852351engRadnor.pdf

RADNOR TOWNSHIP

301 IVEN AVENUE

WAYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 19087-5297

Phone (610) 688-5600 Fax (610) 971-0450 www.radnor.com

RADNOR TOWNSHIP REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

Engineering Services for the Earles Lane Culvert Replacement Project

Introduction

Radnor Township is soliciting proposals from qualified, professional engineering firms to provide engineering, design, permitting, and bid-phase services for the replacement of the existing Earles Lane culvert over Saw Mill Run.

Background

The Earles Lane crossing over Saw Mill Run requires full replacement. The Township anticipates replacing the structure with a precast concrete box culvert with a 10-foot clear span. A Hydrologic and Hydraulic (“H&H”) Analysis was previously performed and indicates that the proposed structure will not increase the existing water surface elevation. The supporting H&H Analysis for the proposed structure has already been completed and is included with this RFP as Appendix A.

The Township now seeks proposal submissions to finalize the full design package, prepare all regulatory permits, and develop the construction plans and specifications necessary to advance the project to bidding and construction.

http://www.radnor.com/

Scope of Services

Engineering firms responding to this RFP shall provide all tasks necessary to complete full design services for the Earles Lane Culvert Replacement Project. The scope of work includes the following components.

1. Civil Engineering

a. Survey field work and data reduction for development of base mapping, roadway and stream baselines, and cross sections.

b. PA One Call to determine utilities. Overhead lines appear in conflict and will require coordination; underground relocations are anticipated.

c. Minor vertical alignment changes are anticipated; existing horizontal alignment should be maintained.

d. Safety upgrades, Guide rail analysis.

e. Roadway cross sections and pavement design.

f. Detour plan for full road closure during construction. (Goshen Road to Darby Paoli Road)

g. Stormwater drainage design/calculations and details including possible additional inlets, cross pipes, and curbing.

h. E&S Plans/design/calculations, assuming bypass pumping.

i. Generate quantities and a cost estimate for the site work portion of the construction cost.

j. Prepare construction specifications for inclusion in bid documents.

k. Prepare a preliminary construction schedule.

2. Structural Engineering

a. Removal of existing structure.

b. Evaluate feasibility/economics of structure replacement alternatives (precast box, pipe arch, slab bridge, etc.) including proposed increase in span length based on H&H Analysis.

c. Replacement with recommended alternative structure including wingwalls.

d. Establish structure elevations from survey.

e. Replace existing structure with a precast concrete box culvert.

f. Design inlet and outlet headwalls, wingwalls, footings.

g. Prepare detailed structural plans and calculations.

h. Generate quantities and cost estimate for the structural portion of the construction cost.

i. Prepare structural specifications for inclusion in bid documents.

j. Prepare detailed structural plans, calculations, and technical specifications.

k. Prepare a structure construction cost estimate.

3. Geotechnical Engineering

a. Review available geologic data and perform a site reconnaissance

b. Prepare and administer the subsurface drilling contract

c. Provide full-time geotechnical inspection of the structure borings.

d. Prepare boring logs, structure boring tracings, and a subsurface profile.

e. Perform laboratory testing of select soil and rock samples.

f. Support design calculations for culvert with adjoining wingwalls (soil parameters, LFRF inputs for BOXLRFD analysis, wingwall stability).

g. Prepare a geotechnical foundation report.

4. Environmental Services

a. Conduct Phase I Bog Turtle Habitat Survey within 300 feet of the project area.

b. Perform Wetland Presence/Absence investigation within 300 feet.

c. Confirm no archaeological or cultural resources present (PNDI).

d. Prepare and submit PADEP Chapter 105 Permit application.

Proposal Requirements

Proposals must include the following:

1. Firm Qualifications

a. Description of firm history, organization, and relevant experience.

b. Demonstrated experience designing culvert replacements, general permits, and municipal roadway projects.

c. Listing of key personnel and their roles.

2. Technical Approach

a. Discussion of approach to completing the tasks.

b. Identification of any anticipated challenges and mitigation strategies.

c. Provide a preliminary schedule reflecting design milestones, permitting timelines, and anticipated advertisement for construction.

3. Fee Proposal

a. Lump sum or not-to-exceed fee broken down by task (Structural, Civil, E&S, Stormwater, Geotechnical, Environmental, Permitting, Specifications, Bid Support).

b. Hourly rates for staff.

4. References: Provide at least three references for similar municipal or transportation projects.

5. Insurance: The engineering firms shall furnish a Certificate of Insurance coverage in the amounts indicated as follows:

a. Worker’s Compensation Insurance to protect your employees for the statutory requirements of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania including coverage under any applicable federal law.

b. Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 Bodily Injury each accident

$1,000,000 Bodily Injury by disease – policy limit

$1,000,000 Bodily Injury by disease –each employee

c. Commercial General Liability – Occurrence form including Independent Contractors, Products, completed Operations, Explosion, collapse & Underground Hazards, Broad Form Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Broad form Property Damage including completed Operations:

General Aggregate $2,000,000

Products & Completed Operations Aggregate $2,000,000

Personal & Advertising Injury $1,000,000

Property Damage $1,000,000

Each Occurrence $1,000,000

Fire Damage (any one fire) $ 50,000

Medical Expenses (any one person) $ 5,000

d. Comprehensive Automobile Liability covering all owned, hired and non-owned vehicles:

Bodily Injury & Property Damage combined single Limit: $1,000,000

e. Umbrella Liability

$2,000,000 each occurrence

$2,000,000 aggregate

f. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions)

$1,000,000 per claim

$2,000,000 aggregate

The consultant shall maintain the above coverage throughout the Agreement and any amendment thereto. The above policies should also name Radnor Township as an additional insured for this contract on a primary and non-contributory basis. Waiver of subrogation in favor of Radnor Township to be included.

Certificates in Insurance evidencing the above coverage with insurance companies satisfactory to Radnor Township must be provided to Radnor Township prior to the commencement of any work. Such certificates must provide at least thirty (30) days’ written notice to Radnor Township in the event of reduction or cancellation of any coverage.

Evaluation Criteria

Radnor Township will evaluate proposals based on:

• Relevant municipal experience

• Understanding of project requirements

• Technical design approach

• Completeness of proposal

• Proposed schedule

• Proposed fee

• Qualifications of key personnel

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Submit one (1) electronic PDF and five (5) bound hard copies of the proposal to:

Radnor Township – Engineering Department 301 Iven Avenue Wayne, PA 19087

All proposals must be received no later than:

November 13th at 4:00 PM EST

Questions may be directed to:

Matthew Rieger, P.E.

Assistant Director of Engineering and Community Development Radnor Township Engineering Department

(610) 688-5600

APPENDIX A

| H&H ANALYSES FOR EARLES LANE

| 1

Memorandum

Date: June 5, 2023

To: Radnor Township

From: Gannett Fleming

RE: Preliminary Results from Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses

INTRODUCTION

Project Location and Description Earles Lane over Saw Mill Run is located within Radnor Township just upstream of the confluence of Saw Mill Run with Darby

Creek. The Earles Lane bridge is currently experiencing severe erosion at the abutments. The scope of the proposed project includes preliminary engineering and final design services for the replacement of the bridge carrying Earles Lane over Saw Mill

Run. The anticipated replacement structure will be a precast concrete box culvert greater in plan area and hydraulic opening as the existing structure with an optional realignment of the downstream creek bed.

The main goal of this preliminary study is to determine the hydraulic feasibility of using a structure with a larger hydraulic opening. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the hydraulic effects of the preliminary design and to document the methodology, findings, and assumptions related to the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for replacement of the

Earles Lane bridge.

Site Data Saw Mill Run is a perennial, medium order stream that generally flows southwest to northeast at the project location, and then continues east to its confluence with Darby Creek approximately 250 feet downstream of the project location. The river has an average bed slope of 2% through the reach being modeled.

Historical aerial photographs show the presence of a dam and reservoir approximately 450 feet upstream of the project location.

This structure has been removed and does not currently impact water surface elevations (WSEL) in the reach. No other ponds, lakes, reservoirs, or other controls are located within 500 feet upstream and downstream of the project location. A project location map is included in Figure 1.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study

(FIS) for Delaware County in November 2017. The FIRM and FIS indicate that the project is located within FEMA Zone A; therefore, no detailed hydraulic analyses were completed for Saw Mill Run and no regulatory floodway was established. Downstream from the project location, base flood elevations (BFEs) are established for Darby Creek. The BFEs are used as boundary conditions in the hydraulic model described in this memorandum. The initial countywide study was conducted in 1993. No hydraulic model was available from FEMA.

Existing and Proposed Structures The existing structure is a single-span reinforced concrete slab bridge. The existing bridge is approximately 13 feet long with a clear span of 6.5 feet. The bridge has a maximum under-clearance of approximately 5 feet from the low chord to the lowest point in the streambed. The structure width is approximately 26 feet.

The final design of the proposed bridge is not available yet. The preliminary design includes a precast concrete box culvert with a clear span of 10 feet. The purpose of the preliminary hydraulic analysis is to determine whether a larger hydraulic opening will result in any negative flooding impact to upstream or downstream areas.

| 2

Figure 1 – Project Location Map

HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS

Watershed Area The drainage area of the Saw Mill Run watershed at a point 250 feet downstream of the project location is 0.57 mi2 as delineated on a 30-meter resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) by the USGS StreamStats application and examined for reasonableness.

A map showing the drainage area is provided in Figure 2.

Storm Discharges Due to the proximity of the project location to the confluence of Saw Mill Run with Darby Creek, both Saw Mill Run and Darby

Creek were included in the study. Darby Creek is located within the detailed FEMA study area where BFEs are established.

Frequency flow discharges for Darby Creek are available from the FEMA FIS. Saw Mill Run is located within the approximate

FEMA study area. No flow data for Saw Mill Run is available from the FEMA FIS. Peak discharges for Saw Mill Run were calculated using the US Geologic Survey (USGS) Scientific Investigation Report (SIR) 2019-5094 regression method via the StreamStats

Application. The estimates for both reaches are listed in Table 1. FEMA FIS excerpts and StreamStats output are provided in

Attachment A.

| 3

Figure 2 – Watershed Drainage Area

Table 1

Flow Summary

Flood Event

Darby Creek DS of Confluence with Little Darby Creek1

(FEMA FIS) (cfs)

Darby Creek DS of Confluence with Saw Mill Run

(FEMA FIS) (cfs)

Saw Mill Run

(Regional Regression)

(cfs)

2-year 1,5002 1,7002 155

10-year 2,900 3,350 385

50-year 5,100 6,100 675

100-year 6,550 8,100 822

500-year 11,300 15,000 1,220

1. Values obtained by adding FEMA FIS Flows from Darby Creek and Little Darby Creek. Values are conservatively high.

2. Values extrapolated.

Coincident flow frequencies were considered for the current study due to difference in watershed size between Darby Creek and

Saw Mill Run. The Federal Highway Administration Document HEC-22 “Urban Drainage Design Manual” indicates that drainage areas with different sizes will generally have different timing parameters relating rainfall and runoff. For a project where the drainage area ratio between two study watersheds is 10:1 (12.7:1 in the current project), coincidental occurrence may be considered for more accurate tail water conditions and to avoid over-design. For example, if the design event is a 10-year event, no coincidental occurrence is needed. If the design event is a 100-year event, the design flow for the project is either the

| 4 combination of a 100-year flood in the main stream (larger drainage area) and a 50-year flood in the tributary, or the combination of a 50-year flood in the main stream with a 100-year flood in the tributary, whichever is greater. The coincident flow scenarios analyzed in the current study are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Coincident Flow Scenarios for Design

Frequency Event 10-year 100-year

Reach Scenario Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Darby Creek 10-year 100-year 50-year

Saw Mill Run 10-year 50-year 100-year

HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

HEC-RAS Model Set Up The US Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) hydraulic modeling software HEC-RAS 6.2 was used to evaluate the hydraulic effect of the proposed bridge replacement. The computational cross sections developed for the HEC-RAS program were generated from a combination of topographic survey data (survey performed by Gannett Fleming in Jan. 2023) and LiDAR topographic data. The horizontal datum is referenced to Pennsylvania State Plane South (datum: North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), units: feet).

The vertical datum is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). LiDAR topographic data was obtained from the PAMAP Program. The LiDAR was flown in 2008 and supports vertical accuracies of 18.5 cm in open areas and 37 cm in forested areas. Water surface elevations generated in HEC-RAS are presented according to the NAVD88 vertical datum.

In order to model the project site and areas with possible impacts, twenty-eight cross sections were generated along Saw Mill

Run and fourteen along Darby Creek. The HEC-RAS model extends approximately 1,400 feet upstream of the project site along

Saw Mill Run, downstream from the site to Saw Mill Run’s confluence with Darby Creek, 230 feet upstream from the confluence along Darby Creek, and 2,800 feet downstream from the confluence along Darby Creek. The location of these cross sections is depicted in Figure 3. The cross sections were oriented normal to the flow direction. Cross sections adjacent to the bridge were cut parallel to the roadway.

As previously described, Saw Mill Run is not located within an area of detailed study by FEMA. Darby Creek, on the other hand, is within the FEMA detailed study area. Two FEMA cross sections, AI (RAS River Station 97) and AJ (RAS River Station 2977), are located within the modeled extents of Darby Creek. The downstream boundary conditions for the hydraulic model were assumed to be known water surface elevations. The known elevations were obtained from the FEMA FIS for cross-section AI. The model was run using a mixed flow regime because Froude numbers approaching 1.0 (signaling a potential transition from subcritical to supercritical flow) were observed at some locations. Contraction and expansion losses and ineffective flow areas were also modeled for the bridges.

Manning’s roughness coefficients were selected based on the FEMA FIS, field observations, aerial photography, and engineering judgment. The selected roughness coefficient for the channel was 0.035. Roughness coefficients for the overbanks were 0.055 or

0.085 depending on land cover types. The existing and the proposed bridges were not skewed.

The flows estimated using the 2019 SIR Regional Regression Equations were used for Saw Mill Run as the basis of design and analysis. Peak discharges were applied for the existing and the proposed conditions within the hydraulic model.

| 5

Figure 3 – Cross Section Location Map

HEC-RAS Analysis Output Summary Comparison with FEMA FIS

Two FEMA cross sections, AI (RAS River Station 97) and AJ (RAS River Station 2977), are located near the project site and were included in the current model. FEMA cross section AI was used as the downstream limit of analysis. The FEMA FIS WSEL at cross section AI was used as the downstream boundary conditions for the hydraulic model. To validate the current hydraulic model, the FEMA FIS WSEL and the HEC-RAS simulated WSEL at FEMA cross-section AJ were compared for the 100-year flood event

(Table 3).

Table 3

FEMA Comparison

FEMA Cross Section

ID

HEC-

RAS

Station

100-year Water Surface

Elevation

From HEC-

RAS model

From FEMA

FIS

AJ 2977 227.6 feet 228.2 feet

The RAS simulated WSEL at cross-section AJ is 0.6 feet lower than the WSEL reported in the FEMA FIS. The difference may be attributable to more recent, higher-quality terrain data used in the current study. Since the difference in WSEL is less than 1.0 foot, the current HEC-RAS model is considered reasonable.

| 6

Comparison of Existing and Proposed Conditions

The existing structure is a single-span bridge with a maximum low chord elevation of 225.3 feet and a clear span of approximately

6.5 feet. The total hydraulic opening is approximately 28.82 square feet. The existing structure cannot pass a 10-year flood without overtopping the bridge deck.

The proposed structure is a single-span culvert with a maximum low chord elevation of 225.3 feet and a clear span of 10 feet.

The total hydraulic opening is approximately 40.94 square feet. The proposed structure can safely pass a 10-year flood but will overtop during a 50-year flood event.

The water surface elevation profile and the flow velocities calculated in the existing and the proposed conditions are compared and summarized in Table 4. The hydraulic model results indicate that the proposed culvert will not increase the water surface elevation during the 100-year flood. HEC-RAS model outputs are presented in Attachment B.

Table 4

100-year Flood Results Comparison (Non-Coincidental)

Reach River

Station

Total

Flow

(cfs)

Water Surface

Elevation

(feet NAVD88)

Difference

(Prop.-Ex.)

(feet)

Velocity

(fps) Difference

(Prop.-Ex.)

(fps) Existing Proposed Existing Proposed

Saw Mill 1461 822 252.51 252.51 0.00 10.61 10.61 0.00

Saw Mill 1403 822 250.00 250.00 0.00 10.98 10.98 0.00

Saw Mill 1357 822 249.50 249.50 0.00 6.44 6.44 0.00

Saw Mill 1307 822 242.43 242.43 0.00 18.47 18.47 0.00

Saw Mill 1256 822 242.65 242.65 0.00 11.02 11.02 0.00

Saw Mill 1202 822 242.34 242.34 0.00 9.77 9.77 0.00

Saw Mill 1159 822 238.84 238.84 0.00 15.64 15.64 0.00

Saw Mill 1112 822 239.72 239.72 0.00 10.08 10.08 0.00

Saw Mill 1060 822 238.55 238.55 0.00 8.24 8.24 0.00

Saw Mill 1002 822 238.60 238.60 0.00 6.45 6.45 0.00

Saw Mill 955 822 238.56 238.56 0.00 4.66 4.66 0.00

Saw Mill 897 822 238.54 238.54 0.00 4.16 4.16 0.00

Saw Mill 836 822 236.98 236.98 0.00 10.02 10.02 0.00

Saw Mill 807 822 235.57 235.57 0.00 12.88 12.88 0.00

Saw Mill 776 822 232.19 232.19 0.00 16.85 16.85 0.00

Saw Mill 723 822 229.73 229.73 0.00 14.99 14.99 0.00

Saw Mill 668 822 230.44 230.44 0.00 9.42 9.42 0.00

Saw Mill 598 822 229.86 229.86 0.00 6.27 6.51 0.24

Saw Mill 538 822 228.92 228.92 0.00 8.87 8.94 0.07

Saw Mill 493 822 229.28 229.28 0.00 5.51 5.50 -0.01

Saw Mill 449 822 229.31 229.31 0.00 3.92 3.92 0.00

Saw Mill 404 822 229.10 229.10 0.00 5.27 5.28 0.01

Saw Mill 387 Earles Lane Bridge

Saw Mill 370 822 226.29 226.29 0.00 12.38 12.41 0.03

| 7

Saw Mill 338 822 227.49 227.49 0.00 3.65 3.65 0.00

Saw Mill 293 822 227.52 227.52 0.00 1.52 1.52 0.00

Saw Mill 213 822 227.51 227.51 0.00 1.78 1.78 0.00

Saw Mill 169 822 227.51 227.51 0.00 1.72 1.72 0.00

Saw Mill 104 822 227.51 227.51 0.00 1.55 1.55 0.00

Darby - Upper 3208 6550 227.52 227.52 0.00 10.83 10.83 0.00

Darby - Upper 3078 6550 227.70 227.70 0.00 7.10 7.10 0.00

Darby - Upper 2977 6550 227.60 227.60 0.00 6.32 6.32 0.00

Darby - Lower 2737 8100 226.47 226.47 0.00 9.81 9.81 0.00

Darby - Lower 2592 8100 225.82 225.82 0.00 9.51 9.51 0.00

Darby - Lower 2344 8100 224.86 224.86 0.00 9.88 9.88 0.00

Darby - Lower 2046 8100 224.07 224.07 0.00 7.82 7.82 0.00

Darby - Lower 1851 8100 222.93 222.93 0.00 9.55 9.55 0.00

Darby - Lower 1665 8100 222.63 222.63 0.00 7.08 7.08 0.00

Darby - Lower 1469 8100 222.03 222.03 0.00 7.52 7.52 0.00

Darby - Lower 1164 8100 221.05 221.05 0.00 8.51 8.51 0.00

Darby - Lower 902 8100 220.75 220.75 0.00 5.74 5.74 0.00

Darby - Lower 581 8100 220.48 220.48 0.00 5.41 5.41 0.00

Darby - Lower 97 8100 220.00 220.00 0.00 5.76 5.76 0.00

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The current study analyzed the hydraulic impact of replacing the existing structure, which has a 6.5-foot span, with a structure that has a 10-foot span. The results suggest that there will be no negative impact to either upstream or downstream areas in terms of flooding. In a 100-year flood event, the maximum WSEL will remain unchanged compared to the WSEL in the existing condition. In smaller flood events (2-year or 10-year), the WSEL upstream of the bridge (approximately 200 ft) will decrease thus reducing flooding risks upstream of the bridge. The community near Lawrence Lane will not be adversely impacted by the proposed bridge replacement. A flood inundation comparison is presented in Attachment C.

Realignment of the stream channel along Saw Mill Run downstream of the project location may improve bank erosion in the area. However, realigning the stream is not likely to have any impact hydraulically. The WSEL along Saw Mill Run downstream of the project site is mainly controlled by backwater from Darby Creek. Any change to stream channel alignment is not likely to reduce or increase flooding risks.

REFERENCES

1. Chow, V. T. (1959). “Open-channel Hydraulics.” McGraw-Hill.

2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2017). “Flood Insurance Study: Delaware County, Pennsylvania (All

Jurisdictions),” FIS # 42045CV001D. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

3. HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Version 6.2. (2022). Davis, CA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering

Center.

4. Roland M.A. and Stuckey M.H. (2019) Development of Regression Equations for the Estimation of Flood Flows at Ungaged

Streams in Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2019-5094. Available online https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2019/5094/sir20195094.pdf

Attachment A – Hydrology

VOLUME 1 of 2

DELAWARE COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA

(ALL JURISDICTIONS)

COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY

NAME NUMBER NAME NUMBER NAME NUMBER

ALDAN, BOROUGH OF 420401 GLENOLDEN, BOROUGH OF 420416 ROSE VALLEY, BOROUGH OF 420431 ASTON, TOWNSHIP OF 421602 HAVERFORD, TOWNSHIP OF 420417 RUTLEDGE, BOROUGH OF 420432 BETHEL, TOWNSHIP OF 421606 LANSDOWNE, BOROUGH OF 420418 SHARON HILL, BOROUGH OF 420433 BROOKHAVEN, BOROUGH OF 420403 LOWER CHICHESTER, TOWNSHIP OF 421604 SPRINGFIELD, TOWNSHIP OF 420434 CHADDS FORD, TOWNSHIP OF 420402 MARCUS HOOK, BOROUGH OF 420419 SWARTHMORE, BOROUGH OF 420435

CHESTER, CITY OF 420404 MARPLE, TOWNSHIP OF 420420 THORNBURY, TOWNSHIP OF 425390

CHESTER, TOWNSHIP OF 420405 MEDIA, BOROUGH OF 420421 TINICUM, TOWNSHIP OF 421605

CHESTER HEIGHTS, BOROUGH OF 420406 MIDDLETOWN, TOWNSHIP OF 420422 TRAINER, BOROUGH OF 420437 CLIFTON HEIGHTS, BOROUGH OF 420407 MILLBOURNE, BOROUGH OF 422408 UPLAND, BOROUGH OF 420438 COLLINGDALE, BOROUGH OF 420408 MORTON, BOROUGH OF 420423 UPPER CHICHESTER, TOWNSHIP OF 420439 COLWYN, BOROUGH OF 420409 NETHER PROVIDENCE, TOWNSHIP OF 420424 UPPER DARBY, TOWNSHIP OF 420440 CONCORD, TOWNSHIP OF 420410 NEWTOWN, TOWNSHIP OF 420991 UPPER PROVIDENCE, TOWNSHIP OF 420441

DARBY, BOROUGH OF 420411 NORWOOD, BOROUGH OF 420425 YEADON, BOROUGH OF 420442

DARBY, TOWNSHIP OF 421603 PARKSIDE, BOROUGH OF 420426

*EAST LANSDOWNE, BOROUGH OF 420412 PROSPECT PARK, BOROUGH OF 420427

EDDYSTONE, BOROUGH OF 420413 RADNOR, TOWNSHIP OF 420428

EDGMONT, TOWNSHIP OF 420414 RIDLEY, TOWNSHIP OF 420429

FOLCROFT, BOROUGH OF 420415 RIDLEY PARK, BOROUGH OF 420430

* No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified

REVISED:

NOVEMBER 3, 2017

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER

42045CV001D

Community Name Initial CCO Date Final CCO Date

Eddystone, Borough of * * Edgmont, Township of * February 10, 1976 Folcroft, Borough of September 1974 March 15, 1976 Glenolden, Borough of * * Haverford, Township of * * Lansdowne, Borough of December 13, 1977 February 5, 1981 Lower Chichester, Township of December 5, 1977 February 5, 1981 Marcus Hook, Borough of December 12, 1977 October 6, 1980 Marple, Township of * March 3, 1976 Media, Borough of November 14, 1978 * Middletown, Township of * March 16, 1976 Millbourne, Borough of December 13, 1977 September 5, 1980 Morton, Borough of September 28, 1976 January 31, 1979 Nether Providence, Township of * * Newtown, Township of * September 11, 1979 Norwood, Borough of September 1974 April 8, 1981 Parkside, Borough of * * Prospect Park, Borough of September 29, 1976 January 31, 1979 Radnor, Township of * April 12, 1976 Ridley, Township of * February 8, 1982 Ridley Park, Borough of December 17, 1975 January 31, 1979 Rose Valley, Borough of * June 1974 Rutledge, Borough of September 29, 1976 January 31, 1979 Sharon Hill, Borough of December 4, 1975 September 6, 1978 Springfield, Township of * April 14, 1976 Swarthmore, Borough of * February 1976 Tinicum, Township of December 4, 1975 March 22, 1979 Trainer, Borough of * February 9, 1976 Upland, Borough of * * Upper Chichester, Township of September 17, 1974 March 26, 1976 Upper Darby, Township of * April 14, 1976 Upper Providence, Township of * March 8, 1976 Yeadon, Borough of December 11, 1975 October 26, 1978

* Data not available

The date of the final CCO meeting for the September 30, 1993, countywide FIS was December 11, 1992.

For the November 18, 2009, FIS revision, all jurisdictions were notified by telephone in July 2006 that the FIS would be updated.

For the September 2, 2015, FIS revision, a RiskMAP coordination meeting was held on February 9, 2012, with representatives from FEMA, the jurisdictions of Delaware County, and the USACE. A final CCO meeting was held on May 13, 2014, with representatives from FEMA, the jurisdictions of Delaware County, the USACE, and RAMPP (the mapping partner).

TABLE 1 – INITIAL AND FINAL CCO MEETINGS – continued

Stream Name Limits of Study

South Fork West Branch Chester Creek

From the confluence with West Branch Chester Creek to Smith Bridge Road

Chrome Run From the confluence with Chester Creek to a point approximately 160 feet upstream of St. Andrews Drive

Cobbs Creek From the confluence with the Delaware River to a point approximately 1,000 feet upstream of College Avenue

Crum Creek (Lower Reach) From the confluence with the Delaware River to the dam at Springton Reservoir

Little Crum Creek From the confluence with Crum Creek to a point approximately 600 feet upstream of Michigan Avenue and from Yale Avenue to Amherst Avenue

Darby Creek From the confluence with the Delaware River to St.

Davids Road

Little Darby Creek

From the confluence with Darby Creek to a point approximately .96 mile upstream and from a point approximately 53 feet downstream of Maplewood Avenue to Sugartown Road

Delaware River For its entire length within the county

Foxes Run From Malin Road to a point approximately 1,050 feet upstream of the swim club exit

Green Creek From a point approximately 1000 feet upstream of the confluence with Chester Creek to Bethel Road

Gulph Creek From County Line Road to Chamounix Road

Harvey Run From the confluence with Brandywine Creek to confluence of Harvey Run Branch

Harvey Run Branch From confluence with Harvey Run to 1,600 feet upstream of Painters Crossing Road

Hermesprota Creek (Lower Reach)

From the downstream corporate limits of the Borough of Sharon Hill to approximately 1,210 feet upstream of

CONRAIL

TABLE 3 – SCOPE OF STUDY – continued

Flooding Source and Location

Drainage Area

(sq. miles)

Peak Discharges (cfs) 10-percent annual chance

2-percent annual chance

1-percent annual chance

0.2-percent annual chance

DARBY CREEK - Continued Downstream of confluence of

Cobbs Creek 62.3 10,800 20,000 26,000 45,900

At Cobbs Creek 39.7 7,200 13,000 17,000 31,300 Approximately 1,640 feet downstream of Providence Road

37.6 6,900 12,800 16,500 30,800

Approximately 3,420 feet upstream of State Road 30.6 6,100 11,200 14,900 26,400

Approximately 0.46 mile upstream of Radnor and Chester Roads (State Route 320)

15.0 3,350 6,100 8,100 15,000

Approximately 0.34 mile upstream of confluence of Little Darby Creek

6.5 1,800 3,200 4,100 7,100

At St. David’s Road 5.8 1,700 3,000 3,800 6,800

DILWORTH ROAD

TRIBUTARY

At confluence with West Branch Chester Creek 0.3 260 350 470 1,440

EAST BRANCH MARCUS

HOOK CREEK

At confluence with Bezor’s Run 1.6 700 1,150 1,390 1,880

FOXES RUN

At Marlin Avenue 1.3 460 780 1,000 1,675

GREEN CREEK

At confluence with Chester Creek 4.1 1,100 1,900 2,300 3,500

Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of confluence with Chester Creek

2.1 800 1,400 1,700 2,600

GULPH CREEK

At stream mile 2.85 2.8 860 1,500 1,925 3,300 At stream mile 4.72 2.2 700 1,325 1,690 2,725

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES – continued

Flooding Source and Location

Drainage Area

(sq. miles)

Peak Discharges (cfs) 10-percent annual chance

2-percent annual chance

1-percent annual chance

0.2-percent annual chance

HARVEY RUN

At confluence with Brandywine Creek

3.9 1,210 2,108 2,569 3,878

At a point 100 ft. downstream of Ring Road

2.8 992 1,735 2,118 3,205

At a point 980 ft. downstream of Hayburn Road

2.1 823 1,442 1,762 2,671

HARVEY RUN BRANCH

At confluence with Harvey Run

0.2 214 374 456 687

Approximately 90 ft downstream of Painters Crossing Road

0.2 187 323 393 587

HERMESPROTA CREEK

(LOWER REACH)

Downstream corporate limits of the Borough of Sharon Hill

1.0 290 500 640 1,190

(MACDADE BOULEVARD

REACH)

At MacDade Boulevard 0.4 * * 857 *

(UPPER REACH)

At Chester Pike 32.8 275 460 590 960

LEWIS RUN

At confluence with Crum Creek 1.4 740 1,170 1,370 1,890

LITTLE CRUM CREEK

At confluence with Crum Creek 3.2 1,080 1,700 2,050 2,800

At Yale Avenue 1.3 630 1,050 1,250 1,650

LITTLE DARBY CREEK

At confluence with Darby Creek 3.6 1,100 1,900 2,450 4,200

* Data Not Available

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES – continued

TABLE 6 – MANNING'S "n" VALUES

Stream Channel “n” Overbank “n” Bezor’s Run 0.040 0.080 Brandywine Creek 0.028-0.032 0.030-0.12 Cherry Farm Lane Tributary * * Chester Creek 0.030-0.060 0.050-0.010 Chester Creek Tributary * * Chrome Run 0.040-0.060 0.028-0.100 Cobbs Creek 0.028-0.070 0.070 Crum Creek 0.024-0.040 0.032-0.080 Darby Creek 0.018-0.060 0.030-0.145 Dilworthtown Road Tributary * * East Branch Chester Creek * * East Branch Chester Creek Tributary 2 * * East Branch Marcus Hook Creek 0.070 0.050 Foxes Run 0.035 0.050-0.075 Green Creek 0.045 0.033-0.125 Gulph Creek 0.040 0.070 Harvey Run 0.037-0.042 0.030-0.12 Harvey Run Branch 0.020-0.045 0.030-0.12 Hermesprota Creek (Lower Reach) 0.028-0.035 0.030-0.050 Hermesprota Creek (MacDade Reach) * * Hermesprota Creek (Upper Reach) 0.040 0.070 Lewis Run 0.035 0.050 Little Crum Creek 0.024-0.040 0.032-0.080 Little Darby Creek 0.040 0.070 Lobbs Run 0.030-0.035 0.040-0.090 Marcus Hook Creek 0.025-0.050 0.040-0.070 Muckinpattis Creek 0.028-0.035 0.030-0.050 Naaman Creek 0.040-0.045 0.085-0.100 Naylors Run 0.018-0.050 0.070 Old Barn Drive Tributary * * Pony Tail Run * * Ridley Creek 0.024-0.070 0.030-0.070 Rocky Run 0.040-0.060 0.070 South Fork West Branch Chester Creek 0.045 0.050-0.125 Spring Run 0.040 0.070 Stockhouse Mill Run * * Stoney Creek 0.050 0.070 Stony Creek 0.024-0.040 0.032-0.080 Sweet Water Road Tributary * * Vernon Road 0.040 0.070 West Branch Chester Creek 0.040-0.045 0.060-0.110

* Data not available

Feet above confluence with Delaware River

T A

B L

E

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

DELAWARE COUNTY, PA

(ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

DARBY CREEK

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY

BASE FLOOD

WATER SURFACE

ELEVATION (FEET NAVD88)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE

1 WIDTH

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY

WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY

INCREASE

Darby Creek

62,515 142 1,515 10.2 129.6 129.6 130.6 1.0

(continued)

T U 66,211 161 1,270 11.8 139.0 139.0 140.0 1.0 V 68,904 227 2,045 7.3 150.0 150.0 151.0 1.0 W 69,802 200 2,200 6.8 152.8 152.8 152.8 0.0 X 72,706 164 1,321 11.3 153.9 153.9 154.9 1.0 Y 73,656 250 2,240 6.7 157.2 157.2 158.2 1.0 Z 76,613 152 1,580 9.4 163.6 163.6 164.6 1.0

AA 81,576 113 1,364 10.2 172.5 172.5 173.5 1.0

AB 84,902 200 2,400 5.4 184.0 184.0 184.0 0.0

AC 88,757 95 848 14.5 184.0 184.0 184.5 0.5

AD 92,136 200 2,140 5.6 192.2 192.2 193.2 1.0

AE 94,723 177 772 10.6 196.7 196.7 197.0 0.3

AF 97,258 255 1,860 4.4 202.5 202.5 203.5 1.0

AG 98,789 235 940 8.3 204.1 204.1 205.1 1.0

AH 100,531 130 723 9.8 209.1 209.1 209.7 0.6

AI 104,280 265 940 7.0 220.0 220.0 221.0 1.0

AJ 107,131 240 1,170 5.2 228.2 228.2 229.2 1.0

AK 110,600 130 440 9.3 259.0 259.0 259.0 0.0

1/12/23, 10:27 AM StreamStats https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ 1/5

StreamStats Report

Collapse All

Basin Characteristics

Parameter Code Parameter Description Value Unit

BSLOPD Mean basin slope measured in degrees 5.5542 degrees

CARBON Percentage of area of carbonate rock 0 percent

DRNAREA Area that drains to a point on a stream 0.57 square miles

ELEV Mean Basin Elevation 383 feet

FOREST Percentage of area covered by forest 32.8584 percent

PRECIP Mean Annual Precipitation 45 inches

ROCKDEP Depth to rock 5 feet

URBAN Percentage of basin with urban development 54.2235 percent

Peak-Flow Statistics

Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters [Peak Flow Region 4 SIR 2019 5094]

Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit

DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.57 square miles 1.2 512

CARBON Percent Carbonate 0 percent 0 68.5

Peak-Flow Statistics Disclaimers [Peak Flow Region 4 SIR 2019 5094]

One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors.

Region ID: PA Workspace ID: PA20230112152555446000 Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 40.01130, -75.38711 Time: 2023-01-12 10:26:22 -0500 https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ 2/5

Peak-Flow Statistics Flow Report [Peak Flow Region 4 SIR 2019 5094]

Statistic Value Unit

50-percent AEP flood 155 ft^3/s

20-percent AEP flood 279 ft^3/s

10-percent AEP flood 385 ft^3/s

4-percent AEP flood 542 ft^3/s

2-percent AEP flood 675 ft^3/s

1-percent AEP flood 822 ft^3/s

0.5-percent AEP flood 982 ft^3/s

0.2-percent AEP flood 1220 ft^3/s

Peak-Flow Statistics Citations

Roland, M.A., and Stuckey, M.H.,2019, Development of regression equations for the estimation of flood flows at ungaged streams in Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5094, 36 p. (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20195094)

Bankfull Statistics

Bankfull Statistics Parameters [Statewide Bankfull Noncarbonate 2018 5066]

Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit

DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.57 square miles 2.62 207

CARBON Percent Carbonate 0 percent

Bankfull Statistics Parameters [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 2015]

Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit

DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.57 square miles 0.07722 940.1535

Bankfull Statistics Parameters [Piedmont P Bieger 2015]

Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit

DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.57 square miles 0.289575 939.99906

Bankfull Statistics Parameters [USA Bieger 2015]

Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit

DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.57 square miles 0.07722 59927.7393

Bankfull Statistics Disclaimers [Statewide Bankfull Noncarbonate 2018 5066]

One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors.

Bankfull Statistics Flow Report [Statewide Bankfull Noncarbonate 2018 5066]

Statistic Value Unit

Bankfull Area 7.91 ft^2

Bankfull Streamflow 29.1 ft^3/s

Bankfull Width 11 ft

Bankfull Depth 0.76 ft

Bankfull Statistics Flow Report [Appalachian Highlands D Bieger 2015]

Statistic Value Unit

Bieger_D_channel_width 12 ft https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20195094 https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ 3/5

Statistic Value Unit

Bieger_D_channel_depth 0.954 ft

Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area 11.6 ft^2

Bankfull Statistics Flow Report [Piedmont P Bieger 2015]

Statistic Value Unit

Bieger_P_channel_width 10.9 ft

Bieger_P_channel_depth 0.963 ft

Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area 10.2 ft^2

Bankfull Statistics Flow Report [USA Bieger 2015]

Statistic Value Unit

Bieger_USA_channel_width 10.2 ft

Bieger_USA_channel_depth 1.07 ft

Bieger_USA_channel_cross_sectional_area 12.6 ft^2

Bankfull Statistics Flow Report [Area-Averaged]

Statistic Value Unit

Bankfull Area 7.91 ft^2

Bankfull Streamflow 29.1 ft^3/s

Bankfull Width 11 ft

Bankfull Depth 0.76 ft

Bieger_D_channel_width 12 ft

Bieger_D_channel_depth 0.954 ft

Bieger_D_channel_cross_sectional_area 11.6 ft^2

Bieger_P_channel_width 10.9 ft

Bieger_P_channel_depth 0.963 ft

Bieger_P_channel_cross_sectional_area 10.2 ft^2

Bieger_USA_channel_width 10.2 ft

Bieger_USA_channel_depth 1.07 ft

Bieger_USA_channel_cross_sectional_area 12.6 ft^2

Bankfull Statistics Citations

Clune, J.W., Chaplin, J.J., and White, K.E.,2018, Comparison of regression relations of bankfull discharge and channel geometry for the glaciated and nonglaciated settings of Pennsylvania and southern New York: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018–5066, 20 p. (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185066) Bieger, Katrin; Rathjens, Hendrik; Allen, Peter M.; and Arnold, Jeffrey G.,2015, Development and Evaluation of Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for the Physiographic Regions of the United States, Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty, 17p.

(https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/1515?

utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fusdaarsfacpub%2F1515&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages)

Annual Flow Statistics

Annual Flow Statistics Parameters [Statewide Mean and Base Flow]

Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit

DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.57 square miles 2.26 1720

ELEV Mean Basin Elevation 383 feet 130 2700

PRECIP Mean Annual Precipitation 45 inches 33.1 50.4

FOREST Percent Forest 32.8584 percent 5.1 100 https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185066 https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/1515?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fusdaarsfacpub%2F1515&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ 4/5

Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit

URBAN Percent Urban 54.2235 percent 0 89

Annual Flow Statistics Disclaimers [Statewide Mean and Base Flow]

One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors.

Annual Flow Statistics Flow Report [Statewide Mean and Base Flow]

Statistic Value Unit

Mean Annual Flow 0.881 ft^3/s

Annual Flow Statistics Citations

Stuckey, M.H.,2006, Low-flow, base-flow, and mean-flow regression equations for Pennsylvania streams: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5130, 84 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5130/)

Low-Flow Statistics

Low-Flow Statistics Parameters [Low Flow Region 1]

Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit

DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.57 square miles 4.78 1150

BSLOPD Mean Basin Slope degrees 5.5542 degrees 1.7 6.4

ROCKDEP Depth to Rock 5 feet 4.13 5.21

URBAN Percent Urban 54.2235 percent 0 89

Low-Flow Statistics Disclaimers [Low Flow Region 1]

One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors.

Low-Flow Statistics Flow Report [Low Flow Region 1]

Statistic Value Unit

7 Day 2 Year Low Flow 0.41 ft^3/s

30 Day 2 Year Low Flow 0.503 ft^3/s

7 Day 10 Year Low Flow 0.233 ft^3/s

30 Day 10 Year Low Flow 0.293 ft^3/s

90 Day 10 Year Low Flow 0.398 ft^3/s

Low-Flow Statistics Citations

Stuckey, M.H.,2006, Low-flow, base-flow, and mean-flow regression equations for Pennsylvania streams: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5130, 84 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5130/)

General Flow Statistics

General Flow Statistics Parameters [Statewide Mean and Base Flow]

Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit

DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.57 square miles 2.26 1720

PRECIP Mean Annual Precipitation 45 inches 33.1 50.4

CARBON Percent Carbonate 0 percent 0 99

FOREST Percent Forest 32.8584 percent 5.1 100

URBAN Percent Urban 54.2235 percent 0 89 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5130/ https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ 5/5

General Flow Statistics Disclaimers [Statewide Mean and Base Flow]

One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors.

General Flow Statistics Flow Report [Statewide Mean and Base Flow]

Statistic Value Unit

Harmonic Mean Streamflow 0.255 ft^3/s

General Flow Statistics Citations

Stuckey, M.H.,2006, Low-flow, base-flow, and mean-flow regression equations for Pennsylvania streams: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5130, 84 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5130/)

Base Flow Statistics

Base Flow Statistics Parameters [Statewide Mean and Base Flow]

Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit

DRNAREA Drainage Area 0.57 square miles 2.26 1720

PRECIP Mean Annual Precipitation 45 inches 33.1 50.4

CARBON Percent Carbonate 0 percent 0 99

FOREST Percent Forest 32.8584 percent 5.1 100

URBAN Percent Urban 54.2235 percent 0 89

Base Flow Statistics Disclaimers [Statewide Mean and Base Flow]

One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors.

Base Flow Statistics Flow Report [Statewide Mean and Base Flow]

Statistic Value Unit

Base Flow 10 Year Recurrence Interval 0.337 ft^3/s

Base Flow 25 Year Recurrence Interval 0.302 ft^3/s

Base Flow 50 Year Recurrence Interval 0.282 ft^3/s

Base Flow Statistics Citations

Stuckey, M.H.,2006, Low-flow, base-flow, and mean-flow regression equations for Pennsylvania streams: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5130, 84 p. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5130/)

USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.

USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty. Furthermore, the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.

USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Application Version: 4.11.1

StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22

NSS Services Version: 2.2.1

Attachment B - Hydraulics

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

Main Channel Distance (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 2-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 2-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Derby LowerReach SawMill SawMill

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

Main Channel Distance (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 10-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 10-yr - Prop_FEMA

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

Main Channel Distance (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = UpperReach RS = 3208

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.065 .

.08

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = UpperReach RS = 3078

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.065 .

0 200 400 600 800 1000

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = UpperReach RS = 2977

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.065 .

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 2737

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

.055

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 2592

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 2344

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 2046

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 1851

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .035 .055

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 1665

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 1469

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 1164

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

0 500 1000 1500 2000

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 902

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 581

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = Derby Reach = LowerReach RS = 97

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 1461

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

.08 .035 .08

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 1403

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

0 50 100 150 200 250

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 1357

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

0 50 100 150 200 250

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 1307

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 1256

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 1202

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 1159

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 1112

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 1060

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 1002

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 955

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 897

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS 100-yr - Prop_FEMA

Ground

Bank Sta

.08 .

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

EarlesLane Plan: 1) Exist_FIS 6/22/2023 2) Prop_FEMA 6/22/2023

River = SawMill Reach = SawMill RS = 836

Station (ft)

E le v a ti o n ft

Legend

WS 100-yr - Exist_FIS

WS…