redwood road drainage capacity project id: ceen cpst …

of 30

REDWOOD ROAD DRAINAGE CAPACITY PROJECT ID: CEEN_CPST_009

by

The Fellowship Braden Day Chris Means

Cristian Dorrett Mathew Bueckers

A Capstone Project 30% Completion Report

Submitted to

Mike Fazio and Daniel Tracer Bluffdale City

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Brigham Young University

November 30, 2020

of 30

Executive Summary PROJECT TITLE: REDWOOD ROAD DRAINAGE CAPACITY PROJECT ID: CEEn_CPST_009 PROJECT SPONSOR: Bluffdale City TEAM NAME: The Fellowship This project consists of hydraulic analyses of two existing natural drainage channels: the Porter Drainage Channel, and the Utah and Salt Lake Canal Tributary, which are located in a rapidly developing area of Bluffdale, Utah. The project requires analyses of the two drainage channels, including: delineating the watershed for both channels, and analyzing their existing capacity throughout the channel lengths, which includes several existing culverts. Full analysis of the channels involves completion of several tasks. Topographic surveying and calculating the drainage area of the two channels are some of the many tasks needed to delineate the watershed and calculate the peak flow rates of the two channels and analyze their capacity. Once these tasks are complete, we will analyze the existing capacity of the channels throughout their lengths. Because the channel flow may be constrained by the existing culverts, culvert analysis will be required. The objective of this capstone project is to complete and produce all deliverables of this project by the end of winter semester, 2021. The schedule that we will follow to complete this objective is to delineate the channels again and recalculate the 50-year peak flow rates by the first week of January, finish analyzing the existing capacity of the channels by the end of February, and provide our preliminary design to connect the existing drainages to the Jordan River by March 2021. The deliverables for this project are to provide a preliminary design to connect the existing drainages to the Jordan River, rather than their current outfalls. By following this schedule, we will be able to provide all our deliverables to our sponsor by the end of winter semester, 2021.

of 30

Table of Contents

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

19

List of Figures List of Tables Introduction Schedule Assumptions & Limitations Design, Analysis & Results Lessons Learned Conclusions Recommendations Appendix A – Resumes Appendix B – USGS StreamStats Results Appendix C – Rational Method Calculations 26

of 30

List of Figures

No Figures Yet

of 30

List of Tables Table 1: 50-Year Peak Flow Rates of Each Channel 10

of 30

Introduction Our project overview is to analyze two water channels flowing through the cities of Bluffdale and Herriman, Utah. Proper analysis requires surveying the various culverts and obstructions along each channel and combining these survey points with provided Lidar data to accurately model the channels. Modeling of the channels includes delineating the watersheds and determining the peak flow rates of the two channels. Our tasks leading up to 30% completion have been learning how to use survey equipment, visiting the drainage channels in Bluffdale, researching the most accurate method for analyzing our specific channels, and modelling the peak flow rates for both channels using hydraulic modeling equations. Our schedule has been to complete 30% of the project by the end of the Fall 2020 semester. Our determined 30% mark is to complete all surveying and to determine peak flow rates of both channels. We have surveyed the points that we believe are required to analyze the channel constraints. We also obtained the Lidar data from Bluffdale City. With data we gathered through site visits, we have calculated the peak flow rates of the two channels; however, we will need to recalculate the peak flow rates of the two channels using another method discussed later in this paper. Thus far in our project, the assumptions that we made relate to the equations we used to calculate the peak flow rates of the two channels. We assumed the stream sizes and drainage areas were appropriate for the different equations that we considered. The expectations that we made as a team were to meet weekly as a capstone group, visit the jobsite to inspect the channels, and participate equally in the completion of assignments for this class. By adhering to the expectations that we established as a group, we were able to accomplish the 30% goal that we established for this project. The requirements for this project have been established by either the capstone class, or by our sponsors in the cities of Bluffdale and Herriman. Requirements for the capstone class include the completion of a statement of work, regular status updates, and 30% completion report. The requirements from the sponsors include surveying needed sections of the channels and determining the peak flow rates of the two channels.

of 30

Schedule

September 25 - Weekly team meeting • Met to establish a wildly important goal.

September 28 • Met with Ben Nelson (Herriman City), Daniel Tracer (Bluffdale City), and Mike Fazio

(Bluffdale City) to establish expectations of our capstone project.

October 5 • Met to test the total station to prepare for our field trip to the two drainage channels in

Bluffdale.

October 7 • Met with Dr. Hotchkiss for advice on our project.

October 19 • Met with Dr. Mitchell to receive training on the topographic GPS survey unit.

October 27 • Met together as a team in Bluffdale to walk the jobsite and get a preliminary understanding

of the location and the topography.

October 29 • Met with Ben Nelson (Herriman City), Daniel Tracer (Bluffdale City), Dr. Hotchkiss

(BYU), and Dr. Mitchell (BYU) in Bluffdale on our first field trip on the jobsite.• Walked the Porter Drainage Channel (the north channel) recording important points

with the topographic GPS survey unit and measured culvert diameters.

October 30 • Met to interpret the GPS data collected.

November 2 • Met with Dr. Hotchkiss to learn how to delineate the watersheds using the online USGS

StreamStats tool, which uses regression equations.

November 9 • Met to delineate the watershed and calculate peak year flow rates of the two channels using

the online USGS StreamStats tool.

November 11 • Dr. Hotchkiss advised us to use the rational method to calculate the peak flow rate, rather

than the online USGS StreamStats tool.• Recalculated the peak flow rate using the rational method

of 30

November 16

• Met as a group to discuss the Lidar data and how to utilize it. • Downloaded the Lidar data from the Dropbox folder.

November 18

• Met with Dr. Hotchkiss to discuss the problem of the variable peak flow rates provided by the online USGS StreamStats tool and the rational method.

• Determined that utilizing the TR-55 manual would provide more accurate peak flow rates of the two channels than the online USGS StreamStats tool and rational method provided.

November 19

• Met in Bluffdale with Ben Nelson, Daniel Tracer, and Dr. Mitchell to inspect the Utah and Salt Lake Canal Tributary (the south channel) and gather points using the topographic GPS survey unit.

November 21

• Met to start the 30% completion report.

of 30

Assumptions & Limitations

We made a number of assumptions when delineating the watershed and calculating the peak flow rates of the two channels. However, because of our limited experience with the subject of hydrology, many of our assumptions were not correct. Through guidance of our faculty mentor, Dr. Hotchkiss, we have since learned that the two different methods we used to find peak flow rates of the two channels were designed for channels that are larger or smaller than our channels. Through field investigation, we also have determined that the method we used to delineate the watersheds of the two channels may also need to be revised, due to site constraints. Therefore, the peak flow rates that we have calculated thus far require recalculation using a different method: the equations from the TR-55 manual.

The first assumption that we made when calculating the peak flow rates in the two channels was to use the USGS StreamStates tool to automatically delineate the watershed and calculate the peak flow rates of the two channels. The issue with using this software is that the online USGS StreamStates tool requires the assumption that the channels are large enough to use the regression equations, which the online USGS StreamStates tool utilizes in its peak flow rate calculations. Our assumption was not correct, and we therefore needed to use an alternative analysis method.

The second assumption that we made when calculating the peak flow rates of the two channels was to use the rational method. Again, however, this assumption was based on our limited background in the subject matter. Upon the completion of using this method to calculate the peak flow rates of the two channels, we discovered that the use of the rational method requires a drainage area that is less than 200 acres. The channels we are analyzing are about 900 acres and 300 acres, which is much larger than that allowed by the rational method to be accurate. Again, our assumption was not correct, due to our limited knowledge of the subject matter.

The last assumption that limits the accuracy of our calculation was how we calculated the drainage areas of the two channels. For example, we used the online USGS StreamStates tool to automatically calculate the drainage area of the two channels. This tool uses ridges around the channel to calculate the drainage area. However, after field investigation we concluded that Redwood Road acts as a dam and redirects runoff from more than one drainage area into the two channels that we are analyzing. The Utah and Salt Lake Canal Tributary (the south channel) is also blocked above and below Redwood Road by multiple smaller gravel roads or dirt mounds. These obstructions restrict the flow of water and would create pooling in multiple areas during a large storm event, due to the absence of culverts under these roads and dirt mounds. The delineation and peak flow rates obtained using the online USGS StreamStats tool ignores such restrictions discovered during field investigation. This is a major limitation in our assumption and requires us to delineate the watershed by hand based on information obtained in the field. This again will result in our drainage areas being much larger than drainage areas allowed by the rational method.

of 30

Design, Analysis & Results

At this point in the project, we have not made enough progress to begin any design work. We began our analysis by using the online USGS StreamStats tool to delineate the watersheds around the drainage structures we are analyzing. As shown in table 1, the online USGS StreamStats tool also calculated a peak flow rate for a 50-year storm of 16.11 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the Porter Drainage Channel and 8.11 cfs for the Utah and Salt Lake Canal Tributary. We confirmed these results by using the USGS regression equations and obtained the same results for both channels. See Appendix B for results from the online USGS StreamStats tool.

However, through communication with our faculty mentor, we decided that the 50-year peak flow rate obtained with the online USGS StreamStats tool was likely not a good approximation because the channels are much too small, as stated above. Thus, we tried another method: the rational method. As shown in table 1, using the rational method we calculated a 50-year peak flow rate of 518 cfs for the Porter Drainage Channel and 289 cfs for the Utah and Salt Lake Canal Tributary. We again decided that this was not an accurate representation, so we will use a third method—equations from the TR-55 manual—to try to calculate more reasonable values for the peak flow rates of these two channels. See Appendix C for calculations of the 50-year peak flow rates of the two channels.

Table 1: 50-Year Peak Flow Rates

Porter Drainage Channel

Utah and Salt Lake Canal Tributary

USGS StreamStats Tool (Regression Equations) 16.2 [cfs] 8.11 [cfs]

Rational Method 518 [cfs] 289 [cfs]

of 30

Lessons Learned

One of the challenges encountered during this project was using the topographic surveying equipment. This equipment is relatively easy to use, but it is not something you want to take into the field without experience. If one does, then all the time one spends at the jobsite will be devoted to trying unsuccessfully to figure out how to make the equipment function properly. We met several times before going to the jobsite so we could learn from trained professionals how to operate the equipment. Putting in the effort to learn how to use this device before going out to the field paid off and we avoided wasting precious time in the field.

Another challenge we encountered was trying to determine which method would be the most accurate in the analysis of the peak flow rates of the two channels. We recommend meeting with your faculty mentor, as well as your sponsor, to learn which method is best suited for your channels. We were unfamiliar with all methods used to analyze peak flow rates, but our faculty mentor was able to help us better understand their proper use. Unfortunately, however, the two methods we used are not intended for drainage channels of our size. Therefore, we will learn yet another method to more accurately determine the peak flow rates of the two channels we are analyzing.

The last challenge encountered this semester, which may or may not be an issue in future capstones classes, was the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the pandemic, meeting in person with sponsors, mentors, etc. was difficult. We recommend learning how to use Zoom, and Dropbox or Google Drive to effectively interact with team members, faculty mentors, sponsors, etc. while still staying socially distant.

of 30

Conclusions

From this project, our team learned how to delineate a watershed using several different methods and how to use a topographic surveying unit. Before this project, none of the team members had experience using topographic surveying equipment; however, we obtained some training on this equipment before making our first site visit with our sponsors and learned the rest on our own. Additionally, until this project, we had never delineated a watershed before. Through communication with our faculty mentor, we learned how to use some of the various methods to attempt to delineate the watersheds and calculate the peak flow rates of the two channels that we are analyzing.

We used the online USGS StreamStats tool to delineate the two watersheds. Then we calculated the peak flow rates of the two channels using two methods: the USGS StreamStats tool and then the rational method. The calculated peak flow rates of the two channels using the rational method were 30 to 35 times larger than the values obtained using the USGS StreamStats tool. This is because both methods are not meant for the size of channels that we are analyzing. Therefore, neither of these methods accurately calculated the peak flow rates of the two channels. Because of our improper assumptions, we still do not have accurate peak flow rates of either channel; however, we are currently recalculating more accurate peak flow rates using the equations found in the TR-55 manual.

of 30

Recommendations

Our recommendations at this time primarily involve continued work on the analysis of the two channels to more accurately determine their peak flow rates using the equations in the TR-55 manual. We also recommend utilizing the Lidar data provided by the city of Bluffdale to get accurate depictions of the overall channels and of the cross section at various parts of the two channels. We recommend performing a hydraulic analysis of each of the existing culverts to ensure no limitations of water flow through these parts of the drainage channels, and if necessary, provide preliminary redesign for the culverts. Finally, we recommend a preliminary design to connect the existing drainages to the Jordan River, rather than their current outfalls.

of 30

Appendix A – Resumes

PURPOSE

Seeking a civil engineering internship with a focus on structural analysis to gain hands on experience in order to grow and expand my abilities in the industry.

CONTACT

PHONE: 385-266-2265

EMAIL: [email protected]

ASSOCIATONS

Member of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) BYU Student Chapter.

VOLUNTEER WORK

Full Time Religious Service Jacksonville, FL 2015 – 2017

BRADEN DAY EDUCATION

Brigham Young University Majoring in Civil and Environmental Engineering Anticipated graduation December 2021

Related Coursework Autodesk – AutoCAD, Bluebeam, and Revit Structural Analysis Reinforced Concrete Design Foundation Engineering Geomatics – Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Herriman High School Graduated with honors June 2015 GPA 3.98 Received Utah Regents Academic Scholarship

WORK EXPERIENCE

Structural Engineer in Training Acute Engineering 2019 - Present Duties include structurally analyzing residential production and custom homes.

Construction/Civil Engineering Intern Geneva Rock Concrete Paving Division 2019 Duties included assisting project managers in the office and job site.

Basketball Official Utah High School Activities Association 2017 – Present Duties include enforcing rules and clear communication with players, coaches, and staff.

of 30

Chris Means 801-310-1642 • [email protected] • www.linkedin.com/in/chris-means

EDUCATION

BS Civil Engineering April 2021

Brigham Young University Provo, UT

● 3.69 GPA● BYU Academic Scholarship half-tuition● CE EN 103; Math 112, 113

EXPERIENCE

Structural Engineer May 2020 – Present

Acute Engineering Inc. Orem, UT

● Engineer and test structural shear walls, foundations, and beams of 1 to 3 story buildings to withstandlateral and vertical forces.

● Layout structural plans for clients and contractors using AutoCAD.● Operate under important timelines, completing client projects by the appropriate deadlines.

Enrollment Services Associate January 2018 – June 2020

BYU Enrollment Services Provo, UT

● Maintained timely service by educating 9+ callers per hour regarding complex topics like Federal StudentAid

● Administered quality aid to student body by specializing in 19 subtopics of admissions and 13 subtopics ofregistration, and 17 different kinds of questions involving student accounts

● Developed customer service skills by dealing professionally with difficult and upset customers

Early Morning Custodian August 2017 - December 2017

Harmen and Conference Buildings (BYU) Provo, UT

● Mastered time management by adhering to a strict work schedule starting at 4:00am● Offered quality results through constant cleaning of two buildings

Volunteer Missionary September 2015 - July 2017

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints South Japan

● Learned work ethic by regularly spending 9 hours daily proselytizing in difficult weather conditions● Fostered a positive attitude through continual hard work in the face of large-scale rejection

SKILLS ● Time Management● Quality Customer Service● Intermediate level Japanese● AutoCad Competency

of 30

Cristian Dorrett (209) 292-1182 ∙ [email protected] ∙ linkedin.com/in/cristian-dorrett-51479a166/

EDUCATION

Brigham Young University Dec 2021

Bachelor of Science: Civil Engineering Provo, UT

American Society of Civil Engineers: Member GPA: 3.16

Relevant Coursework

Hydraulics, Structural Analysis, Soil Mechanics, Reinforced Concrete Design

EXPERIENCE

Research Assistant May 2020-Present

Provo, UT

▪ Train students to search for low head dams using Google Earth Pro

▪ Research about low head dams and the beneficial use of stored mine water with Dr. Hotchkiss

▪ Coordinated with various coworkers to make progress on multiple research projects

Physical Science Teaching Assistant Aug 2018-Aug 2020

Provo, UT

▪ Taught recitation sections weekly to groups of approximately 35 students.

▪ Fielded questions and explained difficult concepts to struggling students

▪ Graded homework and tests

▪ Maintained current knowledge of applicable physical science principles and concepts

BYU Vending Trainer Aug 2016-Dec 2017

Provo, UT ▪ Taught new employees how to coordinate routes to ensure deadlines were met▪ Trained 18 new employees in 2017▪ Was responsible for weekly truck inventory▪ Inventoried warehouse weekly

MTC Building Care May 2018-October 2018

Provo, UT ▪ Supervised missionaries working in buildings▪ General cleaning and maintenance

ACHIEVEMENTS

Eagle Scout

▪ Incorporated community in combined effort to construct a scoreboard for our local baseball field.

SKILLS

▪ ArcGIS▪ Microsoft Office

of 30

Mathew Robert Bueckers [email protected] Cell #: (509) 768 – 4769

Education B.S. Civil Engineering Brigham Young University – Provo, UT April 2021

• Overall GPA: 3.90

• Partial academic scholarship

• Passed the FE Exam on March 7th, 2020

• Relevant Course Work:o Reinforced Concrete Designo Foundation Engineeringo Deep Foundations and Retaining Systems

•

o Structural Steel Designo Portland Cement Mixture Design

Relevant Employment Experience Research Assistant Brigham Young University – Dr. Rollins, Light Weight Cellular Concrete September 2020 – Present

• Assist with research and write a graduate thesis on the use of lightweight cellular concrete placedbehind mechanically stabilized earth walls

Structural Analysis Teachers Assistant Brigham Young University – Civil Engineering Department January 2020 – Present

• Communicate technical ideas with 35 students to supplement understanding of course material

• Teach SAP2000 to 35 students used for the completion of their term projects

Transportation Engineer Intern Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Spokane, WA

May 2020 – August 2020 April 2019 – August 2019

• Inspected contractors’ work to ensure compliance of: WSDOT Construction Manual, WSDOTStandard Specifications, contract plans, and contract provisions

• Completed and reviewed monthly documentation of contract bid items for payment purposes

• Assisted with the review of contractor’s structural submittals for compliance of: WSDOTConstruction Manual, WSDOT Standard Specifications, contract plans, and contract provisions for anew bridge at the Medical Lake Interchange Reconstruction Project

• Utilized InRoads, MicroStation, AutoTURN, and ProjectWise to:o Generate feature lines from 2D line work and 3D design surfaces for survey purposeso Design a temporary bypass and associated traffic control and detour plans for construction

phasing purposes at the Medical Lake Interchange Reconstruction Projecto Draft change order plans and adjust associated quantity tabulations for the Medical Lake

Interchange Reconstruction Projecto Establish a contract plan sheet set for the Geiger Field Interchange Reconstruction Projecto Complete the right-of-way plans for approval to establish new property boundaries and

limited access for the Geiger Field Interchange Reconstruction Project

Leadership Experience

Activities ChairTau Beta Pi Honors Society – Utah Beta Chapter January 2020 – Present

• Organize four activities per semester to enhance relationships between members of the chapter

Construction Captain

ASCE Concrete Canoe – BYU September 2020 – Present

• Lead the construction planning and procedure for BYU’s Concrete Canoe team

of 30

of 30

Appendix B – USGS StreamStats Results

��

��

�� !"#$%�&'"(")*+($#*$)#,��- .� ,��/��0�1��1 2 3�45� 621�789:8;: :(+"�*'"*�<("$%#�*=�"�>=$%*�=%�"�#*(+"? @ABB #CD"(+�?$E+#F8;&GF H+"%�:%%D"E�F(+)$>$*"*$=% @IA@ $%)'+#F+"JKLE=M�N*"*$#*$)#�F"("?+*+(#O8+P$=%�BQ,��- .� ,��R�� 3�45� 621�� S12�T1�1� S�U�T1�1�789:8;: 7("$%"P+�:(+" @ABB #CD"(+�?$E+# BA@V WVA@

��X1 2�Y/Z [\] ��0��Y/Z [\B_B_@@@___B @ aIb___-410�.�, 12��cT��1�5.�d�T 2X1�5.�eZ V_AV BIWf�K@@@Agaag_h1��Z B_B_K@@K_g�@IiB iaB�K_I__

of 30

- Porter Drainage Channel

��

��

�� !�"#� $%&�' (&%�)&�&� (�*�)&�&�+,-./+ 0123�433526�+7189:9;2;9<3 =>?= 938@1A =B?C CD?>+12EFG6<H�I;2;9A;98A�J9A8629K17AL,1M9<3�NOP31�<7�K<71�<Q�;@1�:272K1;17A�9A�<5;A9R1�;@1�A5MM1A;1R�723M1?�-A;9K2;1A�H171�1S;72:<62;1R�H9;@53E3<H3�177<7A+12EFG6<H�I;2;9A;98A�G6<H�,1:<7;L,1M9<3�NOT��&'�&U !�"#� $%&�N�V127�+12E�G6<<R N?DC Q;WDXAC�V127�+12E�G6<<R C?YZ Q;WDXA=[�V127�+12E�G6<<R \?DY Q;WDXANC�V127�+12E�G6<<R =N?N Q;WDXAC[�V127�+12E�G6<<R =B?N Q;WDXA=[[�V127�+12E�G6<<R N[?N Q;WDXAN[[�V127�+12E�G6<<R NY?> Q;WDXAC[[�V127�+12E�G6<<R DN?Z Q;WDXA+12EFG6<H�I;2;9A;98A�.9;2;9<3A]�%%�_�aba_�c&"d�e'd�_��afa_��%��c�&gh�_�Taia_jkkl_�(��h��'�m��n'�&��&%g�(�g%&�#��%��o��p#�%U��m��d�o"�e'�m�� #��"�T��'�&%�$��hq�$aTa�r��"�g&U�"�T#�s��TU&�%�&m&Ut%s�'�&g��&�%'�u�v��jkklwxyxz_�jz�va�{h��vq||v#}'a#'g'ag�s|'&�|jkkl|xyxz|~433526�G6<H�I;2;9A;98A�+272K1;17AL0123�G6<H�I/,[\�CND[�,1M9<3�NO�� !�"#� $%&�' (&%�)&�&� (�*�)&�&�J,�4,-4 J72932M1�4712 =?NN A�5271�K961A N?=Y >[?=+,-./+ 0123�433526�+7189:9;2;9<3 =>?= 938@1A NN?D YZ?C433526�G6<H�I;2;9A;98A�J9A8629K17AL0123�G6<H�I/,[\�CND[�,1M9<3�NOP31�<7�K<71�<Q�;@1�:272K1;17A�9A�<5;A9R1�;@1�A5MM1A;1R�723M1?�-A;9K2;1A�H171�1S;72:<62;1R�H9;@53E3<H3�177<7A433526�G6<H�I;2;9A;98A�G6<H�,1:<7;L0123�G6<H�I/,[\�CND[�,1M9<3�NO of 30

��

��

�� !�� !��"#$%&'%%($)&*)+, -./0/ 123045'%%($)&*)+,&62$2752785&972$27+%5:��;<=�;�>&?@A@>&B�!!�C>&D@E@>&�!F&:G�HI�>&�@J@>KLLM>&N��I<F�&O<G&P��Q��!H&N<!�I�C&�!FE!!��&��G��QO�<=&��&��& !H�H�F&��&�!& ��IR& @�@&S�<�<H��&��GT�C&��!��O��U!T��H��<!�&V�W<G�&KLLXYZK[L>&\K&W@&]I��WRW�_�@��H�@H<T��GKLLXZK[L`abcb&defe&dghijegklmn&aojlhh&pfqlmrghl&hfeflst&ejj&sefet&klfesefe&eos&mljefls&keflmgejh&eml&ipohgslmls&fp&hefghuv&fql&wxejgfvhfeosemsh&mljefgyl&fp&fql&zxmzphl&upm&rqgiq&fql&sefe&rlml&ipjjlifls{&|jfqpx}q&fqlhl&sefe&eos&ehhpigefls&klfesefe&qeyl~llo&mlyglrls&upm&eiixmeiv&eos&ipkzjlflolhh&eos&ezzmpyls&upm&mljlehl&~v&fql&a{b{&clpjp}giej&bxmylv&�abcb�t&op&remmeofvl�zmlhhls&pm&gkzjgls&gh&kesl&ml}emsgo}&fql&sghzjev&pm&xfgjgfv&pu&fql&sefe&upm&pfqlm&zxmzphlht&opm&po&ejj&ipkzxflm&hvhflkhtopm&hqejj&fql&eif&pu&sghfmg~xfgpo&ipohfgfxfl&eov&hxiq&remmeofv{abcb&bpufreml&dghijegklmn&�qgh&hpufreml&qeh&~llo&ezzmpyls&upm&mljlehl&~v&fql&a{b{&clpjp}giej&bxmylv&�abcb�{&|jfqpx}q&fqlhpufreml&qeh&~llo&hx~�lifls&fp&mg}pmpxh&mlyglrt&fql&abcb&mlhlmylh&fql&mg}qf&fp&xzsefl&fql&hpufreml&eh&ollsls&zxmhxeof&fpuxmfqlm&eoejvhgh&eos&mlyglr{&�p&remmeofvt&l�zmlhhls&pm&gkzjglst&gh&kesl&~v&fql&abcb&pm&fql&a{b{&cpylmoklof&eh&fp&fqluxoifgpoejgfv&pu&fql&hpufreml&eos&mljefls&keflmgej&opm&hqejj&fql&ueif&pu&mljlehl&ipohfgfxfl&eov&hxiq&remmeofv{&�xmfqlmkpmltfql&hpufreml&gh&mljlehls&po&iposgfgpo&fqef&olgfqlm&fql&abcb&opm&fql&a{b{&cpylmoklof&hqejj&~l&qljs&jge~jl&upm&eov&seke}lhmlhxjfgo}&umpk&gfh&exfqpmg�ls&pm&xoexfqpmg�ls&xhl{abcb&�mpsxif&�eklh&dghijegklmn&|ov&xhl&pu&fmeslt&ugmkt&pm&zmpsxif&oeklh&gh&upm&slhimgzfgyl&zxmzphlh&pojv&eos&splh&opfgkzjv&lospmhlklof&~v&fql&a{b{&cpylmoklof{|zzjgiefgpo&�lmhgpon&�{�{�

of 30

��

��

�� !"#$%�&'"(")*+($#*$)#,��- .� ,��/��0�1��1 2 3�45� 621�789:8;: :(+"�*'"*�<("$%#�*=�"�>=$%*�=%�"�#*(+"? @ABC #DE"(+�?$F+#G8;&HG I+"%�:%%E"F�G(+)$>$*"*$=% CJAC $%)'+#G+"KLMF=N�O*"*$#*$)#�G"("?+*+(#P8+Q$=%�RS,��- .� ,��T�� 3�45� 621�� U12�V1�1� U�W�V1�1�789:8;: 7("$%"Q+�:(+" @ABC #DE"(+�?$F+# RACB XBAC

��Y1 2�Z/[ \]^ �_��0��Z/[ \]R@R@CCC@@@B@R@ Ba@@@-410_�.�, 12��bV��1�5.�c�V 2Y1�5.�d[ B@ABeeXRf�LCCCAgRgeh1��[ R@R@LCCL@g�CJiB@ia�L@J@@

of 30

- Utah and Salt Lake Canal Tributary

��

��

�� !�"#� $%&�' (&%�)&�&� (�*�)&�&�+,-./+ 0123�433526�+7189:9;2;9<3 =>?= 938@1A =B?C CD?>+12EFG6<H�I;2;9A;98A�J9A8629K17AL,1M9<3�NOP31�<7�K<71�<Q�;@1�:272K1;17A�9A�<5;A9R1�;@1�A5MM1A;1R�723M1?�-A;9K2;1A�H171�1S;72:<62;1R�H9;@53E3<H3�177<7A+12EFG6<H�I;2;9A;98A�G6<H�,1:<7;L,1M9<3�NOT��&'�&U !�"#� $%&�N�V127�+12E�G6<<R W?XDN Q;YDZAC�V127�+12E�G6<<R N?[D Q;YDZA=W�V127�+12E�G6<<R D?\> Q;YDZANC�V127�+12E�G6<<R C?X= Q;YDZACW�V127�+12E�G6<<R \?== Q;YDZA=WW�V127�+12E�G6<<R =W?D Q;YDZANWW�V127�+12E�G6<<R =D Q;YDZACWW�V127�+12E�G6<<R =\ Q;YDZA+12EFG6<H�I;2;9A;98A�.9;2;9<3A]�%%�_�aba_�c&"d�e'd�_��afa_��%��c�&gh�_�Taia_jkkl_�(��h��'�m��n'�&��&%g�(�g%&�#��%��o��p#�%U��m��d�o"�e'�m�� #��"�T��'�&%�$��hq�$aTa�r��"�g&U�"�T#�s��TU&�%�&m&Ut%s�'�&g��&�%'�u�v��jkklwxyxz_�jz�va�{h��vq||v#}'a#'g'ag�s|'&�|jkkl|xyxz|~433526�G6<H�I;2;9A;98A�+272K1;17AL0123�G6<H�I/,W\�CNDW�,1M9<3�NO�� !�"#� $%&�' (&%�)&�&� (�*�)&�&�J,�4,-4 J72932M1�4712 W?[= A�5271�K961A N?=[ >W?=+,-./+ 0123�433526�+7189:9;2;9<3 =>?= 938@1A NN?D [X?C433526�G6<H�I;2;9A;98A�J9A8629K17AL0123�G6<H�I/,W\�CNDW�,1M9<3�NOP31�<7�K<71�<Q�;@1�:272K1;17A�9A�<5;A9R1�;@1�A5MM1A;1R�723M1?�-A;9K2;1A�H171�1S;72:<62;1R�H9;@53E3<H3�177<7A433526�G6<H�I;2;9A;98A�G6<H�,1:<7;L0123�G6<H�I/,W\�CNDW�,1M9<3�NO of 30

��

��

�� !�� !��"#$%&'%%($)&*)+, -./0/ 123456'%%($)&*)+,&72$2862896&:82$28+%6;��<=>�<�?&@ABA?&C�!!�D?&EAFA?&�!G&;H�IJ�?&�AKA?LMMN?&O��J=G�&P=H&Q��R��!I&O=!�J�D&�!GF!!��&��H��RP�=>&��&��& !I�I�G&��&�!& ��JS& A�A&T�=�=I��&��HU�D&��!��P��V!U��I��=!�&W�X=H�&LMMYZ[L\M?&]L&XA&J��XS__X� �A��I�AI=U_��H_LMMY_[L\M_abcdc&efgf&ehijkfhlmno&bpkmii&qgrmnshim&igfgmtu&fkk&tfgfu&lmgftfgf&fpt&nmkfgmt&lfgmnhfki&fnm&jqpihtmnmt&gq&ifghivw&grm&xyfkhgwigfptfnti&nmkfghzm&gq&grm&{yn{qim&vqn&srhjr&grm&tfgf&smnm&jqkkmjgmt|&}kgrqy~r&grmim&tfgf&fpt&fiiqjhfgmt&lmgftfgf&rfzm�mmp&nmzhmsmt&vqn&fjjynfjw&fpt&jql{kmgmpmii&fpt&f{{nqzmt&vqn&nmkmfim&�w&grm&b|c|&dmqkq~hjfk&cynzmw&�bcdc�u&pq&sfnnfpgwm�{nmiimt&qn&hl{khmt&hi&lftm&nm~fnthp~&grm&thi{kfw&qn&yghkhgw&qv&grm&tfgf&vqn&qgrmn&{yn{qimiu&pqn&qp&fkk&jql{ygmn&iwigmliupqn&irfkk&grm&fjg&qv&thignh�yghqp&jqpighgygm&fpw&iyjr&sfnnfpgw|bcdc&cqvgsfnm&ehijkfhlmno&�rhi&iqvgsfnm&rfi&�mmp&f{{nqzmt&vqn&nmkmfim&�w&grm&b|c|&dmqkq~hjfk&cynzmw&�bcdc�|&}kgrqy~r&grmiqvgsfnm&rfi&�mmp&iy��mjgmt&gq&nh~qnqyi&nmzhmsu&grm&bcdc&nmimnzmi&grm&nh~rg&gq&y{tfgm&grm&iqvgsfnm&fi&pmmtmt&{yniyfpg&gqvyngrmn&fpfkwihi&fpt&nmzhms|&�q&sfnnfpgwu&m�{nmiimt&qn&hl{khmtu&hi&lftm&�w&grm&bcdc&qn&grm&b|c|&dqzmnplmpg&fi&gq&grmvypjghqpfkhgw&qv&grm&iqvgsfnm&fpt&nmkfgmt&lfgmnhfk&pqn&irfkk&grm&vfjg&qv&nmkmfim&jqpighgygm&fpw&iyjr&sfnnfpgw|&�yngrmnlqnmugrm&iqvgsfnm&hi&nmkmfimt&qp&jqpthghqp&grfg&pmhgrmn&grm&bcdc&pqn&grm&b|c|&dqzmnplmpg&irfkk&�m&rmkt&khf�km&vqn&fpw&tflf~minmiykghp~&vnql&hgi&fygrqnh�mt&qn&ypfygrqnh�mt&yim|bcdc&�nqtyjg&�flmi&ehijkfhlmno&}pw&yim&qv&gnftmu&vhnlu&qn&{nqtyjg&pflmi&hi&vqn&tmijnh{ghzm&{yn{qimi&qpkw&fpt&tqmi&pqghl{kw&mptqnimlmpg&�w&grm&b|c|&dqzmnplmpg|}{{khjfghqp&�mnihqpo&�|�|�

of 30

of 30

Appendix C – Rational Method Calculations

Porter Drainage Peak Flow - Rational MethodUse the UDOT Drainage Manual as a guide

- Determine drainage areaFrom the StreamStates Report ≔A =1.22 mi2 781 acre

- Determine intensity of rainfall

From Rational Method Power Point provided by Dr. Hotchkiss

Obtain Length from Google Earth ≔L 14224 ft

Obtain slope from Google Earth ≔S =――――――-5692 ft 4494 ft

L%8.422

≔Tc =⋅⋅2 0.0078⎛⎜⎝―L

ft

⎞⎟⎠

0.77

S-0.385 64 minutes

From NOAA ATLAS 14 POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES

≔i 1.38 ―in

hr

of 30

- Determine the coefficient of runoffFrom NDOT – Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual

Determine the different surface characteristics and slopes of the channel using StreamStats. I will calculate an average runoff coefficient based on these values.

From the above parameter description, I will assume...- the slope is greater than 7%- 18.8% of the surface area is cultivated: ≔Acultivated =⋅%18.8 A 146.79 acre

- 46.7% of the surface area is forest/woodlands: ≔Awood =⋅%46.7 A 364.634 acre

- I will disregard the 2.47% urban land because water discharge from this area has beenengineered to bypass the Porter Drainage channel

- % of the surface area is pasture/range:=---100 18.8 46.7 2.47 32.03≔Apasture =⋅%32.03 A 250.09 acre

Note: I am not sure if the area for woodlands and area for pasture is appropriate for thiswatershed. Could you please confirm or share your opinion otherwise? Google Earth shows a lot of greengage in this watershed (see attached image in email).

≔Cave =―――――――――――――――++⎛⎝ ⋅Acultivated 0.51⎞⎠ ⎛⎝ ⋅Awood 0.48⎞⎠ ⎛⎝ ⋅Apasture 0.49⎞⎠

++Acultivated Awood Apasture0.49

Calculate Peak Flow for the 50 year storm

≔Q =⋅⋅Cave i ⎛⎝ ++Acultivated Awood Apasture⎞⎠ 518 ――

ft3

s

of 30

Utah and Salt Lake Canal Tributary - Rational MethodUse the UDOT Drainage Manual as a guide

- Determine drainage areaFrom the StreamStates Report ≔A =0.41 mi2 262 acre

- Determine intensity of rainfall

From Rational Method Power Point provided by Dr. Hotchkiss

Obtain Length from Google Earth ≔L 5828 ft

Obtain slope from Google Earth ≔S =――――――-4972 ft 4492 ft

L%8.236

≔Tc =⋅⋅2 0.0078⎛⎜⎝―L

ft

⎞⎟⎠

0.77

S-0.385 32 minutes

From NOAA ATLAS 14 POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES

≔i 2.22 ―in

hr

of 30

- Determine the coefficient of runoffFrom NDOT – Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual

Determine the different surface characteristics and slopes of the channel using StreamStats. I will calculate an average runoff coefficient based on these values.

From the above parameter description, I will assume...- the slope is greater than 7%- 22.3% of the surface area is cultivated: ≔Acultivated =⋅%22.3 A 58.515 acre

- 30.8% of the surface area is forest/woodlands: ≔Awood =⋅%30.8 A 80.819 acre

- 3.2% of the surface area is urban: ≔Aurban =⋅%3.2 A 8.397 acre

- % of the surface area is pasture/range:=---100 22.3 30.8 3.2 43.7≔Apasture =⋅%43.7 A 114.669 acre

≔Cave =――――――――――――――――――――+++⎛⎝ ⋅Acultivated 0.51⎞⎠ ⎛⎝ ⋅Awood 0.48⎞⎠ ⎛⎝ ⋅Apasture 0.49⎞⎠ ⎛⎝ ⋅Aurban 0.52⎞⎠

A0.49

Calculate Peak Flow for the 50 year storm

≔Q =⋅⋅Cave i A 289 ――ft

3

s of 30

redwood road drainage capacity project id: ceen cpst …

Documents