HomeMy WebLinkAboutWest End Specific Plan 3
WEST END SPECIFIC PLAN
CITY OF FONTANA
i
FLOOD CONTROL FACILITES STUDY,
ono
September, 1984
Prepared By
Bill Mann & Associates
1814 Commercenter West
Suite A
San Bernardino, CA 92408
1
,q r
"7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ai
Page
A
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY 1
miu
SECTION II. DRAINAGE AND FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS 3
di A. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3
„ B. FLOOD HAZARDS 5
C. PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
THROUGH PROJECT AREA 1 3
•
* D. PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES
NORTH OF THE DEVORE FREEWAY 15
E. ONSITE RETENTION OF DRAINAGE FLOWS 19
rri
SECTION III. POSSIBLE CONFLICT WITH DRAINAGE PLAN 23
-~ OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST
A. PROPOSED RANCHO FONTANA DRAINAGE PLAN 23
B. CONFLICTS WITH THE WEST END SPECIFIC 25
PLAN
C. RECOMMENDATIONS 27
SECTION IV. INITIAL DEVELOPMENT 28
mak
APPENDIX 1. EXHIBITS I AND IV
2. CALCULATIONS
vows •
OMR
+
a..
it
"*fit
dig
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
mpft
A. GENERAL
The firm of Bill Mann & Associates has been retained to analyze
drainage and flood problems and recommend solutions to resolve
flood problems associated with the approximate 1,100 acres
north of Foothill Boulevard and east of East Avenue in the City
of Fontana. This report is being provided in conjunction with
•4 the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report being prepared
by the SWA Group. Hall and Foreman, Consulting Engineers, are
preparing a study on the onsite storm drain needs for the
di project.
The property is traversed by two major, unimproved flood channels.
The San Sevaine Channel traverses the easterly half of the site
and outlets onto Banana Street. The existing Etiwanda Creek
traverses the western half of the site and outlets into a
natural drainage course southwest of the intersection of East
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Exhibit I shows the location
and configuration of the major channels and the project area.
A drainage master plan entitled the "Day, Etiwanda and San
.. Sevaine Creeks System Drainage Plan" was completed in March, 1983.
The drainage plan provides the future alignment and channel size
for the major flood channel proposed through the site and for the
major flood control facilities proposed north of the Devore
Freeway. The three alternates studied and provided in the
Specific Plan respond to the,flood control problems.
em
•
i
B. PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES
1. Existing Conditions and Flood Hazards
As indicated above, the project area is traversed by two
major, unimproved flood channels. Etiwanda Channel traverses
the west part of the site and San Sevaine Channel traverses
the easterly part of the site.
San Sevaine Channel presently outlets onto Banana Street at
Foothill Boulevard. Etiwanda Channel outlets into a natural
drainage course immediately south of Foothill Boulevard.
. Due to the lack of adequate upstream debris retention facil-
ities, major floods transport debris through the site
clogging the existing channels. Also, due to the high
velocities of flows in the existing channels, severe-bank
erosion takes place during major storms. The existing
channels, particularly San Sevaine Channel, do not have
adequate capacity to sustain major flood flows.
Due to the aforementioned conditions, portions of the site
are subject to flood hazards due to overflow, erosion and
debris deposition until such time as improved flood control
facilities are provided through the site and upstream. The
Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks System Drainage Plan
am
and the Project Specific Plan address and respond to the
flood control problem. Refer to Exhibit I in the packet
of this report for the location of the existing channels.
Due to possible overflow from the San Sevaine Channel, a
,,,,+ 1,000 -foot wide overflow area is recommended to be left
vacant adjacent to the existing San Sevaine Channel until
qm
ii
w
such time as the flood hazard can be eliminated. A setback
lo' from existing Etiwanda Channel is recommended. Section IV
discussed flood protection measures for the initial develop-
'* ment .
2. Proposed.Onsite Flood Control Channel
The ultimate flood control plan provides for the combining
of existing San Sevaine and Etiwanda Channels into one con-
crete lined channel through the site from the Devore Freeway
to Foothill Boulevard, and southerly to the Santa Ana River.
Refer to Exhibit 1 for a schematic alignment of the combined
*�* Etiwanda -San Sevaine Channel.
The estimated cost of the future San Sevaine Channel (combined
r y Etiwanda and San Sevaine Channels) varies from $3,965,000 to
$7,231,500, depending on the configuration of the proposed
41, channel. The $3,965,000 cost, based on a trapezoidal channel,
is used in the "Preliminary Fiscal Impact Analysis ".
3. Future Upstream Flood Control Facilities
odd There are significant flood control and water conservation
,,. facilities proposed north of the Devore Freeway. These
facilities are important to the project because of the flood
storage and debris retention facilities proposed. The
future combining of the existing San Sevaine and Etiwanda
Channels into one facility depends in part upon the upstream
work. The proposed flood control facilities north of the
Devore Freeway are covered in Section II,D, page 15. The
*1 cost has not been included-in the onsite costs.
•
i_i
„a
1! *111011111111M■
eni
C. ONSITE DRAINAGE FLOW RETENTION
A combination of onsite retention facilities (55 +acres) and
offsite retention is proposed to satisfy the required onsite
retention of drainage flows due to the lack of adequate down-
stream drainage facilities. It is proposed to satisfy approx-
imately one -half of the onsite retention requirement by
diverting offsite drainage flows that would normally pass
through the site into upstream basins. Refer to Section II,E,
page 19, for a discussion of proposed onsite drainage flow
retention. The approximate cost of storm flow retention, in-
cluding both onsite and offsite facilities, is $1,750,000.
1
di
l
di
•
Aft
rr
.rr
iv
" di
!, SECTION I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF STUDY
The firm of Bill Mann & Associates has been retained to
analyze drainage and flood problems and recommend solutions
to resolve flood problems associated with the approximate
' 1,100 acres north of Foothill Boulevard and east of East
Avenue in the City of Fontana. This report is being provided
"41; in conjunction with the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact
Report being prepared by the SWA Group. Hall and Foreman,
Consulting Engineers, are preparing a study on the onsite
storm drain needs for the project.
NPR
The property is traversed by two major, unimproved flood
channels. The San Sevaine Channel traverses the easterly
half of the site and outlets onto Banana Street. The existing
Etiwanda Creek traverses the western half of the site and
outlets into a natural drainage course southwest of the
intersection of East Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Exhibit I
.., shows the location and configuration of the major channels •
and the project area.
A drainage master plan entitled the "Day, Etiwanda and San
Sevaine Creeks System Drainage Plan" was completed in March,
1983. The drainage plan has been accepted by San Bernardino
at and Riverside Counties and the Cities of Fontana, Ontario and
**� Rancho Cucamonga. The plan will be adopted by the various
agencies when the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is com-
, pleted. The drainage plan provides the hydrology, hydraulic
criteria, and general alignment for the combined San Sevaine-
Etiwanda Channel. A general overview of the drainage plan
will be provided herein. The drainage plan should be reviewed
for a detailed analysis of the proposed San Sevaine Creek
w
1
Channel System from the foothills to the Santa Ana River.
The plan as it relates to the subject approximate 1,100 acres
is discussed in Sectionsll,C and II,D.
The site is located in the City of Fontana; however, the
drainage from the site outlets into the unincorporated area. '
The County has a general requirement that all increased runoff
generated by the development be retained on site.
The design criteria used in the referenced drainage plan is
a 100 -year frequency storm for a 24 -hour duration. Due to
..,, the possibility of providing significant storm flow retention
in the proposed basins north of the Devore Freeway, onsite
retention on the west part of the site tributary to Etiwanda
Creek may not be necessary or can be reduced by one -half.
The necessary retention on the easterly part of the site
can also be reduced. The onsite retention of drainage flows
is discussed in Section II,E.
++�+ A Bureau of Reclamation Project under the Bureau's Small
Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 is proposed for San Sevaine
j Creek and Etiwanda Creek improvements north of the Devore
Freeway. The project, if approved, will have a beneficial
asp
affect on the subject property and other developing property
in the City of Fontana. The proposed Bureau of Reclamation
Project is discussed in Section II,D.
The above mentioned Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks
Drainage Plan provides a cost estimate for the San Sevaine
,,, Creek Channel System. The cost estimate has been updated
and revised, and a cost estimate for that portion of the system
above Foothill Boulevard and through the project area is pro-
vided herein. Exhibit I is included in the packet of this
report.
id
2
quo
quo
4101 SECTION II. DRAINAGE AND FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
4
The West End Specific Plan development, which consists of
approximately 1,100 acres, is located within the San Sevaine
Creek and Etiwanda Creek drainage areas. Storm runoff from
ige the project area and the area in general presently flows in
toti a southwesterly and southerly direction. The storm flow
., patterns for the project area and adjacent areas are shown
on Exhibit IV. The project area slopes in a general straight
grade to the southwest at a slope of 1 to 1.5 percent.
3
d
The site is traversed by two partially improved flood channels.
I The easterly portion of the project area is traversed by the
San Sevaine Creek Channel. Etiwanda Creek Channel traverses
the westerly portion of the site. The existing San Sevaine
Channel outlets into Banana Street at Foothill Boulevard.
San Sevaine Channel consists of a rail and wire revetted •
a channel from the south side of Interstate Highway 15 (Devore
Freeway) to Foothill Boulevard, at which point the flow is
discharged into Banana Street. The existing channel is ap-
proximately 100 feet wide and 5 feet deep from the 1 -15
Freeway to Baseline Avenue, approximately 30 feet wide
' and 5 feet deep from Baseline Avenue to Foothill Boulevard.
Banana Street is a 24 -foot wide street with 18 -inch curbs,
„ thereby serving as a storm flow channel as well as a roadway.
Banana Street terminates at Banana Basins located just north
of the Santa Fe Railroad. Flows leave Banana Basins and flow
westerly in the West Fontana Channel to the San Sevaine
Channel, which exists south of the Santa Fe Railroad. Refer
3
w
e
to Exhibits I and IV for the location of the referenced
di existing facilities and flow patterns.
The existing Etiwanda Channel is a rail and wire revetted
channel approximately 100 feet wide and 5 feet deep from
"19 the PERR to Foothill Boulevard. The channel passes under
Foothill Boulevard in a 25 -foot by 4.5 -foot RCB and outlets
into a natural drainage course south of Foothill Boulevard.
++s The natural drainage course flows southwesterly and southerly
south of Foothill Boulevard through a portion of the Cities
of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario. Refer to Exhibits I and IV
for the existing facilities and drainage flow patterns.
AIN
Both Etiwanda and San Sevaine Channels cross under the 1 -15
Freeway north of the project area. The channels are concrete
lined and are parallel, separate facilities under the freeway.
After passing under the freeway, the channels are directed
back to their historic locations. When the freeway was con-
,..- structed, the Etiwanda and San Sevaine Channels were con -
structed as parallel but separate facilities so as not to
comingle the flood flows.
The San Sevaine Channel, Banana Street, and the West Fontana
11" Channel are inadequate to handle existing storm runoff from
their tributary areas. Thus, flooding presently occurs in
the area along San Sevaine Channel, Banana Street, and West
Fontana Channel. The Etiwanda Channel is inadequate to handle
major flood flows. Flood hazards to the site and immediate
area are discussed in more detail in Section II,B.
A
There are several undeveloped water conservation basins and
water spreading grounds on both San Sevaine and Etiwanda
ano
A
4
Channels north of the Devore Freeway. These facilities are
proposed for development and /or expansion as a part of the
, regional flood control plan.
B. FLOOD HAZARDS
ION
1. Etiwanda Creek
As indicated above, the existing Etiwanda Creek Channel
traverses the west portion of the site before outletting
di southwesterly of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard
and East Avenue. Refer to Exhibit I for a schematic
location of the channel. Exhibit II -A shows the existing
channel section. The channel crosses under the existing
PERR in a 8 -foot by 4 -foot RCB and crosses Baseline Avenue
in a road dip section. Etiwanda Creek Channel flows
cross under Foothill Boulevard in a 24 -foot by 4.5 -foot RCB.
#* Etiwanda Channel has an existing tributary drainage area
of approximately 5,000 acres above the Devore Freeway.'
,,. Based on the ultimate development of the upstream area,
do the 100 -year design flow is approximately 5,300 cfs. Due
to the undeveloped nature of the upstream drainage area,
the 100 -year design flow of 5,300 cfs will not be generated
at the present time. However, there will be a significant
amount of debris transported by a major flood, increasing
' the bulk of the flood flow.
ii • Assuming the generation of the 5,300 cfs flow, the existing
revetted earth channel section will convey the flow at an
approximate depth. of 3.6 feet. However, due to the high
velocity of flow (13.5 feet /second), severe bank erosion
41111
•
5
Sri
R/W RIW
100' 100'
12' 18' 15 55' 55' IV] 18' w 12' )
T .
� I
/l,f 10 ' ; - ; j
EROSION IN /1 -RAIL & WIRE
1969 a 1978 (TYP) REVETMENT (typ)
EXIST. ETIWANDA CHANNEL
FOOTHILL BLVD. TO BASELINE AVE.
EXHIBIT ]LA
4
mum
di
— will take place. During the 1969 and 1978 floods, erosion
,i occurred for a distance of 10 to 30 feet behind the rail
and wire revetment, although no overflow of the channel
was recorded. It is assumed the existing channel has the
capacity to handle a major flood flow, except for the
major bank erosion. A setback from the existing right-of-
way for any proposed structures should be established at
the time of design for protection against erosion. An
+r adjacent street with raised lots and /or a berm can be
utilized to direct overflow back to the channel.
The Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) overflow area
is shown on Exhibit IV. The FIA map does not show an over-
flow area for the Etiwanda Creek Channel. Exhibit IV is
included in the packet of this report.
2. San Sevaine Creek
San Sevaine Creek Channel traverses the easterly portion
of the site. This channel was realigned above Baseline
Road when the Devore Freeway was constructed. The channel
exists as a 100 -foot wide, 5 -foot deep, rail and wire
revetted channel above Baseline Road, and a 30 -foot wide,
5 -foot deep, rail and wire revetted channel between Base -
• line Road and Foothill Boulevard. Below Foothill Boulevard,
"' San Sevaine Channel outlets into Banana Street, a major
water- carrying street. Exhibit II -B shows the existing
+i channel sections.
r�l San Sevaine Creek Channel has a tributary drainage area of
approximately 7,200 acres above the Devore Freeway. Based
on the ultimate developmert of the upstream area, the 100 -
year design flow is approximately 7,115 cfs. The upstream
7
•
1 L 1 t 1 1 L;...1 &. 1 t 1 t 1 111 t. 1 11 1 [ ,_ s ...9._._
2 15' I l i _ 12' 15' 15' .F- F 15' ,1
t o
1.5: I $ '
5
- RAIL . & WIRE
-- ~- REVETMENT (typ.)
EXIST SAN SEVAINE CHANNEL
FOOTHILL BLVD. TO BASELINE AVE.
OD
1 15` I , * 12' < 50' > { 50' 1, 12' 15'
1.5: I 8' .
5
s RAIL & WIRE
REVETMENT (typ)
EXIST: SAN SEVAINE CHANNEL
BASELINE AVE.. TO DEVORE FWY.
EXHIBIT II -B
Aft - area will not generate a 7,115 cfs flow at the present
time. Also, there are extensive storage basins proposed
above the Devore Freeway which will decrease the design
flow to 4,000 cfs or less. However, the existing channel
below the Devore Freeway only has a capacity for approx-
imately 2,000 cfs, not considering debris movement and
bank erosion. Therefore, the area adjacent to San Sevaine
Creek Channel is subject to flood hazards due to bank
erosion, overflow, and debris deposition until such time
•e as the proposed upstream water conservation and debris
basins are constructed. The development design will have
to take flood protection measures into consideration when
d the 1st phase development is initiated.
As indicated above, Banana Street is the recipient of the
d
existing San Sevaine Channel flows below Foothill Boule-
"" vard. Due to the limited water - carrying capacity of the
street, flooding occurs along the street even in minor
-• storms.
Exhibit III shows the approximate overflow limits of the
1969 floods. The map shows overflow along San Sevaine
Channel over a portion of the site and along Foothill
Boulevard. No overflow due to the 1969 floods is shown
sir
along Etiwanda Channel. The 1969 flood overflow map is
included herein for reference purposes. It should be
recognized the Devore Freeway was constructed after the
1969 floods, and some additional debris capacity was con-
structed north of the freeway. During the 1969 flood,
A debris clogged the San Sevaine Channel Foothill
Boulevard, causing overflow of the channel.
Ai
Ai 9
di
.* • • '''' .•. I ..- I...Yr-L . . ••• 4. CI ..."-. ''''1 - T 1 ' . . n7 . - '. . : ''''''' . ' a...1""'. 1 • . -- "_: , r. f . ' 4
m - . - >I1lL . P. A
r:..•.L
I P 1 .�..- . . .. : '' , • i I -r-" Q - 'l.. �' ♦ r •..n�
//� ` /� ; 1r `•y � A� :-r 7 � ', / j I dam. 1 � • f ; ,,,.
j ' + " , � • '/ ' { r i• y t 1 � i.. • ' �^ ' , . t I , • I' I I , L - / NI
' � . , •• I 1 $ " 7 s : - .. , ' : d
... ,
•
7 4:-: - 1. I C Y _ z � : l _ ' .+ is • + I • tF _ . ...... ( (� soar
�" + "'L _ _ •• �. f' `�'� - t',�. _/ •i� r If! - ... -JCL ' s... I ( J � Yd.�
1, , , . ,, � . � r
\-� ' %. -- ._ - - -._. ___ -__- .. ""...1"--""'""'1"...
�. -� -may.
..,4, .,...
�j
r S - r� 4 , i l �l r ' -``' Y �,, , ry e .I' * , � n �'' ( t ; ! / � N s :+ i . . • .., ,.......4} ' L
z i ' — i .
r te A } 1 < 1 r ....,i 1 _ , i :.•_!
' x ,-- -- fit " °, �'-- - °� — — _� -•• -r. , �� : ! ( 1� � , t V . 'I,� , -, `, , : r , ` 1 g ' tsuui t , 1i i4. . 11°' �. ` i r� t . „,,_ .•
- nv 1 , - ,, .':•• i 1.1 ,..
. • 4 4, 'kg V'
Air., - ” 1 1 Ira I ' ' k . . - CY
. ,,.,4_,_ � _ C t- ' if - " .. ' �� '>' r s' - I.
• ° , , let111240011/ IN ii Mil NII1 7 Lc ,
■ r•'\ . ':1 '}r�� n aster r .�.0 & 4 1M � f1�1/0 , ,.. -.,, iiwarii - --,.. , ,t 3 7,1 .. . r . , x 1 1. , ,_._
' :a i , �i M ir It'- 1 't M . - f - '*`• • " -fit. , - • R � i ••,,•r mti:. .. •.... � t • , .,,
..„„. 4 „ . !,.. „,,)
j S a (. I . '. its -� a --1.0 ll�) . °...0 • VVjtl�cc .,t S _
>, _” v J � } e , �1 � " _ r _ � \ � , ,. 1/1
:.,y v • i I , ' i , . y — II — II M ! �•l . , y$ s .. v¢l�{� • �f'H A _ � �. si..�� ---� < . •
-x .. ?� r 1 v - - r- I i i (y • 1flU , .r r r I�
r
c
i \
r :; 1 J
•
�� X // t {NI 9 ( ` 010", ttttt: y I e _ i >�. ,
q '•' , - • „ - 'mil f / ` i1 ! A4� : Ih.4h / _ � ( I 'i `
• v� v ° _._-1-- ■
- ^� t • • C` � � w �� �. r i - - g v \ •� ` , / • 1'� k \y ' ••' • il � •lr • .., 1 '� 1 • 1 {
�P °` _ -� _ - -- s. D AY C' EK . _ • 'ur. � 1� \.. st �iN
� 4k 4; if AA:: ��at r �� �?•: .1r + _,__, % '4. ."''''_Y: '4,......,-...'w, .,v • . pa^ cz'J ( m 1 ) 7..
1 i r. - v I L
k v'.'"✓ Ni i r r ,e 1� i, t.a - $ I _ I j \ l ( \ . I ( I; ,
1� � •
% .i;. ' ". VW * ..,..) r i " , r 7 7 .. ' \ i 1 .: \ : . . i
((_�''11� f- __ .. - ' \ , ` _ ,-- , fl _ 7 - -T - 1969 FLOOD
,_ i' �' �. •' //r 1' \ ~ �; °' ( 111'• r ,V � � ,'
R 1 ,
, - a ° ` _,, - � � .i ,"; �; , r h ' r : 001 7...... _. _.. t -.i.:r k� i -. OVERFLOW MAP
; � � Q � ���. � �- '• Ir
. r � � r f r �.�.� _ - w � BILL MANN & ASSOC. EXHIBIT la Fes: _ , . - , , , - ,; ;, 7 , -" :�/'rrd�1t� 1 lb
w
Al
Ai
The FIA (HUD) overflow area is shown on Exhibit IV. The
overflow area shown was taken from the preliminary FIA
rate map. The FIA overflow area varies from 1,400± feet
to 2,000± feet in width with a 1 -foot depth of flow.
An approximate 1,000 -foot wide overflow area along the
existing San Sevaine Channel is recommended. The overflow
area should not be developed until such time as the pro -
m posed Lower San Sevaine Ba.,in is excavated. Refer to
Exhibit I for the location of the proposed basin. Refer
do to Exhibit IV for the HUD map overflow limit and the
1,000 -foot wide setback area.
Ai
The recommended 1,000 -foot wide nondeveloped area is
predicated on the confinement of any overflow with the
"o use of a combination of the following methods:
d - A perimeter street adjacent to the overflow area with
lots raised a minimum of 2 feet above the top of curb.
r
- A 3 or 4 -foot high landscaped perimeter berm along the
floodway with a graded ditch outside the berm.
- A levee at the northeast corner of the 1st phase develop -
do ment to divert any overflow crossing Baseline Avenue at
the PERR back to the San Sevaine Creek Channel.
,rr
- ,Low block walls (3 to 4 feet) along the overflow area
,i or 6 -foot high structural block walls at the northeast
corner of the development.
a
ar .
11
ai
as
4
• 3. Local Offsite Drainage Flows
4
Aside from the potential overflow from San Sevaine Creek
during major floods, the site may be subject to drainage
flows from the local tributary drainage area north and
northeast of the site. These flows generally are inter-
cepted by Baseline Avenue and are conveyed along Baseline
Avenue to the existing San Sevaine and Etiwanda Channels
or by north -south streets. As the area upstream of the
• project area develops, the local runoff will become more
pronounced. The local drainage flowpaths are shown on
Exhibit IV.
The master drainage plan for the general area was completed
in 1969 by Moffatt & Nichol. The Moffatt & Nichol (M&N)
plan recommends a major drain along Baseline Avenue from
Sierra Avenue to the future San Sevaine Channel. The M&N
plan recommends a reinforced concrete box drain from Hem-
•- lock Avenue to the future San Sevaine Channel varying in
size from a 10 -foot by 8 -foot RCB to a 11.5 -foot by 8.5 -foot
RCB. When the Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks System
Drainage Plan was done, it was recognized and assumed a
future storm drain along Baseline Avenue from Sierra Avenue
to the future San Sevaine Creek System Channel would be
constructed.
The project area is locatee within the North Fontana Re-
- development Project area. An EIR (82 -2) and fiscal impact
rr report for the RDA area was prepared by PBR in 1982. A
drainage and flood control plan was discussed generally
in that report. That study also recommended a major storm
drain along Baseline Avenue from Sierra Avenue to the future
ar
12
1 , !1k f 1 1 ilA_r14_:Mi -1_
San Sevaine Creek Channel. The recommended storm drain
varied from an 11 -foot by 9.5 -foot RCB to a double
10 -foot by 8.5 -foot RCB along Baseline Avenue in the
vicinity of the subject property.
The Rancho Fontana Specific Plan (EIR 81 -6) also recom-
mended a major storm drain along Baseline Avenue to con-
"" nect to the future San Sevaine Channel.
The coordination with and possible effects of the Rancho
Fontana drainage plan on the West End Specific Plan will
be discussed below.
C. PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH PROJECT AREA
A drainage master plan entitled the "Day, Etiwanda and San
Sevaine Creeks System Drainage Plan ", was completed in March,
1983. The drainage plan provides the hydrology, hydraulic
criteria, and general alignment for the proposed flood control
,■, facilities that affect and will benefit the site. The
drainage plan should be reviewed for a detailed analysis of
the proposed San Sevaine Channel System. The proposed
facility above Foothill Boulevard is discussed herein and the
proposed facilities above the Devore Freeway is discussed in
Section II,D.
+■ The ultimate flood control plan calls for the combining of
,., - the existing Etiwanda and San Sevaine Channels immediately
below the Devore Freeway, and the construction of a concrete
lined channel for the combined design flow southerly from
the Devore Freeway to the Santa Ana River. Significant debris
and water conservation basins are proposed above the Devore
sr
13
ftftemmmmmmol
ad
Freeway that will reduce the design flow below the freeway
due to the proposed flood storage basins.
The combining of Etiwanda Creek and San Sevaine Creek flood
flows will eliminate the need for improvement of the existing
San Sevaine Creek Channel through the site and eliminate
annual flooding of the Banana Street area south of Foothill
'• Boulevard. Exhibits I and IV show the proposed general
• alignment of the future San Sevaine Creek Channel through the
project area.
err
Once the combined San Sevaine - Etiwanda Channel is constructed
along the general alignment shown on Exhibits I and IV, there
will no longer be a need for the existing San Sevaine Creek
Channel traversing the easterly part of the site in its
present form. However, there is an area north of the project
area that drains into the existing San Sevaine Channel. Until
di such time as the future storm drain proposed along Baseline
.., Avenue is constructed, the local drainage flows north of the
project area will have to pass through the site. Refer to
Section II,B -3, "Local Offsite Drainage Flows ", for a dis-
cussion of the proposed storm drain on Baseline Avenue. How-
ever, when the future flood control facilities above the Devore
Freeway are constructed, the major flood flow on San Sevaine
as Channel will be greatly reduced, and the existing San Sevaine
Channel may possibly be downgraded to a lesser facility. A
as possible increase in proposed flood storage above the Devore
Freeway beyond that presently planned is being reviewed to
further reduce downstream flows.
The San Sevaine Channel System south of Foothill Boulevard
di
will be constructed within right -of -way owned by the Flood
stir
vow
di
14
Control District located east of East Avenue extended. There -
, fore, the future channel alignment south of Foothill Boulevard
is fixed. The future combined channel will join the existing
channels that pass under the Devore Freeway. Subject to
sound engineering design, the alignment of the channel through
the site can be varied. It is proposed to align the channel
along the SCE -SCG utility corridor to increase the utility
° of the land and provide an open -space corridor along the
0 channel and utility lines.
The ultimate channel can be either a trapezoidal or rectangular
concrete lined channel from Foothill Boulevard to the Devore
Freeway. The channel is designed to handle a 100 -year fre-
quency storm. The two alternative designs are shown on
Exhibits V and VI with the channel size, estimated construction
cost summary and necessary right -of -way shown. Reinforced
concrete box structures or bridges will be required at Foothill
AO Boulevard, Baseline Road, and the PERR, if the railroad is to
remain. Structures will also be necessary for any interior
street crossings of the channel.
D. PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES NORTH OF THE DEVORE
FREEWAY
.• Exhibits I and IV show schematically the proposed debris dam,
channels, and water conservation facilities above the Devore
Freeway. The proposed flood control facilities above the
freeway have a significant affect on the sizing, construction
cost, and phasing of flood control facilities below the freeway.
at
This is due to the debris and water storage facilities pro -
. posed. Because of the affect the proposed facilities above
the freeway will have on the phasing of the facilities through
the project area, they are discussed herein.
a
li
au
t 1 t 1 if t 1 t 1 11 11 t 1 t 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
R/W R/W
80' I00' *
15' 15' 1
I uar
3F. B.
• -Y- .1.5 :1
b
TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL
a�
R W 54' -70' * RW
15' 15'
d 3'EB.
_t_
b '1
RECTANGULAR CHANNEL
* See Exhibit VI
for Right -of -Way
EXHIBIT Y.
1 11 t 1 1 1 r 1 1 1
San Sevaine Channel System
(Foothill Blvd to Devore Freeway)
Channel
Reach Section Right -of -Way ** Estimated Cost
Alternate "A" Foothill Boulevard b = 14' to 16' 85' - 100' $2,660,000
(trapezoidal channel) to Baseline Road d = 12.75' to 13'
Baseline Road to b = 10' 80' - 90' 840,000
PE Tracks d = 12.5'
PE Tracks to b = 12' 80' - 90' 465,000
Devore Freeway d = 12'
Total $3,965,000
Alternate "B" Foothill Boulevard b = 30' 60' - 70' 5,225,000
(rectangular channel) to Baseline Road d = 13'
Baseline Road to b = 24' 54' - 65' 1,208,000
PE Tracks d = 12.5'
PE Tracks to b = 24' 54' - 65' 798,500
Devore Freeway d = 12'
Total $7,231,500
* Cost includes 10% contingency and 15% Engineering & Administration.
** See Exhibit V for general right -of -way requirements.
EXHIBIT VI
r1
A long -term loan and possible grant under the Small Reclama-
tion Projects Act of 1956 is proposed for the Upper San Sevaine
,, Creek System above the Devore Freeway. The project will con -
,, sist of extensive basin development on San Sevaine Creek to
provide water conservation and flood storage. Additional basin
err
development and water conservation will be provided on Etiwanda
Creek Channel. Etiwanda Channel will be concrete lined and a
debris dam will be provided at the mouth of Etiwanda Canyon.
do
San Sevaine Channel will not be lined above the Devore Freeway.
a The proposed basins will provide storage in excess of 2,000
acre -feet for flood protection and water conservation purposes.
The proposed work will provide significant water conservation
and also will greatly reduce o. eliminate flood hazards to
Banana Street south of Foothill Boulevard. The flood storage
.r
will allow downsizing of the future combined San Sevaine
Channel from the Foothill Freeway all the way to the Santa
do Ana River. The proposed basin development and other works
above the Devore Freeway will be constructed in accordance
.+ with the approved Day, Etiwanda and San Sevaine Creeks Drainage
Master Plan.
The construction of the Etiwanda Debris Dam and concrete lined
channel will eliminate the debris problem on the existing and
at
future Etiwanda Channel to the south. The excavation of the
proposed Lower San Sevaine Basin, as shown on Exhibit I, will
i1r significantly reduce the flood flow and debris problem on the
existing San Sevaine Channel.
do
,rr
18
rr '
ar
PROPOSED UPPER ETIWANDA
AND SAN SEVAINE CREEK FACILITIES
dri
COST ESTIMATE
San Sevaine Creek Facilities
San Sevaine Channel $ 1,120,000
a Water Conservation Basins 5,485,000
Contingency, Engineering & Administration 660,500
Subtotal 7,265,500
Etiwanda Creek Facilities
Etiwanda Debris Dam 1,500,000
Etiwanda Channel 3,360,500
++� Water Conservation Turnouts 290,000
Contingency, Engineering & Administration 1,303,000
Subtotal 6,453,500
GRAND TOTAL $13,719,000
•
E. ONSITE RETENTION OF DRAINAGE FLOWS
Most developments are required to retain a certain amount of
generated drainage flow onsite. The onsite retention is normally
based on retaining the increased runoff generated by the
development using a 100 -year storm with a 24 -hour duration as
criteria. The retention of drainage flows onsite is a require-
ment normally when there are no adequate storm drain facilities
downstream to handle storm flows without damaging downstream
property. Therefore, due to the lack of downstream facilities,
drainage flow retention will be necessary in this case.
s
19
.M
ar
However, it is recommended the major onsite retention for the
a westerly part of the project area be provided for by con-
., structing a turnout from the Etiwanda Channel into the
r existing Victoria Basin. Victoria Basin is shown on Exhibit I
and is located north of the Devore Freeway. The basin exists,
but there is no channel inlet into the basin. The basin inlet
can be constructed for approximately $75,000 - $85,000, and will
more than compensate for increased drainage flow generated by
the site. A residual retention area of approximately 35 to
40 acres is recommended to handle smaller storm flows (5 -year
A frequency). This concept has been accepted by the Flood Con -
. trol District and City of Fontana.
The onsite retention requirement for the portion of the site
east of the existing San Sevaine Creek Channel can also be
partially satisfied by excavation within the proposed Lower
San Sevaine Basin north of the freeway. However, due to the
flooding problem on Banana Street south of Foothill Boulevard,
some onsite retention will be necessary.
It is recommended that the drainage retention requirement for
.p, the easterly portion of the site be met by a combination of
offsite retention in the basin to the north and some onsite
retention adjacent to San Sevaine Channel near Foothill
Boulevard. Onsite retention for the increased drainage flows
based on a 5 -year storm is recommended, with the remaining
necessary retention being provided in the proposed basin north
of the Devore Freeway. The recommended retention area adjacent
to the San Sevaine Creek area, when developed, is estimated at
20 to 25 acres. The size of the drainage flow retention areas
,r and the timing of the retention basin construction will depend
on the phasing of the site development. The actual size and
20
d
.y ..._.._. , ,AIMRNd _ ti - 1 1 i t ` \I ... L .. "\ 1IJ 1, .. V M' I.
location of the retention basins will depend upon the location
of the onsite storm drains and the development phasing.
Therefore, the information provided herein is approximate
:s only and can be finalized when a plan is adopted and the storm
drain system is designed.
Based on the above information, the approximate cost of pro -
.
viding storm flow retention, either onsite or offsite, is
` shown below.
4
STORM FLOW RETENTION
a
APPROXIMATE COST
a) Area West of Existing San Sevaine
.. Channel (onsite)
Excavation - 318,360 yd @ $2.00 /yd $ 636,720
Spillway, basin drains, etc. 62,000
Ai
Contingency & Miscellaneous 105,000
Subtotal 803,720
b) Area East of Existing San Sevaine
A. Channel (onsite)
Excavation - 185,000 yd @ $2.00 /yd 370,000
Spillway, basin drains, etc. 31,000
AA
Contingency & Miscellaneous 60,000
Subtotal 461,000*
AA
c) Victoria Basin Inlet
A Pipe, inlet and outlet 85,000
Ale
4
21
di
ar
d) Excavation in Lower San Sevaine
Basin
Excavation - 178,000 yd @ $2.25/yd 400,000
i Total $ 1,749,720
USE $ 1,750,000*
a
* Cost does not include value of land.
If the construction of the onsite retention basin is accomplished
at the same time the overall site master grading is done, cost
a savings can be achieved by reduction in excavation costs.
4
a
air
a 22
SECTION III. POSSIBLE CONFLICT WITH DRAINAGE PLAN OF PROPOSED
a
DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST
A. PROPOSED RANCHO FONTANA DRAINAGE PLAN
The Rancho Fontana Development (Specific Plan No. 1 and Master
EIR 81 -6) was approved in December, 1982. The project is .lo-
cated east of Cherry Avenue and northeast of the PERR. Exhibit
a VII is a plat map from the Rancho Fontana Specific Plan that
shows the recommended storm drain system for the plan.
4
There are several apparent conflicts with the West End Specific
Plan. One conflict involves a 25 -acre parcel of land shown on
both plans, and another conflict involves the temporary out-
letting of drainage flows into the existing San Sevaine Channel.
The Rancho Fontana Specific Plan shows an 80 acre -foot storm
flow retention basin at the southwest corner of Baseline Avenue
and Cherry Avenue extended. The 25 -acre site is located
within the northeast corner of the West End Specific Plan
Project Area. The proposed 80 acre -foot retention basin is
proposed to regulate and outlet flows into the existing San
4' Sevaine Channel. The Rancho Fontana plan recognizes the future
proposed major storm drain along Baseline Avenue from the east
to the existing San Sevaine Channel, with the extension of the
Baseline Avenue Storm Drain west to the Etiwanda Creek Channel
(future San Sevaine Creek System Channel) when the major
channel is constructed.
4
In addition to the aforementioned 80 acre -foot retention basin,
a 100 -foot wide, 3.25 -foot deer channel is proposed along the
northeasterly side of the PERR. A series of small retention
d
23
9.
i i i i i1 i IF i k i i i i i s i i i i ii ii l i i 64 I I is ii II ii II_ •
... ....- i � I " . • w..�.• ...BOUNDARY OF DRAINAGE AREA - ` • e E1 NORTH OF BASELINE.(22t02 Ae.) . 5.
i '1, _ :
✓ ! 1 7 �j.,. f �1. ' .� -•.`,• t;• r 1 ' Y r/ •S
•- 1 - ��- - r - ,. 1 - . - -" - s1. _ ._. , j -sa_-rS. 7-_.r7- ►1 L .-_s_- • r i 0 —
•
!"E'1 y .. ti • •_ t.. 1... • ' ` w _ - - . _„ • .. °��,-` 11 l ••• } u 1• - j • •... «.. 111 - • / 'r 11�.r 1~ • , • - 1 �• native.' • ' • '� f.. c - t - - - .
• r - 1
•. r• / - I - i ,.. b ..... I toe 1.4"... . f.: r . . , u 1 . X 7-7 . — -,r.. •
-� f ,sJZ�a � " / ' w._.. . ' 1 y « '. ":d: N
– – r v_ _-! . i � I r.�,w- rti J i=
l , � / / ; •our, —h •, . • B OUNDARY O DRAINAGE AREA ` i
WEST END , LIII i t 1 : .• ,. –} SOUTH OF BASELINE. (7651 AC.) 1
• titIll• 7 i
• .
4 • _1~ti ., _ ; , •
. , ., .: III 5�y `N I :� x.11}_ - : -i — '� • .. 'lAl 91
(16 A.
J F Y .....• 1 i.
~c , ! I � i h • t � i i j_ �� `i r • a 1 I , j l ^ �1•:.- _ _ -SITE
a -- — � � �-t — ". :.. � A�t`. :� Lis� PROPOSED OFF
'= ;'�: . � "� r +3h• DRAINAGE FACILITIES '
Z t pp , _ j% r ,.. . 1 : " •" t I II•, R :- OPEN CHANNEL ALTERNATE— D
v " I I 1 { 1._xy1�; 8=100 Da 3.25 -t �� t �� • + 1 „ "�' r u '� _.�1l '•I+ r•=�!1�:'ax'. " to LEGEND A •
` " ID ," �Fes '
ti � _ , � DE BASIN. ' ' .T : • s
' .. - III ` - " •...r4 1 t , • A.F. STORAGE) •' .Pali' ::
.: X. X "' rIlorost o STORM DRAINS.
... _ : y-j Ill . I _i -� ,1 . - 1. _ lit • I tail w r y «.: 3' - .... � EXISTIM41 ORAINAOA •
'•••
• ,.r• I1:• - • r i ,.' 25 AC. SI TE " =' t FACILITI[i.
1' , , :d y r ts := . � s 80 A.F. ,. : . +I 1. _ p7fl .;\ �. �� ''
r i It 1. -•:- •;„ , Si '•-• �• DETENTION BASIN. .n \I a ..I . • te r.1 - `t.1 ..- ,.1 -'a 17 - y t•! N•t •z•-∎•• "_v , fit •�•l't•1. +
.••••••• r '_C•, -......1 • " . , • • • 1 11 t • 1 • •i. I ' • � t J ti _ Y om, . . I -.. • I . .. *- •
- -- -,...",..c.4--: '"'w".• :•r .. i _ � I�'_•.;r : . .-..• A„... • Tom; �,i .,- )•• : * i• -�1 ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS
R A N HOFON T ANA. .. R IVERSIDE CAL,FORNIA
: - W.O. •I _ 2,3
RANCHO FONTANA DRAINAGE PLAN
EXHIBIT MI
a
basins (16 acre -feet) are proposed along the southeasterly
side of the railroad to regulate storm flows. Exhibit VIII
also shows the Rancho Fontana drainage and flood control
plan in conceptual form.
..
B. CONFLICTS WITH THE WEST END SPECIFIC PLAN
41
The conflicts with the West End Specific Plan are outlined
below.
A 1. An 80- acre -foot retention basin (25 acres) is proposed
at the southwest quadrant of Baseline Avenue and Cherry
Avenue. This 25 -acre area is within the area of the West
End Specific Plan and is not proposed for storm flow
retention.
The retention basin is proposed to regulate flows from
the future storm drain on Baseline Avenue and outlet the
flows into the existing San Sevaine Channel.
Aside from the conflicting use of the 25 acres, the out -
-
letting of flows into the existing channel will aggravate
the existing flooding problem on Banana Street to the
south. Also, the existing San Sevaine Channel is pro-
,
.0 posed to be phased out, with all future flood flows to
-- be directed to the proposed San Sevaine System Channel
to the west in accordance with the approved Day, Etiwanda
and San Sevaine Creeks Drainage Plan.
2. A series of small retention basins (16 acre -feet) are
proposed along the southeasterly side of the PERR. The
ar
small basins are proposed to receive flows from the
�' 25
•
- '
i :fi k� , i 1 )_J 'l
•r
I _ ........ - • 17 •
,. {'•
i
. .....• •
" 2t� .!a 22 Iii .. . `. ! 1i ' , _ •, • ... 24'V•
V
T
I \ \l• . .
•
• .. .....w ... ,
•
I t { • �.••s.._. ,.....•••. -rte ..• t • .— ...._- . y I ......,y,,.
i
e.,....• r • ,._ ...
' ..o•.. : ''r � 27 1 / � r IBS' �
. ~ "" - •
- '- �d• ` , .if•, .. , fi .
•••• •- - - } - ,- - - .L » _ :. _, 4::.. .. ti.� .. A, . r.,. ,, . , ;• .+. ':,: . i. ;... w i: • ` r.. ty ? w .: T . ; r ,* : sr ; r C :rr ; r,. ; r ✓ T: T
p art..a -. - _ - .
I ! . ; : ^: } f . :. :,> ; •C:. :. •;i yx� ..}}.; :' ::: ••:
,rte . •. { •: •X { ' k•: ' :,? : :: :!
l•
. t i ;
y:
W ST ..,.� - : ,: .
SPECIFI :ALA' :;�:; :� :�:: , � , �� .y y :4:. . . :
i
I
::::,:;:;:;:;:;:;:;::,:;:;:;:;
w•r.d•
L
.1'
?f.
... ru •:tip:: � : :� .
• 1
I.
s 'lSi� :IICaIK%h[ s . '
i • /./. , • i IN iiiiiiii: Iliiiiiiiiiig. lient 1 r
I.
• I 1. 1 ::v: • .j • I': AL. , em u: ,�•
ter:: :• pr
.. ....... / . . i .. } lid •• • ll,avalt" vz,A4• • :44TAtA ' :? ti: : : : : :: : : : 'r:ti : : : }; •i gy.
Al
` i -.
I' :.? '4 :; :; ; :`. .� ....."• - - - ' SO 111 =111 • r _
fw % 1' ,✓ • • . •4 • .. •' - ~ «fOOi/S1Y. I �1, . r '` •.,j. �• ' . -\ • y.. / 1 •. , v - �': 1 ,:... _. ; :' 1 .... ....- S - . . i t • y i • �N r. L i •.4 i l' • _
p
' , i : ' 1. ! . - 1 e : ..fir 1 ... r i r
MO BA
.. BANANA . ' 1 • ! �� i.r r � . " ....-1 . r ..4......e.
ilsi.. 1 ' ._ 1 '•y:;' . , -,,' ..... .. :. . c: .. •'' • ' . • it ' . r .•
••... s - I • ,,.. I 1 1 , . _ ...' i1t 'I �r- . ! . r••.
..' •. „ ' , Vii:" : f.� - •
:-r -.n - 1 t : ' 7 Ilf��91.. .1 ` ... • iil''1 _ r,., 1' . :-+• • • •i''8::•• +,j . .. ... n A ...,,aa....... tl . � ,R-'
R � � I .. 1 ' P-1. -i ....._ •,. II-
,. . '•∎•... or I ' • .i 1 • • %. * � t r :. : ' i / / • {: •r ' d.•1 ' • i...L•'�li rYY.').∎ •
a•i r, .r.•,..r -j .. �': ^ •.'' .' / • i ;'• 'T . • : ;;. . �. y _• '�.•,. i ^ .' r „,..., yj I• , - 1 •
(. I'x ' ? i � .r i: •f7.1w : r,,-- i •1(:... ; I I • -,• ?7• x{111 / -..,.. i
++• :0 1 a• 1 ; I vi ; 11 % I a-71- « l j1r,' R
r r, . — " . ,� ,:. i fh � — . 1�� • — - -.- : • ; � . 7) i..1' 1 ` Da il +1 * • •11 ' x ' e s e 1 Nf . ,+ +i, . ! '± ., ; •
y-± • l r
•
.1r RANCHO FONTANA DRAINAGE PLAN
•
EXHIBIT
. 26
a
ar
proposed channel along the northeasterly side of the
4 railroad for storm flow regulation.
The series of basins will be in conflict with the proposed
land use of the West End Specific Plan along the southerly
side of the railroad.
Refer to Exhibits VII and VIII for a schematic depiction of
40 the Rancho Fontana conceptual lrainage plan and conflicts
between the two plans.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Rancho Fontana drainage plan should be reviewed for alter-
nate locations for storm flow retention basins. The following
a
are recommended for consideration:
a 1. The proposed 80 acre -foot retention basin could be
located further to the east along Baseline Avenue. The
wr outflow from the basin can be directed to the proposed
channel along the northeast side of the PERR.
2. The series of small basins proposed along the south-
easterly side of the railroad should be located on the
northeasterly side of the �ailroad adajcent to the pro -
posed channel.
ar
a
4
r
4" 27
4
ar
:ar
SECTION IV. INITIAL DEVELOPMENT
4
Due to the potential overflow flood hazard from San Sevaine
Creek and the potential channel erosion along the existing
Etiwanda Channel, a 1st phase development between the two
potential flood hazard areas is recommended. The potential
overflow area, based on the Federal Insurance Administration
(HUD) map, is shown on Exhibit IV.
Exhibit IV also indicates a recommended 1,000 -foot wide over-
„ flow area to be used as a setback area for any initial
development. The area adjacent to the 1,000 -foot wide over-
«.
ar
flow area can be protected by the following methods or combina-
tion of methods:
AN 1. A perimeter street adjacent to the overflow area with
lots raised a minimum of 2 feet above the top of curb.
2. A 3 or 4 -foot high landscaped perimeter berm along
,. the floodway with a graded ditch outside the berm.
•
3. A levee at the northeast corner of the 1st phase
development to divert any overflow crossing Baseline
Avenue at the PERR back to the San Sevaine Creek Channel.
41.
4. Low block walls (3 to 4 feet) along the overflow area
or 6 -foot high structural block walls at the northeast
corner of the development.
ar
The recommended 1,000 -foot wide floodway is subject to approval
by the City.
a
28
ar
The flood hazard along the existing Etiwanda Channel can be
provided for by a nominal setback (1 -lot depth) with elevated
lots or a landscaped berm.
-r
a i
4
4
r
ar
a
A
,r
-r
29
a
440
rl
r�r '
,rr
APPENDIX
a
1. Exhibits I and IV
ai
2. Calculations
a
a�
a
r
-,
a
r
1
BILL MANN & ASSOCIATES
Civil Engineering • Drainage — Flood Control • Special Studies
September 24, 1984 File: 84 -14
Mr. Robert Schoenborn
Director of Public Works
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Subject: West End Specific Plan
Flood Control Facilities Study
Dear Bob:
Enclosed is a copy of the "Flood Control Facilities Study" for the West End
Specific Plan located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and East
Avenue. Hall and Foreman is providing an analysis of the onsite storm drain
facilities.
The enclosed report covers the major channel improvements, onsite retention,
and flood hazard protection. As you are aware, we are proposing to satisfy
at least one -half of the onsite drainage retention by utilizing the upstream
basins.
The initial development will take place between the existing Etiwanda Channel
and the San Sevaine overflow area. Proposed methods of providing flood pro-
' tection are indicated in the report.
Your review of the report would be appreciated. I will be arranging a meeting
with you and Hall and Foreman to discuss overall phasing and planning of the
onsite storm drain facilities.
Sincerely yours,
ILL C.MANN P
Consulting ngineer
BCM:sw
Encl as noted
cc: SWA
attn: Jess Harris
Hall and Foreman
Joe DiIorio
1814 COMMERCENTER WEST - SUITE A • SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92408 • (714) 885 -4309
I
0 0 ' 4 4 4: #14 it
1r
* * * * * * * ** *DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS********************************************
SEVA I NE CHANNEL EAPe //� /` %"o . 0 / / *
*
IETIWANDA-SAN
ULTIMATE DESIGN *
°'. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 4********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
**************************************** i**** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
>» )CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION « «
,, CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 1.50 /.47/a06
BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00 _ �I
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET /FEET) = .015200
,* UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 1 220 0.00 G = /I
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .0150 r l�O
NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
>>>>> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 9.99
FLOW TOP- TTTDTH(FEET) = 45.70
4 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 305.46
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 6.68
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 39.94
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = 2.722
a PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 1023476.50
• AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 24.769
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 34.671
CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
• CRITICAL FLOW TOP - WIDTH(FEET) = . 65.45
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 671.27
• CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 10.26
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 18.17
• CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 16.48
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 705039.87
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 5.129
4 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 21.612
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
:"« < « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
1982 Advanced Engineering 9
(C) Copyright
gineering Software [AES]
▪ i / /
..... / / / / / / / I / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ . , \ \ \ \ . \ \ . \ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \ \
"< «( < « « «< (« « « « « « « « « « « « < » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »»
Advanced Engineering Software (AES]
REV. 2.0 RELEASE DATE:12 /30/82
•*««««« � “( < <t <�< « « « « < > >' » »> » »y »;; h » » » » »>
,� Jet' era- Cl4 'Mei l rne __
. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
4 » > CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION « «
"' CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 1.50
is BASEW I DTH (FEET ) = 10.00
De 0 re_ crizcc) CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET /FEET) = .015200
-. UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 82 00.00 -t .--BQce /4,.Q
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .0152
_ _ -_ -__
NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
4 » »> NORMAL PEPTH(FEET) = 9_42 8. a t• ch
FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 38.27 t
- FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 227.47 36 'het
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 5.94 b � 1
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 36.05
. UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = 2.606 d = Sri
PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 626675.00
'" AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 20.179
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 29.604
.w CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
CRITICAL FLOW TOP - WIDTH(FEET) = 54.91
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 485.80
a CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 8.85
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 16.88
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 14.97
• CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 442785.37
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 4.424
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 19.393
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
� << « << << << << << << « « << « « << <<<<<< << << >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
(C) Copyright 1982 Advanced Engineering Software (AES]
a « « « « « « « « « ««< ( «« « « « « « » » » » » » » »» 7 » » » » » » » »» >
a "« « « « « « « « « « « « « « «< «< < » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »»
Advanced Engineering Software [AES]
,, REV. 2.0 RELEASE DATE:12 /30/82
'« « « « « « « « « « « « << « « « « << << >> » » » >> » » » » » » >> >> >> » » » » »
2
roltik 11 .8
/e7.15 doe clidepoeig
w
*********************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * **
:» > CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION << <<
'i CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 0.00
BASEWIDTHCFEET> = 30.00 ge oeh-e- "ra 1
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE <FEET /FEET) = .015200
er UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 12200.00
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .0150
NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
» »> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 10.06 Q 2 d1 eh
FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
4 FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 301.72 6 = 3a
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 10.06 q I /0
• FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 40.43
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = 2.247 v
PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 1050637.62
• AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 25.387
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 35.445
CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
. CRITICAL FLOW TOP - WIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 517.59
• CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 17.25
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 23.57
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 17.25
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 835881.37
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 8.627
d CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 25.880
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
't< <<<<<<<<<<<<< < <<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<< » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »»
(C) Copyright 1982 Advanced Engineering Software [AES3
4
<<<<<<<<< << < <<<<<<<<« < <<<<<<<<<<< » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »»
4
s
ro
411 cil Na �Q DI J-;* v•r. Co t 114/
/ j7
M
4
« « « « «« « « « « « « « « « « «« « » » » » » » » » » » »» > » » »» > > > >
Advanced Engineering Software [AES]
df REV. 2.0 RELEASE DATE:12/30/82
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « < » » » » » » »» » »> >>> > > > >>» » »>
Af/f
f :tgI 4
•********************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
1 » > CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION « «
NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 9.50 -re 8.044.. 8.044.. «, CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 0.00 .�
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET /FEET) = .015200
UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 8200.00
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .0150
NORMAL —DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
» »> BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 23.41 (� .� 6 �� �
FLOW TOP— WIDTH(FEET) = 23.41 = 1.5—? FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 222.38
,4 HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 9.50
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 36.87 Qi e, Lae
' UNIFORM,FROUDE NUMBER = 2.108 c 7 4
PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 651852.69
AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 21.112
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 30.612
CRITICAL —DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
CRITICAL FLOW TOP — WIDTH(FEET) = 23.41
,, CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 365.65
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 15.62
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 22.43
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 15.62
41 CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 534560.25
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 7.809
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 23.429
d
w
4
4
oimor t —
9
_
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
4
< «< « « « « « « « « « «« < ««< « «< >> > > > »» > >>» »» > » » » » » » » »» >,
' (C) Copyright 1982 Advanced Engineering , Software [AES]
« « « « « « «< « « « « « «< < < (< < < < «» > > » » » » »» >) »» >) » » »» > > »»
4
«««««««<«««««««<« « < < << >> > > >) » » » » » » >> > » » » » » » > > > >>
Advanced Engineering Software [AES]
REV. 2.0 RELEAC'E DATE:12/30/82
9
«« « « « « « « «« « « « « <« <<< “< < > » » » » >> » > » » > > » » » » » > > > > > > >>
9
* * * * * * * ** *DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* SAN SEVAINE CHANNEL CAPACITY acXs /,/) c4,4'04e /) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *. *. fit- *... *`* ** *: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** *fir * * * * * * *• ** * ** . * * * * * ** * * ** * * *****
>>>> CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION« < < C ,a arm
CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 0.00
BAgWIDTH <FEEt) = loo.r'o •
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET /FEET) _ .001500
' UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 7115.00
MANNINGS - FRICTION FACTOR = .0300
NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
>>>>> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 9.36 A& 7 'f /
FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 100.00
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 9Z3.94
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 9.36
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 7.60
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = .438
” PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 378121.72
AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = .897
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 10.257
CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
' CRITICAL FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 100.00
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 539.66
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 5.40
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET!SEC.) = 13.18
C:RITICAL_ DEPTH(FEET) = 5.40
C R I T I C A L FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM (POUNDS) = 272649.78
AVERAGED CRITICAL. FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 2.699
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY':.FEET) = 8.096
a J
a
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
0 _ --
< < « «< C « «< < « «« « « « «< < < « «< < < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > »» > > > » » » »» > »» > >
4
(C) Copyright 1982 Advanced Engineering Software [PIES]
< < ««< «< « «< < « « « « « « « « « « « » »» > » » » » » » » » » » » » » »» >
4
4< < « «< «< « « « « « « « « « « « ««< < » »» > » » » » » » » » » »» > » » »»
Advanced Engineering Software [AES]
Aa REV. 2.0 RELEASE, DATE:12/30/82
.<<<<<<<<“<<<<<<(((<<<<(<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> » » » » » » » » » »»
* * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ******************* ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *. * * **
al> »> CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION ««
CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 0.00
BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET /FEET) = .017500 7��
UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 7115.00 f�y�ti F/ _
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .0300 w v� ;Ma. j So & woe Zo*, leo
NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
1 7
i > > > >> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 10.68 4 j6. , c4 N.► / c � C
FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 320.38
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 10.68
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 22.21
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = 1.198
PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 412955.47
4 AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 7.658
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 18.338
a.
i CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
•
CRITICAL FLOW TOP - WIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) =' 361.31
a CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 12.04
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC:.) = 19.69
• CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 12.04
i CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 407284.69
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 6.021
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 18.065
4
- `6r
4
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
9
< . <<< << « « « « « « « « « « « < « « «> >>>: > >>> >>> » » » »>> > >>>> > >> > » » »>
(C) Copyright 1982 Advanced Engineering Software [AES]
«< « « « « « « «« « « « « « « « «< < » »» > »» > » » » » » » » » » » » »»
1.
<< < << < « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « <» > » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »» >
Advanced Engineering Software [AES]
REV. 2.0 RELEASE DATE:12/30/82
I««««««««««««««««««<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
4* * * * * * ** *DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS * * * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0J4 * * * * * * * * **
CAPACITY OF CHANNEL AT 4.5 FT. DEPTH 4.10ClPI §i1UOIMGEd. *
a w C 114nwc
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *L+ � *4 *7$ *X A0* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
.******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Y M CHANNEL INPUT I N F O RMAT I ON <<<<
'JORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 4.50
CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 0.00
BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 100.00
- CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET /FEET) = .001500
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR .0300
, NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
4 » »> NORMAL DEPTH FLOW(CFS) = 2221 .68 Q a
FLOW TOP= WIDTH(FEET) = 100.00
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 450.00
s HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 4.50
FLOW VERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEG.) = 4.94
NIFORM FROU E NUMBER =
PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 84435.91
A AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = .378
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 4.878
•
4 CRITICAL - DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION: •
CRITICAL FLOW TOP - WIDTH(FEET) = 100.00
4 CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 248.31
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 2.48
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 8.95
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 2.4$
4
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 57758.28
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 1.243
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 3.726
4
7
ae
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
__
<
.<<<«««««««««««««««<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>»
(C) Copyright 1982 Advanced Engineering Software [AES]
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
4, « «< « « «< « «« « « « «« « « « «< » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »»
Advanced Engineering Software [AES]
REV. 2.0 RELEASE DATE:12 /30/82
.0< «« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « » » » » » » » »» »»» >>>>>>>>>>>>>
.5 -n ceda role, E)Qf 7
.4411
***********************L*Darkacww***74****A ************************
»> CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION « «
NORMAL VEPTH(FEET) = 4.5Q cti rin / dep . c S
CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 0.00
BASEWIDTH(FEET) = :In.nn
. CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET /FEET) = .017500
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .0300
NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
• » »> NORMAL DEPTH FLOW(CFS) = 2024.25 Q Zoo• eg
FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 30.00 c a r
' FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 135.00
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 4.50
• FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 14.99 VL}. = /S/sec. t 1 11 - 1 1 +�
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = 1.246
PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 77774.02
- AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 3.491
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 7.991
CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
• CRITICAL FLOW TOP - WIDTH(FEET) = 30.00
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 156.32
• CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 5.21
• CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 12.95
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 5.21
C IT�I FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 76211.12
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 2.604
4 CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 7.815
4
4
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
r e ' < «« « « «< «« «< < « < «< <; « « < << < » >> > » » » » » »> » » » » » » » » »>
(C) Copyright 1982 Advanced Engineering Software [AES]
4 ««««<<««««««««««««««>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
g
<<< ««««««<« «« <«« < ««««<< »» > »> >> > » > > »> > »»»> »» »»»>
Advanced Engineering Software [PIES]
REV. 2.0 RELEASE DATE : 1 2/30/82
< < «< < « «< << < < « « « « « « « « «< « < »» > > » » »» >>»» >>» » » » » » »»
M * * * * * * * ** *DESCRIPTION OF RESULTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ************** * * * * **
4411 �l f ` Q�• G/
ETIWANDA CHANNEL CAPACITY (A1/
..* DEVORE FRWY TO FOOTHILL *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
- > >> )CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION « <<
CHANNEL Z(HORIZONTAL /VERTICAL) = 0.00 •q -
- BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 110.00 C EICIPV) ( 1
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET /FEET) = .014900 Q
UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 5287.00 Yr /.3.. 1:
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .0J00
•� NORMAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
Jerks - » »> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = 3.56 ch4v�h€� = S
FLOW TOP- WIDTH(FEET) = 110.00
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 391.29
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 3.56
FLOW AVERAGE T. /SEC.) = 13.51 Gyo S /U;-s
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = 1.262
PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 181862.50
AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 2.835
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 6.392
___
• CRITICAL -DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
4
CRITICAL FLOW TOP - WIDTH(FEET) = 110.00
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 456.99
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 4.15
CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FE_ET /SEC.) = 11.57
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) =• 4.15
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 177767.97
4+ AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 2.078
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 6.233
44