Final_Hydraulic_Recommendation_Report.pdf

PDF 18 MB Posted Feb 24, 2016

Attached to: WY FLAP 408(1), Fremont Canyon Road
Solicitation number: DTFH6815B00032
Issued by: Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

About this file

From the source

Hydraulics Report

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Bid_Tabs.pdf	PDF	Apr 7, 2016
Bid_Opening_Summary.pdf	PDF	Mar 25, 2016
Q-A _3-21.pdf	PDF	Mar 21, 2016
WYFLAP_408(1)_100__Signed_Plan_Set_2_11_16.pdf	PDF	Feb 24, 2016
Final_Tech_Memo_Fremont_Canyon_Road_4-22-14_.pdf	PDF	Feb 24, 2016
DTFH6815B00032.pdf	PDF	Feb 24, 2016

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division

Fremont Canyon Road:

Final Hydraulics Recommendation Report

WY FLAP 408(1)

February 12, 2014

Fremont Canyon Road

Final Hydraulics Recommendation Report

WY FLAP 408(1)

Contract No. DTFH68-10-D-00001/T-130-56

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 12300 West Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228

Prepared by:

Atkins 4601 DTC Boulevard Suite 700 Denver, CO 80237

Atkins100037554 February 12, 2014

This page left intentionally blank.

Final Hydraulics Recommendation Report

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 i

Table of contents

Chapter Pages

1. Introduction 1

1.1. Site Location 1

1.2. Project Background 2

2. Design Criteria 2

2.1. Hydrologic Methodology 2

2.2. Hydraulic Methodology 3

3. Hydrology 3

3.1. Precipitation 3

3.2. Soils 3

3.3. Peak Discharges 4

4. Hydraulics 4

4.1. Culverts 4

4.2. Outlet Protection 10

5. Design Recommendations 10

6. Summary 11

7. References 11

Appendices Appendix A. References Appendix B. Hydrology Appendix C. Hydraulics

Tables Table 1. One Hour Point Rainfall Depths Table 2. Rational Method Parameters Table 3. Basin Area and Peak Discharges Table 4. Culvert Summary Table 5. Culvert Recommendations

Figures Figure 1. Project Location Figure 2. Existing 48-inch culvert (inlet) – Station 22+79 Figure 3. Existing 48-inch culvert (outlet) – Station 22+79 Figure 4. Existing 9’ x 6’ Elliptical Metal Pipe 1 (inlet) – Station 61+56 Figure 5. Existing 9’ x 6’ Elliptical Metal Pipe 1 (outlet) – Station 61+56 Figure 6. Existing 9’ x 6’ Elliptical Metal Pipe 2 (inlet) – Station 61+56 Figure 7. Existing 9’ x 6’ Elliptical Metal Pipe 2 (outlet) – Station 61+56 Figure 8. Existing 5.5’ x 6.5’ Elliptical Metal Pipe (inlet) – Station 114+06 Figure 9. Existing 5.5’ x 6.5’ Elliptical Metal Pipe (outlet) – Station 114+06 Figure 10. Existing 5’ x 6’ Elliptical Metal Pipe (inlet) – Station 183+12 Figure 11. Existing 5’ x 6’ Elliptical Metal Pipe (outlet) – Station 183+12

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 ii

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 1

1. Introduction The purpose of this Final Hydraulics Recommendation Report is to provide a summary of the Fremont Canyon Road project recommendations for improvements to a 95% design level.

1.1. Site Location

Fremont Canyon Road is located in Natrona County, Wyoming just east of Pathfinder Wildlife Refuge in Township 29N Range 84W Section 24/Township 29N Range 83W Sections 19 and 20. The western limits of the project begin at Pathfinder Road on the eastern edge of Pathfinder Reservoir, project station 11+50.00, Northing 1046947.0038 Easting 1442908.7308. The eastern project limits are near Fremont Canyon Bridge, project station 214+35.00, Northing 1047144.4504 Easting 1457618.4388. The limits of the project are along 3.86 miles of Fremont Canyon Road.

Figure 1. Project Location

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 2

1.2. Project Background

The Wyoming Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) is providing funding for this project. The proposed work consists of 3R improvements (resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation).

Fremont Canyon Road is a 2-lane paved road with speed limits between 25 and 30 miles per hour (mph).

This project is categorized as 3R; therefore, detailed hydrology and hydraulics will not be completed for the entire project. The hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will be performed only on existing culverts 48-inches and larger.

These improvements will be designed and implemented in accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Design Standards.

2. Design Criteria Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will follow criteria and guidelines outlined by FHWA, CFLHD in the Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), DRAFT Chapter 7 (April 2011).

2.1. Hydrologic Methodology

Hydrology will be determined by two methods. The rational method will be used to determine peak flows for basins less than 200 acres and regression equations determined for Wyoming will be used to determine peak flows for basins greater than 200 acres. References used for each method can be found in Appendix A.

2.1.1. Rational Method

An intensity-duration frequency curve was created using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 2 Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the Western United States Volume II for Wyoming. The 1-hour point rainfall depths that were determined are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. One Hour Point Rainfall Depths

Frequency Year Rainfall Depth (inches)

2-year 0.63

5-year 0.80

10-year 1.00

25-year 1.20

50-year 1.30

100-year 1.56

Hydraulic Toolbox was used to determine peak flows using the developed IDF curve, soil and land characteristics and time of concentration. Table 2 summarizes additional parameters needed to calculate peak flows using Hydraulic Toolbox.

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 3

Table 2. Rational Method Parameters

Parameter Value Comment

Runoff Coefficient, C 0.25 HDS2: Table 5.7: Heavy soil, steep, >7%

Sheet Flow Manning’s n 0.40 HDS2: Table 2.1: Woods, light under brush

Shallow Concentrated Flow Land Cover, k 0.076 HDS2: Table 2.2: Forest with heavy ground litter

2.1.2. Regression Equations

The United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States Department of the Interior in cooperation with Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) developed equations specifically for Wyoming. The state is divided into different regions and equations were developed for each. Fremont Canyon Road is located in the Eastern Basins and Eastern Plains Region, Region 3. Peak flows are based on area and mean basin soil hydrologic index from plate 2.

2.2. Hydraulic Methodology

Since this is a 3R project not all culverts will be analyzed. Culverts that are 48-inch diameter or larger will be evaluated to determine if they meet current standards.

Fremont Canyon Road is classified as a Low-Standard Road and cross culverts will be evaluated to pass the 25-year design storm as well as stability at the outlet for the 25-year design storm. Headwater to depth ratio (HW/D) must meet 1.2 or less. Existing culverts will be analyzed using HY8 Culvert Analysis Software.

Roadway ditches will not be analyzed as part of this project. There are no storm systems located along the project.

3. Hydrology

3.1. Precipitation

The 1-hour point rainfall depths are provided in Table 1, Section 2.1.1.

3.2. Soils

Soil types for the project area have been determined using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey. Soils consist of Type B and D soils. The breakdown of each soil type can be found in Appendix A.

Type B soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. They consist primarily of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

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

These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

The USGS Soils Hydrologic Index Data Map, plate 2, was also used to determine mean basin soil hydrologic index, for use with the regression equation. The value determined for the project area was an index of 3.8.

The plate 2 map can be found in Appendix A.

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 10

Table 4. Culvert Summary

Roadway Station

Existing Culvert Size

Existing Culvert Condition

Design Flow Q25

Allowable

HW/D

Design

HW/D

Velocity fps

22+78.77 48” CMP Good condition No sediment deposit Vegetation around culvert inlet

14 1.2 0.4 6.5

61+001 1- 9’X6’ Elliptical CMP

Good condition Gravel deposit at culvert inlet Outlet scoured

919.52 1.2 2.2 10.3

61+701 1- 9’X6’ Elliptical CMP

Good condition Outlet scoured

919.52 1.2 2.2 10.3

114+06.08 5.5’x6.5’ Elliptical CMP

Good condition No sediment

Outlet scoured

925 1.2 2.7 17.9

183+11.73 5’x6’ Elliptical

CMP

Good condition Sediment at culvert outlet

856 1.2 2.0 14.1

1 Station of culvert was not verified and is approximate. Culverts at 61+00 and 61+70 are assumed to both provide conveyance for Basin 2

2 Peak discharge of Basin 2 was equally divided between culverts at Station 61+00 and 61+70

4.2. Outlet Protection

Outlet velocities were evaluated to determine scour potential at the four culvert crossings listed in Table 4 (greater than 48-inches). The PDDM does not identify a maximum outlet velocity. Velocities are typically compared to the channel velocity of a typical section downstream of the culvert. The outlet velocities are listed above in Table 4. See 251-A Riprap Basin and Placed Riprap at Culvert Outlets Larger Than 48 Inches in the plan set for proposed riprap apron dimensions.

Existing culverts, smaller than 48-inches, were not evaluated for scour potential within the scope of this project. Riprap aprons are however proposed for all culverts. Standard riprap aprons will be added to culverts smaller than 48-inches. See Detail C251-50 Placed Riprap at Culvert Outlets in the plan set.

5. Design Recommendations The five existing culverts, sizes 48-inch and larger, were evaluated based on current CFLHD criteria. One culvert meets current standards and the remaining three are recommended to be upsized to meet current standards. However, due to budget restrictions culverts will not be upsized as part of this project.

Outlet velocities were evaluated for potential scour. Options for outlet protection include typical riprap apron, non-standard (not shown on Standard Detail C251-50) riprap apron and riprap stilling basins. Table 5 summarizes the recommendations for each crossing.

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 5

Figure 2. Existing 48-inch culvert (inlet) – Station 22+79

Figure 3. Existing 48-inch culvert (outlet) – Station 22+79

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 6

Figure 4. Existing 9’ x 6’ Arch Pipe Arch 1 (inlet) – Approximate Station 61+00

Figure 5. Existing 9’ x 6’ Pipe Arch 1 (outlet) – Approximate Station 61+00

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 7

Figure 6. Existing 9’ x 6’ Pipe Arch 2 (inlet) – Approximate Station 61+70

Figure 7. Existing 9’ x 6’ Pipe Arch 2 (outlet) – Approximate Station 61+70

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 8

Figure 8. Existing 5.5’ x 6.5’ Elliptical Metal Pipe (inlet) – Station 114+06

Figure 9. Existing 5.5’ x 6.5’ Elliptical Metal Pipe (outlet) – Station 114+06

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 9

Figure 10. Existing 5’ x 6’ Elliptical Metal Pipe (inlet) – Station 183+12

Figure 11. Existing 5’ x 6’ Elliptical Metal Pipe (outlet) – Station 183+12

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 10

Table 4. Culvert Summary

Station

Existing Culvert Size

Existing Culvert Condition

Design Flow Q25

Allowable

HW/D

Design

HW/D

Velocity fps

22+78.77 48” CMP Good condition No sediment deposit Vegetation around culvert inlet

14 1.2 0.4 6.5

61+001 1- 9’X6’ Elliptical CMP

Good condition Gravel deposit at culvert inlet Outlet scoured

919.52 1.2 2.2 10.3

61+701 1- 9’X6’ Elliptical CMP

Good condition Outlet scoured

919.52 1.2 2.2 10.3

114+06.08 5.5’x6.5’ Elliptical CMP

Good condition No sediment

Outlet scoured

925 1.2 2.7 17.9

183+11.73 5’x6’ Elliptical

CMP

Good condition Sediment at culvert outlet

856 1.2 2.0 14.1

1 Station of culvert was not verified and is approximate. Culverts at 61+00 and 61+70 are assumed to both provide conveyance for Basin 2

2 Peak discharge of Basin 2 was equally divided between culverts at Station 61+00 and 61+70

4.2. Outlet Protection

5. Design Recommendations The four existing culverts, sizes 48-inch and larger, were evaluated based on current CFLHD criteria. One culvert meets current standards and the remaining three are recommended to be upsized to meet current standards. However, due to budget restrictions culverts will not be upsized as part of this project.

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554 11

Table 5. Culvert Recommendations

Station

Meets HW/D

Criteria Outlet Protection

22+78.77 Yes Standard Riprap Apron

61+00 No, recommend upsizing Standard Riprap Apron

61+70 No, recommend upsizing Standard Riprap Apron

114+06.08 No, recommend upsizing Riprap Stilling Basin

183+11.73 No, recommend upsizing Riprap Apron Note: Due to budget restrictions culverts will not be upsized as part of this project.

Riprap apron and stilling basin locations will be field verified.

6. Summary The drainage analysis presented in this report was completed based on the current standards developed by CFLHD for the 95% design level. Any further design modifications will be discussed in additional memorandum or reports.

7. References

1. USGS, Peak-Flow Characteristics of Wyoming Streams, 2003.

2. NOAA, Atlas 2 Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the Western United States Volume II for Wyoming, 1973.

3. CFLHD, Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM), DRAFT Chapter 7, April 2011.

4. NRCS Online Web Soil Survey, December 2013.

5. FHWA, Hydraulic Design Series No. 2, Second Edition, October 2002.

6. FHWA, Hydraulic Design Series No. 14, Second Edition, October 2002.

Appendices

Atkins Fremont Canyon Road I Version 1.0 I February 12, 2014 I 100037554

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A. References

Project Name : Fremont Canyon Road

Job No. : 100037554

Date

By : AJF

Checked By : JMH

Table 1: NOAA Atlas 2 IDF Curve

Basin Charcteristics

IDF Data developed from NOAA Atlas 2 v II

2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year

5 min 2.19 2.78 3.48 4.18 4.52 5.42

7.5 min 1.86 2.37 2.96 3.55 3.85 4.61

10 min 1.70 2.16 2.70 3.24 3.51 4.21

12.5 min 1.54 1.96 2.45 2.94 3.18 3.81

15 min 1.43 1.82 2.28 2.74 2.96 3.55

20 min 1.21 1.54 1.93 2.32 2.51 3.01

30 min 0.99 1.26 1.58 1.90 2.05 2.46

60 min 0.63 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.30 1.56

Interpolation Table

5-7.5 min -0.131 -0.166 -0.208 -0.250 -0.270 -0.324

7.5-10 min -0.065 -0.083 -0.104 -0.125 -0.135 -0.162

10-12.5 min -0.063 -0.081 -0.101 -0.121 -0.131 -0.157

12.5-15 min -0.042 -0.054 -0.067 -0.081 -0.087 -0.105

15-20 min -0.044 -0.056 -0.070 -0.084 -0.091 -0.109

20-30 min -0.022 -0.028 -0.035 -0.042 -0.046 -0.055

30-60 min -0.012 -0.015 -0.019 -0.023 -0.025 -0.030

12/16/2013

6.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

In te n si ty in /h r)

Duration (min)

2-year

5-year

10-year

25-year

50-year

100-year

Precipitation Frequency Data OutputTable 2: NOAA Atlas-2 v2 WyomingTable 2: NOAA Atlas-2 v2 WyomingTable 2: NOAA Atlas-2 v2 WyomingTable 2: NOAA Atlas-2 v2 Wyoming Precip.

(inches) x1 0.90 x2 1.20 x3 2.00 x4 2.80 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ohd/hdsc/noaaatlas2.htm

Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Elev. [3]

Depths

(Inches)

Y2 0.028 0.89 0.629

Y100 0.671 0.757 0.003 64.8 1.558

[3] Elevation in hunderds of feet

Table 4: Duration vs. Depth

Duration (Mins)

2-YR

Depths

(Inch)

5-YR

Depths

(Inch)

10-YR

Depths

(Inch)

25-YR

Depths

(Inch)

50-YR

Depths

(Inch)

100-YR

Depths

(Inch)

Adjust.

factors from 1-hr values

5 0.18 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.38 0.45 0.29

7.5 0.23 0.30 0.37 0.44 0.48 0.58

10 0.28 0.36 0.45 0.54 0.59 0.70 0.45

12.5 0.32 0.41 0.51 0.61 0.66 0.79

Map

[2] From NOAA Atlas 2 v2, pg 15 and Table 11

2-year 6-hour

2-year 24-hour

100-year 6-hour

100-year 24-hour

Table 3: Equations for estimating 1-hrvalues in Wyoming, NOAA, Atlas 2 vII

12.5 0.32 0.41 0.51 0.61 0.66 0.79

15 0.36 0.46 0.57 0.68 0.74 0.89 0.57

20 0.40 0.51 0.64 0.77 0.84 1.00

30 0.50 0.63 0.79 0.95 1.03 1.23 0.79

60 0.63 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.30 1.56

[4] Use Nomogram figure 6 pg 6 of NOAA Atlas

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

D e p th in ch e s)

Duration (min)

2-YR Depths (Inch)

5-YR Depths (Inch)

10-YR Depths (Inch)

25-YR Depths (Inch)

50-YR Depths (Inch)

100-YR Depths (Inch)

N/A

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

66 11

0 50 MILES10

20 30 40

0 50 KILOMETERS20 30 40

Base modified from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census digital data, 1990 Albers Equal-area Conic projection Standard parallels 29 30 and 45 30 , central meridian -107 30° ′ ° ′ ° ′

41°

41 30° ′

42°

42 30° ′

43°

43 30° ′

44°

44 30° ′

45°

107 30° ′ 107° 106 30° ′ 106° 105 30° ′ 105° 104 30° ′ 104°

CARBON

NATRONA

ALBANY

CAMPBELL

JOHNSON

CROOK

CONVERSE

LARAMIE

PLATTE

WESTON

GOSHEN

NIOBRARA

WELD

SHERIDAN

LARIMER

WASHAKIE

SIOUX

ROUTT JACKSON

BUTTE

BIG HORN

MOFFAT

CUSTER

LAWRENCE

CARTER

FALL

RIVER

POWDER RIVER

A T

N E

B R

A S

K A

S O

U T

H D

A K

WYOMING

COLORADO

MONTANA

EXPLANATION

Region number and name

Rocky Mountains

Central Basins and Northern Plains

Eastern Basins and Eastern Plains Eastern Mountains

High Desert

Soils--hydrologic index

Schwarz, G.E., and Alexander, R.B., 1995

Region boundary

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 03-4107

Soils hydrologic index data PLATE 2

Miller, K.A., 2003, Peak-Flow Characteristics of Wyoming Streams

Prepared in cooperation with the

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SOILS HYDROLOGIC INDEX DATA

Kirk A. Miller

N/A

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

FINS1142

Callout

16 PEAK-FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF WYOMING STREAMS

F ig u re

H y d ro lo g ic r e g io n s f o r d e te rm in in g p e a k -f lo w c h a ra c te ri s ti c s o f W y o m in g s tr e a m s

Y e llo w s to n e

L a k e J a c k s o n L a k e

B e a r

L a k e

F o n te n e lle R e s e rv o ir

F la m in g G o rg e R e s e rv o ir

B o y s e n R e s e rv o ir

Ye llo w st on e

B ig h o rn

L a k e

P a th fi n d e r R e s e rv o ir

Bighorn River

Rive r

To n g u e

Rive r

R iv er

Powder

B el le C he ye nn e

Fourche

R iv e r

River

R iv e r

Platte

P la tte

La ra m ie

North

N o rt h

Rive r

Black s

F o rk

G re en

S w e e tw a te r

Rive r

S na ke

W in d

R iv e r

Rive r

S h o s h o ne

Gre yb ul l

1˚

0˚

9˚

8˚

7˚

6˚

5˚

4˚

C R

O O

W E

U X

A M

B U

T T

W E

S T

O N

G O

S H

E N

B R

A R

C A

R T

E R

C U

S T

E R

B A

N N

E R

M E

A D

H A

R D

R E

N C

DAWES

P E

N N

T O

N LOGAN

S C

O T

T S

BOX BUTTE

NEBRASKA

SOUTH DAKOTA

C A

R B

O N

N A

T R

O N

A N

C A

M P

B E

J O

H N

S O

C O

N V

E R

S E

H O

R N

H O

R N

S H

E R

R R

O U

T T

P O

W D

E R

J A

C K

S O

W A

S H

A K

M O

N T A

N A

M O

N T

T E

T O

S U

T T

C A

O U

H O

S P

G S

B O

N N

E V

LET

E T

O N

M A

O N

P A

R K

P A

R K

C A

R B

O N

M O

N T

W Y

O M

C O

B E

A R

H O

M O

S U

M M

A G

G E

T T

D U

C H

E S

N E

S W

E E

T W

A T

E R

C O

L O

R A

D O

U T A

E S

O M

E T

E R

B a se m o d if ie d f ro m

U .S

. D e p t.

o f

C o m m e rc e , B u re a u o f th e

C e n su s d ig it a l d a ta

, 1

S h a d e d r e lie f m a p m o d if ie d f ro m

U .S

. G e o lo g ic a l S u rv e y

N a ti o n a l E le va ti o n

D a ta se t d ig it a l d a ta

, 1

A lb e rs

E q u a l-a re a

C o n ic p ro je c ti o n , s ta n d a rd p a ra lle ls a n d

, c e n tr a l m e ri d ia n

M A

O N

GALLATIN

R K

˚11

2˚

Ye llo w st o n e

N a ti o n a l

P a rk

E X

P L A

N A T

R e g io n b o u n d a ry

R e g io n n u m b e r a n d n a m e

R o ck y M o u n ta in s

C e n tr a l B a si n s a n d

N o rt h e rn

P la in s

E a st e rn

B a si n s a n d

E a st e rn

P la in s

E a st e rn

M o u n ta in s

O ve rt h ru st B e lt

H ig h D e se rt

1 2 3 4 5 6

FINS1142

Callout

FREMONT CANYON ROAD

FINS1142

Text Box Reference: Peak-Flow Characteristics of Wyoming Streams, Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4107, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.Geological Survey and Wyoming Department of Transportation, 2003.

RESULTS 21

Table 2. Equations for estimating peak-flow characteristics, Central Basins and Northern Plains Region, Wyoming (Region 2)

[SEE, average standard error of estimate; SEP, average standard error of prediction; QT, estimated peak flow, in cubic feet per second for recurrence interval of T years; AREA, total drainage area, in square miles]

Equation

SEE

(percent)

SEP

(percent)

Average equivalent years of record

95-percent prediction interval factor

Lower limit Upper limit

131 135 1.4 0.131 7.61

110 113 1.6 .164 6.08

102 105 1.7 .180 5.57

79 81 3.4 .244 4.11

67 69 5.9 .290 3.45

58 60 10.4 .333 3.01

54 57 13.9 .350 2.86

54 56 16.9 .354 2.83

55 57 19.0 .346 2.89

58 61 20.1 .326 3.07

Q 1.5

17.8 AREA

0.486

29.9 AREA

0.475

Q 2.33

37.1 AREA

0.470

80.9 AREA

0.455

134 AREA

0.447

225 AREA

0.439

311 AREA

0.434

415 AREA

0.430

536 AREA

0.427

728 AREA

0.425

Eastern Basins and Eastern Plains

Equations for estimating peak-flow characteristics for the Eastern Basins and Eastern Plains Region

(Region 3, fig. 7) are listed in table 3. The independent variables determined to be most significant in this region were drainage area and soils hydrologic index

(plate 2). Values of SEE ranged from 43 to 122 per-cent; SEP ranged from 46 to 127 percent.

The large values of SEE for estimating peak flows at shorter recurrence intervals are expected for the same reasons previously described (see Central Basins and Northern Plains Region section). Overall, the uncertainties in the equations for the Eastern Basins and Eastern Plains Region compare favorably with results from previous investigations in Wyoming. Val-ues of SEE for equations developed by this study ranged from 3 to 38 percent less than those values for similar equations developed by Lowham (1988, p. 30).

The largest improvements were in equations for esti-mating peak flows with moderate to longer recurrence intervals. The geographic factor developed by

Lowham (1988) was not required.

Eastern Mountains

Characterization of peak flows in the Black Hills and the Laramie Mountains historically has been prob-lematic. The paucity of gaging stations, the variability in streamflows, and geologic influences on hydrology all contribute to the difficulty of regionalizing peak-flow characteristics in the mountainous areas of eastern

Wyoming. Previous equations for estimating peak flows in these areas tend to produce values smaller than expected (William Bailey, Wyoming Department of

Transportation, written commun., 1996; Sando, 1998).

In previous investigations, the mountainous areas of eastern Wyoming have been both included and sepa-rated from hydrologic regions incorporating the other mountainous areas of the State. Wahl (1970) included

FINS1142

Peak-Flow Characteristics of Wyoming Streams

22 PEAK-FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF WYOMING STREAMS

Table 3. Equations for estimating peak-flow characteristics, Eastern Basins and Eastern Plains Region, Wyoming "

(Region 3)

Equation

SEE

(percent)

SEP

(percent)

Average equivalent years of record

95-percent prediction interval factor

Lower limit Upper limit

122 127 2.0 0.140 7.12

94 98 2.6 .193 5.18

85 89 3.1 .218 4.58

58 61 7.7 .324 3.08

48 51 14.4 .384 2.61

43 46 23.6 .413 2.42

44 48 28.0 .405 2.47

47 51 29.5 .382 2.62

52 56 28.9 .350 2.86

60 66 26.6 .302 3.31

Q 1.5

1.12 AREA

0.401

! SOIL

3.01

2.28 AREA

0.402

! SOIL

2.90

Q 2.33

3.10 AREA

0.403

! SOIL

2.84

10.1 AREA

0.407

! SOIL

2.60

21.9 AREA

0.410

! SOIL

2.44

48.8 AREA

0.416

! SOIL

2.27

80.9 AREA

0.423

! SOIL

2.16

127 AREA

0.432

! SOIL

2.05

193 AREA

0.441

! SOIL

1.94

323 AREA

0.454

! SOIL

1.80 the Black Hills with the mountains of north-central

Wyoming in hydrologic area “A;” the Laramie Moun-tains were incorporated into hydrologic area “B,” which encompassed the rest of the mountainous areas of the

State. Lowham (1976, p. 4) characterized the Black

Hills and the Laramie Mountains as “subdued mountain areas where peak flows occur from both snowmelt and rainfall runoff,” and separated the areas from the other mountainous areas of the State. Then in a subsequent investigation, “advanced analytical methods and more complete streamflow data” resulted in these areas being combined with the other mountainous areas of the State

(Lowham, 1988, p. 18). Most recently, Miselis and oth-ers (1999) demonstrated that regional relations for esti-mating a range of streamflow characteristics could be improved by developing regression equations specific to the various mountain ranges.

This study determined that delineation of a separate region for the Eastern Mountains (Region 4, fig. 7) was appropriate. When compared to other mountainous areas of the State, the available data indicate peak flows in the eastern mountainous areas generally are more variable. The eastern mountainous areas also are unique because of the late winter and early spring mois-ture from the south and east. More annual peak flows result from rainfall runoff than snowmelt runoff in the eastern mountains, compared to other mountainous areas of the State. Finally, additional gaging stations in northeastern Wyoming and western South Dakota not used in previous investigations, as well as recently com-pleted analyses by Sando (1998), support the delinea-tion of a separate region for the area.

As previously noted, annual peak flows in the east-ern mountainous areas of the State are caused by snow-melt runoff, rainfall runoff, and a combination of snowmelt runoff and rainfall runoff. A cursory analysis by Sando (1998, p. 5) indicated that runoff from rainfall only accounts for as much as 90 percent of the annual peak flows in most of the Black Hills area. The " physiographic area referenced as the Black Hills by

FINS1142

Peak-Flow Characteristics of Wyoming Streams

Hydrologic Soil Group—Natrona County Area, Wyoming (Fremont Canyon Road)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

12/16/2013

346000 347000 348000 349000 350000 351000 352000 353000 354000

42° 30' 49'' N

6°

6' ' W

42° 30' 49'' N

6°

' W

42° 27' 31'' N

6°

' W

42° 27' 31'' N

6°

' W

Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 2000 4000 8000 12000

Feet 0 500 1000 2000 3000

Meters Map Scale: 1:43,100 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

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

Soils Soil Rating Polygons

A/D

B/D

C/D

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Lines A

A/D

B/D

C/D

Not rated or not available

Soil Rating Points A

A/D

B/D

C/D

Not rated or not available

Water Features Streams and Canals

Transportation Rails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Background Aerial Photography

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

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

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)

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

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

Soil Survey Area: Natrona County Area, Wyoming Survey Area Data: Version 13, Mar 29, 2011

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

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 22, 2011—Jul 15, The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Hydrologic Soil Group—Natrona County Area, Wyoming (Fremont Canyon Road)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

12/16/2013

Hydrologic Soil Group

Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Natrona County Area, Wyoming (WY625)

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

104 Alcova-Stunner complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes

B 145.8 2.7%

130 Bosler-Alcova complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes

B 1,338.3 24.8%

137 Brownsto-Lupinto complex, 6 to 40 percent slopes

B 1,277.2 23.7%

163 Cragosen-Chalkcreek association, 3 to 45 percent slopes

D 83.6 1.5%

184 Forelle-Diamondville complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes

B 64.3 1.2%

243 Redsun-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes

D 148.1 2.7%

253 Rock outcrop D 222.6 4.1%

255 Rock outcrop-Cathedral complex, 10 to 50 percent slopes

D 2,060.7 38.2%

313 Water 57.4 1.1%

Totals for Area of Interest 5,398.1 100.0%

Hydrologic Soil Group—Natrona County Area, Wyoming Fremont Canyon Road

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

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

Rating Options

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Hydrologic Soil Group—Natrona County Area, Wyoming Fremont Canyon Road

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Appendix B. Hydrology

Structure sqft acres sq miles

1 2999844 69 0.11

2 117482103 2697 4.22

3 22506626 517 0.81

4 18670653 429 0.67

0.25

0.4

0.213

Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100

5-min: 2.19 2.78 3.48 4.18 4.52 5.42

10-min: 1.70 2.16 2.70 3.24 3.51 4.21

15-min: 1.43 1.82 2.28 2.74 2.96 3.55

30-min: 0.99 1.26 1.58 1.90 2.05 2.46

60-min: 0.63 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.30 1.56

Greater than 200 acres: Regression

Q25 =

Q50 =

Rational Method Parameters

Runoff Coefficient ( C ) =

Sheet Flow: Manning's n =

Shallow Concentrated Flow: k =

IDF Curve

HDS 2: Table 5.7 Heavy soil, steep, >7%

HDS 2: Table 2.1 Light Underbrush

HDS 2: Table 2.2 Short grass pasture (overland flow)

Generated from NOAA

7.1

Q100 =

Q10 =

IDF Curve

Storm Event (year)

Q2 =

Q5 =

Drainage Basin

11.2

13.5

14.6

17.6

Rational Method Using Hydraulic Toolbox

Decision Method Matrix

Hydrologic Parameters:

Less than 200 acres: Rational

Analysis

S:\Tranproj\100037554 Fremont Canyon\Hydraulics\4_Hydrologic-Analysis\Spreadsheets\Hydrology.xlsxPage 1

2 3 4

4.22 0.81 0.67

Plate 2 Hydrologic Soil Index 3.80 3.80 3.80

Q2 = 2.28 * AREA

0.402

* SOIL

2.90

= 195.23 100.47 93.20

Q5 = 10.1 * AREA

0.407

* SOIL

2.60

= 583.60 297.87 276.05

Q10 = 21.9 * AREA

0.410

* SOIL

2.44

= 1026.46 521.32 482.87

Q25 = 48.8 * AREA

0.416

* SOIL

2.27

= 1838.68 924.61 855.46

Q50 = 80.9 * AREA

0.423

* SOIL

2.16

= 2658.48 1321.49 1221.06

Q100 = 127 * AREA

0.432

* SOIL

2.05

= 3650.37 1787.75 1649.11

Q500 = 323 * AREA

0.454

* SOIL

1.80

= 6863.39 3241.31 2977.68

Regression Equations for Eastern Basins and Eastern Plains Region, Wyoming (Region 3)

Regression Method

Drainage Basin

Basin Area (sq miles)

S:\Tranproj\100037554 Fremont Canyon\Hydraulics\4_Hydrologic-Analysis\Spreadsheets\Hydrology.xlsxPage 2

Appendix C. Hydraulics

H Y

-8 C u lv e rt A n a ly s is

R e p o rt

T a b le

- S u m m a ry o f C u lv e rt F lo w s a t C ro s s in g : 2

H e a d w a te r E le v a tio n

(ft)

T o ta l D is c h a rg e (c fs

C u lv e rt 1 D is c h a rg e

(c fs

R o a d w a y D is c h a

Ite ra tio n s

O v e rto p p in g a tin g C u rv e P lo t fo r C ro s s in g : 2

T a b le

- C u lv e rt S u m m a ry

T a b le : C u lv e rt 1

T o ta l

D is c h a rg e

(c fs

C u lv e rt

D is c h a rg e

(c fs

H e a d w a te r

E le v a tio n

(ft)

In le t C o n tro l

D e p th

(ft)

O u tle t

C o n tro l

D e p th

(ft)

F lo w

T y p e

N o rm a l

D e p th

(ft)

C ritic a l

D e p th

(ft)

O u tle t D e p th a ilw a te r

D e p th

(ft)

O u tle t

V e lo c ity

(ft/s

T a ilw a te r

V e lo c ity

(ft/s

-S n

* th o re tic a l d e p th is im p ra c tic a

l. D e p th re p o rte d is c o rre c te d

In le t E le v a tio n

(in v e rt): 5

.3 ft, O u tle t E le v a tio n

(in v e rt): 5

.7 ft

C u lv e rt L e n g th : 6

.0 ft, C u lv e rt S lo p e : 0

C u lv e rt P e rfo rm a n c e C u rv e P lo t: C u lv e rt 1

W a te r S u rfa c e P ro file

P lo t fo r C u lv e rt: C u lv e rt 1

S ite

D a ta

- C u lv e rt 1

S ite

D a ta

O p tio n : C u lv e rt In v e rt D a ta

In le t S ta tio n : 0

.0 ft

In le t E le v a tio n : 5

.3 ft

O u tle t S ta tio n : 6

.0 ft

O u tle t E le v a tio n : 5

.7 ft

N u m b e r o f B a rre ls : 1

C u lv e rt D a ta

S u m m a ry

- C u lv e rt 1

B a rre l S h a p e : C irc u la r

B a rre l D ia m e te r: 4 .0 ft

B a rre l M a te ria l: C o rru g a te d S te e l

E m b e d m e n t: 0

.0 in

B a rre l M a n n in g 's n : 0

In le t T y p e : C o n v e n tio n a l

In le t E d g e C o n d itio n : T h in

E d g e P ro je c tin g

In le t D e p re s s io n : N

O N

E b le

- D o w n s tre a m

C h a n n e l R a tin g C u rv e (C ro s s in g : 2

F lo w (c fs

W a te r S u rfa c e E le v (ft)

D e p th

(ft)

T a ilw a te r C h a n n e l D a ta

- 2

T a ilw a te r C h a n n e l O p tio n : E n te r C o n s ta n t T a ilw a te r E le v a tio n

C o n s ta n t T a ilw a te r E le v a tio n : 5

.7 ft

R o a d w a y D a ta fo r C ro s s in g : 2

R o a d w a y P ro file

S h a p e : C o n s ta n t R o a d w a y E le v a tio n

C re s t L e n g th

: 5 .0 ft

C re s t E le v a tio n : 5

.4 ft

R o a d w a y S u rfa c e : P a v e d

R o a d w a y T o p W id th

: 2 .0 ft

HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report

Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: 61+00

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Total Discharge (cfs)

Culvert 1 Discharge (cfs)

Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations

5730.97 583.60 510.46 73.01 14

5731.55 725.24 527.34 197.84 4

5732.03 866.88 540.64 326.19 4

5732.19 919.50 545.05 374.41 4

5732.83 1150.16 562.37 587.51 3

5733.18 1291.80 571.79 719.97 4

5733.52 1433.44 580.53 852.87 4

5733.83 1575.08 588.43 986.41 3

5734.13 1716.72 596.03 1120.41 3

5734.42 1858.36 603.25 1254.90 3

5734.70 2000.00 610.13 1389.72 3

5730.36 491.83 491.83 0.00 Overtopping

Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: 61+00

Table 2 - Culvert Summary Table: Culvert 1

Inlet Elevation (invert): 5719.02 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 5718.82 ft

Culvert Length: 66.00 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0030

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)

583.60 510.46 5730.97 11.954 7.186 2-M2c 5.917 4.477 4.486 0.000 10.097 0.000

725.24 527.34 5731.55 12.534 7.312 2-M2c 5.917 4.554 4.561 0.000 10.190 0.000

866.88 540.64 5732.03 13.006 7.407 2-M2c 5.917 4.615 4.620 0.000 10.263 0.000

919.50 545.05 5732.19 13.166 7.439 2-M2c 5.917 4.635 4.639 0.000 10.287 0.000

1150.16 562.37 5732.83 13.805 7.563 2-M2c 5.917 4.713 4.715 0.000 10.380 0.000

1291.80 571.79 5733.18 14.163 7.630 2-M2c 5.917 4.754 4.755 0.000 10.431 0.000

1433.44 580.53 5733.52 14.499 7.691 2-M2c 5.917 4.789 4.792 0.000 10.470 0.000

1575.08 588.43 5733.83 14.808 7.747 2-M2c 5.917 4.821 4.825 0.000 10.508 0.000

1716.72 596.03 5734.13 15.110 7.800 2-M2c 5.917 4.852 4.857 0.000 10.545 0.000

1858.36 603.25 5734.42 15.400 7.850 2-M2c 5.917 4.881 4.888 0.000 10.579 0.000

2000.00 610.13 5734.70 15.680 7.898 2-M2c 5.917 4.909 4.916 0.000 10.612 0.000

Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Culvert 1

Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Culvert 1

Site Data - Culvert 1

Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data

Inlet Station: 0.00 ft

Inlet Elevation: 5719.02 ft

Outlet Station: 66.00 ft

Outlet Elevation: 5718.82 ft

Number of Barrels: 1

Culvert Data Summary - Culvert 1

Barrel Shape: Pipe Arch

Barrel Span: 103.00 in

Barrel Rise: 71.00 in

Barrel Material: Steel or Aluminum

Embedment: 0.00 in

Barrel Manning's n: 0.0280

Inlet Type: Conventional

Inlet Edge Condition: Projecting

Inlet Depression: NONE

Table 3 - Downstream Channel Rating Curve (Crossing: 61+00)

Tailwater Channel Data - 61+00

Tailwater Channel Option: Enter Constant Tailwater Elevation

Constant Tailwater Elevation: 5718.40 ft

Roadway Data for Crossing: 61+00

Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation

Crest Length: 50.00 ft

Crest Elevation: 5730.36 ft

Roadway Surface: Paved

Roadway Top Width: 22.00 ft

Flow (cfs) Water Surface Elev (ft) Depth (ft)

583.60 5718.40 0.00

725.24 5718.40 0.00

866.88 5718.40 0.00

919.50 5718.40 0.00

1150.16 5718.40 0.00

1291.80 5718.40 0.00

1433.44 5718.40 0.00

1575.08 5718.40 0.00

1716.72 5718.40 0.00

1858.36 5718.40 0.00

2000.00 5718.40 0.00

HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report

Table 1 - Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: 61+70

Headwater Elevation

(ft) Total Discharge (cfs)

Culvert 1 Discharge (cfs)

Roadway Discharge (cfs) Iterations

5730.97 583.60 510.46 73.01 14

5731.55 725.24 527.34 197.84 4

5732.03 866.88 540.64 326.19 4

5732.19 919.50 545.05 374.41 4

5732.83 1150.16 562.37 587.51 3

5733.18 1291.80 571.79 719.97 4

5733.52 1433.44 580.53 852.87 4

5733.83 1575.08 588.43 986.41 3

5734.13 1716.72 596.03 1120.41 3

5734.42 1858.36 603.25 1254.90 3

5734.70 2000.00 610.13 1389.72 3

5730.36 491.83 491.83 0.00 Overtopping

Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: 61+70