part; and Meadow Valley Area, Nevada, Part of Lincoln County

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

�c d�� ��ed�� ��f� !d�g

��f ���d�h e�����X d���i�� ��X �d�� d�W�� �V��d�j �"�k��� "�ld�� "��Y����d�����" ��m �d�X �"�m�l� d�k ��n� �d�Z�������o��� �d�� �"�o�����d�g *j�� ��j���d�k���� �e�i�ld�p����m �qrssd�q "�t� �d�� ��d�X i�" ��u��� ��

"�u�X

"�[_�/1v801;[wFOv12:D�x7<=/�x;:@<x</1/<7=�S;:y8:=@z�:2/<91/:2�{</|�}K~�@7=S<D:=@:�<=/:;C102��<=�<=@|:2�3w8;1/<7= .C:;1N:�;:@8;;:=@:�<=/:;C10��z:1;2�3 Q > 3K Q> >K 3KK QKK >KK 3KKK>O9<= KJ3L4����%������(� KJQ3H����������'(� KJQ}H����+(���%'�� KJHL3���%�����+%�� KJ4L3���%&&���''�� KJ>4I���++����(''� KJL44���'�����&&'� KJI>L���'�������(� KJ}QR���(������+� 3JKR���&&����%'�3KO9<= KJQ>K������������� KJHQ>����&+���%��� KJ44L���%&+���'%+� KJ>4}���+'(���('&� KJIKQ���'&+����+�� KJRHQ���(&������&� KJ}R3���&&'������ 3J3>�����(���%�� 3J43����'���&+� 3JL>���������(�3>O9<= KJH3K����(%���%(�� KJ4KQ���%+����+��� KJ>>Q���+(+���((�� KJLRK���'('�����'� KJRIK���&������+� 3JKH����%%����+� 3JQQ����(����+(� 3J4H��������&%� 3JI>���%�����(� QJK4���+&���''�HKO9<= KJ43I���%'+���+��� KJ>4Q���+'����('�� KJI44���(�'������� KJ}3L���&(������� 3J3I����'����+�� 3JH}��������((� 3JL4���������&� 3J}Q���+����%%� QJHL���&'������ QJI>������%�++�LKO9<= KJ>3L���+%����(�(� KJLIK���'(&�����+� KJ}Q3���&&%������ 3J3H����+����%(� 3J4>��������&+� 3JIQ���%�����(� QJKH���(����++� QJHR����%������ QJ}Q����&�%�(�� HJ43���+'�+��'�QO|; KJL3R���'%%���&�%� KJIR}���(�������+� 3JK>����������%� 3JQI��������+�� 3JL3���%'������ 3JR}���'(������ QJQQ��������(�� QJ>R����'�%��(� HJ34���+��%�&&� HJLQ���&��+�+��HO|; KJIKK���(�'�����'� KJRR>���&&&������ 3J3>��������%%� 3JHR��������'�� 3JIK���+(����(� 3J}R���(������� QJHK��������(�� QJL>����&�%���� HJQK���'+�%�&�� HJL}����(�+�+��LO|; KJRIL���&&%������ 3J3K����&&����(� 3J43����+���(�� 3JLL���+(������ QJKQ���&'���%�� QJHQ��������('� QJLH����%�%���� QJ}}���'��%�+(� HJ>4������+��'� 4JKQ�%����+�&(�3QO|; 3JK}����&�����+� 3JHR��������'(� 3JI>���''������ QJK>��������%%� QJ4L����'���&�� QJIR���+��%��(� HJ3K���((�%�''� HJ4>����%�%��&� HJ}I�%�%��+�(�� 4J44�%�('�'����Q4O|; 3JHL����'���'�� 3JIQ���'&������ QJ3R��������+�� QJ>4���%������� HJK4���&'�%�%'� HJ4H�%����%�&�� HJRH�%�+��+��%� 4JQ>�%�&(�+�&�� 4JR3�+����'�%+� >JQ>�+�'(�'��'�QOD1z 3J>L���+����&�� 3J}R���������&� QJ>H���%����&�� QJ}I���(��%��&� HJ>}�%��%�%��(� 4JKR�%�('�+�'�� 4JLK�+����'���� >J34�+�'��'�&�� >JRR�'����(�'(� LJ4R�'�'&�&����HOD1z 3JIQ���'&������ QJ3I��������%�� QJII���'%�%��'� HJQL����&�%�'�� HJ}>�%�'(�+�%+� 4J4}�+��%�+��+� >JKL�+�'��'�'�� >JLL�'����(��(� LJ4R�'�('�&���� IJ3>�(��(������4OD1z 3JRR���&�����(� QJHL����&���'�� HJKQ���&&�%�%�� HJ>>�%��+�%���� 4JHK�%����+�&�� 4JR}�+�+��'�%�� >J>Q�+��%�(���� LJ3I�'�+&�(��%� IJKR�(����&���� IJR3�(�&'���&+�IOD1z QJQQ����%���++� QJR3���'(�%���� HJ>}�%��(�%��'� 4JQQ�%����+�(+� >JK}�+�'��'�(�� >JIR�'��&�(�%&� LJ>K�'�&��&���� IJQ>�(�%�����(� RJHK�&�������&� }J3Q�&��'����%�3KOD1z QJ>3��������&'� HJ3I������%�+�� 4JK4�%�(&�+�++� 4JIH�+����'���� >JLL�'����(��%� LJ4K�'�&%�&��'� IJ3>�(�%&�&���� IJ}H�&��������� }JKK�&��&������ }JR4���'�������QKOD1z HJQQ����%�%�'%� 4JKI�%�&��+�+&� >J33�+�('�'�(�� >J}K�'�%'�(�+�� LJ}H�(��(�&�(%� IJIK�(������+�� RJ4I�&�'&���%(� }JQ4���������%� 3KJH����%����+� 33JK���(%����%�HKOD1z HJ}H�%�'��+�%�� 4J}I�+�'��'�+'� LJQL�'�(��(���� IJQ4�(�''�&��'� RJ>H�&�(����%�� }J>K���'�����'� 3KJ>���%'����(� 33J>���������&� 3QJI�������+��� 3HJI�������'�+�4>OD1z 4JIQ�+��&�'���� >J}I�'�+��(�(�� IJ>3�(�&����%�� RJLR�&������(�� 3KJQ����'����%� 33J4���������&� 3QJL�������+��� 3HJI�������'�+� 3>JH��%�+��&��� 3LJL��+�%����&�LKOD1z >J>K�+��'�(��&� LJ}I�(��&�&�(�� RJIL�&��&���(�� 3KJ3����+������ 33JR����'��%��� 3HJ3����(��+�(� 34J4����&��(��� 3>JI��%����&�(� 3IJ4��'������(� 3RJI��(������������� i"�� ���i

���������q�!i����

"��k������i i ""�i����� ������������i���������"������ ������"�����i������ ��'���U�� ��������i������ ������ �� l��� �������i i"��!

�����X������ ��i��� ���X��� ������������qrss�s�" ��� o l����k��[_�N;1x|<@10 chenkel Rectangle chenkel Rectangle chenkel Callout For rational method calculations chenkel Callout For NRCS Curve number calculations in HEC-HMS

-����.��/012�3�045607289077�2:074�;45506<

,-./0�12-30�40..-56

,-./0�12-30�7-8

,-./0�12-30�-0.5-3

9:;<7=75 9:>??<7@?75 9:>??<7@?75

"�2 � ���3�!������ �3�!

���1 "�4� ��1 "�4 ����0�������%�'�5 ���4����6 ��7�8����9���:���� ���#��6��0�:����

<=>??@AB?AC

Basin Calculations ‐ Rational Method BY: CHH Muller Engineering Company, Inc. DATE: 4/6/2018 CFL Project Number: NV FLAP 200(1) CHECKED BY: NTB Muller Project Number: 15‐045.02

Land Use Types Percent Impervious 1

UNDEVELOPED AREAS (OFFSITE

UNDEFINED)

(sq ft) (acre) (sq ft) % of Basin 2

P141L 140+70 310,380 7.1 310,380 100 15 85

P168R 167+65 1,425,184 32.7 1,425,184 100 15 85

P172R 171+93 70,813 1.6 70,813 100 15 85

P176R 176+11 4,374,631 100.4 4,374,631 100 15 85

P181R 181+43 4,374,631 100.4 4,374,631 100 15 85

P183R 182+94 114,315 2.6 114,315 100 15 85

P197R 197+21 4,982,526 114.4 4,982,526 100 15 85 1 % Impervious value for undeveloped areas was assumed to be 15% 2 Percent of sub‐basin containing land use ‐ basin land use obtained from aerial photo of existing area and survey information.

PERCENT IMPERVIOUS VALUES

TOTAL AREA WEIGHTED

PERCENT

PERVIOUS

WEIGHTED PERCENT

IMPERVIOUS

BASIN ID STATION

UNDEVELOPED AREAS

(OFFSITE UNDEFINED)

Q:\2015 Projects\15-045.02 Beaver Dam Road - Design - CFLHD\Drainage\Hydrology\Proposed Rational Method - Beaver Dam 1 of 1

Basin Calculations ‐ Rational Method BY:

Muller Engineering Company, Inc. DATE:

CFL Project Number: NV FLAP 200(1) CHECKED BY:

Muller Project Number: 15‐045.02

A B C/D C2 C5 C10 C25 C50 C100 %

P141L 140+70 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 100 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576

P168R 167+65 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 100 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576

P172R 171+93 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 100 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576

P176R 176+11 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 100 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576

P181R 181+43 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 100 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576

P183R 182+94 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 100 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576

P197R 197+21 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 100 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 1 Soil Group based on NRCS Soil Classification Map

C50STATION

NRCS HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP1

C2

SOIL GROUP C/D

(CLAYEY SOIL)

C25

CHH

4/6/2018

C5 C10 C100

RUNOFF COEFFIECIENTS FOR 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, AND 100 YEAR STORM EVENTS

NTB

SOIL GROUP (%)1BASIN ID

Q:\2015 Projects\15-045.02 Beaver Dam Road - Design - CFLHD\Drainage\Hydrology\Proposed Rational Method - Beaver Dam 1 of 1

Basin Calculations ‐ Rational Method Muller Engineering Company, Inc.

CFL Project Number: NV FLAP 200(1) Muller Project Number: 15‐045.02

TOTAL

ELEV.

START

ELEV. END

ELEV.

START

ELEV. END

(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Type Cv

P141L 140+70 0.18 7.13 5530.00 5390.00 0.10 500 28.0 13.5 700 5390.00 5197.00 193.0 0.2757 BG 10 5.3 2.2 15.7

P168R 167+65 0.18 32.72 5560.00 5430.00 0.10 500 26.0 13.8 2370 5430.00 5140.00 290.0 0.1224 BG 10 3.5 11.3 25.1

P172R 171+93 0.18 1.63 5260.00 5190.00 0.10 500 14.0 17.0 101 5190.00 5180.00 10.0 0.0990 BG 10 3.1 0.5 17.5

P176R 176+11 0.18 100.43 6000.00 5920.00 0.10 500 16.0 16.3 4740 5920.00 5171.00 749.0 0.1580 BG 10 4.0 19.9 36.1

P181R 181+43 0.18 100.43 6020.00 5970.00 0.10 500 10.0 19.0 5360 5970.00 5172.00 798.0 0.1489 BG 10 3.9 23.2 42.2

P183R 182+94 0.18 2.62 5360.00 5320.00 0.10 500 8.0 20.5 1530 5320.00 5184.00 136.0 0.0889 BG 10 3.0 8.6 29.1

P197R 197+21 0.18 114.38 6030.00 5960.00 0.10 500 14.0 17.0 5540 5960.00 5149.00 811.0 0.1464 BG 10 3.8 24.1 41.1 1 Ti = 0.395(1.1‐C5)L0.5 / S1/3 (UDFCD, June 2001) 2 Tt = Length/60Vel, WHERE Vel = CV*Slope^0.5 and CV = 20 (Paved), 15 (Grass Waterway), 10 (Bare Ground) 3 Initial C5 = Runoff coefficient for overland flow component of time of concentration, assuming 0.1 for Unimproved areas (HDS‐2 ‐ Highway Hydraulics)

COMP. C5

AREA

(acre)

STANDARD FORM SF-2

TIME OF CONCENTRATION

BASIN ID Tt (Min)2 Ti+Tt (Min.)

DELTA

ELEV.

(ft)

TRAVEL TIME (Tt)

LENGTH

(ft)

SLOPE

(Si)%

SUB‐BASIN DATA INITIAL/OVERLAND TIME (Ti)

REMARKS

STATION

LONG.

SLOPE

(ft/ft)

Ti (Min)1

LENGTH

(ft)

Conveyance CoefficientINIT.

C5

VEL.

(fps)

Q:\2015 Projects\15-045.02 Beaver Dam Road - Design - CFLHD\Drainage\Hydrology\Proposed Rational Method - Beaver Dam 1 of 1

Basin Calculations ‐ Rational Method BY:

Muller Engineering Company, Inc. DATE:

CFL Project Number: NV FLAP 200(1) CHECKED BY:

Muller Project Number: 15‐045.02

BASIN ID STATION

AREA

(acre)

C2 C5 C10 C25 C50 C100 I2

(in/hr)1 I5

(in/hr)1 I10

(in/hr)1 I25

(in/hr)2 I50

(in/hr)2 I100

(in/hr)1 Q2

(cfs) Q5

(cfs) Q10

(cfs) Q25

(cfs) Q50

(cfs) Q100

(cfs) Q2

(cfs) Q5

(cfs) Q10

(cfs) Q25

(cfs) Q50

(cfs) Q100

(cfs)

P141L 140+70 7.13 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 1.49 2.04 2.51 3.22 3.82 4.51 1.4 2.7 5.6 9.3 13.6 18.5 1.7 3.2 6.7 11.2 16.3 22.2

P168R 167+65 32.72 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 1.16 1.60 1.96 2.52 2.99 3.53 5.1 9.5 20.0 33.5 48.8 66.4 6.1 11.5 24.0 40.2 58.6 79.7

P172R 171+93 1.63 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 1.41 1.94 2.38 3.05 3.62 4.27 0.3 0.6 1.2 2.0 2.9 4.0 0.4 0.7 1.4 2.4 3.5 4.8

P176R 176+11 100.43 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 0.94 1.29 1.58 2.03 2.41 2.85 12.6 23.6 49.5 82.9 120.9 164.5 15.1 28.4 59.4 99.5 145.1 197.4

P181R 181+43 100.43 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 0.85 1.17 1.44 1.85 2.19 2.58 11.4 21.5 44.9 75.3 109.7 149.4 13.7 25.8 53.9 90.3 131.7 179.2

P183R 182+94 2.62 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 1.07 1.47 1.81 2.32 2.75 3.25 0.4 0.7 1.5 2.5 3.6 4.9 0.5 0.8 1.8 3.0 4.3 5.9

P197R 197+21 114.38 0.134 0.183 0.311 0.406 0.499 0.576 0.87 1.19 1.46 1.88 2.22 2.63 13.2 24.8 52.0 87.1 127.0 172.8 15.9 29.8 62.4 104.5 152.4 207.4 1 Intensity values taken from NOAA Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates

Flow + 20% (used for design)

CHH

4/6/2018

NTB

RATIONAL FLOWS

Q:\2015 Projects\15-045.02 Beaver Dam Road - Design - CFLHD\Drainage\Hydrology\Proposed Rational Method - Beaver Dam 1 of 1

Project: Beaver Dam Road Simulation Run: 2-Year

Start of Run: 13Jul2015, 00:00 Basin Model: Beaver Dam Road Bas End of Run: 14Jul2015, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 2-Year Compute Time: 06Apr2018, 11:23:20 Control Specifications: Control 1

Hydrologic Element

Drainage Area

(MI2)

Peak Discharge

(CFS)

Time of Peak Volume

(IN)

P158R 0.7939 171.3 13Jul2015, 12:20 0.60 P218R 0.4368 96.5 13Jul2015, 12:20 0.60 chenkel Rectangle chenkel

Flows will be increased by 20% for design (see drainage summary)

Project: Beaver Dam Road Simulation Run: 5-Year

End of Run: 14Jul2015, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 5-Year Compute Time: 06Apr2018, 11:23:28 Control Specifications: Control 1

Hydrologic Element

Drainage Area

(MI2)

Peak Discharge

(CFS)

Time of Peak Volume

(IN)

P158R 0.7939 275.1 13Jul2015, 12:20 0.90 P218R 0.4368 154.7 13Jul2015, 12:20 0.90 chenkel Rectangle chenkel

Project: Beaver Dam Road Simulation Run: 10-Year

End of Run: 14Jul2015, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 10 Year Compute Time: 06Apr2018, 11:23:16 Control Specifications: Control 1

Hydrologic Element

Drainage Area

(MI2)

Peak Discharge

(CFS)

Time of Peak Volume

(IN)

P158R 0.7939 364.5 13Jul2015, 12:20 1.16 P218R 0.4368 204.8 13Jul2015, 12:20 1.16 chenkel Rectangle chenkel

Project: Beaver Dam Road Simulation Run: 25-Year

End of Run: 14Jul2015, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 25-Year Compute Time: 06Apr2018, 11:23:18 Control Specifications: Control 1

Hydrologic Element

Drainage Area

(MI2)

Peak Discharge

(CFS)

Time of Peak Volume

(IN)

P158R 0.7939 496.7 13Jul2015, 12:20 1.54 P218R 0.4368 278.8 13Jul2015, 12:20 1.54 chenkel Rectangle chenkel

Project: Beaver Dam Road Simulation Run: 50-Year

End of Run: 14Jul2015, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 50-Year Compute Time: 06Apr2018, 11:23:25 Control Specifications: Control 1

Hydrologic Element

Drainage Area

(MI2)

Peak Discharge

(CFS)

Time of Peak Volume

(IN)

P158R 0.7939 604.6 13Jul2015, 12:20 1.86 P218R 0.4368 339.1 13Jul2015, 12:20 1.86 chenkel Rectangle chenkel

Project: Beaver Dam Road Simulation Run: 100-Year

End of Run: 14Jul2015, 06:00 Meteorologic Model: 100-Year Compute Time: 06Apr2018, 11:23:14 Control Specifications: Control 1

Hydrologic Element

Drainage Area

(MI2)

Peak Discharge

(CFS)

Time of Peak Volume

(IN)

P158R 0.7939 718.4 13Jul2015, 12:20 2.19 P218R 0.4368 402.7 13Jul2015, 12:20 2.19 chenkel Rectangle chenkel

Appendix D Existing Culvert Hydraulics

Proposed Culvert Hydraulics

Riprap Calculations

30% Comment Response Form

Drainage Summary

Roadway

Station

Basin/Design

Pt ID

Scope ID

(MP distance from North)

Hydrologic method Basin Area Basin Area

2-Year

Flow

5-Year

Flow

10-Year

Flow

25-Year

Flow

50-Year

Flow

100-Year

Flow

Proposed

Pipe Size

Proposed pipe material

Proposed Culvert

Capacity before overtopping

25-Year

HW/D Ratio

25-year

Overtopping

Flow

Assumed inlet condition Notes

MILES SQ FT ACRE CFS CFS

140+70 P141L (Culvert #1) MP 0.17 Rational 310,380 7.1 1.7 3.2 6.7 11.2 16.3 22.2 36" CMP 45.8 0.51 0.0 FES Replace 12" PVC with 36" CMP

157+87 P158R (Culvert #2) MP 0.50 SCS 22,133,397 508.1 205.6 330.1 437.4 596.0 725.5 862.1 12' x 6' CBC 779.9 1.12 0.0 Headwall Replace 36" and 48" CMP with 12'x6' CBC

167+55 P168R (Culvert #3) MP 0.68 Rational 1,425,184 32.7 6.1 11.5 24.0 40.2 58.6 79.7 42" CMP 78.0 0.89 0.0 FES Replace 36" CMP with 42" CMP

171+84 P172R (New Culvert) MP 0.77 Rational 70,813 1.6 0.4 0.7 1.4 2.4 3.5 4.8 36 " CMP 57.3 0.22 0.0 FES Install new 36" CMP

175+98 P176R (Culvert #4) MP 0.84 Rational 4,374,631 100.4 15.1 28.4 59.4 99.5 145.1 197.4 N/A N/A 103.0 1.26 0.0 FES Existing 48" CMP to remain

181+20 P181R (Culvert #5) MP 0.94 Rational 4,374,631 100.4 13.7 25.8 53.9 90.3 131.7 179.2 N/A N/A 102.9 1.33 0.0 FES Existing 48" CMP to remain

182+69 P183R (Culvert #6) MP 0.97 Rational 114,315 2.6 0.5 0.8 1.8 3.0 4.3 5.9 24" CMP 27.9 0.50 0.0 FES Replace 12" with 24" CMP

197+00 P197R (Culvert #7) MP 1.24 Rational 4,982,526 114.4 15.9 29.8 62.4 104.5 152.4 207.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 62.4 N/A Replace 36" CMP with low water crossing

218+11 P218R (Culvert #8) MP 1.64 SCS 12,178,486 279.6 115.8 185.6 245.8 334.6 406.9 483.2 8' x 6' CBC 632.3 1.08 0.0 Headwall Replace 48" CMP with 8'x6' CBC

*Flows shown reflect a 20% increase to account for temporarily high sediment yields in the project area

CFS

Existing – Crossing 1 (MP 0.17) – Sta 140+70

HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report

Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow

Minimum Flow: 0 cfs Design Flow: 11.2 cfs

Maximum Flow: 22.2 cfs

Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: EX Culvert #1 (MP 0.17)

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Total Discharge (cfs) EX Culvert 1 - 12"

PVC Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge

(cfs) Iterations

5196.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 1

5197.34 2.22 2.06 0.14 10

5197.41 4.44 2.27 2.13 6

5197.46 6.66 2.41 4.23 5

5197.51 8.88 2.51 6.34 4

5197.55 11.10 2.61 8.48 4

5197.55 11.20 2.61 8.56 2

5197.62 15.54 2.76 12.73 3

5197.65 17.76 2.83 14.91 3

5197.68 19.98 2.90 17.08 3

5197.71 22.20 2.96 19.18 2

5197.32 2.01 2.01 0.00 Overtopping

Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: EX Culvert 1 - 12" PVC

* Full Flow Headwater elevation is below inlet invert.

Straight Culvert

Inlet Elevation (invert): 5196.32 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 5192.43 ft

Culvert Length: 42.78 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0913

Site Data - EX Culvert 1 - 12" PVC Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data

Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 5196.32 ft

Outlet Station: 42.60 ft Outlet Elevation: 5192.43 ft

Number of Barrels: 1

Culvert Data Summary - EX Culvert 1 - 12" PVC Barrel Shape: Circular Barrel Diameter: 1.00 ft

Barrel Material: PVC Embedment: 0.00 in

Barrel Manning's n: 0.0110 Culvert Type: Straight

Inlet Configuration: Mitered to Conform to Slope Inlet Depression: NONE

Total Discharge

(cfs) Culvert

Discharge (cfs)

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Inlet

Control Depth (ft)

Outlet Control

Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal

Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet

Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft)

Outlet Velocity

(ft/s) Tailwater Velocity

(ft/s)

0.00 0.00 5196.32 0.000 0.000 0-NF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

2.22 2.06 5197.34 1.016 0.0* 5-S2n 0.272 0.610 0.281 0.218 11.422

4.44 2.27 5197.41 1.091 0.0* 5-S2n 0.284 0.641 0.297 0.282 11.700

6.66 2.41 5197.46 1.144 0.0* 5-S2n 0.292 0.660 0.304 0.328 12.035

8.88 2.51 5197.51 1.187 0.0* 5-S2n 0.299 0.674 0.312 0.366 12.160

11.10 2.61 5197.55 1.226 0.0* 5-S2n 0.304 0.686 0.319 0.398 12.272

11.20 2.61 5197.55 1.228 0.0* 5-S2n 0.305 0.690 0.320 0.399 12.230

15.54 2.76 5197.62 1.295 0.0* 5-S2n 0.314 0.710 0.331 0.451 12.144

17.76 2.83 5197.65 1.328 0.0* 5-S2n 0.318 0.719 0.334 0.474 12.298

19.98 2.90 5197.68 1.358 0.0* 5-S2n 0.322 0.727 0.338 0.496 12.358

22.20 2.96 5197.71 1.386 0.0* 5-S2n 0.325 0.734 0.343 0.516 12.348

Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: EX Culvert #1 (MP 0.17))

Tailwater Channel Data - EX Culvert #1 (MP 0.17) Tailwater Channel Option: Triangular Channel

Side Slope (H:V): 4.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.5000

Channel Manning's n: 0.0200 Channel Invert Elevation: 5192.43 ft

Roadway Data for Crossing: EX Culvert #1 (MP 0.17) Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation

Crest Length: 30.00 ft Crest Elevation: 5197.32 ft

Roadway Surface: Gravel Roadway Top Width: 17.00 ft

Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Depth (ft) Velocity (ft/s) Shear (psf) Froude Number

0.00 5192.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.22 5192.65 0.22 11.73 6.79 6.27

4.44 5192.71 0.28 13.95 8.80 6.55

6.66 5192.76 0.33 15.44 10.25 6.71

8.88 5192.80 0.37 16.59 11.41 6.84

11.10 5192.83 0.40 17.54 12.41 6.93

11.20 5192.83 0.40 17.58 12.45 6.94

15.54 5192.88 0.45 19.08 14.08 7.08

17.76 5192.90 0.47 19.73 14.80 7.14

19.98 5192.93 0.50 20.32 15.47 7.19

22.20 5192.95 0.52 20.86 16.09 7.24

Existing - Crossing #2 (MP 0.50) – Sta 157+87

Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow

Minimum Flow: 0 cfs Design Flow: 596 cfs

Maximum Flow: 862.1 cfs

Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: EX Culvert #2 (MP 0.50)

Elevation (ft)

Total Discharge (cfs)

EX Culvert 2a -

48" CMP

Discharge (cfs)

EX Culvert 2b -

36" CMP

Discharge (cfs) Roadway

Discharge (cfs) Iterations

5072.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

5076.00 86.21 63.76 22.47 0.00 5

5078.37 172.42 105.75 51.48 15.17 8

5079.12 258.63 115.99 58.03 84.60 4

5079.68 344.84 122.94 62.36 159.52 4

5080.16 431.05 128.53 65.80 236.53 3

5080.60 517.26 133.44 68.78 315.02 3

5080.97 596.00 137.44 71.19 387.35 3

5081.44 689.68 142.26 74.08 473.33 4

5081.80 775.89 145.85 76.23 553.60 3

5082.14 862.10 149.17 78.20 634.58 3

5078.00 148.04 100.20 47.84 0.00 Overtopping

Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: EX Culvert 2a - 48" CMP

Straight Culvert

Inlet Elevation (invert): 5072.08 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 5070.50 ft

Culvert Length: 40.57 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0390

Site Data - EX Culvert 2a - 48" CMP Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft

Inlet Elevation: 5072.08 ft Outlet Station: 40.54 ft

Outlet Elevation: 5070.50 ft Number of Barrels: 1

Culvert Data Summary - EX Culvert 2a - 48" CMP Barrel Shape: Circular

Barrel Diameter: 4.00 ft Barrel Material: Corrugated Steel

Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0240

Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Thin Edge Projecting

Inlet Depression: NONE

Total Discharge

(cfs) Culvert

Discharge (cfs)

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Inlet

Control Depth (ft)

Outlet Control

Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal

Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet

Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft)

Outlet Velocity

(ft/s) Tailwater Velocity

(ft/s)

0.00 0.00 5072.08 0.000 0.000 0-NF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

86.21 63.76 5076.00 3.919 1.856 1-S2n 1.793 2.406 1.851 1.378 11.212

172.42 105.75 5078.37 6.293 4.809 5-S2n 2.437 3.109 2.524 1.786 12.661

258.63 115.99 5079.12 7.043 5.453 5-S2n 2.595 3.245 2.684 2.080 12.957

344.84 122.94 5079.68 7.599 5.916 5-S2n 2.708 3.330 2.792 2.317 13.144

431.05 128.53 5080.16 8.076 6.304 5-S2n 2.799 3.394 2.882 2.519 13.265

517.26 133.44 5080.60 8.516 6.657 5-S2n 2.879 3.446 2.961 2.697 13.391

596.00 137.44 5080.97 8.889 6.951 5-S2n 2.952 3.486 3.028 2.844 13.492

689.68 142.26 5081.44 9.356 7.315 5-S2n 3.047 3.530 3.112 3.004 13.589

775.89 145.85 5081.80 9.719 7.593 5-S2n 3.118 3.562 3.173 3.140 13.666

862.10 149.17 5082.14 10.063 7.855 5-S2n 3.184 3.589 3.235 3.267 13.711

Table 3 - Culvert Summary Table: EX Culvert 2b - 36" CMP

Total Discharge

(cfs) Culvert

Discharge (cfs)

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Inlet

Control Depth (ft)

Outlet Control

Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal

Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet

Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft)

Outlet Velocity

(ft/s) Tailwater Velocity

(ft/s)

0.00 0.00 5072.08 0.000 0.000 0-NF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

86.21 22.47 5076.00 2.298 0.0* 1-S2n 0.991 1.525 0.991 1.378 10.990

172.42 51.48 5078.37 4.673 2.415 5-S2n 1.581 2.331 1.648 1.786 12.940

258.63 58.03 5079.12 5.423 3.115 5-S2n 1.704 2.463 1.777 2.080 13.315

344.84 62.36 5079.68 5.979 3.614 5-S2n 1.784 2.541 1.864 2.317 13.520

431.05 65.80 5080.16 6.456 4.031 5-S2n 1.848 2.597 1.931 2.519 13.675

517.26 68.78 5080.60 6.896 4.407 5-S2n 1.904 2.641 1.987 2.697 13.855

596.00 71.19 5080.97 7.269 4.722 5-S2n 1.952 2.673 2.036 2.844 13.960

689.68 74.08 5081.44 7.736 5.109 5-S2n 2.009 2.708 2.094 3.004 14.075

775.89 76.23 5081.80 8.099 5.407 5-S2n 2.052 2.733 2.134 3.140 14.187

862.10 78.20 5082.14 8.444 5.687 5-S2n 2.092 2.753 2.178 3.267 14.232

Straight Culvert

Inlet Elevation (invert): 5073.70 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 5071.11 ft

Culvert Length: 38.40 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0676

Site Data - EX Culvert 2b - 36" CMP Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft

Inlet Elevation: 5073.70 ft Outlet Station: 38.31 ft

Outlet Elevation: 5071.11 ft Number of Barrels: 1

Culvert Data Summary - EX Culvert 2b - 36" CMP Barrel Shape: Circular

Barrel Diameter: 3.00 ft Barrel Material: Corrugated Steel

Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0240

Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Thin Edge Projecting

Inlet Depression: NONE

Table 4 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: EX Culvert #2 (MP 0.50))

Tailwater Channel Data - EX Culvert #2 (MP 0.50) Tailwater Channel Option: Triangular Channel

Side Slope (H:V): 4.00 (_:1) Channel Slope: 0.0400

Channel Manning's n: 0.0200 Channel Invert Elevation: 5070.50 ft

Roadway Data for Crossing: EX Culvert #2 (MP 0.50) Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation

Crest Length: 25.00 ft Crest Elevation: 5078.00 ft

Roadway Top Width: 20.00 ft

0.00 5070.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

86.21 5071.88 1.38 11.36 3.44 2.41

172.42 5072.29 1.79 13.51 4.46 2.52

258.63 5072.58 2.08 14.95 5.19 2.58

344.84 5072.82 2.32 16.06 5.78 2.63

431.05 5073.02 2.52 16.98 6.29 2.67

517.26 5073.20 2.70 17.78 6.73 2.70

596.00 5073.34 2.84 18.42 7.10 2.72

689.68 5073.50 3.00 19.10 7.50 2.75

775.89 5073.64 3.14 19.67 7.84 2.77

862.10 5073.77 3.27 20.20 8.15 2.79

Existing – Crossing #3 (MP 0.68) – Sta 167+65

Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design, and Maximum Flow

Minimum Flow: 0 cfs Design Flow: 40.2 cfs

Maximum Flow: 79.7 cfs

Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: EX Culvert #3 (MP 0.68)

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Total Discharge (cfs) EX Culvert 3 - 36"

CMP Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge

(cfs) Iterations

5122.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 1

5123.37 7.97 7.97 0.00 1

5123.98 15.94 15.94 0.00 1

5124.53 23.91 23.91 0.00 1

5125.09 31.88 31.88 0.00 1

5125.71 39.85 39.85 0.00 1

5125.74 40.20 40.20 0.00 1

5127.29 55.79 55.79 0.00 1

5127.64 63.76 58.70 4.95 9

5127.76 71.73 59.61 12.08 6

5127.85 79.70 60.34 19.32 5

5127.50 57.53 57.53 0.00 Overtopping

Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: EX Culvert 3 - 36" CMP

(cfs) Culvert

Discharge (cfs)

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Inlet

Control Depth (ft)

Outlet Control

Depth (ft) Flow Type Normal

Depth (ft) Critical Depth (ft) Outlet

Depth (ft) Tailwater Depth (ft)

Outlet Velocity

(ft/s) Tailwater Velocity

(ft/s)

0.00 0.00 5122.11 0.000 0.000 0-NF 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

7.97…