HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpperHoh-Bank_Stabilization_Hydraulics_Report-combinedR Memorandum
Western Federal Lands Highway Division
610 E. Fifth Street
Vancouver, WA 98661-3801
UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD BANK STABILIZATION
DRAFT - HYDRAULICS REPORT
To: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
From: Sven Leon, P.E., WFLHD Hydraulics Engineer
Date: March 2, 2016
Project: Upper Hoh River Road Bank Stabilization – WA JEFF 91420(1)
Background
One of the major roads leading into Olympic National Park (Park), Washington, is the Upper Hoh Road
located off of US Highway 101 on the far western side of Olympic National Park. The road is the only
entryway into the Hoh Rain Forest and the Park Rain Forest Visitor Center. The Upper Hoh Road is
approximately 18 miles in length. Jefferson County (County) owns and maintains the portion of the road
from the junction with US 101 to the OLYM boundary, approximately 12 miles. The Park owns and
maintains the remaining 6 miles.
Management of the road to provide constant safe access to residents, business, and Park visitors, has
become increasingly difficult over the past 20 years. Portions of the Upper Hoh Road are located within
and adjacent to the Hoh River’s channel migration zone. The location combined with the increasing
frequency and severity of winter storm events (most recently in 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2009) has resulted
in an increasing number of roadway washouts which either completely prevents access or creates unsafe
roadway conditions for visitors, Park personnel, and local residents. In some cases the damage resulted in
road closures, allowing no access to the Hoh Rain Forest and the Park’s Hoh Rain Forest Visitor Center
for weeks at a time (and many months in 1996). Response to these storm events and maintenance of the
road in its current location has resulted in a continuing outlay of limited maintenance funds to maintain
safe access and to mitigate for adverse impacts those actions have on threatened and endangered fish
species.
In 1998 the Hoh Tribe requested the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) prepare a geomorphic study to
better understand the existing and historical channel processes on the Hoh River, and how human
activities may have impacted those processes. The study, entitled Geomorphic Assessment of Hoh River
in Washington State, published in 2004, identifies areas of risk for further lateral erosion in the historic
channel migration zone and provided some general management considerations to deal with these areas of
concern. The report recommended more detailed data collection and analysis for developing a
management approach at any specific particular location.
In 2009, the Park published a report entitled Olympic National Park, Road Hazards and Solutions Report.
This report examined two methods to address roadway locations, vulnerable to damage from severe storm
events, within the Park. The two different methods evaluated included a site-specific approach versus a
natural systems engineering approach. The report concluded that a natural systems engineering approach
would likely provide a more long-term fix while improving the ecological conditions. Six sites along the
Upper Hoh River Road within the Park were included in this evaluation.
2
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
September 2013 Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) completed for the County an
Upper Hoh Road Bank Failure Risk Reduction Study. The Study developed a comprehensive road
management strategy for mitigating high risk sites along the Upper Hoh Road. WFLHD used the
information from the two earlier reports and from site visits for developing the road management strategy.
The WFLHD study included the prioritization of sites (regardless of management jurisdictions),
development of a range of treatment options for each site, and initial cost estimates for each option
including construction, Preliminary Engineering (PE), Construction Engineering (CE), and ROW.
Treatment options developed represented a full range of types, costs, and environmental impacts. All
treatment options where expected to provide a similar level of road failure risk reduction.
Selection and refinement of treatment options will be completed as part of the current project for two
sites, road mile post (MP) 3.7 to 4.1 (MP 4.0 Site) and MP 7.7 to 7.9 (MP 7.8 Site) (Fig. 1). The County
selected these sites for the project as having the highest priority for needing bank stabilization.
Two bank stabilization design options were evaluated;
Stream barbs with mitigation logs.
Wood buffer with dolosse ballast.
MP 4.0 Site has 2,570 feet of proposed bank stabilization. MP 7.8 Site has 500 feet of proposed bank
stabilization. Each design options was evaluated on controlling bank erosion, cost, disrupting existing
habitat, reducing flow velocity, preserving stream processes, and minimizing private property impacts.
Recommendations, design option descriptions, private property and stream process impact estimates,
analytical design basis, and cost estimates are presented.
Recommendations
Based on the hydraulic analysis and cost estimates, installation of wood buffer with dolosse ballast is
recommended for both sites. The design approach is the least expensive for effectively controlling bank
erosion. The wood buffer can accommodate a greater range of active flow channel migration and flow
impingement angles. The minimal channel bed excavation and ability to place the wood and dollose
directly into flowing water is least disruptive to environment. The approach does not appear to noticeably
increase flooding or bank erosion on private property adjacent to the project sites. It does not appear to
negatively affect stream processes. The wood buffer provides the greatest flow velocity reduction and
habitat complexity. The approach is most adaptable to changing field conditions. Total estimated
construction cost is $4,200,000 for MP 4.0 Site and $690,000 for MP 7.8 Site. Concepts details are
presented on Sheet H.14. Preliminary plans and profiles are shown on Sheets R.6 to R.9 and S.3 and S.4.
Design Options
Streambarbs with mitigation logs
The approach involves placing streambarbs along the unstable, eroding banks. The streambarbs deflect
river flow away from the bank area, reducing the risk of scour and channel incision undermining the
bank. Flow velocities and shear stress along the bank area upstream of each streambarb is reduced,
promoting sediment deposition and retention along the bank toe. This encourages riparian vegetation
establishment. Deposition upstream of the streambarb and scour along the barb tip creates channel
complexity.
Based on review of historical satellite imagery, length of bank typically exposed to impinging flood flow
is estimated to be approximately 300 feet. The radius of curvature for the active channel is 500 to 800
3
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
feet. To effectively deflect the impinging river flow away from the bank area, the streambarbs would
need to be spaced every 150 to 200 feet. The impingement point changes over time. All of the at-risk,
unstable bank areas will receive stream barbs. MP 4.0 site has 18 proposed streambarbs and MP 7.8 site
has four (Sheets R.2 to R.5 and S.1 and S.2).
Barb orientation and length is critical for achieving desired flow velocity reductions. Each is 90 feet long,
angled upstream approximately 30 degrees relative to the bank line, and is made of Class 8 (FP-14) riprap
(Sheet H.12). Each has a 10-foot wide crest. To accommodate different channel conditions than
currently mapped and future channel migration, barb elevations are not set relative to actual streambed
elevations at time of construction. Barb elevations are set relative to the modeled 50-year flood design
water surface elevation. The barb crest base (bank end) is set approximately 2 feet lower than the 50-year
flood design water surface elevation. The barb tip (stream end) is 10 feet lower than the barb crest base.
Crest slope is 9(h):1(v). The barb bottom is set 8 feet below the barb tip for mitigating expected scour. A
minimum 8 feet embedment depth below thalweg elevation should be verified at time of construction.
Crest slope may be adjusted for achieving minimum embedment depth. Each barb is keyed into a Class 5
riprap revetment key. The key is 4 feet thick with 1.5(h):1(v) slope. Each key is 90 feet long with crest
set 4 feet above the barb crest base and the bottom set equal to the streambarb bottom.
The bank, riprap key, stream barbs, and channel area between the streambarbs is covered with streambed
material conserved from the barb excavation (Sheet H.13). The conserved stream bed material is placed
to cover up approximately one-half the exposed barb height. Willow pole, cedar, and alder plantings are
installed in the riprap key and bank areas above the ordinary-high-water limits. Four mitigation logs with
root wads are placed at the barb bottom, approximately 20 feet from the barb tip. Each mitigation log is
24 to 36 inches in diameter and at least 20 feet long.
Wood buffer with dolosse ballast (ELJ)
The approach involves placing a wood buffer in a series of engineered-log-jams (ELJ’s) along the
unstable, eroding banks. The ELJ’s deflect river flow away from the bank area, reducing the risk of scour
and channel incision undermining the bank. Flow velocities and shear stress along the bank area
upstream and between each ELJ is reduced, promoting sediment deposition and retention along the bank
toe. This encourages riparian vegetation establishment. The large woody debris, deposition between the
ELJ’s, and scour along the ELJ streamside face creates channel complexity.
The ELJ’s are spaced approximately 30 feet. Each is 75 feet long, 20 feet wide, and aligned along the
bank toe. Site MP 4.0 has 25 proposed ELJ’s and Site MP 7.8 has four (Sheets R.6 to R.9 and S.3 and
S.4). To accommodate different channel conditions than currently mapped and future channel migration,
ELJ elevations are not set relative to actual streambed elevations at time of construction. ELJ elevations
are set relative to the modeled 50-year flood design water surface elevation. Scour will induce some
settlement of the ELJ. The ELJ top is set approximately 3 feet above the 50-year flood design water
surface elevation for accommodating expected settlement. To provide adequate mass for bank erosion
control, the ELJ bottom is set 18 to 22 feet lower than the top (Sheet H.14).
Each ELJ must be anchored for resisting floating away and being pushed down the river by flood flow.
The anchor system must consider additional forces imposed by woody debris carried by the river
entangling on the ELJ. The ELJ must be flexible enough to allow settlement when undermined by scour.
A typical anchor system can utilize deep piles. Deep piles anchors would need to penetrate the river
bottom at least 20 to 30 feet for providing adequate resistance to buoyancy and sliding. The river bed
contains cobbles and small boulders. Tree trunk piles would likely splinter before reaching the desired
design depth. As wood decays, it losses strength and cannot resist the shear stresses created by a sliding
ELJ mass. Driving steel piles for pinning the ELJ structure to the river bottom would be expensive and
4
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
leave a tangle of steel piles protruding from the river bottom. Deep piles would restrict settlement when
undermined with scour. Deep piles are not proposed for anchoring the ELJ’s.
To be easy to construct and be successful in controlling bank erosion, each ELJ is constructed of a
repeatable sequence of log bundles and logs with root wads (Sheet H.14). Anchoring is provided by
chaining the log bundles to precast concrete dolose ballast. Based on expected scour and flood flow
velocities and depths, chaining is considered necessary for achieving long-term ELJ stability. Assuming
an 8 ton dolose, the log bundle volume cannot exceed 140 ft3. To be cost effective, each log bundle
volume must be at least 105 ft3. Each log in the bundle should be 18 to 36 inches in diameter. Each log
bundle should be at least 20 feet long. To increase log bundle stability, the dolose should be located
towards the middle of the bundle length. Each log with root wad should be 18 to 36 inches in diameter
and at least 20 feet long.
Initial placement of the log bundles and logs with root wads should be as shown on Sheet H.14.
Orientation is critical for deflecting flow away from bank toe and achieving log jam stability. The log
bundles and logs with root wads should be placed in a random manner above the bottom layer. Care must
be taken to pack bundles as densely as possible and to place key members along the bank line for
effectively controlling bank erosion. Construction with scaled models indicates adequate ELJ length,
width, and height can be achieved with 25 log-dolose bundles and 14 logs with root wads. Six shallow
log pins are proposed for adding additional slippage resistance and vertical member integration. The log
pins are 12 to 18 inches in diameter and at least 30 feet long. They should be embedded into the river bed
at least 6 feet with a track hoe-mounted vibratory hammer. Coarse woody debris, even mixture of
branches, limbs, trunks, and vegetation, is to be placed between the logs and over the ELJ to a minimum
depth of 1 foot.
Private Property and Stream Processes Impacts
HECRAS 5.0 modeling results for the 50-year flood flow velocity and water surface elevations are
presented in Figure 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Differences between the existing condition and proposed bank
stabilization models for the 100-year flood flow velocities and water surface elevations are presented in
Figures 9 and 12. Bank erosion occurs when the active flow channel migrates to the valley sides and
directs flow at sharp angles against erodible banks. Woody debris and gravel bars affect channel
migration and flow impingement angles. Impacts to private property and stream processes for
streambarbs with mitigation logs, wood buffer with dolosse ballast, and continued maintenance are
discussed below.
Streambarbs with mitigation logs.
Based on the HECRAS 5.0 modeling, streambarbs break up the flow velocity line along the bank by
increasing velocity at the barb tip and reducing velocity along the bank (Fig. 6). Flow velocities do not
appear to increase above background level for bank areas downstream of the barbs. Refugia habitat is
created at the mitigation logs. Channel complexity is created by the bed scour at the barb tips and
sediment deposition between the barbs.
At the MP 4.0 site, streambarbs increase the 100-year flood water surface relative to existing modeled
flow conditions 0.2 to 0.5 feet near the barbs to less than 0.1 feet across the floodplain (Fig. 9). A rise of
0.1 feet is modeled for the left (looking downstream) bank floodplain area along the base of the valley
wall. The barbs increase the 100-year flood flow velocity 1.0 to 3.0 ft/sec near the barbs and less than 0.1
ft/sec across the floodplain (Fig. 9). An increase of 0.4 ft/sec is modeled for a large portion of the left
bank floodplain area.
5
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
At the MP 7.8 site, streambarbs increase the 100-year flood water surface relative to existing modeled
flow conditions less than 0.1 feet near the barbs and across the active channel and floodplain (Fig. 12).
The barbs increase the 100-year flood flow velocity 0.1 to 1.0 ft/sec near the barbs and 0 ft/sec across the
floodplain (Fig. 12).
Based on the HECRAS modeling, streambarbs are not expected to noticeably increase flooding or bank
erosion on private property adjacent to the project sites above current levels. The streambarbs are not
likely to restrict sediment and woody debris transport relative to existing conditions. A minor reduction
in woody debris recruitment is expected as a result of stabilizing the eroding banks. Higher flow
velocities along the barb tips will scour the bed materials. That material will be deposited as gravel bars.
Mid-channel and floodplain sediment deposition is not expected to be noticeably different than current
trends. Current natural active channel migration and bank erosion levels beyond the existing riprap
revetments and proposed bank stabilization is expected to continue.
Installing the streambarbs and riprap keys requires excavating 8 to 15 feet into the channel bed. Work
will be within the active river channel and requires temporarily diverting the river flow. Flow defection is
assumed accomplished with gravel berms, large sandbags, or water-inflated bladders. Dewatering the
work area would be extremely difficult and expensive. Excavation and placing logs, stone, and conserved
stream bank fill material is assumed to take place in the water ponded behind the flow diversion structure.
Turbidity release is expected to be limited in extent and duration. Access for construction is assumed
down a ramp constructed over the existing riprap revetment. The ramp could provide permanent access
for maintenance. Upper Hoh Road traffic impacts are expected to be limited to one-lane closures and
short-term delays.
Wood buffer with dolosse ballast (ELJ).
Based on the HECRAS 5.0 modeling, the ELJ’s push the high flow velocity line away from the bank,
maintaining low velocity along the bank and between the ELJ’s (Fig. 6). Flow velocity increases along
the base of the ELJ’s. Flow velocities do not appear to increase above background level for bank areas
downstream of the ELJ’s. Refugia habitat and channel complexity is created along the entire length of
ELJ.
At the MP 4.0 site, ELJ’s increase the 100-year flood water surface relative to existing modeled flow
conditions 0.2 to 0.5 feet near the ELJ’s to less than 0.1 feet across the floodplain (Fig. 9). A rise of 0.2
feet is modeled for the left (looking downstream) bank floodplain area along the base of the valley wall.
The ELJ’s increase the 100-year flood flow velocity 1.0 to 3.0 ft/sec near the ELJ’s to less than 0.1 ft/sec
across the floodplain (Fig. 9). An increase of 0.5 ft/sec is modeled for a large portion of the left bank
floodplain area.
At the MP 7.8 site, ELJ’s increase the 100-year flood water surface relative to existing modeled flow
conditions less than 0.1 feet near the ELJ’s and across the active channel and floodplain (Fig. 12). The
ELJ’s increase the 100-year flood flow velocity 0.1 to 1.0 ft/sec near the ELJ’s to 0 ft/sec across the
floodplain (Fig. 12).
Based on the HECRAS modeling, the ELJ’s are not expected to noticeably increase flooding or bank
erosion on private property adjacent to the project sites above current levels. The ELJ’s are not expected
to restrict sediment and woody debris transport relative to existing conditions. Woody debris recruitment
is expected to increase as a result of logs being washed away during flood flows. Higher flow velocities
along the ELJ’s sides will scour the bed materials. That material will be deposited as gravel bars. Mid-
channel and floodplain sediment deposition is not expected to be noticeably different than current trends.
Current natural active channel migration and bank erosion levels beyond the existing riprap revetments
6
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
and proposed bank stabilization is expected to continue.
Installing the ELJ’s requires excavating 4 to 10 feet into the channel bed in areas where the gravel bar
surface needs to be lowered. Excavation work will be within the active river channel and requires
temporarily diverting the river flow. Flow defection is assumed accomplished with gravel berms, large
sandbags, or water-inflated bladders. Dewatering the work area would be extremely difficult and
expensive. Excavation work is assumed to take place in the water ponded behind the flow diversion
structure. Placing the wood and dolosse might be done in flowing water without flow diversion.
Turbidity release is expected to be limited in extent and duration. Access for construction is assumed
down a ramp constructed over the existing riprap revetment. The ramp could provide permanent access
for maintenance. Upper Hoh Road traffic impacts are expected to be limited to one-lane closures and
short-term delays.
Continued Maintenance.
Continued maintenance assumes that the current extent of riprap revetment is extended in response to
emergency washout events. Based on the HECRAS 5.0 modeling, a high, continuous flow velocity line
would be maintained near the bank (Fig. 6). Flow velocities appear to increase above background level
for bank areas downstream of the placed riprap. Refugia habitat and channel complexity is not created
along the revetment.
Based on the HECRAS modeling, a continuous, linear riprap revetment could increase bank erosion on
private property immediately downstream. The revetment would not likely restrict sediment and woody
debris transport relative to existing conditions. A minor reduction in woody debris recruitment is
expected as a result of stabilizing the eroding banks. Higher flow velocities along the revetment will
scour the bed materials. That material will be deposited as gravel bars. Mid-channel and floodplain
sediment deposition is not expected to be noticeably different than current trends. Current levels of
natural aggressive channel migration and bank erosion would be expected to continue.
Continued maintenance would require periodic replacement of material below the ordinary high water
mark where there is currently riprap revetment. The Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has indicated that such work is exempt from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provided that all
work occurs within the existing road prism. Consequently, no state water quality permitting would be
required.
In the event that one of the areas of concern should fail during a storm event, the roadway failure would
release a large amount of sediment into the river. Assuming this sediment release occurs concurrently
with the storm event it is unlikely that this would result in a considerable increase over the background
condition.
Repair of the road after failure would likely cause considerable environmental impacts. The need to
quickly reestablish access would permit no design time typically needed for more habitat-friendly
solutions, thus relying on the use of conventional methods including riprap. Also, work would likely
need to occur outside of the in-water work window. The need for rapid response to an emergency
situation will result in environmental impacts to sensitive habitats that would likely warrant expensive
mitigation.
7
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
Site Conditions
The river is braided with dramatically shifting active flow channels. Bank erosion is observed at all bank
areas not protected by riprap revetments, heavy vegetation, or boulder lag deposits. The bank erosion is
caused by mid-channel sediment deposits and woody debris shifting across the braid plain and redirecting
flood flows at unstable bank areas. Erosion is severest where flow is directed at sharp angles against an
erodible bank. Large woody debris appears to play a significant role in deflecting and redirecting flood
flows. Cobbles and small boulders naturally armoring the toe and large trees growing in the stream bank
inhibits the bank erosion.
MP 4.0 Site
The site parallels the outside bank of a river bend (Fig. 2). Approximately 3,900 lineal feet of riprap
revetment along the apex of the river bend appears to be effectively controlling road embankment erosion.
The 2 to 4 feet diameter riprap comprising the revetment is properly graded and placed. Revetments are
in two segments. The upstream segment is approximately 1,350 feet long. The downstream segment is
approximately 1,150 feet long. Both segments are densely planted with willow and alder and appear
stable (Photos 1 and 2). Riprap revetment segments nearly devoid of alder and willows, with 1.5(h):1(v)
or steeper finished surface slopes appear less stable. At these steeper sections, riprap has been dislodged
from toe and mid slope areas. The damaged revetment segments generally appear at maximum point of
stream bank curvature and likely experiences high shear stress when floods occur. No work is proposed
for the existing riprap revetments.
Toe erosion and undermining of the stream bank is observed between the existing revetment segments
(Photos 3 to 6) and immediately downstream of the downstream revetment segment (Photo 7, Fig. 2).
The channel edge is approximately 10 to 20 feet away and 10 to 18 feet below the road pavement edge.
Mid-channel sediment deposits and large woody debris jams entrapped next the banks, deflect stream
flow towards the stream banks, exacerbating the erosion (Photos 8, 9, and 10). Continued stream bank
erosion could undermine the road. Approximately 2,170 feet of bank stabilization is proposed for the
location between the existing revetments (Fig. 2). Approximately 400 feet of bank stabilization is
proposed for the location immediately downstream of the downstream revetment segment.
The Historic Channel Migration Zone (HCMZ, Geomorphic Assessment of the Hoh River in Washington
State, Bureau of Reclamation, July 2004) narrows from 1,600 upstream and downstream to 500 feet at the
site. An erosion resistant poorly consolidated alluvium terrace deposit has limited river bend migration to
the north and south. The terrace deposit represents the HCMZ right and left (looking downstream)
boundaries. The road embankment coincides with the HCMZ right boundary and valley wall.
Upstream the active channel width is 400 to 1,200 feet. Downstream width is 400 to 1,600 feet. At the
site the width is 250 to 400 feet. Based on historical satellite imagery, the active channel has not changed
significantly in width and location from 1994 to 2013 (Fig. 3). Sand, gravel, and small boulders comprise
the stream bed material (Photos 11 and 12). Gradation analysis indicates the bed material ranges from
sands to 10-inch cobbles with a D50 of 3 inches.
MP 7.8 Site
The site parallels the outside bank of a river bend (Fig. 4). Approximately 1,300 lineal feet of riprap
revetment along the apex of the river bend appears to be effectively controlling road embankment erosion.
The 2 to 4 feet diameter riprap comprising the revetment is properly graded and placed. The upstream
800 feet long segment, installed in 2007, has a 1.75(h):1(v) finished surface slope and appears stable
(Photo 1). The downstream 500 feet long segment, installed in 2004, has a 1.5(h):1(v) steeper finished
surface slope and appears less stable. Some riprap has been dislodged from toe and mid slope areas. The
8
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
segment is at the maximum point of stream bank curvature and likely experiences high shear stress when
floods occur. No work is proposed for the existing riprap revetments.
Toe erosion and undermining of the stream bank is observed immediately upstream and downstream of
the existing riprap revetment. At the upstream location, the stream bank toe is approximately 50 feet
away and 20 feet below the road surface (Photos 2 and 3). Cobbles and small boulders naturally armoring
the toe and large trees growing in the stream bank have inhibited the bank erosion. A mid-channel gravel
bar approximately 50 feet away from and paralleling the stream bank deflects stream flow towards the
bank, aggravating the bank erosion (Photo 4). Continued stream bank erosion could undermine the road.
Approximately 100 feet of bank stabilization is proposed for the upstream location.
At the downstream location, the stream bank toe is approximately 50 feet away and 20 feet below the
road surface (Photos 5, 6, and 7). Cobbles and small boulders naturally armoring the toe and large trees
growing in the stream bank have inhibited the bank erosion. Currently, the downstream stream bank toe
is separated from the active river channel by a gravel bar (Photo 6). The gravel bar is expected to be
completely exposed at typically normal annual low flow conditions. Woody debris will likely continue to
accumulate on the existing small woody debris jam at the head of the small mid-channel gravel bar. A
woody debris jam not completely plugging the 150 feet wide side channel between the small mid-channel
gravel bar and stream bank could deflect river flow directly at the stream bank, accelerating the bank
erosion and undermining the road. Based on the amount and size of wood available in the river for
transport and the width of the side channel, the risk of a woody debris jam building that only partially
blocks the side channel is high. With a partial blocking of the side channel, the risk of a catastrophic road
embankment failure is high. Approximately 400 feet of bank stabilization is proposed for the downstream
location.
An erosion resistant poorly consolidated alluvium terrace deposit has limited river bend migration to the
north. The terrace deposit represents the HCMZ right boundary. Width of the HCMZ is approximately
2,500 feet. The road embankment coincides with the HCMZ right boundary. Wetlands between the
terrace toe and existing road have been established due to drainage off the hillside. Terrace deposits have
also limited active channel migration to the south. Terrace deposits and Tower Creek debris flow and
alluvial lag deposits have restricted down-valley migration of the meander bend (Photos 8, 9, and 10).
Upstream the active channel width is 380 to 900 feet. Downstream width is 300 to 700 feet. At the site
the width is 300 to 500 feet. Based on historical satellite imagery, the active channel upstream and at the
site has not changed significantly in width and location from 1994 to 2013 (Fig. 5). Between 1994 and
2009 the active river channels for the next downstream meander bend flowed along the north bank.
Down valley meander bend translation combined with sediment deposition, woody debris accumulation
in the active channel, and large flooding in 2004 and 2007 forced a complete avulsion to the south bank.
Sand, gravel, and small boulders comprise the stream bed material (Photos 11 and 12). Gradation
analysis indicates the bed material ranges from sands to 12 inches with a D50 of 7 inches.
Analysis
Analysis completed by WFLHD includes streambed gradation, hydrologic, two-dimensional hydraulic
modeling, scour, stream barb design, and ELJ design.
Streambed Gradation
Gradations were estimated for two gravel-bar sites and one bank site at the MP 4.0 site (Fig. 2, Photo 11).
At the MP 7.8 site gradations were estimated for two gravel-bar sites (Fig. 4, Photo 11). The gradations
were determined by photographing the bed or bank material with two markers spaced 3 feet apart for
9
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
scale. The scaled-photographs were then processed with the Hydraulic Toolbox, version 4.2, sediment
gradation analysis tool. Resulting gradations are plotted in Figure 13.
Hydrology
The Hoh River drains the western slope of the Olympic Mountains. The river originates on the slopes
surrounding Mount Olympus and adjacent mountain peaks at an elevation of 7,800 feet (NAVD88) and
flows approximately 41 miles through relatively-wide, moderately high-relief, glacial valleys before
discharging to the Pacific Ocean. Elevations at the MP 4.0 and MP 7.8 project sites are 245 and 300 feet,
respectively. MP 4.0 site is at river mile post 20 to 20.4. MP 7.8 site is at river mile post 24.6 to 24.9.
MP 4.0 site drainage area, including Willoughby Creek, was determined using USGS StreamStats,
version 3.0 to be approximately 223.0. MP 7.8 site drainage area, including Tower Creek, was
determined using USGS StreamStats to be approximately 210.0 mi2. Approximately 70 percent of the
watershed is heavily timbered and 20 percent is exposed bedrock. Four small glaciers, White, Blue, Hoh,
and Hubert, are found in the higher elevations and occupy approximately 7 mi2 (3 percent) of the drainage
area. Only small lakes are present. Mean annual precipitation reported by USGS StreamStats is 168
inches. The watershed lies mostly within the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest.
Development is sparse, primarily light rural residential. No diversions for irrigation occur upstream.
The USGS maintains a stream gage station (12041200) on Hoh River, near the State Highway 101
Bridge, river mile 15.4. The gage has 54 years of record, beginning in 1961. Hydrology for the gage
station is presented in Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Washington: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4277 (Sumioka, S.S., Kresch, D.L., and Kasnick, K.D., 1998).
Annual peak stream flow for the gage station is presented in Figure 14. The gage station has not
experienced floods greater than the 50-year event. Largest floods of record occurred in 2004 (62,100 cfs)
and 2007 (60,700 cfs). Both were approximately equal to the 25-year flood event.
Peak flood discharges were estimated with the weighting equation in USGS WRIR 97-4277 for ungagged
sites on gaged streams. Peak discharges for the ungaged sites were estimated using USGS StreamStats
regression equations. The regression equation estimates were then improved by weighting with the
weighted estimates for the USGS 12041200 gage station (Table 2, USGS WRIR 97-4277). Peak
discharge estimates are presented in Table 1.
Maritime weather dominates. Storms and moderate to heavy precipitation occurs year round. Storms are
more frequent and precipitation is heavier September through January. September through November
have the heaviest recorded rainfall. Snow occurs frequently during winter months, but melts after a few
days. Lowest flows occur in February, March, April, July, and August. Winter season snowfall ranges
from 10 to 30 inches in the lower elevations and between 250 to 500 inches in the higher mountains. In
the lower elevations, snow melts rather quickly and depths seldom exceed 6 to 15 inches. In midwinter,
the snowline is between 1,500 and 3,000 feet above sea level. The higher ridges are covered with snow
from November until June.
Hydraulic Modeling
Water surface elevations and flow velocities were estimated using the Hydrologic Engineering Center
River Analysis System HEC-RAS 5.0 (beta Aug. 2015), a computer program that performs two-
dimensional unsteady steady flow calculations. Two–dimensional flow models provide a more thorough
understanding of how the design options effect water surface elevations and flow velocities.
WFLHD developed HEC-RAS 5.0 flow models for the existing conditions and proposed design options.
LIDAR terrain data was obtained from Puget Sound LIDAR Consortium. The LIDAR mapping was
10
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
surveyed April 14 and 21, 2012. The LIDAR data does not have topography of the channel bed beneath
the water surface and cannot be used directly to accurately model flow conditions. WFLHD surveyed
topography and cross sections of the river channel at both bank stabilization sites. Terrain data was
developed for the existing condition models by merging the LIDAR terrain data with the surveyed river
cross sections and ground topography data. To represent worst case flow conditions, the active flow
channel was aligned along the revetment toe. Stream barbs were added to the existing conditions terrain
data for the stream barb hydraulic models. Each streambarb was placed dimensionally correct in the
models at design location and elevation. Each wood buffer was placed in the models at design location
and elevation. To represent the wood buffers, each unit was defined as three abutting cubes 25 feet long,
20 feet wide, and 20 feet high. Each cube side was vertical with 2 feet by 2 feet crenulations.
Meshes with 5 feet by 5 feet grid spacing encompassing the flow areas were generated for each model.
Floodplains and areas with higher flow roughness were delineated on the meshes from aerial imagery.
Floods occurring 2004 and 2006 approximately equaled the 25-year event. Existing condition models for
both sites were calibrated by adjusting the Manning’s Roughness Coefficients until the 25-year flood flow
water surfaces approximately equaled observed high water marks and debris limits. Manning’s
Roughness Coefficient of 0.045 was selected for the main channel 2D flow areas. Manning’s Roughness
Coefficient of 0.09 was selected for the floodplain areas. Normal flow depth with 0.01 feet/feet friction
slope was set for the downstream boundary condition. A 3-hour duration, 1-minute interval hydrograph
was used for the upstream boundary condition. The calibrated models were run for the 50 and 100-year
and flood flows. 2D break lines were added along the center of each stream barb. The break lines use 1-
foot minimum grid spacing. Each model uses a 4 second computation interval.
Predicted 50-year flood flow velocities are presented in Figures 7 and 10. Predicted 50-year flood water
surface elevations are presented in Figures 8 and 11. The 50-year flood flow velocities and water surface
elevations were used for designing the bank stabilization features and evaluating potential effect on
stream processes. Differences between the existing condition and proposed bank stabilization models for
the 100-year flood flow velocities and water surface elevations are presented in Figures 9 and 12. The
100-year flood flow velocity and water surface elevation differences help identify potential private
property flooding, private property bank erosion, and natural stream processes impacts.
Scour
Total scour for the stream barbs design option is a combination of contraction scour and barb scour. Total
scour for wood buffer design option is a combination of contraction scour and bend scour. Long term
degradation is not expected to occur. Contraction scour was estimated using Hydraulic Engineering
Circular, Evaluating Scour at Bridges (HEC 18), 5th Edition, April 2012. Scour near the stream barbs was
estimated using WA-RD 581.1 (WADOT, Papanicolaou, Feb. 2004). Bend scour was estimated using the
National Engineering Handbook, Technical Supplement 14B, August 2007. Water depths and flow
velocities for the scour analysis were obtained from the two-dimensional modeling. Bed grain sizes were
obtained from the grain-size analysis of the channel bed materials. Table 2 summarizes the scour
analysis. Scour analysis is attached.
Stream Barb Design
The stream barbs were designed using the sliding and overturning analysis from NRCS, Engineering
Technical Note 23, Design of Stream barbs, version 2.0 (OR210-2005-2, May 3, 2005). Water depths and
flow velocities for the design were obtained from the two-dimensional modeling. An active channel
width of 330 feet and radius of 400 feet were estimated from satellite imagery. A vertical velocity
correction factor of 1.3 was selected assuming a high impingement angle and flow contracted or deflected
around debris and mid-channel sediment deposits. A stability factor of 1.3 was used for angular rock.
Unit weight of stone was assumed to be 165 pounds per cubic foot (lbs/ft3). Fluid drag coefficient was
11
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
assumed to be 0.5. Friction factor was assumed to be 0.8. Average 50-year flood flow velocity over the
stream barb of 12 ft/sec was obtained the HECRAS 5.0 models. Class 8 riprap was found to have
adequate sliding and moment factor of safeties. The barb bottom was set to approximately the total scour
depth. To minimize excavation depth, some undermining from scour and displacement of barb stone is
expected. Riprap for the stream barb key was sized using the approach from USACE EM 1110-2-1601,
June, 1994. Average flow velocity along the stream barb key was assumed to be 10 ft/sec. A factor of
safety of 1.3 was used for the riprap key resulting in Class 5 riprap. Sizing analysis is attached.
Wood Buffer Design (ELJ)
A wood buoyancy and sliding analysis (Design Guidelines for Reintroducing Wood in Australian
Streams, Abbe/Brooks, 2006) was completed for the ELJ’s. The analysis assumes single log-dolose
bundles. Water depths and flow velocities for the design were obtained from the two-dimensional
modeling. The analysis uses an average 50-year flood flow velocity along the ELJ sides of 12 ft/sec.
Active channel width of 330 feet and radius of 400 feet were estimated from satellite imagery. A vertical
velocity correction factor of 1.3 was selected for representing high flow impingement angles and flow
contracted or deflected around debris and mid-channel sediment deposits. Analysis was completed for
18, 24, and 36-inch average log diameters. Unit weight of concrete was assumed to be 150 lbs/ft3. Each
dolose weighs 8 tons. Fluid drag coefficient was assumed to be 1.2. Friction angle was assumed to be 70
degrees. The design assumes the log mass will settle into scour holes as scour occurs. ELJ heights were
set to accommodate the design water depth plus displacement from scour.
Floodplain and Flood-rise Limitations
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, established federal policies for protecting floodplains
and floodways. The intention of the associated regulations is to avoid, to the extent practical, adverse
impacts to floodplains; minimize the impact of floods to human safety, health, and welfare; and avoid
supporting land use development that is incompatible with the natural and beneficial floodplain values.
When avoidance is not possible, the policies require appropriate consideration of methods to minimize
adverse impacts.
The sites are located within Zone A identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 5300690600B and 5300690625B. Zone A is an area of 100-year
flood not determined. Jefferson County is the local floodplain administrator. Both federal and local
regulations require increases in the 100-year water surface elevation for Zone A to be less than one foot.
Based on the HECRAS 5.0 modeling, the 100-year flood-rise is predicted to be less than 0.1 feet across
the floodplain for both sites and both bank stabilization design approaches.
Cost Estimates
Construction cost estimates were completed for the two alternatives (Table 3). Assumed stabilization
length is 2,570 feet for Site MP 4.0 and 500 feet for Site MP 7.8. Material excavated from the channel is
assumed placed as road fill over the regraded bank area. The estimates assume logs with root wads cost
$1,100 and logs without root wads cost $600 each. The estimates assume riprap will be obtained from a
commercial pit near Port Angelis, WA. Estimated riprap cost is $110 per cubic yard placed. The larger
stone needed for the streambarbs is estimated to cost $170 per cubic yard placed. Flow diversion is
assumed accomplished using channel bed material berms. The berm material would then be pulled back
over the placed riprap. The costs presented include 7 percent mobilization and 15 percent contingency.
12
Memo to: Kirk Loftsgaarden, WFLHD Project Manager
March 2, 2016
attachments: Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4
Figures 1 to 14
MP 4.0 Site Photographs 1 to 12
MP 7.8 Site Photographs 1 to 12
Sheets H.12 to H.14
Sheets R.2 to R. 9
Sheets S.1 to S.4
Calculations
Estimate Drainage Annual
Method Area (mi2) Precip 2 10 25 50 100
MP 4.0 ‐ Streamstats 223 168 29,600 46,500 54,700 61,700 69,400
MP 7.8 ‐ Streamstats 210 170 28,400 44,700 52,500 59,300 66,700
USGS 12041200 PEAKFQ 32,660 52,390 61,460 67,890 74,060
USGS 12041200 Tab. 2 32,200 51,100 59,700 65,700 71,400
weighted Tab.2 32,000 51,000 59,600 65,700 71,200
MP 4.0 ‐ Design 223 28,492 45,409 53,066 58,497 63,394
MP 7.8 ‐ Design 210 26,960 42,968 50,213 55,352 59,986
Notes:
1. USGS - USGS Regression Equations, “Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Washington”,
WRIR 97-4277, 1998.
Clear Water Contraction Feet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bend Feet 8.6 11.1
Barb Feet 11.2 15.0
Bend + Contraction Feet 8.6 11.1
Barb + Contraction Feet 11.2 15.0
Notes:
1. Contraction scour - HEC 18, 5th ED. 4/2012.
2. Barb Scour - Papanicolaou (2004) - WSDOT WA-RD 581.1
3. Bend Scour - Maynord (1996) - 210-VI-NEH, Aug. 2007.
MP
4
.
0
-
5
0
-
y
e
a
r
-
St
r
e
a
m
B
a
r
b
s
MP
4
.
0
-
5
0
-
y
e
a
r
-
Wo
o
d
B
u
f
f
e
r
MP
7
.
8
-
5
0
-
y
e
a
r
-
Wo
o
d
B
u
f
f
e
r
MP
7
.
8
-
5
0
-
y
e
a
r
-
St
r
e
a
m
B
a
r
b
s
Table 1. Peak Discharges (ft3/sec)
Table 2. Scour
Scour Type
Recurrence Intervals (years)
Location / Stabilization Type
Table 3. Cost Estimates
Site:
Wood Buffer with Dolose Stabilization Length 2570 feet
Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Mobilization 7% of construction cost LS 1 238,700$ 238,700$
Remove Existing Revetment LF - 200$ -$
Flow Diversion LS 1 40,000$ 40,000$
Wood Buffer
Exc./Place Conserved SBM CY 5,000 20$ 100,000$
18" dia. X 20' Logs w/out rootwads EA 1,875 600$ 1,125,000$
18" dia. X 20' Logs w/ rootwads EA 350 1,100$ 385,000$
Log piles 18" dia. X 30' Logs EA 150 1,100$ 165,000$
Chain, 1/2" HDG Grade 30 FT 20,000 15$ 300,000$
Dolos EA 625 2,000$ 1,250,000$
Coarse Woody Debris CY 2,250 20$ 45,000$
Per ELJ Unit
ELJ Width 75 feet
ELJ Unit No.25
Exc./Place Conserved SBM 200 CY
18" dia. X 20' Logs w/out rootwads 75 No.
18" dia. X 20' Logs w/ rootwads 14 No.
Log piles 18" dia. X 30' Logs w/out 6 No.
Chain, 1/2" HDG Grade 30 800 feet
Dolos 25 No.
Coarse Woody Debris 90 CY
Cost per ELJ Unit
Total Construction Cost without Contingencies 3,648,700$
Contingency 15% of construction cost 547,305$
Total Construction Cost 4,196,005$
CE and PE 30% of construction cost 1,258,802$
ROW -$
TOTAL Capital Cost Cost/Foot 2,122$ 5,454,807$
Annualized Capital Cost Discount rate, i 0.07125 401,512$
Service life, n 50 years
CFR 0.0736071
Streambarbs with Mitigation Logs Stabilization Length 2570 feet
Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Mobilization 7% of construction cost LS 1 248,623$ 248,623$
Remove Existing Revetment LF - 200$ -$
Flow Diversion LS 1 100,000$ 100,000$
Streambarbs, Class 8 EA 18 171,772$ 3,091,893$
W T L Vol Unit
ft ft ft cy Cost
Key 74 4 39 428 110 Class 5
Barb 24 10 70 622 170 Class 8
Ex 40 8 80 948 20
Mitigation Logs, 18" dia., 20 ft long w/ rootwads EA 72 1,100$ 79,200$
Dolos EA -$
Chain, 1/2" HDG Grade 30 LF -$
Pole Plantings/tree plantings EA 3,000 30$ 90,000$
Place Conserved SBM CY 17,067 10$ 170,667$
Final Grading LS 1 20,000$ 20,000$
Total Construction Cost without Contingencies 3,800,383$
Contingency 15% of construction cost 570,057$
Total Construction Cost 4,370,441$
CE and PE 30% of construction cost 1,311,132$
ROW -$
TOTAL Capital Cost Cost/Foot 2,211$ 5,681,573$
Annualized Capital Cost Discount rate, i 0.07125 418,204$
Service life, n 50 years
CFR 0.0736071
105,778$
18,963$
171,772$
C1 - CMP 3.8 to 4.2 - Bank Stabilization
134,800$
Total Cost
47,031$
Table 4. Cost Estimates
Site:
Wood Buffer with Dolose Stabilization Length 500 feet
Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Mobilization 7% of construction cost LS 1 39,144$ 39,144$
Remove Existing Revetment LF -$
Flow Diversion LS 1 20,000$ 20,000$
Wood Buffer
Exc./Place Conserved SBM CY 800 20$ 16,000$
18" dia. X 20' Logs w/out rootwads EA 300 600$ 180,000$
18" dia. X 20' Logs w/ rootwads EA 56 1,100$ 61,600$
Log piles 18" dia. X 30' Logs EA 24 1,100$ 26,400$
Chain, 1/2" HDG Grade 30 FT 3,200 15$ 48,000$
Dolos EA 100 2,000$ 200,000$
Coarse Woody Debris CY 360 20$ 7,200$
Per ELJ Unit
ELJ Width 75 feet
ELJ Unit No.4
Exc./Place Conserved SBM 200 CY
18" dia. X 20' Logs w/out rootwads 75 No.
18" dia. X 20' Logs w/ rootwads 14 No.
Log piles 18" dia. X 30' Logs w/out 6 No.
Chain, 1/2" HDG Grade 30 800 feet
Dolos 25 No.
Coarse Woody Debris 90 CY
Cost per ELJ Unit
Total Construction Cost without Contingencies 598,344$
Contingency 15% of construction cost 89,752$
Total Construction Cost 688,096$
CE and PE 30% of construction cost 206,429$
ROW -$
TOTAL Capital Cost Cost/Foot 1,789$ 894,524$
Annualized Capital Cost Discount rate, i 0.07125 65,843$
Service life, n 50 years
CFR 0.0736071
Streambarbs with Mitigation Logs Stabilization Length 500 feet
Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Mobilization 7% of construction cost LS 1 57,443$ 57,443$
Remove Existing Revetment LF -$
Flow Diversion LS 1 50,000$ 50,000$
Streambarbs, Class 8 EA 4 171,772$ 687,087$
W T L Vol Unit
ft ft ft cy Cost
Key 74 4 39 428 110 Class 5
Barb 24 10 70 622 170 Class 8
Ex 40 8 80 948 20
Mitigation Logs, 18" dia., 20 ft long w/ rootwads EA 16 1,100$ 17,600$
Dolos EA -$
Chain, 1/2" HDG Grade 30 LF -$
Pole Plantings/tree plantings EA 600 30$ 18,000$
Place Conserved SBM CY 3,793 10$ 37,926$
Final Grading LS 1 10,000$ 10,000$
Total Construction Cost without Contingencies 878,056$
Contingency 15% of construction cost 131,708$
Total Construction Cost 1,009,765$
CE and PE 30% of construction cost 302,929$
ROW -$
TOTAL Capital Cost Cost/Foot 2,625$ 1,312,694$
Annualized Capital Cost Discount rate, i 0.07125 96,624$
Service life, n 50 years
CFR 0.0736071
105,778$
18,963$
171,772$
MP 7.8 - Bank Stabilization
134,800$
Total Cost
47,031$
Project Site Location
Project Area Location
Map printed from National Geographic TOPO
MP 4.0
N
0 1 mile
FIGURE 1
UPPER HOH RIVER BANK
STABILIZATION
MP 7.8
Ba
n
k
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Im
a
g
e
f
r
o
m
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
P
r
o
,
2
0
1
3
.
N 0 600
F
e
e
t
FIGURE
2
MP 4.0 BANK STABILIZATION STUDY AREA
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
M
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
US
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
i
t
e
Flow
DS
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
i
t
e
Up
p
e
r
H
o
h
R
i
v
e
r
R
o
a
d
1994 Active Channel LimitsUS Existing Revetment
DS
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
e
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
N 0 600
F
e
e
t
FIGURE
3
MP 4.0 BANK STABILIZATION HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGERY
20
1
3
19
9
4
20
0
9
20
0
6
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Im
a
g
e
f
r
o
m
G
o
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
P
r
o
,
2
0
1
3
.
N 0 600
F
e
e
t
FIGURE
4
MP 7.8 BANK STABILIZATION STUDY AREA
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
M
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
US Bank Stabilization Site Flow
DS
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
i
t
e
Upper Hoh River Road
19
9
4
A
c
t
i
v
e
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
L
i
m
i
t
s
Existing Revetment
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
N FIGURE
5
MP 7.8 BANK STABILIZATION HISTORICAL AERIAL IMAGERY
20
1
3
19
9
4
20
0
9
20
0
6
Feet/sec
Te
r
r
a
i
n
f
r
o
m
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
L
I
D
A
R
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
,
2
0
1
2
.
Wood Buffer with Dolosse
St
r
e
a
m
B
a
r
b
s
FIGURE
6
TYPICAL 50-YEAR FLOW VELOCITY REPONSE
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
&
R
e
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
0
1
0
0
F
e
e
t
Feet/sec
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Te
r
r
a
i
n
f
r
o
m
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
L
I
D
A
R
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
,
2
0
1
2
.
N 0
1
0
0
0
F
e
e
t
Wood Buffer with Dolosse
St
r
e
a
m
B
a
r
b
s
FIGURE
7
MP 4.0 BANK STABILIZATION 2-D 50-YR FLOW VELOCITIES
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
&
R
e
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
F eet Feet
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
0
.
5
f
e
e
t
.
Te
r
r
a
i
n
f
r
o
m
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
L
I
D
A
R
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
,
2
0
1
2
.
N 0
1
0
0
0
F
e
e
t
Wood Buffer with Dolosse
St
r
e
a
m
B
a
r
b
s
FIGURE
8
MP 4.0 BANK STABILIZATION 50-YR WATER SURFACE ELEV.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
&
R
e
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
270 260 250 240
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Te
r
r
a
i
n
f
r
o
m
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
L
I
D
A
R
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
,
2
0
1
2
.
N
0
1
0
0
0
F
e
e
t
Wo
o
d
B
u
f
f
e
r
w
i
t
h
D
o
l
o
s
s
e
St
r
e
a
m
B
a
r
b
s
Ve
l
o
c
i
t
y
-
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
FIGURE
9
MP 4.0 BANK STABILIZATION 100-YR DIFFERENCEWood Buffer with DolosseStream Barbs
Wa
t
e
r
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
E
l
e
v
-
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
F eet /sec
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Te
r
r
a
i
n
f
r
o
m
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
L
I
D
A
R
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
,
2
0
1
2
.
N 0
6
0
0
F
e
e
t
Wood Buffer with Dolosse
St
r
e
a
m
B
a
r
b
s
FIGURE
1
0
MP 7.8 BANK STABILIZATION 2-D 50-YR FLOW VELOCITIY
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
&
R
e
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
Feet
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
0
.
5
f
e
e
t
.
Te
r
r
a
i
n
f
r
o
m
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
L
I
D
A
R
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
,
2
0
1
2
.
N 0
6
0
0
F
e
e
t
Wood Buffer with Dolosse
St
r
e
a
m
B
a
r
b
s
FIGURE
1
1
MP 7.8 BANK STABILIZATION 50-YR WATER SURFACE ELEV.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
o
a
d
&
R
e
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
332 322 312
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Te
r
r
a
i
n
f
r
o
m
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
L
I
D
A
R
C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
,
2
0
1
2
.
N
Wo
o
d
B
u
f
f
e
r
w
i
t
h
D
o
l
o
s
s
e
St
r
e
a
m
B
a
r
b
s
Ve
l
o
c
i
t
y
-
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
FIGURE
1
2
MP 7.8 BANK STABILIZATION 100-YR DIFFERENCEWood Buffer with DolosseStream Barbs
Wa
t
e
r
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
E
l
e
v
-
C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
0
6
0
0
F
e
e
t
Peak discharges for flood frequencies from Table 2 weighted, USGS Report 97-4277, 1998.
From Hydraulic Toolbox, version 4.2.
FIGURE 13
HOH RIVER GRADATION
ANALYSIS
Peak discharges for flood frequencies from Table 2 weighted, USGS Report 97-4277, 1998.
From USGS Washington Surface Water Data Website.
50-year
FIGURE 14
HOH RIVER PEAK FLOOD FLOWS
25-year
2-year
10-year
DRAWINGS
Concept Details
MP 4.0 Site - Plan and Profiles
MP 7.8 Site - Plan and Profiles
OHW
OHW
gravel-cobble, per plan
Placed conserved
1
1
'
-
0
"
min.
Geotextile,
Class 1C
TYPICAL DETAILS
STREAMBARBS
7'-6"
H.12
STATE PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
il
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
0
3
2
8
6
\
H
.
1
2
-
v
5
-
T
y
p
i c
a
l
_
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
a
r
b
_
B
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
2
:
5
1
P
M
7
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
15'-0"
4
'
-
0
"
6
'
-
0
"
2
7
'
-
0
"
key, buried
Streambarb
crest base, per plan
Streambarb
riprap, per plans
proposed
Existing or
1 .5 :1
8
'
-
0
"
50-year WS
28' to 53'
8
'
t
o
1
8
'
20'
streambarb height
gravel-cobble up to 1/2
Place conserved
If needed, placed conserved gravel footprint can be increased.
Streambarb key Class 5 riprap.
Streambarb Class 8 riprap.
3.
2.
1.
Key DS end
Key US end
3
0
°
10
'
75'
NO SCALE
NOTES:
Key crest, elev per plan
Flow
Fill to existing grade
5
'
-
0
"
4 ' m
i n .
Fill to
existing grade 1
1
1
1.5
1
5
'
Streambarb bottom
Stream bottom
Stream bottom
Streambarb crest
1
4'-0"96'-0"
SECTION A
SECTION B
Streambarb tip, elev per plan
Set hingeline at OHW 4'
2'
min.
(per plan)
Placed gravel-cobble
Existing riprap
Existing bank
plantings
Pole
Existing embankment
7' min.
Streambarb crest, elev per plan
Key crest, elev per plan
Streambarb key
Key toe, elev per plan
Placed mitigation log with rootwad, 4 per barb
90'-0"
A
A
B
B
20' min. length, 4 per barb
Placed mitigation log with rootwad,
PLAN
Streambarb crest
Streambarb CL
tip, per plan
Streambarb
Streambarb limit
Set hingeline at OHW
Placed gravel-cobble, per plan
and riprap only, above OHW
Pole planting, placed gravel-cobble
Existing channel edge
Streambarb bottom, elev per plan
9
72'-0"
1
1.5
1
Placed mitigation log with rootwad, 4 per barb
1/2 streambarb height
gravel-cobble up to
Place conserved
10'
OHW
50-yr W.S.
TYPICAL DETAILS
BANK STABILIZATION
GRAVEL-COBBLE
Alder plantings
Cedar plantings
Alder plantings
Cedar plantings
H.13
STATE PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET
WA
JEFF 91420(1)
3
:
5
1
P
M
7
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
il
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
0
3
2
8
6
\
H
.
1
3
-
v
5
-
T
y
p
i c
a
l
_
b
a
n
k
_
s
t
a
b
il
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
_
l o
g
s
_
B
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
.
d
g
n
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
OHW
50-yr W.S.
Alder plantings
Cedar plantings
50-yr W.S.
single
Pole plantings,
NO SCALE
Flow
Flow
2' to 3'
2' to 3'
3
5
° t o
5
0
°
PLAN
SECTION A
A
A
Placed gravel-cobble crest
Placed gravel-cobble toe
Stream bank toe
Set hingeline at OHW
Set hingeline at OHW
Placed gravel-cobble crest
Placed gravel-cobble toe
Stream bottom
Existing embankment
Placed gravel-cobble
Set hingeline at OHW
Placed gravel-cobble crest
Placed gravel-cobble toe
Stream bottom
Existing embankment
Placed gravel-cobble
Set hingeline at OHW
Placed gravel-cobble crest
Existing embankment
Placed gravel-cobble
trench
Pole plantings,
trench
Pole plantings,
B
B
single
Pole plantings,SECTION B
trench
Pole plantings,
Stream bottom
crest
Placed gravel-cobble
C C
SECTION C
OHW
8'-4"
DETAILS
WOOD BUFFER w/ DOLOSSE
BANK STABILIZATION
Dolos
Place deflector
logs to min. design elev,
per plan, repeat Layer B as needed
H.14
STATE PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
il
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
0
3
2
8
6
\
H
.
1
4
-
v
6
u
n
i -
j
u
m
b
l e
_
T
y
p
i
c
a
l
_
d
o
l
o
s
s
e
_
B
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
4
:
3
4
P
M
2
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
Dolos, center in log bundle
Deflector log bundle
Deflector log bundle
Notes:
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Deflector log-dolos bundle
6 defector rootwads.
Layer B; 15 randomly placed deflector log-dolos bundles and
space between fill logs and deflector logs.
vegetation, 1-inch to 8-inch diameter, tightly pack into void
Coarse woody debris; even mixture of branches, limbs, trunks,
attached rootwad, 6 per log jam unit.
Log pile; 30-foot min. trunk, 12-inch to 18-inch diameter without
weight.
Deflector log bundle; 105 to 140 ft3 total log volume, 16,000 lbs dolos
attached rootwad.
Deflector rootwad; 20-foot min. trunk, 18 to 36-inch diameter with
attached rootwad.
Deflector log; 20-foot min. trunk, 18 to 36-inch diameter without
Existing bank toe
Existing bank toe
Existing bank top
Existing bank top
Log pile, 6
Log pile, 6
Defector rootwad, 7
Deflector rootwad, random, 7
ELJ unit limits
ELJ unit limits
Deflector log bundle, random, 15
Deflector log bundle, 10
12' (typ.)
Layer A
elements
5' min.
Match
existing grade
NO SCALE
Flow
Wrap each log
bundle and dolos
trunk with chain
Wrap each log
bundle and dolos
trunk with chain
75'-0"
2
0
'
-
0
"
Flow
6
'
-
7
"
4
5
°
1
8
'
t
o
2
2
'
50-year W.S.
3
'
-
0
"
Existing embankment
pavement edge
Existing road
8
'
-
4
"
1
'
-
8
"
3'-0"
Fluke
Trunk
Per plan
DOLOS DETAIL
TYPICAL SECTION
LAYER A PLAN
LAYER B PLAN
Existing channel bottom
L
a
y
e
r
B
Existing road CL
over deflector logs
Placed coarse woody debris, min. 1'
6
'
m
i
n
.
DETAIL
TYPICAL DEFLECTOR LOG-DOLOS BUNDLE
Log pile, 5, 11' O.C.
Layer A
Geotextile, class 1C
A
A
A
A
excavate as needed for min. ELJ height
Set trunk base on channel bottom,
1
0
1
5
CP
14102
CP
14101
5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap
EL 263.7150
E 814516.2410
N 318084.6340
CP 14101
5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap
EL 258.5120
E 815044.1020
N 318075.5500
CP 14102
1
0
1
5
245
2
45
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
245
245
245
2
4
5
245
2
4
5
24
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
245
2
4
5
24
5
245
2
4
5
245
245
245
245245
245
245
245
245
245
245
245
250
250
2
5
5
255
2
5
5
255
260
2
6
0
260
260
260
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
260
260
2
6
0
260
260
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
260
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
26
5
265
265
2
6
5
2
65
265
265
2
6
5
265
265
2
6
5
275
CP
14102
5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap
EL 258.5120
E 815044.1020
N 318075.5500
CP 14102
2
0
0
+
0
0
CP
14101
5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap
EL 263.7150
E 814516.2410
N 318084.6340
CP 14101
CP
14102
CP
14101
5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap
EL 263.7150
E 814516.2410
N 318084.6340
CP 14101
5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap
EL 258.5120
E 815044.1020
N 318075.5500
CP 14102
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
17+0016+0014+0013+0011+0010+00
12+00 15+00
245
265
235
225
230
245
265
235
225
255
N
1
2
3
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
Existing river bed contour
Flow
270
R.2
STATE PROJECT
NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
i
l
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
g
a
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
2
:
0
8
P
M
3
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
240
250
260
270
230
240
250
255
260
Barb Bottom Elev. 234.0'
Barb Crest Elev. 252.0'
Key Crest Elev. 256.0'
Place conserved gravel cobble
50 year water surface profile
Stream bank toe
Existing road surface
3
0
3
5
250
250 250
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
5
255
2
5
5
255
2
5
5
255
255
255
2
5
5
255
255
260
2
6
0
260
265
2
6
5
265
270
270
2
7
0
270
2
7
0
2
7
0
275275
2
7
5
2
7
5
275
275275
275
280
280
2
8
0
280
285
285
290
290
295
300300
305
JH
41934
JH 41934
JH
42519
JH 42519
JH
41791
JH 41791
JH
41932
JH
41935
JH 41935
JH
41933
JH 41933
2
4
"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
I
P
E
214+00
321
4
JH
41462
JH 41462
T
247050T
247050
JH
40001
JH 40001
RP
2
2
2
+
0
0
JH
40005
JH 40005
RP
2
1
6
+
0
0
JH
40004
JH 40004
UP
303780
RP
2
2
0
+
0
0
JH
40003
JH 40003
JH
41650
JH 41650
UP
[WATCH FOR ROCK]
JH
41790
N
A
Z
2
9
4
1
3
1
.
4
9
F
T
RP
2
1
8
+
0
0
TT
CP
14105
CP
14105
JH
40002
JH 40002
15" H EM
LO C K NA Z 068 82.84FT
TJH
1251
T
CP
14105
RP
15" H EM
LO C K NA Z 068 82.84FT N
A
Z
2
9
4
1
3
1
.
4
9
F
T
RP
UP
303780
T
247050
T T
RP
UP
RP
14105
321
4
T
247050
T T
[WATCH FOR ROCK]
E
L
E
V
2
6
5
.
4
2
2
4
"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
I
P
E
E
L
E
V
2
6
0
.
2
2
3
0
3
5
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
235
245
255
265
275
35+0030+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 36+00 37+00 38+00
235
245
255
265
275
N
4
5
6
7
8
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
Flow
Existing river bed contour
240
250
260
270
280
240
250
260
270
280
Barb Bottom Elev. 240.0'
Barb Crest Elev. 258.0'
Key Crest Elev. 262.0'
R.3
STATE PROJECT
NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
i
l
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
g
b
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
1
:
5
5
P
M
3
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
Stream bank toe
Existing road surface
surface profile
50 Year water
Place conserved gravel cobble
4
0
4
5
250
2
5
0
250
255
255
2
5
5
255
2
5
5
255255
255
255
255 255
2
5
5
255
2
5
5
255
255
255
255 255
255
25
5
255
255
255
2 60
260
260
2
6
0
260
26
5
265
265
265
2
6
5
265
265
270
270
270
270
270 2 7 5
275
275
280
280
28
0
285
2
8
5
285
2
9
0
2
9
0
290
295
295
295
300
3
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
5 305
3
0
5
305
305305
3
1
0
310
310 310315
320
325
3
3
0
33 0
3
3
5
335
340
345
350
3 55
3
6
0
360
36
5
375
LOG DEBRIS
LOG DEBRIS
LOG DEBRIS
LOG DEBRISJH
41280
JH 41280
3
6
"
C
M
P LY
ING
DOWN
LOG
32
"D
IA2
4
"
C
M
P 36" PLASTIC PIPE
2
4
"
C
M
P
2
4
" M A P
LE
NA
Z
0
8
3
7
7
.6
3
F
T
72"X48"X60"
60"X42"X28"
T 300950RP
2
2
8
+
0
0
T 300950T259951
T 300951T300951JH
40301
JH 40301
1
8
"
C
M
P
RP
2
3
0
+
0
0
JH
40300
JH 40300T259950
JH
40382JH 40382
JH
40381
JH 40381
RP
2
2
6
+
0
0
JH
40299JH 40299
1
3
" M A P
LE
NA
Z
0
3
1
5
2
.0
2
F
T
JH
40298
JH 40298
JH
40297
JH 40297
UP
CP
1410714107
RP
2
2
4
+
0
0
JH
40294
JH 40294
CP
14106
CP
14106
5/8"IR W /FHW A ALUM CAP1
4
"
A
L
D
E
R
N
A
Z
1
8
0
1
7
.
6
6
F
T
1
2
"
S
P
R
U
C
E
N
A
Z
2
4
4
2
7
.
5
0
F
T
CP
14106
CP
14107
1
2
"
S
P
R
U
C
E
N
A
Z
2
4
4
2
7
.
5
0
F
T
1
4
"
A
L
D
E
R
N
A
Z
1
8
0
1
7
.
6
6
F
T
RP T 259950
UP
RP
T 300950T300951RP
1
3
" M A P
LE
NA
Z
0
3
1
5
2
.0
2
F
T
2
4
" M A P
LE
NA
Z
0
8
3
7
7
.6
3
F
T
RP 14107
CP
14106
5/8"IR W /FHW A ALUM CAP
T259951
T 300950T300951
ELEV 261.74ELEV 258.47
LY
ING
DOWN
LOG
32
"D
IA
LOG DEBRIS
E
L
E
V
2
5
9
.
5
4
E
L
E
V
2
5
8
.
4
5
72"X48"X60"
60"X42"X28"
E
L
E
V
2
5
9
.
5
8
E
L
E
V
2
5
7
.
1
4
LOG DEBRIS
LOG DEBRIS
LOG DEBRIS
E
L
E
V
2
6
1
.
9
3
E
L
E
V
2
5
6
.
9
9
E
L
E
V
2
6
5
.
9
1
E
L
E
V
2
5
8
.
7
5
2
4
"
C
M
P
1
8
"
C
M
P
3
6
"
C
M
P
2
4
"
C
M
P 36" PLASTIC PIPE
4
0
4
5
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
235
245
255
265
275
43+0039+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 44+00 45+00 46+00
235
245
255
265
275
N
Existing roadLC
9 10 11
12
13
47+00
Existing river bed contour
Flow
240
250
260
270
280
240
250
260
270
280
Barb Bottom Elev. 242.0'
Barb Crest Elev. 260.0'
Key Crest Elev. 264.0'
R.4
STATE PROJECT
NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
i
l
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
g
c
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
1
:
5
7
P
M
3
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
surface profile
50 Year water
Existing road surface
Stream bank toe
Place conserved gravel cobble
5
0
255
25
5 255255255255255
255
2552552552552
6
0
260
2
6
0
260
2
6
026026026
0 260260260
260
260260260260265
265
265265
2
6
5265270
270
270
275
2
7
5
275275 280
2
8
0
2
8
0
28
5
285
285
290
290
295
300
300
300
305
305
310 3
1
0
3
1
5
315
320
320
325
325
3
3
0
330
3
3
5
3
3
5
340
3
4
5
355 JH42210JH 42210
6
0
"
C
M
P
3
2
"
C
M
P
RP
2
3
6
+
0
0
RP
2
3
8
+
0
0
RP
2
3
4
+
0
0
JH40388JH 40388JH40386JH 40386T301850
1
3
"
M
A
P
LE
N
A
Z
0
3
1
5
2
.0
2
F
T
N
A
Z
1
2
3
1
9
.
0
1
F
TT301850JH40387JH 40387T301851CP1410814108T301851JH40384JH 40384JH40385JH 40385T300850T300850N
A
Z
2
5
6
6
3
.
8
1
F
TRP
2
3
2
+
0
0
UPJH40383JH 40383UP CP14108
1
3
"
M
A
P
LE
N
A
Z
0
3
1
5
2
.0
2
F
T
UPRPT300850T301850T301851RPRP
N
A
Z
1
2
3
1
9
.
0
1
F
T
N
A
Z
2
5
6
6
3
.
8
1
F
TUPRP14108
E
L
E
V
2
6
1
.
7
5
E
L
E
V
2
5
9
.
8
9
T300850T301850T301851E
L
E
V
2
5
6
.
8
6
E
L
E
V
2
5
3
.
3
3
3
2
"
C
M
P
6
0
"
C
M
P
5
0
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
245
265
275
51+0047+00 48+00 49+00 50+00 52+00 53+00 54+00
235
245
255
265
275
235
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
14 15
16
17 18
255
55+00
Proposed 18' Ø AOP culvert
Proposed 18' Ø AOP culvert
Flow
Existing river bed contour
280
270
260
250
240
280
260
250
240
270
N
Barb Bottom Elev. 242.0'
Barb Crest Elev. 261.0'
Key Crest Elev. 264.0'
R.5
STATE PROJECT
NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
i
l
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
g
d
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
2
:
0
7
P
M
3
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
surface profile
50 Year water
Stream bank toe
Placed conserved gravel cobble
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
17+0016+0014+0013+0011+0010+00
12+00 15+00
255
275
245
235
265
255
275
245
235
265
N
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
Stream bank toe
Wood buffer
Existing road surface
Start wood buffer
Sta. 11+58.52, RT 145.04'
End wood buffer
Sta. 15+39.03, RT 45.76'
50 year water surface profile
Flow
Existing river bed contour
240
250
260
270
280
240
250
260
270
280
R.6
STATE PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
il
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
g
f
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
3
:
5
3
P
M
3
0
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
1
0
1
5
245
245
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
245
245
245
2
4
5
245
2
4
5
24
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
2
4
5
245
2
4
5
24
5
245
2
4
5
245
245
245
245245
245
245
245
245
245
245
245
250
250
2
5
5
255
2
5
5
255
260
2
6
0
260
260
260
260
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
260
260
2
6
0
260
260
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
260
260
2
6
0
2
6
0
2
6
0
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
2
6
5
2 6 5
265
2
6
5
2
65
265
265
2
6
5
2
6
5
265
265
2
6
5
27
5
1
5
"
A
L
D
E
R
N
A
Z
3
0
7
5
9
.
4
1
F
T
CP
14102
5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap
EL 258.5120
E 815044.1020
N 318075.5500
CP 14102
RP
2
0
0
+
0
0
1
4
"
A
L
D
E
R
N
A
Z
0
4
5
6
9
.
8
0
F
T
8" HEMLOCK NAZ 315 52.83FT
CP
14101
5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap
EL 263.7150
E 814516.2410
N 318084.6340
CP 14101
NAZ 040 47.64FT
CP
14102
CP
14101
NAZ 040 47.64FT
8" HEMLOCK NAZ 315 52.83FT
1
4
"
A
L
D
E
R
N
A
Z
0
4
5
6
9
.
8
0
F
T
1
5
"
A
L
D
E
R
N
A
Z
3
0
7
5
9
.
4
1
F
T
RP
5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap
EL 263.7150
E 814516.2410
N 318084.6340
CP 14101
5/8" IRw/FHWA alum cap
EL 258.5120
E 815044.1020
N 318075.5500
CP 14102
1
0
1
5
4 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 257.0'
A
A
A
A
A
A A A A
A A A A
A A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
3
0
3
5
250
250 250
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
5
255
2
5
5
255
2
5
5
255
255
255
2
5
5
255
255
260
26
0
260
265
2
6
5
265
270
270
2
7
0
270
2
7
0
2
7
0
275275
2
7
5
2
7
5
275
275275
275
280
280
2
8
0
280
285
285
290
290
295
300300
305
32
1
TT
UP UP
TT
CP
14105
CP
14105
TT
2
4
0
240
2
4
5
245
245
2
4
5
245
2
4
5
245
2
5
0
2
5
0
250
25
0
2
5
0
250
250
2
5
0
2
5
0
255
255
255
2
5
5
260
2
60
260 265
265
265
270
270
270
270
270
CP
14105
UP
T
T T
UP
14105
32
1
T
T T
3
0
3
5
2 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 262.0'3 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 262.6'2 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 263.3'
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
235
245
255
265
275
35+0030+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 36+00 37+00 38+00
235
245
255
265
275
Existing ground
N
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
50 Year water surface profile
Stream bank toe
Wood buffer
Existing river bed contour
Flow
280
270
260
250
240
280
260
250
240
270
Start wood buffer
RT 48.04'
Sta. 30+93.41,
R.7
STATE PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
il
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
g
g
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
1
2
:
4
5
P
M
3
0
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
RT 78.43'
Sta. 38+21.38,
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A A A
A A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
4
0
4
5
250
2
5
0
2
5
0
250
255
255
2
5
5
2
5
5
255
2
5
5
255255
255
255
255 255
2
5
5
255
2
5
5
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
2
5
5
255
255
255
25
5
2
5
5
255
255
255
2 60
260
260
2
6
0
265
265
265
265
2
6
5
265
265
270
270
270
270
2
7
0
270
27
5
275
275
275
280
280
28
0
280
285
2
8
5
285
285
2
9
0
2
9
0
290
295
295
295
300
300
3
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
5 30
5
3
0
5
305
305305
3
1
0
310
310 310315
320
325
3
3
0
3
3
5
340
345
350
355
3
6
0
3
6
5
375
TT
T
TT
T
UP
CP
14106
CP
14106
CP
14106
T
UP
T T
CP
14106
T
T T
4
0
4
5
3 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 263.6'4 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 264.5'
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
235
245
255
265
275
43+0038+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 44+00 45+00 46+00
235
245
255
265
275
Existing ground
N
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
50 Year water surface profile
Stream bank toe
Wood buffer
Existing river bed contour
Flow
280
270
260
250
240
280
260
250
240
270
R.8
STATE PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
il
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
g
h
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
3
:
5
2
P
M
3
0
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
Sta. 38+52.31, RT 75.17'
Sta. 45+85.33, RT 65.54'
29.1'
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
5
0
255
25
5 255255255255255255
255
2552552552552
6
0
260
2
6
0
260
2
6
0
2
6
026026026
0 260260260
260
2602
6
0 260260260265
265
265
2
6
5
265
2
6
5
2
6
5265265270
270
270
27
0
275
2
7
52752
7
5 275 280
2
8
0
2
8
0
280 28
5
285
285
285
290
290
29
0
295
295
300
300
300
305
305
305
3
1
0
310 3
1
0
3
1
5
315
320
320
325
325
325
3
3
0
330
3
3
5
3
3
5
340
3
4
5
3
5
5
355360
36
5 TTT CP1410814108TTTUPCP1410714107UPCP14107CP14108UPTTTUP1410714108TTT5
0
4 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 265.8'3 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 265.1'
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
51+0046+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 50+00 52+00 53+00 54+00
235 235
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
50 Year water surface profile
Stream bank toe
255
265
245
275 275
265
255
245
End wood buffer
Sta. 53+50.46, RT 75.27'
Existing road surface
Proposed 18' Ø AOP culvert
10'
Proposed 18' Ø AOP culvert
Existing river bed contour
Flow
280
270
260
250
240
280
260
250
240
270
R.9
STATE PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
il
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
g
i .
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
3
:
5
2
P
M
3
0
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
5
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
10'
Sta. 46+19.67, RT 64.59'
Wood buffer
N
CP
14
2
0
4
C
P
14
2
0
5
T
310
310
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
320
320
320
32
0
330
330
330
3
3
0
3
3
0
330
33
0
33
0
33
0
33
0
33
0
33
0
330
33
0
3
4
0
340
340
34
0
34
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
350
35
0
360
360
36
0
36
03
7
0
5
+
0
0
0
+
0
0
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
5+004+003+002+001+000+00
S.1
STATE PROJECT
NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
i
l
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
s
1
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
9
:
0
5
A
M
1
8
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
6+00 7+00 8+00
N
Flow
380
320
300
330
340
350
310
290
360
370
380
320
300
330
340
350
310
290
360
370
F
l
o
w
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
Existing river bed contour
Barb Bottom Elev. 300.0'
Barb Crest Elev. 318.0'
Key Crest Elev. 324.0'
Stream bank toe
Existing road surface
surface profile
50 Year water
Place conserved gravel cobble
1
2
3
CP
14206
JH
30001
JH
30002
JH
30003
JH
30170
JH
30200
3
1
0
310
320
3
2
0
320
330
3
3
0
340
3
4
0
340
340
340340
340
340
340
340340
340
340
340
350
2
0
+
0
0
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
21+0016+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 22+00 23+00 24+00
S.2
STATE PROJECT
NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
i
l
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
s
2
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
9
:
0
5
A
M
1
8
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
N
Fl
o
w
380
320
300
330
340
350
310
290
360
370
380
320
300
330
340
350
310
290
360
370
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
Existing river bed contour
Barb Bottom Elev. 313.0'
Barb Crest Elev. 321.0'
Key Crest Elev. 327.0'
Stream bank toe
Existing road surface
surface profile
50 Year water
4
gravel cobble
Place conserved
CP
14
2
0
4
C
P
14
2
0
5
T
310
310
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
31
0
320
320
320
32
0
330
330
330
3
3
0
3
3
0
330
33
0
33
0
33
0
33
0
33
0
33
0
330
33
0
3
4
0
340
340
34
0
34
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
350
35
0
360
360
36
0
36
03
7
0
5
+
0
0
0
+
0
0
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
5+004+003+002+001+000+00
S.3
STATE PROJECT
NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
i
l
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
s
3
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
4
:
0
5
P
M
1
7
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
6+00 7+00 8+00
N
Flow
320
300
330
340
350
310
290
360
370
320
300
330
340
350
310
290
360
370
F
l
o
w
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
Existing river bed contour
Stream bank toe
Existing road surface
surface profile
50 Year water
Wood buffer
End wood buffer
Sta. 5+85.14, RT 59.83'
3 Units, Deflector Log Top Elev. 325.0'
Start wood buffer
Sta. 2+43.29, RT 82.31'
CP
14206
JH
30001
JH
30002
JH
30003
JH
30170
JH
30200
3
1
0
310
320
3
2
0
320
330
3
3
0
340
3
4
0
340
340
340340
340
340
340
340340
340
340
340
350
2
0
+
0
0
CUYD
EXC.
CUYD
EMB.
21+0016+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 22+00 23+00 24+00
S.4
STATE PROJECT
NUMBER
SHEET
]
U
S
_
S
u
r
_
f
t
2
D
[
c
:
\
m
y
f
i
l
e
s
\
p
w
_
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
\
d
0
2
7
0
8
8
2
\
w
a
-
a
2
0
1
3
0
2
0
s
4
.
d
g
n
WA JEFF 91420(1)
4
:
0
4
P
M
1
7
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
-
-
/
-
-
-
-
C
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
:
N
Fl
o
w
320
300
330
340
350
310
290
360
370
320
300
330
340
350
310
290
360
370
A
A
A
Existing road
Existing pavement edge
LC
Existing river bed contour
Stream bank toe
Existing road surface
surface profile
50 Year water
Start wood buffer
Sta. 19+90.62, RT 75.33'
End wood buffer
Sta. 20+77.63, RT 94.17'
Wood buffer
1 Unit, Deflector Log Top Elev. 328.0'
CALCULATIONS
Peak Discharge Estimates
Scour
Stream Barb Sizing
Riprap Sizing
ELJ Sizing
FLOOD DISCHARGE ESTIMATES
UNGAGED WASHINGTON SITES
Project:File:
Desc:By:
Region:1 Date:
Exceed Coefficients Equation:Q = a(A)^b(P)^c
Prob. a b c Error Source:Magnitude and Frequency of
0.50 0.350 0.923 1.240 32.00%Floods in Washington, 1998.
0.10 0.502 0.921 1.260 33.00%USGS Report 97-4277
0.04 0.590 0.921 1.260 34.00%
0.02 0.666 0.921 1.260 36.00%Culvert Type HW/D K M a
0.01 0.745 0.922 1.260 37.00% CMP Projecting 1.0 0.5 0.667 2.827
Mean Estimated Discharge (Q)Min.
Drain. Annual Forest Exceedance Probability 0.02 Culvert
Station Area Precip Cover 0.50 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.01 Design Dia
(sq mi) (in) (%) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
1294 201
Minimum 0.15 45
0000000.0
0000000.0
223.00 168 29,600 46,500 54,700 61,700 69,400
210.00 170 28,400 44,700 52,500 59,300 66,700
PEAKFQ 32,660 52,390 61,460 67,890 74,060
Tab. 2 32,200 51,100 59,700 65,700 71,400
253.00 Tab. 2 32,000 51,000 59,600 65,700 71,200
223.00 0.88 28,492 45,409 53,066 58,497 63,394
MP 7.8 210.00 0.83 26,960 42,968 50,213 55,352 59,986
x = 0.92
Notes:
a = ((HW/D)/K)^(1/M)
K = Constant from Table 9, HDS-5
M = Constant from Table 9, HDS-5
D = [Q/(0.7844x(1/K^1/M))]^.4 from HDS-5, equation 27. Assumes HW/D < 1.2 ,unsubmerged.
MP 7.8 - Streamstats
Major Drainage Peak Flow
reg-spec2014
S. Leon
MP 4.0
Maximum
12/10/2015
USGS 12041200
USGS 12041200
-weighted
MP 4.0 - Streamstats
Hoh River Bank Stabilization Study - WA JEFF 91420(1)
Basin Characteristics Ungaged Site Report
Date: Tues Feb 23, 2016 9:31:37 AM GMT‐8
Study Area: Washington
NAD 1983 Latitude: 47.8203 ( 47 49 13)
NAD 1983 Longitude: ‐124.1974 (‐124 11 51)
Label Value Units Definition
DRNAREA 223.08 square miles Area that drains to a point on a stream
RELIEF 7660 feet Maximum ‐ minimum elevation
ELEVMAX 7900 feet Maximum basin elevation
MINBELEV 244 feet Minimum basin elevation
ELEV 2670 feet Mean Basin Elevation
CANOPY_PCT 69.5 percent
Percentage of drainage area covered by canopy as described in
OK SIR 2009_5267
PRECIP 168 inches Mean Annual Precipitation
SLOP30_30M 79.9 percent
Percent area with slopes greater than 30 percent from 30‐meter
DEM.
BSLDEM30M 52.5 percent Mean basin slope computed from 30 m DEM
NFSL30 22.8 percent North‐Facing Slopes Greater Than 30 Percent
StreamStats Version 3.0
Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/v3_beta/BCreport.htm
Page Contact Information: StreamStats Help Streamstats Status News
Page Last Modified: 01/26/2016 08:44:09 (Web2)
Flow Statistics Ungaged Site Report
Date: Tues Feb 23, 2016 9:33:32 AM GMT‐8
Study Area: Washington
NAD 1983 Latitude: 47.8203 ( 47 49 13)
NAD 1983 Longitude: ‐124.1974 (‐124 11 51)
Drainage Area: 223.08 mi2
Peak‐Flow Basin Characteristics
100% Region 1 (222 mi2)
Parameter Value Regression Equation Valid Range
Min Max
Drainage Area (square miles)223 0.15 1294
Mean Annual Precipitation (inches)168 45 201
1% Region 2 (1.24 mi2)
Parameter Value Regression Equation Valid Range
Min Max
Drainage Area (square miles)223 0.08 3020
Mean Annual Precipitation (inches)168 23 170
Peak‐Flow Statistics Area‐Averaged
Statistic Value Unit
Prediction Error
(percent)
Equivalent years of
record
90 ‐Percent Prediction
Interval
Min Max
PK2 29600 cfs 32 1
PK10 46500 cfs 33 2
PK25 54700 cfs 34 3
PK50 61700 cfs 36 3
PK100 69400 cfs 37 4
PK500 86800 cfs
Peak‐Flow Statistics Region_1
Statistic Value Unit
Prediction Error
(percent)
Equivalent years of
record
90 ‐Percent Prediction
Interval
Min Max
PK2 29600 cfs 32 1
PK10 46500 cfs 33 2
PK25 54700 cfs 34 3
PK50 61700 cfs 36 3
PK100 69400 cfs 37 4
PK500 86800 cfs
Peak‐Flow Statistics Region_2
Statistic Value Unit
Prediction Error
(percent)
Equivalent years of
record
90 ‐Percent Prediction
Interval
Min Max
StreamStats Version 3.0
PK2 23700 cfs 56 1
PK10 43900 cfs 53 1
PK25 54600 cfs 53 2
PK50 65200 cfs 53 2
PK100 73700 cfs 54 3
PK500 98600 cfs
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri974277# (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri974277#)
Sumioka_ S.S._ Kresch_ D.L._ and Kasnick_ K.D._ 1998_ Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Water‐
Resources Investigations Report 97 ‐4277_ 91 p.
Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/v3_beta/FTreport.htm
Page Contact Information: StreamStats Help Streamstats Status News
Page Last Modified: 11/24/2015 11:32:58 (Web2)
Basin Characteristics Ungaged Site Report
Date: Tues Feb 23, 2016 9:39:25 AM GMT‐8
Study Area: Washington
NAD 1983 Latitude: 47.8145 ( 47 48 52)
NAD 1983 Longitude: ‐124.1187 (‐124 07 08)
Label Value Units Definition
DRNAREA 210.11 square miles Area that drains to a point on a stream
RELIEF undefined feet Maximum ‐ minimum elevation
ELEVMAX undefined feet Maximum basin elevation
MINBELEV undefined feet Minimum basin elevation
ELEV 2790 feet Mean Basin Elevation
CANOPY_PCT 69.4 percent
Percentage of drainage area covered by canopy as described in
OK SIR 2009_5267
PRECIP 170 inches Mean Annual Precipitation
SLOP30_30M undefined percent
Percent area with slopes greater than 30 percent from 30‐
meter DEM.
BSLDEM30M undefined percent Mean basin slope computed from 30 m DEM
NFSL30 undefined percent North‐Facing Slopes Greater Than 30 Percent
StreamStats Version 3.0
Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/v3_beta/BCreport.htm
Page Contact Information: StreamStats Help Streamstats Status News
Page Last Modified: 01/26/2016 08:44:09 (Web2)
Flow Statistics Ungaged Site Report
Date: Tues Feb 23, 2016 9:40:18 AM GMT‐8
Study Area: Washington
NAD 1983 Latitude: 47.8145 ( 47 48 52)
NAD 1983 Longitude: ‐124.1187 (‐124 07 08)
Drainage Area: 210.11 mi2
Peak‐Flow Basin Characteristics
99% Region 1 (209 mi2)
Parameter Value Regression Equation Valid Range
Min Max
Drainage Area (square miles)210 0.15 1294
Mean Annual Precipitation (inches)170 45 201
1% Region 2 (1.24 mi2)
Parameter Value Regression Equation Valid Range
Min Max
Drainage Area (square miles)210 0.08 3020
Mean Annual Precipitation (inches)170 23 170
Peak‐Flow Statistics Area‐Averaged
Statistic Value Unit
Prediction Error
(percent)
Equivalent years of
record
90 ‐Percent Prediction
Interval
Min Max
PK2 28400 cfs 32 1
PK10 44700 cfs 33 2
PK25 52500 cfs 34 3
PK50 59300 cfs 36 3
PK100 66700 cfs 37 4
PK500 83400 cfs
Peak‐Flow Statistics Region_1
Statistic Value Unit
Prediction Error
(percent)
Equivalent years of
record
90 ‐Percent Prediction
Interval
Min Max
PK2 28400 cfs 32 1
PK10 44700 cfs 33 2
PK25 52500 cfs 34 3
PK50 59300 cfs 36 3
PK100 66700 cfs 37 4
PK500 83300 cfs
Peak‐Flow Statistics Region_2
Statistic Value Unit
Prediction Error
(percent)
Equivalent years of
record
90 ‐Percent Prediction
Interval
Min Max
StreamStats Version 3.0
PK2 22900 cfs 56 1
PK10 42500 cfs 53 1
PK25 52900 cfs 53 2
PK50 63100 cfs 53 2
PK100 71400 cfs 54 3
PK500 95500 cfs
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri974277# (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/wri/wri974277#)
Sumioka_ S.S._ Kresch_ D.L._ and Kasnick_ K.D._ 1998_ Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Water‐
Resources Investigations Report 97 ‐4277_ 91 p.
Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/v3_beta/FTreport.htm
Page Contact Information: StreamStats Help Streamstats Status News
Page Last Modified: 11/24/2015 11:32:58 (Web2)
PEAK.PRT
1
Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.002.000
Version 7.1 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time
3/14/2014 02/24/2015 08:07
--- PROCESSING OPTIONS ---
Plot option = None
Basin char output = None
Print option = Yes
Debug print = No
Input peaks listing = Long
Input peaks format = WATSTORE peak file
Input files used:
peaks (ascii) - C:\MyFiles\Projects\Upper Hoh River -
Phase 2\Calculations\PEAK.TXT
specifications - C:\MyFiles\Projects\Upper Hoh River -
Phase 2\Calculations\PKFQWPSF.TMP
Output file(s):
main - C:\MyFiles\Projects\Upper Hoh River - Phase
2\Calculations\PEAK.PRT
1
Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.001
Version 7.1 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time
3/14/2014 02/24/2015 08:07
Station - 12041200 HOH RIVER AT US HIGHWAY 101 NEAR FORKS, WA
I N P U T D A T A S U M M A R Y
Number of peaks in record = 54
Peaks not used in analysis = 0
Systematic peaks in analysis = 54
Historic peaks in analysis = 0
Beginning Year = 1961
Ending Year = 2014
Historical Period Length = 0
Generalized skew = 0.140
Standard error = 0.550
Mean Square error = 0.303
Skew option = WEIGHTED
Gage base discharge = 0.0
User supplied high outlier threshold = --
User supplied PILF (LO) criterion = --
Plotting position parameter = 0.00
Type of analysis BULL.17B
PILF (LO) Test Method GBT
Perception Thresholds = Not Applicable
Interval Data = Not Applicable
********* NOTICE -- Preliminary machine computations. *********
********* User responsible for assessment and interpretation. *********
WCF134I-NO SYSTEMATIC PEAKS WERE BELOW GAGE BASE. 0.0
WCF195I-NO LOW OUTLIERS WERE DETECTED BELOW CRITERION. 10742.3
WCF163I-NO HIGH OUTLIERS OR HISTORIC PEAKS EXCEEDED HHBASE. 95993.7
Page 1
PEAK.PRT
Kendall's Tau Parameters
MEDIAN No. of
TAU P-VALUE SLOPE PEAKS
---------------------------------------
SYSTEMATIC RECORD 0.104 0.270 144.000 54
1
Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.002
Version 7.1 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time
3/14/2014 02/24/2015 08:07
Station - 12041200 HOH RIVER AT US HIGHWAY 101 NEAR FORKS, WA
ANNUAL FREQUENCY CURVE PARAMETERS -- LOG-PEARSON TYPE III
FLOOD BASE LOGARITHMIC
---------------------- -------------------------------
EXCEEDANCE STANDARD
DISCHARGE PROBABILITY MEAN DEVIATION SKEW
-------------------------------------------------------
SYSTEMATIC RECORD 0.0 1.0000 4.5067 0.1700 -0.423
BULL.17B ESTIMATE 0.0 1.0000 4.5067 0.1700 -0.258
BULL.17B ESTIMATE OF MSE OF AT-SITE SKEW 0.1247
ANNUAL FREQUENCY CURVE -- DISCHARGES AT SELECTED EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITIES
ANNUAL <-- FOR BULLETIN 17B ESTIMATES -->
EXCEEDANCE BULL.17B SYSTEMATIC VARIANCE 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
PROBABILITY ESTIMATE RECORD OF EST. LOWER UPPER
0.9950 10660. 10040. ---- 8467.0 12670.0
0.9900 12000. 11470. ---- 9731.0 14060.0
0.9500 16410. 16150. ---- 14000.0 18580.0
0.9000 19260. 19170. ---- 16820.0 21470.0
0.8000 23240. 23350. ---- 20780.0 25550.0
0.6667 27520. 27780. ---- 24990.0 30060.0
0.5000 32660. 33010. ---- 29900.0 35710.0
0.4292 34990. 35340. ---- 32060.0 38370.0
0.2000 44820. 44880. ---- 40730.0 50180.0
0.1000 52390. 51920. ---- 47080.0 59810.0
0.0400 61460. 60000. ---- 54420.0 71810.0
0.0200 67890. 65490. ---- 59500.0 80550.0
0.0100 74060. 70590. ---- 64290.0 89120.0
0.0050 80030. 75370. ---- 68870.0 97560.0
0.0020 87700. 81280. ---- 74670.0 108600.0
1
Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.003
Version 7.1 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time
3/14/2014 02/24/2015 08:07
Station - 12041200 HOH RIVER AT US HIGHWAY 101 NEAR FORKS, WA
Page 2
PEAK.PRT
I N P U T D A T A L I S T I N G
WATER PEAK PEAKFQ
YEAR VALUE CODES REMARKS
1961 46000.0
1962 15900.0
1963 45400.0
1964 26500.0
1965 24300.0
1966 19900.0
1967 30100.0
1968 31700.0
1969 22200.0
1970 19800.0
1971 20200.0
1972 32400.0
1973 35400.0
1974 31200.0
1975 27600.0
1976 41200.0
1977 11700.0
1978 44800.0
1979 16500.0
1980 51600.0
1981 51100.0
1982 32100.0
1983 47900.0
1984 42000.0
1985 20900.0
1986 41700.0
1987 48600.0
1988 23400.0
1989 49300.0
1990 40600.0
1991 54500.0
1992 29000.0
1993 25700.0
1994 31700.0
1995 34600.0
1996 47600.0
1997 44500.0
1998 28400.0
1999 34800.0
2000 41400.0
2001 16100.0
2002 45900.0
2003 30900.0
2004 62100.0
2005 32700.0
2006 23300.0
2007 60700.0
2008 55700.0
2009 38200.0
2010 30400.0
2011 40300.0
2012 22800.0
2013 17000.0
2014 20900.0
Page 3
PEAK.PRT
Explanation of peak discharge qualification codes
PeakFQ NWIS
CODE CODE DEFINITION
D 3 Dam failure, non-recurrent flow anomaly
G 8 Discharge greater than stated value
X 3+8 Both of the above
L 4 Discharge less than stated value
K 6 OR C Known effect of regulation or urbanization
H 7 Historic peak
- Minus-flagged discharge -- Not used in computation
-8888.0 -- No discharge value given
- Minus-flagged water year -- Historic peak used in computation
1
Program PeakFq U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seq.001.004
Version 7.1 Annual peak flow frequency analysis Run Date / Time
3/14/2014 02/24/2015 08:07
Station - 12041200 HOH RIVER AT US HIGHWAY 101 NEAR FORKS, WA
EMPIRICAL FREQUENCY CURVES -- WEIBULL PLOTTING POSITIONS
WATER RANKED SYSTEMATIC B17B
YEAR DISCHARGE RECORD ESTIMATE
2004 62100.0 0.0182 0.0182
2007 60700.0 0.0364 0.0364
2008 55700.0 0.0545 0.0545
1991 54500.0 0.0727 0.0727
1980 51600.0 0.0909 0.0909
1981 51100.0 0.1091 0.1091
1989 49300.0 0.1273 0.1273
1987 48600.0 0.1455 0.1455
1983 47900.0 0.1636 0.1636
1996 47600.0 0.1818 0.1818
1961 46000.0 0.2000 0.2000
2002 45900.0 0.2182 0.2182
1963 45400.0 0.2364 0.2364
1978 44800.0 0.2545 0.2545
1997 44500.0 0.2727 0.2727
1984 42000.0 0.2909 0.2909
1986 41700.0 0.3091 0.3091
2000 41400.0 0.3273 0.3273
1976 41200.0 0.3455 0.3455
1990 40600.0 0.3636 0.3636
2011 40300.0 0.3818 0.3818
2009 38200.0 0.4000 0.4000
1973 35400.0 0.4182 0.4182
1999 34800.0 0.4364 0.4364
1995 34600.0 0.4545 0.4545
2005 32700.0 0.4727 0.4727
1972 32400.0 0.4909 0.4909
1982 32100.0 0.5091 0.5091
1968 31700.0 0.5273 0.5273
1994 31700.0 0.5455 0.5455
1974 31200.0 0.5636 0.5636
Page 4
PEAK.PRT
2003 30900.0 0.5818 0.5818
2010 30400.0 0.6000 0.6000
1967 30100.0 0.6182 0.6182
1992 29000.0 0.6364 0.6364
1998 28400.0 0.6545 0.6545
1975 27600.0 0.6727 0.6727
1964 26500.0 0.6909 0.6909
1993 25700.0 0.7091 0.7091
1965 24300.0 0.7273 0.7273
1988 23400.0 0.7455 0.7455
2006 23300.0 0.7636 0.7636
2012 22800.0 0.7818 0.7818
1969 22200.0 0.8000 0.8000
1985 20900.0 0.8182 0.8182
2014 20900.0 0.8364 0.8364
1971 20200.0 0.8545 0.8545
1966 19900.0 0.8727 0.8727
1970 19800.0 0.8909 0.8909
2013 17000.0 0.9091 0.9091
1979 16500.0 0.9273 0.9273
2001 16100.0 0.9455 0.9455
1962 15900.0 0.9636 0.9636
1977 11700.0 0.9818 0.9818
1
End PeakFQ analysis.
Stations processed : 1
Number of errors : 0
Stations skipped : 0
Station years : 54
Data records may have been ignored for the stations listed below.
(Card type must be Y, Z, N, H, I, 2, 3, 4, or *.)
(2, 4, and * records are ignored.)
For the station below, the following records were ignored:
FINISHED PROCESSING STATION: 12041200 USGS HOH RIVER AT US HIGHWAY 101 N
For the station below, the following records were ignored:
FINISHED PROCESSING STATION:
Page 5
SCOUR ESTIMATE
Project:File:
Desc:Date:
Units:ENG By:
Location Description
MP
4
.
0
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
Ba
r
b
s
MP
4
.
0
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
W
o
o
d
Bu
f
f
e
r
MP
7
.
8
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
Ba
r
b
s
MP
7
.
8
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
W
o
o
d
Bu
f
f
e
r
CONSTANTS
UNITS ENG ENG ENG ENG
g 32.20 32.20 32.20 32.20
Du 0.00328 0.00328 0.00328 0.00328
LIVE-BED OR CLEAR-WATER DETERMINATION
y 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0
D50 76 76 178 178
V 10.0 10.0 8.0 8.0
Ku 11.170 11.170 11.170 11.170
Vc (6.1)11.05 11.05 14.67 14.67
LB / CW CW CW CW CW
LIVE-BED CONTRACTION SCOUR
y1 15.0 15.0 12.0 12.0
y0 18.0 18.0 15.0 15.0
Q1 58497.0 58497.0 55352.0 55352.0
Q2 58497.0 58497.0 55352.0 55352.0
W1 450.0 450.0 280.0 280.0
W2 330.0 330.0 280.0 280.0
S1 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
w (Fig 6.8)0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28
1.640 1.640 1.640 1.640
k1 (p6.10)0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64
BL/SL BL/SL BL/SL BL/SL
V*2.20 2.20 1.97 1.97
y2 (6.2)18.29 18.29 12.00 12.00
yS (6.3)0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00
As 96.88 96.88 0.00 0.00
scour18-5.xls
12/23/2015
S. Leon
SI or ENG
ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY, 9.81 m/s2, 32.2 ft/s2
Hoh River Bank Stabilization Study - WA JEFF 91420(1)
MP 4.0 and 7.8 Bank Stabilization
D UNIT CONVERSION, 0.001 SI, 0.00328 English
AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH, m, ft
DIAMETER 50% FINER BED PARTICLES, mm
AVERAGE VELOCITY, m/s, ft/s
UNIT COEFFICIENT, 6.19 SI, 11.17 English
CRITICAL VELOCITY, m/s, ft/s
LIVE BED or CLEAR WATER
AVERAGE U/S DEPTH, MAIN CHANNEL, m, ft
AVERAGE CONTRACTED DEPTH BEFORE SCOUR, m, ft
FLOW IN UPSTREAM CHANNEL, m3/s, ft3/S
FLOW IN CONTRACTED CHANNEL, m3/s, ft3/S
WIDTH OF THE UPSTREAM CHANNEL, m, ft
WIDTH OF THE CONTRACTED SECTION, m, ft
ENERGY SLOPE OF MAIN CHANNEL, m/m, ft/ft
D50 FALL VELOCITY, m/s
UNIT COEFFICIENT, 1.0 SI, 3.28 English
D50 FALL VELOCITY, m/s, ft/s
TRANSPORT COEFFICIENT
BED MATERIAL TRANSPORT MODE
SHEAR VELOCITY, m/s, ft/s
AVERAGE DEPTH, CONTRACTED SECTION, m, ft
AVERAGE SCOUR DEPTH, m, ft
AVERAGE SCOUR AREA, m2, ft2
SCOUR ESTIMATE
Project:File:
Desc:Date:
Units:ENG By:
Location Description
MP
4
.
0
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
Ba
r
b
s
MP
4
.
0
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
W
o
o
d
Bu
f
f
e
r
MP
7
.
8
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
Ba
r
b
s
MP
7
.
8
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
W
o
o
d
Bu
f
f
e
r
scour18-5.xls
12/23/2015
S. Leon
Hoh River Bank Stabilization Study - WA JEFF 91420(1)
MP 4.0 and 7.8 Bank Stabilization
CLEAR-WATER CONTRACTION SCOUR
y0 18.0 18.0 15.0 15.0
D50 76 76 178 178
Q 58497.0 58497.0 55352.0 55352.0
W 330.0 330.0 280.0 280.0
Ku 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077 0.0077
Dm 0.3116 0.3116 0.7298 0.7298
y2 (6.4)14.67 14.67 12.63 12.63
yS (6.5)0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
As 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BEND SCOUR
WS 267.0 267.0 325.0 325.0
Fs 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Rc 400.0 400.0 400.0 400.0
Wi 330.0 330.0 280.0 280.0
yc 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Rc/Wi 1.21 1.21 1.43 1.43
Wi/yc 27.50 27.50 23.33 23.33
Ymax 23.63 23.63 23.08 23.08
SElev SCOUR ELEVATION, ft 243.4 243.4 301.9 301.9
BARB SCOUR
H 15.0 15.0
d16 PARTICLE SIZE GRADATION - 16% FINER, ft 0.15 0.33
d50 PARTICLE SIZE GRADATION - 50% FINER, ft 0.25 0.60
d84 PARTICLE SIZE GRADATION - 84% FINER, ft 0.40 0.80
g GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION, ft/sec 32.2 32.2
L AVERAGE BARB LENGTH, ft 90.0 90.0
V AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY OVER BARB, ft/sec 12.0 12.0
segma g d84/d16 1.6 1.6
Q DISCHARGE OVER BARB, ft3/s 8100.0 8100.0
dsm MAXIMUM SCOUR SEPTH, ft 11.2 15.0
Papanicolaou (2004) - WSDOT WA-RD 581.1
CHANNEL WIDTH AT BEND INFLECTION POINT, ft
AVERAGE DEPTH, CONTRACTED SECTION, m, ft
AVERAGE SCOUR DEPTH, m, ft
AVERAGE SCOUR AREA, m2, ft2
FACTOR OF SAFETY, 1.0 to 1.1
BEND RADIUS OF CURVATURE, ft
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION, ft
AVERAGE CONTRACTED DEPTH BEFORE SCOUR, m, ft
MEDIAN DIAMETER BED MATERIAL, mm
DISCHARGE THROUGH THE BRIDGE, m3/s, ft3/s
BOTTOM WIDTH OF THE CONTRACTED SECTION, m, ft
UNIT COEFFICIENT, 0.025 SI, 0.0077 English
DIA. SMALLEST NONTRANSPORT PARTICLE, m, ft
Maynord (1996) - 210-VI-NEH, Aug. 2007.
WATER DEPTH UPSTREAM OF BARB, ft
MEAN WATER DEPTH UPSTREAM OF BEND, ft
BETWEEN 1.5 AND 10
BETWEEN 20 AND 125
MAXIMUM WATER DEPTH IN BEND, ft
SCOUR ESTIMATE
Project:File:
Desc:Date:
Units:ENG By:
Location Description
MP
4
.
0
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
Ba
r
b
s
MP
4
.
0
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
W
o
o
d
Bu
f
f
e
r
MP
7
.
8
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
Ba
r
b
s
MP
7
.
8
/
5
0
-
ye
a
r
/
W
o
o
d
Bu
f
f
e
r
scour18-5.xls
12/23/2015
S. Leon
Hoh River Bank Stabilization Study - WA JEFF 91420(1)
MP 4.0 and 7.8 Bank Stabilization
SCOUR SUMMARY
Base Elevation 252.0 252.0 313.0 313.0
0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8.6 11.1
11.2 15.0
8.6 11.1
11.5 15.0 0.0
251.7 251.7 313.0 313.0
252.0 252.0 313.0 313.0
243.4 301.9
240.8 298.0
243.4 301.9
240.5 298.0
Note:S. Leon 12/23/15
HEC 18, 5th ED. 4/2012 (EQUATIONS SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS)
Barb
Bend + Contraction
Barb + Contraction
DEPTH
ELEVATION
Barb
Barb + Contraction
Bend + Contraction
Live Bed Contraction
Clear Water Contraction
Bend
Live Bed Contraction
Clear Water Contraction
Bend
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
File:
De
s
c
:
Date:
B
y
:
S. Leon
Gw
62
.
4
lb
s
/
f
t
3
G
s
165 lbs/ft3
g
32.2
f
t
/
s
2
D1
0
0
/
V
o
l
V
o
l
K
e
y
FSs
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Q
E
v
e
n
t
V
B
C
W
O
H
W
R
c
A
h
B
h
L
s
S
s
K
l
D
1
5
D
1
0
0
B
w
B
e
B
l
F
p
F
p
/
B
C
W
B
a
r
b
K
e
y
C
l
a
s
s
C
s
C
v
C
D
W
C
d
A
F
d
f
W
'
F
L
F
f
F
S
m
(c
f
s
)
(
y
r
)
(
f
p
s
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
d
e
g
)
(
f
t
)
(
h
:
1
v
)
(
h
:
1
v
)
(
f
t
)
(
i
n
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
.
3
3
m
a
x
)
(
c
y
)
(
c
y
)
(
c
y
)
(
i
n
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
s
f
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
l
b
s
)
2
Si
t
e
5
0
1
2
.
0
3
3
0
8
4
0
0
1.
2
30
1
0
9
.
0
1
.
5
6
27
5
2
9
0
4
5
.
0
0
.
1
4
4
7
5
1
8
6
5
1
.
0
0
1
.
3
0
0
.
8
8
27
1
0
2
8
80.5 4.1
2
8
6
0.8 639
2
4
3
3
1
7
1
.
1
3
.
3
50
1
2
.
0
3
3
0
8
4
0
0
1.
2
30
1
0
9
.
0
1
.
5
6
32
5
3
9
0
4
5
.
0
0
.
1
4
5
2
0
2
2
2
5
1
.
0
0
1
.
3
0
0
.
8
8
3
2
1638 80.5 5.6
3
9
0
0.8 1019
3
3
1
5
5
0
1
.
4
4
.
0
D1
0
0
c
h
e
c
k
5
0
1
2
.
0
3
3
0
8
4
0
0
1.
2
30
1
0
9
.
0
1
.
5
6
64
1
1
5
9
0
4
5
.
0
0
.
1
4
8
8
4
5
1
6
5
1
.
0
0
1
.
3
0
0
.
8
8
64
1
3
1
0
6
80.5 22.3
1
5
5
9
0.8 8150
1
3
2
5
5
4
6
0
3
.
5
8
.
7
D8
5
c
h
e
c
k
5
0
1
2
.
0
3
3
0
8
4
0
0
1.
2
30
1
0
9
.
0
1
.
5
6
1
0
.
0
8
.
0
90
4
5
.
0
0
.
1
4
1
0
8
3
8
8
0
1.
0
0
1
.
3
0
0
.
8
8
45
4
4
9
5
80.5 10.9
7
6
4
0.8 2795
6
4
9
1
7
1
7
2
.
2
5
.
9
D5
0
c
h
e
c
k
5
0
1
2
.
0
3
3
0
8
4
0
0
1.
2
30
1
0
9
.
0
1
.
5
6
1.
0
0
1
.
3
0
0
.
8
8
32
1
6
3
8
80.5 5.6
3
9
0
0.8 1019
3
3
1
5
5
0
1
.
4
4
.
0
D1
5
c
h
e
c
k
5
0
1
2
.
0
3
3
0
8
4
0
0
1.
2
30
1
0
9
.
0
1
.
5
6
1.
0
0
1
.
3
0
0
.
8
8
24
6
5
5
80.5 3.0
2
1
2
0.8 408
1
8
0
1
8
2
0
.
9
2
.
8
No
t
e
s
:
Me
t
h
o
d
f
r
o
m
N
R
C
S
,
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
n
o
t
e
n
o
.
2
3
,
D
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
a
r
b
s
,
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
2
.
0
,
A
p
r
i
l
,
2
0
0
5
.
Q
D
e
s
i
g
n
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Cs
S
h
a
p
e
f
a
c
t
o
r
(
1
f
o
r
a
n
g
u
l
a
r
,
1
.
2
5
f
o
r
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
)
%
Ev
e
n
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
f
l
o
o
d
e
v
e
n
t
Cv
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
(
1
f
o
r
s
t
r
a
i
g
h
t
u
n
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
f
l
o
w
,
1
.
2
5
f
o
r
s
k
e
w
e
d
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
f
l
o
w
)
Pa
s
s
i
n
g
V
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
f
l
o
w
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
C
I
s
a
b
a
s
h
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
(
0
.
8
8
f
o
r
h
i
g
h
t
u
r
b
u
l
e
n
c
e
,
1
.
2
f
o
r
l
o
w
)
ST
O
N
E
(
i
n
)
D
8
5
/
D
8
BC
W
B
a
n
k
f
u
l
l
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
w
i
d
t
h
D1
5
C
s
*
C
v
*
(
V
/
(
C
[
2
g
(
G
s
-
G
w
)
/
G
w
)
]
^
.
5
)
)
^
2
,
S
<
2
%
(
F
r
o
m
E
M
1
1
1
0
-
2
-
1
6
0
1
)
10
0
0.
7
0
64
0
0
OH
W
O
r
i
d
i
n
a
r
y
h
i
g
h
w
a
t
e
r
d
e
p
t
h
W
1
5
W
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
D
1
5
85
1.
0
0
45
0
0
Rc
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
c
u
r
v
e
r
a
d
i
u
s
Gr
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
y
p
e
,
S
e
e
t
a
b
l
e
t
h
i
s
s
h
e
e
t
.
50
1.
4
0
32
0
0
Rc
/
B
C
W
T
o
r
t
u
o
s
i
t
y
Cd
F
l
u
i
d
d
r
a
g
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
0
.
3
t
o
0
.
5
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
,
2
.
0
f
o
r
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
s
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d
r
o
c
k
s
.
15
1.
9
0
24
A h
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
a
n
g
l
e
o
f
b
a
r
b
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
t
a
n
g
e
n
t
l
i
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
b
a
n
k
.
A
Rock area exposed to hydraulic force
D8
5
/
D
1
5
1
.
9
A h
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
=
3
0
e
x
c
e
p
t
w
h
e
n
R
c
/
W
<
3
A
h
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
2
5
Fd
F
l
u
i
d
d
r
a
g
KL
L
e
n
g
t
h
k
e
y
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
i
n
t
o
s
t
r
e
a
m
b
a
n
k
.
f
Friction factor, 0.8 typically
D1
0
0
/
D
1
5
R
a
t
i
o
D
1
0
0
t
o
D
1
5
W
'
S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
s
t
o
n
e
As
s
u
m
e
:
S
t
o
n
e
i
s
a
n
g
u
l
a
r
b
l
o
c
k
y
s
h
a
p
e
,
D1
0
0
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
s
t
o
n
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
FL
0
.
8
5
x
F
d
(
C
h
e
p
i
l
,
1
9
5
8
)
l
o
n
g
/
s
h
o
r
t
a
x
i
s
<
2
.
5
,
a
n
d
1
.
5
<
D
8
5
/
D
1
5
<
2
.
5
.
F
p
/
B
C
W
R
a
t
i
o
o
f
F
p
t
o
B
C
W
,
.
3
3
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
.
Ff
F
o
r
c
e
d
u
e
t
o
f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
S
t
o
n
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
p
e
r
b
a
r
b
FS
s
S
l
i
d
i
n
g
f
a
c
t
o
r
o
f
s
a
f
e
t
y
,
1
.
5
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
.
FS
m
M
o
m
e
n
t
f
a
c
t
o
r
o
f
s
a
f
e
t
y
,
1
.
5
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
.
MomentSliding Fluid Drag (Fd)
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
(
F
f
)
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
-
W
A
J
E
F
F
9
1
4
2
0
(
1
)
12/14/2015
De
s
i
g
n
MP
4
.
0
a
n
d
7
.
8
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
ST
R
E
A
M
B
A
R
B
S
T
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
/
D
E
S
I
G
N
Ty
p
e
Gr
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
F
H
W
A
-
F
P
-
1
4
)
Gr
a
d
a
t
i
o
n
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
D
a
t
a
R
c
/
B
C
W
Stone Stability (D15)Gradation
Ba
r
b
S
t
o
n
e
S
i
z
i
n
g
streambarb3.xls
Bw
=
1
t
o
3
x
D
1
0
0
Bh Be
Ss
=
2
t
o
3
St
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
Flow Bl FpBwL OHW Bank LineKlAhBank Toe
Bl
Ls
=
5
t
o
1
5
*
Bh Be
Kl
Be
Ba
r
b
K
e
y
Barb Key
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
File:
De
s
c
:
By:Date:
CH
A
N
N
E
L
,
R
E
V
E
T
M
E
N
T
,
A
N
D
A
B
U
T
M
E
N
T
Ri
p
r
a
p
Sl
o
p
e
D
e
s
c
C
l
a
s
s
V
a
v
g
D
T
d
e
s
Sb
P
h
i
V
h
S
F
C
s
R
W
R
/
W
C
v
V de
s
C
t
G
s
W
1
5
W
3
0
W
5
0
W
8
5
W
1
0
0
C
8
5
/
K
1
D
1
5
D
3
0
D
5
0
D
8
5
D
1
0
0 Toe
S
l
o
p
e
T
o
t
a
l
G
e
o
<OH W Riprap
<
O
H
W
$
/
f
t
T
o
t
a
l
(f
/
s
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
8
5
5
0
3
0
1
5
(
h
:
1
v
)
(
d
e
g
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
/
s
)
(
l
b
/
f
t
3
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
l
b
s
)
C
1
5
(
i
n
)
(
i
n
)
(
i
n
)
(
i
n
)
(
i
n
)
(
c
y
)
(
c
y
)
(
c
y
)
(
s
y
)
(
c
y
)
(
c
y
)
(
c
y
)
50
-
y
r
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
0.
1
1.
5
:
1
4
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
3.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
1
.
5
0
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
1
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
62
1
1
0
1
7
8
4
4
4
1
,
2
1
9
1
.
9
0
.
5
1
1
1
3
1
5
2
1
2
9
0
.
0
5
.
0
5
.
0
5
.
0
0
.
8
4
5
1
4
5
1
5
5
0
$
4
9
,
5
0
0
$
4
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
3.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
1
.
5
0
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
2
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
76
1
3
7
2
1
7
5
4
3
1
,
4
8
9
1
.
9
0
.
5
1
1
1
4
1
6
2
2
3
1
0
.
0
5
.
0
5
.
0
5
.
0
0
.
8
4
5
1
4
5
1
5
5
0
$
4
9
,
5
0
0
$
DE
S
I
G
N
5
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
4.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
1
.
5
0
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
3
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
91
1
6
9
2
6
2
6
5
5
1
,
7
9
7
1
.
9
0
.
5
1
2
1
5
1
7
2
4
3
3
0
.
0
6
.
7
6
.
7
5
.
0
1
.
1
6
0
1
4
5
1
7
3
0
$
6
5
,
7
0
0
$
5
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
4.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
1
.
5
0
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
4
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
10
9
2
0
5
3
1
3
7
8
1
2
,
1
4
4
1
.
9
0
.
5
1
3
1
6
1
8
2
5
3
5
0
.
0
6
.
7
6
.
7
5
.
0
1
.
1
6
0
1
4
5
1
7
3
0
$
6
5
,
7
0
0
$
6
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
5.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
1
.
5
0
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
5
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
12
9
2
4
6
3
6
9
9
2
3
2
,
5
3
2
1
.
9
0
.
5
1
4
1
7
1
9
2
6
3
7
0
.
0
8
.
3
8
.
3
5
.
0
1
.
3
7
5
1
4
5
1
9
2
0
$
8
2
,
8
0
0
$
1.
7
5
:
1
3
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
3.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
1
.
7
5
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
1
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
27
5
0
7
8
1
9
4
5
3
2
1
.
9
0
.
7
8
1
0
1
2
1
6
2
2
0
.
0
5
.
6
5
.
6
5
.
6
0
.
9
5
0
4
5
0
4
6
2
0
$
5
5
,
8
0
0
$
3
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
3.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
1
.
7
5
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
2
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
35
6
7
1
0
1
2
5
2
6
9
1
1
.
9
0
.
7
9
1
1
1
3
1
7
2
4
0
.
0
5
.
6
5
.
6
5
.
6
0
.
9
5
0
4
5
0
4
6
2
0
$
5
5
,
8
0
0
$
4
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
3.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
1
.
7
5
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
3
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
45
8
6
1
2
8
3
2
0
8
7
9
1
.
9
0
.
7
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
9
2
6
0
.
0
5
.
6
5
.
6
5
.
6
0
.
9
5
0
4
5
0
4
6
2
0
$
5
5
,
8
0
0
$
4
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
3.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
1
.
7
5
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
4
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
45
8
6
1
2
8
3
2
0
8
7
9
1
.
9
0
.
7
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
9
2
6
0
.
0
5
.
6
5
.
6
5
.
6
0
.
9
5
0
4
5
0
4
6
2
0
$
5
5
,
8
0
0
$
4
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
3.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
1
.
7
5
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
5
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1.
3
13
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
62
1
1
0
1
7
8
4
4
4
1
,
2
1
9
1
.
9
0
.
7
1
1
1
3
1
5
2
1
2
9
0
.
0
5
.
6
5
.
6
5
.
6
0
.
9
5
0
4
5
0
4
6
2
0
$
5
5
,
8
0
0
$
2.
0
:
1
2
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
2.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
2
.
0
0
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
1
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
20
3
6
5
8
1
4
6
4
0
0
1
.
9
0
.
7
7
9
1
1
1
4
2
0
0
.
0
4
.
1
4
.
1
6
.
2
0
.
7
3
7
3
5
5
9
4
6
0
$
4
1
,
4
0
0
$
2
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
2.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
2
.
0
0
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
2
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
20
3
6
5
8
1
4
6
4
0
0
1
.
9
0
.
7
7
9
1
1
1
4
2
0
0
.
0
4
.
1
4
.
1
6
.
2
0
.
7
3
7
3
5
5
9
4
6
0
$
4
1
,
4
0
0
$
2
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
2.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
2
.
0
0
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
3
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
27
5
0
7
8
1
9
4
5
3
2
1
.
9
0
.
7
8
1
0
1
2
1
6
2
2
0
.
0
4
.
1
4
.
1
6
.
2
0
.
7
3
7
3
5
5
9
4
6
0
$
4
1
,
4
0
0
$
2
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
2.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
2
.
0
0
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
4
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
35
6
7
1
0
1
2
5
2
6
9
1
1
.
9
0
.
7
9
1
1
1
3
1
7
2
4
0
.
0
4
.
1
4
.
1
6
.
2
0
.
7
3
7
3
5
5
9
4
6
0
$
4
1
,
4
0
0
$
2
10
.
0
1
5
.
0
2.
0
1.
4
1
.
9
2
.
2
2
.
7
2
.
0
0
4
1
1
.
0
1
.
5
0
.
3
4
0
0
3
3
0
1.
2
1
.
3
1
3
.
0
1.
0
1
6
5
45
8
6
1
2
8
3
2
0
8
7
9
1
.
9
0
.
7
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
9
2
6
0
.
0
4
.
1
4
.
1
6
.
2
0
.
7
3
7
3
5
5
9
4
6
0
$
4
1
,
4
0
0
$
No
t
e
s
:
Riprap Layout Notes
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
f
r
o
m
A
r
m
y
C
o
r
p
s
o
f
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
E
M
1
1
1
0
-
2
-
1
6
0
1
,
C
h
a
n
g
e
1
,
J
u
n
3
0
,
1
9
9
4
,
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
3
.
Ri
p
r
a
p
C
l
a
s
s
De
s
i
g
n
W
a
t
e
r
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
fe
e
t
Va
v
g
L
o
c
a
l
d
e
p
t
h
-
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
d
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
.
Fr
e
e
b
o
a
r
d
fe
e
t
D
L
o
c
a
l
d
e
p
t
h
o
f
f
l
o
w
.
Re
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
C
r
e
s
t
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
fe
e
t
Td
e
s
D
e
s
i
g
n
r
i
p
r
a
p
l
a
y
e
r
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
.
La
r
g
e
s
t
o
f
2
x
D
5
0
o
r
1.
2
x
D
1
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
S
c
o
u
r
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
t
Sb
B
a
n
k
s
i
d
e
s
l
o
p
e
(
0
=
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
b
o
t
t
o
m
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
)
.
Ke
y
T
o
e
T
o
p
b
e
l
o
w
S
c
o
u
r
E
l
e
v
f
e
e
t
Ph
i
R
i
p
r
a
p
a
n
g
l
e
o
f
r
e
p
o
s
e
.
Ke
y
T
o
e
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
f
e
e
t
Vh
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
o
r
(
1
.
0
m
i
n
)
.
Ke
y
T
o
e
T
o
p
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
t
SF
S
a
f
e
t
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
1.
3
mi
n
i
m
u
m
Re
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
B
o
t
t
o
m
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
t
R
R
a
d
i
u
s
o
f
c
u
r
v
a
t
u
r
e
Re
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
H
e
i
g
h
t
f
e
e
t
W
W
i
d
t
h
o
f
s
t
r
e
a
m
Ke
y
T
o
e
W
i
d
t
h
0
x
T
d
e
s
Cs
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
0
.
3
0
f
o
r
a
n
g
u
l
a
r
r
o
c
k
,
0
.
3
8
f
o
r
r
o
u
n
d
r
o
c
k
)
.
Re
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
L
e
n
g
t
h
f
e
e
t
Cv
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
.
0
s
t
r
a
i
g
h
t
,
1
.
3
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
b
e
n
d
,
1
.
5
s
h
a
r
p
b
e
n
d
)
2
O
r
d
i
n
a
r
y
-
H
i
g
h
-
W
a
t
e
r
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
t
Ct
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
(
0
.
5
f
o
r
2
x
T
d
e
s
,
0
.
9
f
o
r
1
.
5
x
T
d
e
s
)
3
Gs
U
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
s
t
o
n
e
(
1
5
5
l
b
s
/
f
t
3
m
i
n
)
.
4
Gw
U
n
i
t
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
.
62
lb
s
/
f
t
3
5
g
G
r
a
v
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
.
32
ft
/
s
2
6
K1
S
i
d
e
s
l
o
p
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
=
(
1
-
(
s
i
n
2
S
b
/
s
i
n
2
P
h
i
)
)
^
0
.
5
(
e
q
.
3
-
4
)
7
D3
0
S
f
*
C
s
*
C
v
*
C
t
*
D
*
(
(
(
G
w
/
(
G
s
-
G
w
)
)
^
0
.
5
)
*
(
(
V
a
v
g
*
V
h
)
/
(
(
K
1
*
g
*
D
)
^
0
.
5
)
)
)
^
2
.
5
(
e
q
.
3
-
3
)
8
D1
5
D
1
0
0
/
D
1
0
0
/
1
5
9
D5
0
D
1
0
0
/
D
1
0
0
/
5
0
10
D8
5
D
1
0
0
/
D
1
0
0
/
8
5
D1
0
0
D
1
0
0
/
3
0
*
D
3
0
C8
5
/
C
1
5
Un
i
f
o
r
m
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
(
1
.
7
t
o
5
.
2
)
5 0.
0
26
9
.
0
24
4
.
0
$1
1
0
$1
1
0
Co
s
t
($
/
c
y
)
Ri
p
r
a
p
C
l
a
s
s
$1
1
0
$1
1
0
$1
1
0
$1
1
0
$1
1
0
$1
1
0
S. Leon Riprapriprap201512/12/15
RI
P
R
A
P
D
E
S
I
G
N
-
U
S
A
C
E
$1
1
0
24
4
.
0
25
.
0
26
5
.
0
0.
0
De
s
i
g
n
I
n
p
u
t
Total Quantity Riprap costs assumes commercial source near Port Angeles, WA.
26
7
.
0
2.
0
24
4
.
0
90
.
0
DE
S
I
G
N
:
C
l
a
s
s
5
,
1
.
5
(
h
)
:
1
(
v
)
,
4
f
e
e
t
t
h
i
c
k
.
D1
0
0
/
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
-
W
A
J
E
F
F
9
1
4
2
0
(
1
)
MP
4
.
0
a
n
d
7
.
8
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
We
i
g
h
t
Co
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Cost Quantity /ft
Fl
o
w
R
i
p
r
a
p
Cubic Dimension
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
E
D
L
O
G
J
A
M
D
E
S
I
G
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
File:
De
s
c
:
By:S. Leon Date:
Av
g
.
Lo
g
R
o
o
t
L
C
M
a
x
.
N
o
.
D
e
s
.
N
o
.
V
o
l
u
m
e
W
e
i
g
h
t
L
L
M
a
x
.
N
o
.
D
e
s
.
N
o
.
V
o
l
u
m
e
W
e
i
g
h
t
R
i
p
r
a
p
L
o
g
Di
a
A
r
e
a
P
e
r
R
o
w
P
e
r
R
o
w
E
a
c
h
E
a
c
h
P
e
r
R
o
w
P
e
r
R
o
w
E
a
c
h
E
a
c
h
M
a
s
s
A
v
g
.
D
i
a
.
N
o
.
L
e
n
g
t
h
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
N
o
.
L
e
n
g
t
h
S
p
a
c
i
n
g
W
o
o
d
W
a
t
e
r
R
o
c
k
(i
n
)
F
a
c
t
.
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
3
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
3
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
t
o
n
)
(
i
n
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
l
b
s
/
f
t
3
)
(
l
b
s
/
f
t
3
)
(
l
b
s
/
f
t
3
)
18
2
2
0
7
4
35
1
,
0
6
0
20
7
0
35
1
,
0
6
0
0
1
8
0
2
0
0
.
0
4
2
0
4
.
7
30
6
2
.
4
1
5
0
24
2
2
0
5
2
63
1
,
8
8
5
20
5
0
63
1
,
8
8
5
0
2
4
0
2
0
0
.
0
2
2
0
1
6
.
0
30
6
2
.
4
1
5
0
36
2
2
0
3
1
14
1
4
,
2
4
1
20
3
0
14
1
4
,
2
4
1
0
3
6
0
2
0
0
.
0
1
2
0
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
30
6
2
.
4
1
5
0
WS
d
e
s
F
l
o
o
d
Lo
g
E
L
J
R
o
c
k
R
o
c
k
E
n
d
H
b
L
o
g
E
L
J
R
o
c
k
L
o
g
R
o
c
k
El
e
v
.
E
v
e
n
t
H
f
H
s
C
l
a
s
s
V
o
i
d
S
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
n
g
.
C
r
o
s
s
V
o
l
u
m
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
W
e
i
g
h
t
A
r
e
a
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
n
g
.
C
r
o
s
s
V
o
l
u
m
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
V
o
l
u
m
e
W
e
i
g
h
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
(f
t
)
(
y
r
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
)
(
%
)
(
f
t
3
)
(
f
t
3
)
(
f
t
3
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
f
t
2
)
(
f
t
)
(
f
t
3
)
(
f
t
3
)
(
f
t
3
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
l
b
s
)
26
3
5
0
3
0
3
0
.
0
%
2
01
14
1
1
,
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
00 000000
26
3
5
0
3
0
3
0
.
0
%
2
01
12
6
1
,
6
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
00 000000
26
3
5
0
3
0
3
0
.
0
%
1
01
14
1
1
,
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
00 000000
To
t
a
l
Lo
g
Fr
i
c
t
i
o
n
Su
b
.
We
i
g
h
t
W
r
b
F
b
F
S
b
V
a
v
g
V
C
V
d
e
s
C
d
F
d
A
n
g
l
e
F
f
s
F
S
s
N
o
.
V
o
l
u
m
e
W
e
i
g
h
t
(l
b
s
)
(
l
b
s
)
(
l
b
s
)
(f
t
/
s
)
(f
t
/
s
)
(l
b
s
)
(
d
e
g
)
(
l
b
s
)
(f
t
3
)
(
l
b
s
)
4,
2
4
1
1
3
,
5
8
5
8
,
8
2
2
1
.
5
12
1
.
3
16
1.
2
16
,
9
7
8
70
13
,
0
8
8
0
.
8
1
10
7
9
,
3
4
4
3,
7
7
0
1
3
,
1
1
4
7
,
8
4
1
1
.
7
12
1
.
3
16
1.
2
16
,
9
7
8
70
14
,
4
8
6
0
.
9
1
10
7
9
,
3
4
4
4,
2
4
1
1
3
,
5
8
5
8
,
8
2
2
1
.
5
12
1
.
3
16
1.
2
16
,
9
7
8
70
13
,
0
8
8
0
.
8
1
10
7
9
,
3
4
4
No
t
e
s
:
(
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
f
r
o
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
R
e
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
W
o
o
d
i
n
t
o
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
S
t
r
e
a
m
s
,
A
b
b
e
/
B
r
o
o
k
s
,
2
0
0
6
)
Gr
a
v
i
t
y
32
.
2
ft
/
s
e
c
-
2
Va
v
g
Av
e
r
a
g
e
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
-
Hf
De
s
i
g
n
f
l
o
w
d
e
p
t
h
Vc
Ve
l
o
c
i
t
y
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
F
a
c
t
o
r
-
Hs
De
p
t
h
b
e
l
o
w
p
r
ed
i
c
t
e
d
s
c
o
u
r
Vd
e
s
De
s
i
g
n
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
-
Av
e
r
a
g
e
L
o
g
D
i
a
.
(E
n
d
d
i
a
.
+
B
a
s
e
d
i
a
.
A
b
o
v
e
r
o
o
t
)
/
2
Cd
Dr
a
g
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
1
.
2
(
S
h
i
e
l
d
s
/
K
n
i
g
h
t
,
2
0
0
0
)
Ro
o
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
Ro
o
t
a
r
e
a
/
T
r
u
n
k
A
r
e
a
Fd
(
m
a
s
s
)
Dr
a
g
=
(
0
.
5
x
V
d
e
s
^
2
x
S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d
E
n
d
A
r
e
a
x
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
x
C
d
)
/
g
LC
Cr
o
s
s
L
o
g
L
e
n
g
t
h
-
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
r
o
o
t
w
a
d
Fr
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
Ro
c
k
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
b
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
LL
Lo
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
L
o
g
L
e
n
g
t
h
-
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
r
o
o
t
w
a
d
Ff
s
(
m
a
s
s
)
Fo
r
c
e
R
e
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
r
a
g
=
(
W
r
b
-
F
b
)
x
t
a
n
(
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
)
Ri
p
r
a
p
V
o
i
d
S
Ri
p
r
a
p
V
o
i
d
S
p
a
c
e
-
S
e
t
t
o
1
0
0
%
f
o
r
n
o
r
i
p
r
a
p
FS
s
Ff
s
/
F
d
,
2
.
0
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
Lo
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
Vo
l
u
m
e
o
f
t
r
u
n
k
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
l
o
g
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
n
d
av
e
r
a
g
e
l
o
g
d
i
a
.
-
e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
r
o
o
t
w
a
d
.
Ri
p
r
a
p
V
o
l
u
m
e
(E
L
J
V
o
l
u
m
e
-
L
o
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
)
x
(
1
-
R
i
p
r
a
p
V
o
i
d
S
)
Ri
p
r
a
p
M
a
s
s
Ri
p
r
a
p
V
o
l
u
m
e
x
R
o
c
k
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Wr
b
W
e
i
g
h
t
R
e
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
u
o
y
a
n
c
y
=
T
o
t
a
l
L
o
g
W
e
i
g
h
t
+
R
o
c
k
W
e
i
g
h
t
A
b
o
v
e
W
S
d
e
s
+
R
o
c
k
W
e
i
g
h
t
B
e
l
o
w
W
s
d
e
s
Fb
(
m
a
s
s
)
Bu
o
y
a
n
t
F
o
r
c
e
(
m
a
s
s
)
=
L
o
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d
x
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
FS
b
W
r
b
/
F
b
,
2
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
B
a
n
k
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
-
W
A
J
E
F
F
9
1
4
2
0
(
1
)
EL
J
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
-
S
i
n
g
l
e
b
u
n
d
l
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
ELJ-1 11/10/2015
No
.
L
a
y
e
r
s
Lo
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
L
o
g
s
Be
l
o
w
D
e
s
i
g
n
W
a
t
e
r
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
Above Design Water Surface
Cr
o
s
s
L
o
g
s
De
s
i
g
n
Do
l
o
s
B
a
l
l
a
s
t
Sl
i
d
i
n
g
S
a
f
e
t
y
F
a
c
t
o
r
Bu
o
y
a
n
c
y
S
a
f
e
t
y
F
a
c
t
o
r
Constants Design Quantities
Lo
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
L
o
g
s
Cross Logs
Ri
p
r
a
p
Density
No
.
L
a
y
e
r
s
LLLC FlHbHsHfWSdes