Hydraulics_Memo_LAKE114_1__Overall.pdf

Memorandum

Over a Century of Engineering Excellence Page 1 of 4 Memo LAKE114(1) Overall.docx

DATE: February 6, 2013

FROM: Colin Haggerty, PE, CFM

TO: Gerald Blackler;

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

COPY: Scott Hogan, PE, Ed Martinez, PE, Nathan Silberhorn, Dennis Eden, PE

SUBJECT: LAKE 114(1) HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM

PB PROJECT # 31510T

Dear Mr. Blackler:

As part of the 70% design, Parsons Brinckerhoff has completed individual analysis memo’s for the proposed improvements at the existing 10’x10’ RCB and existing Low Water Crossing. This document will summarize the results of those memo’s as well as provide documentation for the remaining locations along Katherine Access Road that required further analysis. As a result of 30% design and field review, a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis has been performed at six (6) locations along the roadway alignment. The roadway stationing mentioned within this memo depicts the stationing referenced from the proposed horizontal alignment referred to as the Alternative B alignment. These six (6) locations are identified as a single cell 10’ x 10’ reinforced concrete box (RCB) culvert at approximate roadway station 2014+98, channel embankment protection areas near stations 2022+69, 2060+06 and 2066+75, Low Water Crossing (LWC) at station 2136+00, and the Katherine Landing Marina drainage improvements at approximate station 2203+56 LT. Preliminary design was completed based on the requirements of the Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), which requires that the 50-year flood be conveyed by the cross culverts, the low water crossing remain stable during the 50-year flood, while the channel embankment protection was also analyzed for the 50-year flood. The flow rates for culverts, channels, and LWCs were determined utilizing the regression methodology guidance from Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) since the delineated sub-basins were greater than 65 hectare (160 acres). The delineated sub-basins are depicted in figures 1 and 2, drainage sub-basin maps.

Drainage Facilities Analysis:

Culvert D4 at station 2014+98 is an existing single cell 10’ x 10’ RCB culvert. From field reconnaissance this culvert appeared to have approximately 3’ of sediment aggradation throughout the culvert. A long-term degradation / aggradation analysis based on Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD) criteria was performed on the upstream wash for this facility and the analysis resulted in additional aggradation likely to occur. The tributary area of

7.5 square miles (mi2) produces a peak 50-year runoff of 2,283 cubic feet per second (cfs).

Based on field verification, Basins K1A and K1B were determined to not be tributary to Basin K1 and therefore have been removed from the area tributary to basin K1. The HY-8 analysis shows that the existing culvert do not have the capacity to convey the peak flow from the 50-

Engineering Excellence Page 2 of 4 Memo LAKE114(1) Overall.docx year flood without overtopping the existing roadway. The proposed analysis included adding two additional 72” concrete pipe culverts at approximately 17 feet above the existing 10’x10’ RCB culvert invert to provide the additional capacity while keeping the existing box functioning during and after construction. The analysis assumed the 3’ of sediment aggradation will continue to be present under the proposed conditions. The existing facility will be retrofitted with culvert extensions, upstream and downstream, and new wingwalls, upstream and downstream.

The culvert extensions will utilize the existing facility’s gradient. The proposed facilities, dual 72” pipes RCP, are aligned more directly with the existing wash and the inverts placed at an elevation which prevents the 50-year flow from overtopping the roadway. The Hw/D determined under the proposed conditions resulted in ratios of 1.03 for the proposed facilities and 2.34 for the existing facility, with the three facilities used for conveyance. Based on these flow rates, a riprap basin a d50 size of 22” will prevent future erosion of the downstream embankment during the 50-year flood. The riprap basin’s dimensions and revetment were based on dimensions for the proposed slope. Riprap will not be provided on the existing facility due to the existing sediment load in the structure. The drainage facilities’ upstream embankment is proposed to be protected from erosion using Class III revetment to prevent scouring during larger storm events.

In addition to the proposed dual 72” RCPs, a dual 138” CSP, a single 192” CSP, and a single 20’ x 10’ CON/SPAN arch were reviewed to determine the most cost efficient solution. Further discussion with the park service will be needed to finalize design based on the conveyance, cost, and durability.

Between station 2022+69 and 2054+66, the channel section has begun to erode the bank and could potentially impact the roadway. This channel area has been eroded by runoff to the extent that erosion has begun to deteriorate the side slope and undermine the roadway’s embankment. The channel is a trapezoidal shape with 1:1 (H:V) to 1.7:1 (H:V) side slopes and an average bottom width of approximately 36’. Utilizing ADOT regression equations, the tributary area of 0.6 mi2 produces a peak 50-year runoff of 430 cfs (design flow), while the peak 100-year event produces runoff of 619 cfs (maximum / check flow). Based on the design flow rate, riprap revetment of Class III riprap 12” size d50 will prevent future erosion of the roadway embankment from the 50-year flood. The revetment particle size was calculated following guidance from HEC-23, Design Guideline 4. Approximately 1.0 times the channel width upstream and 1.5 times the channel width downstream of the eroded area will be the extent of revetment protection as called out in HEC-11. Bendway weirs were also analyzed as a possible solution for channel realignment to prevent future erosion of the channel, but were deemed inadequate because they could cause channel realignment which would potentially shift the erosion.

The channel section near station 2060+10 is also an area where erosion is a concern. This portion of the channel is currently protected from erosion by gabion baskets. The gabions are beginning to fail and several options were discussed to remediate the problem. Both loose riprap revetment and gabion baskets have been reviewed. The channel is a trapezoidal shape with approximately 1.6:1 (H:V) side slopes and an average bottom width of approximately 17’.

Utilizing ADOT regression equations, the tributary area of 0.27 mi2 produces a peak 50-year runoff of 244 cfs (design flow), while the peak 100-year event produces runoff of 342 cfs (maximum / check flow). Based on the design flow rate, constructability, and ability to match the surrounding improvements, a new row of gabion baskets is proposed to toe into the existing

Engineering Excellence Page 3 of 4 Memo LAKE114(1) Overall.docx slope and prevent further undermining of the existing gabion baskets from the 50-year flood.

Similar to the existing gabion baskets on the site, the new baskets will follow guidance in HEC- 23, Design Guideline 10. The size and dimension has been set to match the existing facilities.

The final location where erosion is a concern is the channel section near station 2066+75. This channel has been eroded by runoff to the extent that the side slope has deteriorated and began to undermine the roadway’s embankment. The channel is a trapezoidal shape with 1:1 (H:V) and 1:2 (H:V) side slopes and an average bottom width of 11’. Utilizing ADOT regression equations, the tributary area of 0.25 mi2 produces a peak 50-year runoff of 233 cfs (design flow), while the peak 100-year event produces runoff of 325 cfs (maximum / check flow). The proposed conditions for this channel section will recreate the channel bank with a 2:1 (H:V) side slope which will extend up to the proposed roadway section. To prevent potential erosion of the roadway section, the proposed alignment has been shifted to the east. The existing channel’s geometry will be maintained while protecting the proposed improvements. Based on the design flow rate, riprap revetment of Class IV riprap 15” size d50 will prevent future erosion of the roadway embankment from the 50-year flood. Similar to the previous location the revetment particle size was calculated following guidance from HEC-23, Design Guideline 4.

Approximately 1.0 times the channel width upstream and 1.5 times the channel width downstream of the eroded area will be protected as called out in HEC-11.

The existing informal Low Water Crossing (LWC) D20 near station 2136+00 is an area where the peak 25-year runoff exceeds the ditch capacity and crosses the roadway, eventually impacting the Entrance Station. The attached analysis concentrated on controlling runoff conveyed to the existing undefined Low Water Crossing (LWC) using a combination of a culvert to release low flows while allowing higher flows to overtop the roadway. From field reconnaissance the existing crossing roadway design appears to pond near the intersection of Katherine Mine Road and Katherine Access Road and eventually overtops the roadway. The tributary area of Basin K17 is 0.13 square miles (mi2) which produces a peak 50-year runoff of

151.9 cubic feet per second (cfs). Numerous alternatives were investigated to provide the required conveyance and safety. The alternative that provides the level of protection requested by CFL is the construction of a 24” pipe with a new roadway design. The new roadway design will control the flow depth over the roadway to 0.87 feet and will prevent overflows from impacting the entrance stations. The Technical Memo for this location goes into additional detail on the design process.

The final location documented in this memo is at the Katherine Landing Marina near approximate station 2203+56 LT. In this location stormwater runoff is conveyed overland through a drive aisle adjacent to the marina’s boat ramp travel lanes and eventually to Lake Mohave. Because of a high point in the drive aisle the stormwater drops sediment on the pavement creating a maintenance problem which warrants a conveyance solution. The previous analysis conducted during the 15% and 30% design stages consisted of three alternatives to safely convey the peak 10-year runoff of 362 cfs (design flow), while a fourth alternative consisted of sediment control facility. The improvements analyzed to convey the 10-year flood included an 8’ x 4’ RCB proposed on two different horizontal alignments, while the third alternative proposed an 8’ x 4’ open concrete channel system to convey the runoff safely.

The fourth alternative consisted of utilizing a sediment detention facility to contain a portion of

Engineering Excellence Page 4 of 4 Memo LAKE114(1) Overall.docx the deposited sediment from the Marina vicinity, which wasn’t specifically sized for the tributary area but rather the available topography. The preferred alternative was the 8’ x 4’ open concrete channel system conveyance facility. However, during the 30% field review it was requested to increase the width of the structure to 9’ to allow for maintenance using a standard sized Bobcat. The proposed facility includes a concrete wingwall and debris rack on the inlet as well as a 30’ paved waterway, type 4, concrete gutter pan, with side slopes that vary from 15:1 (left) and 8:1 (right) (H:V) to vertical at the open channel system. The open channel system was determined to be a 9’ span, 4’ rise precast reinforced concrete U-structure, open channel with metal grating.

A summary table for the areas discussed above has been included to expedite the review for this segment. Included with this memorandum are the calculations for the regression equations, riprap revetment, channel degradation / aggradation, and the HY-8 culvert analysis. The runoff regression calculations follow guidance from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) highway drainage design manual. The riprap revetment calculations follow guidance from the Hydraulic Engineering Circulars No.14 (HEC-14, section 10, and No. 23 (HEC-23), design guideline 4 and 10.

Facility ID Station Tributary Drainage

Basin Tributary

Area Flow Rate, Q10

Flow Rate, Q25

Flow Rate, Q50

Flow Rate, Q100

Hw Hw/D

(mi2) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) D4

(Proposed)

– Dual 72” pipes) 2014+98 K1 7.5 700 1,487 2,283 3,538 6.19 1.03 K2 – Riprap

Embankment 2023+50 K2 0.62 149 295 430 619 -- -- K2A – Riprap Embankment 2060+24 K2, K2A 0.27 88 170 244 342 -- -- K3 – Riprap

Embankment 2067+10 K2, K2A, K3 0.25 85 162 233 325 -- -- D20 –

Proposed Low Water Crossing 2136+00 K17 0.13 57 107 152 208 2.49 1.25

Katherine Landing Marina

2203+56

LT

K15, K16, K17, K18 2.60 362 744 1,119 1,679 -- --

If you need additional information or have any questions regarding this memo, please do not hesitate to contact me at (303) 390-5844.

PB AMERICAS, INC.

Colin Haggerty, PE, CFM

Engineering Excellence Memo LAKE114(1)_Appendix.docx

Appendix A

Memo – 10’x10’ RCB Improvements

(Page Intentionally Left Blank)

Engineering Excellence Page 1 of 3 Memo LAKE114(1) (72).docx

TO: Gerald Blackler;

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

COPY: Scott Hogan, PE, Ed Martinez, PE, Nathan Silberhorn, Dennis Eden, PE

SUBJECT: LAKE 114(1) HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AT D4, DUAL 72” RCP,

PB PROJECT # 31510T (70% SUBMITTAL)

In response to Scott Hogan’s comment in the 30% submittal that requested improved inlets be analyzed on the existing culvert located at 2014+98 as well as to look at additional alternatives for the proposed culverts, Parsons Brinckerhoff has completed the following analysis.

Preliminary design was completed based on the requirements of the Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), which requires that the 50-year flood be conveyed by the cross culverts. This analysis concentrated on reducing the calculated headwater to below the road crest elevation which, in some cases, exceeds the Headwater to Depth ratio presented in the PDDM, The flow rates for the culvert was determined utilizing the regression methodology guidance from Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) since the delineated sub-basins were greater than 65 hectare (160 acres). The delineated sub-basins are depicted in figure one (1), drainage sub-basin map.

Drainage Facilities Analysis:

Culvert D4 at station 2014+98 is an existing single cell 10’ x 10’ RCB culvert. From field reconnaissance this culvert appeared to have approximately 3’ of sediment aggradation throughout the culvert. A long-term degradation / aggradation analysis based on Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD) criteria was performed on the upstream wash for this facility and the analysis resulted in additional aggradation likely to occur. The tributary area of

7.5 square miles (mi2) produces a peak 50-year runoff of 2,283 cubic feet per second (cfs). The HY-8 analysis showed that the existing culvert does not have the capacity to convey the peak flow from the 50-year flood without overtopping the existing roadway.

Our task was to look at different alternatives to compare results and determine the best overall option. As was stated above, the goal of this analysis was to prevent runoff from overtopping the roadway, which does not exactly follow the requirements of the PDDM, but may be acceptable based on requests from FHWA and the Park. Six different combinations of facilities were analyzed for the proposed improvements specified below:

Engineering Excellence Page 2 of 3 Memo LAKE114(1) (72).docx

Proposed analysis #1 consists of cleaning the existing 10’ x 10’ RCB Culvert which requires removing three (3) feet of sediment aggradation from the existing culvert.

Removing the sediment lowers the water surface elevation below the existing road however, it is guaranteed that the sediment will not re-accumulate.

Proposed analysis #2 consists of analyzing an improved Inlet on the Existing 10’ x 10’ RCB Culvert with three (3) feet of sediment remaining using a side-tapered inlet type.

The resulting analysis showed that a face width of 22 feet would be required to reduce the Headwater to less than one foot of depth over the roadway.

Proposed analysis #3 consist of adding an additional 8’ x 6’ RCB culvert at a higher elevation (invert elevation: 684.47 ft., 3 feet above the existing box culvert invert.) than the Existing 10’ x 10’ RCB Culvert in order to provide additional capacity while keeping the existing box functioning during and after construction. By adding a culvert, the resulting headwater elevation is minimized to an acceptable elevation, however it is above the allowable limit of the PDDM.

Proposed analysis #4 consists of adding two additional barrels of 10’ x 10’ RCB culvert at a higher elevation (invert elevation: 681.47 ft., 3 feet above the existing box culvert invert, but at the existing grade due to sedimentation.) than the existing 10’ x 10’ RCB Culvert, in order to provide the additional capacity while keeping the existing box functioning during and after construction. This alternative minimizes the headwater elevation and inlet control depth at its maximum flow.

Proposed analysis #5 consists of adding an additional 6’ x 6’ RCB culverts at a higher elevation (invert elevation: 693.70 ft. approximately 12 feet above the existing box culvert invert) than the existing 10’ x 10’ RCB Culvert. This option reduces the headwater to below the roadway elevation, but above the allowable headwater in the

PDDM.

Proposed analysis #6 consists of adding two additional 72” concrete pipe culverts at a higher elevation (invert elevation: 698.70ft. approximately 17 feet above the existing box culvert invert) than the existing 10’ x 10’ RCB Culvert. This option also reduces the headwater to below the roadway elevation, but above the allowable headwater in the

PDDM.

Engineering Excellence Page 3 of 3 Memo LAKE114(1) (72).docx

A summary table for the alternatives analyzed above has been included. The table shows the proposed alternative’s headwater elevation and inlet control depth at design flow.

Of the options above, the alternative that provides the level of protection requested by CFL while providing the most constructible option would be the construction of two additional 72” concrete pipe culverts at 17 feet above the existing 10’ X 10’ RCB culvert invert. By providing a relief structure, lower flows will continue to be conveyed in a historic fashion with larger, less frequent flows utilizing the upper structure as well. It should be noted that this system layout does not meet Headwater Criteria as specified in the PDDM and a Design Exception will be requested if selected.

OPTION

DESIGN FLOW

(CFS)

HEADWATER

ELEVATION (FT)

INLET

CONTROL

DEPTH

(FT)

10X10 Existing 2,283.20 708.03 26.56

10X10 Existing/Cleaned 2,863.20 700.09 21.62

10X10 Existing/Improved Inlet 2,863.20 706.42 24.95

10X10 Existing/1 extra Barrel 2,863.20 697.91 16.44

10X10 Existing/2 Extra 10’x10’ 2,863.20 690.33 8.86

10X10 Existing/Additional 6X6 2,863.20 703.05 21.58

10X10 Existing/2‐additional 72" Pipe 2,863.20 704.89 23.42

Appendix A

Memo – Existing Low Water Crossing Improvements

Engineering Excellence Page 1 of 3 Memo LAKE114(17) (LWC).docx

TO: Gerald Blackler;

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

COPY: Scott Hogan, PE, Ed Martinez, PE, Nathan Silberhorn, Dennis Eden, PE

SUBJECT: LAKE 114(17) HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AT EXISTING LOW WATER

CROSSING (LWC)

PB PROJECT # 31510T (70% SUBMITTAL)

As part of the improvements to Katherine Access Road, the existing Low Water Crossing (LWC) along Katherine Access Road at Katherine Mine Road will be formalized to provide controlled conveyance for offsite runoff. To supplement the LWC, a low flow 24” CMP will also be added under Katherine Mine Road to convey low flows toward the existing culverts west of the LWC.

Several alternatives were reviewed in sizing of the stormwater facilities at Station 2136+00 including alternatives for reconstruction of the proposed roadway. Parsons Brinckerhoff based the requirements of this design on of the Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), which requires that the 50-year flood be conveyed by the cross culverts, which will be followed for this LWC analysis. The goal will be to reduce flow depth over the roadway to one foot and prevent overflows from impacting the entrance station. The flow rates used for design of the LWC were determined utilizing the regression methodology guidance from Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The delineated sub-basins are depicted in figures one (1) and two (2), drainage sub-basin maps. Segregate

Drainage Facilities Analysis:

This analysis concentrated on controlling the runoff conveyed to the existing undefined Low Water Crossing (LWC) at station 2136+00. This will be accomplished using a combination of a culvert to release low flows while allowing higher flows to overtop the roadway. From field reconnaissance the existing crossing roadway design appears to pond near the intersection of Katherine Mine Road and Katherine Access Road and eventually overtops the roadway. The tributary area of Basin K17 is 0.13 square miles (mi2) which produces a peak 50-year runoff of

151.9 cubic feet per second (cfs).

Our task was to look at different alternatives and compare results to determine the best overall option. As was stated above, the goal of this analysis was to reduce the depth of flow over Katherine Road to one foot while conveying low flows within a 24” culvert.

Engineering Excellence Page 2 of 3 Memo LAKE114(17) (LWC).docx

A summary of the different combinations of facilities that were analyzed for the proposed improvements are specified below:

Proposed analysis #1 was completed to determine what size a culvert would need to be to convey the 50 year storm event under Katherine Mine Road. This analysis used the existing roadway data and analyzed different pipe sizes. Due to limited cover, the sizes started at an 18” pipe and then were increased to a 24”, a 36” and a 42” pipe, in order to increase the culvert capacity. The existing layout of the road allows runoff to impact the entrance stations, therefore not only a culvert is needed but also a new roadway design.

Proposed analysis #2 was completed to determine if a new roadway design would improve the headwater capacity and reduce the depth of flow over the roadway to one foot. For this proposed analysis an 18” and a 24” pipe have been modeled in the new roadway design and results have been recorded in the table below. The new roadway design would have the lowest elevation at 916.54 feet and the highest elevation at 919.5 feet, to be able to transfer water from one side to another.

Proposed analysis #3 consists of analyzing an improved inlet on the new roadway design from proposed analysis #2. For this analysis, a slope-tapered inlet type was utilized to see and compare the differences. The analysis used a face width of 4 feet in order to reduce the headwater to one foot of depth over the roadway. This option reduces the flow depth over the roadway, but the difference among propose analysis #2 and #3 are very minimum.

A summary table for the alternatives analyzed above has been included below. The table shows the proposed alternative’s inlet elevation, headwater elevation, inlet control depth, and the depth of flow over the roadway at design flow.

OPTION

DESIGN

FLOW

(CFS)

INLET

ELEVATION

(FT)

HEADWATER

ELEVATION

(FT)

INLET

CONTROL

DEPTH

(FT)

ROAD

SURFACE

(FT)

DEPTH OF

FLOW OVER

THE

ROADWAY

(FT)

18” pipe, Existing Roadway 151.9 915 917.77 2.77 917 0.77

24” pipe, Existing Roadway 151.9 914 917.73 3.73 917 0.73

36” pipe, Existing Roadway 151.9 913 917.61 4.61 917 0.61

42” pipe, Existing Roadway 151.9 913 917.55 4.55 917 0.55

18” pipe, New Roadway design 151.9 915 917.46 2.46 916.54 0.92

24” pipe, New Roadway design 151.9 914 917.41 3.41 916.54 0.87

18” pipe, New Roadway design, Improved Inlet

151.9 915 917.43 1.57 916.54 0.89

24” pipe, New Roadway design, Improved Inlet

151.9 914 917.36 2.49 916.54 0.82

Engineering Excellence Page 3 of 3 Memo LAKE114(17) (LWC).docx

The results from the first four options show the depth of flow over the roadway to be lower than the other alternatives however, the runoff will still overtop the existing roadway and impact the entrance station. Those alternatives do not provide a controlled overflow area and therefore, do not solve the problem because the entrance station may still be impacted. The second set of options reviewed included improved inlets. Due to the limited area, these alternatives do not result in a significance difference between the non-improved inlets. The final option includes installation of a new culvert with re-grading of the proposed roadway creating a controlled overflow for large stormwater events.

Of the options discussed above, the alternative that provides the best combination of level of protection and cost is the construction of a 24” pipe with a new roadway design. The new roadway design will control the flow depth over the roadway to 0.87 feet and will prevent overflows from impacting the entrance stations.

Appendix B

Hydrology

Project: Lake Mead National Recreational Area Page 1_ of __1__ 31510T AZ-PRA-LAKE 114(1) : Katherine Access Road Created by:

Date:

Title: Runoff-Calculations (30% Submittal) Checked by:

Regression Method Date:

M. Tilko 3-Nov-10

C. Haggerty 11 Apr 11

Tab - Runoff-Regression

Regression Method Date:

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)

Drainage Basin Delineated Total

Contributing Total

Contributing Mean Annual Regression - Regression - Regression - Regression - Regression - Regression - Additional Contributing

11-Apr-11 g ID Facility ID Station Basin Area g Area g Area Precipitation

Regression Flowrate , Q2

Regression Flowrate , Q5

Regression Flowrate , Q10

Regression Flowrate , Q25

Regression Flowrate , Q50

Regression Flowrate , Q100 g Drainage Basins acre acre mi2 in cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs

K1 D4 2014+98 4,823.12 4,823.12 7.536 8.0 38.7 279.9 699.6 1,486.6 2,283.2 3,537.5 K1A -- -- 955.81 955.81 1.493 8.0 15.1 107.7 256.5 519.1 771.9 1,139.3 Removed from K1 K1B -- -- 982.91 982.91 1.536 8.0 15.4 109.5 261.0 528.7 786.5 1,161.8 Removed from K1

K2 -- 2022+69 134.57 399.54 0.624 8.0 9.1 64.4 149.3 294.5 430.3 618.7 K2A, K3, K4, K5, K6, K7, K8, K9, K10, K11, K12, K13, K14

K2A -- 2060+06 11 77 171 30 0 268 8 0 5 6 39 1 88 3 169 8 244 0 342 0 K3 K12 K13 K14K2A -- 2060+06 11.77 171.30 0.268 8.0 5.6 39.1 88.3 169.8 244.0 342.0 K3, K12, K13, K14 K3 -- 2066+75 46.29 159.53 0.249 8.0 5.4 37.4 84.5 162.1 232.6 325.3 K12, K13, K14 K4 -- -- 4.15 -- K5 -- -- 13.90 -- K6 -- -- 19.98 -- K7 -- -- 7.65 -- K8 -- -- 7.41 -- K9 -- -- 25.93 -- K10 -- -- 6.16 -- K11 8 49K11 -- -- 8.49 -- K12 -- -- 33.31 -- K13 -- -- 35.12 -- K14 -- -- 44.82 -- K15 D20 2136+00 972.42 972.42 1.519 8.0 15.3 108.8 259.2 525.0 780.9 1,153.1 --, K16 -- -- 35.65 -- K17 -- -- 84.43 84.43 0.132 8.0 3.7 25.7 57.0 107.2 151.9 208.4 -- K18 KLM 2203+56 LT 570.53 1,663.03 2.598 8.0 20.9 149.3 361.5 744.1 1,118.7 1,678.8 K15, K16, K17

Region 10 - Regression Equations: Where:

Q2 = 12 AREA 0.58 QT, Peak Discharge (cubic feet per second)

Q5 = 85 AREA 0.59 AREA, drainage area (square miles)

Q 200 AREA 0 62 PREC l i it ti (i h )Q10 = 200 AREA 0.62 PREC, mean annual precipitation (inches)

Q25 = 400 AREA 0.65

Q50 = 590 AREA 0.67

Q100 = 150 AREA 0.70 PREC 0.84

* Reference ADOT Highway Drainage Design Manual, Hydrology Table 10-4 Regression Constants, Coefficients and Standard Errors Flood Magnitude-Frequency Relations for The Southern Great Basin Region (R10) M A l P i it ti A i d f ADOT D i M l Fi 10 10 Mean Annual Precipitation Acquired from ADOT Drainage Manual Figure 10-10

Tab - Runoff-Regression

Appendix B

Basin Maps

Figure 1 - Katherine Access Road Drainage Sub-Basin Map

0 5,000 10,0002,500

Feet

K1

K1A

K1B

K15

K17

K16

K18

K14

K13

K12

K3

K2

K11

K10

K9

K6

K5 K4

K2A

Legend

Drainage Sub-Basins

K8

K7

Figure 2 - Katherine Access Road

Drainage Sub-Basin Map 0 1,000 2,000500

Feet

K2

K4 K5

K6

K7

K8 K9

K10

K11

K12

K2A

K13

K3

K14

K1

K16

K18

K15

Legend

Drainage Sub-Basins

Appendix C

HY-8 Calculations

- D4 10’x10’ RCB

HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report

Site Data - 10' x 10' RCB Existing

Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data

Inlet Station: 0.00 ft

Inlet Elevation: 681.47 ft

Outlet Station: 90.38 ft

Outlet Elevation: 678.44 ft

Number of Barrels: 1

Culvert Data Summary - 10' x 10' RCB Existing

Barrel Shape: Concrete Box

Barrel Span: 10.00 ft

Barrel Rise: 7.00 ft

Barrel Material: Concrete

Embedment: 0.00 in

Barrel Manning's n: 0.0120

Culvert Type: Straight

Inlet Configuration: Square Edge (30-75º flare) Wingwall

Inlet Depression: NONE

Table 1 - Culvert Summary Table: 10' x 10' RCB Existing

Straight Culvert

Inlet Elevation (invert): 681.47 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 678.44 ft

Culvert Length: 90.43 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0335

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)

1486.60 1486.60 703.26 21.789 14.784 5-S2n 3.883 7.000 5.739 1.099 25.906

1691.69 1607.94 706.37 24.897 16.622 5-S2n 4.110 7.000 5.959 1.187 26.983

1896.78 1637.12 707.15 25.680 17.085 5-S2n 4.165 7.000 6.006 1.271 27.257

2101.87 1656.10 707.67 26.198 17.391 5-S2n 4.201 7.000 6.036 1.352 27.437

2283.20 1669.37 708.03 26.563 17.607 5-S2n 4.225 7.000 6.056 1.421 27.565

2512.05 1683.29 708.42 26.949 17.836 5-S2n 4.251 7.000 6.077 1.505 27.700

2717.14 1692.90 708.69 27.218 17.994 5-S2n 4.269 7.000 6.091 1.577 27.794

2922.23 1701.29 708.92 27.453 18.134 5-S2n 4.285 7.000 6.103 1.647 27.876

3127.32 1709.09 709.14 27.673 18.264 5-S2n 4.300 7.000 6.114 1.716 27.953

3332.41 1716.34 709.35 27.879 18.385 5-S2n 4.313 7.000 6.125 1.782 28.024

3537.50 1723.14 709.54 28.072 18.500 5-S2n 4.326 7.000 6.134 1.847 28.092

Table 2 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: D4 - STA 2014+98 (Existing))

Tailwater Channel Data - D4 - STA 2014+98 (Existing)

Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel

Bottom Width: 157.00 ft

Side Slope (H:V): 1.50 (_:1)

Channel Slope: 0.0363

Channel Manning's n: 0.0350

Channel Invert Elevation: 678.44 ft

Roadway Data for Crossing: D4 - STA 2014+98 (Existing)

Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates)

Irregular Roadway Cross-Section:

Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft)

0 0.00 705.00

1 125.00 708.50

2 250.00 712.00

Roadway Surface: Paved

Roadway Top Width: 26.70 ft

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

1486.60 679.54 1.10 8.53 2.49 1.44

1691.69 679.63 1.19 8.97 2.69 1.46

1896.78 679.71 1.27 9.39 2.88 1.48

2101.87 679.79 1.35 9.77 3.06 1.49

2283.20 679.86 1.42 10.10 3.22 1.50

2512.05 679.94 1.50 10.48 3.41 1.52

2717.14 680.02 1.58 10.81 3.57 1.53

2922.23 680.09 1.65 11.12 3.73 1.54

3127.32 680.16 1.72 11.42 3.89 1.55

3332.41 680.22 1.78 11.71 4.04 1.56

3537.50 680.29 1.85 11.99 4.18 1.57

Crossing Discharge Data

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

Minimum Flow: 1486.6 cfs

Design Flow: 2283.2 cfs

Maximum Flow: 3537.5 cfs

Table 3 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: D4 - STA 2014+98 (Existing)

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Total Discharge (cfs)

10' x 10' RCB Existing Discharge (cfs)

Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations

703.26 1486.60 1486.60 0.00 1

706.37 1691.69 1607.94 83.58 8

707.15 1896.78 1637.12 259.58 4

707.67 2101.87 1656.10 445.39 4

708.03 2283.20 1669.37 613.66 5

708.42 2512.05 1683.29 828.20 5

708.69 2717.14 1692.90 1023.83 4

708.92 2922.23 1701.29 1220.62 4

709.14 3127.32 1709.09 1417.92 4

709.35 3332.41 1716.34 1615.78 4

709.54 3537.50 1723.14 1814.09 4

708.50 1686.20 1686.20 0.00 Overtopping

Site Data - 10' x 10' RCB Existing

Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data

Inlet Station: 0.00 ft

Inlet Elevation: 681.47 ft

Outlet Station: 90.38 ft

Outlet Elevation: 678.44 ft

Number of Barrels: 1

Culvert Data Summary - 10' x 10' RCB Existing

Barrel Shape: Concrete Box

Barrel Span: 10.00 ft

Barrel Rise: 7.00 ft

Barrel Material: Concrete

Embedment: 0.00 in

Barrel Manning's n: 0.0120

Culvert Type: Straight

Inlet Configuration: 1.5:1 Bevel (90º) Headwall

Table 1 - Culvert Summary Table: 10' x 10' RCB Existing

Straight Culvert

Inlet Elevation (invert): 681.47 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 678.44 ft

Culvert Length: 90.43 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0335

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)

1486.60 1486.53 698.77 17.299 13.383 5-S2n 3.883 7.000 5.738 1.099 25.905

1691.69 1617.69 700.86 19.395 15.117 5-S2n 4.129 7.000 5.975 1.187 27.074

1896.78 1705.84 702.37 20.904 16.365 5-S2n 4.294 7.000 6.110 1.271 27.921

2101.87 1772.21 703.74 22.268 17.348 5-S2n 4.418 7.000 6.199 1.352 28.586

2283.20 1825.70 704.89 23.418 18.168 5-S2n 4.516 7.000 6.266 1.421 29.136

2512.05 1881.69 706.13 24.659 19.052 5-S2n 4.617 7.000 6.330 1.505 29.726

2717.14 1911.75 706.81 25.340 19.538 5-S2n 4.672 7.000 6.362 1.577 30.048

2922.23 1933.75 707.32 25.846 19.899 5-S2n 4.712 7.000 6.385 1.647 30.285

3127.32 1951.40 707.73 26.255 20.191 5-S2n 4.743 7.000 6.403 1.716 30.478

3332.41 1966.34 708.08 26.605 20.440 5-S2n 4.771 7.000 6.418 1.782 30.640

3537.50 1979.37 708.38 26.912 20.659 5-S2n 4.794 7.000 6.430 1.847 30.783

Site Data - 2-72" Pipe

Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data

Inlet Station: 0.00 ft

Inlet Elevation: 698.70 ft

Outlet Station: 90.38 ft

Outlet Elevation: 697.70 ft

Number of Barrels: 2

Culvert Data Summary - 2-72" Pipe

Barrel Shape: Circular

Barrel Diameter: 6.00 ft

Barrel Material: Concrete

Embedment: 0.00 in

Barrel Manning's n: 0.0120

Culvert Type: Straight

Inlet Configuration: Grooved End Projecting

Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: 2-72" Pipe

* Full Flow Headwater elevation is below inlet invert.

Straight Culvert

Inlet Elevation (invert): 698.70 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 697.70 ft

Culvert Length: 90.39 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0111

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)

1486.60 0.00 698.77 0.130 0.0* 6-FFc 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.099 2.917

1691.69 73.92 700.86 2.166 0.639 1-S2n 1.117 1.601 1.186 1.187 9.265

1896.78 190.95 702.37 3.675 1.875 1-S2n 1.795 2.624 1.996 1.271 11.566

2101.87 329.66 703.74 5.038 3.241 1-S2n 2.407 3.492 2.732 1.352 13.154

2283.20 457.37 704.89 6.187 4.579 5-S2n 2.901 4.136 3.315 1.421 14.270

2512.05 578.55 706.13 7.428 6.633 5-S2n 3.344 4.650 3.817 1.505 15.241

2717.14 636.31 706.81 8.110 7.222 5-S2n 3.553 4.861 4.044 1.577 15.717

2922.23 675.68 707.32 8.615 7.644 5-S2n 3.696 4.992 4.193 1.647 16.030

3127.32 705.90 707.73 9.025 7.978 5-S2n 3.805 5.085 4.307 1.716 16.256

3332.41 730.60 708.08 9.375 8.258 5-S2n 3.900 5.155 4.398 1.782 16.442

3537.50 751.53 708.38 9.682 8.500 5-S2n 3.981 5.213 4.474 1.847 16.639

Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: Existing/2-72" Pipe)

Tailwater Channel Data - Existing/2-72" Pipe

Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel

Bottom Width: 157.00 ft

Side Slope (H:V): 1.50 (_:1)

Channel Slope: 0.0363

Channel Manning's n: 0.0350

Channel Invert Elevation: 678.44 ft

Roadway Data for Crossing: Existing/2-72" Pipe

Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates)

Irregular Roadway Cross-Section:

Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft)

0 0.00 705.00

1 125.00 708.50

2 250.00 712.00

Roadway Surface: Paved

Roadway Top Width: 26.70 ft

Minimum Flow: 1486.6 cfs

Design Flow: 2283.2 cfs

Maximum Flow: 3537.5 cfs

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

1486.60 679.54 1.10 8.53 2.49 1.44

1691.69 679.63 1.19 8.97 2.69 1.46

1896.78 679.71 1.27 9.39 2.88 1.48

2101.87 679.79 1.35 9.77 3.06 1.49

2283.20 679.86 1.42 10.10 3.22 1.50

2512.05 679.94 1.50 10.48 3.41 1.52

2717.14 680.02 1.58 10.81 3.57 1.53

2922.23 680.09 1.65 11.12 3.73 1.54

3127.32 680.16 1.72 11.42 3.89 1.55

3332.41 680.22 1.78 11.71 4.04 1.56

3537.50 680.29 1.85 11.99 4.18 1.57

Table 4 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Existing/2-72" Pipe

Headwater Elevation (ft)

Total Discharge (cfs)

10' x 10' RCB Existing

Discharge (cfs) 2-72" Pipe

Discharge (cfs) Roadway

Discharge (cfs) Iterations

698.77 1486.60 1486.53 0.00 0.00 21

700.86 1691.69 1617.69 73.92 0.00 5

702.37 1896.78 1705.84 190.95 0.00 4

703.74 2101.87 1772.21 329.66 0.00 4

704.89 2283.20 1825.70 457.37 0.00 4

706.13 2512.05 1881.69 578.55 51.73 6

706.81 2717.14 1911.75 636.31 168.95 4

707.32 2922.23 1933.75 675.68 312.50 4

707.73 3127.32 1951.40 705.90 469.67 4

708.08 3332.41 1966.34 730.60 635.32 5

708.38 3537.50 1979.37 751.53 806.19 5

708.50 2743.66 1984.33 759.33 0.00 Overtopping

HY-8 Calculations

- Low Water Crossing

Site Data - Proposed 24” w/ Existing Roadway Section

Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data

Inlet Station: 0.00 ft

Inlet Elevation: 914.00 ft

Outlet Station: 110.00 ft

Outlet Elevation: 910.00 ft

Number of Barrels: 1

Culvert Data Summary - 24

Barrel Shape: Circular

Barrel Diameter: 2.00 ft

Barrel Material: Concrete

Embedment: 0.00 in

Barrel Manning's n: 0.0140

Culvert Type: Straight

Inlet Configuration: Square Edge with Headwall

Table 1 - Culvert Summary Table: 24

Straight Culvert

Inlet Elevation (invert): 914.00 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 910.00 ft

Culvert Length: 110.07 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0364

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)

3.70 3.70 914.90 0.901 0.0* 1-S2n 0.404 0.669 0.404 0.168 8.314

24.17 21.03 917.07 3.072 0.0* 5-S2n 1.027 1.641 1.047 0.494 12.624

44.64 22.13 917.26 3.260 0.209 5-S2n 1.059 1.678 1.079 0.691 12.806

65.11 22.81 917.38 3.382 0.368 5-S2n 1.080 1.700 1.080 0.845 13.187

85.58 23.34 917.48 3.480 0.496 5-S2n 1.095 1.716 1.095 0.975 13.256

106.05 23.79 917.57 3.565 0.605 5-S2n 1.108 1.729 1.130 1.089 13.000

126.52 24.19 917.64 3.641 0.702 5-S2n 1.120 1.740 1.143 1.191 13.046

146.99 24.54 917.71 3.710 0.790 5-S2n 1.130 1.749 1.154 1.284 13.075

151.90 24.62 917.73 3.725 0.810 5-S2n 1.132 1.752 1.157 1.306 13.082

187.93 25.16 917.83 3.833 0.946 5-S2n 1.148 1.765 1.175 1.451 13.121

208.40 25.43 917.89 3.889 1.017 5-S2n 1.156 1.772 1.184 1.527 13.139

Table 2 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: K17(Existing Road w/ 24”))

Tailwater Channel Data - K17(Existing Road w/ 24”)

Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel

Bottom Width: 3.00 ft

Side Slope (H:V): 2.00 (_:1)

Channel Slope: 0.1000

Channel Manning's n: 0.0200

Channel Invert Elevation: 910.00 ft

Roadway Data for Crossing: K17(Existing Road w/ 24”)

Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates)

Irregular Roadway Cross-Section:

Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft)

0 0.00 920.00

1 30.00 919.00

2 60.00 918.00

3 90.00 917.00

4 140.00 917.00

5 180.00 918.00

6 210.00 919.00

7 240.00 920.00

Roadway Surface: Paved

Roadway Top Width: 50.00 ft

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

3.70 910.17 0.17 6.61 1.05 2.98

24.17 910.49 0.49 12.28 3.08 3.44

44.64 910.69 0.69 14.74 4.31 3.59

65.11 910.85 0.85 16.43 5.27 3.67

85.58 910.97 0.97 17.73 6.08 3.74

106.05 911.09 1.09 18.81 6.79 3.79

126.52 911.19 1.19 19.73 7.43 3.83

146.99 911.28 1.28 20.55 8.01 3.86

151.90 911.31 1.31 20.73 8.15 3.87

187.93 911.45 1.45 21.94 9.05 3.92

208.40 911.53 1.53 22.55 9.53 3.95

Minimum Flow: 3.7 cfs

Design Flow: 151.9 cfs

Maximum Flow: 208.4 cfs

Table 3 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: K17(Existing Road w/ 24”)

(ft) Total Discharge (cfs) 24 Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge

(cfs) Iterations

914.90 3.70 3.70 0.00 1

917.07 24.17 21.03 2.95 18

917.26 44.64 22.13 22.34 8

917.38 65.11 22.81 42.15 6

917.48 85.58 23.34 62.09 5

917.57 106.05 23.79 82.00 4

917.64 126.52 24.19 102.21 4

917.71 146.99 24.54 122.40 4

917.73 151.90 24.62 127.20 3

917.83 187.93 25.16 162.62 3

917.89 208.40 25.43 182.95 3

917.00 20.58 20.58 0.00 Overtopping

Site Data – Proposed 24” w/ New Roadway Section

Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data

Inlet Station: 0.00 ft

Inlet Elevation: 914.00 ft

Outlet Station: 110.00 ft

Outlet Elevation: 910.00 ft

Number of Barrels: 1

Culvert Data Summary - 24

Barrel Shape: Circular

Barrel Diameter: 2.00 ft

Barrel Material: Concrete

Embedment: 0.00 in

Barrel Manning's n: 0.0140

Culvert Type: Straight

Inlet Configuration: Beveled Edge (1.5:1)

Table 1 - Culvert Summary Table: Proposed 24” w/ New Roadway Section

Straight Culvert

Inlet Elevation (invert): 914.00 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 910.00 ft

Culvert Length: 110.07 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0364

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)

3.70 3.70 914.88 0.881 0.0* 1-S2n 0.404 0.669 0.404 0.168 8.314

24.17 21.19 916.71 2.713 0.0* 5-S2n 1.032 1.647 1.052 0.494 12.654

44.64 22.96 916.93 2.928 0.154 5-S2n 1.084 1.704 1.084 0.691 13.206

65.11 23.99 917.06 3.060 0.380 5-S2n 1.114 1.734 1.136 0.845 13.017

85.58 24.76 917.16 3.163 0.556 5-S2n 1.137 1.755 1.162 0.975 13.093

106.05 25.41 917.25 3.251 0.706 5-S2n 1.155 1.772 1.183 1.089 13.138

126.52 25.96 917.33 3.327 0.837 5-S2n 1.171 1.785 1.202 1.191 13.173

146.99 26.45 917.40 3.396 0.954 5-S2n 1.186 1.796 1.219 1.284 13.205

151.90 26.56 917.41 3.412 0.981 5-S2n 1.189 1.799 1.222 1.306 13.212

187.93 27.29 917.52 3.517 1.160 5-S2n 1.210 1.815 1.246 1.451 13.267

208.40 27.66 917.57 3.571 1.253 5-S2n 1.221 1.822 1.258 1.527 13.299

Table 2 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: K17(New Roadway w/ 24”) )

Tailwater Channel Data - K17(New Roadway w/ 24”)

Tailwater Channel Option: Trapezoidal Channel

Bottom Width: 3.00 ft

Side Slope (H:V): 2.00 (_:1)

Channel Slope: 0.1000

Channel Manning's n: 0.0200

Channel Invert Elevation: 910.00 ft

Roadway Data for Crossing: K17(New Roadway w/ 24”)

Roadway Profile Shape: Irregular Roadway Shape (coordinates)

Irregular Roadway Cross-Section:

Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft)

0 0.00 919.50

1 33.00 917.91

2 76.00 916.72

3 106.00 916.54

4 175.00 917.65

Roadway Surface: Paved

Roadway Top Width: 50.00 ft

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

3.70 910.17 0.17 6.61 1.05 2.98

24.17 910.49 0.49 12.28 3.08 3.44

44.64 910.69 0.69 14.74 4.31 3.59

65.11 910.85 0.85 16.43 5.27 3.67

85.58 910.97 0.97 17.73 6.08 3.74

106.05 911.09 1.09 18.81 6.79 3.79

126.52 911.19 1.19 19.73 7.43 3.83

146.99 911.28 1.28 20.55 8.01 3.86

151.90 911.31 1.31 20.73 8.15 3.87

187.93 911.45 1.45 21.94 9.05 3.92

208.40 911.53 1.53 22.55 9.53 3.95

Minimum Flow: 3.7 cfs

Design Flow: 151.9 cfs

Maximum Flow: 208.4 cfs

Table 3 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: K17(New Roadway)

(ft) Total Discharge (cfs) 24 Discharge (cfs) Roadway Discharge

(cfs) Iterations

914.88 3.70 3.70 0.00 1

916.71 24.17 21.19 2.94 11

916.93 44.64 22.96 21.50 9

917.06 65.11 23.99 40.87 6

917.16 85.58 24.76 60.57 5

917.25 106.05 25.41 80.55 5

917.33 126.52 25.96 100.39 4

917.40 146.99 26.45 120.47 4

917.41 151.90 26.56 125.24 3

917.52 187.93 27.29 160.43 3

917.57 208.40 27.66 180.70 3

916.54 19.68 19.68 0.00 Overtopping

Riprap Embankment Calculations

Page _1_ of __7__ 31510T Project: Arizona Project PRA-LAKE 114 (1) : Created by:

Katherine Access Road Date:

(70% Submittal) Checked by:

Date:

Spreadsheet for Riprap Revetment (CU) From HEC-23, Design Guideline 4 Design ID: K2 - Sta. 2022+69, Q50

The EM-1601 equation can be used with uniform or gradually varying flow.

Coefficients are included to account for the desired safety factor for design, specific gravity of the riprap stone, bank slope, and bendway character.

Given:

Channel Type = Trap (Natural Channels = Nat, Trapezoidal Channels = Trap) Channel Geometry = Outside (Straight Channels = Straight, Outside of Bends = Outside, Q = 430.30 Flow Rate Sg = 2.65 Specific Gravity of Riprap g = 32.2 ft/s2 Acceleration Due to Gravity Θ = 26.6 degrees Bank Angle -- (1V:1H = 45.0º, 1V:1.5H = 33.7º, 1V:2H = 26.6º, 1V:3H = 18.4º, 1V:4H = 14.0º, 1V:5H = 11.3º) Sf = 1.10 (must be > 1.0) Safety Factor

Rc = 480.0 ft Centerline Radius of Curvature of Channel Bend y = 1.19 ft Local Depth of Flow (Calculated per Haestad FlowMaster) W = 38.9 ft Width of Water Surface at Upstream End of Channel Bend (Calculation per Haestad FlowMaster)

Vavg = 9.70 ft/s Channel Cross-Sectional Average Velocity (Calculated per Haestad FlowMaster)

Calcuated:

CS = 0.300 Stability Coefficient (for Blanket Thickness = d100 or 1.5 d50, whichever is greater, and Uniformly Ratio d85 / d15 = 1.7 to 5.2)

= 0.30 for Angular Rock = 0.375 for Rounded Rock

Rc / W = 12.36

CV = 1.06 Velocity Distribution Coefficient

= 1.0 for Straight Channels or the Inside of Bends = 1.283 - 0.2 log (Rc / W) for the Outside of Bends (1.0 for Rc / W > 26)

= 1.25 Downstream from Concrete Channels = 1.25 at the Ends of Dikes

CT = 1.00 Blanket Thickness Coefficient Given as a Function of the Uniformity Ratio d85 / d15.

CT = 1 0 is Recommended Because it is Based on Very Limited Data

M. Tilko 22-Nov-10

C. Haggerty 11-Apr-11

Tab - K2 - Q50

CT = 1.0 is Recommended Because it is Based on Very Limited Data

Vdes = 9.70 ft/s Characteristic Velocity for Design, Defined as the Depth-Averaged Velocity at a

Point 20% Upslope from the Toe of the Revetment.

For Natural Channels, Vdes = Vavg (1.74 - 0.52 log (Rc / W))

Vdes = Vavg for Rc / W > 26

For Trapezoidal Channels, Vdes = Vavg (1.71 - 0.78 log (Rc / W))

Vdes = Vavg for Rc / W > 8

K1 = 0.871 Side Slope Correction Factor Equation:

d30 = 0.82 ft Particle Size for which 30% is Finer by Weight Equation:

d50 = 0.98 ft Particle Size for which 50% is Finer by Weight

50 Year -- d50 = 11.8 in (Refer to Table 4.1 for Minimum and Maximum Allowable Particle Size in Inches)

Tab - K2 - Q50

Page _2_ of __7__ 31510T

Katherine Access Road Date:

(70% Submittal) Checked by:

Date:

Spreadsheet for Riprap Revetment (CU) From HEC-23, Design Guideline 4 Design ID: K2 - Sta. 2022+69, Q100

The EM-1601 equation can be used with uniform or gradually varying flow.

Coefficients are included to account for the desired safety factor for design, specific gravity of the riprap stone, bank slope, and bendway character.

Given:

Channel Type = Trap (Natural Channels = Nat, Trapezoidal Channels = Trap) Channel Geometry = Straight (Straight Channels = Straight, Outside of Bends = Outside, Q = 618.70 Flow Rate Sg = 2.65 Specific Gravity of Riprap g = 32.2 ft/s2 Acceleration Due to Gravity Θ = 45.0 degrees Bank Angle -- (1V:1H = 45.0º, 1V:1.5H = 33.7º, 1V:2H = 26.6º, 1V:3H = 18.4º, 1V:4H = 14.0º, 1V:5H = 11.3º) Sf = 1.10 (must be > 1.0) Safety Factor

Rc = 135.0 ft Centerline Radius of Curvature of Channel Bend y = 1.75 ft Local Depth of Flow (Calculated per Haestad FlowMaster) W = 40.4 ft Width of Water Surface at Upstream End of Channel Bend (Calculation per Haestad FlowMaster)

Vavg = 4.42 ft/s Channel Cross-Sectional Average Velocity (Calculated per Haestad FlowMaster)

Calcuated:

CS = 0.300 Stability Coefficient (for Blanket Thickness = d100 or 1.5 d50, whichever is greater, and Uniformly Ratio d85 / d15 = 1.7 to 5.2)

= 0.30 for Angular Rock = 0.375 for Rounded Rock

Rc / W = 3.34

CV = 1.00 Velocity Distribution Coefficient

= 1.0 for Straight Channels or the Inside of Bends = 1.283 - 0.2 log (Rc / W) for the Outside of Bends (1.0 for Rc / W > 26)

= 1.25 Downstream from Concrete Channels = 1.25 at the Ends of Dikes

CT = 1.00 Blanket Thickness Coefficient Given as a Function of the Uniformity Ratio d85 / d15.

CT = 1 0 is Recommended Because it is Based on Very Limited Data

M. Tilko 22-Nov-10

C. Haggerty 11-Apr-11

Tab - K2 - Q100

CT = 1.0 is Recommended Because it is Based on Very Limited Data

Vdes = 5.75 ft/s Characteristic Velocity for Design, Defined as the Depth-Averaged Velocity at a

Point 20% Upslope from the Toe of the Revetment.

For Natural Channels, Vdes = Vavg (1.74 - 0.52 log (Rc / W))

Vdes = Vavg for Rc / W > 26

For Trapezoidal Channels, Vdes = Vavg (1.71 - 0.78 log (Rc / W))

Vdes = Vavg for Rc / W > 8

K1 = 0.211 Side Slope Correction Factor Equation:

d30 = 1.11 ft Particle Size for which 30% is Finer by Weight Equation:

d50 = 1.33 ft Particle Size for which 50% is Finer by Weight

100 Year -- d50 = 16.0 in (Refer to Table 4.1 for Minimum and Maximum Allowable Particle Size in Inches)

Tab - K2 - Q100

Page _3_ of __7__ 31510T

Katherine Access Road Date:

(70% Submittal) Checked by:

Date:

Spreadsheet for Riprap Revetment (CU) From HEC-23, Design Guideline 4 Design ID: K2A - Sta. 2060+06, Q50

The EM-1601 equation can be used with uniform or gradually varying flow.

Coefficients are included to account for the desired safety factor for design, specific gravity of the riprap stone, bank slope, and bendway character.

Given:

Channel Type = Trap (Natural Channels = Nat, Trapezoidal Channels = Trap) Channel Geometry = Straight (Straight Channels = Straight, Outside of Bends = Outside, Q = 244.00 Flow Rate Sg = 2.65 Specific Gravity of Riprap g = 32.2 ft/s2 Acceleration Due to Gravity Θ = 26.6 degrees Bank Angle -- (1V:1H = 45.0º, 1V:1.5H = 33.7º, 1V:2H = 26.6º, 1V:3H = 18.4º, 1V:4H = 14.0º, 1V:5H = 11.3º) Sf = 1.10 (must be > 1.0) Safety Factor

Rc = 400.0 ft Centerline Radius of Curvature of Channel Bend y = 1.27 ft Local Depth of Flow (Calculated per Haestad FlowMaster) W = 22.4 ft Width of Water Surface at Upstream End of Channel Bend (Calculation per Haestad FlowMaster)

Vavg = 9.71 ft/s Channel Cross-Sectional Average Velocity (Calculated per Haestad FlowMaster)

Calcuated:

CS = 0.300 Stability Coefficient (for Blanket Thickness = d100 or 1.5 d50, whichever is greater, and Uniformly Ratio d85 / d15 = 1.7 to 5.2)

= 0.30 for Angular Rock = 0.375 for Rounded Rock

Rc / W = 17.88

CV = 1.00 Velocity Distribution Coefficient

= 1.0 for Straight Channels or the Inside of Bends = 1.283 - 0.2 log (Rc / W) for the Outside of Bends (1.0 for Rc / W > 26)

= 1.25 Downstream from Concrete Channels = 1.25 at the Ends of Dikes

CT = 1.00 Blanket Thickness Coefficient Given as a Function of the Uniformity Ratio d85 / d15.

CT = 1 0 is Recommended Because it is Based on Very Limited Data

M. Tilko 22-Nov-10

C. Haggerty…