Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutI-10 Channel - Volume 1 of 4FINAL — Volume 1 of 4 Report (and CDs) I -10 Channel Capacity Report 30% Design PREPARED FOR: City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92335 OWNER(S): California Department of Transportation City of Fontana District 8 8353 Sierra Avenue 464 W. Fourth Street Fontana, CA 92335 San Bernardino, CA 92401 Mr. Steve Nawar t Mr. Phillip Reynolds Project Manager Project Manager (909) 350 -6523 (909) 383 -4960 PROJECT SITE LOCATION: City of Fontana County of San Bernardino I -10 from San Sevaine/Etiwanda Channel to Sierra Avenue PREPARED BY: BOYLE ENGINEERING CORP. 1131 West Sixth Street, Suite 285 Ontario, CA 91762 (909) 933 -5225 Project Manager: Joseph F. Long, P.E. Project Engineer: Bill Flores Jr., P.E. PREPARED DATE: November 26, 2003 (OC -F60 -401) TABLE OF CONTENTS Report (Volume 1 of 4) Page 1.0 Executive Summary Pject es _- -- ro Dcription ----- 3.0 Existing C onditions -- ------------------------------------------------ - - - - --- ---- - -- -- --- ------ ------------ - - - - - - -- 4.0 Purpose and Need for Project ---------------------- 5.0 Alternatives and Recommendations - - - - -- - _- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.0 Hydrology Analysis 8 6.1 Watershed Description - - - -12 --- - - - - -- -- - - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 62 Methodol ogy - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -12 --- - - - - -- 7.O Hydraulic Analysis - -- -------------------------------------------------- ------------ - - - -12 --- - - - - -- 7 San Sevaine Channel Confluence .1 ----- - - - - -- -- -- - ----- - - - - -- 7.2 I -10 Channel 1� ----------- -- -- - - 7.3 Fontana Avenue Storm Drain -- -- -- -- - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - 8 - .0 - - Pro --osed -- -- - I -1 - 0 --- Corri dor --- Free--- - w-- ay --- Imp ---------- --- -- ----- ------- ------ - - - - -- 9.0 Land Use Compatibility /Right of Way Issues __________________________________________________________ 13 -- - - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- M 10.0 Environmental Issues/Hazardous aterials ------- --- ------- 16 -- --- - - -- _-- __ - -_- -----.0 G-------------eotec-hnical -----------------Considerations --------------------------- -------------------- 11 - - -- - _- - - - - -- -------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------------------------------- 12.0 Opinion of Probable Costs _ _ _ _ 13.0 Inter - Project Coordination % Phasing________ _________________ __ __ _______ ___ ___ _____ _-- _ - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- - -- - -- - - - -- __________________ 14.0 Project Study CDs ----------------------- CD page ----- -------------------------------------------------------------- Appendices pp A - Rational Method Hydrology Calculations Volume 1 of 4 _ -_ - - - - -- -- - - ------ - --- - - - - -- - - - -------------------------------------------------------------- --------- ----------------- B - Rational - ---- Method ------ -- - Hydrology Maps --------------------------------------------- - - - - - -------------------------------------------------------- Volume 2 of 4 - - - u - Volume 3 of 4 C -Flood Routing Calculations ---------- --- - -- - - Volume 4 of 4 - --- ---- --- ------- ____________________ ___ D - San Sevaine /I -10 Channel Confluence ______ _ __ __ __ - - - - -- --- - - - - -- ------------------------------ - - - - -- -- _______ Channel Hydraulic Calculations - - - - ------- Volume 4 of 4 -- -- ------ - - - - 4 n of P - - - -------------------------------------------- - - -- - F - - Opinio- - - - - - robable Construction ost Volume of 4 - - - - -- _ ___ ___ __ ---- - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- --- --- -- - - - ---- -- --- - - ---------------------------------------------- G - 30% - Eng---in-eering ---- --- Pl a -- and Profile drawings - Volume 4 of 4 _ _ 4 - - - - -- Volume 4 of - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - H - Survey Control Map (hardcopy only) ------------------- _: - - - - -- - ------------------------------------------- I -Draft Pha -- I a - zmat Assessment Report - (har-- - - - o- p on y - - - - -- Volume of 4 - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- ----- - t _ o --- - -------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------------- J —Field Photo Log --- - _f Volume 4 of 4 - - - -- - ------ - - - - -- CD only K — Aerials Images --------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- C E - j L IST OF FIGURES Page San Bernardino County Flood Control istnct approval letter - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- I= 2 caITrans - `�rio commeirif" - 2-T Regional - Mdi 2 =2 T;ocatiori 1VIap --------- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 5 - - -- 4= Tl;and^CTse 1VIap------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - -9- -- 4= 21VTasfer FIan of - Draaiage ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 = Sxisting Watersheds Map -- - - IT - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LIST OF TABLES Page Existing u verts a ong - 10 Ch anne - 9= TRighf =6f way A4cquisrtion I4 =I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- N@ I -10 Channel Capacity Study 1.0 Executive Summary As part of an on -going planning effort to identify future required drainage infrastructure and associated costs for the mid -city area, the City of Fontana has contracted with Boyle Engineering Corporation (as an extension to Phase 1) to prepare Phase 2 of the Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis of the existing I -10 Channel and associated watershed. The existing drainage channel does have adequate capacity to allow future build out and development of its tributary area, of which the area includes property from the City of Fontana and the County of San Bernardino. Hence, the purpose of this study is to (1) evaluate the hydrologic impacts of future development of the area, and (2) determine the extent of the future channel improvements to accommodate the increase of tributary storm water discharge. San Bernardino County Flood Control District approved the Study on October 15, 2003, and CalTrans had no comments on the Study on January 14, 2003. See Figures 1 -1 and 1 -2. This effort resulted in preparation of 30 percent level design drawings for channel improvements and listing of right- of- way'acquisition. The calculations demonstrate that the 100 -year storm runoff discharge at the downstream and upstream end of the I -10 Channel is 193.1 cubic meters per second (cros) [6,819 cubic feet per second (cfs)] and 0.89 cros (31 cfs). The time to peak at the different stream confluences occurs at approximately 16.5 hours into the design storm. The proposed Fontana Avenue storm drain outlets to I -10 Channel at Hemlock Avenue. The 100 -year storm runoff discharge along this proposed storm drain is 87.94 cros (3,106 cfs). 2.0 Project Description The ro osed ro'ect is the I -10 Channel and is located north of and adjacent to westbound Interstate P p P J J Highway 10 and traverses the City of Fontana in western San Bernardino County, California. Spanning a distance of approximately 8,050 meters (m) [5 miles], the downstream (west) end of the project is at the confluence with the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Flood Control Channel (ESSFCC) and the upstream (east) end of the project is at the water divide located approximately 300 in [1000 feet (ft)] east of Sierra Avenue. The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has jurisdiction of the project (under the administration of District 8) within its freeway right -of -way, and spans from post mile 11:6 to 16.4. See Figures 2 -1 and 2 -2 for location of project. 3.0 Existing Conditions The existing I -10 channel consists of a concrete -lined trapezoidal channel varying in width (3.7m/12 ft to 15.2m/50 ft) and depth (0.9m/3 ft to 2.7 m/9 ft) along its entire alignment and serves as the major backbone -flood control facility for the mid -city area of the City of Fontana. The longitudinal slope varies from 0.20 percent to 2.7 percent, and the side slopes are set at 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. The facility consists of four reinforced concrete boxes (RCB) culverts, three of which cross major arterials and one that crosses an industry railroad track. From west to east the culverts locations are at Kaiser Spur, Cherry Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and Sierra Avenue. The existing RCB sizes of these culverts are identified below on Table 3 -1. Y :• F601401Oo&ReportslStudyCDI Pohime 1 of 4TeportU- FinalReport.doc Page 1 Printed: 121812003 1:13 PM Saved: 121812003 1:13 PM MCIVLE FIGURE 1 -1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FLOOD CONTROL • REGIONAL PARKS • SOLID WASTE MGMT • SURVEYOR • TRANSPORTATION ��axr, AND PUBLIC SERVICES GROUP SAN EEATUADITIO 8t Third Street • San Bernardino, CA 92415 -0835 • (909) 387 -8104 KEN A. MILLER Fax (909) 387 =8130 Director of Public Works October 15, 2003 i 6 i J!il Mr. Bill Flores Jr. File: 1- 810/1.00 Boyle Engineering 1- 801/1.00 1131 West Sixth Street, Suite #285 Ontario, CA 91762 RE: I -10 CHANNEL CAPACITY HYDROLOGY STUDY REVIEW— 3 SUBMITTAL Dear Mr. Flores: Reference is made to your letter of transmittal dated September 5, 2003, together with revised Rational Method hydrology calculations for some specific areas, requesting review and comments from this Division. The proposed project, 1-10 channel is located_north .of and. adjacent -t4 the7 westbound Interstate Highway ' 10, spanning a distance of, approximately 5 miles, and bounded by San Sevaine Channel to the west; - Metrolink Rail ' Line to . the north, Sierra ' Avenue to the east, and I -10 channel to the south. - We have previously reviewed and commented on this project by a letter dated July 30, 2003. All our comments, for the purpose of estimating the flow rates along I -10 channel, have been addressed. If you have any questions, please call Hany Peters or me at (909) 387 -8213. Sincerely, C 0 .J.FO P. E., Chief Water Resources Division MJF:HP:RTS:bf ID22788 cc: Steve Nawar, City of Fontana LIM WALL: HILL County AdnAllestradve a i ^.,ate of Sc!pe: v'ss€szs JOHN COSJ ....... ALL r':r$ %a� � First DENNIS :--. r - . t st €ie# E _s�€S�.�= ........ =ni }ri his .ct Assistant County AcIzririsL ats. PAUL iS'st.NE ...... , .. > ..... Scma F ... _ � � n�f �.str�wg .... , .. E . , .At.0 €A� :............... our::€ � 2 Ewnwnic. DevetDp neat and JEdRY EAV= =ift Distnc Public servicas G6 3 i FIGURE 1 - Bill Flores m: Phillip_Reynolds @dot.ca.gov %,,,nt: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 4:15 PM o: Bill Flores Subject: Re: 1 -10 Channel Capacity Analysis - Hydrology Study review (OC -F60 -401) Mr. Flores, I apologize for taking so long to respond to your inquiry. The hydraulic/hydrology unit has completed their review of the hydrology study for the I -10 Channel. Caltrans has no comments on this portion of the channel study. I will getting the comments for the geotechnical reports as soon as possible. Thank you, Phill Reynolds "Bill Flores" <bflores @BoyleEngine To: <mfox @dpw.sbcounty.gov >, ering.com> "Phillip Reynolds (E- mail)" <phillip.reynolds @dot. ca. gov> 12/23/02 04:29 PM cc: "Joe Long" <j long @B oyleEngineering. com> Subject: I -10 Channel Capacity Analysis - Hydrology Study review (OC -F60 -401) May you please tell me the status of your review of the Hydrology Study for the above project? Thanks. Mr. Bill Flores Jr., P.E. Boyle Engineering Corporation 1131 West Sixth Street, Suite 285 Ontario, CA 91762 Main: (909)933 -5225 Fax: (909)933 -5228 Cell: (909)545 -9716 bflores@boyleengineering.com N Page 3 ED NaVL CITY OF FONTANA I -10 CHANNEL 2 — cow REGIONAL MAP PEE VL E CM OF FONTMA 1-10 CHANNEL LOCATION MAP ?'.I. P" FIGURE 2-2 PAGr 5 aa lo p give Sw 4 r. ir, *"WOW VL E CM OF FONTMA 1-10 CHANNEL LOCATION MAP ?'.I. P" FIGURE 2-2 PAGr 5 54 Table 3 -1 Existing Culverts along I -10 Channel Location RCB Size Kaiser Spur Tpl 12 ft x7 ft (3660 mm x 2135 mm) Cherry Avenue Dbl 12 ft x 5 ft (3660 mm x 1520 mm) Citrus Avenue Dbl 8 ft x 5 ft (2400 mm x 1520 mm) Sierra Avenue Dbl 5 ft x 2 ft (1520 mm x 610 mm) Tributary to the I -10 Channel are a number of local storm drains systems along the north and south side of the Channel, with these outlets varying in size from 460 mm (18 inch) to 1,220 mm (48 inch) diameter. The majority of the outlets are on the freeway (south) side. The major outlet from the north is the one from Catabawa Avenue, which is a 2.5 in (8.2 ft) by 1.1 in (3.6 ft) RCB. In other areas, local streets without storm drains outlet storm runoff via concrete aprons that spill over the top of the channel. Storm runoff from the freeway side either surface drains to the Channel or flows to drain inlets that eventually outlet to said Channel. Information on the existing outlets was extracted from record drawings, visual inspection, and field survey data, or a combination thereof. Currently, the I -10 Channel confluences with San Sevaine Creek, lower portion reach III, at the downstream end of this project. Additionally, San Sevaine Creek is unimproved from 110 in (3 60 ft) north of Valley Boulevard south to Jurupa Basin. As of this writing, Boyle Engineering has designed improvement plans for this stretch of San Sevaine Channel and is pending approval from San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) for construction. A series of wet and dry subsurface utilities traverse the Channel, some of which offer challenges for the proposed design. The major utility of concern is the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) 11 -foot 8 -inch (3.56 m) diameter Upper Feeder pipeline, which is part of the Colorado River Aqueduct. Also referred to as Schedule 3P, this precast concrete pipe (PCP) crosses the Channel in a northwest- southeast direction and Fontana Avenue in a perpendicular direction, and is located in a forty- foot (12.2 m) easement. The slope of this utility is approximately 0.0010 and 0.01760 at its crossing with I -10 Channel and Fontana Avenue, respectively. There are two gravity sanitary sewers that cross the I -10 Channel - at Cypress Avenue and Poplar Avenue. The Cypress Avenue sewer is a 27 -inch (686 mm) diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) enclosed in a steel pipe casing. The Poplar Avenue sewer is a 21 -inch (533 mm) diameter Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP). See Appendix C, Flood Routing exhibit. Y.• IFW 401 OocslReportsMudyM Volume 1 of 41ReportO- FinalReporrdoc Page 6 Printed: 121812003 1:13 PM Saved: 121812003 1:13 PJV f30YLE 4.0 Purpose and Need for Project The purpose of this study is to identify the most appropriate channel configuration that will convey the 100 -year storm runoff discharge and afford the City of Fontana the opportunity to fully develop the tributary watershed of the I -10 Channel. At the same time, the study will also accomplish the objectives listed below: • Discuss hydraulic constraints • Provide channel alternatives and recommendations • Summarize Right -of -Way issues • Prepare an Opinion of Probably Costs • Identify agency coordination and project phasing It is generally recognized by CalTrans that the I -10 Channel is inadequate to convey the 100 -year storm runoff discharge and is currently limiting discharges into the Channel to current levels and requiring off - site detention to attenuate peak discharges into the channel. In order to alleviate this deficiency, the City intends to implement its newly developed Master Plan of Drainage by phasing the ultimate channel configuration based on future development in accordance with the City's General Plan. The Opinion of Probable Cost of the recommended channel alternative will aid in the preparation of required capital improvement scheduling and phasing, and the determination of development fees within the tributary watershed. This study is being prepared in concert with the planning and preparation of the Project Study Report (PSR) for the Citrus/I -10 interchange and the Cherry/I -10 interchange to identify proposed channel improvements for the subject reach. 5.0 Alternative and Recommendations As directed by the City, only one alternative was considered for implementation. This alternative was designed to achieve the objective of matching the existing channel flow line. This alternative is defined below. The proposed alternative consists of a rectangular concrete channel ranging from 18 m (59 ft) wide by 4 m (13.1 ft) deep to 5 m (16.4 ft) wide to 2.5 m (8.2 ft) deep. The longitudinal slope and the vertical location approximately match the existing channel. The proposed channel joins the existing sections at both ends. At the downstream end, the existing rectangular channel measures 15.2 m (50 ft) wide by 3.0 m (10 ft) deep. This existing section is not constructed and reflects the design improvement plans (by Boyle Engineering) for San Sevaine Creek, Lower Reach III, and is pending SBCFCD approval. For design purposes, the proposed channel actually joins further downstream at station 111 +40.139 m (equals station 2 +53.41 ft per San Sevaine Creek design plans) where the top of nosing ends between Channel A and B. At this location the ESSFCC measures 15.2 in (50 ft) wide by 4.9 in (16 ft) high. At this point, the proposed 18 in by 4 m rectangular concrete I -10 channel transitions both horizontally and vertically to the existing channel. Y: IF60140 11DocslReportslStudyCDIVolume 1 of Meportl3- FinalReport.doc Page 7 Printed: 121812003 1:13 PM Saved. 121812003 1:13 PJ1 f3OYLE At the upstream end, the proposed channel joins the recently completed storm drain as part of the Sierra Avenue Interchange improvements. Specifically, the proposed 5 m by 2 m rectangular concrete channel transitions to the existing 12 feet wide by 3 foot high trapezoidal concrete channel at station 181 +20 meters. The proposed top of channel is above natural ground (existing top of channel) and ranges from 1.7 in (5.6 ft) to 0.5 m (1.6 ft). There are two reasons why it is not feasible to redesign the project to avoid a wall projection above the existing ground (existing top of channel) and thereby cutting below the existing channel flow line. One is the existing channel sections at both ends are shallower than the proposed section. The upstream drainage- related improvements may be redesigned and reconstructed to accommodate the projecting wall. However, the existing channel B at the downstream end may not be redesigned to lower the wall since it is already at a flat grade from San Sevaine Channel. Consequently, this would require redesigning the San Sevaine Channel Confluence to lower the flow line. The second reason is the existing major utilities to be crossed; specifically the MWD water line and the Poplar Avenue sewer. With the minimum vertical clearance provided these utilities, the proposed top of channel wall will still be above the existing ground, thereby defeating the purpose of lowering the channel flow line. Access ramps are designed to go up along the projecting wall and ramp down into the channel. The channel hydraulics did not take the access ramps into account. It is recommended that the I -10 Channel be improved from the confluence with the San Sevaine Channel to the upstream side of the Sierra Avenue crossing. The opinion of probable construction costs is included in Appendix F. 6.0 Hydrology Analysis 6.1 Watershed Description The project site lays within the San Sevaine Creek tributary that is part of the Upper Santa Ana River watershed. The total tributary drainage area comprises about 1,828 hectares (ha) [4,517 acres] of land north of the project site within the limits of the City of Fontana and unincorporated portions of the County of San Bernardino that are expected to be annexed to the City in the future. The tributary watershed to the I -10 Channel is bounded by San Sevaine Creek to the west, Metrolink rail line (West Fontana Channel) to the north, Sierra Avenue to the east, and the I -10 Freeway to the south. This area also includes the north (westbound) side of the freeway along the project limits. The area adjacent to the project site is relatively flat as it is adjacent to the freeway. The surface elevation varies from a high of approximately 381 in (1,250 ft) mean sea level (msl) at the intersection of Sierra Avenue and the Metrolink rail line to a low of approximately 303 m (995 ft) msl at the southwesterly corner of the drainage area, resulting in a relief of 78 in (225 ft). The Metrolink rail line is characterized as an artificial ridgeline along which the west Fontana Channel is located. In general, the subject watershed slopes in a southwesterly direction into the I -10 Channel as illustrated on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Fontana quadrangle map. However, due to the greater positive relief along the street grid in the north -south direction as opposed to the east -west direction, the surface storm water runoff favors draining "southerly to the I -10 Channel. Presently, development is sporadic and includes pockets of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. See Figure 4 -1, 4 -2, and 4 -3. Y: IF601401IDocslReportslStzidyCD1 i'olume 1 of 41ReportB- FinalReport.doc Page 8 Printed: 12/8/20031:13 PM Saved: 121812003 1:13 PM JOCIVLLE GENERAL_ PLAN LAND USE RESIDENTIAL far 0L O R —E Residential Estates D R —L Low Density Residential O R —IE Industrial Estates O R —PC Residential Planned Community D R —SF P —R Single Family Residential 0 R —ML School Medium —Low Density Residential R —M D P -1 Medium Density Residential R —MH Medium —High Density Residential COMMERCIAL OS —R Resource Area — C -0 Office Professional C —C LAND USE MAP Community Commercial C —G General Commercial C —R Regional Commercial CMU Community Mixed Use 1313VLE E/7G //7EER//7G CORPOR/9T /0�7 RMU Regional Mixed Use INDUSTRIAL 0 I —P Planned Industrial 0 I —G General Industrial I —SP Industrial Specific Plan PUBLIC FACILITY P —UC Utility Corridor P —R Recreational P —S School O P —PF Public Facility D P -1 Institutional OPEN SPACE OS —N Natural Area OS —R Resource Area CITY OF FONTANA I -10 CHANNEL LAND USE MAP 4 -1 0 LEGEND ti .[,�f` cssd:.' <, r.. :': _ N .t! l - , ..••.. i h e q y' � VL_ •- WV YEAR YR 1�/ ,q' _ +..a. •? ....,u. - e ,. y l.,t5, wt .. +'*n. • ,•y -.6 y ... , •- .» >'a 4 I 'F (�� CI s 'tt yap �.I.:. � Q �" Q .., t ° ,w " h °iZ yi ... "V:°l it r'4 .- •',M"' ! f '1''' T '9 r +�� / Atk1�;",�'fi•+,' A '7 ire }., UNMICM rya,, '(•MNt.:'..un'.: • "N S' �• fin` k ' +• .�. 1 x r-- aiu�n `` s r l t, sAN 9lsiN►ROSI� A'Y� ~ ��_ • lIIYNAii61W18 +1YE YR • ... : • :r: 'e y ° #! / a ) "!4°! a CITY ' � � ' .. '. � .. � - a "� �- � ;• �� - '�' : _`�, •� + }. ; n : ,:.,t�� MISSION _ r r • at - -+�+ } :,� . ,� 'frxe LINE rye r� �" '.+�.• ¢• .� _ ' � • ' ; � '� �,...... �' ._ -.._ � � �,�,;` '�' _ -. ;�... ° . CAL". 7r � �:e �' � R`'1 S .p r7. a ', x„°.- a ..•..,. +�' :_� 'h� 7t�' �• P . q..°�'•'$�„":.."'u/ip'`:a5^si�' SIC" •�r'° '::! > t .,-•• - �. \ 'y54f: l,_ reN • i. ..�' •� .:,Re;'r X45,,, 4,,. .. yea . R° . 4 "`• m '. :' N ;-7. �`+�' way °.. ,�• , :' . �' . � , `' �� S1 @@ - •.�.e. '�<� �,°'y;1, �/� /�y� ',y.• Y 7 .� 4 * ,„'' ,y,.. 5'" • � tlAr. �1' �� raw • ` ' ' • y . , �" ; � , 6 • - Ola � � ... , s � � a k' y s t .• �, of h [M � e.i . ' J, M _ _ I V. - � rl. SANTA ANA AVE. fi' .. ° ...' • .a KS IM r'A' * .A •" .. > • f , T m G �P.r q .N O�Y'� ° ��.e ^�:♦ •� "UPA AVE 31 J ee �, �� 5y �, / •, ' N J a a ' E OF �- aA AW. a � °' ...�: i:r � ', " /Ate M�u""S ._,.�'_. .... ar„A�. .�`,, .. •• �...» •••• _ � , _.. .� . � .. !_.� i. .:3 . y .� _� •c "'�. .. ..�L...- ..- .c v .,m.n�ieF'v! t.ari ^ r te ... .L� �. .�.,bJ : �4Vif � { tCi'� , .. .... ........,., L .... CITY OF ' 0NTAFWV0 9 � . flCg'1C i!'AF�siTV UL )3c7vLE En�inee�inig R rron CITY OF FONTANA I -10 CHANNEL MASTER STORM DRAINAGE PLAN N D 4 -2 PAGE 10 THE UL )3c7vLE En�inee�inig R rron CITY OF FONTANA I -10 CHANNEL MASTER STORM DRAINAGE PLAN N D 4 -2 PAGE 10 r . 1 - - � - F TF I - I 1. i I � � I � l 'll " " "1'lrllll!11 11''' i I I 1I l j - IN } � { d ! I I I' :, .�:.,�I - - I,�,- I ' - I• - {I,, � 'I ', I I -- � - F Y - - I - - i - j ! I - - r7j II � 1' I. ,�I It T ! Ir I I II � 1 _ >-/� Ir ., -L - -1 �" - r - -! r u.',... li -1v l A I ! F II I i } 1 C- J i 19 ! I r � r 1 I -- 1 i _ I r � 11t � + ! - I - *�' S J -- - II i al l 1 1 I_ I T „ �� 1T ? [ li'' - LI L )_ it I a [ 7� �1 r Y I {� I 9 Ij � 11 I1 f, - - - 1 +.6k,'.J- �ll'_L -_ � '� -i f �- - - 1 - '{ LI t I {r I-I L4T 111,YN�IS�w., IY iT , r - �I 1 7 1 i =1_I= L.J - -' f _ 4 I I 1' -- -- � - I' I , -111 l,. - -�j -`- I -- - -- i - •�..f =� _ ,_ - 11 __ i,- �� II � J i �. � - � -�]7�1 filli j'! 1t�1_�1.[ = li , J F Y�'.��- :I.I'- i,•''1r�- I ff r II I I - - '- I rrl -r"r .,�i - TTTTJTT 1 -r, 7- _Tf` - ,i` F - -, r1 _ f - � Y i f -- r'T� .II I t1 1. t - �_ r -� - } { -� I t It- � �„ [.` A�l ]I1 11! h - - �r { AC ' ~ ";09kYIFIIRIIL 1 ? l I] l L r t Y �r +II . {,r' -.I t- jL_ x C t - t = - -t - 11 7 1, I I, - - I T�7`Tj „rrl-T T P _ - - .� -iI Y� -I t I I F_ I�iT? l L `Ili C� I L � ! "1 r- _ _ __ • _ _� ',I ��rtl ill 'i1,` -1 ! p, L' Tpi1g11 ,1. - r � r y I i 0{ '. - e Ir',II `_1 , -•'t' - a9z79#G "[ _II;I �'. I� -''�, •� I ��114 � a : - ,� { k I:I� - -- - F- �1 I� -SWAG li - -- .IT ;T 1 ,`_J - "_ �;----- - -- - -- = - :'i ,_; d '�'�' �- :I i - ,• I � ',p'a " } " - �� I I I' II� =� - - - -� __ :� +__ - T1 r ]$ _r9 _Ir_ _ ,ll .I.I _ .�,,.+.kax' _ I ! _ r r I -f _� i I I I _ - - - ]' I - 1111i1_LL �y I � ! I I I ' _ 11 t K' lr u:I, ='� P 'u'1 - 1-r -h- I 1'_.i I ,�, f ' � �k.`T •-ii ���_,� _. 6w I - - - - - t -- - aaa ++111 "'III - „'} - I r. � __,_ :` F E4 'i - _ I - - _- 19 J I G,, I it - !, 1 x1.31 a l _ _ - i � t Irl I _ - f .E - i SAN ERN NO''COUhPiYrI rTr f rrr, -,, ,, ` - -. - _-- -- g I S I I I � I I 1 T - CITYOFFONT - - -- AIr'X 1ERNARDINOI I I I I I -lli i ' A L { ' �r - lld l-1_L I:�I 11 - IJI - - - - -- _ - , I - - I, - -- -_: A 1 _ - O'” - -- -' - - I_ = 19� 9F FON}'ANA - - - - !I B I { 8 A �__ A �y -y I y f r ` _ _ AC? A�_q - l� I � I ri .33.J3 A',r - _ = - -JI l, -i _ _tilt _ - _,'3134�iE -_ _- 3A0'L1 rl 'i t i`,�: In-� I � e ' I _ 1' III I 97.4 AC q .2AC 42.82 AC - - _ : -- - _ - it I I - -- -- [ .� i 1 r,r u I _ - - I � ,. ,, c7 ce CS .,< - .. _ . I , 1 I I i na ""_ _ __ -_- -,- - - � - - -- v^ - - -= I I - --- I - I -,I - �- I _ - -r I - . _ 1 f, ! _ - _ -• ' ?JI- 1 { - - .' : - _ I _ -_ ?,= I� y .- 'I � '- �� ' ' _'� ` l - ! II r - - �. - - T I I I I ' _ _ i hI �i I I f �� h I II�I� I�_ Ir iI_ I l - 1 I X11" - =I I 1- J � - II� I� r r - I i -- - - - III - - - $0 0th ar 1 `j L 1 _ ,o - - i _ II _ - 7.22 l - JL _- j !'' '. I, - , -- - -- I -•, -. �. -.. .,,," �.. -- -- - jd - I ';i I - , �3 r - ;:III I I 2 I 130VLLM E/7G //7EER//7G CORPOR/51T /O/7 CITY OF FONTANA I -10 CHANNEL EXISTING WATERSHEDS MAP 4 -3 11 Tujunga loamy sand soils consisting of loamy sand and coarse sand that formed on long, broad alluvial fans in granitic alluvium underlies the subject alignment. The surface soils are underlain by younger fan deposits consisting of unconsolidated, poorly stratified to well stratified, recent clay, silt, sand and gravel over granite bedrock at considerable depth. The sandy substrata beneath the channel alignment are rapidly permeable. The regional groundwater is expected to be situated at great depth in most areas of the alignment, and to follow a west to southwest gradient. Shallow groundwater and perched groundwater are not expected to be encountered, although some perched water may be present over thin and discontinuous confining layers. The hydrology analysis prepared for this project considers only the build -out condition of the watershed and the ultimate configuration of the proposed drainage facilities as identified in the Master Plan of Drainage prepared by Hall and Foreman. No consideration was given as to the storage capacity of the local streets or the local storm drain systems within the watershed tributary to I -10 Channel. The major tributary is the Fontana Avenue Storm Drain which outlets to the Channel along Hemlock Avenue. 6.2 Methodology The project was divided into two major hydrologic areas. Those areas that drain to I -10 Channel (area A to C) and to the future Fontana Avenue storm drain system (B areas). The upstream ends of both of these areas were computed using the Rational Method, basic method, up to a maximum area of 640 acres. Thereafter, Flood Routing analysis was used to continue calculations of proposed peak flows and runoff hydrographs to their respective downstream ends. All hydrology computations were based on the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, 1986 version. Detailed descriptions of hydrology procedures utilized and hydrology calculations are shown in the Appendices. 7.0 Hydraulic Analysis 7.1 San Sevaine Channel Confluence The hydraulic control for I -10 (Mulberry) Channel is determined by the confluence with the San Sevaine Channel, where it splits into Channel A and B. The hydraulic grade line control is computed to be 303.663 in (996.27 ft deep). Since this control is based on a discharge that is one -third the quantity determined from hydrology calculations, the hydraulic program reverts to a more reasonable HGL that is consistent to the normal depth in the channel, and approximates the critical depth of the channel at 303.833 m (996.83 ft deep). More detailed discussion on this analysis may be referred to in the Appendices. C� Y: T6014011DocslReportslStudyCDlVohmie I of4SeportU- FinalReport.doc Page 12 Printed: 121812003 1:13 PM Saved: 121812003 1 :13 PM f3C7VLE 7.2 I -10 Channel At the upstream end, it is expected that this project will join the existing and newly constructed drainage system at Jurupa Avenue that is part of the Sierra Avenue interchange improvements. It is envisioned that culverts will be RCBs and be the same size as the corresponding proposed open channel geometry. The design incorporates the SBCFCD minimum freeboard criteria of 0.6 m (2 ft). It is assumed that all side inlets will join the proposed channel at 0.5 meters above the channel flow line. Since the MWD water line that crosses the proposed I -10 Channel (between Beech Avenue and Elm Avenue) may not be relocated, the proposed I -10 Channel will provide the minimum clearance over the water line. 7.3 Fontana Avenue Storm Drain The Fontana Avenue Storm Drain is proposed to be a triple 3.050 m by 2.135 m RCB, which stretches along Hemlock Avenue and continues northeast along Fontana Avenue to about 300 meters past the crossing with MWD waterline (approximately at Carob Avenue). This is consistent with the Master Plan of Drainage, which identifies this line (Line M -5) to be a double 4.3 m by 2.1 m (14 feet by 7 foot) RCB. 8.0 Proposed I -10 Corridor Freeway Improv CalTrans is currently evaluating future widening improvements for I -10 from I -15 to the Yucaipa area. Since the public is not privy to this information, the timeline as to when these improvements will take place is unknown. When details are revealed by CalTrans, the I -10 Channel project will have to be reevaluated to determine the impacts and any mitigation measures required due to the proposed I -10 corridor freeway improvements. 9.0 Land Use Compatibility/Right of Way Issues Generally, the land uses along the project are considered compatible with the project. The land uses include Industrial, Commercial, and Open Space. The majority of the properties affected are included in the Industrial land use category. There is a small area of Open Space at the downstream end. The impacted areas are identified on the right -of -way plans in Appendix G. The impacted areas would have to be purchased as a portion or as a whole depending on the extent of the impact. The impacted area would have to be purchased as CalTrans right -of -way. In order to accommodate the proposed project, the impacted areas include 37,476.671 m2 (9.2 acres) of Industrial land use within the County of San Bernardino and 2,739.845 m2 (0.68 acres) within the City of Fontana. Given the uncertainty of initiation of this project, the City has directed not to provide present -worth cost, as this estimate may be outdated once this project crystallizes and proceeds forward. See Table 9 -1. The impacted area determined is independent of any area related to Area of Potential Effect, temporary construction easements, or intersecting street right -of -way. Y: IF6014010ocslReportslStud }- CD "olume I doc 13 J30YLE PM Table 9 -1 Right -of -Way Acquisition APN No. Area Take (M2) Agency Jurisdiction Land Use Approx Channel STA. Range APN 0238- 063 -01 -0000 18107.238 County of San Bernardino Industrial Specific 111 +28.000 to 118 +90.500 APN 0234 - 161 -10 -0000 1428.382 County of San Bernardino Industrial Specific 118 +90.500 TO 119 +00.000 APN 0234 - 201 -14 -0000 745.399 County of San Bernardino Industrial Specific 127 +43.121 TO 128 +66.042 APN 0234- 201 -15 -0000 405.007 County of San Bernardino Industrial Specific 128 +66.042 TO 129 +35.207 APN 0234 - 201 -01 -0000 915.375 County of San Bernardino Industrial Specific 129 +35.207 TO 131 +32.847 APN 0234 - 232 -37 -0000 966.785 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 135 +98.260 TO 137 +36.540 135 +78.794 TO 135 +98.260 & APN 0234 - 232 -44 -0000 296.399 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 137 +36.540 TO 137 +56.744 APN 0234 - 232 -43 -0000 132.714 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 137 +56.744 TO 137 +75.631 APN 0234 - 232 -42 -0000 430.577 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 137 +75.631 TO 138 +44.488 APN 0234 - 232 -28 -0000 519.036 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 138 +44.488 TO 139 +19.239 APN 0234 - 232 -39 -0000 13.756 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 139 +19.239 TO 139 +20.518 APN 0234 - 232 -38 -0000 362.473 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 139 +20.518 TO 139 +58.105 APN 0234 - 232 -40 -0000 39.601 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 139 +20.518 TO 139 +58.105 APN 0234 - 232 -18 -0000 184.407 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 139 +58.105 TO 139 +98.717 APN 0234 - 252 -02 -0000 133.901 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 139 +98.717 TO 140 +21.892 APN 0234 - 252 -03 -0000 133.559 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 140 +21.892 TO 140 +44.703 APN 0234 - 252 -04 -0000 133.559 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 140 +44.703 TO 140 +67.514 APN 0234 - 252 -05 -0000 187.906 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 140 +67.514 TO 140 +98.070 APN 0234 - 252 -06 -0000 411.265 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 140 +98.070 TO 141 +68.216 APN 0234 - 252 -07 -0000 147.903 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 141 +68.216 TO 141 +93.495 APN 0234 - 252 -08 -0000 148.319 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 141 +95.495 TO 142 +18.898 APN 0234 - 252 -09 -0000 144.424 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 142 +18.898 TO 142 +43.444 APN 0234 - 252 -10 -0000 147.726 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 142 +43.444 TO 142 +68.704 APN 0234 - 252 -14 -0000 147.865 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 142 +68.704 TO 142 +93.950 APN 0234 - 252 -13 -0000 158.729 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 142 +93.950 TO 143 +21.139 APN 0234 - 252 -17 -0000 341.774 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 143 +21.139 TO 143 +79.418 APN 0235 - 172 -26 -0000 271.531 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 143 +79.418 TO 144 +25.874 APN 0235- 172 -17 -0000 105.684 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 144 +25.874 TO 144 +43.879 APN 0234 - 172 -18 -0000 112.903 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 144 +43.879 TO 144 +63.195 APN 0235 - 172 -10 -0000 103.953 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 144 +63.195 TO 144 +80.881 APN 0235 - 172 -19 -0000 126.203 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 144 +80.881 TO 145 +02.519 APN 0234 - 172 -20 -0000 121.204 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 145 +02.519 TO 145 +23.220 APN 0234 - 172 -14 -0000 134.161 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 145 +23.220 TO 145 +46.065 APN 0235 - 172 -15 -0000 151.034 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 145 +46.065 TO 145 +71.898 APN 0234 - 172 -24 -0000 164.213 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 145 +71.898 TO 146 +00.000 APN 0235- 172 -25 -0000 198.673 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 146 +00.000 TO 146 +33.829 APN 0235 - 172 -22 -0000 216.109 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 146 +33.829 TO 146 +70.737 APN 0235 - 172 -23 -0000 108.436 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 146 +70.737 TO 146 +89.245 APN 0235- 172 -09 -0000 177.977 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 146 +89.245 TO 147 +19.716 APN 0235- 172 -08 -0000 108.497 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 147 +19.716 TO 147 +38.229 APN 0235- 172 -01 -0000 144.14 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 147 +38.229 TO 147 +62.823 APN 0235 - 182 -14 -0000 213.324 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 147 +62.823 TO 148 +08.219 APN 0235- 211 -05 -0000 536 -046 City of Fontana General Commercial 163 +38.981 TO 164 +64.722 APN 0234 - 181 -05 -0000 140.437 County of San Bernardino Industrial Specific 123 +31.505 TO 123 +81.530 APN 0234 - 181 -11 -0000 989.419 County of San Bernardino Industrial Specific 123 +81.530 TO 127 +33.973 APN 0234- 211 -01 -0000 619.832 County of San Bernardino General Industrial 131 +42.874 TO 133 +01.584 APN 0234 - 211 -11 -0000 73.073 County of San Bernardino General Industrial 132 +67.704 TO 133 +01.584 APN 0234- 211 -12 -0000 187.156 County of San Bernardino General Industrial 133 +01.584 TO 133 +42.879 APN 0234- 211 -22 -0000 782.289 County of San Bernardino General Commercial 133 +42.879 TO 134 +98.901 Page 14 Table 9 -1 Right -of -Way Acquisition D M A Page 15 Area Take (M2) Agency Jurisdiction Land Use Approx Channel STA. Range APN No. APN 0235 - 182 -15 -0000 93.865 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 148 +02.219 TO 148 +54.898 APN 0235- 182 -11 -0000 95.931 City of Fontana Planned Industrial 184 +54.898 TO 149 +06.583 APN 0235- 182 -10 -0000 63.536 City of Fontana Planned Industrial 149 +06.583 TO 149 +40.848 APN 0235- 182 -07 -0000 63.1967 City of Fontana Planned Industrial 149 +40.848 TO 149 +74.910 APN 0235- 182 -06 -0000 61.227 City of Fontana Planned Industrial 149 +74.910 TO 150 +07.918 APN 0235 - 182 -05 -0000 61.227 City of Fontana Planned Industrial 150 +07.918 TO 150 +40.926 APN 0235 - 182 -04 -0000 61.227 City of Fontana Planned Industrial 150 +40.926 TO 150 +73.934 APN 0235- 182 -03 -0000 113.308 City of Fontana Planned Industrial 150 +73.934 TO 151 +35.015 APN 0235 - 182 -13 -0000 62.433 City of Fontana Planned Industrial 151 +35.015 TO 151 +68.617 APN 0235- 181 -01 -0000 10.962 City of Fontana Planned Industrial 151 +68.671 TO 151 +74.580 APN 0235- 191 -03 -0000 398.819 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 151 +74.580 TO 153 +64.654 APN 0235 - 211 -07 -0000 4.052 City of Fontana General Commercial 162 +60.370 TO 162 +83.149 APN 0235- 211 -06 -0000 136.49 City of Fontana General Commercial 162 +83.149 TO 163 +38.981 APN 0235 - 211 -53 -0000 1071.39 City of Fontana General Commercial 164 +64.722 TO 168.19.452 APN 0251 - 131 -25 -0000 129.518 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 169 +56.927 TO 169.95.358 APN 0251- 131 -24 -0000 83.035 County of San Bernardino Planned Industrial 169 +95.358 TO 170.48.433 M A Page 15 C10.0 Environmental Issues/Hazardous Materials The Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) database did not identify any portion of the proposed alignment as a National Priorities List (NPL), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilities Act Information System (CERCLIS), or state - equivalent site of contamination. Based on the Draft Initial Site Assessment, it does not appear that hazardous waste or deleterious materials are present in soils adjacent to the I -10 Channel, with the following possible exceptions: • Classic Cleaners located approximately at the northwest corner of the intersection of I -10 Channel and Sierra Avenue. Based on its age and proximity, there is some risk that perchloroethylene (PCE) vapors are present in soils beneath and adjacent to the dry - cleaning establishment. • One active leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site was identified adjacent to the alignment. The Truck Town truck stop at 10238 Cherry Avenue is the only open LUST case within 0.5 miles to the north of the channel. Because this site is adjacent to the north of the I -10 Channel, there is some potential that undocumented fuel releases has impacted soil and possibly groundwater in the area of the channel alignment. • One registered and historical underground storage tank (UST) site is presently adjacent to the alignment. Werner Enterprises, at 10251 Calabash Avenue, Fontana, currently operates truck fueling facilities in proximity to the I -10 Channel. The residual contamination left in place is of some concern, as is the potential for this facility to have undiscovered releases that could have resulted in petroleum contamination of the channel alignment. If perched groundwater is encountered in the alignment excavation during construction in areas that are currently and historically primarily commercial, there may be some potential for localized groundwater contamination. Contaminated groundwater would pose a concern of hazardous conditions during construction. However, the likelihood of encountering significant quantities of perched groundwater appears to be very low. D The EDR database identified three CERCLIS sites within one mile north and up gradient of the I -10 Channel, at least one of which resulted in a serious groundwater contamination plume that underlies the west portion of the site. There is some potential for undiscovered soil contamination that could be encountered during construction. Numerous additional closed LUST sites were identified by EDR within 0.5 mile north and up gradient of the I -10 channel. A review of the information provided in the database suggests that these listed sites are sufficiently distant from the I -10 channel so as to pose a fairly low risk of environmental hazard. The available documentation otherwise provides no evidence to suggest that soil impacts have occurred in other areas within the alignment. Visual inspection of the adjacent properties identified some potential concern for subsurface impacts related to several commercial and light industrial operations that abut the project. Because these facilities have not been investigated under regulatory oversight, insufficient information is currently available with which to assess these possible risks. Refer to Appendix I for more information. Y.• IF6014011DocslRepor ' 1 M 41ReporA3 - '2003 1.-13 P doc 16 F30YLE 11.0 Geotechnical Considerations Since there is no Geotechnical report, there is no discussion on this issue. 12.0 Opinion of P robable Construction Costs Appendix F summarizes the estimated costs for the project. These costs estimates are based on current unit construction costs. The unit construction cost estimates include the channel, ramps, inlets, connectors, trenching, and removal. A percentage (20 %) is added for engineering, inspection and construction management and for contingencies. The cost estimate does not include the costs associated with right -of -way acquisition. The overall opinion of probable construction cost is slated to be $14,405,238 and is based on 2003 rates. This is only a preliminary estimate based on the 30 percent drawings shown in Appendix G. 13.0 Inter - Project Coordination/Pha! i The stakeholders of this project are CalTrans, City of Fontana, and the County of San Bernardino (specifically, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD)). To date, CalTrans has no comments to offer on the project hydrology study, let alone the rest of the project. The hydrology study is currently under review by the SBCFCD. The Kaiser Spur culvert is owned by UPRR and this project would require their input. The remaining culverts at Cherry Avenue, Citrus Avenue, and Sierra Avenue would require coordination with CalTrans. Project phasing will be determined at such time that funding and scheduling are set in place (refer to Section 8.0). 14.0 Project Study CDs — See following page Y.• IF6014011DocslReportslStudyMVolume 1 of4lReportl3- FinalReport.doc Page 17 Printed: 121812003 1:13 PM Saved: 121812003 1:13 PM IM2V E Rational Method and Flood Routing Calculations General Hydrology Assumptions The hydrology calculations developed for this study were based on criteria from the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, dated August 1986. Assumptions made for this study based on this Manual are as follows: • The entire watershed is considered to be Soil Type A per "Hydrological Soil Groups Map for Southwest —A Area ", Plate C -5, Figure C -13. • The 100 -year, 1 hour storm discharge is equal to 1.4 inches (in) [35.56 mm] per Figure B -4, Valley Area Isohyetals Map. • The 100 -year, 24 hour storm discharge is equal to 8.5 in (215.90 mm) per Figure B -6, Valley Area Isohyetals Map. • The slope of the intensity /duration curve is equal to 0.60. • Antecedent Moisture Condition (AMC) is III. 1.2 Land Use Data The currently adopted General Plan Land Uses developed by the City of Fontana provides the basis of identifying runoff coefficients and impervious /pervious ratios being utilized in the Rational Method and Unit Hydrograph Method loss rate estimation (flood routing analysis) calculations discussed below. However, since there are 24 City land use categories and 13 land use types per the computer model software, a conversion must first be made to equate the two. Usage of the hydrology programs accommodates three categories of development types; Urban Land Use, Natural Covers, and Agricultural Covers. Only the Urban Land Use category was utilized for this study and is listed on Table 1 -1. Appropriate adjustments were made to associate the city land use classifications with the corresponding hydrology - program classification that provided the best match as identified on Table 1 -2. Table 1 -1 Urban Land Use / Development Type per Hydrology Program Classification No. Type % Pervious 1 Commercial 10 2 Mobile Home Park 25 3 Apartments 20 4 Condominiums 35 5 Single Family Residential 11+ dwellings /ac 20 6 8 -10 dwellings/ ac 40 7 5 -7 dwellings/ ac 50 8 3 -4 dwellings/ ac 60 9 2 dwellings/ ac 70 10 1 dwellings/ ac 80 11 0.4 dwellings/ ac 90 12 School 60 13 Public Park 85 Y :IF6014010ocsIReportslStudyCDI iI'obxm I 12 doc Page 1 of 9 f30YLE Rational Method and Flood Routing Calculati Source: AES, 2000 Ac: acre Table 1 -2 Land Use Conversion for Hydrology Programs City Land Use Development Type per Hydrology Program Class. Type % AMC II No. Pervious Curve Nos. esidential R -E, Residential Estates 13 Public Park 85 32 R -L, Low Density Residential 9 SFR, 2 &Jac 70 32 R -IE, Industrial Estates 9 SFR, 2 du/ac 70 32 R -PC, Residential Planned 8, SFR, 3 -4 du/ac 60 32 Community R -SF, Single Family residential 7 SFR, 5 -7 du/ac 50 32 R -ML, Medium -Low Density 7 SFR, 5 -7 du/ac 50 32 Residential R -M, Medium Density Residential 6 SFR, 8 -10 du/ac 40 32 R -MH, Medium -High Density SFR, 11+ du/ac Residential 5 20 32 Commercial C -O, Office Professional 1 Commercial 10 32 C -C, Community Commercial 1 Commercial 10 32 C -G, General Commercial 1 Commercial 10 32 C -R, Regional Commercial 1 Commercial 10 32 CMU, Community Mixed Use 1 Commercial 10 32 RMU, Regional Mixed Use 1 Commercial 10 32 ndustrial I -P, Planned Industrial 1 Commercial 10 32 I -G, General Industrial 1 Commercial 10 98 I -SP, Industrial Specific Plan 1 Commercial 10 98 Public Facility P -UC, Utility Corridor 1 Commercial 10 98 P -R, Recreational 13 Public Park 85 32 P -S, School 12 School 60 32 P -PF, Public Facility 1 Commercial 10 32 P -I, Institutional 1 Commercial 10 98 )en Space OS -N, Natural Area 100 32 -— d OS -R, Resource Area 100 32 Source: City of Fontana 2001 SFR: single family residential du: dwelling unit ac: acre Y :IF6014011DocslReportslStudyCD {'olume l of 41Appendix AWppendixA- YVriteup.doc 7 7/21/2003 2.44 PM Saved: 1112112003 2:43 PM 2of9 1E Rational Method and F lood Routing Calculations 1.3 Methodology The project was divided into two major hydrologic areas. Those areas that drain to I -10 Channel (A to C areas) and to the future Fontana Avenue storm drain system (B areas). The upstream ends of both of these areas were computed using the Rational Method, basic method, up to a maximum area of 640 acres. Thereafter, Flood Routing analysis was used to continue calculations of proposed peak flows and runoff hydrographs to their respective downstream ends. For I -10 Channel, the units used for all computations were English and metric based. The future Fontana Avenue storm drain system (B areas) was modeled in English units only. 1.4 Rational Method Analysis The rational method analysis performed as a part of this study were completed using the "Rational Method Hydrology Computer Program Package" prepared by Advanced Engineering Software (AES) [1983 -96, version 6.1, release date 01/01/96] and based on and endorsed by the San Bernardino County Hydrology criteria. Appendix 13.2 (volume 2) illustrates the node maps used in the analysis. The node diagram delineates the sub -areas of each of the drainage basins, and the existing and proposed storm drain facilities used in the hydrologic analyses. The rational method calculations are located in Appendix 13.1 and the associated Hydrology Maps are located in Appendix 13.2. The purpose of the Rational Method Analysis was to determine the Time of Concentration (TC) of each proposed drainage area and associated storm drain system outleting to the I -10 Channel. This TC was used to determine the Lag time for use in the Flood Routing along the I -10 Channel based on the Unit Hydrograph method, which is discussed below. The I -10 channel watershed was divided into sub -areas tributary to the proposed storm drain facilities identified in the Master Plan of Drainage. All the areas north of and adjacent to I -10 Channel were designated as "A" areas with the exception of those areas tributary to the proposed Fontana Avenue Storm Drain system (`B" areas). Similarly, areas south of and adjacent to the I -10 freeway were labeled as "C" areas. To determine the individual 100 -year storm discharges, TCs for each subarea tributary to the I -10 Channel were determined. The storm routing developed in the rational method was based on the general topography of the study area and approximate surface and/or invert elevations of the proposed and existing storm drain systems. The I -10 Channel watershed boundary has been divided, in conformance with the Master Plan of Drainage, into three (3) major drainage areas and 39 subareas. The drainage areas are generally bounded by the San Sevaine Channel to the west, Metrolink rail line (West Fontana Channel) to the north, Sierra Avenue to the east, and the I -10 Channel to the south. Appendix 13.2 shows the location of these drainage areas and the existing /proposed facilities serving them. The following is a description of these areas: The background contours, extracted from American Digital Cartography at National Map Accuracy Standards, do not follow the street network in general. Similarly, these contours do not reflect full build- out and associated grading of these areas to show positive drainage along the street network and corresponding hydrology boundaries. The assumption was made that the general flow direction of most Y: TOWN Oo&ReportsOudyMVolume 1 iw,d- 17M12003 12003 2: 44 PM Saved: 1. 3 of 9 f30YLE Rational Method and Flood Routing Calculation subareas is from north to south or northeast to southwest, with some exceptions. Likewise, the existing elevations were used from the contours whenever possible to maintain positive drainage in the direction identified above. The situation where this rule is not followed is the exception to the rule. Similarly, most of the A, B and C areas follow the rule. For example, there are various locations of the areas for A8 -1 to A8 -4 areas where the rule is not followed. Based on the downstream point of concentration of the main area (I -10 Channel) reasonable assumptions were made to determine which knolls and depressions to ignore in certain subareas. It was felt that breaking the area to match the contour directions would not have a significant impact on the accuracy of the hydrology calculations from a large- magnitude sense. Drainage Areas "A ": These subareas are located on the northern portion of the watershed within the City of Fontana and unincorporated areas of the County of San Bernardino. Flanking the `B" areas is the "A" areas, resulting in the east and west portions. The east area (areas Al to A6 -4) is bounded by Mango Avenue to the east, San Bernardino Avenue and Valley Boulevard to the north, Sycamore Street and Beech Avenue to the west, and I -10 Channel to the south. The west portion (areas A7 to A8 -4) is bounded by Beech Avenue and Hemlock Avenue to the east, Mulberry Avenue and San Sevaine Channel to the west, Metrolink train line and San Bernardino Avenue and Valley Boulevard to the north, and I -10 Channel to the south. The area has a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Drainage Sub -area Area (Acres) Area (Hectares) Al -1 11.28 4.56 Al 127.88 51.75 A2 95.94 38.83 A3 91.12 36.88 A4 119.81 48.49 A5 129.10 52.25 A6 137.37 55.59 A6 -2 35.40 14.33 A6 -3 31.24 12.64 A6 -4 27.89 11.29 A7 497.77 201.44 A8 614.89 248.84 A8 -1 99.68 40.34 A8 -2 124.71 50.47 A8 -3 125.60 50.83 A8 -4 97.42 3 9.4 2 Total 2367.10 957.95 Drainage Areas "B" These subareas are located on the central portion of the watershed and are associated with the proposed Fontana Avenue Storm Drain. The area is bounded by Sierra Avenue and Sycamore Street/Catawba Avenue to the east, Beech Avenue and Hemlock Avenue to the west, Metrolink train line to the north, Y. F6014011DocslReportslStudyMVolume I of 41Appendix AppendixAJT riteup.doc Page 4 of 9 =,t• i tn1/2nn3 2 PM Saved: 1112112003 2:43 PM Mr7VLE Rational Method and Flood Routing Calcu lations and Valley Boulevard and I -10 Channel to the south. These subareas drain to the I -10 Channel via Hemlock Avenue. The area has a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Drainage Sub -area Area (Acres) Area (Hectares) B1 393.74 159.34 B2 284.26 115.04 B3 485.07 196.30 B4 198.43 80.30 B 8 206.63 83.62 B9 133.25 53.92 B10 132.73 53.71 B 11 60.74 24.58 Total 1894.8 766.81 Drainage Areas "C" The areas along the I -10 freeway include all the "C" areas from the east to the west limits of the project. It is assumed that these areas drain to the I -10 Channel by surfacing draining or via drain inlets. Industrial development type is used for the runoff coefficients. Drainage Sub -area Area (Acres) Area (Hectares) C1 6.49 2.63 C2 11.01 4.46 C3 21.55 8.72 C4 30.15 12.20 C5 32.61 13.20 C6 3 1.40 C7 5.24 2.12 C8 12.63 5.11 C9 5.84 2.36 C10 2.90 1.17 C11 3.89 1.57 C12 5.56 2.25 C13 8.33 3.37 C14 17.54 7.10 Total 167.21 67.66 1.5 Flood Routing/Hydrograph Analysis Given the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual requirement that the Rational Method should not be used for drainage areas larger than 640 acres, the Unit Hydrograph method was used to develop the proposed peak flows along the proposed I -10 Channel and the future Fontana Avenue storm drain beyond the area threshold. This Unit Hydrograph methodology relied on the Flood Routing Analysis" Page 5 of 9 Y :IF6014011DocslReportsIStudyCDI i'olun:e l of 4UppendixA AppendixA- YVritezip.doc gOYLE n..:._. ,. r irr 1i7nn3 ).J.4 PA4 Saved: 1112112003 2:43 PM Rational Method and Flood Routing Calcul program prepared by AES [copyright 1989 -2000, version 7.0, release date 01/01/2000] and based on the San Bernardino County Hydrology (1986) criteria. This program is otherwise known as the FLOODSCx computer model. As discussed above, the TC values are used for lag time estimation. The developed unit hydrographs are used in the FLOODSCx computer model, which produces the proposed peak flows and runoff hydrographs. The flood routing calculations are located in Appendix 13.3. 1.6 Summary of Procedure A summary of the hydrology procedure is presented below: 1. Determine the time of concentration (TC) for each subarea tributary to I -10 Channel and Fontana Avenue storm drain using the Rational Method. See Appendix 13.1 and 13.2. Some of the information from the results of the rational method analysis is summarized in the Input Data Table for Flood Routing Analysis. 2. I -10 Channel: Area Al -1 to A5, including area C1 to C3, was modeled as one system using the rational method. The tributary area at this point is 604.45 acres [ 244.61 hectares]. Each subarea is entered as code 7, "User Specified Hydrology Information at Node ", at the point where it confluences with I -10 Channel. This information includes, TC, intensity, area, peak flow rate, and pervious fraction. 3. Future Fontana Avenue storm drain system: The B areas were modeled as one system using the rational method. The tributary area is 1,894.85 acres [ 7.67 square kilometers]. Each subarea (other than the small B 1 areas) is entered as code 7, "User Specified Hydrology Information at Node ", at the point where it confluences with the storm drain. This information includes, TC, intensity, area, peak flow rate, and pervious fraction. The small B areas along the storm drain are first modeled as initial areas according to County Hydrology criteria. The area left over is added by using code 6 or 8 after which it is confluenced to the main line. 4. Using Microsoft Excel, a tabulation of land use areas (in square kilometers) for each drainage area was prepared according to the Urban Land Use / Development Type per Hydrology Program shown on Table 1 -1. 5. Determined the Area- Averaged Loss Rate, F,,, and the Area - Averaged Low Loss Fraction, Y for each drainage area: Computations were made using the "Computational Hydrology I (CH1)" program prepared by AES [1989 -2000, version 8.0, release date 01/01/2000]. The Unit Hydrograph Method Loss Rate Estimation option was used with metric units. The following information is required to complete these calculations for each drainage area: • AMC III is used. • The total 24 -hour duration rainfall depth is 215.90 mm as identified on Table 4 -3. • As identified above, the number of soil -cover types is equivalent to the number of land uses. • Enter the area (square kilometers), pervious percentages, and curve numbers C (AMC II) for each cover type. Even though the curve numbers are based on Page 6 of 9 TIF601401OocslReportslStudyCDIVolume I of4WppendixA AppendixA- Writeitp.doc f3OYLE n_:__ _-1. 1 1731Imnz 97d TV Saved: 1112112003 2.43 PM Rational Method and Flood Routing Calcula F11N. AMC II, the final computations will be based on AMC III consistent with the option chosen. 6. Continued by performing the flood routing analysis along the I -10 Channel. The program controls utilized are provided as follows: • Use 5 -day selected county design storm pattern and 5- minute interval for unit hydrograph analysis • Did not use Depth -Area adjustments on a "user- specified model network link basis." • The I -10 Channel is routed as Stream 1. The hydrograph developed for each drainage area is assigned Stream 2 or above and are added to the Channel hydrograph as the model is routed downstream. • The lag times for the drainage areas are derived from the Rational Method analysis TCs and multiplied by 0.8 before conversion to hours. • It is assumed that no base flow takes place. • Watershed areas entered are Total Areas, not Effective Areas, as computed by the Rational Method Analysis. • The unit - hydrograph S -graph is based on Valley - Developed. • The Area - Averaged Loss Rate, F m , and the Area- Averaged Low Loss Fraction, Y Js derived from above. • The depth -area adjustment factors are automatically computed. - • The watershed point rainfall values were based on the 5 minute, 30 minute, 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour, and the 24 hour isohyetals as depicted in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. See appendix 13.1. The average 1 hour, 6 hour, and 24 hour watershed point rainfall values were read from the corresponding isohyetal maps for the Valley area. These point rainfall values were not area- averaged. The 3 hour point rainfall value was interpolated between the given 1 hour and 6 -hour point rainfall value using Figure E -8, the "Area- Averaged Mass Rainfall Plotting Sheet." Similarly, the 5 minute and 30 minute point rainfall value were determined from "Intensity- Duration Curves Calculation Sheet ", Figure D -3, utilizing a graph slope equal to 0.60. The unadjusted 5 and 30 minutes point rainfall values are 0.53 and 1.08 inches, respectively. These two values were then adjusted by 82 percent for depth area using Figure E -4, "Design Storm Depth Area Curves." The 82 percent is the percent of point precipitation for the project area of 4,517 acres (7.06 square miles). The following point rainfalls were used in the development of the unit hydrograph routing: Table 1 -3 Point Rainfall Values Duration Point Rainfall Inches (in) Millimeters (mm) 5 minutes 0.44 11.18 30 minutes 0.90 22.86 1 hour 1.40 3 5.5 6 Y .-T6014011DocslReportslStudyCDl Pohtme 1 Pr;wod- 7 117112003 2:44 PM Saved: 1 7 or9 F30YLE Rational Method and Flood Routing Calculat 3 hour 2.50 63.50 6 hour 3.60 91.44 24 hour 8.50 215.90 The 24 -hour storm unit - interval models is based on 5- minutes. The Convex Channel Routing is the method used along I -10 Channel with user - specified routing coefficients. The 1 -10 Channel hydrograph is added to the hydrograph of San Sevaine Channel at the downsteam end using the stream hydrograph from node 2828 to node 2834 from the following study done by Boyle Engineering Corporation: a. San Sevaine Channel Hydrology Study, for San Bernardino Flood Control District, dated May 1995. Author: Ted Hromadka. See appendix 13.3 for further discussion on the background on these calculations. 7. Confluence of I -10 Channel (A and C areas) and future Fontana Avenue storm drain (B areas): The English version of the B -area flood routing computation was exported in a peak flow rate table (B -US l.txt) which was subsequently imported into the English version of the I -10 Channel flood routing model at the confluence. Code 10 was used to export the B -area flow and to import it as stream number 2. The total discharge from the future Fontana Avenue storm drain (B areas) is 3,101 cfs (88 cros). The metric version of the B area flood routing stream hydrograph is manually converted from the English version, using code 11 at node 470 (See "Flood Routing C Input Summary — AES ", appendix 13.3). The hydrograph data is first exported for the first 24 hours, but due to limitations, only the data up to 20.67 hours (100 data pairs) was imported to the I -10 Channel flood routing model for the stream confluence. The flood routing analysis shows that the 100 -year storm runoff discharge at the downstream end of the I -10 Channel is 193 cubic meters per second (cros) [6,866 cubic feet per second (cfs)]. The time to peak at the different stream confluences occurs at approximately 16.5 hours into the design storm. Travel Time issue Section D.I I of the Hydrology Manual recommends that the points of concentration be selected so that the travel time will not exceed 3 minutes, and 5 minutes for TC value of 30 minutes, and 60 minutes, respectively. This issue only applied to the street flow process codes of area B -2. Many subareas that use the street flow process have travel times that exceed the travel time requirement. Rerouting the street flow calculations to meet the 3 minute limit travel criteria will only result in subdividing the flow path further but will not change the aggregate travel time to significantly change the results of discharge estimation. A test calculation was done and submitted to Michael Fox in a response letter to review comments, dated May 8, 2003. Redoing the calculations in the test run did not significantly change the travel times of the subarea used for street flows processes as follows. For example, subarea from 20 to 30 (within drainage area 20 to 30) consists of 8.91 acres is computed using the street flow code. The computed travel time is 4.50 minutes, which exceeds the 3- minute maximum requirement as identified above. The time of concentration (TC) at the point of concentration (node 30) is 17.00 minutes with a 100 -year intensity of 3.091 inches/hour. To reduce the travel time to 3 minutes Y: IF60140I IDocslReportslStudyCDlVolzrme 1 of 414ppendie AAppendizA- 6Vriteiip.doc Page 8 of 9 Printed: 1112112003 2.44 PM Saved: 1112112003 2:43 PM F30YLE Rational Method and Flood Routine Calculations C V maximum would require that the area be subdivided; in this case, we could probably divided it in half and conform to this requirement. But regardless of how many times the subarea is subdivided, once all the time travel times are added to the upstream TC (node 20), the downstream TC (node 30) should be equivalent to the original TC (node 30) of 17 minutes. Likewise, the intensity will be equivalent. Even if there is a difference, it should be insignificant compared to the TCs and intensities of the overall updated 4500 acre watershed draining to I -10 Channel. The ultimate goal of this project is to determine the discharges along I -10 Channel. M A Y: IF601401OocslReportslStudyMVolume I of4uppendi .YAMppendixA- Writeup.doc Page 9 of Printed: 1112112003 2:44 PM Saved: 1112112003 2:43 PM /30YLE Al Summary of 100 Year Storm Rational Method Analysis (from upstream to downstream end) Rational Method Estimates Area Designation Approximate Station (meters) Side of inlet relative to I -10 channel Location of channel inlet Rational Method TC (min.) Total Area (ac.) (sq. km.) Al -1 187 +00 North 213 m east of Sierra Avenue 15.31 11.28 0.04565 Al 185 +60 North Sierra Avenue 14.59 127.88 0.51751 Cl- 185 +GO 3 , : .. - South Sletra Avenue.: -17,89 6.4.9 0:02626 A2 181 +40 North Juniper Avenue 17.65 95.94 0.38826 C2 • I B� +A S South 8S m east o Juniper'Avenue . ":. " 42 11.0 0Q4456 A3 177 +40 North Cypress Avenue 20.21 91.12 0.36875 A4 173 +40 North Oleander Avenue 18.34 119.81 0.48485 A5 168 +50 North Citrus Avenue 18.24 129.10 0.52245 X58 +5.0 `; x . , .:.; Sou th Av Citrus enue. A :. 64.78. ;` : 21:55. 0.087?:. A6 164 +40 North Catawba Avenue 16.04 137.37 0.55592 A6 -2 160 +30 North Poplar Avenue 19.52 35.40 0.14326 A6 -3 156 +10 North Elm Avenue 22.27 31.24 0.12642 55 South IQ 7 west of Elm :A.venue 59.1 "8 30: 15. A6 -4 151 +70 North Beech Avenue 25.19 27.89 0.11287 B1 147 +70 North Hemlock Avenue 23.52 1,894.85 7.66819 A7 143 +70 North Live Oak Avenue 24.60 497.77 2.0 144 .. ".i, - , x. .... 138 +: S© } dvYOa 91 rr1:.. V fRe ( -AVe 89., 77 .p : ;. ,' „ South ;11 ni "east "of.Cherry 'yen e. _: 11: :.:3 "t3 : :.'n : - 3 , 47 , ,.0:0144 A8 135 +40 North Cherry Avenue 22.08 614.89 2.48837 South Cherry. Avenue, A8 -1 131 +30 North Almond Avenue 39.28 99.681 0.40339 CB ".. 129 ±50 °`:f§ , South 07 in west of Almcand: avenue 22: ;, 09511,1: A8 -2 127 +20 North Banana Avenue 22.74 124.71 0.50468 G9 12 +9Q South 1,43 ii o f , 0100 - Avenue 2.1.96: `: 5,84: 0 363. CIO - 124 1"0 ` . ,�; ` .: South 7,6 .m east_ of Calabash Aveinie 11 2:90 020117 4 , A8 -3 123 +20 North Calabash Avenue 20.94 125.60 0.50829 C11, ` . 121 ±60 • - South 168. m ve t af Calabash`Ave4u . 13:02 ° 3.89 0.01574° A8 -4 118 +90 North Mulberry Avenue 27.02 185.56 0.75093 C 12 118 +94`: ":, ;,- : '' South. Mu1l�eriy Avenue: _ 4Q 5: 5b 0.0225n . C13 l 1`8-i Mulberry Avenue 1 3,.3`8 8 33 013371 -I 164® South 244; rit west of Mulberry ,Ayilrttii : 1.9:67a : 0.0709$ Subtotal North Area: 4,350.09 17.60419 Subtotal South Area: 167.21 0.67667 Total 4,517.30 18.28086 Y:\F60\ 401 \Calcs\Hydrology\RatMetTC - Est( Bill)\[ RatMethodTCEstimates.xls]Summary 10Q ■ffliiiimmirs. 9as - ''''-ii■ . 116 --- --.04,1 1mm i n i 1 • i 90 a - 1 16-HOUR : _ , ul cc 4- z - , ca. >80 . c..2 . . . cc o z o • 1 .- • 70 .-. ......,......... . I— 5 ,• - Lu cc . . a. • 60 \ . ..-;., -.• z , . 5 ... , a. • 0 - • . . 1-- z 50 . 1. . . . , • . . la - c.) cc. a. " . • 40 1-HOUR ' • . ' - • , . 30-M1NUTE 30 1 5-M1NUTE ' -. - 20 - - 0 I 50 100 . 150 AREA (SQUARE MILES) DESIGN STORM -- SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY : DEPTH AREA . •• HYDROLOGY MANUAL - CURVES • ._, 4 N . 7 1 -7 R7W R tE R6W 1 I R W I j� a W E.° y R2W I _ xp I T - I T 5' ;:- Rl W R2= 1 , � NR _ I ' ! I 1 1 I I o/ ! I I �• ! r 'L-�- I N I y I I II I 1I -�fC. ! 4 1.7 •lu s I to n i2 I I . 1- • I, � ,+ ` � e d ! - 'Y' -1-- 1 —I �,° - - I - -I - - I - ' � REQI � - I � 1 T IT -+ - �., - ,•11 - - � .� I- i I q I - � �, ' .L_ I I I i I • '1 i I_ LT -- I- ` pE[. 4,ds• p / h Ff. - i `. .�� y - % -f T - I - 1 4 / � - �- i - i �•• I I I I ! -I -f t<ti ° „ =� . },, tY� i r � �,L9 / � :`� ' ���e� ! ' "_ .t s` �I s� 1 1s z I zz •i• I I,. °' .� L S'?'�y4. KEP - ° __ _ r' . - - - . - I - 9F �`! _� r E / T 3 N L ; 1 � � Y ti ''o., � � � j �' - ± •--�� %: - I -- -- - ` - r -- f t y� ' 2 _ ,` ! J) I . - ' I I I I 'j y - - ^Fe, � - - � - • � � _ •'wF E � .aL - _ ' - � - I ` / � - • - 1 r _ ` / - - / - MT SAN TONIO 1 Oq I, I = 12.0 • 4. '� ! ' /! I” I s P S I "pi ' 1 9x E I Rt� � - R . I � I - -- - ,y o< � I r �{ S r l -,.; p. � : I I _. - Y - 2 �/ �E:S' ' - � i d` ' � 4 �s I • I � .. - � /`�/I 9 ,r � < � *� ~ - lam I � I I - �� •-! � •'� .- - Z _ � � - _- y � ` -^_ - -� •mo -�_ - '{� � -_ - - \I ~` �� I - L AROWM 4 ! R I -• • ` I ` : • i • " I- t- I M10 % . rf �L •`P �I.E \� '` � - -- � -S EE =i �` _ VIE - � _y •.S � ��P4LDWih L _�� _ T - - I - Q- -L TL r - I I i - �: I ^•. •�I. �•EE. '� " I I. !=. _ %T ol- L�1p •__ ,+ \- - IA BAG L _ _ - ' ER� � °15T2N - 1 'c�niM _ 1 .% I I I �i , I.t l o ' ^• i �ySS.YY \ - I +,�E �.^ •6 C ` • N + - •� -� _ .- C i STLINE - - ,� 4 c.E[. - . - ' re - 1 � % 1 2.TC A ON6 ,\ j O I.� I��,• ,IeT i 1 "}f • -'rte I.T -i`.- IVK.LYE AKE X444 ((T , f - t • aEV Ids of 2 `p ' ` ! �_ v � _ �o -1. C E I I t E 2 I - t -tit -+ -1 jf ••Ia 'L - -1 - -' - - - - I y I t I Fl 2-3 N . • o I - �. V 1.5 - 4 R - - ! c•E I I I I ARLOAF I Y �— _ ` - : - - J zA : . S )F.. _ r - -; ?�. y . I — — fir _ _ 1- _ , , I • - - I _ -- I � _ I t T I' N FLAts -~`•,\ i I fl ai l �� DAM I.t , .:tom ruew ; ` o. • I t {— —t - -� - -' — — - ■■ _ fi — 1.4 _. ,, - — — .— _,• °� � ``' =r \T�gEE =T C if ` -- r + "I I • .�;lh: << TAN ; f t A „� `=�' - - - �- - \� -- t - -r-1T \'I -�- - i I I ``A .' I rj AL' ♦ I, .' I . "yl�p, ' ���o `, .•*'�: - '� C - il r - - _ .r- ' -�r�, _ \ ;.- - /\ L \' j t- _ . . _ v� - 1 1 I 1 - UPC LLAREYON T • 1 _ _ ,* - CL�11 __ ' - 'LULA - •T • A y � _ �} ,� ,1Na W45R - � � $��+ ' °'�r 1. - _? ` .:1 $aH1G - �- T .�� _ , / - - - -' y � / 1, • l MT i ONTA logl:i• I COLTON TIS oll Is REDLANDS aro" ..E � •E4K I I. - !� 1 , - _ ^Q \� - r; � I • _ i - - _._ I y' LOYA LINDA _ _ _ r � ,� -'.:- - Y - - -'`� E� -� - LI.fi -I -� �\ I 1 � -v�_� .�.. I•r4 I 1 1.2 I c•,' ,, ,,'= aTroRE !`` ' _ _ _ - p vn • >vtDn 1 ° *-'.° - - -. __ _ ._ V - a__ I I.t f' - I. - r o - I•� GRAN! TERRfE t E � • - :oE x X r I : a • \ I « y I I i I� °C 0.GC�� I CH i I 1 's • o - • _ _ - - ---. .o cp t t o .yp� _ 1 1 • }- _ &AN I BERNA DIMO OUN1M COUNTT -T2s - -1. II �, 1 �,, • I- ER.SIDE - _ - 1--- 4 -._ P , r�Er •vC. - -- _ —'� — - - ; ! J= � FVi\ SPI{ — — - .I _ RE ty ON •'.• '�� ,fE �I _ I �,• ! I .� R4W ! ' °115 R3 R2W \ •�D Rt - SAN KRNARINN6 COUNTY F TRi T - IRA - — - — - -- ! - R5 VALLEY AREA ! I f OD CONTROL' TSs — — I •`! SIN REDUCED DRAWING - — I - - - - - -- - - - - SCALE 1 = 4—MILES Yloo ISOHYETALS 1.3 -10.0 Y`EA-R -- HOU BASED ON U:SD itO.A�A .C, . ALA= Y; IRS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY •:r94S '� — - -! - - - - - - - A - ,' 1 30 — — L G T APPROVED BT - • s I I w ••i- R w ; HY DROLOGY MANUAL � ��' - - - - - - -- - -- -' F N61 R •Ef 171 4,*C5 16 13 e.cr 0 T 4 —j SAN AhlT N L L� 2N _�N 8 1�7 EAWI -5A 4. T2 N / (PEAK —4 NI. BAR LANE -4 L-a T - . 1 —N 4 � _T — I � -- I — .�L, — - -- )' ��t.':, ='�:; 0 1, w�# 4 ., ! � :� I. i L� . � � - Y ~ �.� z� �, — �, i �_ .�— ! � . ,�, / . �`\ I �,��� E 4. — f 1 4 LO A UPL N D 1 1 --4 CLAW N0 )-T DIINO DI 0 A YASI + TIS SA AM� • ONTARIO 5 L RED L ANDS TIS LON CRE -46 A 5. L �v CHINO wiv m c 9, ATY I 4 -4, 4 T2S • RIV�R!IJOE C 4) Rzt: i. — fff] - —f "" I -- �— — _ — — ! I T ER IDE 3. + T 4 -4- V R2W + ° S RI + T 'SAN BERNARDINO COLINTY' 4- I FLOOD -CONTROL DISTRICT ' . FLOOD CONTROL -R5W TS I BASIN AREA f - ING VALLEY I T 1 0AI –.- REDUCED T 130HYETALS SCALE 1 4 MILES I-00,YEAR H Xi' OUR c A 17 30 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY "SAM ON U.&D.C_ KOAA.ArLAS 1, 1173 RZ 8 W I R 4. R6W my HYDROLOGY MANUAL W 4 - -4 U)CERW I I I— N IXLLEY" A.w L 7ido 2. E T— SUMMIT A Ig I 5 4 — •Ef 171 4,*C5 16 13 e.cr 0 T 4 —j SAN AhlT N L L� 2N _�N 8 1�7 EAWI -5A 4. T2 N / (PEAK —4 NI. BAR LANE -4 L-a T - . 1 —N 4 � _T — I � -- I — .�L, — - -- )' ��t.':, ='�:; 0 1, w�# 4 ., ! � :� I. i L� . � � - Y ~ �.� z� �, — �, i �_ .�— ! � . ,�, / . �`\ I �,��� E 4. — f 1 4 LO A UPL N D 1 1 --4 CLAW N0 )-T DIINO DI 0 A YASI + TIS SA AM� • ONTARIO 5 L RED L ANDS TIS LON CRE -46 A 5. L �v CHINO wiv m c 9, ATY I 4 -4, 4 T2S • RIV�R!IJOE C 4) Rzt: i. — fff] - —f "" I -- �— — _ — — ! I T ER IDE 3. + T 4 -4- V R2W + ° S RI + T 'SAN BERNARDINO COLINTY' 4- I FLOOD -CONTROL DISTRICT ' . FLOOD CONTROL -R5W TS I BASIN AREA f - ING VALLEY I T 1 0AI –.- REDUCED T 130HYETALS SCALE 1 4 MILES I-00,YEAR H Xi' OUR c A 17 30 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY "SAM ON U.&D.C_ KOAA.ArLAS 1, 1173 RZ 8 W I R 4. R6W my HYDROLOGY MANUAL EwR ERWIIJ e\ -}D4 RCfTLIN` I .AN'ONCA \ K -� f•" RLD DR1v ' � IVILLANC T1"' - veAN ��i' t ' "E — _ [ f — — °cn• $--. — - � )\ �' - - ='' -- i -- -- r` - � 18.0 ! i s ow 4'I. — .. \ p I• \ 1 J r _ I \ .., ' l ti-•.r •R V S_ !� I I c`1i / I \ I /- I �.$ r `1 • a . " �`� y h "' RU`IIIND smINGS l I I / ARLOAP — :.. . - \ ' �' �W ! I" t *. - I ��' , w \ I = - -1 s �a°c'' 1 ! r o f-� / -; 1— i. _ r rl:- \�•/ / — —1. c R - EEK 112A 1. < � r " 120 T — — — — — �i— -- ". Q r9 Gz 1 i { I :'7 \\ DAM 1. \ 1 I ''a .~. .:�Y.D.DYE j •' I ' E� I I �f ` I `j }- 'K' I '10.o l I -, I i M, � C • ?yu•ru t I l >, �� � ANr Er AL TA LN T 'i 1 I I �tZ�`✓ _ I NL N , �' r - - r 4 --- -- I I „ h-- _-r7 �r I / /\ - - I; UP4 SAN I p°LL1R I� I I - •" I r I _ ',�' _ Ir - 's' :" I ;' I .. �,1 .,R i IF.r I r I L / I j I I. I. cLAeEroflT Roi RDDaf Ro. R Da A LT O �. :000A ND� =�-w R TA N A — _ aNa 3 s' was a \ : 11 SAIN TIS E 3 "E�•.RDwo - _ ONTARIO�I '7.0L OLT er NNE orc - - — I - r T ` . R E D L �' —; 1- I - - - — - - A CREST 011E /.:' .�— — Raln 'I FTDN _`: .•' r ' l. �'' I `'.. — i. JI,O ELY I I 1 I I � � _ # 1:: ,h,�5 - ' I. I r• 1. ,i .' e 1 a[ _ \ = � EM w _ T '° �^� I G, t • I is + +1 - '°UkUP - -' K1P _ ! �../ a•RTOx I I I I ::h:..11.:1::•i4vD I 'c YUCAI A r I \ I I 1 ! / I A'' iI 4 TER IUD I / T 1 T vfRa1DE •vf _ }� ` �} — _ IRAN 7 i 5 C N 1 N O }— _ 4 +� < i.— � � — - SAN aERNARDINO OUNIIY • ^ RIV4R3IDE COUNTY "' I I I -I T2S — - — — �` l I 7 i I . .1 .- TE r ROB­ R 4 W i " °Ii5 I R s.o' I R 2 W \, '• o /R I W - " s r SAN' BERNARDINO_ •C6Lt4T.Y FLOOD CONTRO :DISTRICT" 7. T PRADG / T7 ,IFLGDD CONTROL` / • REDUCED D�CAWING VALL:EY�.Af£A T3_ - K - i CCALc - IL tSrJli1ETALS i DANA HOUR � l 4; MI LES BASED OH _ • � � C U:SD.C, IIOYtA . AT L -A5 , 2'19T3 „ I C A Am"q>e BY ]4<5 I R g 1 W tZ C1� ---I- !"f F 1 1Pr)i ( )I1y IYILKIE i'Al r.st LLICERNE VALLEY '45 'R I 8W — I — R7 ICFAN Ro — ° ;3C I ° + R5 1 W , 1 / I _ 1 R - -,: W. I I I I ! 1: O. 2 I I I I - ' I ! RIW � -- ' I Yfi 1 . RZE 35 RI. T4N — pSpERIA L / _ - I I I EST NMTT I ) ; o I4.5 I I ' I f I i i rc ,I v.LLL[ uRO4xY I E'} 50 - . I l.��I � "'. I I : •� ? . p I I I \ .I � � I I - s�� �i I• '— - r � 7 \ s Io Iz I ± ". -..� 0 6. ,` I l 1 SUM t- M .i. ! I �- -- I� -ti. RA77LESN KE - / �',� ' cJ �/ ' Lw� ' �r 1 °�{ I I'L.0 0 I 3� ^c`, II I �I •� y.'o I �• _ 7 1. 16 : _ I I 1 I 4 I D ".f c am•, -JMTN— /" ./ , .— 4. \ _ - 2 - / - z ✓') , s" 19 -12.0 r _{ � I I >xne I - a ' J + r I I I �� ) x e y .2 I I— 1&0 7 r � ..I I � '� ' 29 � � — I 6 I 25 I•c-- �3Y1lIMIT •� y �H� I y u � ! \ � "' I ` 1 / �I - � � 4-- I —i-4 � 18.0 L 0 ��. — I -� - t- �RJ - t — — ` o•c . I / 1 i,c � — ROR .,Er � 19 1 —� L• I — . 14. I i SAN AN — ° 18.0 \ \ 1 IDWIN L L ARROWMEAD �4 1 •� I ^DECD EwR ERWIIJ e\ -}D4 RCfTLIN` I .AN'ONCA \ K -� f•" RLD DR1v ' � IVILLANC T1"' - veAN ��i' t ' "E — _ [ f — — °cn• $--. — - � )\ �' - - ='' -- i -- -- r` - � 18.0 ! i s ow 4'I. — .. \ p I• \ 1 J r _ I \ .., ' l ti-•.r •R V S_ !� I I c`1i / I \ I /- I �.$ r `1 • a . " �`� y h "' RU`IIIND smINGS l I I / ARLOAP — :.. . - \ ' �' �W ! I" t *. - I ��' , w \ I = - -1 s �a°c'' 1 ! r o f-� / -; 1— i. _ r rl:- \�•/ / — —1. c R - EEK 112A 1. < � r " 120 T — — — — — �i— -- ". Q r9 Gz 1 i { I :'7 \\ DAM 1. \ 1 I ''a .~. .:�Y.D.DYE j •' I ' E� I I �f ` I `j }- 'K' I '10.o l I -, I i M, � C • ?yu•ru t I l >, �� � ANr Er AL TA LN T 'i 1 I I �tZ�`✓ _ I NL N , �' r - - r 4 --- -- I I „ h-- _-r7 �r I / /\ - - I; UP4 SAN I p°LL1R I� I I - •" I r I _ ',�' _ Ir - 's' :" I ;' I .. �,1 .,R i IF.r I r I L / I j I I. I. cLAeEroflT Roi RDDaf Ro. R Da A LT O �. :000A ND� =�-w R TA N A — _ aNa 3 s' was a \ : 11 SAIN TIS E 3 "E�•.RDwo - _ ONTARIO�I '7.0L OLT er NNE orc - - — I - r T ` . R E D L �' —; 1- I - - - — - - A CREST 011E /.:' .�— — Raln 'I FTDN _`: .•' r ' l. �'' I `'.. — i. JI,O ELY I I 1 I I � � _ # 1:: ,h,�5 - ' I. I r• 1. ,i .' e 1 a[ _ \ = � EM w _ T '° �^� I G, t • I is + +1 - '°UkUP - -' K1P _ ! �../ a•RTOx I I I I ::h:..11.:1::•i4vD I 'c YUCAI A r I \ I I 1 ! / I A'' iI 4 TER IUD I / T 1 T vfRa1DE •vf _ }� ` �} — _ IRAN 7 i 5 C N 1 N O }— _ 4 +� < i.— � � — - SAN aERNARDINO OUNIIY • ^ RIV4R3IDE COUNTY "' I I I -I T2S — - — — �` l I 7 i I . .1 .- TE r ROB­ R 4 W i " °Ii5 I R s.o' I R 2 W \, '• o /R I W - " s r SAN' BERNARDINO_ •C6Lt4T.Y FLOOD CONTRO :DISTRICT" 7. T PRADG / T7 ,IFLGDD CONTROL` / • REDUCED D�CAWING VALL:EY�.Af£A T3_ - K - i CCALc - IL tSrJli1ETALS i DANA HOUR � l 4; MI LES BASED OH _ • � � C U:SD.C, IIOYtA . AT L -A5 , 2'19T3 „ I C A Am"q>e BY ]4<5 I R g 1 W tZ C1� ---I- !"f F 1 1Pr)i ( )I1y IYILKIE i'Al AREA A2 * * * * * * **** ** * *:F * ** * * ** **** ** * ** ** * * * **** **** * * * ***** * * * *** * ***** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 1 IS CODE = 8.1 »» >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW «<< . MAINLINE Tc(MIN) 17.13 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.970 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): • DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL A 11.22 .80 .10 52 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = .80 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 11.22 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 29.19 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 66.31 AREA- AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .15 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = .80 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = .19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 77.15 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 168.29 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 4.6 • »» >COMPUTE BOX -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA ««< »»>USING USER - SPECIFIED BOX SIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1103.30 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1099.40 • FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 372.00 MANNING'S N = .013 GIVEN BOX BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 4.00 GIVEN BOX HEIGHT(FEET) = 3.50 ASSUME FULL - FLOWING BOX BOX -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 12.02 BOX - FLOW(CFS) = 168.29 BOX -FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .52 Tc(MIN.) = 17.65 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 8.1 » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 17.65 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2.917 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR). (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL A 3.77 .80 .10 52 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) _ .80 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.77 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.63 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 70.08 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = .15 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = .80 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = .18 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 80.92 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 174.79 *******-*************************************** * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 110.00 IS CODE = 1 » »>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE : TIME OF CONCENTRATION (MIN.) = 17.65 Y :T60\4011CalcslivdralogyiRarMet (rev 092302)1A2.RMA Page 8 of12 Printed: 9/21/2002 2:25 PM Saved: 0/0/0000 0:00 AM r AREA A8 • SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 _ STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 30.90 ** *STREET FLOWING FULL * ** STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ .55 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 14.35 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.37 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.87 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 4.00 Tc(MIN.) = 13.32 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.478 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL A 7.56 .80 .10 52 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) _ .80 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 7.56 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 23.12 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 12.62 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) _ .08 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = .80 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.62 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 38.60 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) _ .59 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 15.94 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.70 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 2.17 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 80.00 IS CODE = 6.1 » »>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » »STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1154.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 1150.70 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 333.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 8.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 54.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 36.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = - 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020 , **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 38.60 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .61 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 22.54 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.66 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 2.23 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.51 Tc(MIN.) = 14.84 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.261 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .00 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 12.62 AREA- AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .08 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = .80 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = .10 TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 12.62 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 38.60 NOTE: PEAK FLOW RATE DEFAULTED TO UPSTREAM VALUE Y. •1F6014011CalcslEvdrologylRatMet (rev 092302)'A8.doc Page 8 of51 Printed: 9,21i2002 4:58 PM Saved: 9/20/2002 10:09 PM F31:34.1L6 r • a AREA A8 • END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = .61 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 22.54 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.66 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 2.23 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 110.00 TO NODE 80.00 IS CODE = 1 » »>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE« «< »»>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES « «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 14.84 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.26 AREA- AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) _ .08 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = .80 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = .10 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 12.62 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 12.62 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 38.60 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 68.51 23.60 2.468 .80(" .16) .20 33.0 10.00 • 1 65.65 27.37 2.258 .80( .17) .22 35.0 50.00 2 38.60 14.84 3.261 .80( .08) .10 12.6 90.00 • RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 97.49 23.60 2.468 .80( .14) .17 45.6 10.00 2 92.09 27.37 2.258 .80( .15) .19 47.6 50.00 3 96.45 14.84 3.261 .80( .13) .16 33.3 90.00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 97.49 Tc(MIN.) _ `v 23.60 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 45.58 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .14 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = .80 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = .17 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 47.59 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE = 4.1 _ »»> COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING USER - SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (NEW ELEMENT) ««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1144.70 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1131.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 675.00 MANNING'S N = .013 . ASSUME FULL - FLOWING PIPELINE PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 13.79 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE - FLOW(CFS) = 97.49 Y - 1F6014011CalcslHvdrologyIRatMet (rev 092302)1A8.doc Page 9 of 51 Printed: 9/21/2002 4:58 PM Saved: 9/20/2002 10:09 PM F3C2YLE AREA A8 PIPE TRAVEL TIME (MIN.) = .82 Tc(MIN.) = 24.42 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 120.00 TO NODE 120.00 IS CODE = 8.1 »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW ««< MAINLINE Tc(MIN) = 24.42 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 2.418 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP ACRES) (INCH /HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL A 11.91 .80 .10 52 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = .80 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 11.91 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 25.07 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES} = 57.49 AREA- AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) _ .12 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) _ .80 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = .16 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 59.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 118.66 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 118.66 24.42 2.418 .80( .12) .16 57.5 10.00 2 111.51 28.23 2.216 .80( .13) .17 59.5 50.00 3 123.83 15.66 3.157 .80( .12) .15 45.2 90.00 NEW PEAK FLOW DATA ARE: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ X 123.83 Tc(MIN.) = 15.66 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .12 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) = .80 AREA - AVERAGED Ap = .15 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 45.25 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO 120.00 IS CODE = 1 »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE « «< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 15.66 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 3.16 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = .12 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH /HR) _ .80 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = .15 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 45.25 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 59.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 123.83 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 130.00 TO NODE 140.00 IS CODE = 2.1 » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS « «< »USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITI_AL SUBAREA« INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FE -ET) = 892.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 1157.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 1142.60 Tc = K *[(LENGTH ** 3.00) /(ELEVATION CHANGE)] ** .20 Y•1F60\401\Ca1csiHvdrolo -y Rativlet (rev 092302)t48.doc - Page 10 of51 Printed: 9/21/2002 4:58 PM Saved: 9/20/2002 10:09 PM 131=15'1LE AREA A8 • COMMERCIAL A 6.14 .80 .10 52 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH /HR) = .80 . SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = .10 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 6.14 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.48 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 102.20 AREA - AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) _ .23 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .80 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = .29 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 103.23 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 210.88 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 570.00 TO NODE 470.00 IS CODE = 11 » »> CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN- STREAM MEMORY « « < ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q T� Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 210.88 22.80 2.520 .80( .23) .29 102.2 480.00 2 204.74 24.23 2.429 .80( .23) .28 103.2 550.00 ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 801.97 21.27 2.627 .80( .19) .24 366.1 90.00 2 802.01 21.30 2.624 .80( .19) .24 366.5 320.00 3 799.28 23.47 2.476 .80( .20) .25 389.9 270.00 4 790.81 25.32 2.366 .80( .20) .25 406.1 130.00 ''`L' 5 784.65 26.68 2.293 .80( .21) .26 417.6 360.00 6 778.00 27.22 2.266 .80( .21) .26 419.6 230.00 7 734.37 30.47 2.117 .80( .21) .26 426.9 10.00 8 719.37 31.60 2.072 .80( .21) .26 428.6 190.00 9 678.79 34.62 1.961 .80( .21) .26 430.0 50.00 ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** • STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(FI) Ap Ae HEADWATER NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HR) (INCH /HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 1011.00 22.80 2.520 .80( .20) .26 484.9 480.00 2 1000.53 24.23 2.429 .80( .21) .26 499.8 550.00 3 1007.89 21.27 2.627 .80( .20) .25 461.4 90.00 4 1008.05 21.30 2.624 .80( .20) .25 462.0 320.00 5 1007.30 23.47 2.476 .80( .20) .26 492.5 270.00 6 989.67' 25.32 2.366 .80( .21) .26 ' 509.4 130.00 7 976.74 26.68 2.293 .80( .21) .26 520.8 360.00 8 967.55 27.22 2.266 .80( .21) .26 522.9 230.00 9 910.15 30.47 2.117 .80( .21) .26 530.2 10.00 10 890.90 31.60 2.072 .80( .21) .26 531.8 190.00 . 11 840.06 34.62 1.961 .80( .21) .27 533.3 50.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 533.28 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 1011.00 Tc(MIN.) = 22.802 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 484.89 AREA- AVERAGED Fm(INCH /HR) = .20 AREA- AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = .80 AREA- AVERAGED Ap = .26 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 533.28 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 570.00 TO NODE 470.00 IS CODE = 12 Y:\ F6014011Calcs1Ffvdrology1RatMet (rev 092302)IA8.doc Page 45 of51 Printed: 9/21/1001 4:58 PM Saved: 9/20/1002 10:09 PM 8 'LE