Hydraulics Report - NM FTNP-NPS BAND 910(1).pdf

Hydraulics Report

TSANKAWI PARKING LOT

NM FTNP-NPS BAND 910(1)

Federal Highway Administration

Central Federal Lands Highway Division

Bandelier National Monument

National Park Service

NPS PMIS #240232

Santa Fe County, New Mexico

November 20, 2021

07/21/2022

November 20, 2021 | i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Drainage Basins

3 Drainage Design Assumptions

4 Culverts

4.1 Hydraulic Design Standards and Methods for Culverts

4.2 Culvert Analysis and Results

5 Ditches

5.1 Hydraulic Design Standards and Methods

5.2 Hydraulic Analysis and Results

6 Stormwater Pond

6.1 Stormwater Pond Hydrology

6.2 Hydraulic Design Standards and Methods

6.3 Hydraulic Analysis and Results

7 EISA 438 Evaluation

7.1 Option 1: Retain the 95th Percentile Rainfall Event

8 Scour Protection

9 References

Tables

Table 1 – Drainage Basin’s Characteristics Summary

Table 2 – Culvert Design Criteria

Table 3 – Culvert Summary

Table 4 – Parking Lot Ditch Analysis

Table 5 - Ephemeral Stream Analysis

Table 6 - Stormwater Pond Details

Table 7 - Summary of the Hydrograph Routing for Storm Events

Figures

Figure 1 – Project Location Map (Source: Google)

Figure 2 - Existing Conditions of Ephemeral Stream

Figure 3 – Roughness Coefficients for Channels and Pipes

Figure 4 - Site Photos of Location of Proposed Ditch

Figure 5 - Stage-Storage Curve for Stormwater Pond

Figure 6 - Stage-Storage-Discharge Curve for the Stormwater Pond file:///c:/pwworking/central01/d2018740/NM%20FTNP%20NPS%20BAND%20910(1)_Final_Hydraulics_Report.docx%23_Toc98318232 ii | November 20, 2021

Appendices

Appendix A – Basin Delineation Exhibits

Appendix B – Culvert Analysis

Appendix C – Ditch and Ephemeral Stream Analysis

Appendix D – Ephemeral Stream Existing and Proposed Plan and Profile

Appendix E – Stormwater Pond Analysis

Appendix F – Scour Protection Analysis

Appendix G – NOAA Atlas Data

Appendix H– EISA 438 Calculations

Appendix I– Geotechnical Analysis

November 20, 2021 | 1

Executive Summary

The proposed improvements are to expand/construct new parking lots at the Bandelier National

Monument, one of the locations is the Tsankawi (san-KAH-wee) unit. The proposed project is to construct a parking lot to provide visitor and shuttle parking at the Tsankawi unit, located at the intersection of East Jemez Drive and New Mexico Highway 4 (NM-4). The proposed parking lot will consist of approximately 30 vehicle parking spaces with a shuttle stop and large vehicle space parking.

The parking lot project improvements are designed to accommodate access for the largest shuttle bus (BUS-45 design vehicle). Additional improvements will be needed at Tsankawi to facilitate construction including permanent slope stabilization as a result of the cut into the hill at the East Jemez Drive / NM-4 intersection and drainage considerations due to the existing ephemeral stream and topography. This hydraulics Report provides a summary of the hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of the existing drainage and the drainage design for proposed improvements only for the Tsankawi Parking Lot.

The hydraulic and drainage improvements at the Tsankawi parking lot include a ditch, a stormwater pond, and the relocation of the existing ephemeral stream. The proposed ditch is located adjacent to the west side of the parking lot to convey runoff from the new impervious surface to the pond for stormwater infiltration and detention. The stormwater pond will secondarily capture debris and other pollutants. Riprap and outlet protection will be placed at the curb opening locations and stormwater pond control structure/overflow for scour protection. The ephemeral stream will be relocated to accommodate the parking lot construction, with the addition of a culvert for the new sidewalk connection to the ranger station.

2 | November 20, 2021

This page is intentionally left blank.

November 20, 2021 | 3

1 Introduction

This Scope of Work is to perform engineering, surveying, hydraulic, and project management services towards delivery of a final set of plans, specifications and estimate for the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division

(CFLHD) for proposed improvements to Bandelier National Monument at the Tsankawi Unit Parking Lot.

Improvements begin at the entrance road of the Tsankawi parking lot, at the intersection of E Jemez Rd and New Mexico Highway 4, see Figure 1 for reference. The proposed parking lot will consist of approximately 30 vehicle parking spaces with a shuttle stop and large vehicle space. Improvements also include permanent slope stabilization as a result of the cut into the hill at the East Jemez Drive / NM-4 intersection and drainage considerations due to the existing ephemeral stream and topography.

The purpose of this Hydraulic Report is to provide a summary of the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the existing drainage and the drainage design for the proposed improvements. The proposed drainage design includes the relocation of the existing ephemeral stream and the construction of a culvert where the stream crosses the new proposed sidewalk to the ranger station, construction of a ditch and stormwater pond to convey and detain runoff from the new parking lot, and scour analysis and riprap sizing.

4 | November 20, 2021

Figure 1 – Project Location Map (Source: Google)

2 Drainage Basins

Drainage basins were analyzed for new and existing ditches, stormwater pond and ephemeral stream. Contributing basins for the ditch and stormwater pond were delineated using contours from survey data and the proposed parking lot design model.

For the ephemeral stream relocation and associated culvert analysis, the existing basin that ultimately drains across NM-4 was delineated using StreamStats. However, since the basin size was outside the acceptable regression equation validity range, the NRCS method was used to estimate the peak flows. The delineated basin map for the ditch and stormwater pond basins is included in Appendix A. For the ditch basin the runoff sheet flow overland to the curb, then is conveyed along the gutter line where it flows to the ditch through the curb openings and to the pond. The pond delineated basins consist of, the ditch basin and a second basin that conveys runoff from the upper north section of the parking that ultimately drains to the pond at the lowest point in the turn around. The basins were drawn considering the future construction of the NM-4/E. Jemez Rd intersection (scheduled for 2022) which includes curb and gutter along the east side of

NM-4 to collect and convey runoff from the highway and discharge it downslope from the parking lot. Refer to Table 1 for a summary of the drainage basin’s characteristics on this project.

November 20, 2021 | 5

Table 1 – Drainage Basin’s Characteristics Summary

Basin Size (Acres) Method Description

A 1.11 Delineation using contours in MicroStation

Basin used for both ditch and post-development analysis.

B 23.45*

StreamStats *Total area was not used as it encompasses the highway and the ditch west of the highway which will not drain to parking lot. Curb and gutter were designed on the west side of parking lot by others to prevent runoff to go into the ditch or stormwater pond.

C 0.63 Delineation using contours in MicroStation

Post-development basin for stormwater pond analysis.

D 2.09 Delineation using contours in MicroStation

Pre-development basin for stormwater pond analysis.

3 Drainage Design Assumptions

The following assumptions were used to layout and design the proposed drainage system. These include:

1. According to the section 7.1.6 of the PDDM, culverts are designed based on the roadway classification. Tsankawi Parking lot is classified as a Low-Standard

Road. Therefore, the culvert has been designed for a 25-year flood event. (FLH

PDDM, 2018)

2. The Rational Method is appropriate for the drainage design of the parking lot ditch, based on the surrounding land uses and the relatively small basin sizes.

3. The NRCS Method was used for the ephemeral stream.

4. According to the section 7.2.5.3 of the PDDM detention ponds are designed based on storage routing methods outlined in HDS 2 and HEC 22. (FHWA HDS

2, 2002) (FHWA HEC 22, 2009)

5. Technical Guidance for Stormwater Management for Federal Facilities under

Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EPA EISA, 2009) is applicable at Tsankawi due to the development exceeding 5,000 square feet.

4 Culverts

4.1 Hydraulic Design Standards and Methods for Culverts

Design Flood

Culverts for Low-Standard Roads are designed to convey runoff from 25-year flood events with a headwater to diameter ratio of less than 1.5 for culverts 48-inches and smaller and less than 1.2 for culverts larger than 48-inches. However, based on field

6 | November 20, 2021 observation, and discussions with NPS staff, sediment transport and long-term aggradation in a culvert is a concern. Therefore, a headwater ratio of 1.0 to account for sediment has been applied. Additionally, the headwater elevation for the culvert should not be greater than the bottom of the aggregate base layer for the pavement structure at the local low point where applicable. (FLH PDDM, 2018).

Check Flood

According to the PDDM, the greater water elevation of the 25-year flood and the overtopping flood event will be used as the standard check for water surface elevation increases caused by the crossing. The overtopping flood is defined as the discharge rate at which water would begin to flow over the top of the road surface.

Stability Design

The stability design flood standard refers to the ability of roadway culverts and embankments at culvert locations to be stable for the 25-year flood.

Design Criteria Summary

According to the PDDM, culverts are to be designed with the design criteria summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 – Culvert Design Criteria

Criteria Standard

Design Standards 25-year flood

Stability Design 25-year flood

Headwater

New: WSEL ≤ bottom of aggregate base layer Existing: WSEL ≤ shoulder hinge point.

HW/D ratio: 1.0 for heavy debris or sediment

Minimum Size Cross-road culvert = 24” Parallel culvert = 18”

Slope Stream Crossings: Match streambed Ditch Relief: Min. = 0.5%, 2% (preferred), Max. = 10% for concrete pipe and 25% for metal pipe

4.2 Culvert Analysis and Results

A new culvert will be installed at the sidewalk crossing of the ephemeral stream realignment. The new culvert was analyzed with HY8 to determine its capacity at the design events. Reports from HY8 are included in Appendix B. Manning’s roughness coefficients were assigned based on examination of site photos, aerial photography and using Table 3-4 of FHWA Urban Drainage Design Manual (FHWA HEC 22, 2009). The channel bottoms were classified as a small open channel, bare soil. Manning’s ‘n’ value of 0.025 was used for the channel. Pictures of the ephemeral stream used as reference

November 20, 2021 | 7 for determining the roughness coefficient are provided below in Figure 2, and a written description of the ephemeral stream material is shown in Table 3-4 in Figure 3.

Due to the nature of the ephemeral stream, several culvert types and sizes are analyzed and presented in the preliminary report for consideration and discussion including a concrete box culvert, a CMP arch pipe culvert and a CMP round pipe culvert. The culvert crossing is under a sidewalk, with a relatively short length of less than 20 feet. However, NPS staff noted they were concerned with long term maintenance and clogging of culverts and storm systems in general because of the loose sand that is transported during flash storm events.

After considering the options, the recommended culvert is a CMP arch pipe culvert with a reduced HW/D ratio to account for sediment aggradation. Additionally, the wide opening mimics the relocated stream shape to minimize the velocity through the culvert. The culvert was analyzed with a Manning’s ‘n’ value of 0.025. Inlet configuration applied are end sections.

Figure 2 - Existing Conditions of Ephemeral Stream

8 | November 20, 2021

Figure 3 – Roughness Coefficients for Channels and Pipes

November 20, 2021 | 9

Table 3 – Culvert Summary

Proposed

Pipe Material

Pipe Dimensions

HW for

HW/D =

1.0

Design HW 25-yr

HW/D Slope Length 100-yr

HW

Depth

Design Flow 25-yr

Design Flow 100-yr

Outlet Velocity

Tailwater velocity

Span (ft)

Rise (ft)

(ft.) (ft.) (%) (ft.) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/s) (ft/s)

CMP

(arch)

3.5 2.42 2.42 1.52 0.63 3.3 20 1.91 14.0 21.0 6.71 5.30

10 | November 20, 2021

5 Ditches

There are no existing ditches in the project area. However, the existing ephemeral stream functions as a ditch, and therefore will be analyzed as one. A second ditch is proposed as part of this design which will be located west of the parking lot to convey stormwater runoff from the new parking lot to the stormwater pond.

5.1 Hydraulic Design Standards and Methods

Design Flood

According to the PDDM, roadside ditches are to be designed for the 10-year flood for

Low-Standard roadways (FLH PDDM, 2018).

Stability Design

Per the PDDM, roadside ditches are to be designed for stability for the 10-year flood for

Low-Standard roadways and drainage stability of a ditch is to be design based on permissible shear stress. Temporary linings may be needed to protect the proposed ditch located on the west of the parking lot from erosion over the transitional period before permanent protective vegetation can become established. The stream stability was compared to the existing stream, by developing a representative alignment and profile for the existing delineated stream. The existing stream profile grade varies from 8.45% to

3.9%, which results in velocities that currently mobilize sediment. This sediment transport has been visually observed on-site and noted by NPS staff. The proposed stream realignment velocities are shown in section 4 above for the culvert analysis but are generally consistent with the existing velocities. Due to the existing sediment transport, the design is targeting similar velocities and slopes to avoid increased settlement at the new culvert. The proposed stream profile matches closely the grade variance of the existing designed for the 25-year flood event to match the analysis made for the culvert.

See Appendix C to see the calculations for the proposed ditch design including the shear stress analysis and for the proposed stream calculations.

Design Criteria Summary

The design depth of new ditch and ephemeral stream is to be limited to the elevation of the bottom of the aggregate base layer for the roadway pavement structure. Depth of the proposed ditch was determined using the Rational method and determining the sheet, shallow and open channel time of concentration. NOAA Atlas 14 was used to determine the precipitation intensity per time of concentration, see Appendix G for reference. The proposed stream was designed to match the existing stream’s width and slope. The Rational method was used to obtain time of concentration for all three flows and the peak flow rates for a 25-year and 100-year events were determined applying the

NRCS method. Refer to Appendix C for calculations.

November 20, 2021 | 11

5.2 Hydraulic Analysis and Results

The Rational Method described in FHWA Urban Drainage Design Manual was used to analyze the ditch and stream capacity. Results of the analysis are summarized in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. Manning’s roughness coefficients were assigned based on examination of site photos and aerial image and using Tables 3-4 of FHWA Urban

Drainage Design Manual and equation 4.2 of FHWA Design of Roadside Channels with

Flexible Linings for grass linings (FHWA HEC 15, 2005). Figure 4 shows existing conditions of the soil for where the new ditch will be constructed. The channel bottom for the ditch will be vegetated. Manning’s coefficient value for vegetated open channel flow used is 0.030, 0.15 for sheet flow over the short vegetation on the hill south of the parking lot, for the new pavement an intercept of coefficient for velocity of 0.619 was used to determine time of concentration.

Intensity-duration-frequency curves based on precipitation frequency depths from NOAA

Atlas were used for value of rain intensity and are shown in Appendix C. ‘C’ values were taken from Table 3-1 of FHWA Urban Drainage Design Manual. Weighted ‘C’ value of

0.95 for paved area and 0.20 for native vegetation / unimproved area were used to analyze ditch capacity. For analysis of the ephemeral stream, the Rational Method was used for time of concentration calculations and the NRCS method was used to calculate the peak flow rates for the 25-yr and 100-yr events. The same values for the Manning’s coefficient were used except for the open channel flow, a Manning’s value of 0.025 was used as the stream will not be vegetated and a different intercept coefficient for velocity was used to determine shallow time of concentration. The total basin area from

StreamStats was not used, as the area encompasses the highway adjacent to the parking lot. The parking lot area was subtracted from the total basin area as runoff from the parking lot will not drain to the stream. Refer to Appendix C for reference.

Figure 4 - Site Photos of Location of Proposed Ditch

12 | November 20, 2021

Table 4 – Parking Lot Ditch Analysis

Basin Basin Area

A (acre)

Runoff coefficient

C

Rainfall Intensity

I (in/hr)

Depth of flow

(ft)

Time of Concentrati on

(min)

Peak Discharge

Q (cfs)

Basin A 1.11 0.37 5.02 0.23 7 2.1

Table 5 - Ephemeral Stream Analysis

Basin Basin Area

A (acre)

Manning’s roughness coefficient

25 year - Flow rate

Q (cfs)

100 year - Flow rate

Q (cfs)

Depth of flow

(ft)

Basin B 23.45* 0.025 14.0 21 0.61

* The total basin area from StreamStats was not used, as the encompasses a larger area than the parking lot. The parking lot area was subtracted from the total basin area as runoff from the parking lot will be detained in the pond.

6 Stormwater Pond

The stormwater pond is designed to collect, infiltrate, and detain runoff from the proposed parking lot and release the stormwater at a rate less than or equal to the pre-developed condition. Secondarily, the pond is designed as a water quality facility by collecting debris and pollutants within pond below the outlet structure during “first flush” events. No existing stormwater facilities exist on-site, as stormwater runoff from the existing site and New Mexico 4 Highway (NM-4) sheet flow north and combine into an ephemeral stream / roadside ditch. The existing and proposed discharge location is generally the same with topography sloping from south to north. The ephemeral stream and the NM-4 roadside ditch cross NM-4 approximately 650 feet north of the stormwater pond from east to west through an existing 30-inch CMP culvert. The proposed stormwater pond is located northwest of the parking lot. It has a bottom surface area of

1550 square feet and is two feet deep from the pond bottom to the top of the berm.

The stormwater pond was designed for the 2-, 10- and 100-year events. 24-hour precipitation depth was obtained from NOAA Atlas, see Appendix G for reference. The post-developed peak runoff is less than the pre-developed flow rates. An overflow / outlet structure is included to control larger storm events. See details in Appendix D.

6.1 Stormwater Pond Hydrology

Existing Condition

The existing drainage basin is approximately 2.09 acres and includes pavement from the

NM-4 and sheet flow from the existing un-developed project area, See Appendix A. The existing stormwater runoff is collected by the existing ephemeral stream and NM-4 roadside ditch and ultimately flows north to the cross NM-4 from east to west through an existing 30-inch culvert north of the project area.

November 20, 2021 | 13

Proposed Condition

The new parking lot and NM-4 intersection project will collect and convey stormwater via curb and gutter, curb openings and a ditch to the proposed stormwater pond location, See Appendix A. The stormwater pond size and shape are intended to blend with the existing topography and maintain a low profile and utilize a low maintenance outlet structure with scour protection for long term performance. The improvements to NM-4 have been designed and will be constructed by others, but the improvements have been coordinated between the projects.

6.2 Hydraulic Design Standards and Methods

Peak Event Storage Routing

According to PDDM, the Storage-indication method can be used for designing detention / retention ponds such as this stormwater pond. The size of the pond was determined by calculating the difference between the pre-developed and post-developed hydrographs.

The NRCS Curve Number Method was used to determine the peak runoff hydrographs flowing to the stormwater pond during the 2, 10, and 100-year storm events and compared to the pre-developed condition. An NRCS Type II storm event is valid for this region of New Mexico. Precipitation depths were obtained from NOAA Atlas 14, Volume

1 for the 24-hour event. Curve Number (CN) values were obtained from Table 402-2 of the NMDOT Drainage Design manual. Both basins, pre-development and post-developed consist of pavement / concrete and grassland areas. To obtain the CN value for these two areas, the hydrological soil group was first determined. Based on geotechnical report (See Appendix I), examination of site photos, aerial photography and site visit the project area falls under the hydrological soil group B. Therefore, a CN value of 98 for the pavement / concrete and a CN value of 80 for grassland were used to determine the weighted CN value.

An infiltration rate of 1.0 inch per hour was applied to the pond bottom area. The infiltration rate was selected based on guidance in EISA 438 for sandy, type B soils.

14 | November 20, 2021

6.3 Hydraulic Analysis and Results

Figure 5 reflects the stage-storage relationship for the stormwater pond. The maximum storage of the pond is approximately 4200 cubic feet or 0.10 acre-feet. Hydraulic

Calculations are provided in Appendix D. A weir will be used as an overflow / outlet structure, this structure will be set into the pond berm to release larger events in a controlled fashion. The weir overflow will be lined with riprap, refer to Section 8 for riprap sizing. The pond dimensions, weir dimensions and other features are summarized below in Table 6. The stage-discharge curve for the pond is shown in Figure 5 and the stage-storage-discharge curve is shown in Figure 6.

Table 6 - Stormwater Pond Details

Pond Dimensions Value Features Value

Bottom Elevation (feet)

6488 Depth below Outlet (feet) 1.25

Bottom Area (sq. ft) 1550 Weir Width (feet) 2.0

Top Elevation (feet) 6490 Bottom of Weir Elevation (feet) 6489.25

Top Area (sq. ft) 2690 100-year Freeboard 0.40

Total Depth (feet) 2

The single event analysis shows that peak flows from the project after development are less than predeveloped flow rates, therefore, there are no downstream effects from the project.

November 20, 2021 | 15

Figure 5 - Stage-Storage Curve for Stormwater Pond

Figure 6 - Stage-Storage-Discharge Curve for the Stormwater Pond

16 | November 20, 2021

Table 7 - Summary of the Hydrograph Routing for Storm Events

Event

(years)

Pre-Dev.

Qin (cfs)

Post-Dev.

Qin (cfs)

Qout

(cfs)

Maximum Stage calculated (ft)

2 0.47 0.72 0.07 6489.2

10 0.95 1.36 0.19 6489.4

100 2.15 2.45 1.45 6489.6

7 EISA 438 Evaluation

In addition to the single event peak flow analysis to verify no downstream impacts described in Section 6 the overall project “site” was analyzed for compliance with EISA

438 requirements. The parking lot is a federal facility that exceeds 5,000 square feet.

There is no “project site” as would typically be defined for a development by a parcel boundary, so in lieu of using the Park boundary, the entire area of project disturbance was used from edge of clearing limits. All areas outside the clearing limits will be unaffected by the development of the project and are pervious.

7.1 Option 1: Retain the 95th Percentile Rainfall Event

The 95th percentile rainfall event was determined by downloading 30 years of historical precipitation data from NOAA, removing small storm events, then determining the value of the 95th percentile rainfall event to be 0.9 inches. See Appendix H for calculations.

The project site was analyzed as pavement for all pavement and sidewalk areas, while all remaining areas was pervious. The areas were calculated in MicroStation to determine the percentage impervious cover of 45%. Soil type was determined during the geotechnical analysis (see Appendix I) to be sandy type B soil as noted with the long-term infiltration rate provided by the EISA 438 guidance used. The resulting combined runoff is equivalent to 0.36 inches over 24 hours, or 2,065 cubic feet of stormwater. The stormwater infiltration pond outlet structure was designed to retain this volume prior to overflow, therefore, the entire 95th percentile rainfall event is retained on-site.

The evaluation of the project site in accordance with EISA 438 requirements, Option 1, shows that the proposed stormwater infiltration pond described in Section 6 is sufficient to retain the entire 95th percentile storm. The project meets the requirements of Option 1.

8 Scour Protection

Riprap will be placed at the curb openings for the ditch and stormwater pond control structure/overflow for scour protection. The riprap placed at the curb opening locations / ditch inlets was analyzed for a 10-year event for the entire flow contributing to the pond and therefore is adequate for all inlet location by inspection. Equation 10.4 from HEC 14 was used to calculate the riprap D50. This equation is generally used to size culvert outlets but was adapted by using an equivalent pipe size for the curb opening (2.0 feet

November 20, 2021 | 17 wide x 0.5 tall). Due to the relatively small contributing area the calculated D50 size is negligible (0.09 feet) and therefore the smallest riprap size of Class 1 was selected for the project. The riprap will be underlain by geotextile. Class 1 has an approximate D50 size of 5 inches with a maximum size of 8 inches and a minimum size of 5 inches. The gradation will provide adequate scour protection at the curb openings and stormwater pond overflow locations. Calculations are provided in Appendix F.

Scour protection is also been proposed at the outlet of the culvert. The riprap placed at this location was analyzed for a 25-year event similarly to the culvert analysis. Same equation described above was used to determine the size and class of riprap. Class 1 and a D50 size of 5 inches were determined adequate for scour protection at the outlet of the culvert. Riprap will be covered with 6-inch of native material for aesthetic concerns, for protection from long term scour potential and geotextile will be installed underneath it.

See Appendix F the calculation of riprap size and class.

9 References

EPA EISA. (2009, 12). Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff

Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and

Security Act. Retrieved from EPA EISA: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

09/documents/eisa-438.pdf

FHWA HDS 2. (2002, October). Hydraulic Design Series No. 2, Second Edition - Highway

Hydrology. Retrieved from FHWA:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hif02001.pdf

FHWA HEC 14. (2006, July). Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 14, Third Edition - Hydraulic

Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels. Retrieved from FHWA:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/06086/hec14.pdf

FHWA HEC 15. (2005, September). Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 15, Third Edition -

Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings. Retrieved from FHWA:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/05114/05114.pdf

FHWA HEC 22. (2009, September). Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22, Third Edition -

Urban Drainage Design Manual. Retrieved from FHWA:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/10009/10009.pdf

FLH PDDM. (2018, 7). Project Development and Design Manual (PDDM). Retrieved from

USDOT, Federal Highway Administration:

https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/design/pddm/

18 | November 20, 2021

Appendix A – Basin Delineation Exhibits

*���������+�,� *���������-��.�/��/�0 1�23� 40/�

5678698 8&)�#(%�(#:&�!" #(;#�#<;!"(#;"#�# (&)�= >?>@A BC�&)#=!D)

�EF59GH>II G)�"#J� !"# D;<)#';=<C():#I&;=#H>#=#59G#!"#I))(#<)&#I;;( >?AH <)&')"(

K69$LK G)�"#8""C�D#K&)'!<!(�(!;" AM?A !"'%)

NLON69O NLON69O A>PQ :!=)" !;"D)

9F9R G)�"#�� !"#9D)S�(!;" QMH> I))(

LT@NA>>U8T G�V!=C=#T@W%;C&#<&)'!<!(�(!;"#(%�(#;''C& #;"#�S)&�X)#;"')#!"#A>>#Y)�& #I&;=#7Z88#8(D� #T H?HQ !"'%)

O)")&�D#5! 'D�!=)&

K�&�=)()&#S�DC) #%�S)#J))"#):!():[#';=<C():#ID;\ #=�Y#";(#�<<DY?

K)�]ŴD;\#E(�(! (!' #K�&�=)()& _K)�]#T>>̀#MAAP#7#G;C"(�!"#̂D;;:#6)X!;"#Ma

*���������+�,� *���������b��� 1�23� 40/�� c/0�d/�/� c�e�d/�/�

5678698 5&�!"�X)#8&)� >?>@A BC�&)#=!D) >?Q>Q HAT>

9F9R G)�"#�� !"#9D)S�(!;" QMH> I))( fMf> AAM>>

LT@NA>>U8T T@#N;C&#A>>#U)�&#K&)'!<!(�(!;"#8(D� T H?HQ !"'%) H?>̀ M?MA

NLON69O NLON69O A>PQ :!=)" !;"D)

K)�]ŴD;\#E(�(! (!' #5! 'D�!=)& _K)�]#T>>̀#MAAP#7#G;C"(�!"#̂D;;:#6)X!;"#Ma

Z")#;&#=;&)#;I#(%)#<�&�=)()& #! #;C( !:)#(%)# CXX) ():#&�"X)?#9 (!=�() #\)&)#)V(&�<;D�():#\!(%#C"]";\"#)&&;&

K)�]ŴD;\#E(�(! (!' #̂D;\#6)<;&(_K)�]#T>>̀#MAAP#7#G;C"(�!"#̂D;;:#6)X!;"#Ma

����/��/. 1�23� 40/�

M>g<)&')"(g89KgID;;: >?QPP I(hHi

T>g<)&')"(g89KgID;;: T?@P I(hHi

A>g<)&')"(g89KgID;;: M I(hHi

@g<)&')"(g89KgID;;: A>?f I(hHi

Tg<)&')"(g89KgID;;: Af?f I(hHi

Ag<)&')"(g89KgID;;: T̀ ?A I(hHi

>gTg<)&')"(g89KgID;;: fA?H I(hHi

K)�]ŴD;\#E(�(! (!' #$!(�(!;"

j�2����k��l��m-mlnoopl�q0�2k�/���r��s��c�t0/�3,���0,�u��v3�0.k��r�*��w�-/�.s��t���0,�c�e/�3��xy���z�,�*��w�-/�.s��t��/0�b�{�c�e/.���0,��3���30,/0t�q����|�4m�m�}��2�t/.�2��3�z�k

�./�0�/r/.�~0z���/t��/�0���������noop�����l��o���m��s���|���3y�m3�t�mt�z��/��noop�������

��t/�0�~-| 7G j��w���.��~-| 7GT>TA>ATH>>>>HfÀ f>>>

+2/.w�,�*�/0���d��/�3,�l�d�0t/�3,��| HM?̀QATH[#WA>Q?TT@̀ A

/̈��| T>TAW>AWTT#AQ©>>©MM#W>̀ >>

���������������� !"��#��$�%&� � ��������&� �'��(��))��*�+�������"�� ��',��&���-�-����"�.�!�"��/�*�,�0����1-�2"�&�/.&��&�� ��������&� �'��(� /'3�!��+������.���/ ���*���4��&��������� ��*� ��&����.&�����/)+�����&�� ��������� �(��+�+�)/� /�(������/��&��

�(�", � ��(+���*���-�5�������(�,4��6)�� �+�����#)"��+4�� �#�+��',��&�����������&���-�-���*��(#�(��� �����&���/(!���(�"��,�����&�� ���������(+���"���+�#������"�(��� &�""��&����!�������"�� ��!�( ���/����(,� /!&������(�,-�7/��&��#���4��&�� ��������� ���"�� �+

�(�!�(+����(��&���(���&����&�������(����&���-�-���*��(#�(�� &�""�'��&�"+�"��'"�������(,�+�#�.� ��� /"��(.����#��� ��/�&���8�+����/(�/�&���8�+�/ �-

�����9��+/!��5�#� ��� !"��#��$�2(,�/ ��������+�4����#4����)��+/!��(�#� �� �����+� !��)��*��)/�)� � ��(",��(+�+�� �(����#)",��(+�� �#�(��',��&���-�-���*��(#�(�-

2))"�!����(�:�� ��($�;-;-<

November 20, 2021 | 19

Appendix B – Culvert Analysis

HY8 Results

Arch CMP:

20 | November 20, 2021

Appendix C – Ditch and Ephemeral Stream Analysis

Basin Discharge

Rational Method

Q = CIA

Q = Flow, (ft /s)

C = Dimensionless runoff coefficient (HEC 22) C values

I = Rainfall intensity, (in/hr) Paved 0.95

A = Drainage area, (acres) Use 10-year for ditches Unimproved 0.20

For this project: minutes in/hr time of concentration (TC) Range : 5 5.02

I = See Table 10 3.82

C = See Basin Table Table 3-1 15 3.15

30 2.12

60 1.31

Basin ID Station Area

(ac) C

I

(In/hr) TC (min)

Q

(cfs) Remarks Basin Total Paved

A Ditch Basin Length 1.11 0.37 5.02 6 2.1 Rational Method A 48229 11065

Intensity per Time of

Concentration

AREA (sqft)

Note: Estimates the time of concentration using equations from HEC-22

Project: Bandelier National Monument Tsankawi Unit

Project No: NM FTNP NPS BAND 910(1)

Location: Santa Fe County, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Project Sub-Basin: BASIN A

Time of Concentration

Sheet Flow Tc

Eq 3.3

For this Basin:

n = 0.15

L = 110 ft 183

I = 5.02 inches/hr s = 0.17 ft/ft

Tt = 4.46 Min

Shallow Concentrated Tc

Eq 3.4

Tc = L/(60V) Eq 3.6

L= Length of shallow concentrated flow

For this Basin:

Ku 3.28 k 0.619 s = 4 %

V = 4.06 ft/s

L= 97.00

Tc = 0.40 min

Open Channel (Channel and/or Pipe) Tc

V = (1.486R 2/3 s 1/2

)/n Eq 3.5

Tc = L/(60V) Eq 3.6

V = average velocity, ft/s

R = hydraulic radisus = A/WP, ft

A = flow area = [Bd]+[d /2(Z1+Z2)], ft

WP = wetted perimeter of channel = bd +[d/sin(tan -1

(1/Z1))+d/sin(tan -1

(1/Z2))], ft

B = bottom width of gutter or ditch, ft d = depth of flow in channel, ft - 10-year depth

Z1 = inverse of cross slope one of channel

Z2 = inverse of cross slope two of channel s = land slope, ft/ft n = Manning's roughness coefficient

Tc = time of concentration, min

L = flow length, ft

D= Pipe Diameter, ft

For this Basin: Open Channel

L = 355 ft

Z1 = 3

Z2 = 3

B = 2 ft n = 0.025 s = 0.04 ft/ft d* = 0.2060 ft

A = 0.54 ft

WP = 2.86 ft

R = 0.189 ft Open Chan

V = 3.89 ft/s Q (assumed) = 2.10 cfs

Open Channel Tc = 1.52 min Q (actual) = 2.10 cfs

*Iterate this depth until Q(assumed) = Q(actual)

Sheet Flow Tc + Shallow Concentrated Tc + Open Channel Tc = 6.38 min

Time of Concentration

Note: Estimates the time of concentration using equations from HEC-15

Project No: NM FTNP NPS BAND 910(1)

Location: Santa Fe County, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Project Sub-Basin: BASIN A

Permisible Shear Stress Check

Eq 4.2 α 0.213

0.122 γ 62.4 lb/ft^3

S 0.04 ft/ft

R 0.189

0.471042331 lb/ft^2 n= 0.035

Maximum Stress Shear

Eq 2.4 γ 62.4 lb/ft^3 d 0.206 ft

S 0.04 ft/ft

Td = 0.51 lb/ft^2

Permissible Vegetation/Soil Stress Soil

Eq 4.7

Tp,soil 0.15 lb/ft^2 (Refer to figure 4.1 )

Cf 0.62 (Refer to table 4.5 ) ns 0.016 (Refer to table eq. 4.4) n 0.025 tp 0.96 lb/ft^2

Tp > Td? YES

Permissible Shear Stress Check

Manning's Roughness Coefficient

Note: Estimates the time of concentration using equations from HEC-22

Project No: NM FTNP NPS BAND 910(1)

Location: Santa Fe County, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Project Sub-Basin: BASIN B

Time of Concentration

Sheet Flow Tc

Eq 3.3 n = 0.15

L = 300 ft 183

I = 3.82 inches/hr s = 0.25 ft/ft

Tt = 8.12 Min

Shallow Concentrated Tc

Eq 3.4

Tc = L/(60V) Eq 3.6

L= Length of shallow concentrated flow

For this Basin:

Ku 3.28 k 0.491 s = 9 %

V = 4.83 ft/s

L= 300.00

Tc = 1.03 min

Open Channel (Channel and/or Pipe) Tc

V = (1.486R 2/3 s 1/2

)/n Eq 3.5

Tc = L/(60V) Eq 3.6

V = average velocity, ft/s

R = hydraulic radisus = A/WP, ft

A = flow area = [Bd]+[d /2(Z1+Z2)], ft

WP = wetted perimeter of channel = bd +[d/sin(tan -1

(1/Z1))+d/sin(tan -1

(1/Z2))], ft

B = bottom width of gutter or ditch, ft d = depth of flow in channel, ft - 10-year depth

Z1 = inverse of cross slope one of channel

Z2 = inverse of cross slope two of channel s = land slope, ft/ft n = Manning's roughness coefficient

Tc = time of concentration, min

L = flow length, ft

D= Pipe Diameter, ft

For this Basin: Open Channel

L = 1100 ft

Z1 = 3

Z2 = 3

B = 5 ft n = 0.025 s = 0.047 ft/ft d* = 0.6145 ft

A = 4.21 ft

WP = 7.56 ft

R = 0.556 ft Open Chan

V = 8.70 ft/s Q (assumed) = 36.59 cfs

Open Channel Tc = 2.11 min Q (actual) = 36.59 cfs

*Iterate this depth until Q(assumed) = Q(actual)

Sheet Flow Tc + Shallow Concentrated Tc + Open Channel Tc = 11.26 min

Time of Concentration

Note: Estimates the direct runoff using the NRCS Curve Number Method (HEC-22, Manual)

Project: Bandelier National Monument: Tsankawi Unit

Project No: NM FTNP/NPS BAND 910(1)

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Return Frequency

24-Hour Precip Depth

(in)

100 3.36

50 3.03

25 2.70

10 2.28

5 1.97

2 1.58

From NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume 1

Project Sub-Basin Name Stream Channel

Note: 'CN" values taken from Tables 402-2 of NMDOT Drainage Design Manual, Ch. 400

Hydrologic Soil Group: B

Curve Number Area (ft2) CN x Area Area (ft ) CN x Area

Pavement/concrete 98 - -

Open Space - Poor Condition 79 -

Open Space - Fair Condition 69 - -

Open Space - Good Condition 61 - -

Grassland or Range (HSG C) 80 1,021,614 81,729,152 1,021,614 81,729,152

Industrial 88 - -

Residential 61 - -

Total 1,021,614 81,729,152 1,021,614 81,729,152

Total Area (ac) 23.453 23.453

Weighted CN 80.00 80.00

SR 2.50 2.50

Basin Area 0.03665 mi

Ia = 0.2SR : 0.500

Pre-Developed Post-Developed P Ia/P

(Calculated)

Ia/P

(Selected)

100 Year 1.53 1.53 3.36 0.15 0.1

50 Year 1.27 1.27 3.03 0.17

25 Year 1.03 1.03 2.70 0.19

10 Year 0.74 0.74 2.28 0.22 0.2

5 Year 0.54 0.54 1.97 0.25

2 Year 0.33 0.33 1.58 0.32 0.1

Pre-Development Post-Developed

Direct Runoff, QD (in)

DIRECT RUNOFF BY THE NRCS PEAK FLOW METHOD

Note: Estimates the peak flow using the NRCS Tabular Hydrograph Method (HEC-22, Manual)

Project No: NM FTNP/NPS BAND 910(1)

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Project Sub-Basin Name Stream Channel

Basin Area: 0.036645374 mi

Note: (Travel time from ditch anlysis)

ActualTravel Time: 0.18 QD QD QD QD QD QD

Selected Travel Time: 0.20 0.33 1.03 1.53 0.33 1.03 1.53

Time

Unit Discharge

(csm/in) 2-Year Flow (cfs)

25-Year Flow

(cfs)

100-Year Flow

(cfs)

2-Year Flow

(cfs)

25-Year

Flow (cfs)

100-Year

Flow (cfs)

9 23.00 0.275 0.868 1.286 0.275 0.868 1.286

9.3 30.00 0.358 1.132 1.678 0.358 1.132 1.678

9.6 41.00 0.490 1.547 2.293 0.490 1.547 2.293

9.9 60.00 0.716 2.264 3.355 0.716 2.264 3.355

10 82.00 0.979 3.094 4.586 0.979 3.094 4.586

10.1 129.00 1.540 4.868 7.214 1.540 4.868 7.214

10.2 227.00 2.710 8.566 12.694 2.710 8.566 12.694

10.3 361.00 4.310 13.623 20.188 4.310 13.623 20.188

10.4 360.00 4.298 13.585 20.132 4.298 13.585 20.132

10.5 269.00 3.212 10.151 15.043 3.212 10.151 15.043

10.6 194.00 2.316 7.321 10.849 2.316 7.321 10.849

10.7 147.00 1.755 5.547 8.221 1.755 5.547 8.221

10.8 118.00 1.409 4.453 6.599 1.409 4.453 6.599

11 85.00 1.015 3.208 4.753 1.015 3.208 4.753

11.2 71.00 0.848 2.679 3.970 0.848 2.679 3.970

11.4 63.00 0.752 2.377 3.523 0.752 2.377 3.523

11.6 58.00 0.692 2.189 3.244 0.692 2.189 3.244

11.8 55.00 0.657 2.076 3.076 0.657 2.076 3.076

12 53.00 0.633 2.000 2.964 0.633 2.000 2.964

12.3 49.00 0.585 1.849 2.740 0.585 1.849 2.740

12.6 46.00 0.549 1.736 2.572 0.549 1.736 2.572

13 43.00 0.513 1.623 2.405 0.513 1.623 2.405

13.5 39.00 0.466 1.472 2.181 0.466 1.472 2.181

14 35.00 0.418 1.321 1.957 0.418 1.321 1.957

14.5 31.00 0.370 1.170 1.734 0.370 1.170 1.734

15 29.00 0.346 1.094 1.622 0.346 1.094 1.622

15.5 29.00 0.346 1.094 1.622 0.346 1.094 1.622

16 28.00 0.334 1.057 1.566 0.334 1.057 1.566

17 26.00 0.310 0.981 1.454 0.310 0.981 1.454

18 24.00 0.287 0.906 1.342 0.287 0.906 1.342

20 21.00 0.251 0.792 1.174 0.251 0.792 1.174

24 14.00 0.167 0.528 0.783 0.167 0.528 0.783

Post-DevelopedPre-Developed

PEAK OUTFLOW BY THE TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD

0.000

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

F lo w cf s)

Time (hours)

Hydrographs

Post-Dev 2-year

Post-Dev 25-Year

Post-Dev 100-Year

November 20, 2021 | 21

Appendix D – Ephemeral Stream Existing and Proposed Plan and Profile

22 | November 20, 2021

Appendix E – Stormwater Pond Analysis

Note: Estimates the direct runoff using the NRCS Curve Number Method (HEC-22, Manual)

Project No: NM FTNP/NPS BAND 910(1)

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Return Frequency

24-Hour Precip Depth

(in)

100 3.36

50 3.03

25 2.70

10 2.28

5 1.97

2 1.58

From NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume 1

Project Sub-Basin Name Stormwater Pond

Note: 'CN" values taken from Tables 402-2 of NMDOT Drainage Design Manual, Ch. 400

Hydrologic Soil Group: B

Curve Number Area (ft2) CN x Area Area (ft ) CN x Area

Pavement/concrete 98 26,500 2,597,000 32,371 3,172,358

Open Space - Poor Condition 79 -

Open Space - Fair Condition 69 - -

Open Space - Good Condition 61 - -

Grassland or Range (HSG C) 80 64,607 5,103,953 42,849 3,427,920

Industrial 88 - -

Residential 61 - -

Total 91,107 7,700,953 75,220 6,600,278

Total Area (ac) 2.092 1.727

Weighted CN 84.53 87.75

SR 1.83 1.40

Basin Area 0.002698146 mi

Ia = 0.2SR : 0.279

Pre-Developed Post-Developed P Ia/P

(Calculated)

Ia/P

(Selected)

100 Year 1.86 2.12 3.36 0.08 0.1

50 Year 1.58 1.82 3.03 0.09

25 Year 1.31 1.54 2.70 0.10

10 Year 0.98 1.18 2.28 0.12 0.1

5 Year 0.75 0.93 1.97 0.14

2 Year 0.48 0.63 1.58 0.18 0.1

Pre-Development Post-Developed

Direct Runoff, QD (in)

DIRECT RUNOFF BY THE NRCS PEAK FLOW METHOD

Note: Estimates the peak flow using the NRCS Tabular Hydrograph Method (HEC-22, Manual)

Project No: NM FTNP/NPS BAND 910(1)

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Project Sub-Basin Name Stormwater Pond

Basin Area: 0.002698146 mi

Note: (Travel time from ditch anlysis)

ActualTravel Time: 0.10 QD QD QD QD QD QD

Selected Travel Time: 0.10 0.48 0.98 1.86 0.63 1.18 2.12

Time

Unit Discharge

(csm/in) 2-Year Flow (cfs)

10-Year Flow

(cfs)

100-Year Flow

(cfs)

2-Year Flow

(cfs)

10-Year

Flow (cfs)

100-Year

Flow (cfs)

9 26.00 0.034 0.069 0.130 0.044 0.083 0.149

9.3 35.00 0.046 0.092 0.175 0.059 0.111 0.200

9.6 48.00 0.063 0.127 0.241 0.081 0.153 0.275

9.9 93.00 0.121 0.245 0.466 0.157 0.296 0.532

10 153.00 0.200 0.404 0.767 0.259 0.486 0.875

10.1 276.00 0.360 0.728 1.384 0.467 0.877 1.579

10.2 428.00 0.559 1.130 2.145 0.724 1.361 2.448

10.3 360.00 0.470 0.950 1.805 0.609 1.144 2.059

10.4 223.00 0.291 0.589 1.118 0.377 0.709 1.275

10.5 156.00 0.204 0.412 0.782 0.264 0.496 0.892

10.6 123.00 0.161 0.325 0.617 0.208 0.391 0.704

10.7 103.00 0.135 0.272 0.516 0.174 0.327 0.589

10.8 83.00 0.108 0.219 0.416 0.140 0.264 0.475

11 72.00 0.094 0.190 0.361 0.122 0.229 0.412

11.2 65.00 0.085 0.172 0.326 0.110 0.207 0.372

11.4 59.00 0.077 0.156 0.296 0.100 0.188 0.337

11.6 56.00 0.073 0.148 0.281 0.095 0.178 0.320

11.8 54.00 0.071 0.143 0.271 0.091 0.172 0.309

12 51.00 0.067 0.135 0.256 0.086 0.162 0.292

12.3 47.00 0.061 0.124 0.236 0.080 0.149 0.269

12.6 45.00 0.059 0.119 0.226 0.076 0.143 0.257

13 42.00 0.055 0.111 0.211 0.071 0.134 0.240

13.5 37.00 0.048 0.098 0.185 0.063 0.118 0.212

14 33.00 0.043 0.087 0.165 0.056 0.105 0.189

14.5 30.00 0.039 0.079 0.150 0.051 0.095 0.172

15 29.00 0.038 0.077 0.145 0.049 0.092 0.166

15.5 28.00 0.037 0.074 0.140 0.047 0.089 0.160

16 28.00 0.037 0.074 0.140 0.047 0.089 0.160

17 26.00 0.034 0.069 0.130 0.044 0.083 0.149

18 24.00 0.031 0.063 0.120 0.041 0.076 0.137

20 21.00 0.027 0.055 0.105 0.036 0.067 0.120

24 13.00 0.017 0.034 0.065 0.022 0.041 0.074

Post-DevelopedPre-Developed

PEAK OUTFLOW BY THE TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

F lo w cf s)

Time (hours)

Hydrographs

Post-Dev 2-year

Post-Dev 10-Year

Post-Dev 100-Year

Project No: NM FTNP/NPS BAND 910(1)

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Sub-Basin ID:

Design Information (Input):

Width of Basin Bottom, W = 0.00 ft Right Triangle OR…

Length of Basin Bottom, L = 0.00 ft Isosceles Triangle OR…

Dam Side-slope (H:V), Zd = 4.00 ft/ft Rectangle OR…

Circle / Ellipse OR…

Irregular x (Use Overide values in cells G37:G80)

530 610

Stage-Storage Relationship: 106.00 122

Labels Water Side Basin Basin Surface Surface Volume Surface Volume Target Volumes for WQCV, Minor, Surface Slope Width at Length at Area at Area at Below Area at Below for WQCV, Minor, & Major Storage Elevation (H:V) Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage & Major Storage

Stages ft ft/ft ft ft ft ft User ft acres acre-ft Volumes

(input) (input) Below El. (output) (output) (output) Overide (output) (output) (output) (for goal seek)

1 6488.00 (input) 1,550 0.036 0.000

2 6488.10 0.00 0.00 1,603 158 0.037 0.004

3 6488.20 0.00 0.00 1,656 321 0.038 0.007

4 6488.30 0.00 0.00 1,709 489 0.039 0.011

5 6488.40 0.00 0.00 1,762 662 0.040 0.015

6 6488.50 0.00 0.00 1,815 841 0.042 0.019

7 6488.60 0.00 0.00 1,868 1,025 0.043 0.024

8 6488.70 0.00 0.00 1,921 1,215 0.044 0.028

9 6488.80 0.00 0.00 1,974 1,410 0.045 0.032

10 6488.90 0.00 0.00 2,027 1,610 0.047 0.037

11 6489.00 0.00 0.00 2,080 1,815 0.048 0.042

12 6489.10 0.00 0.00 2,141 2,026 0.049 0.047

13 6489.20 0.00 0.00 2,202 2,243 0.051 0.051

14 6489.30 0.00 0.00 2,263 2,466 0.052 0.057

15 6489.40 0.00 0.00 2,324 2,696 0.053 0.062

6489.50 0.00 0.00 2,385 2,931 0.055 0.067

6489.60 0.00 0.00 2,446 3,173 0.056 0.073

6489.70 0.00 0.00 2,507 3,420 0.058 0.079

6489.80 0.00 0.00 2,568 3,674 0.059 0.084

6489.90 0.00 0.00 2,629 3,934 0.060 0.090

6490.00 0.00 0.00 2,690 4,200 0.062 0.096

STAGE-STORAGE SIZING FOR DETENTION BASINS

Check Basin Shape

Stormwater Pond

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Sub-Basin ID:

STAGE-STORAGE SIZING FOR DETENTION BASINS

Stormwater Pond

6487.50

6488.00

6488.50

6489.00

6489.50

6490.00

6490.50

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

S ta g e ft e le v.

Storage (acre-feet)

STAGE-STORAGE CURVE FOR THE POND

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Sub-Basin ID:

Design Information (Input):

Pond Bottom Area in Square Feet SF= 1550.00 (link to Basin Tab)

Infiltration Rate In/hr= 1.00

Infiltration Pond Bottom Elevation 6488.00

OUTFLOW

Water Total

Surface INFILTRATION

Elevation Rate ft cfs

(linked) (output)

6488.00 0.00

6488.10 0.04

6488.20 0.04

6488.30 0.04

6488.40 0.04

6488.50 0.04

6488.60 0.04

6488.70 0.04

6488.80 0.04

6488.90 0.04

6489.00 0.04

6489.10 0.04

6489.20 0.04

6489.30 0.04

6489.40 0.04

6489.50 0.04

6489.60 0.04

6489.70 0.04

6489.80 0.04

6489.90 0.04

6490.00 0.04

6490.00 0.04

6490.00 0.04

6490.00 0.04

6490.00 0.04

6490.00 0.04

(Per EISA Guidance, Appendix A, Type B Soil Sand is minimum 0.3 in/hr, max 5 in/hr)

STAGE-DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE INFILTRATION RATE

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Sub-Basin ID:

STAGE-DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE INFILTRATION RATE

Stormwater Pond

6487.5

6488.5

6489.5

6490.5

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

S ta g e fe e t, e le v

Discharge (cfs)

STAGE-DISCHARGE CURVE FOR INFILTRATION RATE

MDT Project No: NM FTNP/NPS BAND 910(1)

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Sub-Basin ID:

75.96

4.00000

Design Information (input):

Bottom Length of Weir L = 2.00 feet

Angle of Side Slope Weir Angle = 0.00 degrees

Elev. for Weir Crest EL. Crest = 6,489.25 feet

Coef. for Rectangular Weir Cw = 3.33 (Typically 3.33)

Coef. for Trapezoidal Weir Ct = 3.00 (Typically 3.00)

Calculation of Spillway Capacity (output):

Water Rect. Triangle Total Total Total

Surface Weir Weir Spillway Outlet Pond

Elevation Flowrate Flowrate Release Release Release

ft. cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs

(linked) (output) (output) (output) (linked) (output)

6488.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6488.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6488.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6488.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6488.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6488.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6488.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6488.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6488.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6488.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6489.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6489.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6489.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04

6489.30 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.11

6489.40 0.39 0.00 0.39 0.04 0.42

6489.50 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.04 0.87

6489.60 1.38 0.00 1.38 0.04 1.41

6489.70 2.01 0.00 2.01 0.04 2.05

6489.80 2.72 0.00 2.72 0.04 2.75

6489.90 3.49 0.00 3.49 0.04 3.53

6490.00 4.33 0.00 4.33 0.04 4.36

STAGE-DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE OUTLET

MDT Project No: NM FTNP/NPS BAND 910(1)

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Sub-Basin ID:

STAGE-DISCHARGE SIZING OF THE OUTLET

Stormwater Pond

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

6488.2

6488.4

6488.6

6488.8

6489.2

6489.4

6489.6

6489.8

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Storage (Acre-Feet)

S ta g e fe e t, e le v

Pond Discharge (cfs)

STAGE-STORAGE-DISCHARGE CURVES FOR THE POND

SPILLWAY DISCHARGE POND STORAGE

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Sub-Basin ID:

Pond Dimensions

Pre-Developed Limiting 2-year Peak Flow Rate: 0.47 cfs Width: ft

Post-Developed Inflow 2-year Peak Flow Rate: 0.72 cfs Length: ft

Delta: 0.25 cfs

Maximum Stage Calculated: 6,489.15

Post-Developed Outflow 2-year Peak Flow Rate: 0.07 cfs Maximum Stage Elevation: 6,490.00

Routing Check: OK Stage Check: OK

Reservoir Characteristics:

Stage Outflow Storage 2S O*dt+2S dQ/dV dSt/dV

St., O, S, R, Feet cfs cu.ft. cu.ft. cu.ft. (1/s) (1/sq.ft)

6,488.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

6,488.10 0.04 158 315 337 1.0652E-04 2.9689E-04

6,488.20 0.04 321 641 663 0.0000E+00 3.0684E-04

6,488.30 0.04 489 978 999 0.0000E+00 2.9718E-04

6,488.40 0.04 662 1,325 1,346 0.0000E+00 2.8810E-04

6,488.50 0.04 841 1,683 1,704 0.0000E+00 2.7956E-04

6,488.60 0.04 1,025 2,051 2,072 0.0000E+00 2.7152E-04

6,488.70 0.04 1,215 2,430 2,451 0.0000E+00 2.6392E-04

6,488.80 0.04 1,410 2,819 2,841 0.0000E+00 2.5674E-04

6,488.90 0.04 1,610 3,219 3,241 0.0000E+00 2.4994E-04

6,489.00 0.04 1,815 3,630 3,652 0.0000E+00 2.4349E-04

6,489.10 0.04 2,026 4,052 4,074 0.0000E+00 2.3691E-04

6,489.20 0.04 2,243 4,486 4,508 0.0000E+00 2.3026E-04

6,489.30 0.11 2,466 4,933 4,999 1.5160E-04 2.0359E-04

6,489.40 0.42 2,696 5,392 5,645 4.8354E-04 1.5476E-04

6,489.50 0.87 2,931 5,863 6,384 6.0357E-04 1.3545E-04

6,489.60 1.41 3,173 6,346 7,195 6.7389E-04 1.2330E-04

6,489.70 2.05 3,420 6,841 8,069 7.2232E-04 1.1440E-04

6,489.80 2.75 3,674 7,348 9,000 7.5830E-04 1.0739E-04

6,489.90 3.53 3,934 7,868 9,984 7.8629E-04 1.0164E-04

6,490.00 4.36 4,200 8,400 11,017 8.0873E-04 9.6779E-05

2-YEAR STORM, RESERVOIR ROUTING THROUGH THE INFILTRATION POND

Stormwater Pond

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

F lo w c fs

Time (minutes)

HYDROGRAPH ROUTING

Inflow

Outflow

Pre-Developed Peak

Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico

Designer: Karla La Torre Alvarez

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Sub-Basin ID:

Pond Dimensions

Pre-Developed Limiting 10-year Peak Flow Rate: 0.95 cfs Width: ft

Post-Developed Inflow 10-year Peak Flow Rate: 1.36 cfs Length: ft

Delta: 0.41 cfs

Maximum Stage Calculated: 6,489.41

Post-Developed Outflow 10-year Peak Flow Rate: 0.19 cfs Maximum Stage Elevation: 6,490.00

Routing Check: OK Stage Check: OK

Reservoir Characteristics:

Stage Outflow Storage 2S O*dt+2S dQ/dV dSt/dV

St., O, S, R, Feet cfs cu.ft. cu.ft. cu.ft. (1/s) (1/sq.ft)

6,488.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

6,488.10 0.04 158 315 337 1.0652E-04 2.9689E-04

6,488.20 0.04 321 641 663 0.0000E+00 3.0684E-04

6,488.30 0.04 489 978 999 0.0000E+00 2.9718E-04

6,488.40 0.04 662 1,325 1,346 0.0000E+00 2.8810E-04

6,488.50 0.04 841 1,683 1,704 0.0000E+00 2.7956E-04

6,488.60 0.04 1,025 2,051 2,072 0.0000E+00 2.7152E-04

6,488.70 0.04 1,215 2,430 2,451 0.0000E+00 2.6392E-04

6,488.80 0.04 1,410 2,819 2,841 0.0000E+00 2.5674E-04

6,488.90 0.04 1,610 3,219 3,241 0.0000E+00 2.4994E-04

6,489.00 0.04 1,815 3,630 3,652 0.0000E+00 2.4349E-04

6,489.10 0.04 2,026 4,052 4,074 0.0000E+00 2.3691E-04

6,489.20 0.04 2,243 4,486 4,508 0.0000E+00 2.3026E-04

6,489.30 0.11 2,466 4,933 4,999 1.5160E-04 2.0359E-04

6,489.40 0.42…