HomeMy WebLinkAboutSan Sevaine Creek Water Project SAN SEVAINE CREEK
WATER PROJECT
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR
SAN SEVAINE CREEK FLOWS
ABOVE SUMMIT AVENUE
December, 1985
Prepared By
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES
1814 Commercenter West
Suite A
San Bernardino, CA 92408
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
SECTION I. GENERAL DISCUSSION ON EXISTING CONDITIONS 1
SECTION II. ALTERNATE PLANS FOR SAN SEVAINE CREEK ABOVE 4
SUMMIT AVENUE
SECTION III. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE PLANS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
APPENDIX
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The major findings of this report are summarized in this Executive Summary.
The order of presentation follows the sequence of topics in the report.
General Discussion
An application is being prepared for non - interest loan from the Bureau of
Reclamation under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 to fund the San
Sevaine Creek Water Project. This report reviews alternatives for water
conservation and flood protection for the San Sevaine Creek System north of
Summit Avenue.
The area north of Summit Avenue is a spreading ground area of approximately
150 acres. San Sevaine, Morse and Henderson Creeks enter the spreading ground
north of Summit Avenue. The area is approximately 1,000 feet wide and extends
from Summit Avenue to the toe of the mountains.
The Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks System Drainage Plan dated March,
1983, recommended a reception type levee system to control flood flows and
debris movement within the spreading grounds area. Alternatives to the
reception levee and channel system are reviewed in this report.
Figure No. 1 is a vicinity map of the general area. MWD has a major pipeline
that crosses the spreading grounds and is used for spreading imported water.
Local storm flows are spread in the spreading grounds and in the basins to the
south.
There are developments proposed to the east and west of the spreading grounds.
A desire to keep the area in as natural a state as possible has been
expressed.
Refer to Section I, pages 1 thru 4 for a more detailed description of existing
conditions.
i
Alternate Plans
The following alternative plans are analyzed in this report:
Alternate No. 1 - A reception channel and levee system for San Sevaine, Morse
and Henderson Canyons. See Figure Nos. 2 and 3.
Alternate No. 2 - A debris dam and concrete lined channel for San Sevaine
Creek. See Figure No. 4.
Alternate No. 3 - A debris dam and concrete lined channel for San Sevaine
Creek and a concrete lined channel for Morse Canyon. See
Figure No. 5.
Alternate No. 4 - A debris dam for San Sevaine Creek without a downstream con-
crete lined channel. See Figure No. 6.
The following table provides a comparison of estimated costs of the four
alternatives:
Alternate Estimated Cost
1 $1,530,000
2 4,935,000
3 6,000,000
4 3,280,000
All four alternatives are based on providing flood flow control of the major
natural drainage courses entering the spreading grounds. Due to the major
emphasis in the Bureau of Reclamation Small projects Act on water conserva-
tion, water conservation and not flood flow control in the project must be
stressed.
Alternate No. 1 is the plan recommended and accepted in the Day, Etiwanda and
San Sevaine Creeks System Drainage Plan.
Refer to Sections TT and III, pages 4 thru 19, for detailed descriptions of each
alternative.
ii
Analysis of Plans
Alternate No. 1
Alternate No. 1 will provide for flood protection from San Sevaine, Morse and
Henderson Creek flows as long as an adequate reception levee and channel
system are provided along the boundary of the spreading grounds. Refer to
Figure Nos. 2 and 3 for a schematic cross - section of the proposed spreading
grounds.
Alternate No. 1 has the lowest construction cost. It may have the highest
maintenance costs although maintenance costs have not been analyzed. This
plan would provide for continued spreading of local storm flows and imported
water and would keep the spreading grounds in its natural state.
Although there would be some periodic flooding and debris deposition, the
spreading grounds could be used for open space park purposes.
The estimated cost of this alternate is $1,530,000. Refer to Figure Nos. 2
and 3 for a schematic plan, and pages 13 and 14 for a more detailed analysis
of this alternate.
Alternate No. 2
Alternate No. 2 includes a concrete lined channel and debris dam for San
Sevaine Creek. Even with the channel and dam, the control of Morse and
Henderson Creek flows would still be necessary. The spreading grounds would
still be necessary and a reception type levee and channel along the west side
of the wash would be required.
The concrete lined channel would extend from the canyon mouth to Summit
Avenue. The cost of the dam and channel for San Sevaine Creek and the
reception levee along the west side of the wash is estimated at $4,935,000.
i i
Refer to Figure No. 4 for a schematic plan and pages 15 and 16 for a detailed
description of this alternate.
Alternate No. 3
This alternate includes a concrete lined channel for Morse Creek in addition
to the channel and debris dam for San Sevaine Creek. A debris dam for Morse
Creek is not included in this plan. Also, the estimated cost of controlling
Henderson Creek flows at the southerly end of the spreading grounds is not
included.
This plan is the most expensive at approximately $6,000,000. Refer to Figure
No. 5.
Alternate No. 4
This alternative plan provides a debris dam for San Sevaine Channel, but does
not include a channel below the dam. Therefore, this alternate would only
provide for the capturing of debris and not the control of flood flows below
the San Sevaine Creek dam.
It would still be necessary to provide the reception levees and channel
described in Alternate No. 1 to control flood flows. The cost of the debris
dam and reception levees and channel is $3,280,000. The spreading grounds
would still have to be retained beause of flood flows passing through the
area. The only advantage to the plan would be the control of debris from San
Sevaine Canyon.
The preliminary location of the dam site is in close proximity to the Cuca-
monga Fault Zone, which may require special design for the dam and extensive
cost increases.
Refer to Figure No. 6 for a schematic plan and pages 17 thru 19 for a more
detailed analysis of the alternate.
iv
Total Construction Costs of Bureau of Reclamation Non - Interest Loan Project
The limitations placed on the San Sevaine Creek Water Project by the Bureau of
Reclamation Act will not permit the additional costs necessary in Alternatives
2, 3 and 4. The maximum project construction costs for 1986 is approximately
$41,000,000 with a maximum loan and /or grand total of approximately
$26,000,000. These maximums are set by the Secretary of Interior annually
using the Bureau's composite construction cost index based on 1971 base costs.
The estimated cost of the project is now approximately $44,700,000 based on
the required escalation increases required by the Bureau with a three -year
construction period. The $44,700,000 estimate includes $1,465,000 on San
Sevaine Creek above Summit Avenue. It will be necessary to decrease the
project cost to the approximate maximum of $41,000,000.
Due to the maximum cost limitation, it will not be possible to increase the
cost of the project above Summit Avenue. Additionally, the San Sevaine Creek
Water Project is a water conservation project and not a flood control project.
The addition of additional concrete lined channels and /or a debris dam,
without correlating the facilities to water conservation, could jeopardize the
approval of the loan by the Bureau.
v
SECTION I. GENERAL DISCUSSION
The firm of Engineering- Science has been retained to provide an Application
Report and Environmental Statement to support a non - interest loan from the
Bureau of Reclamation under the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956. Bill
Mann & Associates is a subconsultant on the project and is assisting in the
report preparation.
One of the items under Task No. 2 of the agreement between the County of San
Bernardino and Engineering- Science requires the review of an alternative of a
debris dam and hard -lined channel for San Sevaine Creek above Summit Avenue.
We have reviewed several alternatives to handle flood and debris flows from
San Sevaine Creek above Summit Avenue. The various alternatives are discussed
herein to provide data to assist in making a decision on the treatment of San
Sevaine Creek flows above Summit Avenue. A general discussion on existing
conditions and background is provided in addition to the various alternatives.
The area north of Summit Avenue is presently a spreading ground area with
mountainous drainage courses traversing it. San Sevaine Creek is the pre-
dominant drainage course with a drainage area of 1,270 acres at the canyon
mouth. Morse Canyon traverses the middle portion of the spreading grounds and
has a drainage area of approximately 600 acres at the canyon mouth. Henderson
Canyon originates to the northwest and traverses along the westerly edge of
the spreading grounds. Henderson Canyon has a drainage area of approximately
440 acres at the canyon mouth. Several smaller drainage courses confluence
with Morse and Henderson Creeks below the mouth of the canyon. All three
drainage courses enter the San Sevaine Basins located immediately south of
Summit Avenue. Figure No. 1 is a vicinity map showing Henderson, Morse and
San Sevaine Canyons and the general are. above Summit Avenue.
The Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks System Drainage Plan was completed in
March, 1983. The recommended plan for San Sevaine Creek at that time was a
reception type levee from the canyon mouth to Summit Avenue and a reinforced
1
4
:),:i .' 1' ' ' '' ■:\1 . ` ) . : 01, V \ .^N,„ ( f ,-, , '' , ) 6 (c ) ' V ' :‘ ., '7 ); ; ‘,, , .
U
K
" ' Fi --; 3\, - 5, s p r ,,: " \\ ,I 7 m ‘I'',•,'1 , --- - \ ' \ , '.. ' ,
--. ,' ,,,, --.,-,y,N ,L (.-., i„ ---,-,-- ,),.. j: ___-_-A A --;),
11 " ('‘.' ,r ) s )' ''', \ k, (-'- ' 1 ? \) (. \'') k \ ....‘-, , ! ,
. it ' , ' i -,;,`, .7 ' \ ' . 4 ,y
' _) ..-----,-)', i,---_ f v'\.-_ , 1 ) H'''. ' , --) ,
'.,„. \ \ 0 ‘, .?
....‘. V-----:" ‘-- -7 " ) 1 ) ;) \ ?\ .1 ;.' '1 , ',. 1 ‘: -:' . ' ,''' .
c.) ti Ns a \ N : .. L.
-,..-' ‘ --- ' 1 '!. / 2 : . j ' ' , ' ' .'T c CC rn
/ ) )
\ k ›- ':,‘\':,,,,.,,, % ( , 1
ii. . ,, „, . \ , ,
_ . , c , ---„/ _:..,::-,- , r,,, _.....))/- . ) - ,,..,;,,,..,:, , \, '
ilf
(.._.?..
,,
. \ ,
cr
.0
iciii
.L.0
, , ........./. ,
r ,
. .41kk
; _`=- ---,---)\ ( 1")) / 4)1 5 ' '') )'-)','' A \_ ) - i, '"•
-',/,,/ , --1 :/ - \ --- ',../-"-.._., 4\--, ) ) ( ( 0 \ \ , `I s
WI
i 11
tit " t g 9 ) ', 1-1:P :
t5 ... -
4..\\..
L ...\it
: ■ : jp \ ,,,z
-\: ri
. N -\\i ... 4:
1 "i.:V4 ' . - . ', ..:_ -
L
c ,..•
11111110) .
h..-- 2 / ). 7k 0 _ _,....,,/-_--;„, ..
;."'.. ...... \
il` s _ ?_)- - - - c r ‘ _‘.. -
-. 2 - :',/*- .- i. . 1 9 s , 1\ ...co ,
0 co II
r? 1,,,___ ts...--‘..c.,.._ 4 7,.,
a. , ,w...„
_ et • „
' -- it --- '1_ --, N„_„,....4-5./ ,;''. czr , ,, (,),, i
-1.:AR-- , —4- „ <_, \ „
. . . . .. 4 r „ . .
, \3 5-
,,,
,..„ 4,,
iiiir ,..,„,. 0,.. „.‘,
r r \ ,.1' t' ' '' - - ,..s, _
II
il 7 vi'l 4'
I. ‘ " 'N./••' " \ s , . . . . . „.,,''''.:- -; 2 . At 3 0 1°4 V ,,, 0 fj ' .‘ "'.1 , i 5 il
I I II ' ''1 \\ , f
7 111 /47 7i - -4 it''''' F „ ,
\ „:
•
9
concrete box structure under Summit Avenue. The proposed reception type
channel would be an extension of the existing channel and levee. Because of
the existing San Sevaine Creek Spreading Grounds west of the channel and the
large proposed basin area below Summit Avenue, it was assumed at that time the
channel velocities and debris could be handled without the expense of a lined
channel and debris dam. However, an alternate design with concrete channel
and debris dam was included in the Drainage Plan, but was not recommended.
The spreading ground area was recommended to be maintained as a water
spreading area and left in its natural condition as much as possible. The MWD
Foothill Feeder crosses the San Sevaine Creek Channel approximately 2,500 feet
north of Summit Avenue and crosses the spreading grounds diagonally. The
CBMWD uses a turnout from the pipeline north of Summit Avenue to spread
imported water.
At the time the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks Drainage Plan was com-
pleted, a reception type channel was also proposed along the west side of the
spreading grounds to confine Morse and Henderson Canyon flows to the spreading
grounds. Morse and Henderson Canyons were to be joined north of Summit Avenue
and conducted under Summit Avenue in one reinforced concrete box structure.
Due to the large spreading ground area available, a reception channel and
levee system was designed to handle the design flow and keep the area in as
much a natural state as possible and still sustain flood and debris flows.
The 1983 Drainage Plan included $1,350,000 in the cost estimate for the recom-
mended channel and levee works above Summit Avenue. The cost of the alternate
channel and dam was not estimated at that time. The $1,350,000 estimate was
based on 1983 dollars.
The approximate 300 acres west of San Sevaine Creek and north of Summit Avenue
are proposed for development. There is also a proposed development immedi-
ately east of San Sevaine Creek. The existing San Sevaine Spreading Grounds
are proposed to be left as natural as possible by both the developers and City
of Rancho Cucamonga. The preliminary plans call for a park area linking the
area north of Summit Avenue to the proposed Lower San Sevaine Basin south of
Summit Avenue.
3
Maps showing the drainage areas for San Sevaine, Morse and Henderson Canyons
are provided in the Appendix.
SECTION II. ALTERNATE PLANS FOR SAN SEVAINE CREEK ABOVE SUMMIT AVENUE
The following alternatives are discussed below for comparison purposes. Cost
estimates for each alternative are provided. A more detailed analysis of each
alternative is provided in Section III.
Alternate No. 1 - A reception channel and levee system for San Sevaine, Morse
and Henderson Canyons.
Alternate No. 2 - A debris dam and concrete lined channel for San Sevaine
Creek.
Alternate No. 3 - A debris dam and concrete lined channel for San Sevaine
Creek and a concrete lined channel for Morse Canyon.
Alternate No. 4 - A debris dam for San Sevaine Creek without a downstream
concrete lined channel.
The hydrology used to size the San Sevaine Creek Channel for cost estimating
purposes was based on the 1983 Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks Drainage
Plan. The hydrology for Morse and Henderson Canyons was supplemented by later
studies for those canyons and correlated with the Day Creek Drainage Plan
Hydrology.
Alternate No. 1
This alternate is basically the plan recommended and approved in the Day,
Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks System Trainage Plan for the area above Summit
Avenue.
4
The plan includes a reception type channel and levee for San Sevaine Creek and
a reception channel and levee on the west side of the wash. Morse and Hender-
son Creeks would be realigned as necessary to outlet to the wash. The wash
area would be narrowed slightly to a width of approximately 900 feet from the
outside of the west levee to the outside of the east levee. The levee and
channel plan is shown schematically on Figure No. 2. An approximate schematic
cross - section of the wash area is shown on Figure No. 3.
Based on the "Tatum Method ", the approximate major flood debris production
estimates for San Sevaine, Morse and Henderson Canyons are provided below.
The 100 -year frequency design flow for each creek is also shown.
Creek Area (mi2)* Debris (yd3)* Design Flow (cfs)
San Sevaine 1.99 318,200 1970*
Morse .92 114,000 1820 **
Henderson .70 66,000 1380 **
* At the canyon mouth.
** Includes additional tributary drainage below canyon mouth.
The estimated cost of Alternate No. 1 is $1,530,000. A breakdown of the cost
estimate is provided in the Appendix. An updated unit price estimate is also
included.
Alternate No. 2
This alternative includes a concrete lined channel and debris dam for San
Sevaine Creek. This alternative is similar to that included in the Day,
Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks System Drainage Plan as an alternate plan.
The concrete channel would extend from the debris dam to Summit Avenue. A
concrete box structure would conduct San Sevaine Creek flows under Summit
Avenue. A splash pad would be necessary immediately downstream of the RCB.
Below Summit Avenue, the flows would enter the San Sevaine Basins.
5
! - I, - -. ; 7 6 1 :g: 1 - - ' . , f __ ,, , , , . , ,
r ..
s.
i O
1 �� 4
�' �� � ) , - fl, ,� /��' J) I � V 1 • F 33H� _ — A��- -
l 1. N # N z
r 1 �1 37 Q if \
' ./' . _:____jr / , ' . / " _ `') ,,,� � �\ = � 1 , - i ce, • / cr i ,_. J
\ ' -- � 1^= 'i ce -_ �� - G - JJJ ! !,� • I C7
fib- -��_ \ 1 / f / _ i %'• Q M ,.}.
Il � L 1 ,I COj �� / „ � ", i ■ }3 W
\ , ii,/,:ii:::_y, t "0 1 , 4 1 LciEl ,
ic:- (P_S_S „, . \, , , ,-, ,, , , ,,,,
i „ ' s\ ' - ' . -. il , , ( ' ■ . ,. ,
J , __,
,_ __,,,,,
, . __
, ,
.:
,,. ,
sk...._..__,,, , ‘ ..,,,,,,....
,,,,,,,,, ...
,..., _.7.,,,,„.,,,..„,„„,
, ,,,,,,,,„,,,„,,,,,„,,,„,,.,,
,,,,,,„,..,.,..,:„.,.,„,„E,,
,,),,„„—,.,....,,,,,„,,,,‘,,., _,),,, ,_ , ,,. \,,,,..,,,,,, ,
• .
,, t'•:,c ___,,,, ,f . ,,_ , '' - i" - :,_----_,-- yfr -, �� ",, � , 'i/ J �' / - a te n•.— , , :,I, ., ! f,,i
, ,, ). /5„ ......y .
` J '' /_,'' \' I )�� SS 1 - ■ )'. I`'1 ti.
` W y �� Z -,...,(),-__“,,T-,,,s,:,,,,_,.-,-\:. , ..„--,_ ,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,_,) ,), _,,_, /, ,.. , ,,,„,:,,, x
k _
` � . / e--- 1 �(( � \ _ IJ r J �1 J � ' _ ° � �� _ / l i , � � � (yJ � � a 'Q �
I. _e
1 - _ ` � >Z
/� d it e'
„. , LU M O / ,z,,,0 \ \ .
f ly �, - 1 \ \ \� \ • :��,- -'; ' , anyoh �' r `� o•' �. •i
ii) 'vr.1:1---Pdji x T/ - g ) ''‘'`, r , 1 / 11 .
911 N
. °):-(1( ....'N \13 -t1: LC-3 ;:;"."'s - :, %----) - , <,— :.: -- :1 l : a \"\ t* -II •
r ti 1
er) i `_' 4 ..� . ..<„,- ;
.. - r-4 j �'' - .r•' N Cr _ :I,:
II - „ �• err . wsn • II
11 , „ '' Nalppp ...:M r • ' \'\ t
I � ; .............
„ .
. of: ;� � : � , � '. � ' -di
I II ...
!: ,
r�
P L-- ti, ` ,,,
T s •
•I •M •„
:IP
i .....,■-•: vi i0Cl o il ir dll '.1.
• if 1
)441"4„..
rt N I I
._,-N.N_N .40.0... ,s ,.
. \
..
..
\(;; •
II ti
II
I I ij Y ii Ti
II
II .1 N
A4C N
M II
VI N
i' N
N II
1 ���1 \11 A . �,� (i , \ II 'III 0
7
I i
A I M
I z
1 _ +1
-w.1 +1 CD
-L I o LL
1 •1
+, b
W N
'�
z ___I 17
>z W�� , 2 +1
co ZJ - ° o
cn Q I <W
z z I >Z
4 1 N Q 1 v
z c)
4 T Cr)
0
0 I D
Z > 1 ° W 0
t o 4 I ( > CC
H 2 T< x Z
1 (r) x �
CO I� a
+1 w +1 CO W
co Ls- I O CC
a)
x m cv i x c
~
z x 1 0 z
z
+I g i +1
-0 c15 W
in co u'
cr) N z I - Z
0 I 4
1 cr
W __I
Z Z . I ~
= Q
J
(J O
W
co Z 1 .i
oz �1 ti
GO
11� - r
+1
m
r n
I T
t T 1
(V .i .. v
`- N 1 0
N 1 z
O I w I m
N
— 1 1
_
N
I - 1
A rectangular channel would be preferable to a trapezoidal channel due to high
velocity flow (30 fps - 40 fps) and rocky terrain.
The debris production, based on the "Tatum Method ", for San Sevaine Creek at
the canyon mouth is approximately 318 200 yd3. The channel and debris dam are
shown schematically on Figure No. 4.
The estimated cost of Alternate No. 2 is $4,935,000. A breakdown of the cost
estimate is provided in the Appendix. The cost estimate includes a reception
levee and channel along the west side of the spreading grounds and a structure
under Summit Avenue.
Alternate No. 3
This alternative includes a concrete lined channel for both San Sevaine and
Morse Creeks and a debris dam for San Sevaine Creek. A concrete lined channel
is included for Morse Creek in this alternative due to the fact Morse Creek
flows could act against the San Sevaine Channel if not controlled. Morse
Creek below the canyon mouth is located totally within the San Sevaine Creek
Spreading Grounds.
The San Sevaine Creek Channel would extend from the debris dam to Summit
Avenue. The Morse Creek Channel would confluence with the San Sevaine Channel
approximately 5,000 feet north of Summit Avenue. Except for the connection of
the Morse Creek Channel, this alternative would be the same as Alternate
No. 2. The San Sevaine Channel would have to be increased in size below the
Morse Creek Channel confluence.
A rectangular section was assumed for both channels. A debris dam was not
included for Morse Canyon. The debris dam and channels are shown schema-
tically on Figure No. 5.
The estimated cost of Alternate No. 3 is $6,000,000. A breakdown of the cost
estimate is provided in the Appendix. This cost does not include a reception
type levee and channel along the west side of the spreading grounds.
8
. ,, ,‘, / r,
) - - ll`; ,.2 �' 1 � -) � tg -� - �, , ., ,, •► r N336.0 / 3 71 A N Z 41
. )
i _, / i �_ 1 . "Q Q Z
�1 "�I /, a * a f. Z �_ . c' 0 . ,.
/ ,‘. •___,--_-_- ---- ;11 \,,....,--- /--- I/ (ic -) ,. _ _.----___ _7 ■ o /-. ,,.. ' , = 1 (..)--W 41f) \ U.
' _2_ -; .''' I _ . _
•
II
1 5 ,
i .' \`‘\ ‘ '' -- 'ff --- ---:./' 7 !--,--;, - .‘,.....r -.-..,-__))) 2.4 - _ - ' A ' ''.‘";' ', \''' X \
\ \,,-/-_-.- -- --- V 5,Y,1_ ig cn 0 --\\:
, -�� ), ) -, "- 1� i , ) -' • 7 A �.��.. ∎∎ 'r, ' ; 1 , • 1 ,;,r ;,;' �.
•f" � lI \,_ _�' - \ ' fr , , . 11 • 1
, , ,1;1 1 I I I
i � _ ' : V" ` )•.� V/ .1,11,` .t1;:11:1'1.!.. � 11,q�'
\> L- 1 ______ ) , , ; ,'. a EE , ;,11; ; I I
,
-1 \)11. // 1/ m 1 ; r 1 1
) - - -- - / \ J - 1 �✓ �``` //'; `. ` \�� - t g \ , la • , , .. 1'i' 1 11 1111 '
--).
Y ij , c o l (- ' � 7 ' j ) ` \ ; -' ) < l ` 1G � r` \,. ` m ,7 - - - -- - N` _.�;\ - m
., j ' fir / '. ) 1 7 / I ° \ ...s,.,t, .
____ )6= - ... _..., \. - , - ..-• ' . , ...,- - - - -...... J - ..._1.114:‘
:1&;;_:._--\ 5-5• ,_
f J I \ y
` � �l S 9. �
j 1�� fni ••' I N \ , i .
.. l
, 2
7 ......... Ik 1 _ifi ___-_ 7: .,, .... 011tfr‘ ; / ,'A .............. I:
11 N -s
• ra ti ° IN A /4,,,,6iti.:, . f 'fi ( � �, • �:N Z 11 " ii
r �j 1 \�� �� �{a - / II � III 1)
13.,„:„...).?ok......r.„ :L, - 0 II - i n t N ii
7 , II I II� q
M N
71/17 LV,,I 4.4. --',-
..,,, ,..
..
, i,,, .1
..
,,,
„, .
,, __,... ______._..__. ,\\, . . 1
,..1v; _ti tv -
V.....-IN 3 , 1 _.... .0( _ '\,:''' , .. . . .__ _ ____ _
n
J
— - - ---- ' - - - -- — — — • - - -
C t -� —
'
),, S'� i , , , \ fiff7 /' ,', V
>�� '' to l n . I S' �� , rt Z O •
'� �� \, q. - ' ,w r - i X x3 arr Q
v I ' ,' 'L., ,' iv ",_ ; )0i or, ,- - , .. . -‘, It o ) ,?j, / d5 W
;,__,_],":',L , ' . )1 ,',:, ,,,.■ -,,, ' , 1 , 1 ) q, , ,,,,,,,)))) : ,,, • 1 ,, .7_, z cx
,'�/, / -�� ,..,- .i. 1 1 I r \ _ TII ` ' r , " � w .-
ij; \ 33200 )) c-. 'J / "\ t (( /1 " ' -.`- --► / / ( v .
, i � `� 6 O
r �, , ?( ,- � ),\ ��< - _,, _ - • ? 80 0 ; - 1 \ ` "� i - 1 < ) 1 �� L • `� ,� 3 / 2 ` \ �� m Q
� it l � __ i 15 • L \,t
���r rJ - � (C•,l • / 111 %S m 'I •
�/ •
) , \
Cr
� �__ t il l il l �� 0O
° Odf, A �' , - Z W it
Rai \ . -- _ ..
\� ) i / —7- to
•
l i t _:: 1 j i' „, ,\ ,, f i f \ i
Y (' Et* -- - `f� Or/ I - J I �� 0, ' A�` , 7 ) ,. ' 4 ita r i)1111 • ,
• '- ' ) J , n J j I , , ' _ ,' Wa ` ..1 / III u z_ V // -r \ l , " Z N W O
l �� J 7i !\ 1, \\ , ,1:
r` i' m O Z Q \ \ , N W Z •
• %�-/ :
, /� - ,/1 - - _ A � � \'l ' :,\ J '' ' ' 4 W S a zip • i ._
to \
Illt, I \ ' N ,„
■
A
o
o
.....--, s-.. „..,' ....... ....,__,..„,,,, , ;...... _.„ .r.,) ,
; , c ) 41 77. , ?-s),j, -,,,'
.„
,1 ..;
`_gc i 4 " . --, 4 c 'd?-
��` �� )--\-\ , ,
.– 3600 > ) i p .1% k.� I / j . 31 \/ „..... „
)..* „ `��� ../ z iii � u \ p It
\ .• ■ A w 'I L , Q- (n IL
1, In, \ ,, aW . • . .,,I., i ,, F. eL . , ,
Fitt_ '' '''...77.-Thr Ilt 14 1. 141 ,' V) CD I •
'II 6. iiiiL . II
�:. 1 11 ■ II -. ■I
1,.....ttet.„ o Dili
” ll: O L
\ ” O n II m i.
..........-, giti;„., i t II \ I.
/ / d I� il
#1-7
� -_ L -- 1 I,
>i_�i1lK —� F - \ 1 1 li
t'L I
Alternate No. 4
This alternative includes a debris dam for San Sevaine Creek without a down-
stream concrete lined channel. Flows from the debris dam would outlet into
the spreading ground area immediately below the mouth of the canyon. Except
for the addition of the debris dam, this alternative would be identical to
Alternate No. 1. An energy dissipator would be necessary below the dam
spillway to dissipate spillway flow energy and assist in controlling erosion.
The debris dam would be designed for a one major flood debris production
estimated at 318,200 yd3. The debris dam would be sited approximately as
shown on Figure No. 6. The Day, Eetiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks Drainage
Plan dated March, 1983, provides a preliminary plan and profile for the debris
dam.
The estimated cost of Alternate No. 4 is $3,280,000 based on existing
available information.
The Cucamonga Fault Zone has several splinters that cross the general area of
the proposed dam site. In addition, based on recent studies, there is some
indication the Red Hill Fault extends into the general area. Therefore, it
may be difficult to economically construct a dam at the canyon mouth.
Detailed geotechnical and soils investigation will be necessary to determine a
site for the dam and subsequent construction costs.
11
- : - '' -•'-` ' — /- . ' ``',' ) '' '' i( geL =_.- , , ' /%,/, - s '`.
`U LU/ = C_ - j , - ,. ' 5 - ` l . ) , � � �T , , , -- F a< \ . 34331+0 r 31.< �� N Z O
1 -\)) ,_'L ./,'' ` �) 1 , r i _ \: ) /,. ,., ) . lye Z a
{ %: l w
r" = 5l) ),; \� c`; A 1I, . F ‘-"\-, -. _ } , , . ,t .7 i 8 .S.'' 6P J 1, Li...
- --' , r , c , ' CC i_j
=---.--;).. - ... -----•:.,-..., .0 j).„,,,,,k ) � . - ll )), �\/ i ', _. . � '✓.• /'. W \ W,= N � OYDY N:
L_
=J I L ;) d, W w v. -. ' : 4•-• ( ':..:. ,..;‘,
I .2 // '~ ���) it /i ce ) � ��, ` 1) ) w , j 1��
i � l • E
_ / �
I ‘..-"\ \ --- ‘4 ,--,--::: \ N-,..,,` _I( \ i 'v : )(1 . . . ,>,..;.• , , .T . 1 '. 'cs . , ......\-....- 7 — .....; , .... , , ,„ ,
, -,. N s‘;", ' ,1A ‘/ .-''') M ,, 1 % - ; :I_ f ,\\.,-)) 1 • ,),.' ;::.;-:, ,C- ', ; .' ,' s • . > � > �� i t /' W �'
� ` } 'W —
I t ...s ' , f .1 6 -- /1 A-, , ,, , ,( )' - t '- 'i' ' i ' 9; '' • - . ' ` =�) l. - ) J )J )J'j ' '' Otr W 'o�` � cn ),,_),,, ,z.,,,,\,.,., CC '-' ' ,7 w cr /
V --- ,e'''-, 3 , r / ( cP , ,)) \ ‘ \ <- / - \ , ' ,,, : !,/ , x
f }
!, V\ 1 wri� / l r
• ,..... „ _ - „ICI,._, • ”` . .. c\* \ , . .
�� -� , , act ,' t� ii
it . . P" ..11
)13 cfr 1 ? 4, 1 t 1 i: ;) ' - 6dr -; 7 0 ; .. ,,
:' • ' )
, „ , / L .
------t4a P' t . f '4 ‘. . V I l it ::,: \ -
Ai 75, 0 .
).- 1 f , ■.- -... j
1,L,„ >,-, -- N.V ) ) .
efo* , ,,i‘ A llii , i ''',!, , 2-,..... : 4111. - . . • - - - . . - -
2 ‘V 41/ . P )
Jr , \,, . .
1
N
//
( / �I/����',1�f L��%� ", / I I li
\ i \ \_ \ m i
■
1
SECTION III. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE PLANS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternate No. 1
This alternate provides for a reception type channel and levee for San Sevaine
Creek and Morse and Henderson Creeks. The plan provides for an ultimate
spreading ground area width of approximately 900 feet from Summit Avenue to
the upper power line.
Henderson Creek Channel would be realigned as shown on Figure No. 2. Morse
Canyon would enter the spreading grounds at the same location as it does at
the present time. The reception levee and channel for Morse and Henderson
Canyon flows would provide the westerly confinement of the spreading grounds.
The San Sevaine Channel and levee would provide the easterly confinement of
the spreading grounds. The levee heights would vary from 12 to 20 feet in
height. The channels would vary from a width of 50 to 75 feet and depths of 6
to 10 feet. The channels would be designed for 100 -year design with a 100%
bulked flow. Figure Nos. 2 and 3 show the proposed spreading grounds, approx
imate levee alignment, and approximate channel widths and depths in schematic
form.
The combined debris production estimate for San Sevaine and Morse Creeks based
on a major flood is 432,000 yd3. If Henderson Canyon debris for a one -time
major storm is added to the total for San Sevaine and Morse Creeks, the
combined total is 498,000 yd3. If the approximate 498,000 yd3 combined total
of debris is theoretically spread over the entire spreading grounds area (750+
feet wide), the depth of debris would be approximately 3 feet deep.
It is recognized the debris would not be spread over the entire spreading
ground area evenly; however, it is also evident the spreading grounds are more
than adequate to handle debris from all three creeks in the event of a major
flood due to its width and the height of the proposed levees.
13
Based on information in the Riverside and Los Angeles County Flood Control
District Hydrology Manuals, the average annual debris production for the three
creeks would be approximately 23,500 yd3. This estimate is based on long term
records (30 years or more) from Los Angeles County. Average annual debris
production rates range from 700 to 12,J00 yd3 per square mile for one square
mile watersheds in the San Gabriel Mountains. The average annual rate in
these watersheds is approximately 6,450 yd3 per square mile (about 4 acre -
feet) for a one square mile watershed. If the maximum 12,000 yd3 per square
mile figure is used, the average annual debris production for the three creeks
would be approximately 43,500 yd3.
Alternate No. 1 will provide for adequate flood protection and debris control
and will maintain the natural environment of the wash area. The semi -
structural channel and levees can be blended into the existing terrain and the
spreading ground area can be maintained as a water spreading area. The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has a major pipeline that
crosses the spreading grounds as shown on Figure No. 2. The Chino Basin
Watermaster spreads imported water from the pipeline in the spreading grounds
and basins to the south.
if the spreading grounds are developed as an open space /park area, it must be
realized the area will be subject to periodic major flooding and debris depo-
sition, and therefore will require periodic maintenance and debris removal.
The existing San Sevaine Basins are located immediately south of Summit
Avenue. Flows from the spreading grounds above Summit Avenue would be con-
ducted under Summit Avenue into the San Sevaine Basins by two double 12' x 10'
RCB's. Any debris not deposited into the spreading ground above Summit Avenue
would be deposited into the San Sevaine Basins or the proposed Lower San
Sevaine Basin.
The updated cost of Alternate No. 1 is estimated at $ 1,530,000. A breakdown
of the cost estimate is included in the Appendix. The cost estimate includes
a reception type channel and levee system for San Sevaine, Morse and Henderson
Creek flows.
14
Alternate No. 2
This alternate provides for a debris dam for San Sevaine Creek and a concrete
lined channel from the debris dam to Summit Avenue. A reinforced concrete box
structure would conduct flows under Summit Avenue and into the existing basins
immediately below Summit Avenue. A grouted rock splash pad (dissipator) would
be necessary south of the RCB.
The debris dam would be designed for approximately 318,000 yd3. An area for
debris storage would have to be set aside immediately below the dam site. The
approximate location of the debris dam, if located at the canyon mouth, is
shown on Figure No. 4. The dam site is based on the preliminary plan in the
Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks Drainage Plan.
A rectangular channel is proposed from the dam to Summit Avenue. The channel
would vary from a 12 -foot wide, 7 -foot deep section at the upstream portion to
a 12 -foot wide, 8 -foot deep section at the lower end. Channel velocities
would approach 40 feet per second. Because of the high velocity and rocky
terrain, a rectangular channel is recommended.
The Cucamonga Fault Zone crosses the San Sevaine Creek Spreading Grounds near
the upper power line in close proximity to the proposed debris dam site. In
addition, recent studies indicate the Red Hill Fault may extend to the general
area of the dam site. It may be difficult to economically construct a debris
dam at the canyon mouth. Detailed geotechnical and soil investigation will be
necessary to determine a site and develop detailed construction costs.
It must be recognized that the construction of a debris dam and concrete lined
channel for San Sevaine Creek does not eliminate the need for the San Sevaine
Creek Spreading Grounds unless channelization of Morse and Henderson Canyon
flows is also provided. Morse Canyon enters the spreading grounds area at the
north end. Henderson Creek is proposed to enter the spreading grounds about
2,000 feet north of Summit Avenue. Therefore, the spreading grounds would
have to be retained, although at a reduced width, even though the additional
15
cost is expended to control Sevaine Creek flows. A reception channel and
levee system would still be necessary along the west side of the spreading
grounds to contain Henderson and Morse Canyon flows.
If a concrete channel and debris dam are provided for San Sevaine Creek, the
spreading grounds could be used as an open space park. The park would still
be subject to periodic major flooding, annual nuisance flows, and debris
deposition although at a lesser scale.
•
Due to the fact Morse Canyon flows enter the spreading grounds at the north
end, uncontrolled Morse Canyon flows could damage the San Sevaine Channel.
Therefore, an alternate (Alternate No. 3) of providing a concrete lined
channel for Morse Creek flows and a connection to the San Sevaine Channel is
also considered.
The cost of Alternate No. 2 is estimated at $4,935,000. A breakdown of the
cost estimate is included in the Appendix. The cost estimate includes a
reception levee and channel along the west side of the spreading grounds.
Maps showing the preliminary site of the San Sevaine Creek debris dam and
Cucamonga Fault Zone are included in the Appendix.
Alternate No. 3
This alternate is the same as Alternate No. 2 except for the addition of a
concrete lined channel for Morse Creek. Refer to Figure No. 5 for the
schematic alignment of Morse Creek Channel and its connection to the San
Sevaine Channel.
Under this alternate, a debris dam is not proposed for Morse Canyon. However,
the channel would be designed to intercept flows from the approximate 370
acres of drainage between Morse and San Sevaine Creeks. The San Sevaine Creek
Channel would be designed for the combined flow of Morse and San Sevaine
Creeks below the confluence of the channels. The Morse Canyon design flow
would be bulked 100% if no debris dam is provided for Morse Creek.
16
Based on a 100% bulked flow and a 2% grade, the channel for Morse Creek flows
would be 16 feet wide and 9 feet deep. The channel for combined San Sevaine
and Morse Creek flows would be approximately 18 feet wide and 9 feet deep. A
double 12' x 10' RCB under Summit Avenue would be required.
The estimated cost of Alternate No. 3 is $ 6,000,000. A breakdown of the cost
estimate is provided in the Appendix.
If a debris dam for Morse Canyon is included, the increase in cost would be
approximately $750,000, not including any necessary right -of -way acquisition.
The above estimated cost of $6,000,000 does not include any work along the
west side of the wash.
Alternate No. 4
This alternate includes a debris dam for San Sevaine Creek without a concrete
lined channel below the dam. Therefore, this alternate would only provide for
the capturing of debris and not the control of San Sevaine Creek storm flows
below the dam.
Except for the addition of a debris dam at the mouth of the canyon, this
alternate would be practically identical to Alternate No. 1. An energy
dissipator at the end of the dam spillway would be necessary to control
erosion and conduct flows back to the spreading grounds.
Refer to Figure No. 6 for the proposed location of the debris dam. The loca-
tion of the dam is based on the preliminary plan in the Day, Etiwanda and San
Sevaine Creeks Drainage Plan. The dam would be designed for a debris
production of approximately 318,000 yd3 based on a major flood. It would be
necessary to set aside an area below the dam for debris storage.
Under this alternative, it would still be necessary to provide the reception
type levee and channel system proposed in Alternate No. 1. Therefore, the
cost of this alternate would include the cost of the dam plus the cost of the
17
levee and channel system as described in Alternate No. 1. It might be
possible to decrease the size of the San Sevaine Creek Channel and levee
slightly, but not significantly.
A debris dam at the canyon mouth would capture any debris from the two
square -mile San Sevaine Canyon. Due to the velocity in the channel below the
dam, there would still be some channel erosion and debris pickup in the event
of a major flood.
The Cucamonga Fault Zone crosses the San Sevaine Creek Spreading Grounds near
the power lines and in close proximity to the proposed debris dam site. Also,
there have been some recent studies that suggest the Red Hill Fault extends
into the general area of the proposed dam site. It may be difficult to
economically construct a dam at the canyon mouth. Detailed geotechnical and
soils investigation would be necessary to determine a site for a dam and
develop construction costs.
During the preparation of the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks Drainage
Plan, a debris dam at Summit Avenue was reviewed. A dam immediately north of
Summit Avenue was not considered due to lack of confinement, aesthetics and
disruption of water spreading activities. A debris dam at Summit Avenue was
also reviewed as a part of this study. The following disadvantages of a
debris dam just north of Summit Avenue are noted:
1. A levee approximately 35 to 40 feet high at Summit Avenue would be
required to contain the debris from San Sevaine, Morse and Henderson
Creeks. The levee would extend approximately 1,000 feet upstream.
2. The reception type channel and levees would still be necessary to contain
flood flows above the debris dam.
3. Water conservation and park uses within the spreading grounds would be
severely impaired.
4. A dam at Summit Avenue would be much more aesthetically displeasing.
18
The cost of Alternate No. 4, with the debris dam at the canyon mouth, is
estimated at $ 3,280,000. A breakdown of the cost estimate is included in the
Appendix.
Maps showing the preliminary siting of the San Sevaine Creek debris dam and
the Cucamonga Fault Zone are included in the Appendix.
19
7
APPENDIX
1. Hydrology Map of San Sevaine, Morse and
Henderson Canyons
2. Cost Estimate
3. Maps showing Preliminary San Sevaine Creek
Debris Dam Site and Cucamonga Fault Zone
�, .� / 1 — f 1 `��� f .��_'� ` ` , /_,-1_,„2-,==2:7—',...'.-':-`7`"--9-1
/� of . ..9./ IT r
f` (t -,,1 i ��t 1 C ' S } ! ,) -� ' � 4 , f + -% \ _� J ,.; ' /i c, \- \ ;•� \\.\\ 1- i_ �•'� I� /y f / / ",/ / 'r.'' t'�; \,
- - -/ 2 ,es,, _,i, / / A '
�.�-� -- � \ "_''� � ,.` "'C . ..•.. e� + w. r S! /77 1 1 .,� -.a _,aC i .,Y, \
-1-7 \ � �.—J ` \, '� L A�'� A ), : { \.• . i ! / " --..- s".....,, , -- , .) I )ri ` ' ' - . - \,: /// ( 1 _ 'I t 1 1
__C * , : - - ' I ( \/U►+ ( ` -' ( > , \ _ ! r • \
.) 7 l 4,,, _ /= \ i ai / \ \ � \ , / � i i { l \\ ..:, ) ...._ ..._..., , H *Z r. ,,,,,---;\ -\- \ -
_„__. -,, 1
i• i j ,
_'�� 7 . � �► O ^ _ � ~\ / / w i n e , . "> 11 � \\ , v, \� %-\ �_
0 . / ~ =� \l} - . i Ii �• _ \ r \ i
1 i0 ` ` — '' UOW C$ 1 — � \ ! � /� i 1 - / / , - .") 1 \\\ , \ ').- ' - 4'
■)\') 1 i f 1- (
.1 i A I C 1 --- • ..„. j)
, / / It \ 1 t. Jr_ ( / 1 ' , \ -7--_' '' , },,„47 r •- l � /�� ' ,� - • ■
r L ______,- /-- " 1 1 , 1 ;'; , - _ ( 1 / '� ,',/ / . 1 Cam- � \
� , - / j;" K. t\ 1 , -� / '- (` '
' \ 'i ''.� .-'� �� " � \
\ \
v _ ' i , I l ' " // I, - \ �'. - ��� '41 t , \\ . • • ' 1 , \ h ' 1
80 _, ! 'J _ /) i t � il11r , !/ '(, )'\' \ \ 4__ '-'' !i, \ \V- --i - ",� 111.1 \ , (1 \� �\ �-fjl,
. fi g k J /,� =- - ' ; , s 4 400 — J , Y \ \\ 1 i I / �� / (! ` \ 1 '�,
[- r= -,-.:52:_ r ►1 _ \� (( ! / 1 ) �t
/ r\ \ , i . - �.\ \\ - / 1 ` \ -' • a \
< , - _ _ ' ' • ( i � ; � ,� 1i ■ 1 1 ,. ,11 -
L �� -1l1 S ,1 \`' 1\ t 1) , - � \;` , \ }V '- _ \ • `\ -.'"..:11, '- \ o ... ' , I tj��� / ,:��..1 , r 0` -, \ ` 1 1 1\ f • `'.)
/ , I \ \, � ��� /� \ j r >� - _ i t il, ti �\ ° , , ' \� °
� � . % I - `' { \ 1
�,,: R. .\� �y t `` \ \�\ '1\'', �� - , , -` �C _ ` \ o ' ' -{ � � �� '�� r --r� r "J ( I, - - 1 .}-'_ � \\, \‘`. ' r ; 1 1 ' /l 7 'kit � r t ,
`� / �• / 4 , 1 , • �1 -r1 1 � r \ T 1 I I I a{ . ` a, � •� 4
I,I ` 4 \ \ \ }� \\ / ��j / • / 11 1 � ! , \ \. , ' "� -., / /_ r ) 1 ) \ a . ``
+ - - � \ -,- (� ` \ � '_ ' \ , \-/-z.---_:--
\ \ t ! '� � _- _ / ' , 1 \\ / \\, \\ ',,, j ` /;-, , _ ,
\r - .,'i ',.4---- ', l •=7-------.=-• ,` , fi -"J ') ▪ ' i/i.l �) -I -. \� \ - \\` ' -L_ \ \ _ \• - ' °'► �%1 :; /I . .t l C\ ` 1 , " - - _ _ - -) '\ L„!_- . J.
� . /�-. 7 / / 7 f \ �� ' \ \. rte :;; / "� � ' l rr
_ ��: � _ fh \ ` ; ; , ,Jr % ` / // / / -; , ; , ' i� i , '' - - = " -3 �
0 �, / _._ 1 / J S5;'""\)\ � - ,` , j.-.,,,, ,`�' = ''.
-- - • \ :4--,../.. i : t ') (1 •t \k • r // /, //// . - -: / i i ,- j i , ; �_:- ( ; - I � : ! / !' ,� ' , / ,\ . ,� - / / - • 1 •
+, ) / i // !, ` `\\ 1-,'/,,,,%/7...7,,,,:-
' /ri � / :�/ / ij • ., t,• // � i E; i - � � s r } i1, 11. y -. (; , , 1V �\
l 1 (_(- \' ` \ '� j / rr ' .i I 1 -"\ i I / -' /- fir/ rl J 7� T _ %/� I r,_„:„.
b ���' - /� .
i \ - , ` •i4 `
---- • \\ � • ' '. � �' . ' i r` \� • - \ - , ( 1 '/ '1I f : i % , ' 4 ' ' / � � 1 `K-') \ 1 \ Al . / / � ,
7
%ib • ` \ 1 , \ ( '-'-7"" � \ r / 1j ' I 1, , \ , ' • \ C
�/ -- J -� :—� _ \ ,-.„`„:-.7\ -\ t - l \ \ ` \, .,\ • \ \ \ \ ? ) " / r 1 _�/ j ` i f ' r/ / - r _ • . - • � f ; i ` ) ` , ,\ 1 \, \ t ,�; ! /J ;� t ; ' 1 \ , . /; 1 i ); 1-7/ ; � 1 � _- ;r-. , \ , ,, ,\ , (,,,,,/ !i ...- _
i `1 , , r • (-, . ■ , r ./ , L- , . / r ,m, , - -,,,- - , ‘ ,,(, , \ -, ,k .,. , ,, , ( 0 \\\ 1 gin/"- / \'` _ /•' i _ \, - - - - % Y , � \ .i V \ �\ 1 0, � ��l '' ``, °yI • I 1 \ \' �,/ j ' J r- <- 1 1111 \\\ ' . ►1 ; _ ' 1 / /� r Ji / / Jr' � N ?400 '� r \ ' �
‘,,
,'' ) , ; - - -- _ ,\ c , , r it A 'i / j - '% : 1
J ( ) Ir , } l am, / 1\ I T1 .2 j , ∎' / 1 ' M ) ' �,
y1�h, 5 •'+ 2 ,A .. • 1 ; 1 1 , 1 . - _- r r j <�
R � ' r I / / I r � \-,7 , ,,/ / I i, ( . - ,�
� / 75 - -\ i \. - { / J 1 ICJ 1 N , 1 ,, , _ _ J i
1� �t 'AO' I
�A 75
'\ \ -- 1 ‘--\--:.‘:\‘`-- � - 9 0 ° \ .,\ /. � � 1 .) r � ' 1 \ • ` , 1` \ \, , 1 --\- ' ‘, \ 1 `./ ( I / ' .1,. /-/ ?i ': : -'---\.-‘\' ; 71- -I' /` ( ( i. ^ i �1( O 1�✓ �� ! ` ",'
) 5 \v''', ' ' - • - . • , . ._. — ), ‘,.•, -k 'T „ ,
- -,.- As i , : ,,, , ,,,,, , . , 1 , .\ ._.,• , - ,-4 .
--..._,- ) ' '- f -7-.- -- :/(V v il .0 • :\'‘ J, aA , 1 1 •'\- ' - i \ _.1-• , \, l • .' r- ... . ,
.. ) 1 ' ' '-- / ' --
"P / 2Q2, ,,, :_/ 0 , n 1, "101:: - - -', ` 4 , ,
T � � ,____t . i I .SBA ....!.
._ ' I+ T �" ' : .-
••., ' ' IN k \-. ,. i ....,. „........_ ____ - /\\---\ Ne B M _-_- _
•
•
Z • / {�
T, ��.' d SL -1
-._ F ,\ �� ' . dzL Z• 7 ' '�1i
.. -- . CY ' Q . mil, -..
1 � / n /
'r
l ,f , I r / \ O� Q/ V /
))\ . f _ c 1 S , d6 ) ' : .o . \ , ��� A , .. a9 ."- \ ' - - 1 , ,
) -' / L / _ ' , _ ' / �`F / , l \ .: ._ \ 1 �)
' -11 ' • . I ; . ( . il ‘... •:'‘. .,,,` . ' . 10.
. 1 1 --)::::: -- \`-N 1 .,. s \ • 110 I r .1 7Z ' T ,
- 'N --\ - ..\. ',' ‘,, 1 ' . '• \ \ _ ___ ' 1 , , ), , ii . .. , N..., 0,' ' , - N1 i )'■
i #' \./' \'''\ l: '''''''' ' / .' '''' '/•Alb -" ;. , 1114 '' / / ,
fT\_ \ T j
: sr ,--,.,,, , )cr. 1.:,\ -L, ,-J, cl '-' '1 , L-\-
'N -J (( -,..=-.- \ - - y/I V ' \ ; / , - • '
\ _ 1-, .,, . / ,._ ) \
(:"�
(
- -,. �� , " r � � _ . �rl� J ...1\ 1 ) ' r - t )/ / / � x � �� 'I ■ � �•• -- 1 f if 7• ,, f,l 9� ( 5 l • . \`, ■ \ ) .± �\\`\\ , k 4 i7 - �. �� ‘,-/-..-- ' ; VS )/ (' _ • , / c ` ∎•„ , ' L `- _- \ \ 0Y 1 l i . \ 1 II . /� i - c r - -, , / i ` 1 '-1 JJ - / x +� 1O , ' j r \ �-'-�_ ! \ • %.-----) a • ,.\\....s.:---,2 _ i / I4 '�, /,l ' - R) i ( , , -/ ) ) ' , --- ' `--'' c, ' ' "; ' ' 2 ' ,-- ' ' 1 !t;' ' (i
., - /' I I f. 7 : +, / - I I ,` - • _ • ` ; ', ' . , , . 1 , , I ,. -tom - V „,, ,,,,_,,,,.
� \ \ ,,\ , -, , , oa8,.;. '-) (((, A �} -,' ,t ,,* o ;',)` jai , -�' . \ j • . h :\ _.- � - \\', -- , / I : wt / ,, *Ix
'\ 1 • 62 ' 118, * . •..--\• . ` 8 I ql 1 V - - . — L., 1- ' a ; i , , k � ' • 'f kk f Ili ; lt (.
-- -- 1- _., t \c \ ti (� \� \\\ `\ � I c ` I �`� � ;0--
0 \\ ) . ) •
- %\ ---- \ ; \ \\ . ' , \\\ ")1- l I , . -- \ \fix '\ ',` \ '� -
'-A, '3 7.- _
f-7:5:,_---\) I ,, ( ),) r ih \'C ) ' • / / ” ; , 1 . .‘ ' ' • 1 1r -.'". ''''.:: - ,...: - ---2--- 2 - ' ' ,,', ', . ., 1)' /.•,' ' ' 7 .
) , ./ ( ; ! IL L'-' ----- 1 . � 1 , ` - 1 r \\ ' \ ` , , J I ' r .
\ 1 - ' , - j 5 ,V) i C; , .. : : \:"..', ',','.....,,::,.• 1 4 : ,,( ‘ \ , i : 1- - -_ '0 ( 0 . : 47 1 i i ' 1 , —,, 2 , I r.,,, i. i .1, \ : 1 1. : . \ ..i. \ , ‘,,,,\\,\\\, , :. , t; 81 \, - , ... /• ,
\O i f 1 ',,..'' )? '',/ , ---. v ' ■
\ 1 ) ) ')) i
- -- •A 'k Mk ?‘‘) 1 ' ' '' ) ' ) ' : )., a 1 , ( , : ) _ -....._....____ :;-- -:•_--". i 1 , .; 'j'-', . • i ' \■ .. ,\ .-
�� f �) \ S�', ff 111 ( f ; `, \•":---: J l \ r ; ;/ r '�% .
��L �� c , i�' fit : i / - \ \, �. \ , _ \
r /\// 1 11 )r ) /l � � ' \ � l i , f i r ' O �-,�3 , 1 . - -' -i � r \
niiiiiiiiiil
. ty
•
::w
CUCAMONGA FAULT ZONE
• Portions of Sections 1 4 and 23
TIN, R6W, CITY OF FONTANA
II.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
:t
r•
0
• •
•
•
vet
\ ..
J ,
I
T ' i'' .-- - . , . 1 �,. , j, ,' \I
' f- - - • , \ , ..„.____.....-/
• / .t N . 2-......--- \
/ . . //// N.
f
,,,,, ,,,,,,,...._-_____--....--
Ny\,,, \., - „
\ , \, - ,-- -, \. -
-'- ,' / 1 ..
' • I / 1 - _Fault trac ti
/ / N
- in trench - - \.-
I . \�
. ..-�, � l ___ _..._ _-_._. , -_,.____
f
,/
__ ...
Q a I t ren�t�" N - --
-E _ - -_
j \ i • •t ..S
.. / } _� f
- ' _ �1 ��a i ,,,___,,
/ / r \ /! ench _-
-� - gy p _ l / ^ m
_ - � Y ' - i / /
_ : t . -. r ,gin tree c
-,- _ it - 7 _._f
1•____ •. ,,, . / ... , , 1:1 1 ( / • ----: _-. --- . ----- . . .....
1 -1 '''', iii .."'' . I
' 0,________-
-- �
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES
Civil Engineering • Drainage — Flood Control • Special Studies
December 20, 1985 File: 85 -30
85 -31
Mr. Chuck Laird
Assist. Director
San Bernardino, County
Flood Control District
825 E. Third Street
San Bernardino, California 92415
Subject: San Sevaine Creek Water Project -
San Sevaine Creek above Summit Ave.
Dear Chuck:
Enclosed are ten (10) conies of the "Analysis of Alternatives for
San Sevaine Creek Flows above Summit Ave." We have enclosed five
(5) conies with cost estimate calcs. and five (5) without.
Cordially,
AIL �I6 111.
Consultin Engineer
BCM:gm
enclosed as noted.
c.c. Dave Hall w /enclosure
Bob Schoenborn w /enclosure r/
Reed Flory w /enclosure
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST - SUITE A • SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92408 • (714) 885 -4309