U . C . D a v i s

ECI145Project:IntegratedDesignofSustainableUrbanDrainageSystemHaydenLee

Spring16

08Fall

1

TableofContentsAbstract:.................................................................................................................................2

EstimatingPeakRainfallRunofffromSchoolyardandPlayingFieldWatershed.......................3Background:.................................................................................................................................................................................3Assumptions:...............................................................................................................................................................................3Analysis:.........................................................................................................................................................................................3Methods:........................................................................................................................................................................................4Recommendation:......................................................................................................................................................................6

DesignofConveyanceChannel...............................................................................................6Background:.................................................................................................................................................................................6Design:............................................................................................................................................................................................6Results:...........................................................................................................................................................................................8Recommendation:......................................................................................................................................................................9StormSewerDesign:GutterandInletSystem.........................................................................9Background:.................................................................................................................................................................................9Design:............................................................................................................................................................................................9Analysis:......................................................................................................................................................................................10

StormSewerDesign:StormSewer........................................................................................11Background:..............................................................................................................................................................................11Analysis:......................................................................................................................................................................................12Recommendation:...................................................................................................................................................................13

CulvertDesign......................................................................................................................13Background:..............................................................................................................................................................................13Analysis:......................................................................................................................................................................................14Recommendation:...................................................................................................................................................................16

DetentionPond....................................................................................................................17Background:..............................................................................................................................................................................17Design:.........................................................................................................................................................................................17Analysis:......................................................................................................................................................................................18Recommendation:...................................................................................................................................................................18

Appendix:.............................................................................................................................21AppendixA:VegetationList...............................................................................................................................................21AppendixB:SlopeandMaterialsList.............................................................................................................................22AppendixC:CostItemsList................................................................................................................................................22AppendixD:CulvertProperties........................................................................................................................................23

2

Abstract: The report aims to recommend a sustainable and efficient urban drainage channel system and design for the City of Davis. In short, the design combines a drainage channel and storm sewer system that is designed to convey the peak runoff of a ten-year storm to a detention pond. The drainage channel will convey storm water coming from the two watersheds: schoolyard and playing field. The sewer system, on the other hand, will carry the water from a residential area to the channel at a distance 3500 ft from where the watershed starts. In addition, a culvert will also be added and designed at 3500 ft so that pedestrians and vehicles can get across the channel. The designasawholeisenvironmentallyfocusedandsustainableforhabitat,wildlife,andhumans.

Figure 1: Overall Layout Plan and Design

3

EstimatingPeakRainfallRunofffromSchoolyardandPlayingFieldWatershed

Background:Flooding and water overflow can cost property damage to a school yard and playing field if water is not controlled properly. The task is to estimate the peak runoff of the watershed and assess a recommendation of which one to use. This assessment covers six different and unique formulas published by different founders. Their values for their peak runoff are used and compared. A recommendation is given in the end on the appropriate flow rate for the future design of a conveyance channel, which is 34.34 cfs.

Figure 2: Layout of Watershed

Assumptions: A few assumptions need to be made when calculating the time of concentration:

1. Width of brick channel has infinite length and is thus neglected in calculations 2. Formula assumptions are shown in Table 1 3. Brick is assumed to have n=0.015

Analysis: Using the following equations, we get different variations of flow rate. The problem is whether which one to use because of their differences and inconsistencies. Table 1 gives the individual watershed of the schoolyard and playing field. This gives us a clear representation of how each formula gives different values that are close yet not exact with each other. Table 2 gives another assessment of the combined watershed and how it also shows some discrepancies. To better understand their differences, Figure 2, is provided. By interpretation, the Chen and Wong method is perhaps the most appropriate to use. The reason is because both the combined and single watershed did not exceed the average. Exceeding the average would mean the value is an outlier, serving as an overestimation of the peak flow in this case. In the Chen and Wong method, the added single watershed, 𝑄! (42.73 cfs), is much higher than the 34.34 cfs. Although

4

it is close to the average, assuming a larger peak flow could cost unnecessary resource and space when designing the channel. Thus, the smallest flow is selected.

Methods: 𝑖 = !.!"#

!!!.!"#!!.!""

(1)

with intensity (in/hr) and 𝑡! as duration (min). 𝑄 = 𝐶𝐼𝐴 (2) with C as runoff coefficient (𝐶!"#$%&'( = !!!!

!!), I as intensity, and A as area.

Table 1: 𝑡! time concentration formulas (in minutes)

Method Equation Notes

United States Army Corps

of Engineers (1954)1

10.57 +0.12𝑆!

𝐿!30.48

!.!!! !.!!"!!

𝑖!!!.!"

(3) Method most suitable for rainfall intensities less than maximum intensity of 254 mm/h

Henderson and Wooding

(1964)

0.941𝐼!!.!𝐿𝑛𝑆!.!

!.!

(4)

I=rainfall intensity (in/hr); L= length of flow plane (ft); n=Manning’s roughness coefficient; S=overland slope (ft/ft)

Woolhiser and Liggett

(1967)

7𝑛!𝐿!𝑆!

!.!

𝑖!!!.!

(5) 𝑛!=0.014 for concrete bay; 𝑛!=0.04 for grass bay

Federal Aviation

Administration (1970)

1.8 1.1𝐶 𝐿!!.!

𝑆!.!!!

(6) C=rational method runoff coefficient; L=overland flow length (ft); S=slope (percent)

SCS (“Velocity Method”)

Σ𝐿𝑣

(7) L=overland flow length (ft); v=velocity (ft/s)

Chen and Wong (1986)2

0.21 3.6 ∗ 10!𝑣 !𝐶𝐿!!!!

𝑆!𝑖!!!!

!!

(8)

At water temperature 26°C gives C=3, k=0.5, and v=0.874𝑥10!! !

!

!; grass bay

gives C=1 and k=0

1Computer Applications in Hydraulic Engineering: Connecting Theory to Practice. 8th ed. Exton, PA: Bentley Institute, 2013. Print. 2Wong, T. (2005). "Assessment of Time of Concentration Formulas for Overland Flow." J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2005)131:4(383), 383-387.

5

Table 2: Symbol Coefficient Symbol Definition 𝑡! Time of concentration of overland flow C Runoff Coefficient I or i Intensity (in/hr) L Overland length (ft) S Overland Slope (ft/ft) n Manning’s Coefficient Q Design driver/ flowrate Using the equations given in Table 1, we deduct from the formula: Table 3: Individual Watershed 𝑄!

Method School yard (cfs) Playing field (cfs)

United States Army Corps of Engineers (1954) 31.15 10.33

Henderson and Wooding (1964) 33.29 13.36

Woolhiser and Liggett (1967) 30.83 10.33

Federal Aviation Administration (1970) 34.1 10.11

SCS (“Velocity Method”) 42.89 13.85

Chen and Wong (1986) 32.9 9.83

Table 4: Combined Watershed 𝑄! and Added Single Watershed 𝑄!

Method Combined Watershed (cfs) School yard + Playing field added (cfs)

United States Army Corps of Engineers (1954) 46.64 41.48

Henderson and Wooding (1964) 36.07 46.65

Woolhiser and Liggett (1967) 36.07 41.16

Federal Aviation Administration (1970) 35.30 44.21

SCS (“Velocity Method”) 48.38 56.74

Chen and Wong (1986) 34.34 42.73

6

Figure 3: Peak runoff versus different method (a comparison)

Recommendation: Use the combined watershed of 34.34 cfs.

DesignofConveyanceChannel

Background:There are no natural slopes in this environment, making this a flat terrain. In addition, the environment is very sensitive. The task is to design a drainage channel in this fragile area that can enhance the quality of life for both residents and habitat.

Design: The channel is designed with nature as a key consideration. The final design (Figure 4 and Figure 5) is sketched with the help of Flowmaster to meet the objective. Trees and native marsh plants are to be planted near the main channel in order to sustain the local habitat, encourage biodiversity, treat runoff water, and prevent erosion. A small path is paved on the side of the channel for pedestrians and bicyclists to use in order to motivate residents to be active in the outdoors. Native Californian trees are suggested so that native wildlife can thrive within the area and also providing shade for residents. The proposed design for the channel satisfies the required flow parameters that guarantee no flooding in a 10-year storm (Table 5 and Appendix B for complete list and detail). Using Ripraps and stony bottoms will be mainly for decreasing water flow and preventing erosion. These materials help create a water level of 2.52’ in the flood, leaving an extra height of about 1’ for freeboard space incase of over-flooding. It is also essential for the flow to decrease so that

0

10

20

30

40

50

60PeakRunoffQp(cfs)

Methods

PeakRunoffvsDifferentMethodComparison

CombinedWatershedSingleWatershedAverage

7

critical flow would not occur. It is also for safety concern in case if pedestrians fall into the channel.

Figure 4: Plan View of the Channel

Figure 5: Proposed Channel Design

8

Results: Table 5: Design Parameter Summary Parameters Constraint Channel Design Normal depth (ft) ≤ 5 ft 2.52

Velocity (ft/s) ≤ 7 ft/s 1.55

Channel Slope (ft/ft) - 0.001 Froude Number ≤ 0.8 0.26 (subcritical)

Freeboard ≥1 ft 1 Channel Depth at 3500 ft from inlet (ft) - 7.1 Main cost items for the drainage channel are listed in Appendix C. Having no meanders while keeping the slopes and distances of the main channel consistent can minimize the footprint. Figure 6: Rating Curve

A primary concern of the channel is how to maintain vegetation. The key idea is to use native Californian plants that are native to the region of Davis (see Appendix A for complete list of selected plants). Plants that are further away from the channel such as the trees are drought tolerant, which can survive in the hot summer and in times of drought. Once established, maintenance for the trees would be little to no need. Wetland plants are to be planted near the channel since they have the capacity to handle flooding. Because they are native plants, they are able to tolerate dry seasons, which means that maintenance would also be little to none. In addition, the plants also help treat the channel water. Any pollution that comes from the neighborhood can be removed, helping sanitation and quality control for the sensitive environment.

00.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

WaterDepthElevation(ft)

Discharge(cfs)

RatingCurve

9

It is, however, strongly recommended that channel inspection be enforced at least once or twice annually in case of plant overgrowth or channel blockage coming from dead plant matter. This is preferably best done during spring (after wet season) and in the fall when plant matter is most prevalent). Since the channel is designed to handle 55 cfs, any impedance could cause the water level to surpass the freeboard (Figure 5).

Recommendation:The design channel contains a side slope of 4:1 (𝜃 = 45!) with a total of 20 feet on the bottom. On the bottom of the channel, a total length of a 7-foot trickle channel is implemented. Having a trickle channel is necessary in season that is not raining. As such, the overall design meets all the flow requirements. Lining the channel with a variety of native plants along with riprap and stony bottom ensures that it is neighborhood friendly and environmentally acceptable while meeting key objectives. Native plants are highly encouraged as they reduce maintenance work while providing a thriving fauna and habitat.

StormSewerDesign:GutterandInletSystem

Background: The watershed contains 40 identical size houses arranged on a straight line. Each area of the house is 2000 ft2 and has C=0.4. The parameters of the property entails: 50 ft wide lawn with 20 ft length, 5% slope and C=0.13. A concrete driveway is also included with 20 ft width, 20 ft length, a 5% slope, and C=0.7. The road is 100 ft wide and is sloped from its crown with Sx=2%, made of concrete construction with a C=0.9. Note: The road is tree lined—a potential for clogging. Figure 7: Property Dimension

Design: Figure 8: Watershed of Design

10

Figure 9: Sample Gutter and Inlet in UC Davis Figure 10: Gutter and Inlet of Design

Figure 11: Cross Section of Gutter

Analysis:A combination inlet in sag for 4 houses is a reasonable solution because of the tree-lined environment. During fall season, leaves and other plant matter accumulate, which can potentially cause clogging. To take this into consideration, the solution is to consider one watershed that has 8 houses on one side of the road (see Figure 8) and two inlets placed in the middle. Water from left side and right side of the watershed will trickle and flow down towards the middle since this will be a sag design. The gutter has a 5% slope and the road slope has a 2% slope. The inlet is designed to be 1’ by 0.5’ with a combining grate (see complete summary on Table 6). Since the flowrate is small, it is appropriate to have two 1’ length opening alongside with each other. A 1’ by 0.5’ grate is recommended to help collect any debris or plant matter that the stormwater may bring. Although the grate is not as large as a typical one (see comparison in Figure 9), this is the appropriate dimension for the 0.42 cfs flowrate in this case. The gutter itself is designed to be 2’ wide because of the potential 1.19’ spread (see Figure 10) incase of clogging or blockage, which can increase the spread even further.

11

Table 6: Design Parameters of Gutter and Inlet Summary

Design Parameters Value Gutter cross-sectional slope (ft/ft)- Sw 0.05 Road (longitudinal) slope- SL (ft/ft) 0.02 Gutter width (ft) 2 Spread (ft) 1.19 Distance between each inlets (ft) 560

Inlet Parameters Value Inlet type Grate Inlet (P-50mm*100mm with Curb

Opening Inlet) Total number of inlets (each side of road) 10 Inlet opening height (ft) 0.5 Inlet length (ft) 1 Curb height (ft) 0.67 Grate length (ft) 1 Grate width (ft) 0.5

Calculation Value Flowrate using Wong’s formula at each inlet (cfs)

0.42

Tc (min) 8 Table 7: Main Cost Item

Item Approximate Cost Grate Inlet area- each (ft2) 0.5 Soil excavation for total gutter- one side (ft3)

280

StormSewerDesign:StormSewer

Background: The storm sewer starts from below the first inlet and runs in a straight line. It would then connect with the drainage channel (Assignment 2) at distance x=3500 ft from the entrance. The sewer then has a turning of 90 degrees at x=3500 ft and meet with the drainage channel (see Figure 12).

12

Figure 13: Junction

Figure 12: Plan View of Pipes and Channel (not to scale)

Analysis:When designing the pipe system, it is important to choose a size that will be efficient and capable of handling different flows. The parameters and selections of the pipe are 8”, 10”, 12”, 15”, 18”, 21”, 24”, and so on. As such, each pipe parameters are selected to be slightly bigger than the minimum diameter to avoid overflow or overcapacity within the pipe. Keep in mind that the inlet is to be 1 feet (recall Assignment 3), which is as wide as the grate designed before. The parameter y/D should reach greater or equal to 0.8 to ensure that efficiency and the capacity limit is reached (see Table 8). A slope is also needed with each consecutive pipe in order to carry the water down the storm sewer to the channel (see Figure 14). The cover in this case starts at the inlet because the previous slope chosen (2% in Assignment 3) was too large.

Figure 14: Cross Sectional View of Pipes (not to scale)

13

Table 8: Complete Individual Pipe Information Pipe Number 1 (x=0 ft) 2 (x=560 ft) 3 (x=1120 ft) 4 (x=0 ft) 5 (x=1680 ft) Pipe Length

(ft)560 560 560 560 560

Slope (ft/ft) 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.00039 0.0003 Diameter (ft) 1 1.3 1.5 1.75 2

Normal Depth (ft)

0.8 1.03 1.22 1.42 1.62

y/D 0.8 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.81 Flow (cfs) 0.84 1.68 2.52 3.36 4.2

Table 9: Complete General Parameters and Values

General Parameters Value Roughness Coefficient- Concrete gutter, troweled finish

0.012

Individual Inlet Discharge (ft3/s) 0.84

Recommendation:Table 10 and Table 11 provided below contain the list for the recommended individual pipe sizes and its factors, along with the recommended material. Table 10: Material

General Parameters Value Roughness Coefficient- Concrete gutter, troweled finish

0.012

Table 11: Recommended Individual Pipe Parameters Pipe Number Slope (ft/ft) Diameter (ft)

1 0.0005 1 2 0.0005 1.3 3 0.0005 1.5 4 0.00039 1.75 5 0.0003 2

CulvertDesign

Background: A roadway will be constructed on the top of the culvert. The culvert length is 40 ft and the flowrate in drainage channel is 65 cfs (this would be from the school/park watershed and residential storm water runoff).

14

One of the constraints is having an exit flow velocity between 2 ft/s and 15 ft/s. The crown of the culvert would be at a distance of D/2 (D as in diameter of the pipe) from the base of the roadway. A 1 ft freeboard is required so that cars and pedestrians will be able to utilize the roadway.

Analysis:From CulvertMaster, the diameter determined was to be 36 inches (3 feet) with a manning’s of 0.013 (concrete). Since the slope of the channel was 0.1%, the culvert is designed to have a slope of 1% so that water can be carried from one side to another (see complete summary in Table 12). A freeboard of 1 ft is taken into consideration for safety and prevention of any flooding on the road. As a side note, the roadway is assumed to be flat. Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure 17 below shows the overall culvert system from different perspectives. Due to a slope of 0.1% of the channel from 0 to 3500 ft, a slope is also needed when designing the culvert. Thus, a height difference of 0.36 ft is calculated from the culvert entrance to the exit. Note that Figure 3 has a water height of 4.53 ft while the height decreases to 2.43’ at the exit.

Figure 15: Culvert Entrance

Figure 16: Culvert Exit

15

Figure 17: Culvert Side View

Figure 18 and Figure 19 below portrays the rating curve for the discharge, downstream depth, and exit velocity. Figure 18 is presented in an enlarged form to clearly display where the discharges lie in different depths. For instance, the headwater depth shows to be 4.53 ft when the discharge is 65 cfs. As the discharge increases to depth 82 ft3/s, the maximum allowable height also increases to 6.1 ft. Furthermore, as the discharge reaches to about 97 ft3/s, the depth would reach to 7.1 ft (the channel depth), which could potentially cause an overtop and flooding on the road.

Figure 18: Rating Curve (Zoomed in)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Downstreamvelocity(ft/s)

DepthHeight(ft)

FlowRate(cfs)

RatingCurve

Discharge

DownstreamDepthDownstreamVelocity

16

Figure 19: Rating Curve (Overall)

Recommendation:A recommendation for the culvert would be to use a Beveled Ring, 33.7° bevels at the entrance. The culvert should also be rounded in order to have a high efficiency of carrying the water from the entrance to exit. The diameter size is recommended to be 36 inches (3 feet), using only one culvert at the center of the originally designed channel. In addition, the culvert should be made of concrete material because of its smoothness that help create a smoother water flow. The culvert slope, on the other hand, should be 1% (larger than the channel slope) so that the flow can be easily carried out from the entrance to exit, avoiding still waters or blockage due to accumulation of debris that the water may carry with it. Again, the inlet should be 0.36 ft higher than the slope just to create a moving flow. The recommendations given help create a flowrate 65 ft3/s would create a 4.53 ft headwater, which did not exceed the 7.1ft overall height. The velocity leaving the watershed would have a velocity of 10.59 ft/s, which is between 2 ft/s and 15 ft/s, making this culvert system efficient and safe. Note that the maximum allowable headwater of 6.1 feet, still allowing 1 feet of freeboard space in case of large unpredictable flooding. The elevation to which the water surface must rise in the detention pond to cause overtopping is 4.14 ft. Thus, the culvert works well for the given parameters and constraints. Table 12: Channel and Water depths

Parameters Constraints Value Channel Depth (ft) - 7.1

Design/Computed HW (ft) - 4.53 Maximum Allowable HW (ft) - 6.1

Freeboard (ft) 1 1 Exit Velocity (ft/s) 2 ≤ V ≤ 15 10.58

Exit depth (ft) - 2.43

02468101214161820

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Downstreamvelocity(ft/s)

DepthHeight(ft)

FlowRate(cfs)

RatingCurve

Discharge

DownstreamDepthDownstreamVelocity

17

Tailwater Elevation (ft) - 4.14

DetentionPond

Background:In this detention pond, the total surface area available for use is 2 acres. The peak runoff into the adjacent creek prior to the development of the school and residential area is 30 cfs. The peak runoff after the completion of development is 65 cfs with a time-to-peak of 80 minutes. The constraints consist of a maximum water depth in the pond not surpassing 4 ft, along with a minimum 1 ft free board. Having a side slope no steeper than 2:1 is highly encouraged. Lastly, the outlet structure is a circular orifice with Cd=0.7.

Design:

Figure 20: Cross Sectional View of Detention Pond

Figure 21: Plan View of Detention Pond

18

Analysis: Creating a detention pond with a slope is highly encouraged because it provides a safety for people and while acting as a ‘natural’ pond. The detention pond is calculated as a rectangular pond. Thus, the total pond surface area is 1.46 acres. Note that in Figure 21, the detention pond is designed to be irregular for aesthetic purpose and also to make the pond look as ‘natural’ as possible. Surrounding the pond will contain native wetland vegetation, being able to handle drought and high flood seasons. Having a slope of 2:1 is recommended for safety, aesthetics, and maintenance conveniences. Again, the focus of the project is to design a system that is sustainable and environmentally friendly. In addition, an orifice is added so that the water coming from the channel will flow to a nearby river. A riprap channel that leads to the orifice is added for low flow. For high flow, the detention pond serves its purpose acting as a basin. This could potentially be beneficial for the natural habitat since it could provide a small wetland for migrating birds and other animals. It also creates an aesthetically pleasing environment for the nearby community as well.

Recommendation: Table 13 below provides a summary of the design parameters and its values. Figure 22 and Figure 23 on the other hand shows a plot of the pre-development and post-development hydrograph. Pre-development in this case is defined as the flow that leaves the detention pond. Again, the peak runoff is 30 cfs before any development is placed. The flow then changes to 65 cfs after development of schoolyard and playing field. Table 13: Design Parameters Summary

Parameter Constraint Value Base Area (acres) - 1.24 (180’ x 300’)

Pond Surface Area and freeboard (acres)

2 1.46

Pond Surface Area (ft^2) - 1.42

Freeboard (ft) 1 1

Pond Depth w/ freeboard - 4.9

Max Water depth (ft) 4 3.9

Side Slope (H:V) 2:1 or greater 2

Circular Orifice Drag Coefficient (Cd)

- 0.7

Orifice Diameter (ft) - 1.86

Post Development Peak Flow (cfs)

- 65

19

Pre-Development Peak Flow (cfs)

- 30

Time-to-peak Post-Development (min)

- 80

Volume Excavated (acre-ft) - 6.27

tend/tp - 2.66

The two hydrographs (Figure 22 and Figure 23) is provided to show storage, which is the amount of water that is contained within the basin. Pre development means that the schoolyard and playing field is yet constructed, while post development means otherwise. Storage is calculated to be 223,400 acres. Non-dimensionalized hydrograph is used to help calculate the post development hydrograph.

Figure 22: Hydrograph

Figure 23: Non-Dimensionalized Hydrograph

0

20

40

60

80

0 50 100 150 200

Q(cfs)

t(min)

Hydrograph

Postdevelopment

Predevelopment

00.20.40.60.81

1.2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Q/Qp

t/tp

Non-dimensionalizedHydrograph

20

Figure 24: Pond Stage vs Pond Storage

3.9ft

4.9ft

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000

Stage(ft)

PondStorage(ft^3)

PondStagevsPondStorage

PondDepth

MaximumWaterDepth

21

Appendix:

AppendixA:VegetationListPlant Species

Image Habitat Maintenance

Baltic Rush (Juncus Balticus)

• Most widespread and common rush in Great Basin and dry Intermountain regions

• Grows in areas that are flooded in spring and dry in fall

• Fix atmospheric nitrogen

• Soil should be kept saturated

• Can handle 2.5-8cm of standing water

• Drought tolerant and flood tolerant

Soft Rush (Juncus Effusus)

• Provides erosion control

• Useful as restoration and creation of wetland ecosystems

• Wastewater treatment applications

• Soil must be kept saturated

• Can tolerate standing water as long as level changes throughout the season

• Can tolerate periods of drought

• Should be planted in late fall just after raining

California Liliac, Ceanothus (placed on the right in Figure 1)

• Provides partial shade • Draws butterflies • Blooms every spring

• Little watering needed • Drought tolerant • Adapted to cold

winters

22

California Dogwood Tree (placed on the left in Figure 1)

• Prefers in fully sunny locations

• Grows best in acidic soil rich with organic matter

• Handles a wide rang of soils

• Succumbs to dogwood anthracnose, a fungal disease, so may need to be kept under special care if infected

• Requires little to no watering

• Drought tolerant

AppendixB:SlopeandMaterialsListLocation Side Slope Ratio Manning’s n Type of Surface

Side Slope 1 4:1 0.078 Riprap (12 in) Left Floodplain (10 ft) - 0.035 Stony Bottom Side Slope 2 2:1 0.035 Stony Bottom Trickle Channel (3 ft) - 0.035 Stony Bottom Side Slope 3 2:1 0.035 Stony Bottom Right Floodplain (2 ft) - 0.035 Stony Bottom Side Slope 4 4:1 0.078 Riprap (12 in)

AppendixC:CostItemsListParameters Cost Items

Footprint (ft²) 323,200 Volume of Excavation (yd²)

17,201.5

Soil Hauled Away (yd²) *Note: The soil will be sent away elsewhere

17,201.5

Volume of Riprap Lining (ft²)

47,760

Stony Bottom Lining (ft²)

80,760

23

AppendixD:CulvertPropertiesTable 13: Culvert Properties

Parameters Value/ Property Invert Upstream (ft) 0

Invert Downstream (ft) -0.4 Culvert Height Difference (from x=0 ft to x=3500 ft) 0.36

Culvert Length (ft) 40 Number of Culverts 1 Culvert Slope (ft/ft) 1%

Culvert Diameter (ft) 3 Manning’s n 0.013

Entrance Bevelved Ring, 33.7° bevels Material Concrete