The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About014.07 - Appendix L.9 - Flood Study Waiver Memo MEADOW BRIDGE SUBDIVISION Project #BOZ-05021.28 Bozeman, Montana ��.......... :'��.�N'TA•�:��'': :' ��'' ''•:* ': ; .•' �2T PAU,J,_._; ; • �.. � � • . . ^,.��` : . : � _��•--�-�r .�;�=No. 60177PE��.%'�: ,�` . �. .�J • �.--'' : lv. . ; . ��'��'•�!CENSE�•'G��' • s' ........• • •.��S��NAL��: '•••.......•. Community Planning Surveying+ Mapping+GIS+Drone Civil Infrastructure Engineering MARCH 2O25 Multimodal Transportation Engineering Water and Wastewater Utility Design and Operations Landscape Architecture+ Placemaking Construction Management and Inspection Communications+Public Engagement+Visualizations an II s e MEMORANDUM To: City of Bozeman Engineering Department - Floodplain From: Bobby Egeberg, PE - Sanbell Date: 3/6/2025 Reference: Meadow Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat - Floodplain The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide existing floodplain information within the proposed Meadow Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat currently under review with the City of Bozeman, as well as request a waiver for additional Flood Study analysis as required in BMC 38.600.150.B. The Meadow Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat is located within Phases II & III of Meadow Creek Subdivision which were partially constructed including utilities, ponds, curb & gutter, and sections of asphalt paving. The development went bankrupt in the 2008 recession, and construction was never completed. This portion Meadow Creek Subdivision is now proposed to be subdivided and named the Meadow Bridge Subdivision utilizing most of the infrastructure already in place. As part of the original Meadow Creek Subdivision analysis, a Flood Study Report was prepared by Allied Engineering Services, Inc. in 2005/2006. A copy of the report is included in Appendix A. The City of Bozeman should have an approved copy of the report as well in their records. Stream 2 in the Flood Study Report is the unnamed watercourse flowing within to the proposed Meadow Bridge Subdivision. The post development hydrology in the Flood Study Report was calculated using three separate methods, USGS Regression, SCS Curve Number, and Rational Method. Ultimately, the Rational Method was selected as the hydrological calculation method. The calculated post development 100-year flow for this stream was 41.42 cfs. Sanbell utilized the USGS StreamStats application to compare the 100-year hydrology to the values calculated in the Flood Study Report. StreamStats is a spatial analytical tool useful for water-resources planning and management, and for engineering and design purposes. StreamStats calculated a 100-year flow of 38.1 cfs. Therefore, the 100-year flow in the Flood Study Report is realistic and appears to be conservative. See Appendix B for the StreamStats Report. The Flood Study Report demonstrates all the proposed culverts will convey the 100-year flow MEMORANDUM PAGE 1 OF 2 MARCH 2O25 an II s e without overtopping of roadways, and without exceeding the maximum headwater depth allowed by the City of Bozeman of 1.5 times the diameter of the pipe. There are three (3) exiting 36-inch equivalent arch reinforced concrete pipes within the proposed Meadow Bridge Subdivision crossing Blackwood Road, Kurk Drive (identified as Ainsworth Drive in the record drawings), and Parkway Avenue. In addition to the analysis provided in the Flood Study Report, Sanbell completed an independent hydraulic capacity calculation of the culvert crossings utilizing FHWA HY-8 software. The HY-8 analysis was based on the record drawings of three (3) existing culvert crossings and our results confirm the conclusions in the Flood Study Report. See Appendix C for the record drawings of the culvert crossings and HY-8 output. Based on the existing Flood Study Report prepared by Allied Engineering Services, Inc. and the additional analysis prepared by Sanbell and presented in this Memorandum, we are requesting a waiver of BMC 38.600.150.B. requiring another flood study be prepared for the Meadow Bridge Subdivision Preliminary Plat. The existing Flood Study Report and additional analysis provide sufficient information to determine flood risk within the proposed subdivision and demonstrate that flood risk is sufficiently mitigated by the existing infrastructure. APPENDICES APPENDIX A - FLOOD STUDY REPORT - ALLIED ENGINEERING APPENDIX B - STREAMSTATS REPORT APPENDIX C - CULVERT CROSSING RECORD DRAWINGS & HY-8 RESULTS MEMORANDUM PAGE 2 OF 2 MARCH 2O25 MEADOW BRIDGE SUBDIVISION Project #BOZ-05021.28 � r r � m � o ° � m � m Z C Z � � v _ � m � � m m n � � Z O � � - ; .,�, i ; ,�4 M E�►DOW C RE E I�C SU �3D�V�IS�01� :, ,_ , . � .,,�>, , ..:��:. . . , ��, � �-�-; *- . - - _ �� , a.,;;�.y x,,,-�� .,g: i, FLOOD STUDY REPORT For Prelirr�inary Plat Bozeman, Montana Project: 04-170.2 August 30, 2005 �' �`� copy _ ot _ ALLIED ENGINEERING RERVICES, INC 32 Discovery Drive . Bozeman Montana 59718 . Ph: . Fax: TABLE OF CONTENTS Flood Shidy Report - Introduction - Description of Shidy Area - Field Wark - Hydrologic Analysis - Hydraulic Analysis - Results and Recommendations - Figure 1 — Floodplain Basin Areas - Figure 2 — Flood Study Area Plan (Overall) - Figure 3 — Flood Shidy Area Plan - Figure 4 — Flood Study Area Plan - Figure 5 — Flood Study Area Plan Appendix A — Hydrologic Analysis Appendix B — Hydraulic Analysis Appendix C — Background Infornlation MEADOW CREEK SUBDNISION FLOOD STUDY REPORT Introduction This report presents tl�e results of the preliminary flood study perfonned in conjunction with the Meadow Creek Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application. The study has been performed to meet Uie requirements of the City of Bozeman 2004 Unified Development Ordinance, section 18.58.090. The flood study was performed to identify and quantify the flooding potential of the 4 small creeks that traverse U1e subdivision. In several aspects of tl�e study, conservative assumptions and u�ethods were employed to limit the scope and cost of the study. The results of the study represent a conservative and safe approximation of the extents of possible flooding wiUiin the subdivision, and provide critical infonnation for the further design of the subdivision layout and associated improvements. As the details of the design of the subdivision and related improvements are resolved, the flood study will be revisited and updated to allow the design of the inost efficient and appropriate improvements. The proposed subdivision is located directly west of South 19`h Avenue, approYimately '/ mile south of Stucky Road. The site is located in partions of section 23, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, P.M.M. The USGS quad map shows two streams flowing from south to north and converging near the northern end of the subdivision. This is generally correct, however upon investigation of the site and review of other maps it was fotmd that the USGS quad map is in error in delineating the westem tributary. The west tributary as shown on the USGS map is achially an irrigation canal owned by the Middle Creek Ditch Company. To avoid confiision, all exhibits sliow the coirect locations of both the creek and the irrigation ditch. For the sake of the study, the streams have been ]abeled as stream 1 for the westem tributary, stream 2 for the eastem tributary, and stream 3 for the stream formed by the merging of streams 1 and 2. According to the NRCS, these streams are un-named triUutaries of East Baxter Creek. A fourth small stream, E. Catron Creek, also flows through the subdivisiou from north to south near the eastern boundary. This stream will be referred to as stream 4 in this report. Streams 1 through 4 have drai»age basin areas of 143, 126, 307, and 105 acres, respectively. The Gallatin Conseivation Dishict 310 jurisdiction map shows the streams as perennial streams. Figure 1 shows the drainage basins and stream locations. As the total drainage area is less than 25 sqtiare miles, the floodplain submission for the preliminary plat falls under the requirements of subsection B.2 of the City of Bozeman 2004 Unified Development Ordinance, section 18.58.090. This section does not explicitiy require a full floodplain analysis report. This flood study will, however, meet all requirements of the floodplain analysis report other than providing a detailed floodplain boundary map. Allied Engineering Services,Inc. Page 1 Prcliminxry- PInoJ Smdy Repnrt Project�.u1-170:1 �7e6idmc Crecl<Subdi�'i�ian .Au�urct:SU.'LOLLi Description of Study Area The creeks within the subdivision ariginate roughly a mile souTh of the subdivision and receive flow from precipitation runoff and �roundwater. As the groundwater in thc area is known to be sl�allow, it is likely that virtually all of the flow in the creeks is from groundwater contributions during the drier months of the year. Tl�e drainage basin areas within the subdivision are grass pasture land with some shrubbery, trees, and wetlands near the creeks themselves. The areas of the draina�e bt�sins upstream to the south of the subdivision are generally irrigated farniland; well covered, maintained and mowed for hay. Essentially all of the drainage basin areas are currently undeveloped. The streams themsetves are for the most part fiee-flowing and currently unrestricted. The northern stream, streatll 3, has one or two existing CMP culverts at driveway locations for the northern house and farm outUuildings. These culverts will be removed during the construction of the subdivision improvements. Another CMP culvert can be found under the driveway of the residence in the southeastern area of the subdivision on streun 4. It appears tlte area upstrean� of the end of tl�e culvert experiences some flooding due to the culvert constricting the floodplain, so some work may need to be done to redtice Yhis flooding. The flooding is likely contained by the area tllat will be dedicated as park, buC we recoimnend eliininating this culvert as part of the park plan. An onsite walkthrougll of the streams was conducted in June of tl�is year. The walkthrougl� showed that the three major streams, while not very deep, had very broad channels with the apparent capability to contain the flood waters. At the junction of streams I and 2 there is currently a man-made dam that forms a small pond. A small spillway at the northeast corner of the pond propagates the stream flow to the north. The pond will remain virtually tmchanged after the development of the subdivision, but the spillway will need to be improved to safely convey the potenYial flows and prevent overtopping of the dam. The Middle Creek irrigation ditch flows into the stream immediately below the dam and pond. Stream 3, downstream of the pond, flows throug}� an area that is cutrently used for grazing cattle. TUe stream becomes basically a perched ditch through this area, where the land to the west of the stream is lower in elevation thau the stream. The sh�eam continues to the north where it hirns east near the subdivision boundary and heads into the Genesis Business Park. A man-made channel nms around the southwest corner of tlie Genesis Business Park, just west of the where the stream turns east The channel is constricted by fill placed for the building at the end of Enterprise Boulevard in Genesis Business Park. This chaimel currently drains the low area near the perclied section of the streani, and also receives any flow that overtops ihe small chamiel of the perdied stream. The man-made channel daylights into a vacuit field to the north of the subdivision and west of Genesis Park. As the man-made channel will certainly see a significant portion of the flood waters and is constricted, the conservative decision was made to Uegin the flood study with the downstream end being the man-made channel. The entire length of stream 4 was examined on the site. Special attention was given to the locations of proposed driveway and street crossings, where culverts will be placed. The channel Nlied Engineering Services, Ine. Page 2 Prclimineip' Flond SniJy Rcpurt Projecc 01-17u�3 NleaJuo� Crrcl<SuLdivislnn duguct:Su,•�uoG of stream 4 was found to be £airly wide compared to the width of the flow of water. The channel widths were found to be about 15 to 25 feet, and the flow of water in the channel at the time was fi'om 2 to 3 feet in width. Beyond tl�e channel, the grotmd slopes up contimiously away from the stream for the entire len�th of the stream witltin the subdivisiou. Because the park and wetland setback boundaries for tl�is streain are over 100 feet wide, and tlie topo�raphy and nature of the stream do not appear to be conducive to flooding, it was decided that a detailed survey and floodplain analysis would not be performed for stream 4. Culverts for the road crossing will be sized individually so that any headwater at the upstream eud will not encroach beyond tl�e boundaries of the wetland setback and parks. The walkthrough allowed several key elements of tl�e flood shidy to be identified a��d recogilized. Items noted included: ground cover and vegetation, topographic features, aud stream characteristics. No indications or signs of past flooding were observed. Field Work A topographic survey of the subject property was perfonned by Allied En�ineering in 1999 as part of the preliminary stages of a subdivision proposaL The survey was done using survey grade GPS equipment and conventional survey equipment. The survey done in 1999 did not encompass the entire subdivision that is currently plamted for development, but did thoroughly cover tl�e entire area of streams 1 through 3. The original survey was done based on a relative coordinate system, and for this project was converted to a vertical datum of NAVD88 and a horizontal datum of Montana State Plane Coordinates, NAD83 with imits of International Feet. The survey data was used to create a digital terrain model, from which floodplain cross sections could be sampled. Afrer the engineers' site visit for the flood study, it was noriced that the southern end of stream 1, in an area witl� heavy tree cover, had not been sufficiently surveyed in 1999 for a representative digital terrain model to be created. In late June of 2005, 4 cross sections were surveyed at tlie southem end of stream 1 to be used for the flood study in place of the dijital terrain model in this area. At the same time 3 cross sections at the north end of the subdivision and the southwest corner of Genesis Business Par]< were surveyed. The 3 northern cross sections, it was thought, would allow the accurate modeling of the floodplain in the man-made channel, for whicl� no survey data existed. Also the addition of one or two more cross sections iinmediately downsh�eam of the study area may greatly increase the accuracy of the model at the very downstream end of the creek, at the northern subdivision boundary. A suivey of the channel of stream 4 was conducted in the spring of 2005 primarily to determine the location and alignment of the stream. Because very limited survey data was obtained, iC was wiclear if the survey data would be sufficient enough to perform a floodplain analysis of stream 4. Allied Engineering Services,Inc. Page 3 Prclimfnary PIonJ Study Repurt Prujrct U k-17o.'3 �1eaJu�c Creel:SuLJieixion Auy;uti[30,oua5 HvdroloQic Anah�sis Tite drainage basins which contribute runoff to each of the 4 streams in tlle subdivisions were delineated using the 1999 sEirvey contours for the area within tlie subdivision, and tl�e USGS topographic contours for tl�e areas to tl�e south of the subdivision and areas within the subdivision not covered by the 1999 survey. Fi�ure 1 shows the draina�e basins and their areas. It was decided that tUree methods for calculating the flood flows would be employed, and that flows for both the pre-development and post-development condition would be calculated. The flow to Ue used for the flood study and improvements design would then be selected from the range of calculated values. The three �nethods used were: the Rational Metllod, SCS Curve Number Method, and USGS Regional Regression Equations Uased on basin characteristics. Return frequencies of 10, 25, and 100 years were used with each method. Pre and post development flows were calculated for the rational and SCS methods, but the USGS re�ression equations only apply to the pre-development condition. It should also be noted that the post- development coefficients were applied to the entire drainage basin areas. This is another conservative approximarion, in that the only portion of the drainage basins that will be developed upon the completion of tl�e subdivision is the subdivision area itsel£ It was thought very likely that the area of the drainage basins up-gradient of the subdivision would see deve}opment in the firture. The Rational Method is typically the most comi��only accepted method for smaller draivage areas. It is also the method required by the City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specifications to be used for the sizing of storm drainage facilities. The calculated flow rates are directly proportional to the area, rainfall intensity, and a C factor that is mandated by the city for pre and post development conditions. The C factor, in this case, is not dependant on regional characteristics, soil types, vegetation qualities, or elevation. The SCS Curve Number method is a less-frequenUy employed method for calculatin� runoff flow rates. The appealing aspect of the SCS method is that the Curve Number variable used in tUe calcttlation is selected based on several quantitative and qualitative parameters, such as NRCS soil types, land uses, and vegetation. A common parameter to both the rational method and the SCS curve number method is the time of concentration. The time of concentration used for both methods was calculated using Manning's Kinematic Sol�ttion for the overland flow, and then Manning's formula for open channel hydraulics for the flow in the channels. The velocity of the water in the channel was calculated assuming that the channel was full. For flows and areas of the stream where the channel is actually not flowing full, this assumption will yield a smaller time of concenh�ation. The assumpYion is conseivative in this case, and was made to eliminate the need to iterate several times back and forth in order to exactly calculate the time of concentration. The third method utilized in calctilatin� the flood flow was the USGS Regional Regression Equations. The equations are provided by the USGS publication "Methods for Estimating Flood Frequency in Montana Based on Data through Water Year 1998", for the Upper Yellowstone — Central Mountain region. The USGS regression equations are specific to the area for which they Allied Eogineering Services,Inc. P2ge 4 Preliminniy PIooJ Sn�dy Report Prnjecc o I-17U.Y Vleado�c Creel<Subdi��isiun �unwct:SU,@uo5 represent, and are largely dependant on the elevation of the shidy area. Tl�e equatious are empirical in nahire, and are assembled from actual data recorded fi-oin stream ga�es and other sotirces. The results of tlle hydrologic analysis for all 4 drainage basins can be found in Appendix A of this report. As was expected, the flood flows vaiied between methods and pre and post development Tl�e flow values setected for use in the flood study for all 4 basins were the Rational Method post-development flows. The USGS Regression values were not selected because the flows varied greatly and inconsistently fi-om the values calculated witli tlie otlier methods. The regression equations, it is known, generally are mare accurate for basins of a much larger size, on the order of several square miles. The SCS Curve Number Method values were uot selected due to the fact that the nature of the soils of the area indicated a curve number to use in the calculation that yielded quite small pre-development flow values. By process of elimination, the rational method values were selected for use with the floodplain shidy. 'I'he post-development flow values were selected as development is very likely to occur in the future. FurtUermore, while new subdivisions are required to limit runoff from the developed area to pre- development levels by use of detention ponds, the ponds are typically only sized for a 10-year event. It was decided to include a quantity of tlow to drainage basin 3 to accowit for the potential flow contribution of tUe Middle Creek ditch fork that en4ers the stream just downstream from the pond and the jwiction of streains 1 and 2. A site inspection of the ditch upstream of the subdivision revealed U�at the fork of the ditch that traverses the subdivision lies on a slight topographic ridge with little if any poYential for intercepting runof£ The main Middle Creek ditch, however, does have the potential to intercept a significant amount of nmoff. It was decided that the ditch that contributes flow to drainage basin 3 would be evaluated, and that the maximum possible flow that tl�e ditch could convey would be used. This assumption is a conservative one, but withotit spending a great deal of time analyzing the Middle Creek ditch system the flow could not otherwise be determined. Hydraulic calculations were perfornled to evaluate the headgate that allows flow into the ditch about 1.5 miles soutli of the subdivision and the nearby secYions of the ditcli itsel£ It was concluded that 13.5 cfs could potentially flow throu;h the headgate and ditch, and so this flow value was added to the hydrologic flow values for draina�e basin 3 to be used in the floodplain analysis. The hydraulic calculations and details of the ditch can be found in Appendix C of this report. The 100-year flows used in the flood study are sutnmarized below: Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Post-Development Rational 44.22 cfs 41.A2 cfs 92.65 cfs 28.18 cfs Method 100-Yr Flow Hvdraulic Analvsis Floodplain modeling was performed using the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center — River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) computer program version 31.1 (Army Corps of En�iiteers, 2003). The computer program Are-View 3.2 with extensions 3D Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 5 Prcliminxr}' I'loud Stud�� Repnrt Pruject�u V-17u=� Vlcadu�c O'eel<SubJirisinn :Au,�u.t 3u,•�ou3 . . Analyst (ESRI, 1999) and HEC-GeoRAS (Anny Corps of Engineers, 2002) was used to create a georeferenced ivput gcometry file for HEC-RAS. Initial Mannine's n values for the chamlel and overbanks were estimated fro�n a combination of reference documents and experience from past floodplain projects. The first computation run of HEGRAS showed several cross-sections going to supercritical flow. Because the strea�ns do not l�ave the slope or physical characteristics of a stream that perpetuates supercritical flow, the supercritical results indicated that the Manning's n values used were too low. The Ma�tning's n values were increased sli�htly, the computations were run again, and the results were much more realistia The Manning's n values arrived at were 0.06 for tl�e chaimels, and 0.065 for tlie overbanks. The stream geometry created for the analysis was based on the existing streams, and additions were made to reflect the plans for the subdivision improvements. Cross sections for tlie hydraulic uialysis were spaced along tl�e streams at a distance of approximately 300 feet, with additional cross sections being located at changes in alignment and profile. The HEC-RAS "interpolated XS's" routine was used to provide supplemental XS's where necessary. Culverts were placed at all of the proposed road crossings for the subdivision streets. Bridges may be constructed for some of the streani crossings but at Hlis time no concrete plans have been made, so for the sake of the floodplain analysis culverts were incorporated to present a worst-case scenario. Initial culvert sizes were input, and after various calculation nms were made, the sizes were adjusted to refine headwater depths and flood water levels for the 100-year flows. All of the proposed culverts will flow the 100-year flood flow with no overtopping of roadways, and without exceeding the maximum headwater depth allowed by the City of Bozeman of 1.5 times the dia�neter of the pipe. Tl�e culverts were modeled as arch reinforced concrete pipe. The flatter channels of the arch pipe are more desirable to permitting agencies, and the shorter height of the arch section redtices fill quantities. The inverts of Uie culverts were also placed 0.5 feet below the natural channel bottom, which is a newer require�nent of the sh�eain permitting agencies. The headwater depths of the flood water at the culverts of the subdivision are siunmarized in the following table: Culvert Size Headwater Depth (ft) Stream 1 Cu1v. 1 42" Equiv. Arcli RCP 2.04 Stream 3 Culv. I 48"Equiv. Arch RCP 3.51 Stream 3 Culv. 2 36" Equiv. Arch RCP 2.17 Stream 2 Culv. 1 36" Equiv. Arch RCP 2.29 Stream 2 Culv. 2 36"Equiv. Arch RCP 2.47 Results and Recommendations HEGRAS output results can be found in Appendix B of this report. The results basically confinned the engineers' initial in2pressions of the stream, in that the flood would mostly be contained within the channels of the streams. A few of the lots on the west side of stream 1 near the upper end of the reach may experience some very shallow flooding. While this is not a Allied Engineering Services, Inc. Page 6 Preliminary Flood Study Report Project:04-170.Y Meadow Creelc Subdivision AuRust 30,4006 FEMA recognized floodplain stream, and the development and constniction on these lots will not be governed by the usual floodplain development requirements, we recommend that certain requirements be met regardless. We recommend that the construction of homes on these lots meet the requirements of the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance Floodplain Regulations, specifically the following: "The new consriuction, alterations and substantial improvements of residential shuctures including manufachued homes must be consiructed on suitable fill such that the lowest floor elevation (includin�basement) is 2 feet or more above the base flood elevation. The suitable fill shall be at an elevation no lower than the base flood elevation and shall extend for at least 15 feet, at that elevation, beyond the structure(s) in all directions." Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 show the details of the floodplain analysis, proposed lot and street layout, and recommended improvements with respect to the stream floodplains. Allied Engineering Services,Inc. ��-- �-�� Benj in J. Cope, EI Paul J. Sanford, PE Allied Engineering Services,Inc. Page 7 Prelimin.uy Flond Study Repurt Projecc u1�-170.4 �Iradrnc Creel<Su6dicislon .-luy;�ut:3u,suod . . REFERENCES Anny Coips of Engineers, (2003). "Rive�- Analysis System — HEGIL9S", version 3.11, Davis, California. Army Corps ofEngineers, (2002). "HEC-GeoRAS", version 3.L1, Davis, Califoinia. Enviromnental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc., (1999). "ArcView GIS 3.2". FEMA, (1984). "Tlood Insimance Study: Gallatin County, A�Iontana". Haestad Methods, (2003). "Culver�t Master", version 2.0. Waterbury, CT. NRCS, (1996). "Soil Sau•vey of Gallatin Counry Area, Montana". USGS, (2004). "Methods for Estinzating Flood Freclue�rcy in Montana Basecl on Data through W¢ter Year 1998", U.S. Geological Survey. Allied Engineering Se�vices, Inc. Page 8 I ._---' ... � � -. . - .� 6lr^ .�,•� 1"' ,_0 . . v; � G .',d j/, � �� F � . �� , * � F � �� x �' .. .. . �`j � ,�' � � � --7�� . . j,,,x� ., ,�' � + —':. . . r� ' I . � . ., . . .�� xa.� .� , � . .�,. �:,w �---__�• � � �: tp .1. 7 r . N . _ .. �). . '=.::, ,.� . �.� t 4 Y' y 1 . �a � �r 3 �� + � �p ( . . . ' ��y, ' . ". . . . � ` _ �e'� . $t � ' . f . Yb 1-iTt�T� f� �P 1 . ::'a . ....: . � '_""_�_. . .� ?� �� \ � . . J �a �.--�"'� FLOODPLAIN BASIN 3 �l � ( t X� _ _ ;. � '� � � J � � ' � b LOODPLAIN B IN � �` , � x.:, �, . ��- F > � r .. :: . ' .\ d I � � �� - l � ,� p ... 307,33 ACRES. . ,.� �� V, ' t i104 53 ACRESAS__ " =� ��::'�_. :, .. �� : #4 --- "�' ��" ;. � FLOODPLAIN BASIN 1 1 ': 1 ` ' ' �—' '� # ' _ c. -. 1 � . r. -� 14283 ACRES' 1 � 'r� '' _.._.- \ � ',� „ — -- - , -___✓` � \ � �� ...-/- �.. � • � �+�� ,,* , : . . -. . - _ _ ' , _��- * �� e , ___.._� ._ � : � - � t-x a ,.r� 'P .�- r��'�`�' . � �___, ..- � _� � . , . ...--- � ,� .. � ��. _ � f— `' ^.� � . w r, � •— .,,� ,7 :r, �x c� . . ,.. �� t �4 :: � . �. . - � - ' .:. . ._ .. > \ �r. ` �r_I 4t f } �i ' � �i.l s+A' .� < 1� . �..f�� _I--"" . ,,, _ . �._.r_ � . . � . r, -. , . ; : . . - � .:-�"` .. � � : . � � ' ,-^' " ' . � °' ._ . kf � C � +- r ' � , ... . -. . � .� -- / . � " � �s � t �,� a�.��,..�r �€'�,". '"'"� FLOODPLAIN BASIN #2'��% �` � , � . . - �:..� . � ' I . `� � ' �r rr i�` �. � �-'' � ��n �-- 1 _2_6�2�E S, � �� . . ,. ,,;:,"^�r` � � � � � - � r--"'r _ :• � ? i � � .__.._. - c , -?` � ,� _ i _._... ___ � � � � - � == �_..__.�- .. -,. �S TOU�RS DTYPP'i� ,' SUBDIVISION'� •. 5 �, � �"r " ~`��t j � :� BOUNDARY: " � _ � , r �� ys �� 4,x.n. � � ,�� a � �. � ,�� `k .. � . . . a�a', .. ,��_ ; .. ��'r . ' . '. .-_ ` � . �' . � � � iFx �` ��.. . � , . . . � � . �Z rr��i� � � ��.,,„,..:, _ . e, _:.: t_ �" �-: . .:,. :� , ._, �3.` .; ,'. � � - «� �i�/p)y � .�`�� .. . '`i. � , � .. . � , . . �'� . . �......,... . ' .. I �, �_ � . . ( �.. '�#� � r.j. LJ�.. . { ' .. :..- .._.. ..__.� . ._.�.�.n....�<_.—.. _ ,. . : £ (— I . . ��N�..- �. : � . .,--„� .._. .....__.'_.a.'._`M... ' . .: `�n� � L«,_�A; ' ��.SY'� � . 1. .� ( . � Y' I r•± � SECTION CORNER (TYP.) �� / ``� ---w. .� �a� � ) ., � r ^��' � , — .__ '., � . �.� / � . - ;s�' _ i .;- . 3.. . . ,:,t i ,. : 'C. x', 1 !. . s. . .�,. e�.. ., ..� �' - _. _ . _ �S�.; �� . �'S '+�R Y` '; � = x �'".,.:`°' " , �>'"' �` MIDDLE CREEK DITCHi� \'`Z ; i '«� � , ; �� ` : �. . ,,..n- . . , ., �� .. __� � . . . , .��., �r� r .L,,,,,.— .,.�.—.r—. . ,;� ,:P :.�+�," ,'{' {»{:�� `� j , a e.�� . . 4 . � . .. xy� . . . � � � ��,�^... . ;: „� �> i F �1',.-,.� � t 1 �� n _ �� - .€��k, ry �. "�i�r' ._. , z. ry � ' . � 'u � . � t . _. . �. � � � �� .. !r � ., . - .. . �:;�. .._:. .., ;. :. T .: � �! � 4 ,, � , . � _._ , K,,, ,�.,�� , � , �„ �'�; ` � ' �.� '�y�` UNNAMED STREAM rt. ' `�a,�,'. ` ��'��"'` ��#'�: � Y� � � � ��. 'a�+3.. � �, � �! CHANNEL (TYP.) � � � k a '� ;�sk� � � .i � �: . � � �.� a[ �—_—__ . . . . - . g } Y� c ' '+T d w4�. +'4'•�,A � \ p ' rq ^er ' �&t c d ' , � � �� a.e vp .r . u'v: �. . . }a�".� �,i"" 'f� r• . . ' . ' � , �a�' �ie�E �.i# r� " , � \ ' ,v 3 i •}� : � .y � e 4 .9;, A ; , . �,. . �� . .. §� z Cr�A; `� �� x . '� '� ' � ' I - . , , ' .ar�� f�� y t <.� . � , e .ASiy • . �y{""^iL: , . . . � � ._ .` b.'�_ 3_ _.__._...... .. .. . . . . �r. 5. rR- � '`� �...� �. . . . . . A. m . ...�n. � . . �' \ . � : �� • `"* a �':� ..i. .. y .. � . . . _ :n_ �.a ..�. � _: v1�' , .. _ . rnai. . . f' , . .. . . . 7FHk . ' . 4W- _ G��]F.� .�V� J '�£�' 1 ..`' 'C„ '�� . ., w ..-;» . ` ` . . . ...� �, ' .d . ` ' _ . \4ziA . w n s�, : � - u E y'-t` ; .� ,� �.�5 � � x�" }. . � . '' . . r�d ' �l+ � b d � � /j��r`��"�". �� 4�� .. „ � � rcg�, {' ; y� gJ �aF I ,�; * ��il t� r' �� d i"» 1i p Y<Y C� �F✓ ,',tx�. �' ;. $. . �t'. � J ' ��! . � � _. �� . . � : tl { "j .rcj J�.. ,� �5' }� �,g �. ,,, �+ � ' I� � `��, r � �"' — •� �, 4.� �'.' ; i , . ._ � . ♦ . r..e. 4 /'.' � ��... . � > . s . ?J,? � .. ' � � 4 � ;�:, , t . . �✓ 33> . ' . . ��``,,. ' y�`r� 1 i`",� ' -"i." .w � '�`�.,��.,� ..�. �'., . . , /' . . . ; ._ NOIE: AERI ^L °40T�; '�41��ED 1995 � ` � —� �; � x / � �' _ �`�, � TAI��N r2 �M i�ATURAL Rr50UF�CE� �?,-' `� �' � � � ��' INFORMA ;ION SLi?VIUE. �� z} �� +� , � : ��s . ,: � ��,�. ir� : , . r . ; , • '.. `t � '��, a. r :. . . � i , .,: � �" �- � >. , � � w �. ' .. x.. , . , , w . . : _. � � � . .. .� ,, .. ,w... . ,,, ,,. . �... ' . ,:.� . z � ..._.. .�.7 r,�. � ...., ...... . �< a: N0. RENSIONS �RAWN BY DATE � 0 � 500. . .. 1000 1500 ` � e... r .. n_ c .. ..1. � , . .�..�..�... PROJECT y:04-1]02 SHEET �ea��'�1 l.'�eQH 47��51�`Vflr�,iQ� � Civi�$I1�IilCCi]DS 32n�5COverzYonrve DATE: OB/30/05 ¶�7{'� , SCALE (FEET) ��9�� a1� lfl�.a��aq��' i'a51ns �� Land Surveying DOZENAN,AfT59]IA HYOROLOGY.DWG lL'1�3. 1 � u 0 s� Geo[echnicalEngineering rxoM�ansJsaz-ozx� ALLIED Meadow Creek SuUdivision PROJECT ENGMEER:PJS �RAWN BY: BJC FAX(406)SB3-5)]0 Bozeman,MT ENGINGERING S[RIC[tll'al Ett�iReering DESIGNED BY: BJC REHE�� BY: - - Flood ]ai�$tt�d B�si�s �I I'106.15 CFS �i -':5 � ( O \ u; � > i a STREAM 3 �- _ (HEC-RAS REACH 3) rn vi ( GRAF ST. PROPOSED MIDDLE CREEK 43;5 DITCH REALIGNMENT � CFS � �� STREAM2 �� (HEC-RAS ftEACH 2) Z � J W (HEC-RAS REACH 1) � �, � `�� ENTERRRISE BCVQ. J A � � ^- = �- STREAM 4 u. �,�G � `�, �� Gp.�� ! � " � � O i v� �3`�� - - - - - A�DER CREEK DR. - i t _ � �� r � � �� _ , i '� I �, = - - - = � ' _`- � I � .�� , � � --;.�-;s. � i I f{ fl� �� 1 � ," ';,& . _ . . � � yi�_ + � ii -� � � . � rtl -. - _ _� � *��o"r � ,_ ,�- ' �� J . � I i I �� f i - , .S '� 'X� - I � 1 � � � :� �'L .J�� . �� ' � . �.. ��I _ _ C� ; �. - t � � � >(�� _ .. ;.:. � . . , . k a L .._ ,. � . . ... _ . i � . . .i �.__ I I '. � . . �� --' �'--.- ' i . . . �'� - ' - - - - - � j . - . - \ . _' _ -. - , . . %i i �� BLAGKWOOD RD. � 4422 CFS �41.42 CFS i N0. REVISIONS DRAWN BY DATE 0 250 500 150 �._, PROJECT p:04—iJ02 SHEET �II��O�� '��-II-I� ��B�� ,��j�� : /rp�i CivilBugineering 33DISCOV6RY�RNC DATE: 08�00�05 ¶? SCAIE (PEET) lf^T �!`fT�n CTT TT.Q1 A T9 I � A T]T A AT ' LL� Laud Sarveying eOONE(q06M02-OIII FLDOD_SIUDYDWG 1L��. � 1'1r '1J'1Y fJ 1 'U 1Y� !il\ L'] :C 1.C,lb' ALLIED Geotechnical�ngincering PROJECT ENGWEER: PJS DRAWN BY: BJC B�yZE1YSE�N�MT ENGMGERING S[[LLC[IlY2I E➢�l[1CC[t[l� FAX(d0675A3S]]0 MEADOW CREEK SUB. DESIGNE� BY: BJC REWEWED BY: PJS - FLOODSTUDYAREAPLAN � o+oo �o0 ■ ,�x- i—z,_oo ` e $ � ��-_�36" EQUIVALENT �� , � ARCH RCP CULVERT 3 �-00 � p � g' li i FLOODSTUDYCROSS �'� 4+�� iI a-�` � �� ' �NO SECTION LOCATIONS (TYP.) � � — ,;��, � 5�0� � � � � s �_ — - �-- X OQ —��-- 5 6 , = � ,,. �I � i : . . . , . � �0� � � y� � � ,��_ � � STREAM 3 CENTERLINE (TYP.) �k o0 y� ` J \'�� ' � I � " 6 9+ 00 _-----a " _ � , . ��0 �� r" RIVER STATIONWG (TYP.) -- ' _ } 11 +00 � ; '��:- .-� , � j�•,; ,.. ,r .. 7 - ,�-'�'�� 2 -�00 � i.�°"' � � 13fOG i 1�' -F00 8 , j , 9 5��0 , 48° EQUIVALENT . _ '� �' ARCH RCP GULVERT � �6 +00 "�' ` 36" EQUIVALENT 10 -- ARCH RCP CULVERT .�,� 1 T+[?�� o / rt. ,�,. o I .� : � __ �o ,� I ' 0=� -- __ _ _ . �'> ��1- � � �� , . J. , .,�,. . , �, .. :�: , 12 X � � O VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 � � a��Q� O �� ' O O No. ae�nsoNs oanvm� ev onre o iao zoa sao __. Paodecr N�oa-no.z SHEET ��-1��/�] '�� -�1�'+� ��I�� t � /��9y OM�ED�II1CCLl11� 32DISCAV[AYOHNE DATE. 08�30�05 T7 'p SCAIE (FEET) TT !T!`n'dT C"If`TT'f`13T J1 T�T A 'I�T 11sT �LLm I-�nd Surv¢ying BOLLAIAN,�fi59]Ift FLOOD_SiUDY.DWG d'1�. .J d'LiJ�I✓L i911Jlyi I3S\i�C1 .CLty1W Gco[echnicalEnginccring r�iorve�aors7saz-nzai ALLIED Fqx„o�„a,-,,,o aaodecT [Ncw[ee: ads oenwru ar: edc crvc�Nccwrvc Structural En meerin MEADOW CREEK SUB. BOZEMAN MT s g oEscrueo er: edc eEviEweo er: ads ' FLOOD STUDY AREA PLAN , 1�-�ooa `f_ +. � _ �c� � i �.9�� i--�— � �sr—. �o � � ozs« � �� 08-0� -- — � x � � 1 2��/J oo �k'o0 R SEOC�T ON LOCATIONS (TYP.) `y � , � o� �� aIVER STATIpNING (TYP.) --�3-�-Q� � `�,X j _36" EQUIVALENT �� ARCH RCP CULVERT 2 2g X o0 2 �, k � C 3 "k�0 STREAM 1 CENTERLINE �� 2SXQo C� \ STREAM 2 CENTERLINE � 4 ��X 5 5�k�� 0� � � ` ��x k�0 r 3 �O 6 i 1 g — � ,�� ` -� � \ �,�_� i L8+00 k� ,,. � i �� r. � _ � I _ y \ „��_ `��-- ' ;�`i �o � _ ' , 29-l-00 8�-1-00 � �- l ` ". i ',.'r �� 1 ' � z� � ��,��. 1 �� \�- � _ _ � �� - __ �� _ , , � � O� � . , � ,: � 4 30-F0� c�k - , �1 � � l � . �i-F00 1C-i-00 u ;�, 42" EQUIVALENT 5 ARCH RCP CULVERT ��, - $ x�� _ `_ 6 31�O� 9 � � - ARCH�RCP CULVERT ' `�� ,,, �_ : �� %O 12+ 7 �7�X � - ' � � � � 10 k0� - , `,. , :-_ �, _. . I :..,._ � 1-.'., �I �. , . � 34-I-00 t1� �Q �� _ i $ 12 X � � �� _ J� � = THESE'LOTS MUST MEET ' � 35� �C 0 �' _ THE REQUIREMENTS OF ,\�k� ��- THE BOZEMAN U.D.O� - — � FLQODPLAIN REGULATIONS. 36,+00 �6�00 i � � o e: � n.ie�, �; � . �. , - ; o.ie.�_ �r: : _. 9 O� 17 1-00 5 I ; ,::'.1 � 4",., x � � _ �� . a_ ' � � � � 13 8x �8 O� \o OG j :. ` �x ncrer�t^cY� . ' . i � � p I- VERTICAL DA]'UM: NAVDB8 - 3?+CO � �F I � �,p o �- _o N0. REVISIONS DRAWN 9Y DAiE 0 100 200 300 ¢ PROJECT �:04-1]02 SHEET ��-1��/� ��-1� �'��➢��I�� //vj�'� �]IV1�E��1➢CC[IIIS 1H�19COVBRY�R1� �ATE' OB/30/06 ¶� SCALE (FEET) T`TfTl1� �rT'Yi1fT4T ]AT�T']A TlT 1A1T �LL� LandSurveying �OZ[MAN,MT59]IB FLOOD_SNOY.�WG 1L��. � 1'1+A.J�4l 1 L/llJJL !�1\liC]SLM1tl GcotcchnicalEnginecring rxo�e�aae�sax-ozzi ALLIED Fqx„o�„e,-,,,o PROJECT ENGMEER: PJS ORAWN BY: BJC BOZEMf�N�MT GNGINECRING StfLLGN�3]Etlsi��ee[i�� MEADO�V'CREEK SUB. oesicNeo ev: edc eEviewEo er: ads - FLOODSTUDYAREAPLAN 3 � i 6 - 281-00 k�0 � ;� ,, � � _ � Zo �-00 8-F 00 -" \ �---'- ""' ' � �\ �-`", �� e � V � . , � � �� o x oiS o. � . � y � /k�� t om 1 � ,, �p� � �._ i—�, �� , 4 30�00 � _� � y �, I 31-j-0 I0+00 i � _ 42" EQUIVALENT 5 �. - ARCH RCP CULVERT ��` - \�- RIVER STATIONWG (TYP.) 8 XOC ' �� 3��p� �1 36" EQUIVALENT ' 6�� — �` � ARCH RCP CULVERT � , , � ��O 9 12 i 00 p, , _ _-, _ -- , , - D � � a" � 7 �5"� .- ° 10 ��0� ;-, � i�i � ". ;. � _ 34-�'�� 11 7Q �� - � - 8 12 x `- - ' OQ �� - � 35 �-00 � �� FLOOD STUDY CR05S � _ � _ �5k � �ECTION LOCATIONS'(TYI�.) ' C � � � � 36 +00 '�6�� STREAM 1 CENTERLINE � / � g � Cv i ', � -I-G 0 / ,� x � � / � � �r 13 ��X � � � _ 3g-1-0� ��0 0 STREAiU 2 CENTERLINE �._ O � . .. ��X .�:n_o•:,�i�: � �3 - SHESELOTSSH4ULDMEET " �'�� , , � T " , , THE REQUIREMENTS OF � �� - =,�ov " 5� �' _ THE BOZEMAN U D.O !a 27+00 � ' i �-_° � ��<a= � � �� FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS �U l � � 6llE TO POSSIBLE SHA�LOW � �'k 14 � 0 ----, � �- �a,s I ��;: � � FLOODING. �. �A D ��x� i � ...v �— -I I � :. . 11 .� � �� ,i = 9.ISc � � �- � . O I I � .� 43+ 2 � � � � � a i �: , I . I.� .� oo ��X�� - � pe6-- � �—a�e - �o�i« I �— ' � � ' 1 1 I r- ��, � 15 24�00 u ; � I � � \ 44 -� 00 ' 12 � �v� 25 t 00 00 ��, �o �EX°o as �k' _ -__ T:- =-_ -- '�' 13 0 —1 � �- i 4%-�_ � 47-( 2S�8 �� S'�� - � � � _ � ,�'�� x� VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD88 6E9 I � No. a[visioNs oanxm� er onrE o ioa zoo 30o vaaecr q:oa-naz SHEE1' �I I�� -I�1� ��I�� /� (�.IVI�F.Rb*IIICC[lllg 34DISCOV�RYDHIVC DAT6 09�3��05 �F�. � $CALE FEET� lI.`T p�Tl� CTTT1fTYT ]AT]T'A TJT A�T �L LandSIINC}+I[Ig NOZ[MAN,MT59'/18 FL00�_SIU�Y.DWG Y � s t., tr o a �LJ.u�i[ e�tax:.,tv :C:L,talel ALLI-�.-�D Gcotcchnical Enginccring �yoNe�eoc�saz.oxzi PROJECT ENGWEER:PJS �RAWN BT: BJC B�ZEivlf'1N�MT ENGINGERMG S[fLLCN(3I E(I��RCC(III� FAX@OM1)Stl3-A]0 MEADOW CREEK SUB. oEsmNeo er: edc aewewco ev: vds - FLOOD STUDY AREA PLAN MEADOW BRIDGE SUBDIVISION Project #BOZ-05021.28 y � � m n a � � N � � m a z y v_ � � m o0 � O � � � f �" � J _. Middle Creek StreamStats Report Region ID: MT WorkspacelD: MT20250204172337277000 Clicked Point(Latitude, Longitude): 45.64225,-111.06890 NHD Stream GNIS Name of Click Point:A Middle Creek Ditch Time: 2025-02-04 1 0:24:09 -0700 - :. .-,�....� ..� . -.l�k:;:� � �f � � �o i �� 11�.. ( _� �- \ ' a f� �.`- � ^ �� Blackuaood Rd � � u,', � � � .r c I � a tN'agons ic m' � �' \�� `, x�ePipe C� u b Qe � a � ._ ._ - � I d' a � � „ o m a , u` � ^ a — � U 'O F � � � � o Patlerson Rd Patterson Rd ; > < c � i 'o � C = U � � F+bayail Ranch Rd � �I a 345 ` n O Collapse All � Basin Characteristics Parameter Code Parameter Description Value Unit CHANWD_RS Channel width determined from remotely sensed data sources, including aerial imagery 0 feet CONTDA Area that contributes flow to a point on a stream 0.1 square miles DRNAREA Area that drains to a point on a stream 0.1 square miles EL6000 Percent of area above 6000 ft 0 percent WACTCH Width of active channel 0 feet WBANKFULL Width of channel at bankfull 0 feet � Peak-Flow Statistics Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters [UpYellow CentMount Region BasinC 2015 5019F] Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit CONTDA Contributing Drainage Area 0.1 square miles 0.39 2040 EL6000 Percent above 6000 ft 0 percent 0 100 Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters [UpYllw CentMount Region Act Channel SIR 2020 5142] Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit WACTCH Width Of Active Channel 0 feet 1 150 Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters [UpYllw CentMount Region Bankfull SIR 2020 5142] Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit WBANKFULL Width Of Bankfull Channel 0 feet 2.5 170 Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters [UpYllw CentMount Region Aerial Photo SIR 2020 5142] Parameter Code Parameter Name Value Units Min Limit Max Limit CHANWD_RS Channel_Width_remotely_sensed 0 feet 2.3 191.9 Peak-Flow Statistics Disclaimers [UpYellow CentMount Region BasinC 2015 5019F] One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors. Peak-Flow Statistics Flow Report [UpYellow CentMount Region BasinC 2015 5019F] Statistic Value Unit 66.7-percent AEP flood 0.411 ft^3/s 50-percent AEP flood 0.746 ft^3/s 42.9-percent AEP flood 1.03 ft^3/s 20-percent AEP flood 3.47 ft^3/s 10-percent AEP flood 7.46 ft^3/s 4-percent AEP flood 1 6 ft^3/s 2-percent AEP flood 25.7 ft^3/s 1-percent AEP flood 38.1 ft^3/s 0.5-percent AEP flood 54.4 ft^3/s 0.2-percent AEP flood 82.5 ft^3/s Peak-Flow Statistics Disclaimers [UpYllw CentMount Region Act Channel SIR 2020 5142] One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range. Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors. Peak-Flow Statistics Flow Report [UpYllw CentMount Region Act Channel SIR 2020 5142] Statistic Value Unit Active chan width 66.7 percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 50-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active chan width 42.9 percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 20-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 10-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 4-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 2-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 1-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 0.5-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 0.2-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Peak-Flow Statistics Disclaimers [UpYllw CentMount Region Bankfull SIR 2020 5142] One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range.Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors. Peak-Flow Statistics Flow Report [UpYllw CentMount Region Bankfull SIR 2020 5142] Statistic Value Unit Bankfull width 66.7 percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 50-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull width 42.9 percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 20-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 10-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 4-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 2-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 1-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 0.5-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 0.2-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Peak-Flow Statistics Disclaimers [UpYllw CentMount Region Aerial Photo SIR 2020 5142] One or more of the parameters is outside the suggested range.Estimates were extrapolated with unknown errors. Peak-Flow Statistics Flow Report [UpYllw CentMount Region Aerial Photo SIR 2020 5142] Statistic Value Unit Rem sens chan width 66.7 percent AEP fld 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_50_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem sens chan width 42.9 percent AEP fld 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_20_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_10_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_4_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_2_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_1_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_0_5_pct_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_0_2_pct_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Peak-Flow Statistics Flow Report [Area-Averaged] Statistic Value Unit 66.7-percent AEP flood 0.411 ft^3/s 50-percent AEP flood 0.746 ft^3/s 42.9-percent AEP flood 1.03 ft^3/s 20-percent AEP flood 3.47 ft^3/s 10-percent AEP flood 7.46 ft^3/s 4-percent AEP flood 16 ft^3/s 2-percent AEP flood 25.7 ft^3/s 1-percent AEP flood 38.1 ft^3/s 0.5-percent AEP flood 54.4 ft^3/s 0.2-percent AEP flood 82.5 ft^3/s Active chan width 66.7 percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 50-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Statistic Value Unit Active chan width 42.9 percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 20-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 10-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 4-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 2-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 1-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 0.5-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Active Channel Width 0.2-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull width 66.7 percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 50-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull width 42.9 percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 20-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 10-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 4-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 2-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 1-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 0.5-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Bankfull Width 0.2-percent AEP flood 0 ft^3/s Rem sens chan width 66.7 percent AEP fld 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_50_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem sens chan width 42.9 percent AEP fld 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_20_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_10_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_4_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_2_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_1_percent_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_0_5_pct_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Rem_sens_chan_width_0_2_pct_AEP_flood 0 ft^3/s Peak-Flow Statistics Citations Sando, Roy, Sando, S.K., McCarthy, P.M., and Dutton, D.M.,2016, Methods for estimating peak-flow frequencies at ungaged sites in Montana based on data through water year 2011: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5019—F,30 p. (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20155019) Chase, K.J., Sando, R.,Armstrong, D.W., and McCarthy, P.,2021, Regional regression equations based on channel-width characteristics to estimate peak-flow frequencies at ungaged sites in Montana using peak-flow frequency data through water year 2011 (ver. 1.1, September 2021): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2020-5142, 49 p. (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20205142) � NHD Features of Delineated Basin NHD Streams Intersecting Basin Delineation Boundary This functionality attempts to find the stream name at the delineation point.The name of the nearest intersecting National Hydrography Dataset(NHD) stream is selected by default to appear in the report above. NHD streams do not correspond to the StreamStats stream grid and may not be accurate. If you would like a different stream to appear in the above section,please make a selection below. GNIS ID GNIS Name Distance from Clicked Point(ft) Feature Type Selected Stream Name 00787233 Middle Creek Ditch 3,191.31 Canal Ditch � Middle Creek Ditch Watershed Boundary Dataset(WBD)HUC 8 Intersecting Basin Delineation Boundary This functionality attempts to find the intersecting HUC 8 of the delineated watershed. HUC boundaries do not correspond to the StreamStats data and may not be accurate. HUC 8 Name 10020008 Gallatin NHD Hydro%gic Features Citations U.S. Geological Survey, 2022, USGS TNM - National Hydrography Dataset,accessed July 21,2022 at URL https://hydro.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/rest/services/nhd/MapServer/6. (https://hydro.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/rest/services/nhd/MapServer/6) U.S. Geological Survey, 2022, USGS TNM - National Hydrography Dataset, accessed July 21, 2022 at URL https://hydro.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/rest/services/wbd/MapServer/4. (https://hydro.nationalmap.gov/arcgis/rest/services/wbd/MapServer/4) � Channel-width Methods Weighting No method weighting results returned. USGS Data Disclaimer:Unfess otherwise stated,all data,metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose forwhich the data were collected.Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S.Geological Survey(U5G5),no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes,nor on all computer systems,nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. USGS Software Disclaimer:This software has been approved for release by the U.S.Geological Survey(USGS).Although the software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to further analysis and review.No warranty,expressed or implied,is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty.Furthermore,the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S.Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use. USGS Product Names Disclaimer:Any use of trade,firm,or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.Government. Application Version:4.26.0 StreamStats Services Version:1.2.22 NSS Services Version:2.2.1 MEADOW BRIDGE SUBDIVISION Project #BOZ-05021.28 v � � � a � m - z � � n � y � � � p m � y v � z � G� m � � y m C n � � y v � f �" � J _. j1 1 �� U � � . . , r 4� c� r � � � f+f f � ' � r f � � � . ,� �� `�� ,. ;x � � �,� I � � � � ! z ,t� � � 1 f �� ; � , `,} ! ; , 1 � � � V7 � `� � � '�� 1 ;+ � � � 1� i �'I ��-� - '� � v� r � � + o- � $ ° r /� �I E'`�'� + � � i� 1 � � `J f � � ; =�a � � s, � � I� f �F,� t � �-S�. � �" I I �+ � � � �-� , � � .�' ; �. ' � � '� I Z m � ry � p , �� c+�`- ,' , � d�'�, o,�,�'� '�•p S� 'I � J � l �� '�' �a� �` �� , �, G � e � � � � � � ` � � , � ^ �� '�r � �� :��, r' �,6 ��s ¢g21��y ,,� � ' `'��, �� z°ti � I �� ,� � r � � � �� - �� ., � ��.�N��`�� , + �^ �o��`�; o, � �� .,�g��g �o � � ti n � - �. � " � N�� o� � ' � o � Z v�O ,� � + s�'�� sl� ��y� � � � g,�� 1 f � � r' ��a�' �� i'� ,� �'r��'a� �� t i g�� `��r� ¢ � . rJ ; � � � v� � �• � r , � � � � r� . O� �n � , r �O v> t� � QS � cf- U ^ � T, �` s,Q �•�O 'f ' y�y�� i+ 1'.r z� i� \C�'`�' � � � 1 • t� i � � '+ / i i t � ��.s � � �';' � 0 O � tcr,.�r � � 0 ! � i � r�g�cn \ S• ��• , � �' po. p�y,`� � i _ C � ��z+� � . �- 1 S� '�� _ �'�� ,��4 , + �I �� G� �°• O ��o ' � �11 �4 �'�. � � �� • ,�, � - . :_ �a ? � -�P' .�c s �'��,�,, � � � "' !�! �2s' � � �ry ` �� Q4p �� 5�'9 '� � I � �� J� ��`p D�`��6 �� - " m � I � (C/ �v �'�. �r�/,ti i°�' 7 � �r � � � �i �b ,,,� d� r,t' � 'i � m � ,�. �� ' q �� ti� � s ,. � ;+ +� ��,��J`� ,., �y � �,a$ .� �- - W _� � _ . �J� Q� / R._ �R�, � f I�1' roe $' �,''�'p � + � s� �' �d" �� s l � I 1� � {, t! '! � � "c,�f ' � `��, �� 5�.7 �� j �� '�i ��• '�� -r� r 16' Z ■■C, ■ 3 � �.� � - � , , � � , f� � t� � a � � j/� (V� R'o f•h � "�° �v � � � d�„�� ' �`\� '1�� `� 0� rj'�o � � � � � � � � �^ � � � GJ, � y�1 �+ C f � C3'ro�'�`� �-. �, S, � �� '1y, } 1 �` ��ri� }p� � � � '� � • _ f � '7��`�y,�� ', �� p ti ��C?��5��,5`C�F- � —�� _ � _ D _ f � O �- /� �� 'C� `� �� 0� g5.85' r / r 99 � 8J 4.��ri�(,/ � f ,yo _�`� Sy �1' 5 �+� � � `�' � ti" �'�`"''''J � ` 0�� 6'1 � ti � ,r� �'� � �O �C c c,�,v !w -+�'l �5- �� f , � q � �g�� h� + _�Q, � �� f -f � � ,L'� � c..s � �� & r T�\? ` +'� � '� �2� ..,, r r � f f � � � � ,(�' '��'t� � ^ `Q S8,,3 �, _ �� r r r � �` ^w-`� 3 afoo l � �r � - . + + •/_1 � J+� - � � � � f ,' � 5��-. � I f v � + �y �r '. � .� 1 r r J� _ � '' r� � �y ��4 i ¢8 Q � ` �"�,� — 4-FPO �51'15'S2° � '�} � A � � � J +� r � + �� y Co O + ` �` ` � �""'�.(10'��7 5.� r � � -- f � � � g$•g�}i� ^�V � � � J I� � � // ~ � � !� . � � I � � r r r � r '�`1�� - � I I4 ! 1 ~ _ � ~ � � � �r r � 1 f f ^ __ � � { � � r � �� i � J L i J,~ �ti i � l� �� 1 f � � ~� � P . � � _ 1 3 _ . 7 _ � 6 .0 � � S, _ � . - .� . -� 0 � 9 � : � _ � � . -r � _ � � I � � � � � � — , � � � � � �� I � � � ;� � �� — _ � — � — — � — � — � - - �- � ��rt � � _ - ,' ' + � a� � , � — - - - _ - - - - �, " �L� � � , � � 1� � 2 g 106.03 , 99.11 I � � � _ ;� � � � � ��L � � � � � �� , �� 1 � � , � r � �� gz 9 W � � ` �� 5 ��9 a � .� ��' � > ao � �`y�� ,�a � � , w �-- � -�D e. � 1 � �. � g 1 � . . 9 u� � � � S� � 6 �' I r� � - . �� e r ,� o'�,� ., s�� 1° ' �� 9�` --� � � � � /� r-� ' � �o �"�� "� ,��.y'r„�p Sp� `��5`��? ,�1� �,� � '� � ta � �$3 �"�`1 °�, u � � � ,r _ �r. °o. _ i � � O �" _ , � � � � 1 �b r "� in _ _ , , � d !� 4� 9 _ 0 'v� � � � s � r � Q. � � � ��`� t� � �.`� 9 � � � F� � � - � I � � z ,� s e Z �. _ _ 1� t 'f' � 1 r f �� ! I °-��`� ��5�� . , �. '�'��ti�� e ' ��' � � � �'� ��,� �� i + � fn � .-. s - '� � _ _ _ _ ,��0��, 2�9= :�: �= NOTE; � r KURT W. � SCALE �� THOMSON �� —EXISl1NG UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS & PRIVATE Ul1LITlES SHOWN ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORA�ATI4N AVAILABLE TO � � =Q 13499PE s�� THE ENGINEER_ THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION. SERVICE LJNES (WATER, POWER, GAS, STORM, PLAN : 1 = 3� s�� SEtikER, TELEPHONE dc TELEVISION) MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT LINES OR AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS. STATE LAW REQUIRES CONTRACTOR TO PR4FILE �fi'S `'hw.r..�� , CALL ALL Ul1LITY COA�PANIES BEFORE EXCAVATION FOR EXACT LOCATIONS_ H�RIZ. : 1 " = 3�� f�ri�Q�AL ��,` —ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MONTANA PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD SPECIFICAl10NS 5TH EDIl10N, MARCH, �s � 2003, AND THE CITY OF BOZE�AAN STANDARD �AODIFICAl10NS, DATED MARCH, 2004 AND ADDENDUM No_ 1. VERT. : 1 = .� —UNLESS OTHER4VISE SPECIFIED, ALL CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT AND STAKING SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF A LAND SIJRVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE OF MONTANA AND BY A PARTY CHIEF OR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EXPERIENCED IN CONSTRUCl10N LAYOUT AND STAKING TECHNIQUES A5 ARE REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF WORK BEING PERF�RMED, o+oo � +oo z+oo 3+00 4+00 5+ao s+oa �+aa e+ao � —BENCHMARK �1; CTIDN CDRNER (REBAR) aMMON TO 5EC110N5 23, 4, 25 & 26 3489 7,73 50 303,75 LEV, = 5023.26 �o� o � 4oz,9.�, � � �a� a _ 50 39 7.83 � — LEV, = 4939.18 a —DATUhA = NAVD 88 '� � O� N —COB BENCHMARK � 110 {ARROW BOLT ON HY RAN� ELEVATION = 4903 86 � 0 4 — —SUBTRACT 19,45 F ET FROM BENCHMARK 1 R 2 ELEVATION T� C4N ERT TO CDB DATUM. o � PYI ELEV = 496 .53 � �� 7 — � A.D. _ -1.57 —ANY EXISTING OR EW VALVES WHICH CONTR L THE COB s WATER SUPP Y SHALL BE OPERATED B COB PERSONNEL ONLY. �� n � r� > w .� K = 63.87 — THE CQNTRACTOR SHALL NOl1FY THE 4�1ATER QEPARTA�ENT A MINIA�UM F 24—HOURS PRIOR TO B GINNING ANY WORK. w � ,,�+, � � 100,DO' VC � � � + Q � � = 3 a 500o w w �oaa � � Z � � � w w � � J + � � — � ~ ^ � J � ^ � .. � g Q J O � m m ,� � � � r Z � j Z � ~ aq�j r� � °�° � o�o � o °' tii � � r� c� ai v w 1 439L � � � � � � r' � w ri r U I� V n � � � � a, � o, o rn �, ¢ w ? w � � � v � v � w � � � � � Q � Z c� I I I �� u �� ii � ,�i II II FINISHED � � � � � � � ^ z — � I O 5 ~ � � u � y � > � > m � n W � GRADE _ Q Z O J J 6� J O J m 43 W N � Z aw w c.i w r-� w � Z J � + + + + �, � � � � 4�90 a � � � � � � _ � � 4g�a °�° W � � w � W w � � �3.00� �.a � _ _ � L/) � o No w Z � � r � � W E � � r � � � 0 - w Sz � d � � fr W a � � f EX. GRADE � � O a Q I.L � 8" WATER MAIN � r � � m � � �r U p Y � � r ^ r H � � 4980 �-- - -- �L �f 498a � a a � � � � � �� Q �� o � �¢ �� w � _ � � � } � � � e+ao � � � � w � ii "'"'� 3 C�A.D. CMK J DATE: 4/14/06 � � �� _ � 4970 NJ ��¢ U �� n� „ „� � 4�� REVI510NS: � _ m � �m¢�� Q � � �� -=� . �� -�� "' � C�NSTRUCTI�N REC�RDS APPRQVED BY: � w UTILITI S — �CT�BER, 2a�6 QUALITY ASSURANCE: � � STREET — NOVEMBER, 2a�� + � 4960 4 4�6� S�E: 5EE SHEET a � ¢ � n 61 O N � � n � N � o� n� rn� �� n� o�� n�n aoN mo or a� N� rnoo �� n� �o FILE; PARKWAY_PRO � m ao � v r�� od m o ri ri � a � �d rti m mr m� m� m� m oo� mN ao� m� ao¢ aa� rn°O rn� aa� rn� m� � o� OD w 0� � 07 W� p�O] 07 os� or� 07 pp� p�� 61 p�� o, �a, �rn �o, �rn arn �o, �rn �o� �rn fiw �o� �o, �rn �rn � � � ¢ ¢ � ¢ ¢ � ¢ ¢ � ¢ � � ¢ ¢ � ¢ PROJE�T NQ.,Boz osozi.az � � SHEEf �� aF s9 � 0+00 1 +00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+0� 6+00 7+00 � U � IDE'd1ALK (BY 51DE4�1A1.{( (BY - LOT OWNERS) I + � T� LOT OWNERS) �. 's I � T� � I I ' I � 19.37 � � 19.37 I j f� � " I I �� I r �4 � ,} � _ 1 1 �- � �� ,s.�z � I _. _ �, `,� � � EDGE OF E}{, I I �_ 1 01 = I� ; � � ' � � � BRUSH � 19-B3I � N � � - f DISfsOSE � I � SAN SEu'ER hrTFt��_ P I �'�1 � 1MRE Q 1 0 � R I M-5 0 1 9.7 6 - � � � � � - � � � � � INV. OIJT N =9.49 �� 108 LF�NEW 36" ARCH RL'� � � I � N 35013.23 S I 1 �w� � � (26 �"x43 �'4") CULVERT'`�, I _ � E 47819.65 '` �_ - � r �__ �p 1 � WITH FETS ' I , V� Q m � � 2 7C d�s � � � � � � � INV_ IN�SW)=17.06 `� � w - � w 13807 SF � � � � � � � G+ �� J N V. O U T(N E)=1 5.1 6 N 3 992.98 c -�` WETLANDS SETBACK �, 4 � �— � R,-, � I �_ � = I � -- E 4 749 51 � ¢ 7576D 5F PARK � � � i�i 30'x30")� �o.6s f � �� p.s� I 3 o Q SETB�',CK � . REMOV�` & DISPOSE � 140166 SF � o o � - - ! - D � 8693 SF — g L�CK 8— � � - PARK � oF Ex. ARewiRE I'� � � 14 ,35' ��7`�� s r J 7 8 $F � ! � l �_ � � _ � o _Z d�d63 $F ' FENCE r i y� � c 9 4.1 9 _ y _ y 169.61� � j � � 4 i,t s� R-1 5' � � � 2 9 4 8 5 S F � E T B A C K E_ A�Q� � � � � - - � — � - - � - - � - - � - - - - - - - - - - - _ }rc- � 1 _ L=23,56_ _ � - - 11z,26� � - - - - - - - 34 " r B5 SF � 58.18' A 5 5 0. � 782� $F : I vs � � _ �o.sa - _ � - - � - - � - - � - - � - - - - - - 63.05' 1 78,72' y�,�.�y I � x- � = � m � � i N ae� '06' w za-rna zs-roo ��o,s9 ^6.83'�� "7 � � � _ �� — � _ � �� 2� _ . z,toa � W -- � _ �� — on r m ¢ �' } ~ R=15 '� � � � _ 19�� — t ob i � ■ � i� �J _ 'Ta�a'os' w _ i�+��— — �sfaor-P c n � LAC W00 RQ � �=23.56� NEW 12' OlP WATfR MAIN � v " I� � � �+---I 637.30' ��i "_ W � � � _ ^ _ — J % ��' �� C �� T — 42.43 — - -- _-- _ � 818_38 NE4V HYDRANT M � }�� — T�c^� z , rr se�5s'os" w - ` Z � COS 2f77 ARRO'N BO9T REMOVE & REPLACE N 34927.20 � c � ELEV.=5023,58 EX. BARBW1RE E 486fi4.42 � � � FENCE NOTE� -EXISTING UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS 8c PRIVATE UTILJl1E5 SH01h�N ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMAl10N AVAILABLE TO � � � THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION, SERVICE LINES (WATER, POWER, GAS, STORM, � 5E'NER, TELEPHONE & TELEVI510N) MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT LJNES OR AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS, STATE LAW REQUIRES CONTRACTOR TO V V CALL ALL Ul1LJTY COMPANIES BEFORE EXCAVATION FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, y� -ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE 1hfITH k10NTANA PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 5TH EDITION, MARCH, � 2003, AND THE CITY OF BOZEMAN STANDARD MODIFICATIONS, DATED MARCH, 2004 AND ADDENDUM No. 1. � -UNLE55 OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL CONSTRUCTI�N LAYOUT AND STAKING SHALL BE PERF�RMED UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF A LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE OF MONTANA AND BY A PARTY CHIEF OR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EXPERIENCED IN CONSTRUCl10N LAYOUT AND STAKING TECHNI4IJES AS ARE REQIJIRED BY THE SPECIFIC TYPE aF UJORK BEING PERFORA�ED_ -BENCHMARK �1; SECTI�M C�RMER (REBAR) COMMON TO 5EC110N5 23, 24, 25 & 26 E 50303�75 HATCHED AREA WITHIN STREET DENOTES SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS, `,�10�� T yf��i��If E L E V, = 5 0 2 3.2 8 IF NO HATCHING IS SHOWN, SURFACE IMPROVE�AENTS 4�1ERE NOT t�� COIr1PLETED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. ti�r �� -BENCHMARK �2: WITNE55 CORNER ("MMCSSA�� YELL01hf CAPPED REBAR) TO SECTION CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 13, 14, 23 & 24 � r KURT W. � N 40219.41 SCALE �� THOMSON �� E 50397.83 �� , -'ro s�� ELEV, = 4939.18 P LAN : 1 = 30 �� -�, 0 -DATIJhA = NAVO 88 PROFILE "CaNFaRMS TO CONSTRUCTIaN RECaRDS" r=fis `��;��`'� -COB BENCHhAARK �1110 (ARROW BOLT ON HYDRAN� ELEVATION = 4903_86 H ORI Z. : � �� = 3O� ( �f�ri�QNAL �� -SUBTRACT 19,45 FEET FROM BENCHMARK #1 OR �2 ELEVATI�N T� CONVERT TO COB DATUM. VERT. : 1 " = 5' U TI LI TI ES — a�TaB ER� �V V� -ANY EXISIING OR NEW VALVES WHICH CONTROL THE COB�s WATER SUPPLY SHALL BE 4PERATED BY COB PERSONNEL ONLY. �T R E E T S — N a V E M B E R� �V V� - THE CaNTRACTOR SHALL NOl1FY THE 1iVATER DEPARTMENT A MINIMUM OF 24-HOURS PRI�R TO BEGINNING ANY WORK, �040 5040 HIGH POINT E EV = 5022,46 HIGH POINT S A = 17+06.11 — PVl 5TA 17+OQ PVl ELEV 5022.53 � A,D. - -1,33 — O 50.OQ' VC � w + z � � � V� � N Q 5�3� �; � � � + � + N 5�3� = 3 Q m � Y m r � � p f� � � � N N � 4o jr� � `� LL � Z � U Q � U � U � � W � w w /� � � �� C� � Q w w m j w w � Q J V II � 4 w II � II � m Z � � Z � ~ �, � � � O Q � O ,� � � �' O FINISHED � � � � + �� n � � a � z � + � GRADE oW N �, � W ~ � � I (� 0.50X N c� � c� � Z Z � z r � � - - - � — � — � — � — -0_50� _ Q Q _ _ f � — ^ - - - - - - - � �� - - - - - - - _ o.a3; p �n a - J a �020 - - - � — - - � — � — _ � - - - � � � � - - - - - � � — _ J � _ _ � l _ _ ^ � 502o Z o� � a a � � - - - - - - _ , ` � W � W � cn _ _ w � � � � L/) � � N W � EX, GRADE � 12" WATER MAIN �� '� � — — � ~ J f (/) � � � Q m � � W � o � � � w oa o V a � � o � � � � U � � as p Y g � U � 5�1 � 5�1 � � � � a m � � Q � � w � z 3 � � � � o � � Y V � � / � � � � � ��,�, CMK � �000 � 500o DATE: 4/14/06 a� REVI510NS: �/�a/a6 � � 11/24/08AB � ¢ � � UI M � � z APPRQVED BY: � ¢ QUALITY ASSURANCE: � N Ou7 I'7 OI h1 [D 0 � 499� 499� S�E: 5EE SHEET � � ¢ � � � ¢ � ¢ � � � � � � � � � � o � ry0 a000 m� �n�'7 ev0 �� rnif] �nrrj mo rn0 ¢N m� rr r�0 oaN � �� m� vl� o� � � tV N cV N � � � � CV CV N (V CV N n� �� FILE; BLACK_PRO 0 oi� �� oe� oi^ d o 0 0 0 � N N N N N N� N^ �V^ N^ N ry N � ❑N o N o N o CV o N N o�`1 o N o N o�`1 N p N (V o�l d N N �V N o n1 o N o�`1 o no �+� �o np �no �o �O �o �+Q �d �+O �O �d �O �o � �o o �O �o �d � � � � � � � ,� � � � � �, � � � � � � � � � PROJE�T NQ.; eoz osozi.az � z4+oo z3+oo 2z+oo 21 +�� za+oa � �+oa 18+�a � 7+ao � s+oa SHEET �� aF s9 0 � U � y RE�10VE & DISPOS � � �l s,zo , + �5,5 ��--- 60 LF 12�� i ? t � ' OF EX, BARBWIRE �'�, , � �l � � Tc=�{ .To- 5.5 OUTFALL STRUCTURE PVC � 0.5X 's + r � FENC� � � 4 5 y l� � ~ ~ � � °-B4 o.sa � TOP OF STRUCTURE=99.00 � �, , � �ti - � ``� 7 _ � INV. IN 54�1 96.50 � f I I j ��g i�vv. auT(�vEj=ss.so DETENTI4N �� ''�, + 7'` .,�1 � o POND 6B � � ''� g � p�� I I � • a TOP OF POND=49_Sg-0B—�� ti � � � � in � I m � m J wATER LEV�L=9�DO ys �~ � � MILLER PARK n' I � o o� m tD BO ��F POND=96.50 ��y � ,�'� � � LL '- - _ Z ? I � � o m y �79B2Z SF QUIRED STORAGE=174 CF � s y �'� �� I I � � ��4 5F � ` D +o o� STORAGE SHQWN=353 CF � `, � � � `, r' � �� 7 � ITC� "� D � c,� , c- � � (4_1 SIDE SLOPES, SEE `-�CONCRETE TQRM�� ,�?�� r'�. �, ' I � I� � 1 fi9�2 SF I I„� D � � 1 ,� � DETAIL) C3R111NAGE s �=.� �ti _ �"7' � , 104 LF NEW 36" ARCH RC I I , � SAN SEWER MH 29 � i ` , � � � DUTLET AND ��y � 363a,9.0 `� '', (26 ��x43 ��) CULVERT PARK PT - s _�e I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � � I, � R1-1 � 5 W1DE ER0510N INLET GHASE , � WITH FETS � � I� � � RIM=5001,92 � � Y ( (5EE D�TAIL '� E''��BB�?�� ' V. I N(SE)=96,49 38495 $F � I I � �� » � w � CONTROL PAD 6" iNv, irv(s)=so.z� � � 3o x3o ) o d � � � � p � �= � � � A�INUS RIPRAP) '� I V. OUT(N14�=95.-�2 NEW � MON. ` INV_ IN(E)=90.24 �63 I � rc _ u� SAN SEu'ER MH 41 1 s �' C � �� Z � 140,57' INV. OUT(N)=90.04 � A �-s AINSWaRTH� � Q SETgACK � IA�TL� DS � �-� SETBACK (5E KeTH coR., o � MILLER PARK RIM=5001.49 - � �,� sECT�o►v z�� I I� � � — — — �- — — — — -� — — — � — — � , > 179622 SF `� � � iNu IN(5}=91,98 41231 SF`, �' �!3712 F `� � 46815 SF N 36253'OB � � � 485.B 9' � 179622 SF II �, � �� Tc- — — ��_ — _- _ � 57.23' � � —�_ — -_ — — -- — is� 1.98 ` __ Y2.0�.-'~2,19 2.eo W =91,78 � � �' E 49aQ5 2� I"' �„� 6675 5F � ;:.: ... ze5 , .. �. �, � 69 3� �tn N � II � 5B_5 � � m � `' - 3 t i = _ �� ' ' - � � �f��I-� EA= I �� `- `- s s } - � = C � � ~L=23,55' �.as I i 4s L=23,57� �,�.as - _ _ W -- 1.60 r!96 � � - — � . — - �n 1 � - � 8t00 NEW B OIP WATER IARI��f — � , � _ �+oa N �.��47�� w — RE�10VE & DISPOSE s _ �, D I I � c ■ t � �A�` — �� t� — _ __1&3,31' 6+OD o 's+00 �� '� T�= _R=15� � - — •i� _ _ _ ru ea��'a�' _ - � T� i � aBsr��" w z+oo � � AIN Q � � �� ._, �EL r-, :,, 20�_>>• a+oa o I 2.os � � o NEW B SDR 3�S P4�C SAJy SE'i�fR h(AIN � �� — � o H 41 R=15 �OD �NCE � � � �— 1�59.82' � �� f � o Z I II _ � �L 23.57 E,� oo -15 � ~ ~ � � _ � o+on � � � ,.91 91 r' �'�.��I-PJ�V�QR�H QRIVE 15 L=2 56� AINSWORTH DRIVE - �° � ��+ �' "� �� — — -- � ZC= - - •� 272� �� 2.35 T� � T� ��`� L=23.56 ER- l44 4'', � I �~ � � � - - � - - � - - - - - - - — z,s3 0 �7 = 2.se _z 9_ _ � - - � - -90— _ ��;;� � - - � - - AINSW�RTH DR�VE� = _ � -�52 =15� I,' � NEu' HYDRANT � � _ - - 132.31' - - - - - - - — - �� , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - � - - � - - � - - 'n — � - - � - - � - - = = ti � _ 23.18' N 36251.46 � AnpT o T1 — - - - 7�_ r - 1C- y TC= TC_� '� E 49062.14 � C � �,� A�N�VI�1 H� � I � o � 2 53 138.31' � 158.13' �� - - - - — _ � 1,92 D 1 _ � , - I ARROW BOLT q � � (� in = ELEV,-}Cx}CK.}CK W c_s � � J � D To- } NEw HYDRANT C/� A � � � � ='.�+ I � m y —6LaCK 7— wo ��n � N 362Z4.33 I 4 1 A�NSWORTH� 1T7=3�' S0_23' in ' 24 N '36208_8$ _. 70.77' - `= 1 11859 SF � � NEu' HYDRANT � � �Y w E 48657.49 � � � � SETBACK ��, Y � �� . E 4�8909. 5 � � �,, � � � D � N 3 8 2 3 1.3 0 ��a a�� A R R O'N B O L T � � POSE � �� N ,��,., E �8z�z�-- 20 � . . � � � �sz� sF � � �, � AINSWORTH� � �� s � d o E�v.=xxxx.xx P A R K ,� �, � „ I II s o o o s F W I R E � � � W B O L T c� �� 1 � o � � � �I �- ��,v.=� -� � E�A ��S S E T B A C K y , � � � � � + �.�o � � 2� Q 5fi710 S � � '1 � � � E L E V_=5 0 0 4_9 0 �Z�J�� $F 96-25 }, �� Q32�.)r F 73380 SF � j, � �� ` ENCE + I z � � � a i I Is C I f `� I 1404,3 SF 1 � _ � � I � -`� � �Tc= z � � � f � I I � Q 49 LF 1�2.� . — — � — — � — �� PY� � o.� �BL � K 8— � R,-, � � �� V V _ 3,�. ,27 � �� f— ' �, � �,� � (30"x30 ) � rn � �� oo � � � � � OUTFALL STRUCTURE'' ,, ,iy Ir i.5� 3 ' � cn � TOP OF STRIJCTURE �I �,-__ I 5.5 I II v ' e nrwnFJi,vNr�E. I I � � 7.SFUT. 5' W1D� � v_ � � � hl � r �� -__ � 1 INVa�IN(SW}=98,50 ` 's `'}I� � 6 � I II NOTE� -EXISTING UNDERGROUND INSTALLAl10NS & PRIVATE UTILJl1E5 SH01h�N ARE INDICATED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMAl10N AVAILABLE TO � THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH INFORMATION, SERVICE LINES (WATER, POWER, GAS, STORM, � ��y��1 T �f��i� 5E'NER, TELEPHONE & TELEVI510N) MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT LJNES OR A5 INDICATED ON THE PLANS, STATE LAW REQUIRES CONTRACTOR TO � t�� °' � ��y CALL ALL Ul1LJTY COMPANIES BEFQRE EXCAVATION FOR EXACT LOCATIONS, ti�= �_ -ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE 1hfITH k10NTANA PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 5TH EDITION, MARCH, » » �� r THOMSON �; 2003, AND THE CITY OF BOZEMAN STANDARD MODIFICATIONS, DATED MARCH, 2004 AND ADDENDUM No. ,. � R — � E N �TE S A S — B U �T C � N D T �N �p 13499PE s�,� -UNLE55 OTHERWISE SPECIF1ED, ALL CONSTRUCTI�N LAYOUT AND STAKING SHALL BE PERF�RMED UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF A �fi Cr�y�� -?� LAND SURVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE OF MONTANA AND BY A PARTY CHIEF OR ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EXPERIENCED IN CONSTRUCl10N i/!�� i�S��4h��C7��1 LAYOUT AND STAKING TECHNIQUES AS ARE REQUIRED BY THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF 1NORK BEING PERFORA�ED_ � ��ri�QNAL �� -BENCHMARK �1; SECTI�N C�RNER (REBAR) COMMON TO 5EC110N5 23, 24, 25 & 26 N 34897,73 HATCHED AREA YVITHIN STREET DENOTES SURFACE IMPROVEk1ENTS. SCALE E 50303,75 IF NO HATCHING IS SHOtikN, SURFACE IMPROYEMENTS WERE NOT ELEV, = 5023.28 C0�IPLETED UNDER THIS CQNTRACT_ PLAN : � �� = 3O� -BENCHMARK �2: WITNE55 CORNER ("MMC55A�� YELLOYr CAPPED REBAR) TO SECTION CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 13, 14, 23 & 24 PROFILE E 50397�83 H ORI Z. : 1 " = 30� ELEV, = 4939.18 VERT. : 1 " = 5� -DATUhA = NAVD 88 -COB BENCHMARK �1110 (ARROW BOLT ON HYDRAN� ELEVATION = 4903_86 -SUBTRACT 19,45 FEET FROM BENCHMARK #1 OR �2 ELEVATION T� CONVERT TO CDB DATUM. -ANY EXISTING OR NEW VALVES WHICH CONTR�L THE COB�s WATER SUPPLY SHALL BE OPERATED BY COB PERSONNEL ONLY. - THE CaNTRACTOR SHALL NOl1FY THE �1ATER DEPART�IENT A MINI�IUM OF 24-HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WORK. � 502o s+oo �+oo s+ao 5+00 4+oa 3+ao z+oo � +oo o+ao �ozo HIGH POINT 5 A = 5+84.34 � PVI 5TA = fi+00 O PVl ELEY 5a03.53 LOW POINT E V = 50a0,83 w � + A.D, _ -2.22 LOW POINT 5 A = 2+44.8a � � K = 4.96 PYI 5TA = 2+50 Q Q � oc PYI ELEY 5a00.86 � � 100.0 ' VC A,D. 1,26 = � c�a w c�a K = 9.5 9 w � �' Z (/� � � � WC /� J d' J W J J � � I �JO�D � VC � w i J �J m � m � M � M � d 0 � I� � � � � � � � o �n ¢ Z (n � Z LL ~ � m � oo o � o � oo � o� o m � � a �''i � o J � � U � U ' 4 U ' U .- � CV } + O J Q ~ m m ¢ [V � � � Q � � 5010 � Q � o o Y o Uo � Q � o � N � m �' + 0 5010 � � � � o � Q �' � � �n � �n f%l � 4 � U l;_I � rn � a � � � O N rn Uo V o � �/ J a � � � ,n � ,n � m N m � r-i � � m �n � °'. °'. d �n N n � Z II II � - • o c� ' , , � H � II II � � � � � � II II ;fl � � II II II I ,;_; c� � c� Q U t d + p O o �l O O O � U � m � � � J O Q N O N Q � �f] � � � � O Z � n w � w � uoj � � � uoj � W � w w �� II m a �n � � a � � `n N `n II �� II �� ¢ � � � — Q Z Q � w � w ii ii ii w � > ii ii ii ii ii ii �' � �' � � > � � � ii Q v� Q Z J Q II II II � J n � r c� n c� � > n�i > � ; � c� + � J M > c� c� w w m } �i � o � � � II j W H a Q � � N 'n � ^ + FINISHED � o; J oo J o+ � o+ � � � W � w � w c� w �n �' a� w ow ^ n � � c� n � � GRADE ,� � r� c� r+nc� � � LI� � � N W � -,_4s� � o.�s� � o�c o p � -1�5 1 OX — � - - - - - - - � - - � - - � - - - ^ -0,5096 � W (j m � Q � � � � - - - - - - - - - - - - — — V) � 5000 � � _ _ � � � — - - - - - - - - � — � � _ � _ � - - - - - - - - - - - - — � � � � � ` � �� 5000 w S z � � EX. GRADE � � ~�� ^ ^ - - - - ~ ~ � � N � a � N � � r L.L � 8" WATER AIN 8" S4ATER MAIN `� �� r f 8" WA ER MAIN � � � ` � �� z ^ �� a a m � t �' � Q � z W � 4990 � �' 499 0 � o � � U za ! ~ � � O � > � o� �� N�� u ��, � CMK N� oo� �� V _ ��°'� �� 4 18 a6 - ��N¢� DATE: 4/14/06 � ��'o ��' ��' �,�.� � 11/24/08AB REVI510NS: w��wt11� WN [n� pC � �r `^_'� N r� � ¢ .oi �� "� .� �� `o 4g80 APPRQVED BY: �� +�»> 4+ ;; � 4980 `�"�=== �'"' � � � w � ° "CONFORMS 0 CONSTR CTION RECORDS" �uALITY ASSURANCE: N � � � UTILITI S — OCT BER, � 20�� o + � RE — R� ZVV� S�E; 5EE SHEET a Ol � U'7 n O � �[] cD G6 O N � � � fD f0 I� M�o n� o� r�o r,oD v,N n� ml� oor'] o0o n� aoN nrn �n� nNy n� N� n¢ � FILE� �CV �N � N N N) ��''J d[V d[V �N � � d ' �p m� �s - � � m - a�,; � AINSWORTH�RO � o 0 0 0 0 0 or o� o � �� o 00 oQ 80 80 80 80 00 00 0 00 00 oQ oo � o a o 00 8 o �n0 �� uop �np �np �nlp �o �O �� n4 �nio �nio nip �� °�0 �O �Ip '� B�Z 0502�.a2 � �� f� �� PROJE�T NQ.; � � 8+00 7+00 6+00 5+00 4+00 3+00 2+00 1 +00 0+00 0 17 99 � U � HY-8 Culvert Analysis Report Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design,and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 7.46 cfs Design Flow: 16.00 cfs Maximum Flow: 41.42 cfs Table 1-Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Blackwood RD Headwater Total Culvert 1 Roadway Iterations Elevation (ft) Discharge Discharge Discharge (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 17.93 7.46 7.46 0.00 1 18.14 10.86 10.86 0.00 1 18.36 14.25 14.25 0.00 1 18.47 16.00 16.00 0.00 1 18.79 i 21.04 i 21.04 i 0.00 i 1 � 19.02 24.44 24.44 0.00 1 19.25 � 27.84 � 27.84 � 0.00 � 1 � 19.49 31.23 31.23 0.00 1 19.74 34.63 34.63 0.00 1 20.00 38.02 38.02 0.00 1 20.28 41.42 41.42 0.00 1 22.00 58.91 58.91 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Blackwood RD Total Ratui�Cuive Crossina Black-��ood RD 220 21.5 21.0 c 20_5 0 � - � - a� W 20_0 a� - m 3 - � 19_5 a, - S - 19A 18.5 18_0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Total Discharge(cfs) Culvert Data: Culvert 1 Table 1-Culvert Summary Table: Culvert 1 Total Culve Head Inle Outl Fl Nor Criti Out Tailw Outl Tailw Disch rt water t et ow mal cal let ater et ater arge Disch Elevat Cont Cont Ty Dep Dep De Dept Velo Veloc (cfs) arge ion rol rol pe th th pth h (ft) city ity (cfs) (ft) Dep Dep (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s (ft/s) th th ) (ft) (tt) 7.46 7.46 17.93 0.87 0.0* 1- 0.42 0.63 1.0 1.06 2.21 2.38 cfs cfs JS1 6 t 10.86 10.86 18.14 1.08 0.0* 1- 0.51 0.77 0.5 1.15 7.74 2.40 cfs cfs S2 1 n 14.25 14.25 18.36 1.30 0.0* 1- 0.58 0.90 0.5 1.21 8.49 2.49 cfs cfs S2 8 n 16.00 16.00 18.47 1.41 0.0* 1- 0.62 0.96 0.6 1.24 8.65 2.54 cfs cfs S2 3 n 21.04 21.04 18.79 1.73 0.0* 1- 0.72 1.12 0.7 1.30 9.43 2.67 cfs cfs S2 4 n 24.44 24.44 19.02 1.96 0.0* 1- 0.79 1.22 0.8 1.34 9.69 2.75 cfs cfs S2 2 n 27.84 27.84 19.25 2.19 0.20 1- 0.85 1.32 0.8 1.37 10.5 2.83 cfs cfs 0 S2 5 5 n 31.23 31.23 19.49 2.43 0.43 5- 0.91 1.41 0.9 1.40 10.4 2.90 cfs cfs 0 S2 5 4 n 34.63 34.63 19.74 2.68 0.72 5- 0.97 1.49 1.0 1.43 10.8 2.96 cfs cfs 6 S2 1 1 n 38.02 38.02 20.00 2.94 1.03 5- 1.03 1.57 1.0 1.45 11.0 3.02 cfs cfs 9 S2 7 8 n 41.42 41.42 20.28 3.22 1.36 5- 1.09 1.65 1.1 1.48 11.3 3.08 cfs cfs 8 S2 4 0 n *Full Flow Headwater elevation is below inlet invert. Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 17.06 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 15.16 ft Culvert Length: 108.02 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0176 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Culvert 1 PerfoiYuance Curve c,�� c,�n��c i � 0 Inlet Control Elev Outlet Control Elev 220 21.5 21_0 20_5 -� c 20 O . o - � 19_5 a, - W a� �g� _ i" � - � � 18_5 .� a� = 18A -� _ �_ 1Z5 �"� I�� 1 Z0 -� = r-� 16-5 �� —�~ 16A 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Total Discharge(cfs) Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Culvert 1 Crossui�-Black-wood RD.Desi�i Dischar�e - 16.0 cfs � Cuh�ert-Cuh�ert 1.Culcert Discharae-16_0 cfs� 22 21 20 �19 0 m � a�i W �$ 17 _____� 16 15 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Station(ft) Site Data - Culvert 1 Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 17.06 ft Outlet Station: 108.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 15.16 ft 1Vumber of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - Culvert 1 Barrel Shape: Pipe Arch Barrel Span: 43.75 in Barrel Rise: 26.62 in Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge with Headwall (Ke=0.5) Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Blackwood RD Table 2- Downstream Channel Rating Curve(Crossing: Blackwood RD) Flow(cfs) Water Velocity Depth (ft) Shear(pst� Froude Surface (ft/s) Number Elev(ft) 7.46 16.22 1.06 2.38 0.99 0.83 10.86 16.31 1.15 2.40 1.07 0.84 14.25 16.37 1.21 2.49 1.13 0.85 16.00 16.40 1.24 2.54 1.16 0.85 21.04 16.46 1.30 2.67 1.22 0.86 24.44 16.50 1.34 2.75 1.25 0.87 27.84 16.53 1.37 2.83 1.28 i 0.88 � 31.23 16.56 1.40 2.90 1.31 0.88 34.63 16.59 1.43 2.96 1.33 * 0.89 � 38.02 16.61 1.45 3.02 1.36 0.89 41.42 16.64 1.48 3.08 1.38 0.90 Tailwater Channel Data - Blackwood RD Tailwater Channel Option: Irregular Channel Channel Slope: Irregular Channel User Defined Channel Cross-Section Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Manning's n 1 0.00 18.78 0.0300 2 62.84 16.18 0.0300 3 � 65.11 15.16 � 0.0300 � 4 66.71 15.99 0.0300 5 141.09 18.19 0.0000 Roadway Data for Crossing: Blackwood RD Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation Crest Length: 200.00 ft Crest Elevation: 22.00 ft Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 30.00 ft Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design,and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 7.46 cfs Design Flow: 16.00 cfs Maximum Flow: 41.42 cfs Table 3-Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing:Ainsworth DR Headwater Total Culvert 2 Roadway Iterations Elevation (ft) Discharge Discharge Discharge (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 97.37 7.46 7.46 0.00 1 97.58 10.86 10.86 0.00 1 97.79 i 14.25 i 14.25 i 0.00 i 1 � 97.91 16.00 16.00 0.00 1 98.23 * 21.04 * 21.04 * 0.00 * 1 � 98.45 24.44 24.44 0.00 1 98.69 27.84 27.84 0.00 1 98.93 31.23 31.23 0.00 1 99.18 i 34.63 i 34.63 i 0.00 i 1 � 99.44 38.02 38.02 0.00 1 99.72 41.42 * 41.42 * 0.00 * 1 102.00 63.67 63.67 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing:Ainsworth DR Total Ratui�Cuive Croccina.�inc��orth DR 102.0 101.5 101_0 �100_5 c 0 � 100.0 a� w °' gg 5 m 3 � m = 99-0 98.5 98A 97.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Total Discharge(cfs) Culvert Data: Culvert 2 Table 2-Culvert Summary Table: Culvert 2 Total Culve Head Inle Outl Fl Nor Criti Out Tailw Outl Tailw Disch rt water t et ow mal cal let ater et ater arge Disch Elevat Cont Cont Ty Dep Dep De Dept Velo Veloc (cfs) arge ion rol rol pe th th pth h (ft) city ity (cfs) (ft) Dep Dep (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s (ft/s) th th ) (ft) (tt) 7.46 7.46 97.37 0.88 0.0* 1- 0.46 0.63 0.4 0.61 6.03 2.71 cfs cfs S2 6 n 10.86 10.86 97.58 1.09 0.0* 1- 0.56 0.77 0.5 0.70 6.86 2.98 cfs cfs S2 6 n 14.25 14.25 97.79 1.30 0.0* 1- 0.64 0.90 0.6 0.78 7.52 3.18 cfs cfs S2 4 n 16.00 16.00 97.91 1.42 0.0* 1- 0.69 0.96 0.6 0.81 7.81 3.28 cfs cfs S2 9 n 21.04 21.04 98.23 1.74 0.26 1- 0.80 1.12 0.8 0.91 8.37 3.43 cfs cfs 5 S2 1 n 24.44 24.44 98.45 1.96 0.51 1- 0.88 1.22 0.8 0.98 8.75 3.36 cfs cfs 0 S2 9 n 27.84 27.84 98.69 2.20 0.77 1- 0.95 1.32 0.9 1.05 9.05 3.28 cfs cfs 0 S2 7 n 31.23 31.23 98.93 2.44 1.04 5- 1.02 1.41 1.0 1.10 9.36 3.21 cfs cfs 7 S2 4 n 34.63 34.63 99.18 2.69 1.34 5- 1.09 1.49 1.1 1.14 9.62 3.19 cfs cfs 0 S2 2 n 38.02 38.02 99.44 2.95 1.65 5- 1.17 1.57 1.2 1.18 9.86 3.20 cfs cfs 0 S2 0 n 41.42 41.42 99.72 3.23 1.97 5- 1.24 1.65 1.2 1.21 10.0 3.22 cfs cfs 6 S2 7 7 n *Full Flow Headwater elevation is below inlet invert. Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 96.49 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 95.22 ft Culvert Length: 104.01 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0122 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Culvert 2 PerfoiYuance Curve c,�� c,�n��c� 0 0 Inlet Control Elev Outlet Control Elev 102.0 101.5 101.0 .', 100.5 �' i =100_0 �� c � 99.5 � a� w 99.0 a� � i 3 98 5 -� � � = 98A r !�• 9Z5 �� 97A � _,_-- 96-5 r� �� 96.0 �� 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Total Discharge(cfs) Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Culvert 2 Crossui�-Auisworth DR.Desi�i Dischar�e - 16.0 cfs � Cuh�ert-Ciilc�ert?.Cuh�ert Discharae-16_0 cfs� 102 101 100 � 99 0 m a�i w gg + 97 --- - -_ - - - - -___ 96 =____� 95 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station(ft) Site Data - Culvert 2 Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 96.49 ft Outlet Station: 104.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 95.22 ft 1Vumber of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - Culvert 2 Barrel Shape: Pipe Arch Barrel Span: 43.75 in Barrel Rise: 26.62 in Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge with Headwall (Ke=0.5) Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Ainsworth DR Table 4- Downstream Channel Rating Curve(Crossing:Ainsworth DR) Flow(cfs) Water Velocity Depth (ft) Shear(pst� Froude Surface (ft/s) Number Elev(ft) 7.46 95.83 0.61 2.71 0.57 0.86 10.86 95.92 0.70 2.98 0.66 0.88 14.25 96.00 0.78 3.18 0.73 0.90 16.00 96.03 0.81 3.28 0.76 0.91 21.04 96.13 0.91 3.43 0.85 0.92 24.44 96.20 0.98 3.36 0.92 0.91 27.84 96.27 1.05 3.28 0.98 i 0.91 � 31.23 96.32 1.10 3.21 1.03 0.91 34.63 96.36 1.14 3.19 1.07 * 0.91 � 38.02 96.40 1.18 3.20 1.10 0.91 41.42 96.43 1.21 3.22 1.13 0.91 Tailwater Channel Data - Ainsworth DR Tailwater Channel Option: Irregular Channel Channel Slope: Irregular Channel User Defined Channel Cross-Section Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Manning's n 1 44.14 97.55 0.0300 2 99.23 96.24 0.0300 3 � 112.85 i 95.22 � 0.0300 � 4 114.08 96.11 0.0300 5 180.74 98.24 0.0000 Roadway Data for Crossing: Ainsworth DR Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation Crest Length: 200.00 ft Crest Elevation: 102.00 ft Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 30.00 ft Crossing Discharge Data Discharge Selection Method: Specify Minimum, Design,and Maximum Flow Minimum Flow: 7.46 cfs Design Flow: 16.00 cfs Maximum Flow: 41.42 cfs Table 5-Summary of Culvert Flows at Crossing: Parkway AVE Headwater Total Culvert 3 Roadway Iterations Elevation (ft) Discharge Discharge Discharge (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 82.98 7.46 7.46 0.00 1 83.19 10.86 10.86 0.00 1 83.41 i 14.25 i 14.25 i 0.00 i 1 � 83.52 16.00 16.00 0.00 1 83.84 * 21.04 * 21.04 * 0.00 * 1 � 84.07 24.44 24.44 0.00 1 84.30 27.84 27.84 0.00 1 84.54 31.23 31.23 0.00 1 84.79 i 34.63 i 34.63 i 0.00 i 1 � 85.05 38.02 38.02 0.00 1 85.33 * 41.42 * 41.42 * 0.00 * 1 88.00 66.72 66.72 0.00 Overtopping Rating Curve Plot for Crossing: Parkway AVE Total Ratui�Cuive Crocc�a Park-��ac.�\'E 88.0 8Z5 87.0 86_5 C � 86-0 m � a� w 85.5 a� m � 85-0 m a� S 84_5 84.0 83.5 83_0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total Dfscharge(cfs) Culvert Data: Culvert 3 Table 3-Culvert Summary Table: Culvert 3 Total Culve Head Inle Outl Fl Nor Criti Out Tailw Outl Tailw Disch rt water t et ow mal cal let ater et ater arge Disch Elevat Cont Cont Ty Dep Dep De Dept Velo Veloc (cfs) arge ion rol rol pe th th pth h (ft) city ity (cfs) (ft) Dep Dep (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s (ft/s) th th ) (ft) (tt) 7.46 7.46 82.98 0.87 0.0* 1- 0.42 0.63 0.4 0.67 6.83 2.69 cfs cfs S2 2 n 10.86 10.86 83.19 1.08 0.0* 1- 0.51 0.77 0.5 0.76 7.76 2.90 cfs cfs S2 1 n 14.25 14.25 83.41 1.30 0.0* 1- 0.58 0.90 0.5 0.83 8.51 3.08 cfs cfs S2 8 n 16.00 16.00 83.52 1.41 0.0* 1- 0.62 0.96 0.6 0.87 8.85 3.16 cfs cfs S2 2 n 21.04 21.04 83.84 1.73 0.0* 1- 0.72 1.12 0.7 0.95 9.47 3.36 cfs cfs S2 3 n 24.44 24.44 84.07 1.96 0.0* 1- 0.78 1.22 0.8 1.00 9.76 3.48 cfs cfs S2 1 n 27.84 27.84 84.30 2.19 0.01 1- 0.85 1.32 0.8 1.05 10.5 3.59 cfs cfs 1 S2 5 9 n 31.23 31.23 84.54 2.43 0.29 5- 0.91 1.41 0.9 1.09 10.5 3.69 cfs cfs 5 S2 4 2 n 34.63 34.63 84.79 2.68 0.59 5- 0.97 1.49 1.0 1.13 10.9 3.78 cfs cfs 7 S2 0 4 n 38.02 38.02 85.05 2.94 0.91 5- 1.03 1.57 1.0 1.16 11.1 3.86 cfs cfs 7 S2 7 3 n 41.42 41.42 85.33 3.22 1.25 5- 1.09 1.65 1.1 1.20 11.3 3.94 cfs cfs 4 S2 3 7 n *Full Flow Headwater elevation is below inlet invert. Culvert Barrel Data Culvert Barrel Type Straight Culvert Inlet Elevation (invert): 82.11 ft, Outlet Elevation (invert): 80.05 ft Culvert Length: 116.02 ft, Culvert Slope: 0.0178 Culvert Performance Curve Plot: Culvert 3 PerfoiYuance Cuive Cuh�ert Culc�ert 3 0 0 Inlet Control Elev Outlet Control Elev 88 87 i, �86 c � o � � 85 _- � - a� w � 84 � .- � . m � a� � = 83 �1� �� 82 _�� s� �_r—r 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total Discharge(cfs) Water Surface Profile Plot for Culvert: Culvert 3 Crossui�- Park-way A`�E.Desi�i Dischar�e - 16.0 cfs Cuh�ert-Cuh�ert 3.Cuh�ert Discharae-16_0 cfs 88 87 86 85 c � 84 � a� + w 83 82 ---- ---- 81 =____� 80 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Station(ft) Site Data - Culvert 3 Site Data Option: Culvert Invert Data Inlet Station: 0.00 ft Inlet Elevation: 82.11 ft Outlet Station: 116.00 ft Outlet Elevation: 80.05 ft 1Vumber of Barrels: 1 Culvert Data Summary - Culvert 3 Barrel Shape: Pipe Arch Barrel Span: 43.75 in Barrel Rise: 26.62 in Barrel Material: Concrete Embedment: 0.00 in Barrel Manning's n: 0.0130 Culvert Type: Straight Inlet Configuration: Square Edge with Headwall (Ke=0.5) Inlet Depression: None Tailwater Data for Crossing: Parkway AVE Table 6- Downstream Channel Rating Curve(Crossing: Parkway AVE) Flow(cfs) Water Velocity Depth (ft) Shear(pst� Froude Surface (ft/s) Number Elev(ft) 7.46 80.72 0.67 2.69 0.62 0.87 10.86 80.81 0.76 2.90 0.71 0.88 14.25 80.88 0.83 3.08 0.78 0.90 16.00 80.92 0.87 3.16 0.81 0.90 21.04 81.00 0.95 3.36 0.89 0.92 24.44 81.05 1.00 3.48 0.94 0.93 27.84 81.10 1.05 3.59 0.98 i 0.93 � 31.23 81.14 1.09 3.69 1.02 0.94 34.63 81.18 1.13 3.78 1.05 * 0.95 � 38.02 81.21 1.16 3.86 1.09 0.95 41.42 81.25 1.20 3.94 1.12 0.96 Tailwater Channel Data - Parkway AVE Tailwater Channel Option: Irregular Channel Channel Slope: Irregular Channel User Defined Channel Cross-Section Coord No. Station (ft) Elevation (ft) Manning's n 1 0.00 83.55 0.0300 2 30.00 80.55 0.0300 3 � 33.00 80.05 � 0.0300 � 4 36.00 80.55 0.0300 5 66.00 83.55 0.0000 Roadway Data for Crossing: Parkway AVE Roadway Profile Shape: Constant Roadway Elevation Crest Length: 200.00 ft Crest Elevation: 88.00 ft Roadway Surface: Paved Roadway Top Width: 30.00 ft � Intelligent Infrastructure. Enduring Communities. www.sanbell.com