HomeMy WebLinkAbout143-83 RESOLUTION•
RESOLUTION NO. 143 - 83
A RESOLUTION;ADOPTING A MASTER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE
PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE LOCATED
ADJACENT TO ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 16 WEST.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
That the Board of Directors hereby adopts the master
sewerage and drainage plan attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A",
and made a part hereof for a portion of the City of Fayetteville
located adjacent to Arkansas Highway 16 West.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of December, 1983.
APPROVED:
Mayor
'°-a
1
1
1
1
1
1•
EVALUATION OF STORMWATER
DRAINAGE FACILITIES -
t 14? :mio
HIGHWAY 16 WEST
FOR
CITY:OF FAYETTEVILLE
•
•
I •
.. k ">`Li
August, 1983
83-119
‘-Prepared by •
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
■
EVALUATION OF STORMWATER
DRAINAGE FACILITIES
HIGHWAY .16 WEST
FOR
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
August, 1983
83-119
Prepared by
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
I Introduction 1
II Description of Project Area 2
III Description of Drainage Basin 3
IV Evaluation of Existing Streets and Roads 4 - 5
V Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities 6 - 8
VI Description of Known Flooding 9 - 11
VII Projected Stormwat'er Flows and Recommended 12 - 14
Culverts and Bridges
VIII Discussion of Recommended Culverts and Bridges 15 - 17
IX Recommended Storm Sewers 18 - 19
X Discussion of Recommended Storm Sewers 20 - 21
XI Estimated Costs for Recommended Drainage Facilities 22 - 27
XII Channel Improvements 28 - 31
XIII Implementation of Recommended Drainage Facilities 32 - 33
XIV Municipal Participation in Drainage Facilities Costs 34
XV Conclusions 35
XVI Storm Drainage Design Criteria 36 - 37
SECTION
XVII Appendices
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
1
2
3
4A
46
5
6A
Figure No. 6B
Figure No. 7A
Figure No. 7B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Planning Area Map
Flood Hazard Boundary Map
SCS Hydrologic Soil Groups
Existing Drainage Facilities, East Map
Existing Drainage Facilities, West Map
General Land Use Plan
Recommended Culverts and Bridges,
East Map
Recommended Culverts and Bridges,
West Map
Recommended Storm Sewers, East Map
Recommended Storm Sewers, West Map
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
NO. NO.
1 Characteristics of Existing Streets and Roads 5
2 Characteristics of Existing Drainage Facilities 8
3 Stormwater Flows and Recommended Drainage 14
Structure Sizes
4 Recommended Storm Sewer Facilities 19
5 Modification of Culvert Sizes If Storm Sewers are 21
Installed
6 Estimated Costs of Recommended Culverts and Bridges 23 - 24
7 Estimated Total Costs for Municipally Funded 25
Culverts and Bridges
8 Estimated Costs of Storm Sewers by Street
Classification
26
9 Unit Costs Used for Drainage Pipe 27
INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
In November, 1982, approximately 910 acres were annexed to the City of
Fayetteville. This area is located along Highway 16 West (Wedington Drive)
west of the Highway 71 bypass. At the time of the annexation, several
subdivisions were in various planning phases under the Washington County
subdivision regulations. Upon annexation to the City of Fayetteville, the
Fayetteville Planning Commission has been approached by some of these
potential developers concerning rezoning and/or development of portions of
this annexed area. Other property owners have notified City officials of
existing and potential stormwater drainage and sanitary sewerage problems.
As a result of these somewhat opposing factions, and in an effort to
determine a picture of the true consequences of development on these aspects
of the annexed area, and contiguous areas influenced by, or exerting an
influence on, the annexed area, the Fayetteville Planning Commission
recommended to the Board of Directors that comprehensive engineering studies
of drainage and sewerage needs be completed.
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. was employed by the City of
Fayetteville on May 16, 1983, to complete these two studies. This document
addresses the stormwater drainage needs for the project area, with a
corresponding document addressing sewerage needs for the project area.
Reviewers and users of these documents are cautioned to remember that
these two subjects, only, are addressed. While the project area also needs
street construction work, water distribution system improvements, fire
hydrant installations, and related municipal facilities, these needs are not
addressed in these documents.
— 1
•
1
1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
The project area about which this stormwater drainage study has been
prepared consists of approximately 910 acres which were annexed to the City
of Fayetteville in November, 1982. The area is located on each side of
Wedington Drive (Highway 16 West), west of the Highway 71 bypass. Figure
No. 1 illustrates the limits of the project area. Land use in this area is
primarily agricultural with some low density residential areas located in
the western half of the project area.
Agricultural land uses in the area include small grain production,
pasture, hay crops and poultry production. Areas that are cultivated, such
as the small grain crops, tend to have higher stormwater runoff rates, as
compared to non cultivated hay and pasture land uses.
The eastern portion of the project area is relatively flat, with some
rolling land existing in the western portion of the area. The overall
drainage basin slope from the Owl Creek drainage divide southeast of the
Ozarks Electric property to the Double Springs Road bridge is approximately
0.56 percent. Segments of Owl Creek near County Road 650 N are flatter than
this average slope, tending to create wider flood plain areas.
Relative to flood plains, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development has published a Flood Hazard Boundary Map for Washington County.
This map includes the project area and is reproduced on Figure No. 2.
Approximately 55 acres of the project area are included in the Zone A flood
hazard area designated on this map. The exact limits and/or location of the
flood hazard boundary and flood water elevation cannot be determined from
this map. It is expected that a detailed flood study, such as those
completed on several streams within Fayetteville's previous corporate
limits, has not been completed for Owl Creek.
•
DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE BASIN
III. DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE BASIN
In addition to most of the 910 acres within the project area, drainage
structures in the area are influenced by stormwater runoff from adjacent
portions of the drainage basin. The Double Springs Road bridge serves the
largest drainage area of any of the structures evaluated. It receives
runoff from approximately 1715 acres, the limits of which are illustrated on
Figure No. 1.
Land use in the balance of the drainage basin is basically
agricultural, with less residential development as compared to the project
area. A wooded hill exists in the southeast corner of the drainage basin.
With the exception of this hill, the balance of the basin is flat to rolling
in topography.
Soil characteristics in a drainage basin greatly influence the amount
and rate of stormwater runoff. The Soil Conservation Service includes in
its county Soil Survey booklets information on the hydrologic soil
classification for the various soil types in that county. These
classifications range from Soil Group A with a low runoff potential to Soil
Group D, with a high runoff potential. Figure No. 3 illustrates the
drainage basin and the various soil group classifications. As indicated by
this figure, much of the eastern portion of the drainage basin has soil
types that have high or moderately -high runoff potentials.
These are basically the same soil types that have severe limitations
for septic tank leaching fields as discussed in the corresponding sewerage
study. The reasons for these septic tank limitations and high runoff
potentials include slow infiltration rates, high water tables, clay layers
and/or rock layers. The Group D, high runoff potential soils, have a high
clay content. Group C soils have slow infiltration rates due to moderately
fine or fine textures.
Group B soils cover the majority of the western portion of the drainage
basin, with some Group C and D soils mixed in. Group B soils are moderately
well drained to well drained soils, as a result of moderately fine to
moderately coarse textures. Consequently, infiltration into these soils is
higher than for Groups C and D soils and the resulting stormwater runoff is
less. Only a very small area of Group A soils exist in the drainage basin,
and this area is downstream from the drainage structures evaluated.
EVALUATION OF EXISTING STREETS AND ROADS
IV. EVALUATION OF EXISTING STREETS AND ROADS
Although the scope of work under this project did not include any
requirement for reviewing the current road situation in the project area,
some awareness of the existing condition of these streets and roads is
necessary, _in order to better understand the stormwater drainage needs.
Table No. 1 summarizes the existing road conditions. County road numbers
have been used where applicable. In some cases a direction designation has
been added to the road numbers to delineate segments of the various roads.
Figures 1, 4A and 4B illustrate the road locations, and projected
right-of-ways are shown on Figures 6A and 6B. The projected right-of-ways
are based on the street classifications discussed hereinafter. In some
cases, these right-of-ways differ from those shown on City plat maps. With
the exception of a few platted subdivisions, most of the streets are
unplated and are expected not to be dedicated streets.
As can be seen from the notes in Table No.1, and by careful review of
the figures, most of the roads in the project area are narrow. Many have
inadequate drainage ditches. Surfaces range from good asphalt to gravel to
rocks to dirt. Many of the roads are dead ended. Part of these dead end
roads serve several property owners, while othersserve rows of duplexes,
which are apparently rental units. In almost every case, the roads and
streets in the project area have one or more inadequate drainage structures.
The remainder of this report addresses existing and needed drainage
facilities. Recommended drainage facilities have been broken into two
categories; culverts and bridges for the existing and proposed streets, and
storm sewers with curb and gutter inlets for streets upgraded to City Street
Standards. This second category of structures is proposed based upon the
assumption that new streets illustrated on the Master Street Plan will be
built in accordance with the street standards, and that existing streets
will eventually be upgraded to the City Street Standards, thereby requiring
installation of storm sewers. Some of the recommended storm sewers are for
existing residential and private streets that may never be upgraded.
Consequently, the interrelationship of street upgrading and drainage
structure installations must be remembered.
TABLE NO. 1
Y
O
Narrow for a major highway
II
c
O V 0
L
L
c
N
c C a 0
O 0 L L
U U
4-1 Y Y Y
• a a -CI
C C
O O 0 O
O 0 C C
a
U 3 3
A 0a 0a
4- L C L C
L L a L a 0
= N N C
N Ca Ca 3 0)
co r0 0
o is i13 S- - q
O a a '0 a
0• > > z 0
a
Y 0
1..
a
C Y •nN
0 • L 0 3
V V 0
a r0 L
V a L
N Y - 10
tF Y rt1Ip C
L i > > 5-
• 0 O r J
N j L Y
d.-
0
O a 0
q V
O a
CL C N L
R T
• N ry
a N
O 0 N
L V
L 4-I
W
(0' X
0 w
Good condition,
Good condition, narrow
Good condition, narrow
Some ditch work needed
Fair surface
Narrow, dead end
9
C
A
0)
x 0
0) Y
r '0
J r
0.
4-
0
0 N
Y
• Y
0
O 0)
L 0
4- L
C C 0
C C C
a a N
Ln
U Y 0
N r0 L S-
o
a 0) m 0
o O d
Dead end, no ditches
0 v
> >
4-1 N 0 !.0- rti 0 r0 r
L L r0 rci
CU r0 L I0 a CD 0 0) a
Y L Y H N
V J 0
W L
h£ Y Y Y Y YC • Y C Y
_ _ q
• 0
CI
0 m m m 0 ▪ a m a a L L L L > • L > > > 0. c > >0 d d d VI r ill
teLO LN • i L S. i Q Q • 6 Q 0 0
< 0 • 0 CD V CO 0 6 0 0
YL� O r0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
Q' R ti V 10 tO V IO 10 0 CO 0 U)
a Y tO 10 10 10 IO t0ID 10 OI t0 ID 0 1O CO 0 p
N
L C 1-' f7 V • .. • • N. •
Y a-. N N N V N N N 'y
VI J .y
>1 "•••••-
4-.1
Y NL •
C 3 Y Y
OI 1 .-0 4-
-r- SI -
CC
C 03
c
O
O O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 1 O 1 1 O
CO OJ N CO LD tO 10 tD 1D ID ID ID IO LD
1
R
Y
C
OJ
V
0.1
C
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
0)
10
I
Y >
CU a C'.- a
Y Y a L Y
N ' T -0 0_ .O
> > >
N 0
L L a C S-
0-
d O. C 0 0-
C
Y 0
a
CD Y
5- CO
Y C U L L 1.. L
111 ^ .- ft,.- r r •--
V- d fp q q ^ Y Y Y U
S- d'� 0 V V U
a -N L L L L L L i 0 a a N
Y NC
C a O a 0 a O a 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I
N ^ Y C Y 0 Y C Y 1-.- r - r - r
'p L L r L L .r i
£ 0 dQ £Q £Q £Q 0 0 0 U
L ▪ Z
O
Y • O
CD a 0 C q
CU L r0 Z 3 Y C
Y Z L 01
N 0 ID C 0 LO
~ 0 0.03
3 3 C
= L)
S� K...
Rupple Road S.
in
O
C
L
c.N
a— 3
3 Z N H
N. O 0 n 0 O CO 01 10 n n
10
L] N 10 n CO n n 10 10 CO
0 ID 10 co fp 10 tD co co 10 LO t0 LO b
V
O V C C C C C C
pv 0 V V U 0 V U 0 V V V 0 V V V U
- 5 -
•
Clevenger Drive
Michael Cole Drive
Brook Drive
EVALUATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
V. EVALUATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
Existing stormwater drainage facilities in the project area range from
a reasonably sized bridge over Owl Creek on Double Springs Road to 15 inch
culverts. Drainage structures included in this evaluation included all
located structures under the previously listed public and private streets.
Culverts under individual driveways were not included in this evaluation.
Table No. 2 lists the characteristics and locations of these structures.
Notes concerning the structure condition and any clogging are also listed.
Each of the structures has been assigned a structure number. Figures 4A and
4B show the locations of these structures by number.
Specific comments concerning some of these structures are as follows:
Structure
No. Comment
1 The Double Springs Road bridge appears
structurally sound, however, a structural
analysis of this or any other drainage structure
has not been made. Wingwalls and guard rails
are needed on the bridge. Some erosion of the
road embankment is occurring due to the fact
that there are no wingwalls.
2 & 3 These bridges are hydraulically and structurally
inadequate.
4. This bridge is located immediately outside the
project area, however, flows through the bridge
will be influenced by the project area. The
bridge appears relatively new and structurally
sound. It is on the route of a proposed minor
arterial street, as indicated by the Master
Street Plan.
5
This culvert is fed by two driveway culverts to
effect a "T" shaped structure. The driveway
culverts include approximately 23 feet of 30
inch CMP and 27 feet of 18"X30" arch pipe. This
installation has failed to pass stormwater
flows, resulting in flood waters running across
the street.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Structure
No.
6 thru 11
Comment
Many of the culverts under Highway 16 are
combinations of concrete pipe, corrugated metal
pipe and/or box culvert. Apparently as the
highway was upgraded, culverts were extended by
segments.
17, 22, 23, 26 These culverts are under roads that may be
27, 28, & 29 determined to be private drives. Structure 27
is a new low water bridge.
20 This structure consists of a concrete slab over
a pile of rocks. Some flow passes through the
rocks with the balance flowing over the slab in
the nature of a low water bridge.
TABLE NO. 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
Present
Structure Street Name Existing Structure Open Length
No. or No. Structure Size Condition % (ft.)
1 Double Springs Road 237 S.F. Bridge . Good 100 20
2 CR650N 54 S.F. Bridge Poor 100 14.5
3 CR650W 44 S.F. Bridge Poor 80 17.8
4 - CR648 - 112 S.F. Bridge Good 90 26
5 CR650S 7.8 S.F. RCB Good 100 28.6
6 Hwy 16 24" CMP Fair 80 37
7 Hwy 16 24" RCP & CMP Good 50 37
8 Hwy 16 24" CMP & RCB Good 80 ' 49
9 Hwy 16 36" RCP Good 100 39
10 Hwy 16 18" RCP & CMP Fair 50 28
11 Hwy 16 24" CMP & 2'X4' RCB Poor 100 37
12 Carriage Way 24" CMP Good 100 77
13 Carlsbad Trace 24" CMP Good 75 75
14 CR877 18" CMP Fair 5 34
15 CR878 36" CMP Good 50 40
16 Michael Cole Drive 18" RCP Good 100 29
17 Brook Drive 18" RCP Good 75 24
18 CR650W 14"X20" CMPA New 100 33
19 CR667 18" RCP Good 100 28
20 CR667 Conc. Slab - -
No Opening
21 CR667 5'X3' RCB Good 100 12
22 Clevenger Road 24" RCP Good 75 26
23 Clevenger Road 15" RCP Good 100 20
24 Michael Cole Drive 24" RCP Good 100 66
'25 Michael Cole Drive 15" CMP Good 100 37
26 Michael Cole Drive 18" RCP Good 100 33
27 Michael Cole Drive 24" RCP and Low Good 95 15
Water Bridge
28 CR638 15" RCP Good 50 29
29 Michael Cole Drive 18" RCP Good 100 38
Abbreviations:
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe
RCB Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
CMPA Corrugated Metal Arch Pipe
S.F. Square foot opening size
DESCRIPTION OF KNOWN -FLOODING
VI. DESCRIPTION OF KNOWN FLOODING
One of
the principal contributing reasons for this study
being
authorized and
completed is the
fact that flooding has occurred
in the
project area,
and the fact that
if development is allowed to occur
in the
project area
without adequate
drainage provisions, increases
in the
frequency and
severity of current
flooding problems will occur.
Drainage structures 2, 3 and 5 as previously described and as shown on
Figure No. 4A and 4B are known to become submerged during major storms.
Houses and structures where flooding is known to have occurred are as
follows:
Millard Goff Residence: This house is located on County Road 650
South, northwest of drainage structure no. 5. Flooding of the
house garage occurred during last Summers storm, with the water
level reaching within approximately 2 inches of the house floor
level. Garage flooding has occurred on one other previous
occasion. Flooding results when stormwater from drainage
structure no. 6 (under Hwy 16 near Carriage Way) and from the
drainage basin east of structure no. 5 exceeds the capacity of
structure no. 5. Yard flooding on the east side of the road
occurs, with water overtopping the road north of structure no. 5.
This water spreads out in the yard around the Goff residence and
subsequently enters the garage on the east end of the house.
Elimination of this flooding could be achieved by upsizing
structure no. 5, deeping the road drainage ditches and/or building
up the road surface elevation. Reductions in the stormwater flows
could also be achieved by installing a culvert at the intersection
of Hwy 16 and Rupple Road, thereby diverting some of the flow
south along the proposed extension to Rupple Road.
Clevenger Duplexes: These duplexes are located alongside Owl
Creek, east of County Road 650 North, and just upstream of
drainage structure no. 2. Five of the duplexes closest to the
bridge were flooded during last Summers storm. These buildings
had 6 to 8 inches of water in them. Previous building flooding
has not occurred in the 11 years that the buildings have been in
existence, although the water level has gotten within 8 inches of
the building floor levels several times. Part of the cause of
this flooding may be attributed to backwater created by the bridge
and it's embankment. However, the bridge and embankment are
relatively small. It is expected that flooding would occur under
major storm events if no bridge and embankment existed.
It is believed that major channel improvements such as clearing
and straightening, will be necessary to reduce most chances of
flooding. Flooding possibilities could be reduced somewhat by
constructing a low water bridge, flush with the natural drainage
channels, or by constructing a very long bridge, that would have
an opening large enough to prevent creation of backwater. Part of
the problem in this area is the flat creek slope immediately
downstream of this area (0.3%), which tends to slow the channel
velocity and subsequently create higher upstream water levels,
even without the backwater effects created by the bridge.
Wayne Flora Residence: This house is located south of Michael
Cole Drive, about halfway between Brook Drive and drainage
structure no. 27. It is located beside and immediately downstream
of a bend in Owl Creek. ,The house has been constructed
approximately 5 years. Last summers storm resulted in
approximately 3 inches of water in the house, submergence of the
swimming pool southeast of the house and partial submergence of a
barn and storage building. One previous storm resulted in water
approximately 2 to 3 inches below the house floor level. Channel
improvements would be necessary to reduce the chances of flooding
at this house. It's location is sufficiently remote from existing
drainage structures to rule out structures as the cause of this
flooding. The flat creek slope, as listed above, wooded channel
and bend in the channel all undoubtedly contribute to the severity
of flooding at this site.
The possibility
of flooding in duplexes at the end of
Brook Drive
was
suspected, however,
conversations with the owner indicate that this has
not
occurred. The owner
advised that the ground level had
been built
up
somewhat and that an
extra course of blocks had•been used in
the footings
of
the south duplexes.
The owner advised that the open flat
field south
of
Brook Drive flooded,
thereby shifting the flow away from the
duplexes.
An analysis of the three known flooding situations indicates some
common characteristics; first of all the structures are relatively new, yet
all three locations have either been flooded or threatened with flooding on
occasions other than last Summers storm; second, major funding commitments
are necessary in order to reduce the possibility of flooding of these three
sites; third, with the exception of the possible flow diversions by the
Highway Department at the Rupple Road/Hwy 16 intersection, no major changes
have been made in the drainage basin since these buildings were completed.
One might conclude that these buildings were constructed in flood prone
areas, and that this mistake by the building owners does not justify any
otherwise unwarranted expenses to the City of Fayetteville. An alternate
way of viewing this situation is that a flooding problem is known to exist.
Development in the project area that results in increased stormwater runoff
will increase the frequency and/or severity of this problem. Consequently,
developers would be liable for any incremental increase in damages. Under
- 10 -
this situation, what policy should the City of Fayetteville take concerning
allowing development to occur?
The remaining sections of this study estimate stormwater runoff rates
under existing and developed conditions in the drainage basin, provide
preliminary sizing of drainage structures to handle the projected flows and
provide cost estimates for these facilities, all in an effort to better
understand the existing and projected situations. Perhaps this information
will better enable the City of Fayetteville to reach an informed answer to
the question posed. above.
PROJECTED STORMWATER FLOWS AND RECOMMENDED
CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
VII. PROJECTED STORMWATER FLOWS AND
RECOMMENDED CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department has recently
published an updated Drainage Manual. This manual establishes methods,
criteria and guidelines for estimating stormwater flows, sizing culverts and
bridges and designing storm sewers. This manual was used as the primary
reference for determining the information and recommendations presented
hereinafter. In some cases, some "short-cut" methods were utilized, since
the purpose of this study is to obtain a preliminary structure size. If and
when structures are to be constructed, detailed design analysis for each
structure should be completed at that time, as localized conditions, changes
in the drainage basin characteristics or projected land uses could all
result in significant modifications to the structure sizes recommended
hereinafter.
Table No. 3 lists stormwater flows and recommended structure sizes for
each of the existing drainage structures. In addition, drainage structures
needed for new streets proposed on the Master Street Plan have been sized.
Flows were calculated based on the Rational Method for small structures and
based on the Soil Conservation Service method for large structures, in
accordance with the Highway Department Drainage Manual. A modified formula
was utilized to determine the time of concentration for the Rational Method
calculations, as described in Section XVI.
Existing and projected stormwater flows were based on current and
projected land use characteristics. Projected land use characteristics were
determined based on an amendment to Fayetteville's General Land Use Plan, as
illustrated by Figure No. 5. The S.C.S. Hydrologic Soil Groups, as
previously discussed and as illustrated by Figure No. 3, were also utilized
in the S.C.S. calculation method for determining the stormwater runoff rates
for the major structures.
The estimated stormwater flows and recommended structure sizes have
been calculated for various storm frequencies. Ten year and 25 year storm
frequencies were used to calculate structure sizes for minor structures.
Major structures were sized for.25 and 50 year storm frequencies. Culverts
across Highway 16 were sized for 10, 25 and 50 year storm frequencies.
Section XVI lists Highway Department criteria for recommended design storm
frequencies. The City of Fayetteville generally requires the use of a 25
year frequency for minor structures and 50 year frequency for major
structures.
Based primarily on the Highway Department criteria, it is recommended
that in general a 50 year design storm frequency be used .for major
structures and for principal arterial streets (Hwy. 16), that a 25 year
design storm frequency be used for minor arterial and collector streets, and
that a 10 year design storm frequency be used for residential and private
- 12 -
streets. Structure sizes corresponding to these conditions have been marked
on Table No. 3. Where the existing sizes appear adequate they have been
"boxed" in. Of the 29 existing structures, 9 appear adequately sized,
including the low water bridge (structure no. 27). The design storm
frequencies recommended above should be reconsidered on a case by case basis
when final design of these structures is completed. Considerations should
be given not only to the street classification and structure size, but also
to the effects that will occur if the structure fails or if the structure is
undersized to the extent that unacceptable backwater flooding occurs.
Hence, on a case by case basis, other storm frequencies may be justified.
Figure No. 6A and 6B illustrate the locations of the recommended
structures. New structures as listed on Table No. 3 (structure A thru H)
are also illustrated on these figures. These new structures are to be
utilized on proposed streets, or on existing streets where needed drainage
structures are apparently nonexistent.
- 13 -
v
A
0L
0-
z
Y y
d p d d 6 d p d
P d d d
L
u V N
LL LL LL LL LL£ U£ V V£££££ V U U
O Z O O 0
0 0
C LL V V U£ U
0 0
p] U U
C
D
N`N
NN✓)NNVKUKCVUUVVCd'= 6'�.NO:CO:UC
KC
01
A
b
_- N_
y_ _ _ _ _
y
u
K W= ==w=
WIA
f11[f 0..-I PO<IONCOOPbNN W
6tO tfNd't0O
Y1[1P
A
Cu .+I, NN NI1.-IN Cu Cu -En r.-I>C-V0.'+Cu-N.-l-N.'+.'+
UI
0OWb 0 a 0
00
J
0. [Omb10
O V
Z
3
O
J¢d'3d'¢6'5
•
J
¢ d p 2 V U p d
# !
a p
O
LLLLLLLLLLLLC
LLLLv LL
LL LL d
VI
VINVI ✓1 V11%NV1 ICU
PbNU
n
N N 6' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1•
1�O0f
.-I.+ bm
tOtoOO 1 1 1 1
S.
[1
O TeO 10N.1'I sL=
FtO
P lb:
}
NN.-. P O
Cu
: en
Cu
O
a V 1
1
b
Cu N Cu
N
'
N
C
_
✓1
O
Ui
K
p
p
N
N
E
(_,
H
# V
d'
♦ #
D
O
U
C
V
d 6C 660.666= 0.0.
660.6:
6p
6pp# d
W
O
NI
LL LL LL LL LL LL V LL LL V O V£ U U V U O V U
V U V U.+
U U
V V U V
F
U
V V1 VI V1 V1NN d'NNC(7 p'Cp'C6'NC 6'
LL6'KC N
6'6'
LLLLLL6'CS
•
N
1
NNIn N
'0
I-
N
UI
L
000N0= 0: ed: : %_ -
bno:
- p
U
L
}
I'IV fI]w _l •fl O.-.I0o I -d-
17RNON
PN,
mNb00V10
O
O
O
Cu Cu N10 N= MN Cu En- y= NN
1h Cu -En-=
.nN
bN, to -Cu--
Ot
W
u
in
I.-. le 1 1 a II
II 0
1
1
0
LL
N
N NNN Cu .-INN
I,. Cu rI
Cu
Cu Cu
H
W
W
£
U'
£
Z
0
# Q
N
I-.
W
0. 0
0.
W
0.
E
S
0
V10 000 6'!!V4Y
##!i!
Y#
O
1 1 1 1 1 VIN
•
^ N
O
o
IN
I I
m£
N N N
XC
m
N N
N N
N
Cu
O
Obl
O
-i
en -tutu
bN
N
Cu
Z
Cu
F-
U
W
OW
y
✓1
O
O
T
'
Q
LE—
000YIOPOJNOCo
O
I(fOON
L
}LLa
OI,1l610-10.-.0101" 111111 111
11I1111I1
y
1(10N01111,
d
N
04.
IO OI.11f1.I .rN
d
I�b0
O
0.
O
O
0.
LL
LL
^
W
C
D
L^
0e.-.e00.000OJ-INI.,.wQ
.r.-.NPl0V1
bl�
'
• W
C
} L N
• •N-
In Q.r p(p 01004)NI�[O N. -.P • .I�<
9Np10 .N
1 .1q
I0�NN~O�
O
Nr N.y .r .v Nn
.-I N.
b
I�I[]< .-. �-.
N
E
Q
U
In .O-JU
.In y^.y
p
3
N N v
a
£
a
v
O
0.
L
L
!-
W
LL
} L an
a — C — (' ON1100 Pen NO
OPI-..-IbN
1-0
to Iy O I,P
N
O
OW
1 1 I I I C OI^b101,N.0 • 10C
�O.-.I.IIO •N
1 -N
1 1 1 NN .Pb
C
Oby
—IO
— IO
IO
.-.
O
F
a
Q
I-
N
N
V
C
•
W
Y O
C'•
L E^
y
0•-
} L N
S.
L�
OIF
OOV10 P0.-1�.+nm,..OO
tn(n
IMI_4a
Yf0
IOOJIPNONO
LW
NY V
.
cc.-.Ina.r-.-erc'u-nm,...cc .-. IO .N (.f
•-
^.+(C S.'+
1 Q
1p Qf1 .-I .r 'Ott)
Y
J C
Cu'0.- .-.
•_4_ Cs -4
.-'-4— P .+ .--I N10
N
Y]
017N ^
a
U O
.-. .r .�
V
L
O'
N
^
•
N
N T N
C
C W d
1O.JIOPIONIO .-I InOON OIO OOOI IAN
OOI0 N(7
p1 l.t .r
Y
LL
IO I�GI
bn<
A
A6 V
N -N
I�I.IPCO PbNI'11�f4PbVa O.ti
I�I�NWNI�^.-I-I
N .�...I� to O Gi O
Cu-6)QN00
V
L v
.-. .+ I.1 .-ICI u]I-. n N in Cu_I
Cu_I
Y1 .-I .-I
�y
N
O
D
C
W
1
2-
00
.-N f70 V11O N,Q1010.-+N mO V1 .p
V In 101U(O
OI
LZ
-.-010
.-L. .r .�.�.�. .-I.-I .-IN
CU Cu Cu
NNNNNNNryN
Qp]UOW LLOS
W
F
5-
O
- 14 -
I
I.
1
1
1
1
I
I.
I
I
■
DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
VIII. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
As can be seen from Table No. 3, the projected development in the
project area results in significant increases in the future stormwater flow.
This fact, combined with the fact that many of the existing drainage
structures are currently undersized, results in the need for upsizing 20 of
the 29 existing structures. Comments concerning specific structures are as
follows:
Structure
No. Comment
The existing DoubleSprings Road bridge is barely
adequate for the estimated 50 year stormwater flow.
It is estimated that this flow will reach the bridge
steel and approach the bridge deck. Construction of
angled inlet and outlet wingwalls will protect the
bridges embankment and improve its hydraulic
efficiency.
2 Extreme care will be required in designing a bridge
for this site, in order to avoid creating backwaters
that will flood the Clevenger Duplexes. This,
coupled with the flat creek slope, is the reason that
this bridge is sized larger than structure no. 1.
3 & 4 These two structures are hydraulically inadequate and
structure 3 appears structurally inadequate, however,
upgrading.. these structures could be given a
relatively low priority from the standpoint that
flood waters at these two structures will probably
not cause major economic losses.
5 This structure has contributed to significant
flooding problems due to its inadequate capacity. It
should receive high priority for replacement. It
could be downsized somewhat if proposed structure D
is installed at Rupple Road.
6 thru 11 All of the structures under Highway 16 need to be
enlarged in order to handle projected stormwater
flows. Actual enlargement and selected sizes will be
determined by the Highway Department. This
Department should be advised of the City's
development plans when any culvert upgrading planning
is initiated. Structure no. 6 is sized based on the
current flow patterns from Rupple Road to this
- 15 -
structure. If proposed structure D is installed
across Highway 16 at Rupple Road, structure no. 6 and
no. 5 could be downsized somewhat.
12,
14,
15,
19
These structures
are considered undersized. They are
20,
21,
and
24
located on public
streets.
13, 16, 18 and These structures are considered adequately sized, and
25
from Table No. 2, all are considered to be in good
condition. They •are located on public streets.
17, 22, 27 and
These structures are located on what are assumed
to
28
be private streets. They are in good condition
and
are considered to be adequately sized.
23, 26, and 29
These structures are located on what are assumed
to
be private streets. They are considered undersized.
The street at structure no. 23 functions as a
low
water bridge, consequently additional culverts
are
not absolutely necessary for this application.
A, B, C, G These structures will be required in order to
and H accommodate construction of new streets proposed on
the Master Street Plan. Locations of these new
structures are listed in Table No. 3 and are shown on
Figure No. 6A and 6B.
D This new culvert would be constructed under Hwy. 16
at Rupple Road. It would reduce the flows to
structure no. 6 and no. 5, and consequently, the
flooding potential at structure no. 5 would be
reduced. Table No. 3 indicates that this structure
would receive approximately 32 cfs from a 7.8 acre
drainage area. The Highway Department has also
reviewed the needs for a structure at this location
and arrived at a 27 acre drainage area and a
projected flow of 80 cfs. Apparently, the Highway
Department intended to regrade the Hwy 16 ditch west.
of Rupple road, in order to direct flows from both
Hwy 16 and Rupple Road through this structure. This
increased flow through this structure would further
relieve structure nos. 6 and 5, but would also
increase the needs for drainage facilities along the
proposed extension of Rupple Road, south of Highway
16 to Highway 62. For the purpose of this report,
the lower flow rates listed in Table No. 3 have been
used in determining the size of recommended storm
sewers on Rupple Road South and on CR650S. In either
- 16 -
case, structure nos. 5 and 6 still need to be
increased in size.
E & F These two new structures would be installed to
prevent stormwater from flowing over County roads 879
and 880 where they intersect Highway 16. There may
be existing structures at one or both of these
locations, however, they are not readily apparent and
are not functional.
- 17 -
RECOMMENDED STORM SEWERS
IX. RECOMMENDED STORM SEWERS
Figure Nos. 7A and 7B depict recommended storm sewer facilities. They
are further listed in Table No. 4. Design of these facilities was based on
stormwater flow rates generated as previously described for projected land
use conditions and on the Highway Department's Drainage Manual recommended
design practices. Storm frequencies of 10 years were utilized for minor
arterial streets, with the exception of the Rupple Road crossing of Highway
16, where the estimated 50 year stormwater flow of 32 cfs (as listed in
Table No. 3) was utilized. Storm frequencies of 5 years were generally used
for collector, residential and private streets. These storm frequencies
result in structure sizes slightly smaller than if a 25 year storm frequency
had been used, as listed in Fayetteville's Street Standards for drainage
structures. However, considering the fact that the Highway Department
recommends that a 2 year storm frequency be used for non-federal aid
projects for storm sewers, it is believed that the recommended sizes are
adequate for this application.
Storm sewers were not,sized for Highway 16, s
such would be determined by and completed by the
previously noted under the section on culverts and
sized for some private and residential streets that
Fayetteville Street Standards, and consequently,
structures installed.
ince any installation of
Highway Department. As
bridges, structures were
may never be upgraded tc
may never have these
As indicated in Table No. 4, the bulk of the recommended storm sewers
are on existing and proposed minor arterial and collector streets. Existing
and proposed county road 650 running east and west along the south project
boundary has the greatest requirement for storm sewer facilities.
- 18 -
TABLE
NO. 4
RECOMMENDED
STORM
SEWER
FACILITIES
Street
Street
Storm Sewer Lengths
by Pipe Size
Curb
Classification
Name
15"
18"
21"
24"
27" 30"
33" 36" 42" 48" 54"
Inlets
Minor Arterial
Rupple Road
320
160
500
-
•80 1090
80 - 1480 260 -
16
to Bridge A
Minor Arterial
Double Springs
210
350
600
600
- -
- - - - -
6
Rd. North of
Bridge 1
Minor Arterial
Double Springs
500
-
-
-
- -
- - - - -
2
Rd. South of
Bridge 1
Minor Arterial
648 North of
80
390
390
-
- -
- - - - -
2
Bridge C
Subtotal Minor Arterial
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Collector
Subtotal Collector
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Subtotal Residential
Private
Subtotal Private
1110 900 1490 600 80 1090 80 - 1480 260
650 East of
-
880
-
-
- - 350 350 700 - -
Bridge 8
650 East of
120
120
-
630
- - - - 50 -1640
Bridge 3
650 West of
60
120
550
-
- 1100 - - - - -
Bridge 3
650 North of
-
60
360
-
- - - - - - -
Bridge 2
650 South of
1010
60
-
-
720 - - - - - -
Bridge 2
880 North of
-
-
60
200
- - - - - - -
Hwy 16
1190
1240
970
830
720 1100 350 350 750 - 1640
650 North of - - - - - - 100- = 320 -
Bridge 5
650 South of 50 600 - - - - - - - -
Bridge 5
878 North of 50 200 - - - - - - - - -
Hwy. 16
879 North of 510 - - - - - - - - - -
Hwy. 16
667 East of
Bridge.21 - 50 - 320 - - - - - - -
610 850 - 320 - - 100 - - 320 -
Brook Drive 50 340 - - - - - - - - -
50 340 - - - - - - - - -
26
7
10
6
2
9
2
36
4
2
2
2
2
12
2
2
in
DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED STORM SEWERS
X. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED STORM SEWERS
In some cases, the storm sewers as shown on Figure No. 7A and 7B not
only collect street drainage and drainage from the immediate vicinity of the
street, but they also intercept major flows from natural drainage patterns.
These flows require that the storm sewers be upsized considerably. In
addition, special inlet structures will be required at these locations. The
inlets shown on the figures represent the bare minimum. It is expected that
final design of these facilities will indicate the need for more inlets
and/or extended lengths of curb opening per inlet. As the area develops,
additional inlets will also be needed at new street intersections.
Certain
areas where
natural
drainage basins
are intersected by the
storm sewers,
therefore,
requiring
larger pipe sizes
include:
1. Rupple Road South at the start of the 42 inch pipe.
2. County Road 650 South at the channel downstream from
structure no. 6 under Hwy 16.
3. The intersection of CR650S and CR65OW, where the 42 inch pipe
starts.
4. County Road 650N, south of the CR677 intersection, where the
27 inch pipe starts.
The flat topography in the eastern end of the project area also
contributes to the rather large size of some of the storm sewers, since
pipes laid on a flat slope have less carrying capacity than those installed
on steeper grades.
The location of the storm sewers, as shown on the Figure Nos. 7A and
7B, was primarily determined based upon the discharge point being on the
downstream side of bridges located at that point. The storm sewers could
easily be shifted to the opposite side of the street, however in some cases,
this would create the need for enlarging bridges or box culverts at the
discharge point.
Construction of this complete storm sewer system would allow structure
no. -5,. on CR650S, to be considerably downsized. Other culverts would also
be effected to some extent, as indicated in Table No. 5. The net result of
installing the complete storm sewer system would be a slight reduction in
the needed culvert improvements. This reduction has not been reflected in
the cost estimates contained hereinafter, primarily because the sequence in
which improvements are- completed probably will not allow this potential cost
savings to occur. -
-20-
C)
C
C
r
a)
ro
a)
N
i
Y
i
i
N
J
J
Y
C
Y
a-`
V
•r
U
U
C)
J
J
J
.0
S.
C)
S.
S.
4 -IC
Y
Y
0
N
i
i
i
i
i
O
a
o
3
3
3
3
3
3
ai
CL
C
OL
n
a)
a)
a)
0
a)
v
•r
=4)
J
N
(fl -
U)
N
N
N
Cl
0
Y-0
Y
Y
E
E
E
E
E
E
9-
N
C
C
C
i
i
i
i
L
L
0
C)
OW
a)
a)
O
0
0
0
0
0
+)
0)5-
O)
0)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
4'
Y
O
C
a)
a
C
N
N
4'Q)
Y
+'
T
>5
a
T
>
>)
i1
•C
N
a
C
.0
0
.0.
.O
.0
.O
O
a
a
OE
U
•
U
S.
U
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
Cl)
r0
a)
CO
CC)
C
C)
U
U
U
U
U
U
r
N
oY
0
or
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro•r
•r
N
•r
r
•r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
N
+'
Y
ro
Y(0
d
a
a
d
N
01/)
04-'
04-'
a)
a)
a
a)
Q1
(U
))
U)
4 -IC
J
O
J
N
J
N
i
S.
i
i
i
i
a)
•r
0)
LC)
C
t
C
-
r
a)
t0
air
a)
•r
Y
Y
Y
+'
Y
+'
C
-a
i
ll'
i
i
i
-i
i-
i
i
a)
•r
a)
U
O)
Cl
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
U
C)
a)
C
C
>
>
>
>
>
>
N
O
N
'r
P.4
N
'r
r
r
r
r
r
r
S.
•r
C
•r
a)
•r
Q1
J
J
J
J
J
J
DC)
tint
(n
fl
(n
fl
V
V
U
U
V
U
01-
-D
a)
r
r
ro
a)
W
VN)
0=
C
H
v
E
N
E
L
LL
O
a
a)
a)
n
a
a
N
a
E
N1-
•1-0
(/1+•
!n
w
a)
"O
M
C
a•
E
O
E
Z
0
U
aJ
CC
LL
ro
a)
F-
N
r
C
(fl
LC)
LL
N
rti
LL
V)
m
N
Y
U
5. -
cc
V
"6
V
U
ro
al
a)
a)
v
a)
a)
LL
-
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
+)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
v
c'4
r
r
r
r
r
r
C
1
N
a)
a)
a)
a)
0)
(0
N
0
C
0
0
C
C
.-i
N
C
0-
0
CL
r
aL
aL
CL
U
O
V
U
U
C
N
a'
a1
ai
cc
cc
a1
V
V
U
O
N.
N.
Cr)
N
=
N
N
1
d
1
-
1
1
N
r--1
N
N
r-1
N
N
N
N co O) V O] O)
r-i — rr N N N O W
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE FACILITIES
ii aM
XI. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED
DRAINAGE FACILITIES
Table Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9 contain cost estimate information concerning
the various recommended stormwater drainage facilities. Specifically, Table
No. 6 lists the estimated costs for the recommended improvements to the
culverts and bridges, as previously listed in Table No. 3. Table No. 6 has
been categorized by street classification, primarily because the City of
Fayetteville may not become involved in funding facilities for Highway 16
and for private streets. Unit costs used to complete Table No. 6 are listed
in Table No. 9.
Table No. 7 totalizes those street classifications for which the City
of Fayetteville may become involved in funding. It indicates that the
recommended culverts and bridges needed for existing and proposed minor
arterial and collector streets and for existing residential streets would
cost approximately $470,000 to construct.
It should be noted that while most of the costs are based on new
structures sized to comply with standard street widths, the cost estimated
for the Double Springs Road bridge (structure no. 1) is for recommended
upgrading only (wingwalls, guardrails, miscellaneous renovation).
Constructing a new bridge of sufficient width to meet the street standards
could add approximately $90,000 to the project total listed in Table No. 7.
Table No. 8 lists estimated costs for the recommended storm sewers, as
itemized in Table. No. 4. Again these costs are categorized by street
classification. Costs have not been estimated for Highway 16 and private
streets, for reasons previously discussed. For all three street
classifications a total cost of approximately $1,022,000 is estimated.
Cost estimates listed in. these four tables are based upon the
assumption that installation of these drainage facilities will occur
concurrent with a major street construction or reconstruction project.
Installation.of these structures on a piecemeal basis without any concurrent
street work would result in costs significantly exceeding the estimated
costs. This is because the costs of street repairs and the overhead costs
associated with blocking a road are not reflected in the estimated prices.
With the exception of relatively few structures that need immediate
attention, it is expected that delaying installation of these structures
until a major street project is completed will prove to be the most cost
effective method of addressing this situation.
Cost estimates are based on current estimating prices, with some
allowance in the unit prices for the inlet structures for- oversized
structures in some location. A contingency percentage is included to
account for the miscellaneous small cost items that are not included in
these preliminary cost estimates. -
-22-
TABLE NO. 6
ESTIMATED COSTS OF RECOMMENDED CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
Structure
Street Classification Street No. Structure Description
PrincipalArterial Hwy 16 6 21 S.F. RCB, 60long
Hwy 16 7 24" & 27" RCP, 60' long
Hwy 16 8 19.5 S.F. RCB 75' long
Hwy 16 9 33 S.F. RCB, 60' long
Hwy 16 10 24" and 27" RCP, 60' long
Hwy 16 11 2-30" RCP, 60' long
Hwy 16 D 2-21" RCP, 60' long
Subtotal Principal
Arterial
Minor Arterial Rupple Road South A 96 S.F. Bridge, 45' wide
CR648S 4 195 S.F. Bridge, 45' wide
PR648N C 60 S.F. RCB, 50' long
PR648N H 2-30" RCP, 50' long
Double Springs Road I Upgrade existing bridge
Subtotal, Minor Arterial
Collector CR650W
3
204 S.F. Bridge, 45' Wide
CR650W
18
Existing 14"X28" CMPA,
Extend 30"
PR650E
B
76 S.F. Bridge, 55' Wide
PR650E
G
18 S.F. RCP, 50' Long
CR650N
2
264 S.F. Bridge, 45' Wide
CR877
14
21" RCP, 50' Long
CR880
E
24" RCP, 260' Long
Subtotal, Collector
Estimated Cost
$ 13,200
5,700
15,000
16,800
5,700
6,480
4,680
$ 67,560
$ 31,500
60,000
22,500
5,400
7,000
$ 126,400
$ 63,000
1,200
30,000
9,250
85,000
1,950
11,700
$ 202,100
-2a-
TABLE NO. 6
ESTIMATED COSTS OF
RECOMMENDED
CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
(Continued)
Structure
Street Classification Street
No.
Structure Description
Residential CR650S
5
51 S.F. RCB, 36' Long
Carriage Way
12
2-30" RCP, 77' Long
Carlsbad Trace
13
Existing Structure Adequate
CR878
15
Existing 36" CMP and new
33" RCP, 75' long
Michael Cole Dr.
16
Existing 18" RCP, Extend 10'
• CR667
19
2-24" RCP, 36' long
CR667
20
2-21" RCP, 36long
CR667
21
30 S.F. RCB, 36' long
Michael Cole Dr.
24
Existing 24" and new 30" RCP
66' Long
Michael Cole Dr.
25
Existing 15", Adequate
CR879N
F
15" RCP, 36' Long
Subtotal, Residential
Private Brook Drive
17
Existing 18" RCP Adequate
Clevenger Rd.
22
Existing 24" RCP Adequate
Clevenger Rd.
23
Road acts as a low water
bridge, no additional
culverts recommended
Michael Cole Dr.
26
Existing 18" and New
18" RCP, 33' long
Michael Cole Dr.
27
Low Water Bridge Adequate
Michael Cole Dr.
29
2-24" RCP, 38' long
Subtotal Privat
Estimated Cost
$ 14,400
8,316
4,725
500
3,240
2,808
9,360
3,564
1,080
$ 47,993
1,122
3,420
$ 4,542
-24-
TABLE NO. 7
ESTIMATED TOTAL COSTS FOR MUNICIPALLY
FUNDED CULVERTS AND BRIDGES
Street Classification Estimated Cost
Minor Arterial $ 126,400
Collectors 202,100
Residential 47,993
Construction Subtotal $ 376,493
Engineering and Contingencies 94,123
Estimated Total $ 470,616
- 2 5 -
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
+�
C
0
LCD
V1
N
LO
tO
N
O
O
LU
tO
N
O
^
n
1
^
1
1
^
1
I
^
1
^
^
n
n
U
('J
0)
0)
cY
M
W
t0
.--1
CO
—
—
N-
W
N
O
_
CT t
64
b9
r'I
b4
C •r
•r }
Y C
N Q)
r 'O
X •r
W N
Q)
i
O
O
O
O
O
N
C C
LU1
N
1
I
O
1
I
('4
I
.--1
Q)
LO
LO
CO
M
rl
M
J
O
I—
Q
U
H
W
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
Ln
LU
Cl)
O
('4
r1
O
t0
O
O
O
U)
O
O
V
CO
I-
N
-0
1)
OD
Lt)
CO
0)
N-
to
I-
LA
N
tO
O
Ch
('4
rl
QQ)
N
^
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
VI
0
M
m
N
V'
M
0
V
N-
V
N-
C
O
O
�--I
U
0
U
('4
N
N
N
N
M
.ti
r1
LO
V
r-1
L()
0_
'-I
V
r1
L[)
F—
0
44
H}
44
W
L i
W
C_ O
i-)
F-
1/)
C Q)
b r
r
m m
rno
•
Co
O
In
•r
L
Z
O
O
O
O
Co
O
O
O
O
O
t0
m
In
Q)
C
O)
�'
n
CO
N
O
L!)
N-
I
tO
CO
LU
•r
C
rl
N
O)
co
n
r -I
C')
M
M
N-
tO
W
X
Q)
rl
rl
.-1
rl
m
in
W
Q
F-
E
O
V)
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl)
O
O
C
O
Ct
N
N
O
N
W
O
I --
Q
i-)
N
N.
N-
O
(0 LD
N
m
M
M
^
-o
O)
Gt
0
Q)
0
n
n
n
n
n
^
n
1
n
n
n
n
n
^
C)
O
(ID0
0
N
O
co
CO
N
M
N.
W
O)
O)
N
V
U
N
N
M
rl
m0)
M
a)
ri
M
00
N—
!�
t0
C
O r
N
M
O
0 it
lrR
y}
44
W
i •r
CL i
C
Q
v
-
Y
F-+
C i
CL
1—
o Q
N
N
W
O i
Co
rr
r C
L
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
to
t0
C
In g
rl
O
0)
O
co
CI)
OO
I
m
t0
1
N
Q)
•r
C
v
O)
l0
O
Gt
('4
Ol.
X
Q)
.-I
rl
rl
.-a
a
W
J
•r
4-3
C
0
0
V
C
b
-)
O
0
In
F
C
C
A
"-
EL
r
r
i
Cl)
(0
Q)
0 3
N
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
H
tt
14
O
M
t0
N
CO
0
C
N N
N
ti
H
N
N
N
M
M
M
Gt
d'
LO
d
+.)
•r
•r
i
0
CT
C
m N
U
Cl)
W
W
-
or
-
TABLE NO. 9
UNIT COSTS USED FOR DRAINAGE PIPE
Culverts
Storm
Sewers
Pipe Size
Estimated Unit Cost
Pipe Size
Estimated Unit Cost
15"
$30/ft.
15"
$20/ft.
18"
34/ft.
18"
23/ft.
21"
39/ft.
21"
26/ft.
24"
45/ft.
24"
30/ft.
27"
50/ft.
27"
33/ft.
30"
54/ft.
30"
36/ft.
33"
63/ft.
33"
42/ft.
36"
75/ft.
36"
50/ft.
14"X20"
35/ft.
42"
59/ft.
18" S.F.
185/S.F.
48"
72/ft.
19.5 S.F.
200/Ft.
54"
90/ft.
21 S.F.
220/Ft.
Curb Inlet
1,500/Ea
30 S.F.
260/ft.
33 S.F.
280/ft.
51 S.F.
400/ft.
60 S.F.
450/ft.
97
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS
XII. CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS
It was noted in Section VI that channel improvements may be necessary
to reduce the possibility of flooding in certain locations. Channel
improvements are also needed in the vicinity of proposed drainage
structures, in order to insure their effectiveness. Specifically, channel
improvements are needed at drainage structures A, B, C, and 5 and at the
entrance to the storm sewers leading to structure no. 5 as shown on Figure
No. 7A. In general, the size of these channels should exceed the opening
size of the receiving or discharging structure by at least 50%. The
additional capacity is needed to allow for lower channel velocities and to
provide for freeboard.
The actual channel size, shape and construction material could vary
significantly, depending upon the use of the adjoining property. A large
trapezoidal shaped grassed waterway with flat sideslopes is most appropriate
in agricultural areas, whereas a rectangular concrete channel maybe more
appropriate in a commercial area. Due to this variability, no specific size
and cost values are recommended for the needed channelization work.
However, some general information for these channels is presented as
follows:
Channel Location
Comments.
Structures A & B •Channelization is needed at these two proposed
bridges to provide proper stream alignment into
and out of these structures. While rather
economical earthen channels should suffice,
caution must be used to insure that the storm
sewer outlets do not create excessive erosion.
Structure C Structure C is located on a proposed minor
arterial street, where the street location runs
parallel to a drainage ditch for approximately
250 feet. This creates a situation where a
large box culvert (60 square feet opening) or
an open channel is needed for this 250 feet
length. In order to avoid excessive costs, an
economical earthen channel is recommended.
Riprap or concrete lining would be needed at
the end of culvert C to prevent channel
erosion. A trapezoidal channel with an eight
foot wide bottom, 4 to 1 sideslopes, five foot
depth and channel slope of 0.7% could be used
at this -location. This channel would have a
cross sectional area at the 4 foot depth level
- 28 .-
of,96 square feet, in comparison to a 60 square
foot area recommended for structure C.
Storm Sewer This channel would intercept the discharge from
Near Structure structure no. 6 under Highway 16 and funnel it
No. 5 to the storm sewer inlets north of structure
no.. 5, as shown on Figure No. 7A. The
estimated flow rate of 110 cfs (assuming
culvert D or the Rupple Road storm sewer is
installed) could be transported in a
trapezoidal earthen channel with .a 4 foot
bottom width, a 3 foot depth, 4:1 sideslopes
and a channel slope of 1.3%. At a two foot
water depth, this channel would have a cross
sectional area of 24 square feet, as compared
to approximately -12 square feet for the
receiving storm sewers.
Structure No. 5 Table No. 3 estimates a projected flow rate
Discharge for this culvert of approximately 300 cfs, or
approximately 268 cfs if structure D is
installed. A 48 square foot structure is
recommended for the 300 cfs. The receiving
ditch channel has a cross sectional area of 12
to 16 square feet within its banks. This
channel size should be upgraded to
approximately 60 square feet of flow area. A
trapezoidal channel with a 4 foot depth, 3 foot
water depth, 8 foot bottom width, 4:1
sideslopes, and channel slope of approximately
0.8% could be used to meet these conditions.
As previously discussed, alternate channel
configurations could be used to minimize the
top width of the channel.
If, for general considerations, this channel
was constructed from the structure 5 outlet to
a point upstream of proposed structure C where
the ground slope increases, approximately 1000
feet of channelization would be required. This
could require approximately 3000 cubic yards of
earthwork. At $5 per cubic yard, this work
could cost in the range of $15,000.
Structure No. 2 As noted in Section VI, flooding upstream
Vicinity and downstream of this structure has occurred.
Table No. 3 indicates that this bridge has an
opening area of approximately 54 square feet
and that an opening of approximately 264 square
feet is recommended. The existing channel size
- - 29 —
within the creek banks is approximately 85
square feet. The total creek floodway cross
section below the lowest building floor level
is approximately 840 square feet. This should
be sufficient to pass the projected flow of
1570 cfs without flooding the duplexes upstream
from this bridge. Field surveys indicate that
approximately 450 square feet of flow area is
available between the top of the existing
street surface and the lowest building floor
level. This corresponds to a maximum water
depth over the road surface of approximately
2.4 feet. Combined with the area under the
existing bridge, approximately 500 square feet
of flow area is available over and under the
road surface, before the water level reaches
the floor elevation. Calculations for weir
flow in accordance with the Highway Department
Drainage Manual indicate that. this available
flow area should pass a flow approximately
equal to the projected flow of 1570 cfs.
Consequently, one would conclude that the
flooding which occurred last Summer was either
the result of the actual flow rate exceeding
1570 cfs or the result. of channel conditions
and obstructions other than the existing bridge
and road embankment.
Downstream conditions that could contribute to
backwater submerging the road and flooding the
duplexes include the very flat slope of this
section of Owl Creek (0.3%), the bends in the
creek, the small channel size, and the trees
and brush in and along the channel. If
downstream control did contribute to the
flooding, it would have been evident as a flat
water surface profile across the bridge and
street, during the maximum flood stage period.
If, instead, there was a sharp drop in the
water surface profile at the downstream side of
the street, then the street embankment would
have controlled the upstream water level and
consequents, the extent of flooding. This was
discussed with the Owner of the duplexes,
however, the actual water surface profile
across the street during the maximum flood
period could not be verified.
Since the actual flow rate which occurred last
Summer is unknown, and the flow characteristics
-30-
across this street are also unknown, as
discussed above, a determination cannot be made
as to whether the flooding at the duplexes was.
caused by backwater created by the bridge and
street embankment, or backwater caused by
downstream conditions. It is expected that if
the bridge and street embankment caused the.
flooding, the actual flow rate last Summer
exceeded the projected 50 year design flow rate
of 1570 cfs. An extensive hydraulic analysis
of this channel segment might provide a
determination of this matter, however, with the
currently available information, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
A new bridge is"needed to replace structure
no. 2. If downstream conditions control the
water level during major storms, this new
bridge would be of little value for flooding
control during major storms unless channel
improvements were completed.
Channel improvements will be necessary in
order to reduce the flooding potential at
the Wayne Flora residence, downstream of
structure no. 2 (See Section VI). These
improvements could possibly relieve the
flooding at the duplexes if this flooding is
controlled by downstream conditions.
In order to insure that the channel
improvements were effective and that
problems would not be created elsewhere,
approximately 3600 linear feet of
improvements would be needed. Based upon
increasing the existing channel cross
section by 300 square feet, 40,000 cubic
yards of earthwork would be necessary, which
would cost $160,000 at $4 per cubic yard.
Less extensive channel improvements might be
more justifiable economically.
- 31 -
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE FACILITIES
XIII. IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED
DRAINAGE FACILITIES
As mentioned in Section XI, estimated costs for the recommended
drainage facilities are based on these facilities being installed during a
concurrent street construction or reconstruction program. In general, this
policy is recommended for installation of these facilities. This is because
of the following reasons:
Total costs will be less.
Although many existing structures are undersized for existing
and projected flows, the economic consequence of most of
these structures being flooded is minor. In most cases,
storm water flows that exceed the capacity of existing
culverts may cause some minor damage to gravel or paved
streets, and short term inconvenience to the area residents.
However, major damage, major economic losses, significant
safety hazards, etc. will not result if the capacity of most
of these structures is exceeded.
In comparison, it is recommended that some structures receive immediate
attention. These items are as follows:
Priority 1 Replace structure no. 2 and no. 5, upgrade structure
no. 1. For each of these three structures, a
detailed evaluation of actual design needs and
requirements should be made. A structural analysis
should be completed for structure no. 1 to verify
that appropriate upgrading steps are being taken.
Careful consideration of the hydraulic conditions is
needed for structure no. 2, to insure that the bridge
does not contribute to, instead of eliminate, a
flooding problem at the nearby duplexes. Storm
sewers or improved road ditches may be needed in
conjunction with structure no. 5, in order to insure
that flows from structure no. 6 will reach structure
no. 5, instead of continuing to overtop the street.
Priority 2 Structure no. 3 should be replaced or upgraded,
depending upon the results of a structural analysis.
If the bridge is unsound, it could be replaced with a
narrow structure that could eventually be upgraded to
a width compatible with Fayetteville's Street
Standards. Current utilization in this area hardly
-32-
justifies a 45 foot wide bridge. If the bridge
appears reasonably structurally sound as is, or with
minor improvements, consideration should be given to
completing these minor improvements, adding
guardrails and warning signs and otherwise leaving
this bridge in service. While this bridge would be
out of service during major floods, access to the
area would be possible via the new bridge installed
in place of structure no. 2. Since flooding of this
bridge represents an inconvenience only, and would
not contribute to property damage, top priority
cannot be given to replacing this bridge.
Priority 3 Channelization work in the vicinity of structure no.
2 and no. 5 is required for these structures to meet
their potential for handling the projected stormwater
flows. Specific channelization needs should be
addressed when these two structures are designed.
The magnitude of the channelization work, and its
time of completion could depend to some extent on the
cooperation of the affected property owners and on
the City's policy concerning future development in
the project area. While the projected flow rates are
based on development in the watershed, it is entirely
possible for these flows to be exceeded due to a
major storm, under current watershed conditions.
Consequently, a policy of no development will not
necessarily prevent flooding. This was demonstrated
last Summer.
Priority 4 Installation of other drainage structures recommended
herein would be completed as streets are renovated or
constructed.
-33-
MUNICIPAL PARTICIPATION IN DRAINAGE FACILITIES COSTS
XIV. MUNICIPAL PARTICIPATION IN DRAINAGE
FACILITIES COSTS
Municipal funding of the construction work needed immediately, relative
to replacement or renovation of major bridges and culverts is recommended.
Funding of channelization. work should be primarily municipally funded,
without the condition that drainage easements are granted by the appropriate
property owners.
Funding of culverts that are installed or upgraded when the streets are
upgraded or constructed should be provided by the organization constructing
the streets. This could be the City of Fayetteville, a group of property
owners or a developer. Funding of storm sewers should be handled likewise.
However, if storm sewers are being constructed by a developer or a localized
group of property owners, municipal funding for upsizing the storm sewers
should be supplied. This will insure that undersized storm sewers are not
installed in locations where future off -site drainage needs should be taken
into consideration.
Depending upon the rate of development in the project area, and the
City's actual participation rate in funding the various drainage structures,
the City's costs would range from approximately $133,000 for the Priority 1
structures, to in excess of $1.5 million.
-34-
CONCLUSIONS
XV. CONCLUSIONS
1. Upon review of this report, one might conclude that construction of the
recommended structures will prevent flooding in the project area under
current and future development conditions. This is not true. The
recommended structures are sized for specific storm return intervals.
Storms exceeding the design rainfall intensity could occur at any time
and could cause flooding at any time, regardless of the development
level. The purpose of the structures is to provide greater capacity
and thereby reduce the frequency of flooding. By reducing the flooding
frequency the associated property damage costs are reduced. However,
this report is not intended to convey the idea that the recommended
structures will eliminate any future probability of property damage.
2. Review of Table No. 2 indicates that most of the existing drainage
structures are in relatively good condition. Some maintenance work is
needed for these structures that are clogged and/or in poor conditions.
3. Review of Table No. 3 indicates that significant flow rate increases
can be expected as a result of development in the project area. Small
areas planned for use as commercial or medium density residential land
uses have the greatest percentage increase in future flow rates.
4. From Table No. 3, it is evident that while projected flow rates are
higher than these estimated for current conditions, the drainage
structures are undersized for current 25 year design flows, in most
cases. In other words, most of the existing structures need to be
upgraded new, regardless of the effect of future developments. Future
development is reflected in the size needed for the upgraded structure.
5. Storm sewers in certain areas become quite large. In some cases,
utilization of open ditches or relief ditches to Owl Creek may be
warranted. This decision would rest primarily on the situation that
existed at the time the facilities were being constructed.
6. Future annexation and development of property within the drainage
basin, but outside the project area could significantly increase flows
over those listed in Table No. 3. These flows are based on
agricultural usage for this currently unincorporated area. Structures
1, 2, 3, 4 and A would be influenced by these higher flows. Some
additional capacity should be built into these five structures for this
reason.
- 35 -
STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
XVI. STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
As previously noted, the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation
Department's Drainage Manual (July 6, 1982) was utilized as the primary
reference for this report. This Manual includes complete guidance on all
drainage matters related to street construction. In some cases, the
Manual's design procedures are quite extensive, as needed to insure proper
design. However, for the purpose of this report, the entire design process
was not utilized in all cases. This was considered acceptable, since the
purpose of this report was to provide a preliminary sizing instead of a
detailed design for each drainage structure. Final structure design should
consider all design aspects, as listed in the Drainage Manual.
Included in the Design Manual are recommended storm frequencies for
various structure and street classifications. These are reproduced below:
STORM DESIGN FREQUENCIES FOR CULVERTS
Interstate Projects: 50 Year
Primary Projects: 50 Year
Secondary Projects: 25 Year
Non -Federal Aid Projects: 10 Year*
* Drainage area less than two square miles; ADT less than 750.
If either is exceeded, use 25 -year flood frequency.
STORM DESIGN FREQUENCIES FOR STORM SEWER CROSS DRAINS
Interstate Projects: 50 Year
Primary Projects: 50 Year
Federal Aid Urban Projects: 25 Year
Secondary Projects: 25 Year
Non -Federal Aid Projects 10 Year*
* Drainage area less than two square miles; ADT less than 750.
If either is exceeded, use 25 year flood frequency.
STORM DESIGN FREQUENCIES FOR STORM SEWERS
Interstate and/or Interstate Type Projects: 50 Year
Other Federal Aid Projects: - 10 Year
Non -Federal Aid Projects: 2 Year
-36-
The Drainage Manual further points out that these storm frequencies
should not be utilized blindly. Consideration should be given to the
economic consequencies of flooding and the capacity of adjoining drainage
facilities.
It is believed that these design frequencies more reasonably address
the needs for culverts and storm sewers on collector, residential and
private streets, as compared to the 25 year frequency indicated in the
Fayetteville Street Standards.
In general, design criteria that would result in the most
conservatively sized structure was utilized in obtaining the preliminary
sizes listed in Table No. 3. Improving the hydraulic efficiency of these
structures by improving inlet conditions, lowering the flow line to allow a
greater headwater depth or inlet and outlet channel improvements could
result in variations in the final design size.
One specific deviation from the Drainage Manual's recommendations.
concerning the Rational Method for calculating peak runoff from small areas
was utilized. This deviation was the method in which the "time of
concentration" was calculated. The Drainage Manuals process for determining
the time of concentration is somewhat cumbersome. A more direct formula, as
listed in "Soil and Water Conservation Engineering", published in 1966 was
used as listed below:
Tc = 0.0078L0,77 S-0.385
where
Tc = time of concentration in minutes
L = maximum length of flow in feet
S = the watershed gradient in feet per foot
For very small areas a 5 minute time of concentration for impervious
areas and a 10 minute time of concentration for pervious areas was utilized.
A third reference utilized in this report was
Pipe Association Design Manual (1974), which was
sizing the smaller culverts and storm sewers.
the Arkansas Concrete
utilized primarily for
- 37 -
APPENDICES
2
A
01 __
° rDROJECT LIMIlI"S Zo A
O 11
i o N
® McCLELLANO CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
little rock feyettevllle
FIGURE NO. 2
FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP
HIGHWAY 16 WEST
DRAINAGE STUDY
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
83-119
' Y • _ 1111.1 • • 1 w �.' „ t • ,iJ , Y ,--
• - 111 i 1 1" '-�
/. • rihl lJ 1 - • }
I{ r
• .� m ,III '.
V �
c o 'f, 111111 I a - � _' \ • �• '.•
-t� \ . ., ,-� 111I14Ir 1111111111 liF1-J i•- ' tom_ _
1 I f I'I'I ' i�1
1�1i11 1.rb.��I � 1 1 ��
• ��111 LI ICI
LLT 11 III 111111111 �5
•1 I111 I1 I1
I I I I i i I I I I I I I I1 I
II_;,�•.w -'
11111111111 ilt IIII#1111 -
w � 11III '1111 (I •-
I II1I1II1I1II1I' IIII tY l I III -
,-111'1 11111111 III 111111,yp,1111 ,.
•.' , II {�111It 111 1 I I
�' 111 III IIII 111 ��• +�
. ?.�': 1111711 IIIIIIl11111111I1111 I 111111 11111I1111I III 1 •
•• i' IIT 1 I r I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 11 Ii 1111111 11 Co.,
„•I- IIIIII IIIIIIIiI II
•IIIII•I (IIII II IL I I 1
[/' 11'11111 I'Il�l,l,li(��f ft11'71111111I11111111 I' 11111 Ilr fill IIjL j1111 ` 'emu.
' _ IV7111W11111111111111111 111 Ilfrl IIf�.111jc
I. 11 II )I II I II II I I II 111'1111 II fiI Illyil
113 r111 1 1 J1 1 I I r l i l III I IIIIII f 111 r1 J L I
1 14 I' 1 1 1 1 Ill 1 1 1 1 I,1 I•I I I IIII . I 1 1 1`i• 1 IJT�1 1 1 1 1•1 1 1'I • Am
4I1. 111111111 iilltl III 111 FI Ilill ITT'YII III pFl
?7 F`IIIL111111Iili IiIIIi Ii IIIIII IIIIII III , '711 11'1111 111111 1 V1111111f111111 I,
}I 1I1I1I TIIII 1I1I1I11I1I1I1I1I1I1I111IIII111-1 111111 I1I1111 II111111IIIIIIIIII1I1I1I1I11I1I1
I ' ¢
(IIIIII1I11
II II1I1lIlIIIIIIIII{ III III 111I1I1I1I11I1I1I1I
1I1I1I1I1I'i
I 1111111
_ I11iI II .f F
iI.
'
' • 11111111 I 1T11ii111111111i 1111111 III f 1 1 11111 II IIIIII 1• � �
^ - ILII III II l it II t,t VIII III
•a?i'^ rq 1 11111 Illill11111 1 1111111111111 �II11 - 111111 1 11 111111111 111111 `' m
-m ' -ti. I!I III III 1'111111 111111 III 1 11111 I`�� II I Ir11 111'1'111III 111 11111•~ r.
. n•�, 1111111 1111 11 Ilil i 111 h111111Y111 ' 111 11111111111111 II 1111 1,11 : I c�
!+" I I -I 1 1 1 1 1 P i 1 I III I I 1
� r.0 ; 11 111 11 111 1111111YHI I 11 11 1111111111111111111 J Y
+!.�. III II II II II III IIIIIIII I�
,�/�.•:� e II II Iii Ifi 1111 1111111
• I! I II,I I 1111 I I 11111 II (IIIIIIII II�Iw
11�IIlil (I IIII I F{{1l 'IIII1II 1 1111111111
' m I'll 1 - II 114 4111(IIII
�r N I. I�Ii, I I 1 1I��I I I I IIIIIIII I
� I II II IIII VIII II II
a I I i': II �1 II III IIII
IIII - 1 II III II III IIIIa
Z'• IIII III I�i _ (IIIIIIII
Y1 ''•1 It 11111 1J 6,f _ IIIIII 6
_ '��i �1�tL r�I 111 .� k'1 �! �I�1�� �1�4
1 IIIIII • 11v 1111��I1'''yyy1 Ilia
llj
1-0 z 1 IIIIk111�
..w , f, - '' 111111 ,. \ 1 1l III
1 I. T
' .. c
•..•r� ' . ,1.L1 Itlf 11. d
I.
9 � (, 11171+. I �
rif.L`•st4t •I I'�I L111 17 � �_ r
U. �"' .._ �1IIl1, 1, hlh _ Ij1 IIiF1j},�I x'141 r�1,11�
Z ��.\ '— I,'.j n �I I'I �,1 �� \ I
' O N (1,
' ,J it, 1 , , 11 11♦j i 71It 1 _ O. Z ."i.. d C�
' 4 I i l h IIII III Q - C0 U w N
r��1'y �. t,f 11111111 �1 a' I, hil
K• •`":-- 111' 7, Ski ly a w n. 11 .� 11O ¢ N
i Cy: CTe 111111 .., 1 �, 1`�'PI 1
��% byi x= x xa9 xa U
' 1 I
' � 11'1-'}' a
w x z w
.' ,�I�I 1I U N O ' II'c'1411 o .7
} .- ��� t. �'�, vi 111 • ,U'
III
��Fr_ c. u• 1 ,I'�I '� - ® ® 111111
'I:IZ_�� - 111 - m 1 1111111 •
�4rr'li' 1
7 I III •r
� \�• ' ^ / — 111 <_ii; y ��
/•-
_ _ -_ (
' .; . --.!<v,r%. FIGURE NO. 3
SCS HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUPS
® McCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. HIGHWAY 16 WEST
' DRAINAGE STUDY
little rock fayettevllle CITY OF FAYETTEVLLE
August, 1983 83-119
GENERAL PLAN .ALTERNATE 1
Low Density Residential
1 • n .... a '1, may: ,,• .
Office
Medium Density Residential 'd z
Commercial
it' Agricultural ``''``'
12 I
Y
•' INb
' j i•• b •� .• l'
�.Iln . 1 �
. i...--I. ...�.. •a..".' .,.,. •..,. ,• • it
• • 1 ••.: • I • •y..N 1 ••j ••• •• L I I •♦•
•••
•TTY • • .;• ♦ _••• • ••• • ✓•.' — 1.:.
__ I bI 11 1 r + I{ J a I
/., ( T .I Y J7 • I
n a
_ A J , aTTT'\\.
I y _ I••
--
k'A CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
little rock fayettevllle
FIGURE NO. 5
GENERAL LAND USE PLAN
HIGHWAY 16. WEST
DRAINAGE STUDY
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
August, 1983 - 83-119