Agenda Packet 2006-08-29 SP (2) CITY OF
City Council � ' � � � � ' Agenda
.;
Tony Ferrara Mayor Steven Adams City Manager
Jim Guthrie Mayor Pro Tem Timothy J. Carmel City Attorney
Jim Dickens Council Member �� Kelly Wetmore Ciry Clerk
�'• CALIFORNIA
Joe Costello Council Member �_ 9 � `
Ed Arnold Council Member
AGENDA SUMMARY
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2006
7:00 P.M.
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. FLAG SALUTE
4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present
issues, thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda.
Comments should be limited to those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City
Council. The Brown Act restricts the Council from taking formal action on matters not
published on the agenda. In response to your comments, the Mayor or presiding
Council Member may:
♦ Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
♦ A Council Member may state a desire to meet with you.
♦ It may be the desire of the Council to place your issue or matter on a future
Council agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Council:
♦ Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
♦ Your comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not directed
to individual Council members.
♦ Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member or
member of the audience shall not be permitted.
AGENDA SUMMARY—AUGUST 29, 2006
PAGE 2
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
The following routine items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group.
The recommendations for each item are noted. Any member of the public who wishes
to comment on any Consent Agenda item may do so at this time. Any Council
Member may request that any item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to permit
discussion or change the recommended course of action. The City Council may
approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion.
5.a. Consideration of Temporarv Use Permit 06-018 Authorizinq Closure of Citv
Streets and Use of Citv Propertv for the 69 Annual Arrovo Grande Vallev
Harvest Festival, Fridav and Saturdav, September 22-23. 2006 (STRONG)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution authorizing closure of City streets and use
of City property for the 69�h annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest Festival.
5.b. Consideration of Aqreement with Bob Murrav & Associates for Director of
Buildinq and Fire Recruitment (ADAMS)
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with
Bob Murray & Associates to provide consultant services to coordinate the recruitment
process for the position of Director of Building and Fire and approve an additional
appropriation of$9,000.
6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
6.a. Consideration of Alictnment Alternatives for Newsom Surinas Drainaqe
Improvements (SPAGNOLO)
Recommended Action: 1) Continue the presentation regarding the Newsom Springs
Drainage Improvement project; 2) Select a preferred alignment for the Newsom
Springs drainage improvements; 3) Direct staff to perform additional engineering
analysis and to initiate the environmental review process in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 4) Transfer $25,000 from the Pavement
Management Program Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget; and 5) Direct staff
to work with representatives of the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
to identify and apply for grant funding to further pursue future drainage improvements
to reduce or eliminate impacts on existing agricultural land.
7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
This item gives the Mayor and Council Members the opportunity to present reports to
the other members regarding committees, commissions, boards, or special projects
on which they may be participating.
(a) MAYOR TONY FERRARA:
(1) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments/San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (SLOCOG/SLORTA)
(2) South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)
(3) Other
(b) MAYOR PRO TEM JIM GUTHRIE:
(1) County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
(2) Other
AGENDA SUMMARY —AUGUST 29, 2006
PAGE 3
7. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS (continuedl:
(c) COUNCIL MEMBER JIM DICKENS:
(1) South County Area Transit (SCAT)
(2) South County Youth Coalition
(3) Other
(d) COUNCIL MEMBER JOE COSTELLO:
• (1) Zone 3 Water Advisory Board
(2) Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
(3) Fire Oversight Committee
(4) Fire Consolidation Oversight Committee
(5) Other
(e) COUNCIL MEMBER ED ARNOLD:
(1) Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)
(2) California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)
(3) Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)
(4) Other
8. ADJOURNMENT to the Regular City Council Meeting on Tuesday, September 12,
2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers, 215 E. Branch Street,
Arroyo Grande, CA.
�..�.*.�*...,,�.�,,,.
All staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business referred to on the agenda
are on file in the City Clerk's office and are available for public inspection and reproduction at cost. If
requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a
disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related
modification or accommodation, contact the Administrative Services Department at 805-473-5414 as soon
as possible and at least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.
:t:t**:rk�rt„�+.,-�r,�,�«„
Note: This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Agenda
reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City's website at www.arrovoqrande.orq
5.a.
� pRROyO �
�OINCORPORPTED Z �MEMORANDUM
� o
m
# JULY 10, 10H * �
C4��FORN�P
s
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROB STRONG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOI�?�
BY: JIM BERGMAN, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 06-018
AUTHORIZING CLOSURE OF CITY STREETS AND USE OF CITY
PROPERTY FOR THE 69T" ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE VALLEY
HARVEST FESTIVAL, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22-23,
2006
DATE: AUGUST 29, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing closure of City
streets and use of City property for the 69�' annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest
Festival.
FUNDING:
Application fees for this event have been waived pursuant to Resolution 3760, which
established policies to waive permit application fees for certain annual temporary use
, permit events. A waiver of fees and costs reduces City revenue by approximately
$6,780. Historically, the City has waived fees and costs for this event because the City
has served as an unofficial co-sponsor of the event.
� DISCUSSION:
The 69�' annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest Festival is scheduled for Friday and
Saturday, September 22-23, 2006. Setup will begin on Thursday, September 21, 2006
at 4:00 p.m. and cleanup will end early Sunday morning, September 24, 2006. Activities
at the Festival will include entertainment, food, games and crafts booths, contests and a
parade. These activities are held along Nelson Street, Short Street, Olohan Alley, West
; and East Branch Street and on the Village Green. The parade is held on East Grand
, Avenue and West and East Branch Street between Halcyon Road and Mason Street.
The Festival organizers are requesting the closure of Short Street, West and East
Branch Street (Highway 227), and Olohan Alley for food games and crafts booths and
entertainment; Nelson Street between Bridge Street and Mason Street for the soapbox
derby; and East Grand Avenue at Elm Street, East Branch Street, Halcyon Road from
EI Camino to Fair Oaks, and Mason Street to Nelson Street for the parade.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 06-018 AUTHORIZING CLOSURE
OF CITY STREETS AND USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR THE 69TH ANNUAL
ARROYO GRANDE VALLEY HARVEST FESTIVAL, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY,
� SEPTEMBER 22-23, 2006
AUGUST 29, 2006
PAGE 2
Three years ago, several residents along Nelson Street submitted a letter regarding the
closure of their street for the soa box derb . The did not ob'ect to the closure but
p Y Y 1 �
wanted assurance that they would have vehicular access to their homes during the
closure. The Police Department will have officers on-hand to assist residents who
require ingress and egress to and from their homes on the date of the event.
Included in the attached proposed Resolution is a statement requesting that a banner
for the event be allowed across Highway 227 and that Caltrans consent to closure of
Highway 101 to Mason Street during the Harvest Festival Parade. This language from
the City Council may assist the festival organizers in obtaining a fee waiver from
California Department of Transportation. A Temporary Use Permit will only be issued
upon approval by the City Council of the request for street closures and use of City
' property.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
� -Adopt the attached Resolution;
-Modify and adopt the attached Resolution;
-Do not adopt the attached Resolution; or
-Provide direction to staff.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING TEMPORARY USE
PERMIT 06-018 AUTHORIZING CLOSURE OF CITY
STREETS AND USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR THE 69T"
ANNUAL ARROYO GRANDE VALLEY HARVEST
FESTIVAL, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22-
23, 2006
WHEREAS, organizers of the annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest Festival have
requested closure of City streets and use of City property; and
WHEREAS, organizers of the annual Arroyo Grande Valley Harvest Festival will be
responsible for the removal of all garbage and debris generated by the event.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
does hereby approve Temporary Use Permit 06-018 authorizing the following actions and
use of the following described City property for the Harvest Festival:
1. The City parking area behind City Hall from the entrance of Mason Street and
extending to the area of the Gazebo and Short Street for use between the hours of
5:00 p.m. Thursday, September 21, 2006 until 10:00 a.m. the moming of Sunday,
September 24, 2006.
2. The parking area beginning at the Gazebo and extending westerly to Bridge Street
beginning at 1:00 p.m. Friday, September 22, 2006 until 10:00 a.m. Sunday,
September 24, 2006.
3. The use of the City-owned Nelson Street property adjacent to Mason Street for
various displays and contests from 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Friday, September
22, 2006 and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 23, 2006 for a
variety of activities, contests, and displays.
4. The City's electrical service as needed for the lighting of booths, sound system, and
contests.
5. The use of the Council Chambers on Friday, September 22, 2006 from 3:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. by the Arroyo Grande Masonic Lodge to conduct the Arroyo Grande
Harvest Festival Essay Scholarship Contest.
6. That the northerly half-block portion of Short Street between Nelson Street and the
Swinging Bridge shall be posted "No Parking" from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Saturday, September 23, 2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
7. That request shall be made by the Arroyo Grande Police Department to the State of
California Department of Transportation for permission to close a portion of East
Branch Street, also known as Highway 227, from U.S. Highway 101 to Stanley
� Avenue, and the closure of entrance and exit ramps of U.S. Highway 101 at East
Grand Avenue on Saturday, September 23, 2006 between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 1:00 p.m.
8. That the City Council authorizes closure of a portion of East Branch Street, also
known as Highway 227; from U.S. Highway 101 to Stanley Avenue and the closure
of entrance and exit ramps of U.S. Highway 101 at East Grand Avenue upon
authorization from the State Department of Transportation for said closure.
9. The City Council requests that a banner be allowed across East Branch Street also
known as Highway 227.
10. That the Arroyo Grande Police Department will control traffic along and around the
parade route, and police officers will be stationed to give instructions to motorists on
detouring the parade route; and further, the Police Department will restrict traffic on
Route 227 to one lane and control traffic at the freeway ramps from 9:30 a.m. to
12:00 noon on Saturday, September 23, 2006.
11. That the City Council authorizes closure of Nelson Street between Bridge Street
and Mason Street on Saturday, September 23, 2006 from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
for the "Big Ditch Derby" and other events.
12. Three parking spaces on Mason Street at the Corner of Nelson Street, adjacent to
Nelson Green be reserved for vehicles associated with the petting zoo attraction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following streets shall be closed for the Harvest
Festival Parade on Saturday, September 23, 2006, from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., beginning
at East Grand Avenue and Brisco Road and east to the corner of East Branch and Mason
Streets; and Halcyon Road from EI Camino Real to Fair Oaks Avenue
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the organizers of the Harvest Festival will adhere to
certain requirements and conditions imposed by the City regarding cleanup and traffic
control and all other applicable conditions of the Temporary Use Permit with the above
findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
On motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 29w day of August 2006.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
TONY FERRARA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT 06-018
69T"ANNUAL HARVEST FESTIVAL
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The event shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on
file in the Community Development Department.
3. The event organizers shall comply with all of the- Conditions of Approval for
Temporary Use Permit 06-018.
4. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said
approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall
reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and
attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by
a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,
participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such
participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition.
PARKS, RECREATION AND FACILITIES DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
5. The Harvest Festival Committee is to contact the Parks, Recreation and Facilities
Department no later than September 13, 2006 regarding the number and location
of trash receptacles to be placed in the downtown area.
6. The Harvest Festival Committee is responsible for disposal of its garbage into large
trash containers. The Harvest Festival Committee is responsible for providing a
small cargo dumpster (20 cubic yards) in addition to required trash containers.
7. The Harvest Festival Committee is responsible for providing trashcan liners for all
trash containers.
8. The Harvest Festival Committee is responsible for providing additional restroom
supplies for the festival. Should the City provide these supplies, the Harvest
Festival Committee will reimburse the City for the cost of these supplies and related
staff time.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 6
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
9. Restroom facilities, barricades, signing and detour routes shall be provided by
applicant.
10. The event organizers shall provide (pay for) all traffic barricades and delineators.
The Public Works Department will place the barricades and delineators.
11. The event organizers shall place an advertisement in the September 20, 2006
edition of the Five Cities Times-Press Recorder advising residents of street
closures.
12. The event organizers shall provide a $1,000,000 commercial general liability
insurance policy naming the City as additional insured subject to the approval by
, the City Attorney. Proof of insurance shall be submitted to the Director of
, Administrative Services ten (10) days before the event.
13. The event organizers shall contact the Public Works Department two weeks prior to
the event to check on the status of street maintenance/construction activities. The
, Public Works Department may require the event organizers to provide temporary
construction (orange plastic) fencing around areas designated as potentially
hazardous.
BUILDING AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
14. All food booths (cooking) must comply with the Fire Department guidelines.
15. A handicapped accessible toilet shall be included where other portable toilets are
located.
16. All electrical must be inspected by the Building and Life Safety Division prior to the
event opening.
17. Emergency access must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Building
and Fire.
18. The use of generators must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Building
and Fire.
19. All tape used for marking the booth locations shall be removed by the event
organizers.
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 7
POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
20. The Police Department shall obtain the necessary permit from Caltrans to close a
portion of East Branch Street, also known as Highway 227, from U.S. Highway 101
to Stanley Avenue and the entrance and exit ramps of U.S. Highway 101 at East
Grand Avenue.
5.b.
� pRROYO
p CP
i F INCOHVORATED 92
u °
m
� * .��Y ,o. ,a„ * MEMORANDUM
c4��FORN�P
I
i TO: CITY COUNCIL
� FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER��
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH BOB MURRAY &
ASSOCIATES FOR DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & FIRE
RECRUITMENT
DATE: AUGUST 29, 2006
�
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an
agreement with, Bob Murray & Associates to provide consultant services to
coordinate the recruitment process for the position of Director of Building and
Fire and approve an additional appropriation of$9,000. •
FUNDING:
The total cost of the services will be up to $19,000. Currently, $10,000 is
included in the General Fund for this contract. Therefore, an appropriation of an
additional $9,000 from the unallocated General Fund balance is necessary.
DISCUSSION:
Chief Fibich recently announced that he will be retiring this December. Due to
the importance of this position, the technical expertise necessary in recruiting this
specialized position, and the relationship behveen the City of Arroyo Grande and
Grover Beach departments, staff proposes contracting with an executive search
firm to coordinate the recruitment process. In order to reduce the cost of the
process, staff proposes to perform coordination of the interview and selection
tasks in-house.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was distributed to qualified firms. Three
proposals were received. A committee composed of the City Manager, Human
Resources Manager, Director of Building & Fire, and Grover Beach City Manager
reviewed the proposals and is recommending the contract be awarded to Bob
Murray & Associates.
While all the firms;Nere deemed highly qualified, the proposal from Bob Murray &
Associates was d;termined to be both the lowest cost and to best meet the
S:�Administration\CIT'i MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�Fire Chief Recruitment A�eement
8.29.06.doc
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH BOB MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
FOR DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & FIRE RECRUITMENT
AUGUST 29, 2006
PAGE 2
needs of the City. They have perFormed the largest number of recent Fire Chief
recruitments and coordinated the Grover Beach City Manager recruitment.
Under the agreement, the consultant will interview key individuals from both
Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach, prepare a job description and announcement,
coordinate advertising of the position, perform outreach to potential applicants,
and provide applications to the City. Staff will then conduct interviews, reference
checks and the final selection. In addition to consultant services, the cost
includes advertising in a number of publications and printing of the job
announcement.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
- Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Bob
Murray & Associates to provide consultant services to coordinate
the recruitment process for the position of Director of Building and
Fire and approve an additional appropriation of$9,000;
- Request City Manager to negotiate modifications to the scope of
work for the agreement;
- Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement;
- Provide direction to staff.
S:Wdministration\CITY MANAGER\STEVE\Council Reports�Fire Chief Recruihnent Agreement
8.29.06.doc
% � pRROYQ 6.a.
r O �',p
� INCONPON�TED 9.l
" ^ MEMORANDUM
� � .�. �o, �a„ *
i C4��FORN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER p�
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM
SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST
22, 2006)
DATE: AUGUST 29, 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
A. continue the presentation regarding the Newsom Springs Drainage Improvement
i Project from August 22, 2006 (see Attachment 1 for full staff report); and
B. select a preferred alignment for the Newsom Springs drainage improvements; and
C. direct staff to perform additional engineering analysis and to initiate the
environmental review process in accordance with the California Environmental
' Quality Act (CEQA); and
D. transfer $25,000 from the Pavement Management Program Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) budget; and
E. direct staff to work with representatives of the Coastal San Luis Resource
Conservation District to identify and appiy for grant funding to further pursue future
drainage improvements to reduce or eliminate impacts on existing agricultural land.
FUNDING:
The original funding request for the environmental review process has been revised to
delete the appropriation of$75,000 from the unappropriated General Fund balance. This
amount will be funded from the Newsom Springs capital improvement project budget.
DISCUSSION:
Backqround
At the August 22, 2006 meeting, Council continued the public hearing to discuss the
remainder of the presentation, accept additional public comment, and consider the
recommendations for the Newsom Springs Drainage Improvement Project. Council also
requested that the proposed improvements be overlayed on aerial photos to provide a
better understanding of the visual impacts of the project alternative alignments.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT OF NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 22, 2006)
AUGUST 29, 2006
PAGE 2
It is recommended the Council continue with the presentation regarding the Newsom
Springs Drainage Improvement Project from August 22, 2006.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staffs recommendations;
• Request staff to provide additional analysis;
• Do not approve staffs recommendations;
• Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or
• Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. August 22, 2006 Staff Report
2. Aerial Photos — Newsom Springs Alternative Alignments
PRRDyO
o`� cP ATTACHMENT 1
FINCORVOHATE� 92
° � m MEMORANDUM
� ���. ,a. �e„ *
c4��F oRN�P
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON SPAGNOLO, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER �
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM
SPRINGS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
DATE: AUGUST 22, 2006
i RECOMMENDATION:
� � It is recommended the City Council:
A. select a preferred alignment for the Newsom Springs drainage improvements;
B. direct staff to perform additional engineering analysis and to initiate the
environmental review process in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA); and
C. appropriate $75,000 for environmental review process costs from the
unappropriated General Fund balance and transfer $25,000 from the Pavement
Management Program Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget; and
D. direct staff, to work with representatives of the Coastal San Luis Resource
ConservationDistrict toidentifyandapplyforgrantfundingtofurtherpursuefuture
drainage improvements to reduce or eliminate impacts on existing agricultural land.
FUNDING:
It is estimated that the environmental review process will likely result in costs up to
$100,000. Staff is recommending that $25,000 be transferred from the Pavement
• Management Program CIP budget. The City received State Proposition 42 funds above
what was originally projected. Therefore, this will not result in any reduction to the project.
Staff is recommending that the remaining $75,000 be appropriated at this time from the
unappropriated General Fund balance. However, staff is working on recommendations to
replace this funding through savings in equipment replacement in the Building and Fire
Department budget and through increased cell tower lease revenues. These changes are
proposed to be reflected in the First Quarter Budget Report.
There is currently $286,293 remaining in the Newsom Springs CIP budget account.
However, under any of the options considered, it is anticipated that this funding will be
needed for construction costs.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 2
DISCUSSION:
Backqround
On August 8, 2006, the City Council authorized a 60-day public review. of the 2006
Drainage Master Plan Update. During the discussion, Council requested that staff
research and provide a separate presentation to select a preferred alignment for the
Newsom Springs drainage improvements.
The Newsom Springs project has been analyzed in reports prepared in 1998 and 2006. In
1998 a draft negative determination focusing on one of several alternative projects was
distributed for public comment, but the declaration was not approved by the City Council.
The 1999 Drainage Master Plan was adopted including the Newsom Springs project,
subject to future consideration of the alternative alignment and configurations.
Proiect Description:
The Newsom Springs project is intended to reduce fiooding in several locations within the
City. The total Newsom Springs project watershed area is 1,240 acres and generates a
100-year peak runoff flow of 1,024 cubic feet per second (cfs). The watershed is
comprised of 1,160, 51 and 73 acre subwatersheds. The main watershed of 1,160 acres
lies upstream of Branch Mill Road. In a 100-year storm event,this watershed will generate
about 891 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff. The runoff crosses Branch Mill Road and
into the City limits through an 8 ft. x 4 ft. culvert. Downstream of the Branch Mill Road
crossing, an additional watershed of approximately 51 acres contributes additional runoff
upstream of the "stone culvert", and a watershed of approximately 73 acres contributes
additional runoff to the intersection of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue. A small
ditch currently diverts 30 to 100 cfs of this runoff to the east, crossing Branch Mill Road
again through the 3 ft. x 5 ft. "stone culvert". Downstream, this flow contributes to flooding
problems within Tract 139 (Launa Lane), at the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, the Pacific
Coast Christian School, and further downstream at Valley Road.
In a large storm, the majority of the runoff flow is not diverted through the stone culvert.
The excess flow sheets across the agricultural fields and is directed toward the intersection
of Branch Mill Road and East Cherry Avenue. At this point, the 100-year runoff is
approximately 1,024 cfs. Historically, there has not been adequate drainage facilities to
accommodate this runoff in a controlled manner between East cherry and Arroyo Grande
Creek. As a result, the homes within Noguera Place cul-de-sac have experienced serious
flooding.
In 1999, the City constructed temporary drainage improvements that improve the area
drainage in small storms. These consist of a ditch from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande
. Creek, with a culvert crossing at East Cherry.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 3
Tract 2217, a housing tract at the southwest corner of the Branch Miil Road and East
Cherry Street intersection, contributed $250,000 towards a regional drainage solution (the
Newsom Springs project) in lieu of constructing offsite drainage improvements. The
subdivision agreement required payment of the moneys within one year of project
acceptance. The City accepted the public improvements in 1998.
One lot on the south side of Hiliside Court within Tract 2217 included grading that is
dependent on the completion of the Newsom Springs project. Therefore, building permits
for these two homes have been held up. This is because the grading design is based on
the expected reduced flow in the rear yard ditch that will be achieved when the Newsom
Springs project is completed.
A recent development proposal known as the Cherry Creek project is located at the end of
Cherry Avenue. This private development project is proposed to construct 27 homes on
approximately 9 acres and is currently under review by the City. This project is proposing
to install drainage facilities that would be required for either of the proposed alignments by
incorporating them into the design. A series of box culverts along with an earthen swale
have been proposed to traverse the site. Landscaping will also be incorporated in the
design to enhance the area around the earth swale.
On April 7, 1998, John L. Wallace and Associates (now Wallace Group) prepared a
"Hydrology and Hydraulics Report" researching the watershed characteristics and
hydrology requirements for the Newsom Springs area. Based on the information, the
report recommended various alignment alternatives for potential drainage improvements,
including cost estimates for each option.
Three alignments were developed that provide for a series of ditches and/or pipes to carry
storm water from the box culvert under Branch Mill Road to Arroyo Grande Creek.
Alignment"A" carries storm water on its existing path along Branch Mill Road crossing both
Cherry Avenue and Myrtle Street to Arroyo Grande Creek. The proposed Cherry Creek
subdivision project includes an additional proposal for a drainage project generally along
Alignment "A". Alignments "B" and "C" have a more direct route from Branch Mill Road
across the existing farm land to an outlet at Arroyo Grande Creek. Ali three drainage
alignments include pipes or ditches along Branch Mill Road, which collect runoff from the
portion of the watershed downstream of the Branch Mill Road crossing and conveythe flow
to Arroyo Grande Creek. The potential to utilize stormwater detention facilities as a
component of the Newsom Springs project was also investigated and described in a June
28, 2006 report prepared by the Wallace Group.
Alignment "A" is recommended as the preferred alternative because it has been deemed
the most feasible alternative due to cost considerations and with Option A-4 (Cherry
Creek), there is the ability to acquire the necessary right-of-way at this time. However,
there are many issues related to the alignment options, including the extent of the area
protected from flooding, the extent of right of way acquisition required, and the affect on
agricultural operations and property access.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 4
The alignment options are described below and shown schematically on the concept
sketches. With Council direction regarding the preferred alignment, staff will prepare a
more detailed analysis and project description of the project and initiate the environmental
review process.
Aliqnment "A"
Alignment "A" is the most westerly alignment and generally locates the drainage facilities
within two reaches. Reach 1 is from East Cherry Avenue Extension to Arroyo Grande
Creek and provides flood protection to the Tract 409 (Noguera Place) area. Reach 2 is
along Branch Mill Road, from the stone culvert to East Cherry Avenue and provides flood
relief for Tract 139 (Launa Lane), Vagabond Mobile Home Park, Coastal Christian School,
and surrounding areas.
Within this general alignment, there are four configurations of improvements that have
been considered. This includes the three projects originally considered in the 1998-1999
report and the project included in the proposed Cherry Creek subdivision.
Issues common to all of the Alignment "A" alternatives:
• Protects existing developed areas and areas zoned for development.
• Does not provide fiood protection for agricultural lands upstream of East Cherry
Avenue.
• Most closely follows the existing path of the majority of flood stage runoff.
. Diverts low flow runoff from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande Creek. Questions have
been raised that this may be a wetland issue. This can be studied during
environmental review and if necessary a small conduit can be used to convey
environmental flows.
The project differences are summarized below:
Project A-1
Reach 1: 2-72 inch pipes
Reach 2: Inlets and Ditches
Cost: $884,275
Additionai Issues related to project A-1:
• In order for the Reach 1 pipes to provide adequate capacity, large collection ditches
and multiple inlets must be constructed within the agricultural property upstream of East
Cherry Avenue.
• The Reach 1 pipes directly connect runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande
Creek, eliminating the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open
. ditches.
• The Reach 2 ditches would impede existing agricultural operations.
. Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 5
Project A-2
Reach 1: Ditch and Bridges
Reach 2: 48 inch pipe and inlets and ditches
Cost: $1,087,350
Additional Issues related to project A-2:
• In order for the Reach 1 ditch to provide adequate capacity, large collection ditches
must be constructed within the agricultural property upstream of East Cherry Avenue.
• The Reach 2 pipe impacts the farming operations less since it can be buried within the
right of way of Branch Mill Road and farming vehicles can operate on the surface above
the pipe.
• Provides earthen surface for runofffrom agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek,
maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches.
� • Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required.
Project A-3 �
Reach 1: 2-72 inch pipes
Reach 2: 48 inch pipe and inlets and ditches
Cost: $996,550
Additional Issues related to project A-3:
• In order for the Reach 1 ditch to provide adequate capacity, large collection ditches
must be constructed within the agricultural property upstream of East Cherry Avenue.
. The Reach 2 pipe impacts the farming operations less since it can be buried within the
right of way of Branch Mili Road and farming vehicles can operate on the surface above
the pipe.
• The Reach 1 pipes directly connect runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande
Creek, eliminating existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches.
• .Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required.
Project A-4 (Project as proposed by the Cherry Creek Subdivison)
Reach 1: Ditch and Culverts
. Reach 2: 48 inch pipe and inlets
Cost: $1,087,350 (approximately the same as A-2)
Additional Issues related to project A-4:
• This project is essentially the same as A-2, except that it uses large culverts instead of
bridges, and it attempts to keep the collection ditch north of the existing agricultural
property by relocating a portion of East Cherry Avenue. Additional topographic
information is required to verify the feasibility of this concept.
• It is likely that the required facilities would be largerthan as shown on the Cherry Creek
proposed tentative map.
• Intended to avoid any work or right of way acquisition over the agricultural property
south of East Cherry Avenue.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 6
e The Reach 2 pipe impacts the farming operations less since it can be buried within the
right of way of Branch Mill Road and farming vehicles can operate on the surFace above
the pipe.
• Provides earthen surface for runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek,
maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches.
Cost (2006 estimate):
DescripG�on A-1 A-2 A-3
Design, Permitting, Admin $229,250 $281,900 $258,350
Right-of-Way Acquisition $59,250 $67,300 $59,250
Construction $595,775 $738,150 $678,950
Estimated Project Cost $884,275 $1,087,350 $996,550
—-___ ----.
m^NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT ...,_.�
A�IGNMENT A — PR�JECT ALTERNATIVES ""
- ---�--r� 7�' ,
�T _ . t t '� S.S : � � }� ' / �
.< � ,
( " ::\ • i ,
I ,��4�� ��� ,, .� � �,:,
, y/!', . \ ��.Y: ;.�
i �. . - / � �1'� .
� �P'� .,
�.—_.,. � � ReACfi 1� ., �
� , � .i� {All�.s'�-7�' Plpes �/?� �., �:
� � �,.�'� ;�� � � C7+2) Dl$Ch�4 $rldge " � � , i
� %� V �� s (A3) 2=12. PI e's /� �, � , ;,
� /�. � ��.:e���� R ACH 2 �. �' ,
�I� . �` / +\ � CAll Intets �8 ^ f"�
�. � J ./;,� Ditches ' �� � � �
t� �.r� �kt.rl ` ' u `, ` (A2) DRch �v' ` \ i�
.i�,.i,..,.,�o-. ...- v'L� (A3) 1-48' Pl�e. � `�' . .
� � . \ Inlets, � � '� �'�
i. . . . " Diiches � i.
`
,�. �� � � � � ��''
.
R _
; � � � _ . .�-: �_. � �./ . .��,-.��.,
,' . . . " . . �, ./. _
� .. . .\ . .. ./
. � ' � �
. ,. . . � ..__ � i
/i
s� \: /
I j, � ;
i , C 1 1 Y I:1,1" , - :. :
� f,IItI1JIY fl4' ��'�
� nuaiirn cia'�r.n:= , i
. :,, � SFlN IUIS UUtSPIJ �
I. \
- �u: ��:::.�
� .. /
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
' DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 7
Aliqnment "B"
Description:
This project would also provide relief to Tract 139 (Launa Lane), Vagabond Mobile Home
Park, Coastal Christian School and surrounding areas by diverting runoff before it crosses
Branch Mill Road in a pipe and conveying the flow directly to Arroyo Grande Creek. This
pipe would be smaller in diameter than with Alignment A because much of the flow would
be diverted upstream.
Alignment B follows property lines in a route direct from the crossing at Branch mill Road to
• Arroyo Grande Creek, and generally locates the drainage facilities within four reaches.
Reaches 1 and 2 are the same as for Alignment A, except that the flow to be conveyed is
oniy the runoff downstream of the main channel crossing at Branch Mill Road. Reaches 3
and 4 are the downstream and upstream sections of the proposed main conveyance
facility. This alignment provides flood protection for all of the areas that Alignment A does,
plus the agricultural properties downstream of Branch Mill Road.
Within this general alignment there are three configurations of improvements that have
been considered.
Issues common to all of the Alignment B alternatives:
• Protects existing developed areas and areas zoned for development.
• Protects agricultural lands between East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road
• Does not follow the existing path of the majority of flood stage runoff.
• Diverts low flow runoff from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande Creek. Questions have
been raised that this may be a wetland issue. This can be studied during
environmental review and if necessary a small conduit can be used to convey
environmental flows.
The project differences are summarized below:
Project 8-9
Reach 1: 48 inch pipe
Reach 2: Inlets and ditches
Reach 3: Ditch with crossings
Reach 4: Ditch with crossings
Cost: $1 ,371,875
Additional Issues related to project B-1:
• The proposed ditch may impeded agricultural operations and alter property access.
• Topographic constraints increase the size of the project.
• Provides earthen surface for runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek,
maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches.
• Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 8
� Project 8-2
Reach 1: None
Reach 2: None
Reach 3: Ditch with crossings
Reach 4: Ditch with crossings
Cost: $948,475
Additional Issues related to project B-2:
• Properties downstream of Branch Mill Road are not fully protected.
• Topographic constraints increase the size of the project.
• Provides earthen surface for runofffrom agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek,
maintaining the existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open ditches.
• Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required.
Project 8-3
Reach 1: 48 inch pipe
Reach 2: 48 inch pipe
Reach 3: 2-102 inch pipes
Reach 4: 2-102 inch pipes
Cost: $1,833,725
Additional Issues related to project B-3:
• Topographic constraints increase the size of the project.
• The Reach 3 and 4 pipes directly connect runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo
Grande Creek, eliminating existing filtering effect of flow across grassy field and open
ditches.
• Farming operations and access could occur over the pipe.
• Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 9
_......... — -
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT �
AIIGNHENT B PR�JECT ALTERNATIVES__ "'°"'
'... - . , - � � ,, - � (
_ ,`i
,
, . ,. - � , ,-, .
f �-
_ �. ' � \ .�;� .
j i i
I� ".�� `� �., \ ���;.:r•'.'.��EACH 3 �,.. ' ��
, .. . � �„� . '. . e`�'" C8U Dltch�:�W/Crossln95. . y i�
� �' (H2) Dlteh w/Crossings�; "J•
�.....--''. -._:,,,.,� � . , .� , . ,'�\ (�3)' 2�102' Pipe '
, --'.: '�' '� � ,' "- � R��Ep ,.4 � ,. '`
��.� . ' , � �� . `. � REACH 1� .���,, / Cg{�" Ditch w/Crossings�.
• ''�\ � � � ` � r�� �'� , ' ` �.CB)> 48' PIp12� \ (Q2) Dlt[li�w/Cvosslny'S �`./�
, � ti ��� , f .\T� .\`�!`-'Y t'B2) None j��B3) 2-102"�tpe \ � ��..
: 1r r � �.%�'., ��� >> / `<B3) 48' PI B � �. .
�
\/ -+ � � � REACH 2 � l%� ��
r
.
i � t 1 t�i''�ar �-: .:�,)�� CBll Inlets & �`�`r \ \
. . ...f u(1... t�.?..JI..
, � D�tches �� �y %
�� CH2) �done ' ' �
}�..,• ,
1��, , (H3) 4B' PI es �
\
, ,. . � � . ,.., .. . ,.
:�� ��" m
a . . . .:' � , si�. �r.l
i ` ,< � : . .. "- . . i
�. � .. � � /
...
� .� . �-
��� ., .. „ . . �� .
�. ., _ , . �.. ., .>, ,. ,�, , �.. �---.....—.�
.
I ... . .���� , ,.. - . ._ ......_..
I � � � �
/
� i iT� F! „� . . ,� � stic
CC]UPff Y I)F
AR21lY11 ti�vUDE' /F ��
s SAN I..UI� OI11SPll I
, � ,.i �n ...
Cost (2006 estimate):
Descrip6on 84 8-2 B-3
Design, Permitting, Admin $355,675 $245,900 $475,400
Right-of-Way Acquisition $145,075 $118,000 $139,650
Construction $871,125 $584,575 $1,218,675
Estimated Project Cost $1,371,875 $948,475 $1,833,725
Aliqnment "C"
Alignment "C" follows a similar strategy to Alignment "B". However, the location of the
facility has been shifted to a location more to the west. Compared to Alignment B, this
project appears to impact less agricultural operations, but it requires a longer facility, and it
would be deeper at the downstream end because there is not as much natural fall.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 10
, NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PR�JECT �
,�
�
ALIGNMENT C =PROJECT ALTERNAIIVES ""
i. � .. ` . �, � � . � ,�' ... ' .
. �. �'� . �—'��. ,. < < .
i
� �,v" �,
' _�y� ` \��� � ./ ' .
. . . '+� ����. ',. ...
. y ..�� , � ' .4' ,t" . . REACH 3
�—�:: � '\ <Gll DIYCh .
,� ,
'�' ��'v�''�. . ' REACH 1�`._- /� �� '� REACH 4 '
i� .�.� � .. ..:(Cll 48' �Pi�e CCll �Ditch�.� '
I j V � � � �
�� � � �� � REACH 2 � �''�.•
` i � .` . ,�.I. (Cll 48' Pipe.. .�Fc � � f.
�I�� m a.�.i / ' --. � ��:�.L lnlets. 6 .� - . .
�.c. ,�,\y;L ,. •;,;.,;;,.. r.. Ditches �'✓ . • .
/.'
� �'� �. . �� j,
.. . .
..; :' ., . . - , �.� :.
"` � 4
' � . ,�:. ..,.��.
� ' \ .'"':, / �
i . ' 1 - . . � -''.. --- � �s � ,.�.���
. ` �:�. J . .�.�`�.. . '.. \ / .
�i �
/
, �
.� . . . .. ... .�
� ��' �
II. , J: , . / ,
�
!! i-i � r i
i.nuhi x rir ;,
; ,ke�=,�i �ti�nNn� �' �,
;
;nv �ois ❑otsro
� --� ,, :�..
i, . --- ----
Issues related to the Alignment "C" alternatives:
• Protects existing developed areas and areas zoned for development.
. Protects agricultural lands between East Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road
. Does not follow the existing path of the majority of flood stage runoff.
• Diverts low flow runoff from the stone culvert to Arroyo Grande Creek. Questions have
been raised that this may be a wetland issue. This can be studied during
environmental review and if necessary a small conduit can be used to convey
environmental flows.
. Topographic constraints increase the size of the project.
• Provides earthen surface for runoff from agricultural properties to Arroyo Grande Creek,
maintaining the existing filtering effect of fiow across grassy field and open ditches.
. Right of way acquisition over agricultural property would be required.
• Agricultural operations and property access is impeded by the Reach 3 and 4 ditch.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
' AUGUST 22, 2006 ,
PAGE 11
Cost (estimated 2006 $):
Descrip6on C-1
Design, Permitting, Admin $322,000 to $395,000
Right-of-Way Acquisition $167,000
Construction $736, 800 to 945,000
Estimated Project Cost $1,225,800 to $1,507,000
Upstream Detention
Two basin locations were selected to determine feasibility. One is located at the north side
and one on the south side of Branch Mili Road at the intersection with Newsom Springs
Creek. These locations were reviewed in the field and analyzed by computer modeling.
Site constraints limit the size of the basin. With the site boundary constrained the
analysis indicates that the effectiveness of the basin depends on the available basin depth.
� With basin depths assumed of 10 to 12 feet, the reduction in peak outflow is marginal.
' However, with the basin depth increased to 15 feet (basin bottom to top of the berm), a
j reduction in fiow of 327 cfs (34 percent) can be achieved. Whether or not this depth can
be achieved on the site must be determined by field survey. This is a significant reduction
in flow, but would not eliminate the need for downstream flood protection. Also, the basin
would be designed with a spillway and downstream properties would need to consider a
safe overFlow path for spiliway flows.
An alternative concept preliminarily reviewed is to utilize Branch Mill Road as a dam to hold
� back stormwater. However, based on initial analysis, staff does not believe that there
would be a significant increase in capacity overthe detention basin concept. Additionally,
it would require substantial property acquisitions or a flood easement and would still require
drainage pipes be installed to the creek. Staff proposes to perform additional analysis on
this alternative as part of the effort to work with the RCD on improvements to prevent
' impacts to existing agricultural properties.
Analvsis
Staff is recommending that the Council designate Alignment "A" as the preferred
. alignment, with option A-2 or A-4 (the Cherry Creek proposal) as the intended project.
Constructing project A-2 or A-4 provides the City with an opportunity to address an ongoing
drainage concern, does not preclude construction of either Alignment "B" or "C" in the
future, and provides an opportunity to incorporate drainage facilities in the overall design of
the proposed development. The specific design option proposed will depend on whether
or not the Cherry Creek project incorporates the proposed system or the City constructs
the project independently, and whether the feasibility of project A-4 is verified with
additional topographic information. With Council designation of Alignment"A", staffwould
proceed with a more detailed project description (field survey and preliminary plans), and
initiate environmental review.
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR NEWSOM SPRINGS
DRAINAGEIMPROVEMENTS
AUGUST 22, 2006
PAGE 12
it would also be staff's recommendation to abandon the existing drainage easement along
the westerly edge of the proposed Cherry Creek project upon completion ofthe storm drain
improvements assuring the project can be constructed as proposed. Underthe preferred
alternative, it has been determined that there would no longer be any benefit from the
easement. Staff has confirmed that the properties drain in the opposite direction and the
ditch was intended to be temporary when originally installed. However, a public utility
easement wouid remain.
Public Notice
Notices regarding tonighYs meeting have been published in the newspaper and distributed
to property owners within 300 feet of the Cherry Creek project and within Newsom Canyon,
as recommended by the Pianning Commission. Copies of the Newsom Springs Detention
; Basin Feasibility Report and the Newsom Springs Drainage Project Hydrology and
� Hydraulics Study will be made available to the public through the Public Works
� Department. The information can also be accessed from the City's internet website.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
• Approve staff's recommendation;
• Request staff to provide additional analysis;
. Do not approve staff's recommendation;
• Modify as appropriate and approve staff's recommendation; or
. Provide direction to staff.
Attachments:
1. Newsom Springs Detention Basin Feasibility Report, July 27, 2005
2. Newsom Springs Drainage Project Hydrology and Hydraulics Study
i
ATTACHMENT1
C1TY OF ARROYO GRANDE
NEWSOM SPRlNGS DETENTION BASIN FEASIBILlTY REPORT
�
I
�
�
�v„—��
WALLACE GROUP
4115 BROAD STREET, SUiTE B-5
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
T 805 544-4011 F 805 544-4294
Job Number: 0232.5754
July 27, 2005
' CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
NEWSOM SPRINGS DETENTION BASIN FEASIBILITY REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
� CERTIFICATION...........................................................................................................................................1
I PROPESSIONAI ENGINEERS .........................................................................................................................1
REVIEWEDAND APPROVED:....................................................................................................................1
SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................2
PURPOSE.....................................................................................................................................................2
AREAWATERSHEDS.............................................................................:....................................................2
POTENTIAL BASIN LOCATIONS................................................................................................................4
EXISTINGHYDROLOGY..............................................................................................................................4
HYDROG RAP H.........................................................................................................................................5
' ACRES..............................:.......................................................................................................................5
STORMWATERRUNOFF (CFS)..................................................................................................................5
� COMPARISON OF EXISTiNG CONDITION RESULTS WITH SIMIIAR WATERSHEDS..........................6
BASINMODELlNG......:................................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1 —Watershed Areas .............:.........................................................................................3
Figure 2— Potential Basin Locations...........................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Comparison of Prior Analysis to Current Analysis .......................................................5
Tabie 2— Comparison of Runoff Rates Calculated For Similar Watersheds In The Area............6
Table 3- 190 x 510 feet basin performance (2.2 acre site).........................................................7
; LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A — Simplified Existing Conditions Model With Hydroflow Hydrograph input
Parameters
' Appendix B — Existing Conditions and Hydroflow Hydrograph input Parameters
, Appendix C — Altematives Considered
WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005
Nev�som Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 1
i
, CERTIFICATION
Preparation of this report included efforts by the following persons:
Craig A. Campbell, Principal Engineer
Cheryl A. Lenhardt, Civil Engineer
Professional Engineers
� This report was prepared by, or under the direction of the following Professional Engineer's in
accordance with the provisions of Section 6700 of the Business and Professions Code of the
State of California.
Civil Engineer. ��oressio��q
�r��v�a.LE,yyy�F',
(�/� /' ;, � 'Pa 2
L'-��%�c� >�C�-�E�:_.��=v w " C 65306 '' �,
Cheryl A�Lenhardt, Civil Engineer * ExP 5 ;� �-� �~�
PE 65306 STqTeo�cnuF°F�\��(
' REVIEWED AND APPROVED: �
7- z.7- oS� :�'3o�_os .;. `
Cra A. ampbeil, Principal Engineer ,
P 34405 • •
WG 0232.5754 Jul/ 11, 200�
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 1
SUMMARY
The intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road in the City of Arroyo Grande is subject
to flooding in large storm events. Prior studies have identified aitemative drainage projects to
convey flood flows safely to Arroyo Grande Creek. This report evaluates the feasibility of using
an upstream detention basin as a component of the Newsom Springs Drainage Project.
i Locations at Branch Mill Road and upstream were evaluated in the field and by computer
i modeling. Site constraints limit the size of the basin. With the site boundary constrained, our
analysis indicates that the effectiveness ot the basin depends on the available basin depth.
With basin depths of 10 to 12 feet, the reduction in peak outFlow is marginal. However, with the
basin depth increased to 15 feet (basin bottom to top of berm), a reduction in flow of 327 cfs (34
percent) can be achieved.
Whether or not this depth can be achieved on the site must be determined by field survey.
Based on a field observation, it appears questionable. Therefore if the project is to proceed
fuRher we recommend a topographic map be prepared.
if the basin were installed as part of the Newsome Springs Drainage project, it can be expected
to have the following effects:
• Downstream facilities can be smaller.
• The properties between Branch Mill Road and Cherry Lane Extension would receive some
flood control benefit.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide an analysis of the feasibility of constructing a detention
basin upstream of a reoccurring flooding problem at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and
Branch Mill Road in the City of Arroyo Grande.
AREA WATERSHEDS
Three undeveloped watersheds converge at the intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch iNill
Road as shown in figure 2.
WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005
Newsom Sprrngs Basin Feasibility Study Page 2
Figure 1 —Watershed Areas
� � ' — ; _.I '.r;s'��_Y','" ,` ,���..,.T'-:`-__ _ ....
> � , � :c�_\..,�.Y•',�`,. ,.
� I�' • } u 1 I�,�� `-'���`_� 'S �.1 �%��1-��\� . ' . .
� ` C-� _ • �� '/..'j (T�� ) 1` ( , ,
i ' �y s�U �' \`�-' \�: J/:n��
� � �z' r(L'1'1��� �.�� ��'o� l ��U'1� �, �.
: 1 ��r /��`� -�C.-�'�n��:.� Z t
i , a � i ��"�� ( I.���� � ' � \ ti ,
'` ' j i �i�x �� � i �� '�� _;
"} . � �: ��:�T1{�T� .,µ^.'-�.�,� �`;�7.._��/��\
� s.. l C - � ^�`�1 ra ,;� �4�r �
- �.:ae I�'1 �1� �. �!� . `� (�. _rl i ,
1 ' 1 '
.�r' g �1 4 � ,.:
� yc ' 4 _�� I.����i xi�' q
, • _N a � F f r � 1 — S -
�,� U V� �/� \ IJ/
,� � ,t � � � al �+ �I!\\ f`.. . / ��•�y
10 .. � f '+ e� "\ t �i)��i' Yr
9 3 „� § ` $ O;�i'�'� � �� �
i � � .
� z � \ x ��1 � .._ rr�.. � ' w a
� ya .��� 9 '. 'K' � I �
F � � 'J'iiil�'I ': . � � ���..1 � i� :�'���� � ��..
� � i ` �` °' 7'
. �� /7u " . �ia'r ` .1�. _ g, � . -
�
' �a � � r. ..� F J, " >
,1 E �� \ 1 �\J'� 5 ' k �r'�. �" �, o°o
.' � 1 0 �. .. � < � 1'�, ( .."'- 9 � o u
. T II V<
i ��.� � 4 a.�'a : �� �i ���� � ?��a.1, t �I „ :
� �� �o �\ � y i� a; � ' Ie
vI' b „"' , ._ 'V i
' �' ` rd/ � Kr. °��. ' I : G � ^ . i� _
d' � ° � ' .�.v y ,
. t 1':
'` '. .. 4 \ �.
� ,..�;n%�� a � / ,�, � i . • . ' ��1 �
�" '� °Q,/ - .�._�. .�y / � ��`� _��
�•`�%..` _ •., �+ . j�` ^ `
� �'' ,• �l i ,V'.. � .a,n
�\•� � U . ,;` . �1 ! �z �i
oi } �\
-' ' � ': • .p = i �� � `1 �'i' .� ��•\�.. � �7. ,�
i ,3"p1.q�. .. v�� '�' � :y` -��`; ��� �y�.' �
� •�'>° ' •�S ��'ti�,u�\ � � \/') \ � L�•a\ Yd /--
N �� • l � I
� \. :'; ',.,." . :[�v. -1`�/�•;d '/. ' ,\e , � /" l.=
/
`i��:3� ��a�:•: �� L � •��`: / ^
��4���'�'... . � ... `�. .i:i !� .� .
J
,� �'� � `�,/i.s'�, —
The largest of the three watersheds is 1,116 acres and collects runoff from Newsom and Guaya
Canyons. In a 100-year storm, this watershed will generate about 854 cubic feet per second
(cfs) of runoff. The runoff crosses Branch Mill road and into the City limits through an 8ft x 4ft
culveR and travels north through a roadside channel. Adjacent to, and just down stream of, the
first watershed is a smaller steep mountainous watershed of 51 acres. The runoff from these
two watersheds converges at the "stone culvert." This combined flow contributes to flooding
problems within Tract 139 (Luana Lane), at the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, at the Pacific
Coast Christian School, and further dov�instream at Valley Road.
Excess flows are not diverted through the stone culvert. The excass flow travels in a roadside
ditch that runs parallel to Branch Mili Road (See Figure 3, yellow) until is reaches the
intersection of Cherry Avenue and Branch Mill Road. At the ditches terminus, the runoff �
WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005
Ne�vsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 3
� generated from flat, irrigated cropland of approximately 73 acres, combines with the two
' previous watersheds, resulting in a 100-year runoff of approximately 1080 cfs. As a result, the
homes within Tract 409 have experienced serious flooding.
POTENTIAL BASIN LOCATIONS
Installing detention basins upstream of flooding problem has the potential to store the peak flow
and meter out a flow at a lower rate. Based on a site review, two areas were identified as
possible locations for basins. These areas were chosen for evaluation because they were
currently undeveloped, were relatively flat, and were at the base of the largest contributing
watershed. They are shown with red boundaries in Figure 3 and are both along the flow path of
Newsom Canyon. The rectangular area analyzed south of Branch Mill Road is the larger site at
2.27 acres while the area north of Branch Mill Road is 1.72 acres. In addition to being larger,
the southerly site has more usable vertical room. Therefore, the southerly site is considered for
additional analysis in this report.
Field review was also determined that areas further upstream of Branch Mill Road are too
constrained by the canyon walls and existing home sites to be considered for a basin.
Figure 2 Potential Basm Locations
f $i'���� �..�'.�'s .y `4s��'9A41 .'G,3 ` �8 .���� ,�3.ry{, �ke. � �!/ �eg �j'` �r
����.yy .s f � e�3y-. ��Ci���t � �%yJxrs+' A'&A�E '� }`E`1x�5!5� � �x y�, s � ��
� -IT �.:• ,�t Tyy` n`Y�'}�����•! `3 r{„ '��4 �t'i-°r�d �.. i i �1 .�. �
i �W S� � � �
,- i� � 'I I3 �yT.M�p� �' ! { a Fi 1`M1��j Y� . �.
j � � },��'.,;+�,i.-� /.� �� X r'�s�� � Tt �� tir �`'`�` .
; � �) r�e R { E �� � r �r r�� � , t��t*� �
' � ;e� x4 �d k F > ; .�µ
•q�� ,t, .'< s i- � ,r� N^u� rv, S S �� � ,, �pC� � �µ .:
7. �, ' t . �,(� .
�v�t�+ ¢�� r� : �r����",�y�' d'�3.,s'n'R.. '# i�tl �i> / � ' ,t
`RR � �,� �1�� iy .. �tt�t t ra.y ,�L�°�a'�N F '` .F p+.`! Z� =�+' :
'F � "}✓ � �� �+�Ij�bn��:iS� �,:e ' . ':i
.�W°' f�+. x 'Ya �v
,+i�+ ♦.: � maV;y.i"'Z'4i'y� % a y � �s. �k��. �-� z ; _ - . . � ..
, , . a_• I` Tf: l, yr � .� ��'f }'r� .�'.
�O 77
• r <�� ,. J""'�'
f 4
t: y !
' _ � M1`�I
��
.
. � �.
. 1 �.
� . ..
.
... . . . ... ..;.
,..
... . , .._.,. ,,..,,� - .>.�:..,.. . . .
EXISTING HYDROLOGY
A previous analysis of existing conditions was presented in April of 1998. The analysis
performed at that time was generated using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method
program (SBUH). The current analysis was performed with the 'Hydrofiow Hydrographs'
application with the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method selected for the hydrograph
routing option. The 'Hydroflow Hydrograph' application is an improved modeling software �
package that allows the routing of the hydrograph information generated by the SBUH i
application.
The existing conditions of both programs were compared using the same rainfall parameters to '
verify the consistency of the models with each other. The results of each program run are
consistent with each other and are shown in the columns labeled 'previous' and 'in-kind
WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibility Study Page 4
— �i
evaluation' of Table 1. The third column of table 1, 'updated model,' was the results generated
by the new 'Hydroflow Hydrographs' program which now can reflect the travel time realized in
the system.
The SBUH models previously developed required that the three hydrographs converge together
at the same location. However in reality, hydrograph 1 discharges into a 2,760-foot long ditch
located along the north side of Branch Miil Road, south of the agricultural ields [hydrograph 4].
Flow travels northward �nd is combined with the runoff associatzd with Hydrograph 2 at the
stone culvert located at the intersection of Huebner lane [hydrograph 5]. The combined flow of
hydrograph 1 and 2 travel northward in a 611-foot long roadside located along the eastern
shoulder of Branch Mill road [hydrograph 6]. This roadside ditch currently discharges the
combined flows at the southwestern corner of the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry
Avenue. The runoff associated with the agriculturai fields, or hydrograph 3, also discharges to
the southwestern corner of the intersection of 8ranch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue [hydrograph
7j. A second model was developed using the upgraded software to more accurately reflect the
existing conditions. As a resuit, the peak discharge for a 100-year event was reduced to 968
cfs, or 500 cfs per square mile. The decrease of peak flow by 112 cfs is attributable partiy due
to the travel time reatized in the roadside ditches, and partly due to a more defined rainfall
distribution in the new model.
Table 1 —Comparison of Prior Analysis to Current Anaiysis
HYDROGRAPH ACRES STORMWATEit RUNOFF:{CFS)
, _, ,
'' Previous ':. Current Q100
# Description Qipp iHyaroeowHyar«�raPnProyram>
�seuH ,�n Kind Updated'
� �.. '. �.. :_ .; .:, .Program) .. -_ � .
_ Evaluation Modei
1 Newsom Springs Creek to 1116 891 854 854
Branch Mill Road
2 Hillside area Tributary to 51 60 62 62
Branch Mill Road
� 3 Agriculture area between 73 73 164 164
Branch Mill Road —Cherry
Ave
4 Open Channel from Branch 8��
Mill Road to Stone Culvert '
5 Stone Culvert (Hydrographs 2 863
and 4 combine)
6 Open Channel from Stone 859
� Culvert to Cherry Avenue
7 Combined flows from 968
agriculture and channei flows
(Hydrographs 3 and 6)
Flow to Arroyo Grande Creek I 1240 1024 I 1178 I 968 I
WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibrlity Study Page 5
i
The overall system time of concentration was increased by 9 minutes. The parameters entered
are provided in Appendix A. While a graphical representation of the model, tables of the input
parameters and subsequent results are provided in Appendix B.
� The restrictions of the box culverts at the outlets of hydrograph one and two were not
considered but it is anticipated that they would serve to fuRher decrease the peak flow observed
at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue.
� COMPARISON OF EXISTING CONDITION RESULTS WITH SIMILAR WATERSHEDS
As shown in table 2, the Hydroflow Hydrograph program results for hydrographs one and two
are fairly consistent with other studies performed in the area.
, However, the new hydrograph for the agriculturai area, hydrograph 3 reflects a doubling of the
peak flows realized in a 100-year storm event. The primary reason for this increase in peak flow
is a resuit of a decrease in the time of concentration. In the previous study, the time of
concentration was set at 32.4 minutes. The new study, based upon sheet fiow principles,
assessed the time of concentration to be oniy 13.9 minutes. The time of concentration
� calculations are provided in appendix A.
; Table 2—Comparison of Runoff Rates Calculated For Similar Watersheds in The Area
' ". ; .;. ' , , :. ,, ` AREA, CALCULATED
STUDY'SPONSOR.= DESCRIP710N OF AREA SGlUARE PEAK FLOW
YEAR;OF STUDY - MICES ; PER.SQUARE
;. ; . MILE
City of AG— Wallace Group 2005 Newsom Springs to Branch Mill 8 1.94 500
, Cherry Rd Intersection
FEMA study for SLO CO Meadow Creek at US 101 4.4 591
Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991
FEMA study for SLO CO Carpenter Canyon Creek at 1.0 600
� Uninmrporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 confluence with Corbit Canyon
' Creek
' FEMA study for SLO CO Corbit Canyon Creek upstream 3.9 590
Unincorporeted areas Insurance Maps 1997 conflu@nCe With POOfman CBnyon
Creek
FEMA study for SLO CO Deleissigues Creek at confluence 2.5 600
, Unincorporated areas Insurance Maps 1991 Wlth Corbit Canyon Cfeek
� FEMA study for SLO CO Los Berros Creek at conFluence with 26.9 409
i Unincorporeted areas Insurance Maps t991 A�royo Grande Cfeek
Corps of Engineers study of San Corbit Canyon Creek 4.7 510 to 600
Luis Counbj streams, 1987
FEMA study of Arroyo Grande North Fork of Los Berros Creek 2.6 461 I
flood insurance rate maps, 1984
WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005
Newsom Springs 8asin Feasibility Study Page 6
BASIN MODELING
A model was created to analyze the effect, if any, on the construction of a detention basin
upstream of the area prone to fiooding. The basin analyzed was situated at the north end or the
; tributary associated with hydrograph 1 on the south side of Branch Mill Road.
i
� The available depth at the sites appears to be about 15 feet. This would be obtained by a
f combination of excavation below grade and berms above grade. This available depth is limited
by the need for freeboard, and an overflow weir. In order to convey the 100-year peak runoff of
854 cfs, a 50 feet wide overtlow weir would flow approximately 3.1 feet deep. Adding one foot of
freeboard, and the top 4.1 feet of the basin must be reserved for overflow capacity and
freeboard.
Basin depths ranging from 10 feet to 15 feet were considered for a basin with 1:3 side slopes
and top dimensions of 190 feet by 510 feet. For each case, the basin outflow was restricted (by
using smalier outflow pipe), and by trials, the pipe size was determined that would maintain the
100 year water surface elevation below the spiliway. The results of this evaluation are shown
below in Table 3.
Tabie 3-190 x 510 feet basin performance(2.2 acre site)
i ;
� DEPTH . 100-YEAR FLOW(CFS)
' OF WEIR PIBE SIZE ' TOTAL AT
POND, ., ECEV (�M jNFtOW OUTFLOW' CHERRY REDUCTION
: (FT) ;.. . .
' ' AVENUE
10 ft 6.3 5-60 854 745 828 26
12 ft 7.8 3-66 854 703 779 75
15 ft 10.9 2-60 854 546 527 327
i
I
'
WG 0232.5754 Jul/ 11, 2005
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibiliry Study Page 7
APPENDlX
I
WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005
Newsom Sp�ings Basin Feasibility Study Page 8
;
� APPENDIX A
� SIMPLIFIED EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL WITH HYDROFLOW HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS
�
� All watersheds shared a hydrologic soii group of'D" and a Type 1 Storm with rainfall rates that
are consistent with NOA Maps of the area. The SCS Curve Numbers (CN) for each of the
watersheds were assigned as foilows:
Hydrograph SCS Curve Number
�
� 1. A composite curve number of 74 was generated for the area associated
� with hydrograph 1. It was generated by assigning a SCS Curve Number
i of 77 to the estimated 279 acres associated with the western slopes of
the Guaya and Newsom Canyons that are densely forested, a SCS
Curve Number of 73 to the estimated 826 acres associated with the west
, facing slopes of the Guaya and Newsom Canyons that are non-
developed brush lands in good condition and a SCS Curve number of 98
! to the estimated 11 acres of impervious area (roads, buiidings, etc).
! 2. An SCS curve number of 77 was assigned to hydrograph two because a
dense canopy of oak trees characterized the area.
3. An SCS curve number of 88 were assigned to hydrograph three because
row crops characterize the area.
The time of concentration for each watershed was determined by the SCS TR-55 method for
hydrographs 1 and 2. Hydrograph 3 used the SCS average velocity method.
WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005
Newsom Springs Basrn Feasibility Study Page 1
TR55 Tc Worksheet 3
Hydraflow Hydregra?hs by Intelisolvz
; Hyd. No. 1
•, Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill Rd Xing
Description A B C Totals
�
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.130 0.011 0.011
Flow length (ft) = 300.0 0.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.20 0.00 0.00
Land slope (%) = 20.00 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 10.10 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 10.10
i Shallow Concentrated Flow
' Fiow length (ft) = 600.00 0.00 0.00
Watercourse slope (%) = 33.00 0.00 0.00
Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved
Average velocity (ft/s) = 9.27 0.00 0.00
� Travel Time (min) = 1.08 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.08
Channel Flow
X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.01 1.00 7.00
Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.03 4.00 9.00
i Channel slope (%) = 18.20 4.03 1.00
� Manning's n-value = 0.040 0.025 0.018
Velocity (ft/s) = 7.61 4.73 6.99
Flaw length (ft) = 1100.0 14900.0 600.0
i
I Travei Time (rnin) = 2.41 + 52.54 + 1.43 = 56.38
TotalTravel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 67.60 min
I
I
,
� TR�5 Tc Worksheet 3
�
�
Hydraflow Hydrographs by inlelisolve
Nyd. No. 2
Hiliside Area trib to Branch Mill Rd
Description A B C Totais
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.400 0.011 0.011
Fiow length (ft) = 200.0 0.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 2.20 0.00 0.00
Land slope (%) = 15.00 0.00 0.00
Travei Time (min) = 20.14 t 0.00 + 0.00 = 20.14
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Flow length (ft) = 1300.00 0.00 0.00
Watercourse slope (%) = 18.50 0.00 0.00
Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved
Average velocity (ft/s) = 6.94 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 3.12 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 3.12
Channei Flow
X sectional flow area (sqft) = 7.00 0.00 0.00
Wetted perimeter (ft) = 9.00 0.00 0.00
� Channel slope (%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00
Manning's n-value = 0.018 0.015 0.015
� Velocity (ft/s) = 6.99 0.00 0.00
Flow length (ft) = 600.0 0.0 0.0
Travel Time (min) = 1.43 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 1.43
; Total Travel Time, Tc ............................................................................
.. 24.70 min
I
�
i
�
�
I
Project: J��,.y�=;_�r.�, �� �:� �o.� Project Na: �, —
Calculated By: C%� Date: Scale:
Check=d By: Date: Sheet of '
i
i �
I - . . ' --
� ^ � � �" � ' WALLACE GROUP
I - - �- _ _ — __ avae��sweee��v;
AI=� , =r . . . _ -. .. . _ . .
.. � - coNS�sucno,�
�b1a�tl4GEinEivT
n
I I . . . _ . . ' .,. 1 . � ' ' ' � � ', � IAPIDSG:PE
<I�a% � ✓GI�� "� I ARCnITECTUFE
I �
� �. AIECHANICAI
I ' ENGIPIEEAING
I
-� I�+.�` R, i ^. -`" � . PIANNIDIG
I ... �� ��Z ��� �':. � LnQ l �✓ ,� �.1' ('' \ �—�. `_ _ „ M, , I
i ..,. PUBLIC WORKS
I " AD\AtPIISTRATION
I i SURVEYING /
GIS SOLUTIONS
I p p.� :.. �I ., . .z ' i
'� i /t� �' Z. ' ...J-�.--'1�,-n,r��� . �^�Oo � i'ip�„ V 2 IO S, :"�. C ."' � . , � _ . WATcR RESOURCES
' �
� bVALLACE SWAPISON
i � IPITEFNATIONA:
i �� i
i t = � _ o., ` _ �� . ' . , ..., I
, � �� f i— t
,, ,0
I
i I
I
I I
I �
i.
I
I I I
; i � i ai is sac;�o sr
�
i sui�e a-�
I ' sara �u!s oaa�o
� C::LIfOFPIIA 9'.+Gt
i
i � i 3Qi :'--`Git
I � .,.: :- . -:.
I
i
� .�_� -J!CLi :P.
� ;'.I;_ ==S
.i...,..�a!!a:=.S:::;o.""
APPENDIX S
EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL AND HYDROFLOW HYDROGRAPH PARAMETERS
I
I
WG 0232.5754 July 11, 2005
Newsom Springs Basin FeasibiliIy Study Page 2
� 2 3
� � �
� / , . ��mP ��kl � �� EX �S'{"1✓1�
Q1aa1l = 11 �t{ C�' �
�p = '1 �O rn'in
�j �c r t a sa � 'f,� -1y� N � � �-�2
�e4ena Q p��,l�. � g o I c�S
NvA. Ori�iii� Descriotion _,
1 SBUH Runoff Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Miil Rd Xing �� �D� �I�n
2 SUUH Runoff liillside Area trib to Branch Miil Rd " �
3 S�UFI Rw�ofF Farm Area between Branch Mill Rd 8 Cherry Ave ,
4 Combine Combined Flows appr Branch Miit 8 Cherry Inlsdn
I-iydraflow I-lydrograpfis Model Project: Simplified exisitng Newsom Springs Drainage.g �7'Mursday, Jun 9 2005, 10:13 AM :
1
Hydrograph Summary Report
i � � � �
Hyd. ' Hydrogreph� Peak j Time Time to i Volume Inflow Maximum � Maximum ; Hydrograph �
Jo. type I flow j interval peak � hyd(s) elevation storage description
I (origin) � (cfs) I (min) I (min) I (acft) (k) (ack)
i
1 �
, 1 SBUH Runofii 854.31 1 I 601 25i.533 — I — i — � Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R
' 2 SBUH Runorti 61.92 1 599 12.947 — — I — Hiliside Area tri6 to Branch M1lill Rd
3 � SBUH Runoff' 164.70 1 598 25220 — -- --- Farm Arza bzhveen Branch Mill Rd& I
4 Combine I 117$,06 1 720 240.583 1, 2,3 I — --- Combined Flows aocr Brencn Mill&
I
i
�
i
I
�
I I
�
i
I � ' �
I � i �
; i �
� i i �
� !
I i ' ' ' i '
� � � �
, , �
,
� i i ! � j � ' I
� ; �
� Simpiified 2xisitng Newscm Sorings ��6vd: 100 Year j Thursday: Jun 9 2005; 2:04 PNl �
HydraFlovi Hytlrogra?ns by Inle!iscP�a
�
1
Hydrograph Summary Report
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume I Inflow Maximum Maximum � Hydrogreph
Vo. type flow interval . peak hyd(s) elevation storage description
(origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (acft) � (ft) (acft) I
t SBUH Rvnoft 594.68 I 1 610 25i.532 — I — I — I Newsom Springs Cr at Brench Mill R
2 SBUH RunoN 59.85 I 1 599 � 12.947 — — — Nillside Area trib to Brench tdiil Rd
3 SBUH Rurofi 764.10 7 598 25.220 — — -- Farm Area behveen Branch Mill Rd 8
, 4 Comhine 801.12 1 600 295.700 1,2,3 — — Combined Flows appr Branch Mill 8
I I ; I
I � � I
I I I
i
� I I I � , I
; I
i i � �
I � ;
; � � , i � �
I i � I � ' '
existing Newsem Springs Drainage in�c��frl-F��af���fe�rvi ' Thursday, Jun 9 2005, 2:10 PM �; li
� �
Hydraflow Hydregraphs 6y Inteiisch�e
1 2 3
� � �
4 I
�
�
5�.�
6 �
k°;�Ys �
\
. 7�
C I " ��5� ��2a,�����C �l(i5{��n, Mo�e
L.enenA Q Qeal. �oa = `�(o $ c-�S
Hyd. Oriqin Description � - (� O) rr,,n
I SBUH Runoff Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mili Rd-Xing � �
2 SEtUH Runu(f Hillside Area hib to Branch Mill Rtl
J SUUH Rwiuff Farm Arca between Dranch MiII Rd&Cherry Ave �
4 I:each f3ranch mill road channel to stone cuivert
5 Combine S�one Culveri
C, Reacl� Prom Stone Culvert[o Cherry Ave
7 Corn6ine fntersection of Bhl Rd and Cherry Ave
_I-lydraflow Hydrographs Model Project: Existing Newsom Springs Drainage using chan eTJ�rtoday, Jun 9 2005, 1:56 PM
1
Hydrograph Su�nmary R�port •
. , �
Hyd. Hydrogrephi Peak Time Time to Volume InFlow Maximum Maximum I Hydrogreph
o. type flow interval peak hyd(s) elevation I storage description
" (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (acft) (R) (acY)
1 SBUH Runoff 854.43 7 601 257.533 — — — � Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill R
2 SBUH Runoi 61.92 � 599 12.947 — — -- Hilisida Area tnb to Branch Mill Rd
3 SBUH Runoff 164.10 I 1 598 25.220 — — — Fartn Area between 6ranch Ivlill Rd &
� 4 Reach 87 t49 1 670 257.533 1 -- -- Branch mill road cnann>I to stone cu!
5 Combine 863.05 1 610 270.480 2,4 — — Sfone Culvert
6 Reach 858.89 1 613 270.480 5 — —• From Stone Culvert to CheryAve
7 Combine 967.99 1 609 295.700 3,6 — — Intersection of BH Rd and Cherry Av
�
I
I I Ij
I I i II�
� I I � � � � �
I � ! ' '
�
I I ' ' `
� ,
Existing Newsom Springs Drainage i��ah�eeb�pd.00 Year I Thursday, Jun 9 2005, 1:56 PM �" ��
/ �t T Hydre"o�.v Hydro^yrachs by Ini=lisolv=
APPENDIX G
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
I
{
WG 0232.5754 Jul/ 11, 2005
Newsom Springs Basin Feasibiliry Stud� Page 3
_
'� 2 3
� � �
4 �
�
5 I
���
� ,
� , (i �l� 4 � � .
.!/ j,'7-��•� 1.n;.aV �
6 !�' 1 -7
. �.K`�:?u(� -' �I �'�).� �6 (.'.i_.:
� � .�
(> 1�.:� 7 ,„ , V..
�
�
� `�� / .
I � � p�,��-n r _ 1 r�
L. egend ���
�_,) -.:, ,, `� :'
Hyci. Ori in Oescriation �C� '� ' � `� � � �r�
I SBUI�I liunoff Newsom Springs Cr at Branch Mill Rd Xing �� �
... � ,-,
2 SBUH RunoR Hillside Araa lrib to Branch Mill Rd ��� '
3 56UH Runoff Ferm Area Uelween Branch Mill Rd&Cherry Ave
4 Reservoir South of Branch Mill R
5 Reach Basin Lo stune culved
6 C�mbine Slone Culvert
7 Reach From Stone CulveA to Cherry Ave
8 Combine inlersection of BH Rd and Cherry Ave
`liydraflow i-lydrographs Modef Project: basin Newsom Sprinys Dra+nage.gpw Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 4.42 PM
1
Hydrograph Sur�mary Repor#
� � , ;
Hyd. ' Hydrog2ph Peak Time Time to i Volume Inflow Maximum I� Maximum Hydrogreph �
No. itype flow interval peak I hyd�s) elevation ' storage description i
(origin) �cfs) (min) (min) (ack), � (ft) i (acft) I
1 SBUH Runo"rf 85d.43 I 7 001 25i.533 I — — I — I Ne�vsom Springs Cr at Brancn Mill RJ
2 SBUH Runoff 61.52 1 599 I 12.947 -- — i — I Hillsidz Area trib to Brancn Mill Rd
3 SBUH Runoff� 164.10 1 598 25220 -- -- � — Fartn Area behveen Branch Mill Rd 8 I
4 Reservoir 703.OS 1 627 257.464 1 �9725 18.'74 South of Branch Mill R
5 Reach 695.50 1 634 257.4'04 4 — — Basin to stona culvzrt
6 Combine 728.92 1 632 270.471 2, 5 — — Stone Culvert
7 Reach 727.51 1 635 270.410 6 — -- From Stone Culvert to Cherry Ave
8 Combine 779.18 1 632 295.631 3, 7 -- -- InterseMion of BH Rd and Cherry Av
�� ��)�, c ., ., � ,> .
� J /� 4-
, �'' I I i ' �
' I I i I I � � i
� � � � � �
� �
basin NeNasom Springs Drainage.gpwRetum Period: 100 Year � Wednesday, Jul 27 2005, 4:17 PM ', �
i !
Hydraflow Hytlrographs oy Intelisolve
Hydrogra�h Plot 2
Hydraflow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wedres6ay.Jul 27 2005,4:17 PM
Hyd. No. 4
South of Branch Mill R
� Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 7.03.06 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min
inflow hyd. No. = 1 Max. Elevation = 197.25 ft
Reservoir name = 12 foot depth Max. Storage = 18.774 acft
Storege Indication method used. Hydrogreph Volume=257 464 acft
South of 8ranch Miil R
, Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4- 100 Yr Q (cfs)
861.00 861.00
738.00 738.00
_..._ _.._ _ -- --- -- . _... _ ._......
� --_ _... - -_ �. .._ _._. __.... .
� 615.00 615.00
492.00 , �I 492.00
..... _ . -- - _ ...___._.__ . _. ..._. . ... .._ (.._... _ _. _._.I
I � I
i369.00 � 369.00
_....... _
� _ _ _. ... .
.
�
�' 246.00 \ , 246.00
i i i i
i \.
' i � f I i � 123.00
I '� � ' - -
123.00 I I ; � i i
I ' �
, � ! � j� I � ; i �., !
; i ;
I� �
0.00 � -- -
j I ! I � 0.00
0 3 5 S 1'1 113 16 19 21 24 27
Time(hrs)
---- Hyd No. 4 — Hyd No. 1 ,
I
Pond Report 3
Hydraflow Hydmgraphs by IntelisoWZ 'Nednesday,Jul 27 2005,4:17 PM
Pond No. 1 - 12 foot depth
Pond Data
Bot�om LxW = 190.0 x 510.0 ft Side siop= = 3.0:1 BoYOm elev. = 190.00 ft Depth = 12.00 ft
Stage/Storage Table
Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage jacft) Total storege(acR)
� 0.00 190.00 96,900 0.000 0.000
, 0.60 190.60 99,433 1.352 1.352
120 19120 707,992 1.387 2.739
i 1.80 191.80 104,Si7 1.423 4.�62
2.40 192.40 107,187 1.458 5.620
3.00 193.00 109,824 1.495 7.115
3.60 193.60 712,487 1.531 8.646
4.20 794.20 115,175 1.568 10.214
4.80 194.80 117,889 7.605 71.819
5.40 795.40 120,fi30 1.643 i3.462
6.00 196.00 t23,396 1.681 15.142
6.60 t96.60 126,188 1.719 16.86'I
7.20 19720 129,006 1.758 18.619
' 7.80 197.80 131,850 1.797 20.415
� 8.40 798.40 134,720 1.836 22.251
9.00 199.00 137,616 1.876 24.126
9.60 199.60 140,538 1.916 26.042
10.20 200.20 143,485 1.956 27.998
10.80 200.80 146,459 � 1.997 29.995
71.40 20'1.40 149,459 2.038 32.033
12.00 202.00 t52,484 2.079 34.112
Culvert/Orifice Structu�es Weir Structures
IAl IB] I�l I�I IAI LB] I�l I�l
Rise(in) = 66.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len(ft) = 50.00 D.00 0.00 0.00
S an in = 66.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Ei.(ft) = 197.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
P I )
No.Barrels = 3 0 0 0 WeirCoeff. = 2.60 3.33 0.00 3.33
Invert EL�8) = 790.00 0.00 0.a0 0.00 WeirType = Broad - - -
I Length(ft) = 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MulUStage = No No No No
� Slope(%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
� N•Value = .013 .013 .013 .013
Orif.Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
MultiStage = n/a No No No E�Itration= 0.000 in/hr(Wet area) Tailwater Elev.= 0.00 ft
Nota:CuIVeNO�ra oumaxs M1ave�een ana:yied wCer mtel antl ovtlel wnwl.
' s�a9e(ft) Stage/Discharge Stage(ft)
' �a.00 , �a.00
�
�
iz.00 .
�z.oa
io.00 ! I -- j I �_ � i !_._ I I � � �o.oa
I � ; I I i i I i ' a.co
a.00 , � ' I � � I I ;
� i I � I i ; � I '
s.00 I i i I I � � � ; s.co
I � � � , i
a.co , � � a.co
i � ' � �
� , i j ��. � i �� � i
2.00 . , 2.00
: ; 1 ; �. ' '� . I
. i : : ! �! � ; � i
; i { i � ; '�. ;, �.. :
0.00 7AD
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 5GC.00 1GOO.OG 120G.00 1400.00 1"oG0.G0 79G0.00 2000.W 2200.00
Dischar�a(ctsi
- Total Q
1
Hydrograph Summary Report
� � � � � ;
Hyd. Hydrogreph Peak Time Time to � Volume � InFlow ! Maximum � Maximum ! Hydrograph �
' No. type flow Interval peak � I hyd(s) elevation I storage � description �
I
. (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) I (acft) � (R) i (acR) '
� I � - I
i �
t SBUH Runoff 854.43 1 601 I 257.533 i — I — � — I Newsom Spnngs Cr at Branch Mill R
� 2 SBUH Runoff 61 a2 7 599 12.947 � — I — — I Hilisidz Area trib to Brench Mill Rd
i
� 3 SBUH Runoff �64.10 1 598 25�20 — — — i Farm Area beriveen Branch Mill Rd&
I 4 Reservoir 54624 1 650 257..11 1 200.85 30.1 fi4 i South oi Brench Miil R I
5 Reach 544.82 1 657 25i.41� 4 — — i Basin to stone culved
6 Combine 497.16 1 665 270279 2, 5 — — I Stone Culvert
, i
7 Reach 497.00 1 668 270.279 6 — — From Stone Culvert to Cherry Ave
8 Combine 527.03 1 659 295.499 3,7 — — Intersedion of BH Rd and Cherry Av
I
�J< % ' ;o , . �
I
�
�
i i ,II
� ! �
; �
�
�
�
I � , ! '
, ; � �
� I I � I I I I
i basin Newsom Springs Drainage.gpwP,eturn Period: 100 Year �Nednesday, Jul 27 2005, 2:39 PM ' _
I �
HydraFlOw Hydrograohs by Intelisolve
—
Hydrograph P1ot 2
Hydratlow Hydrographs by Intelisolve Wednesday,Jul 27 ZCOS,2:39 PM
Hyd. No. 4
South of Branch Mill R �
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 546.24 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Max. Elevation = 200.85 ft
Reservoir name = 15 foot depth Max. Storage = 30.164 acft
Storage Indication method used. Hydrogreph Volume=25i.471 acR
South of Branch Mill R
' Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 4 - 100 Yr Q (cfs)
861.00 I 861.00
i
_ . . _. _ _. .
738.00 I 738.00
_.. ___ _,. .. _.. __._. . _._. _..... _.. .. _ _ .__ ._.
615.00 615.00
I � �
�\
492.00 492.00
_....... _._. _. _ . - I . _��,�`. _. __ ..I_. _.
369.00 � � 369.00
_ _ __ �. � �� _ _ _
I' i �'� I � �
246.00 ' I ; 'I I ' I 246.00
( � � � I '
� �� �
� I � i � � � �i�`- I i
123.OG ' � - _ 123.00
' j � i I i� i j i _`--` � i I
�
i � � i �
� � � �I ` �
i I tI i
I.. _. i � Il / 'i �� I I I �\ `.�� _ I
Q.�� �.Q�
0 3 5 8 11 13 16 19 21 24 27 29
, Time(hrs)
---- Hyd No. 4 — Hyd No. 1
Pond Report 3
Hydraflow Hydrogrephs by Intelisolve Wednesday, Ju127 2�05.2:39 PM
Pond No. 1 - 15 foot depth
Pond Data
Bottom LxW = 190.0 x 510.0 ft Side slope = 3.0:1 Bottom elev. = 190.00 ft Depth = 15.00�t
Stage/Storage Table
SWge(ft) Eievation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storege(acft) ToWI storege{acft)
0.00 190.00 96,900 0.000 0.000
0.75 190.75 700,070 1.696 1.696
1.50 191.50 103,281 1.751 3.446
2.25 19225 106,532 1.806 5.252
3.00 193.00 109,824 1.863 7.175
3.75 193.75 113,15fi 1.920 9.034
4.50 194.50 116,529 1.977 11.07 2
5.25 195.25 119,942 2.036 73.047
6.00 196.00 '123,396 2.095 15.142
6.75 196.75 126,890 2.155 17.297
7.50 797.50 130,425 2.215 19.512 .
8.25 198.25 134,000 2276 21.788
9.00 199.00 137,616 2.338 24.126
9.75- 19975 141,272 2.401 26.527
10.50 200.50 144,969 2.464 28.991
11.25 201.25 148,706 2.528 31.520
12.00 202.00 152,484 2.593 34.172
' 1275 20275 156,302 2.658 36.771
. 13.50 203.50 160,161 . 2724. - . 39.495 . . . ..
� 74.25 20425 164,060 2.791 42.286
75.00 205.00 168,000 2.859 45.145
Culvert/Orifice StrucYures Weir Structures
' LAl IB] I�I Ia] IA] Isl I�] I�J
Rise(in) = 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len(k) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span(in) = 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest EI.(ft) = 200.96 0.00 0.00 0.00
' No.Barrels = 2 0 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 2.60 3.33 0.00 3.33
Invert EI.(ft) = 190.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = 8road - - -
Length(ft) = 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MultiStage = No No No No
SIopB(%) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
N-Value = .013 .Ot3 .013 .013
Orif.Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
MWtiStage = nla No No No Fxfiltration= 0.000 inlhr(Wet area) Tailwater E!ev. = 0.00 ft
Nola:CuWaNOrifea ouHlows�ave Oean analyza7 unEer iMet anE outlN anvol.
Stage(ft) Stage/Discharge staye(�t)
15.00 15.00
� I
12.00 I I 12.00
i �
' I I I I
! e.co
� s.00 i i I
�
j ! j I i
, , � i ;
s.00 ; ' ; e.co
� ' �
, i � � 1 i :
' � ' i
i � i ' ! � i 1 �.,
3.00 . � , , , 3.00
� �
� � j ! ,, ',. ,.
I
OAG ' � � O.CO
0.00 ZCO.GG 4C0.00 6G0.00 300.00 1000.00 12C0.00 1400.00 'I600.00 18GO.G0
�ischarge(crs)
- Total Q
ATTACHMENT2
� �����
HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS
NEWSOM SPRINGS �RA/NAGE PROJECT
��
�' • o�
.`.(� �`�.
, ,�� � �
�� �o�-
�� ��
Q '��
��
�
April 7, 1998
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRA/NAGE PROJECT
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
EXISTING HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
HYDROLOGY OF ALIGNMENT A PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
HYDROLOGY OF ALIGNMENT B AND C PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
HYDRAULICS OF ALIGNMENT A PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
HYDRAULICS OF ALIGNMENT B AND C PROJECTS C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FIGURE 1 WATERSHED AREAS
FIGURE 2 EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
FIGURE 3 ALIGNMENT A -ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES
FIGURE 4 ALIGNMENT B - ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES
FIGURE 5 ALIGNMENT C -ALTERNATIVE DRAINAGE FACILITIES
FIGURE 6 PROFILE OF ALIGNMENT A
FIGURE 7 PROFILE OF ALIGNMENT B
FIGURE 8 PROFILE OF ALIGNMENT C
ATTACHMENTS: QR fESS(ONg�
CALCULATIONS ���� \G CAMp Fy
COST ESTIMATES � U�P �F�� �'2
`C No. 34405 �
i� �
PREPARED BY• - 'f'l9 CIV1� ��Q'
Crai 8mp II license expires 9-30-99 TF OF Cp1.�E0�
INTRODUCTION �`
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION
This report reviews the hydrology and hydraulics for the proposed Newsom Springs
Drainage project. The drainage project has been proposed in response to repetitive
flooding problems within the City of Arroyo Grande. The following report describes the
drainage area, flooding problems, the hydrology of the watersheds, and the hydraulics
of the proposed drainage projects.
WATEI2SHED CHARACTERISTICS
avv-e-
� The watershed study area is shown on Figure 1 and includes a total of 1,240 areas.
Most of this watershed is steep, mountainous, and undeveloped. These undeveloped
areas drain to the lower watershed which is flat, irrigated farm land. Future
development within the watershed which could significantly affect future stormwater
runoff is not anticipated and has not been considered in this study.
Newsom Springs Creek, at the crossing of Branch Mill Road has a tributary area of
1,116 acres, as shown on the attached sketch. In a 100 year storm, this watershed will
generate about 891 cubic feet per second (cfs) of runoff. Runoff from this watershed
crosses Branch Mill Road and into the City limits through an existing 8ft x 4ft concrete
and masonry culvert. In large storms, the capacity of this culvert will be exceeded.
Downstream of the 8ft x 4ft culvert, a parallel watershed of 51 acres contributes
additional runoff. Runoff from this smaller watershed also crbsses Branch Mill Road
through culverts, or in larger storms by sheet flow across the road. As shown on
Figure 2, an earth ditch carries runoff parallel to Branch Miil Road on the north side, to
an existing 3ft x 5ft culvert known as the "stone culvert." This ditch is regraded each
year, and depending on the grading, the capacity of this ditch varies from
approximately 30 to 100 cfs. Similarly, the capacity of the stone culvert is dependent
on the grading of the ditch and the culvert entrance and varies from approximately 30
to 100 cfs. Flow which enters ttie stone culvert crosses Branch Mill road again, as
shown on Figure 2. Downstream, this flow contributes to historical flooding problems
within Tract 139 (Luana Lane), at the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, at the Pacific
Coast Christian School and further downstream at Valley Road.
Excess flows are not diverted through the stone culvert. These flows sheet across the
agricultural fields and are concentrated at the intersection of Branch Mill Road and
Cherry Avenue. At this point the existing 100 year runoff is approximately 893 cfs.
With the elimination of the diversion through the stone culvert, and assuming a future
upgrade to the Branch Mill Road Culvert, this will increase to 1,024 cFs. The only
drainage facility is a small ditch with a capacity of 22 cfs. As a result, the homes within
Tract 409 have experienced serious flooding.
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 1
EXISTING HYDROLOGY
I Hydrologic analyses in the Arroyo Grande area are usually perFormed using either the
rational method or one of several hydrograph computer programs. The rational method
is simpler to use, but is considered less reliabie for watersheds over 200 acres.
Therefore, a hydrograph analysis was chosen. The hydrology of the area was
evaluated utilizing a hydrograph analysis based on the Santa Barbara Urban
i Hydrograph (SBUH) method, and the results compared to other studies. The
watershed data for the analysis is listed in the following table:
WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
# DESCRIPTION Acres L (ft) S(%) n °/alnp
1 Newsom Springs Creek at the 1,116 14,000 3.7 .04 0.01
crossing of Branch Mill Road.
2 Hillside area tributary to Branch 51 1,300 17 .04 0.01
Mill Road.
3 Farmed area between Branch Mill 73 2,500 1 .03 0.01
Road and Cherry Avenue
The hydrograph analysis combines rainfall data with the watershed data to produce a
stormwater runoff hydrograph. Rainfall runoff data used assumes saturated soil '
conditions and rainfall as shown:
RAINFACL PARAMETER STORM RECURRENCE INTERVAL
100 yr 50 yr 25 yr 10 yr 2 Yr
24 Hour Totai Rainfali (inches) 5.5 5.0 4.4 3.7 2.2
Loss Rate for pervious areas (inches/hr) .18 .20 .22 .23 .25
Hydrograph analyses are also sensitive to the time distribution of the rainfall. The
rainfall distribution used in this study is based on a reconstitution of the January xx,
1969 storm in San Luis Obispo. The Corp's of Engineers has recommended this
distribution for studies of flooding in this area.
The computer program pertorms a hydrograph analysis for each watershed. It was
recognized that ponding occurs at both Branch Mill Road and at the extension of
Cherry Avenue. To determine the effect of this ponding, each of these locations were
modeled as detention basins. At Branch Mill Road, the area was modeled as a basin
with the existing 8ft x 4ft culvert as an outlet pipe and with the road as an overflow weir.
The extension of Cherry Avenue is a dirt road which is raised 1 to 2 feet above the
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 2
upstream agricultural fields. The effect of this barrier was modeled as a wide flat basin
(the field) with no outiet pipe, and a long low weir (the dirt road). The output of the
computer analysis for the above rainfall and watershed analysis are included in the
appendix to this report. The results of the analysis for existing conditions are
summarized below:
HYDROGRAPH Stormwater Runoff(cfs)
# DESCRIPTION Acres 100 yr 50 yr 25 yr 10 yr 2 Yr
24 Hour Rainfall (Inches) 5.5 5.0 4.4 3.7 2.2
1 Newsom Springs Creek at the 1,116 891 762 611 456 165
crossing of Branch Mill Road. gj�,�'g,X
2 Hillside area tributary to 51 60 55 46 36 16
Branch Mill Road.
3 Farmed area between Branch 73 73 63 52 40 16
Mill Road and Cherry Avenue
4 Outflow of H1 through the 8ft x 1,116 818 690 504 374 139
,4ft culvert, routed to consider �
restricted flows.
5 Combined fiows from H2, H3 1,240 923 755 556 354 163
and H4. '
6 H5 reduced by 30 cfs diversion 1,240 893 725 526 324 133
through the stone culvert. This
as the total existing flow
approaching the Branch Mill
Road - Cherry Avenue
intersection.
7 H5 routed across the Cherry 1,240 904 731 566 400 117
Avenue extension to consider
the effect of ponding.
8 H7 reduced by 30 cfs diversion 1,240 874 701 536 370 87
through the stone culvert.
This is existing outflow to
the creek.
/✓a w, 9 CombinedflowsfromH1, H2, 1,240 1,024 878 707 531 197
P {° � an H3, this is the proposed
�� ty,,,ti� flow to the creek.
�,�.� � p.y�,�. ,wL,.�.�..-,. �,..�,
�'� ,�,,:. ,�� e�.�-�—� ( $ Y� � �-r- (o -�' ���a q i vs a i
� r a�- � -� �.
/I,�tn.�.�.L r7•��
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 3
Hydrograph analyses are sensitive to several of the rainfall and watershed variabies
listed above and contained within the program itself. To verify the results listed above,
they were compared to the results of other studies of similar watersheds within the
general area. The above analyses indicates that the 1.8 sq mi primary watershed will
produce 100 year runoff at a rate of 511 cfs/sq mi. As comparisons, the following
' studies were reviewed:
The 1984 FEMA Stud used a basis for the Arro o Grande Flood insurance Rate
Y Y
Maps indicates the following rates of runoff for similar watersheds:
Carpenter Canyon Creek 1.0 sq mi 420 cfs/ sq mi. .
Corbit Canyon Creek 3.9 sq mi 590 cfs/sq mi
North Fork of Los Berros Creek, 2.6 sq mi 461 cfs/sq mi.
Meadow Creek 4.4 sq mi. 591 cfs/sq mi.
The 1987 Corps of Engineers study of San Luis Obispo County Streams
indicates the following rates of runoff for similar watersheds:
Corbit Canyon Creek 4.7 sq mi 510 to 660 cfs/sq mi
These comparisons are seen as verifying the reasonableness of the results
obtained in this study.
HYDROLOGY OF ALIGNMEN�A PROJECTS '
The hydrology for the proposed projects along Alignment A were performed in a
manner similar to that for the existing conditions. Watershed and rainfall
characteristics are unchanged. However, the diversion through the stone culvert has
been eliminated. Also, runoff will be released from the farm land at Branch Mill Road
and Cherry Avenue to the creek more quickly by the storm drain collection and
drainage system. For the purposes of design, it is also assumed that in the future the
Branch Mill Road Culvert wili be replaced and will not act as a restriction to the flow.
8 'k ¢'
HYDROGRAPH Stormwater Runoff (cfs)
# DESCRIPTION Acres Q,�
1 Newsom Springs Creek at Branch Mill Road. 1,116 891
2 Hillside area tributary to Branch Mill Road. 51 60
3 Farm area between Branch Mill Road - Cherry Ave 73 73
9 Combined flows from H1, H2 and H3. This is the total 1,240 1,024
design flow approaching the Branch Miil Road -
Cherry Avenue intersection.
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 4
, This analysis shows that peak flows contributing to Arroyo Grande Creek will be
increased by 101 cfs. To review the effect of this on Arroyo Grande Creek, several
factors must be considered, including; the total combined flow in the creek, the timing
of peak creek flow and peak project flow, and the capacity of the creek. The watershed
above the stream gage is 10.6 sq mi. Assuming a flow production of 600 cfs per sq.
mi., the 100 year flow at this point wouid be 6,360 cfs. There are no published 100
year flow estimates for Arroyo Grande Creek at this location to confirm this. However,
� according to the stream gage records maintained by San Luis Obispo County the
largest flow of record since 1939 is 5,400 cfs prior to Lopez Dam and 4,620 cfs after
Lopez was constructed. The stream gage is just upstream of the contribution of the
Newsom Springs runoff. For determining the impact of an incremental flow increase,
the assumed fiow of 6,360 cfs will be used.
The Newsom Springs is a smaller watershed than Arroyo Grande Creek at the point of
confluence, and therefore, the peak flows arrive at different times following a rain
event. Assuming an average stream velocity of 10 fps and a stream length of 25 miles,
the time of concentration for Arroyo Grande Creek at the stream gage is about three
hours as compared to about one hour for the Newsom Springs flow. At that time in the
storm, the Alternative A projects will actually decrease flows to Arroyo Grande Creek,
because the existing flow paths at Branch Mill Road and across the agricultural fields
are slow and hold the flow back to combine more evenly with the peak flowing Arroyo
Grande creek. Even if a chance occurrence of 100 year storm patterns allowed the
peak flows to combine, the increase in flow depth would be only 0.1 feet from 10.0 feet
at 7,253 cfs to 10.1 feet at 7,384 cfs.
HYDROLOGY OF ALIGNMENT B AND C PROJECTS
The hydrology of project alternatives along alignments B and C are the same, and are
considered together. The hydrology is pertormed in a manner similar to that for the
existing conditions. Watershed and rainfall characteristics are unchanged. However,
the diversion through the stone cuivert has been eliminated, and the point of
connection to Arroyo Grande Creek is changed for most of the project flow. Also,
runoff will be released from the farm land at Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue to
the creek more quickly by the storm drain collection and drainage system. A summary
of the hydrology runs for this configuration is as foliows:
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 5
HYDROGRAPH Stormwater Runoff(cfs)
# DESCRIPTION Acres Q,�
1 Newsom Springs Creek at the crossing of Branch 1,116 891
' Mill Road. This flow will be diverted directly to
I Arroyo Grande Creek.
2 Hillside area tributary to Branch Mill Road. 51 60
3 Farmed area between Branch Mill Road and Cherry 73 73
Avenue
10 Combined flows from H2 and H3. This is the total 124 133
flow approaching the Branch Mill Road - Cherry
Avenue intersection.
The effect of these projects on the flow in Arroyo Grande Creek was evaluated in a
manner similar to that described for Alternative A. Since these Alternatives divert flow
entering Arroyo Grande Creek to an upstream location, flows will be increased from
that point downstream until the confluence is reached. The effect of the differing time
of concentration serves to diminish this effect. The Alternatives B and C projects will
divert a peak flow of 891 cfs to the upstream location. However, twb hours later when
Arroyo Grande Creek is reaching peak flow, the Newsom Springs diversion wiil only be
contributing a flow of 198 cfs. This increase was compared to a rating curve for the
creek to determine the incremental rise. Based on the rating curve, the flow depth in
this section of creek will increase 0.2 feet from 9.3 feet at 6,360 cfs to 9.5 feet at 6,558
cfs. Even if a chance occurrence of 100 year storm patterns allowed the peak flows to
combine, the increase in fiow depth would be only 0.7 feet from 9.3 feet at 6,360 cfs to
10.0 feet at 7,251 cfs. The Arroyo Grande Creek cross section is large in this area and
the projected increase in flow depth is considered insignificant. Downstream of the
stream gage, the effect on Arroyo Grande Creek is the same as evaluated for
Alternative A and is also insignificant.
HYDRAULICS OF ALIGNMENT A PROJECTS
The Alternative A project consists of two drainage facilities, as follows:
1. Reach 2 - Conveyance from the stone culvert along Branch Mill Road to the �
comer of Cherry Avenue:
The flow approaching the stone culvert varies from 30 to 100 cfs according to
how the approach and the upstream ditch is graded in any particular year.
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 6
Downstream, floodwaters increase until at the intersection of Branch Mill Road
and Cherry Avenue, the design flow is 1,024 cfs.
Projects A1 and A2 use a system of ditches to divert the stone culvert fiow and
to collect the fiood waters which sheet across the farm land. The proposed ditch
along Branch Mill Road would vary in size and capacity. At the upstream end, ^
near the stone culvert, it would need to convey the 100 cfs flow. At the `�� dz'^/'--�
downstream end, it would need to convey about 70 percent of the total flood
flow. Another intercepting ditch along the extension of Cherry Avenue would
also be sized for 70 percent of the total flow. At the downstream end these
ditches would then be sized to convey about 720 cfs each. These ditches could
be constructed at a slope of approximately 0.30 percent. At this slope, a ditch
with a 15 feet wide bottom and 3:1 side siopes wouid vary in depth from 3 feet at
the upstream end to 6 feet at the downstream end. These depths include 1 foot
of freeboard. Flow velocity would be a maximum of 5 fps at the down stream
end and minimal erosion control will be needed.
Project A-3 uses a pipe to divert flow from the stone culvert. if a pipe were sized
to accommodate the 100 cfs flow, a 48 inch storm drain would be required. Flat
slopes along the flow direction effect the sizing of the drainage facilities. Along
Branch Mill Road, the existing ground slopes approximately 0.2 pe�cent,
however, a storm drain could be constructed at 0.6 percent which would allow it
to clear the downstream utilities (see Figure 4). A flared inlet would also be
because of the low head�available. To collect additional flood flow which will
sheet across the farm land, surFace ditches and inlets wiil be required. These
ditches will be similar in size to hose described above, except at the upstream
end near the box culvert.
In general, little benefit is received from using underground culverts for this
reach, since surface ditches will be required in any case.
2. Reach 1 - Conveyance from the corner of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue
to Arroyo Grande Creek:
The design flow used for this conveyance is 1,024 cFs. This assumes that the
upstream areas will remain in their existing undeveloped condition. For
Alternatives A1 and A3, underground pipes are proposed for this reach, and as
shown in Figure 4, they can be constructed at approximately 0.9 percent and
clear the existing underground facilities. This will make the fiowline of the
downstream end be approximately 17 feet deep. The design flow can be
conveyed by two 72" RCP storm drains if special attention is given to the inlets.
A minimum of 3 flared inlets would be required in order for the drainage pipes to
collect the runoff with the required minimal head loss. This drainage system
could also be constructed of two 60" HDPE storm drains, but the downstream
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 7
end would need to be 20 feet deep to fiowline, and four flared inlets would be
required.
The outlet of these storm drains wiil require careful construction. The outlet
location is beiween an existing residential property and the existing County
stream gage. The pipes will be oriented about 50 degrees toward the
downstream and will not have a backwater effect on the stream gage.
Construction of the pipes will require 18 to 22 feet cuts near the rear of the
existing residential yard. The creek banks in this area appear to be underiain by
rock. It is anticipated that a gabion retaining wall will be needed to protect the
bank. The velocity of flow leaving the storm drains will be 17 to 25 fps
depending on the size of pipe. This is comparable to the estimated velocity in
this section of the creek (20 fps for a flow of 6000 cfs). The existing rock bottom
and sides of the creek in this area appear to have a history of accommodating
the high velocities without excessive erosion. Therefore, erosion protection for
the storm drain outlet is proposed to consist of orienting the drains downstream
and the use of gabion protection where appropriate.
Alternative A2 proposes this reach to be an open ditch. This ditch will have a 15
feet wide bottom, with 2:1 side slopes and will be about xx feet deep. Bridges
will be required at Myrtle Street and at the extension of Cherry Avenue.
HYDRAULICS OF ALIGNMENT B AND C PROJECTS
The alternative projects along alignments B and C consist of a set of drainage facilities
along an easterly location, which divert the main flow from Newsom Springs Creek and
divert it directly to Arroyo Grande Creek, and an additional westeriy set of facilities
divert the stone culvert and field flow to the creek.
1. Reach 2 - Conveyance from the stone culvert along Branch Mill Road to the
corner of Cherry Avenue:
, This is the upstream end of the westeriy drainage facilities. The flow
approaching the stone culvert varies from 30 to 100 cfs according to how the
approach and the upstream ditch is graded in any particular year. Downstream,
the agricultural fields will add additional runoff until at the intersection of Branch
Mill Road and Cherry Avenue, the design flow is 173 cfs.
Projects B1 and C1 use a system of ditches to divert the stone culvert flow and
� to collect the flood waters which sheet across the farm land. The proposed ditch
along Branch Mill Road would vary in size and capacity. At the upstream end,
near the stone culvert, it would need to convey the 100 cfs flow. At the
downstream end, it would need to convey about 70 percent of the total flood
flow. Another intercepting ditch along the extension of Cherry Avenue would
also be sized for 70 percent of the total flow. At the downstream end these
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 8
ditches wouid then be sized to convey about 720 cfs each. These ditches could
be constructed at a slope of approximately 0.30 percent. At this slope, a ditch
with a 15 feet wide bottom and 3:1 side slopes would vary in depth from 3 feet at
the upstream end to 6 feet at the downstream end. These depths include 1 foot
of freeboard. Flow velocity would be a maximum of 5 fps at the down stream
end and minimal erosion control wiil be needed.
A 48 inch storm drain with a flared inlet could be constructed to convey the 100
cfs flow from the stone culvert. The culvert approach is used in Alternatives 63.
In addition to the 48" pipe, surface ditches are needed to collect the flood water
which will sheet across the agricuitural field.
Aiternative B2 does not inciude drainage facilities for this reach. As a result,
significant amounts of runoff wili continue to be flow at the stone culvert and at
Branch Mill Road - Cherry Extension. Flooding problems in the areas
downstream will not be entirely corrected.
2. Reach 1 - Conveyance from the comer of Branch Mill Road and Cherry Avenue
to Arroyo Grande Creek:
This is the downstream reach of the westerly facilities. The design flow used in
this report for this conveyance is 173 cfs. This assumes that the upstream areas
will remain in their existing undeveloped condition. Alternatives B1, 62, 63 and
C1 propose an underground pipe is proposed for this conveyance. The design
flow can be conveyed by a single 48 inch HDPE storm drain if special attention
is given to the iniets. A minimum of 2 flared inlets would be required in order for
the drainage pipe to collect the runoff with the required minimal head loss. The
outlet of these storm drains will require carefui construction, similar to that
described for the Alignment A projects. Peak outlet velocity will be about 14 fps.
Alternative 62 does not include drainage facilities for this reach. As a result,
significant amounts of runoff will continue to be flow at Branch Miil Road -
Cherry Extension. Flooding problems in the areas downstream will not be
entirely corrected.
3. Reaches 3 and 4 - Conveyance from of the Branch Mill Creek runoff to Arroyo
Grande Creek.
These reaches are the upstream and downstream sections of the easterly
facilities which divert the Newsom Springs Creek flow direct to Arroyo Grande
Creek. This concept will divert location of confiuence of the Newsom Springs
Creek fiow upstream of the County stream fiow gage. Currently this flow enters
Arroyo grande Creek just downstream of the flow gage. The stream gage on
arroyo Grande Creek has been in service for >oc years, and is considered one of
the best sources for studying the rainfail and flooding relationships. The Corps
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 9
of Engineers is currently performing flood analysis of Arroyo Grande Creek, San
Luis Obispo Creek, and Santa Rosa Creek. The Corps intends to base their
study on the Arroyo Grande creek because it the stream gage provides the most
' accurate and statisticaliy valid data. Diverting the Newsom Springs Creek flow
upstream of the stream gage will upset the integrity of future gage readings. For
this reason, the County has indicated that they prefer projects along alignment
A, and that projects along Alignments B or C should include a recording stream
flow gage in o�der that the stream flow records may continue to be statistically
valid.
The design flow used in this repo�t for this conveyance is 891 cfs. An open ditch
is proposed for Alternatives B1, B2, and C1. if open ditches are constructed
along these alignments, they will need to have minimal slopes to avoid being
excessively deep at the downstream end. As shown in Figure 5 and 6, the
, existing ground along Alternative B drops only 1 foot in 1600 feet and has a one
foot rise in the middle. The existing ground of Alternative C is essentially flat.
An open ditch constructed at a slope of 0.20 percent would drop about 4 feet
over the length of the project. At this slope, a ditch would need to be 15 feet
wide at the bottom, with 2:1 side slopes and a minimum depth of 7 feet
(including 1 foot of freeboard). The velocity of the ditch would be 5.5 fps and
would require moderate erosion protection such as planted grasses.
As an alternative, underground pipes could be constructed steeper than a
surface ditch. With the depth of cover held between 5 and 13 feet ( to allow the
less expensive cast in place pipe to be used), pipes couid be constructed at a 2 �d 2 "
slope of 0.42 percent. To convey the design flow, this pipe would need to be �
either a single 114 inch diameter or double 90 inch diameter RCP. Either pipe �^'
would need special inlets to accommodate low hydraulic head. ��
Constructing a surface ditch will require that agricultural equipment crossings be
provided. These will need to avoid siowing the flow, and therefore should be
clear span bridges with raised approaches. The span of the proposed ditch will
vary from 43 feet to 63 feet at various locations. One alternative which may be
suitable is to use railroad flatcar bridge5, which come in several lengths and
load ratings. The cost estimates presented assume flatcar bridges, double wide
(21 feet total).
The outlet to Arroyo Grande Creek for this ditch is proposed to be at a location
where the creek makes a 90 degree bend. Because of this, the proposed ditch
can enter the creek in the direction of flow. Erosion protection will be required
and is estimated to consist primarily of gabion protection.
NEWSOM SPRINGS ITYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS PAGE 10
WEST FACIUTIES EAST FACILITIES TOTAL COMMENTS
ALT PROJECT BUDGET
REACH 1 REACH 2 REACH 3 REACH 4
(Stiiwell) (Dixson) (Downstream) (Upstream)
A PIPE, PIPE INLETS, None 3/10/98 estimate Superseded by A-1
2 - 72" DITCHES $830,000
............ .......................... .....�--�--............................--�- �--.................---�-�--........................................ ............................--�--�--.......... ...................................................
A-1 PIPE, PIPE INLETS, None $690,000 Same as A,
2 - 72" DITCHES Costs Revised
PREFERRED PROJECT
............ .......................... ........................................... .................................................................... .............................................. .........�---......................................
A-2 DITCH, DITCHES None $840,000
BRIDGES
............ .......................... ........................................... .................................................................... .........................••----............... ...................................................
A-3 PIPE, PIPE INLETS, None $770,000
2 - 72" DITCHES
PIPE, 1-48"
B PIPE, 30" PIPE INLETS, DITCH, 3/10/98 estimate Superseded by B-1
DITCHES with 4 equipment crossings. $1,100,000
............ .......................... ..............................:............ .................................................................... .............................................. ....................................�---...........
B-1 PIPE, 48" PIPE INLETS, DITCH 4 Ag Xings $1,170,000 Same as B,
DITCHES with 2 to 4 equipment crossings. 3 Ag Xings $1,060,000 Cost revised,
2 Ag Xings $950,000 Pipe size revised.
............ .......................... ........................................... .................................................................... .............................................. ...................................................
B-2 None None DITCH, 4 Ag Xings $840,000 FLOOD PROBLEMS
with 2 to 4 equipment crossings. 3 Ag Xings $740,000 REMAIN at Luana Lane,
use either B or C alignment 2 Ag Xings $630,000 Vagabond MH Park,
Pacific Coast School,
' Noguera Place
............ .......................... ........................................... .................................................................... .............................................. ...................................................
B-3 PIPE, 48" PIPE, 48" PIPE, 2 - 90" Storm Drains, $2,010,000 Compiete Underground
use either B or C alignment Solution.
C PIPE, 30" PIPE INLETS, PIPE, 2-90". DITCH, with 2 3/10/98 estimate Superseded by C-1 �
DITCHES equipment $1,960,000
crossings.
............ . ....................... ........................................... ................................ ......... .. . .. . . . .... . ........ ..
C-1 PIPE, 48" PIPE INLETS, DITCH 4 Ag Xings $1,180,000 Same as C,
DITCHES with 2 to 4 equipment crossings. 3 Ag Xings $1,070,000 Cost revised,
2 Ag Xings $960,000 Pipe size revised.
Pipe removed.
FIGURES
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRA/NAGE PROJECT
�V N „ 4
�\y30��1ap'J� � �� i���' `�����we�� ��,., `�
,�a,d�`n"��LN���� i - ° � !'�o �� y; "`—� 'J
6�` 3Qi���a 1d Q �L °�� § :�' ." .._.�f � 1�-.�t,'�.. � i�•._� �.h
v `�-
�a ,,.. � { �°z''�?`'fi�..__;�sp:t l•.
� -"� "�tl t 3�d�s , '�`�/,\�� � .� � � F �
3wo,�x ` optl5 �pp2 � /,Wr � co¢�, i,��
�„�' °�° �� —=a� �>`. "'�,. r `i �. J .�
moi ,. � a .� � ;. �
t�ae% �.�.- � � a' �-� . - , �PC '� `�� i�'ti / , �j i
�;; , ar , � �.. �
i: " �,.� !/ �yn g"' y � . fi� '� 1��� , SKO�i ' �
�11N � ' V �.1� � �: �l �- �L '� � ��� � i . �..: � S
� . .. ���1. � .`�yg �;1� �� _ , �� � �<� '�r�.c' 1. . �� ` � �/ .
, , } , ` %,�` �` t" r�.. �,��t� � ,� 8<°�`�°��° ��—� q i , . \ .
1�' �\ \ ±��� \i Pod�:�+�V` � �1� ��� qi9 ��.i. '.� %b� "/ � i
.:- 1 � ' ''�� 1 ' � ..�` /{ �s ' ��- , �1\��`L� )� ��l. 0p�qf'1��. � ` .&� o" o". � � ...� � � .�7 r.,�qc / �1
_ a �' � ,11� " �b �,-� ; � � �� :, � ;�� 0�.`4��t ' ' r- ;� _` � ,.`
� � ��H !�"�l � � � �� /4 �����5 ���t } V,Y � ♦ / ' �� �
+,V ' .,.��E \� t � ,f( � �I��� '% �\1������� :� ;' ' �!^�' c..z. �. � (�� /, � � °' �t'i 3~�3�'t�r ,
.i � \ _,��� ��� � - ��/� k_��� 1����[�'!�'�•r �� K' � /� _ �P ' �'r �Nr�2 • �
jJ / 1 j / �� ,. ., v..' � ., i' � , � 1 ) r
`,��� \_� ' ������ �� �� �l� � ��'��.� �! '�6 i , , � �:, ��4��^-� 1 ri cbr � i �. 1 j�� f � ,:
� f �� � � � il� � }l��I �r � � 1' . °B .. �r� -- J � `�'J � ` Jr.� � d:. � 1 i� �, � . ,,•,•=.
i n �. � ��: ���� . � i l�"'ft r t ,g+ F--x / . �.f` y � .c' ,i r _ �N ,y�eb
'� /�.^ ' I! �1 I h�� � r 441rnj(•'� . i� S� 1� � �'0j ,� \ ``! .'� 1-�� , � f. - �� 'H1�
�d iNn f � � �'. �t l '< ' �(�t �' 'f" . � 1 .-`�� ,�3-' ' \ .^�1' f`,: �� . � 1 .� Fr ._z � \ +� `
. 1 �� � i . j i / ��. .-� '�li �l _ ":. �.....�%J � � ��-,��-....\:'._ � 7 \� � �2� 1 . � �:. a9
, n ; Y . r� � � ,� , r .1 r , . \'\ ��`J i� \a � ��' 't`. t � .+ .-! c�e�+ . . . •e T .n
�A ' �. ' v�.��' �' . '; ri' _-..,� _ d � � , --^�`�\l�\��� �S; �� .... � . � ��� 1 J-! A�� ra
� �! ( . ,:� � 11/ / .�� / � �l \\� . 1 � � .! pP� SV
�, ` � , '� � � � -'� A:�. � � _ � 1� �%�"f l �� ;. >> �' � _ - a° . 4
r �p � \� 1 d 7 0�. I u . /. ..� i � ���i . r - . s-�. - 4Q
� L� � . � ���i�l`�l ,�� ti��0� � �� ?����� �_. -'����� �' j � �i i � . �, — �e\...�2 � 11 �, .
,
� � . � '\ �� .). n �9 .� � �. , ����i f,}��( � �j� � ._.�„-^' .� _ �? L�•• :�,'
Y n�r \ 'Y " t� � �(. � '�=�j � %Ji �j�--�/�'a- ilF�� � a ✓ �' nP� •�
J/K' + W�t....�\�\ ��0 '� :-:' � �:. �' tl. � . � �4 t . . � 'Q �gf �. - +
II�.///'''�^^���'� +' y e e � t .y / � ��� / ,t: '- r 1�} � - �„� , �.- a •
((( \�` n�' �a vjq 1 �,+Y't"q.. .., b� .^(� � iS � � � �^�`' . . o '•
:t,\ �. a ` 'l• f \• , ' e� ' •� ` , •
yY . AC 4 :� 'c,Y � � �
� �4� � 'P� f � - i. '� � w f i' 1 0. '��,Y � �yl °° a � i I :'i
\� _ w ,. y ! li� 1��� �i4) s '�'' `� . "° �i--� �' l�ty �S� ��� ��� 11. � n° . �U � �� :i-,
h' aS� �. % � ..., Aiy�' �^' k � 1
\a��p� � k +. � E ., ( . . �i �'` /� '"` " %.m-ll� ': ,� q �W t0� t y �
�\�� °� 5 , � •, � ( �.{•r � � r � ,��111� °a ....`:.; ' ., V u � .
�o� � . �
'�.�� t,t�.� �� sf.° � �� ' r�J�i ��'�f ffl �" -�--' :,,Y, ''yy� "�
�� d`' ,
t "\� . � ,. t pa �z �i� , r,, .r , .� Q =9 �, ti ,,, �, 5`� :�� ' �.
��`� � :,� � •;:
, .� � .. �Hp ` ' rr s! i . f" ✓,.. , '- � .'a$ .pq�nl, tPt • t:
3
�` t �o',A ,:. 5 a y _� �� •. ¢ _. . , �j�_ - � / `o`F<��\`,`\�i k' �` P.; � 1:
.\ ,.., \ q �'� v "�' ' v .if /-f_ ' � � ! : 1��� A�\ .. ���i : p� � �"�..� ��g<� .....� t � ` �e
� .�.f v ��- a a �i-� �v �p-�r ' :v� / ' ` /+ � r' . '. ��' ' \ � F.. a .y l. 1�awea u�pl15., v�� 1 ` =ii
(,_ . � r :.y �?, '� s . _\I� r h : i � � . 's .% � �\ , � � '_ . . �� a m¢ae �". � � e; �tt", ', � .
� ' � ' -���' ;�. � � '{ �\ �, l,ti,,, ;,,�„ � , .• � y.
�3> � ti ''^ f��y��" �. �AV ' , a�_ , � �.i V . -���29�. "' �'`aq �a+o� � � �
`� ��+ �ilp � ° .'�8'°. a J ir� �itt.:` \�� p.� \ � � ,�@d,..,,,Y S �p�u
- � :_ ' i y �iF �. 7 t, � .� t � �?,�P'q,��qg .�,�� � ��)�lp����! � ��, � ��
�1 e � �
,.� � ��:: � � ;�,,;�,� � � a�;�oF � �,�� �: , i� � �.,.o ��
��,, l`i �. " a= �' w '�u.`t N . '4 "'. .� i. r„t.� 0 /j,� �i..,
`?y.t�\ 1; s" '` _ F �,�" � � � — k �`b' � ,(,p .
J ! ' � F
��� 1 �8 ��. �9 \ � �� �� \II y.\. ��
. 'a t�a � / ' 1 � ,tL�J � . . . � �
NEWS�M SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT o._a�-9a
ALIGNMENT A - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES `'°°"_°",
� y�' N a � ��.
dN N4 � z
CR� ^ � pa
t s
�P� n p�a
�pNANDS C
n
n
N � P
n i v
`� m
n
a c�
i '� "s
N. y "o
CRE[k n � C H
�A
i
1 E 9 A1 -7 pes
9 C ch ridge
5` � � CA3) 2- PI e
� `� �a+ PJ REACH 2 P��
N� `� `�� CAl) Inlets ,���
�'' Ditches 5�
° ' ` CA2) Ditch `P
e t � CA3) 1-48' Pi e,
.a 5 ' F
� � L�EµR� Inlets,
�a Dltches
cn5' Baa�
9 Newsor�
� `� _ /
— � \� Springs
N
� � BRA/✓Cq / . . \
� H/LL
R(d � \
�< / + \
�P c� / O��R� — / .
PJ� �
\ .
P
6 /
CITY F
C�UNTY ❑F
ARR�YO GR NDE �� SAN LUIS ❑BISP❑
NOT TO SCALE
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT 04-07-98
ALIGNMENT B - PROJECT ALTERNATIVES `"'.`°°'
I���L c,� N A � ��
�N � �
CR� ^ n +�q
y,� s
� '�'� CDMANDS p�<
n
�
� � REACH 3 p
< > 1> Ditch /Crossln
� " CB Dit w/CrossingsP4
� CREEK � �, 3) 02' Pipe �
�s
"` '�. REA E -
, �� C D(t w/Cro gs
St ` z \�\\� C £� None iP �> Ditch w%C ss
-� ��� � �B3) 2-102'
� '� �� �� � �� CB3) 48' PI e �,
`t� � � �\ REACH 2 �PS�
° e t�° CBl) Inlets &
Ditches
� S � �EaR� P � CB2) None
=^ ` � CB3) 48' PI es �,
EPS� �p .
9 �
/ NewsoM
4 r� ��
� . �, Springs
� 1
f � ��� BRANCN NJLL ,pQ I / \
\
1.P� °n / //a a \ �
PJ �� � /�/��t�' \. . _
�, tw
P ��
b/ / /
// //
// // _
CITY F �'��` ��/ , .
� - C�UNTY ❑F
_.. -- .
_.__ .__ ._ -
ARRDY❑ GR NDE �C SAN LUIS OBISP❑
NpT TO $CALE
-� "..__. ._.."-__'__--
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE PROJECT o,-o�-9a
ALIGNMENT C — PROJECT ALTERNATIVES `'°°"`�"�
�
Sti > � $4"
N«� > m
J� �
�R� < n "o
d� D
EDM/�NOS p�y
� �
n p
N A
-� Z V
2 �
� �
a �
�s
z�. n � t RE H 3 �°
CRFEK n �..
. � > Ditch
9 ��` `�" R H i RE H 4
5` � � �� �, 1> 48• e CCl> Itch
J�
l� " �\\�\� ��+ER�v REACH 2 . ae P
� a ��\�� .� CCl) 48' Pipe, � �
o � Inlets, & cPs
e t'° Ditches
PJ
5 '
c� L��µR�
A �PSt �o-ptT`
9 �
� / NewsoM
� ��
_ -- Springs
�
ON
C o /�� 9RqNCN N/CL / � / \
P G i� / ' /ba RO \ �
� ��� �
!y � ��(i�l� \ . _
p�E � ���
UP � �
b/ / /
// �/
// //
CITY F ���\�i� C❑UNTY ❑F
ARR�Y� GR NDE _ _ _._.-.. ... _ _ . .._-- --- - - -- - o-c"'�h - SAN LUIS ❑BISP❑
NOT T� SCALE
. __. ..__.._�1
�oe �G - .�/r wsoi�s S'�,Pir:�r s .�.F',a;.�.•-.:
JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES
4115 Broad St. Suite B-5 SMEETr+O. OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA93401 C/1LGUUlTEDBY �� oaTe_9-2='--��
� ^: (805) 544-4011
.� � FAX (805) 544-4294 CMECHEOBY on,E
� SCAIE
1
: �- ` . .. . . _ . ..:_.. ._ ...
. . .._....... ..
- -- J
-f<'_+ , :: , OVE?rjLL..... /°..4oG/LF ; � .
. �... .. ._..
1 '
, ._.. . :...._...... ...:.......�. .._.. i ,
.j . : �. : ............ .__... .._.. ., .
� ' __ :. :,.... ,J_....,\
�.
1
_._.. __ , , ;..._. ;._..
1 \,
,.. � .....:....... . .......... :_.. ._..... _ . _ .._..... __�___..,.. .:
j
� .� �
� 1 � �_ ._.. -._. ..... . s .__ i
�
4�_� \] _ . _ . _ ,...__: . _. , ...._. :. :.. _, . N;__.. . _...
l� v t. �
�_I_, � ,...... .. ..... , :... � ..., '! , _ ;
..
�
� . ` ..: ... ;. \...... ..
:.
t, �� '
Q ' �i - __ _ . ,. ; � _
, _. :
_.
_y � \, : ' ' � � ....
q . ,_, . . . _ . . _._. __ � ;._ .
_ . ._. .;.._ \......._ ;z.. _; _.... .._ ; �_. ....� __.. _ �; _
,� „ 3� ,
_.: `}n, \... Q r.._ _._...- ; ._ . _ ; ,. . .... 4 _. ,.. ....
. ,.. �,� ;� _.. ;._.. ., . . . ; _ . . ; ...:.. , -
.. , jp;._..... ..
f
: � ;... _; _ :. _.. , _... __. E
_ \ , ,� ' �
; . .. . :
�� ... o , �.
._. �. . _: . . , ._.__ � _ :._ :
,... M t.....: \ _; :
_ a � : u� _ � .:_. , ' I � . ..
� ,.... �� > .... . . .: �. - ......
v _.. , l
�
F
4iI . _.�.. __ � ��\ _. _ . � ��, .. ._ .
__ „ �
� , \ �:� �
� . _� -- , o . f
� \_... _ � _ �\. . ! � .. ._.
� � \ F
y �l ..... : � ; _ .. , .; , ,. .._
� � �
� i ! , � , _ ! ,�
, __� ' _. _..o �, . _ j
�- oy �
- 3 '
� ,�. -} _. �, � ,� 1
w � / . i `
< � ;.. \ \ � , �
�. +� � \ .. ,.... . - �
�
\ �-t�—, ����` — - - -- �' t- -- - -- - — — - - -- -�---� �
I
C � � _ � j � .
� X v . . � �i I 1
W ' ,
� � � I ,;
�
�Y � OO V J (\ O 0.^ V V� (�j O lS. . .
`'�'� � N n n �t K ` � \ \ \ \ -
. � � �
--.._.. _ .. --. . ,-, _ .. .._.. . __..... _.. ..--- F/GV/zN <c
,� ��f N/siJi-, S/'/1/�`iG-r
JOHN L WALLACE & ASSOCIATES
4115 Broad St. Suite B-5 sM�rr,o. ov
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 c,ucuu�nar �� ' wre ? ?�•,%�% i
(805) 544-4011
FAX (805) 544-4294 cnEC�oer w�
scu.E
. .. . . ._.... . ._.__ T—. . ._;. _.... _...... . ...___ . . ..... . . �_-- .
. . . ..... . __. . .
_. __ :0,.���.._ �.rz_QF��Es__��..�. .�i_: _ . --.. ---... __
, ,
--- - --- -� --=-- -------�._:_T _.:_ . � ._. .._ __.._ _. _ _ _._:
-��_ ' � _. /9 oe'�� �--r�_.:��,�.�� _ _ ._._
-- . _ , _. .� „ __ _
� _ _._.. ._ _...
; •
-- --. _ _._ __ . . _
�—._
� � � : ; ; � ' A�it<r�i�c
...�.�p. .�� '-,—� . _��-_ '_ .. - . --' ' -'- - - ---- ..
. .. ..: . �. __
� a4
� ORD
, �
� ; ; ; �
,
� . � .
� '__'i .. � . . . . . : " _ _.. .' " . .
__ . � , _ '_t__—, . ' _._ . . ... .
j �
' � . � " ;
� 1 F � �
. . �� ��.i——� .+--�—�— ..... .. ... � . ;j ��w'—� . _
. i ' � � � ; ! � . : , ' .
� . � �—� . � �{} ��..�
. . V —T ' � ' - .
� : . . � � . . . .
� : Q ; 1 . i � 1 1 � � . .., ' ; Ir
' i . ' i ' i • • �
.� ._��.-f— —F r'�����.-�{- + �^—�—.�.. .�: . '�. y�� _
' i
� � i � 1 � 1 � �� ' � _�y 1 �
: r ; � � : 1 i . �
.../.0 .� } ' �t�r�.��. .e� .r. .� . .
J ; ; '� �
�
. . . : i j � . �. � . ' i
� i
...�a. . �� �t� i i ��.�� �� . ._.. . ' . . ..
� � • � ! ' y
' Q ' � 1 � � 1 2 � i
: i � . � ' • � : . .
i ...� �� � . �� i . 1 _ _ _ ___ _ _ _� _ _ __ _
�� ��
: � . � a 1 i r � - i .
�T '
^� • �
i \ � i 1 � :
• J r
. . . y�}r.+��. .Y '
�� � � � � ��� : . : ' ' . .
_ _ . � . :... �� .� .. �/�
� i �� . � i . � �— �� i . ' � �
� � �
� / � � ��
. . ��� � . �� .. . ....
I ....I"7'd •— , ---: �k . , � : c_ .. � _ .. _ . � ..� . .. . __
; �. ^u : � , _ � � / �loP of` P��t A�.itP�viu('.....
- �� ---- � — — ` `� - 0 -
. _ __.;_1 _.____;_ . _ : .r- —=---- ; .-� -- , __._._ _ __ _...
` i i ' , ,
. .� .... --
� N "
- --- � -- - --... __ _ _ _
� . , ' °I
_ , � y -- --- �`-Qs P.Zo ° -
r :
: PRoP�sEp ,
, ;
-- -- ---, ._----_ .' -- - -- - - - - - — - - — - . .._ . .
i :�� ;
, , . ,
. . ; ; :
; ; ,
�_ , , .
. t � _
_--;.__. . , �T _ -- -- -- -- - - -
. ,.__.
. , . :
�. .
, , ; �
: ;
, , , :
__� _ : � _ �;�___.—.:—:---�-- - - - - = — - -
,
_ �
f- f ; ; � � • " �"
__ ..
, ,� ; , ; . !
! ' , ; � - - - -- — -
._ , . _ ...._ ._. ;— +— --*--
. . , . �—i_- i. __ ._;
, . ,
, ,
� ' ' l " _ . .
; , � , i
__ . , _:_ : _...-- --------__ ,---'- -> -- --- - ---. _- - , ...... _�_
i ; ; ; � i � -- . —
:
_-- J---: _:__ _�_T_ � _:_.__._' . - - - - - -- - ..
,
�
. .
.....
: , ,
_._. . ; .---. ._ :. .__.._ , �_� _ _ _ _.. _
- - --._�_-- T--� - - - - -
, : ; ; ; ,
�
, :
,
, _
-�-----------.. � _ _ = _�__ �_ . � _._.� _...__. . _._.__. __. ..;_ =— _ _. _ _
; , , ; ;
_... _�_ ; __ _ ' --__ ' -- -- -- - , --...- - -
, : : ; ,.. . _
<. _. �.. _ , ._._
; , ;
_ __ ...__ ._ _..---- __-. ._. - -- -- - �_ - -- _.. . _.
,
_ . .. _ .. ..
. ...
, ; ,
, ,
�� �. _.._�—. �.. ' � �— � .. �� � .. . ��. . _.��J� ._......�.. .� .. ..�.._... �� .��._�. .
' '
. ��. ' .��� r� • .____ _ _ . � .._ .. . _ .._
: . . ♦ �� . ..�.. . .
- ' i � ' � i i . . . . . .
.� r. ' � 1 .� � y._ :..._._a_—..:... :_ ....__.... . `
__ ___ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ ..... ._., �/ .�iv�I 7
i .._. �......<._...........�-I_...._w..m...........,.�.a,...,�...�
CALCULATIONS
NEWSOM SPRINGS-DRA/NAGE PROJECT
�� � A- I�irc-z eEP rorz D.TCfiE
Curve
Plotted Curves for Trapezoidal Channel
Projed Description
Project File untitled.fm2
I Worksheet Aftemative A-irrterceptor Ditches
Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel
; Method Manning's Fortnula .
Solve For Discharge
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.035
Channel Slope 0.003000 ft/ft
Left Side Slope 3.000000 H :V
Right Side Slope 3.0000001-� :V
Bottom Width 15.00 ft
Input Data
Minimum Ma�dmum Inaement
Depih 1.00 6.00 1.00 ft
Discharge vs Depth
i 1200.0
'1000.0
800.0
�
�
m
� 600.0
m
r
a�i Vi
O �
400.0 �
�
s
0
200.0
o.o
'I.O 'I.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Depth (ft)
Q3/22/9g John L.Wallace 8/�ociates FlowMaster �5.07
0218:45 PM Haes[atl Mettwds,Inc. 37 Brooksitle Road Waterbury.CT 06708 (2Qi)7:�i1666 Page i of 1
'I Curve A�PR�Yv GQ�4N>t C.2G"Ek
Plotted Curves for Trapezoidal Cha�nel Q S'T,QC-�1m G,96 L-"
I
i
' Project Description
' Projed Fle c:lhaesmdlfrnwlnewsom s.frn2
Woricsheet Arroyo Grande Creek
Flow Element Trapezoidal Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Sohre For Discharge
Corutant Data
Mannings Coeffiaent 0.040
Channel Slope 0.028000 ft!ft
Left Side Slope 1.500000 H :V
Right Side Sbpe 1.SOD000 H:V
Bottom Width 20.00 ft
Input Data
Minimum Ma�dmum Incremerrt
Depth 0.00 10.00 1.00 ft
8000.0 Discharge vs Depth
7000A
6000.0
..5000_O
m
�
, m
�4000.0
N
t
U
N
� 3000.0
2000.0
'1000.0
0.0
O.O 'I.O 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 '10.0
Depth (ft)
02Rf198 John L.Wallace 8 Associates FbwMaster �5.07
04.Qi:35 AM Haestad MeMiods.Inc. 37 Brookslda Road WatcKbury.CT 06708 (2J3)75F'i1%6 Page t o(1
,ae /YEI�/SOii �F'/%/i.!i.•.
JOHN L WALLACE & ASSOCIATES
4115 8road St. Suite 8•5 S"�r"o. °F _
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 cn�cuureoer � �' DATE .�/Z 0�9 Y
(805) 544-4011
FAX (805) 544-4294 cH�oer on�
scaF
. .__ .. __... . __ . _..__. . . .
. �.���X1._..__�ll aF/L:E �_._..�� r_�' , ....._.:... :
I .._ _. .: : . , . ' _ ; . , _ : ......... . _._... .. .. ._..._ ._.... ... ...........__... _..
__
-r- -- ._. . __..... .. . ......___._..._, ... . ..... .... __ . ._ _
: : �oJOC t . : .
��0 --�r ' _. � . _, -
;
_. ---------`- --._.:_..=---�--- _..__ ,_....: ._...... - -- _
, _._ _ .._ ,.......
� � �
, ,
_._... - --.._�._.:-._T-_:—.—. ,._. _...... ._. .__ _ .. _._.._. _..------- - - - -
i � ;
: .. -;-.. � ._._._. __._.
,
,
/S _ __. �.-_- - ;--- i _._... .� __.. , . .._.... - -- ---
� � i . . - ; : . � .
�-�-- . ___`---- �-----�=--�- '�---'—` `-- � - --._....._ . :._ ..._. .. . : ._....__ . ._...... � ' f�NC , /GL..�._
j , .PoA;D
,
,
: � � ,
; ; _
; , ;
_.. ..... .._. .__ ..-- --- -�- --�.._ . .--.. _... .__. , ... . ,. ._.:.. ., :._.._. . _.._ ..._ _..._... _ .
� '
, . ... . .
�
; ; ; -`- ----" ,__. .
- -- — — -- _ .. . ..1- _..
--- _. .__......_.
1,�° __. - y' - - - x- - - - - - �- --x :
� �
_ �.
; � , . .
_ _ _� _ _
/ x ��
_ .��� � '.;./�..��. ...__ � 1�.�_ '�. � �.� � . �.... ' . .. �
!
i � ! �
� �
.� r-- ..� :.l ..�—..� .....� .-.- � r +______ . �.�a. . . . . ._ .
_ _ __ .. ..'.� � . ..�`�
. . '�. � �. . �
_ _ _
I
� •4 i :
� -�- --- - - - - --
_ . -,. �. --- — � - -
� ..._
� ; QZD ��
_._ .._._.i;.. , . _..._. � .. ..._._ ._ �.... . ' _..... _..._. .. ._: ._ ....
, ;P�oRos c7Dv� ;
i
� �� --�` -' ----- � ' : ; , . �
� , . . _ ..
......_ ._ ---�.� - '- '- . -- ' . '- . _ .
. �
. : � �' ` :. : ' ; i : . � �.,. � .
.._. _ ..: ' .__....-- ---'-- '-° _'s' - - -- _. . � - - --...__.. ...
-� -- ...'.. ._. :
_ . ._L. �....
..... ....'...
� '�" � . , . . � .
.._. ._.�...._. _ . _._ �� _,_�__:.. _ ._. _.:.. .�._ ' �' � ... '._.... .. ..L..__... ... ...__._ . .._.�...._..__ .. ' ..
' ,
'_ _ _ — '_ _ '_ "_ . , . . .
i
' __�_..:_—f �—_:.._r j—. , ' ! ': � : _.__..._ _....__ ' '_' _'
._,_� _ ' . _._.—T .. '_—_—.—_'_'_".__ -". ,..... - _
�
_— ,:_ � �. s._t—_ . ' � � � __.'_—� ��_ :._ .� .. ..._.__ - _: ___._. .._......._.. . >"" ' .__"_'"' _ ." _ ' " _ -_ �
_._ --_ _...- -_ �-- - ----+ __.__ ,__...__ .._ _._ . _;. __..... /=/Gu2E 8
�� T � — S'TORM O/IA/,c/
Curve
Plotted Curves for Circular Channel
,I
Project Description
Project File untitled.frn2
Worksheet Altemative A-Main Storm Drain
i
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Discharge
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.013
Depth 6.00 ft
Diameter 72.00 in
Input Data
Minimum Mabmum increment
Channel Slope 0.005000 0.017000 0.001000 ff/ft
Discharge vs Channel Slope
600.0
550_O
CQ,o ) —2
5��.0
N
�450.0
m
�
�
�
� 400.0
O
350.0
300.0
250.0
0.004 0.006 0.008 0.0'I 0.012 O.O'14 O.O'16 0.018
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
O3/17/�J8 . JohnL WailaoeBAssociates FbwMester �5.07
02:34:59 PM Haestad Matfads,Inc. 37 Brool6ide Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (263)7�-1666 Page 1 0(1
i ��- � � /SG -ni �'�<C. '� 1NLE7S
f! L T .� e� �� , II-6� i
�ao io,aoa
�6B 8,000 EXAMPIE (I) (2) (3�
156 6,000 0.+2 ��ane. l3.5 1�e�) 6.
144 5 000 0.12o cts 6•
5.
4,000 �• Hw 6• 5.
f32 D t.m
3,000 5 4.
120 (I) Y.5 B.e 4.
! Z�DOD �) 2.1 ].4
� 108 � (3) 2.2 7.7 4.
3.
^/C�Grf��O�C 'oin/«t 3.
: YOr �2.. �jo�j .. -96 �1,000 3• -
/
: H s�.cLiQ-g� soo 3 x3SO = /,�so �
- ea ---• --
60O Y < so = / voo �� 2� 2-
50
72 00 / X /73 = �7 / 0 2.
FLA/(E� N � �
SNGET v � .�+�/ x 1.5 .
1.5
�� � P�P� ? eo °. � � ¢
z � � 1.5
i �
o g4 / � g . �
o �
~ /w 100 �
FAPEO � 48 � � e� 2 .'
.Zi-JC E T v 42 v 60 I.0
/8� P.rr LL m go w �.o
� ° HW SGALE ENTRANGE ° �,A :
� 40 D TYPE � "
� 36 � " � .9 .9
y� 30 II) � 5'Qaan aE0<wiM Q
� 33 . h<aA�a11 ' �+ .9
Q O
p 20 (21 Graara<ne�im a
30 n<ae�a�l = .8 •8
(31 eroa.e<ne .8
27 9role<rtnq
'O -
29 8 .7 .7
.Y
6 Te usa seala(2)or(3)pralect
21 $ �orixantall� to seala(11.1�<n
4 use slrai0ht In<lin<A line t�rouah
D an0 0 scoles,or rererta os 6 ,6
3 ' ilbstretad. 6
IB
. 2
IS
I.O
.5 .5 .5
1z HEADWATER OEPTH FOR
. CONCRETE PIPE CULVER'T'S �
BUREYUOFpUBLIGqOADSJAN.i963 N/1TH INLET CONTROL
/y.li.�i�./�'J� / /� r � J • r /� � ( �i n/ ���/�I
_�
:»�'...}..
Q�oo
Pgm ' SBUH' ,. Calculates Hydrographs by JMS
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 12 :37 :46
Delta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours
F * * File q100 Read from Disk
Hydrographs # 1 + 2 + 3 + Added to make Hydrograph # 9 , Peak Flow =
1023 .6
* * * File q100 Written to Disk
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 12 : 38 :45
Hydgph # : 1 2 3 4 5 7 9
Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr Addhyd
7 .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2
7 .25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2
7 .50hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2
7 .75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2
8 .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 2
8 .25hrs 9 1 1 7 9 0 11
8 .50hrs 22 2 2 19 24 0 26
8 .75hrs 31 3 3 30 36 0 37
9 .00hrs 39 3 4 38 45 0 45
9 .25hrs 57 5 5 54 63 0 66
SOhrs 82 7 7 79 93 0 96
_ _75hrs 102 8 9 100 116 0 118
10 .00hrs 117 8 10 115 133 0 134
10 .25hrs 143 10 12 124 145 0 164
10 .50hrs 176 12 15 140 167 98 203
10 .75hrs 203 13 16 163 192 158 232
11 .00hrs 223 13 18 186 217 192 254
11.25hrs 239 ].3 18 208 240 219 270
11 .50hrs 251 13 19 226 258 241 283
11.75hrs 261 14 19 241 273 259 293
12 . 00hrs 268 14 19 253 285 274 301
12 .25hrs 302 17 22 269 309 291 341
12 .SOhrs 355 23 27 299 349 319 405
' 12 _75hrs 397 24 30 339 393 357 451
, 13 .00hrs 429 25 32 378 434 398 486
13 .25hrs 454 25 33 411 469 437 512
13 .50hrs 528 33 40 451 523 487 601
13 .75hrs 779 <63 66 533 661 588 907
, 14 .00hrs � 891j 60 � 73� 790 " 923 784 1024
14 .25hrs 745 26 51 818� �895 904": 821
14 .SOhrs 617 13 36 687 737 819 667
14 .75hrs 518 9 27 575 611 680 554
15 _OOhrs 441 8 21 525 554 587 470
15 .25hrs 367 6 16 480 501 530 389
15 .50hrs 296 3 11 407 421 464 310
1� 75hrs 241 3 8 334 344 404 251
: OOhrs 198 2 6 275 284 338 206
16 .25hrs 159 2 4 227 233 280 - -• 165
16 .SOhrs 124 1 3 185 188 229 128
16 .75hrs 97 0 2 151 153 186 99
17 . 00hrs 76 0 1 121 123 151 77
17 .25hrs 60 0 1 44 45 102 60
17 .SOhrs 47 0 1 59 59 66 47
17 .75hrs 37 0 0 32 32 51 37
i4 .00hrs 29 0 0 34 34 38 29
.25hrs 23 0 0 22 22 31 23
18 .50hrs 18 0 0 20 20 24 18
18 .75hrs 14 0 0 14 15 19 15
19 .00hrs 12 0 0 12 13 15 12
19 .25hrs 9 0 0 10 10 12 10
19 .SOhrs 8 0 0 8 8 10 8
19 .75hrs 6 0 ' 0 7 7 8 6
20 .00hrs 5 0 0 5 6 7 5
Peak Flow 891 63 73 818 923 904 1024
� _ � �-1'/O b
I pgm �SBUH' , Calculates Hydrographs by JMS
SAN'lA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 11:00 :52
P?lta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours
�ershed Area = 1116 ac = 1 . 74 sq miles •
impervious = . O1 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2 .65 miles
Watershed Slope = .037 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
1 5 .50in 0 .18 1. 00 3 .89 69 2 .35in 218 .4 891cfs 0 . 80
Watershed Area = 51 ac = . 08 sq miles
Impervious = .OS Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles
Watershed Slope = .i7 Manning' s �n' (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
2 5 .50in 0 .18 0.23 1.54 69 2 .35in 10 .0. 63cfs 1 .23
Watershed Area = 73 ac = . 11 sg miles
Impervious = .01 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles
Watershed Slope = .01 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .03
Hydgph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
' nber in in/hr hrs ft/s CN. Depth ac-ft cfs Q
3 5 .50in 0 .18 0 . 54 1.29 69 2 .35in 14 . 3 73cfs 1 . 00
* * * File Q100 Written to Disk
Q�oo
* * * File q100 Read from Disk
NTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
xouting Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4
Outlet Pipe(s) : Diameter = 107 in
Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = _013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv be3ow Basin Btm = 4
'Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow � Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft} Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 . 00 268 .30 252 . 67 4 .79 6 .04
12 .25 301.60 269 _ li 5 .29 6 _26
12 .50 355 .00 299 _27 6 .20 6 _64
12 . 75 396 .50 338 . 61 7 .37 7 .14
13 . 00 428 .80 377 .62 8 .50 7 .59
13.25 453 .90 411 .20 9 .47 7 .98
13 .50 528 .40 450 .48 10 .71 8 .47
13 .75 778 .70 532 . 89 14 .06 9 .72
14.00 891 .00 790 .27 17 .64 10 .99 113 . 69
14.25 744 .80 818 .26 17 .92 11 .09 130 .40
14.50 617 .40 687 _30 16 .44 10 _57 49 .59
14.75 518 .20 574 .96 15 .13 10 .11 4 .24
15.00 441 .10 525 . 27 13 .68 9 .58
5.25 367 .30 479 . 70 11 .64 8 . 82
_5.50 296 .20 406 . 78 9 .34 7 . 93
15.75 240 .90 333 . 95 7 .24 7 . 08
16. 00 197 .80 275 .34 5 .48 6 .34
«< Summaxy of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 891 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 818 .26 Cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 17 .92 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DfiPTH = 11. 09 ft at 14 .25 which is 1.09 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 218 .28 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 218 .28 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 4 Calced
Pgm � SBUH� , Calculates Hydrographs by JMS nisD
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 22 : 06 :34
PAlta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours
� :ershed Area = 1116 ac = 1.74 sq miles
l�pervious = . 01 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2 . 65 miles
Watershed Slope = .037 Manning� s 'n� (roughness) _ .04
Hydggh P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
1 5 .00in 0 _20 1 . 03 3 . 79 68 1.85in 171 . 8 761cfs 0 .68
Watershed Area = 51 ac = . 08 sq miles
Impervious = . 01 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles
Watershed Slope = .17 Manning� s 'n' (rbughness) _ .04
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s IN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
2 5 .00in 0 .20 0 .24 1.53 68 1.85in 7 . 8 55cfs 1.08
Watershed Area = 73 ac = .11 sq miles
Impervious = . O1 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles
watershed Slope = .01 Manning' s �n' (roughness) _ .03
Hydgph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
' iber in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
3 5 .00in 0 .20 0 .55 1 .26 68 1 .85in 11 .2 63cfs 0 . 86
- --- - �
Q�a
Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 , Peak Flow =
922 .8683
t * * File q100 Written to Disk
SANi'A BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7
Outlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 1 in
Btm Slope = . 002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = . 013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 285 .17 273 .76 18 .33 2 .60 211 _17
12 .25 308 .61 290 .64 18 .64 2 .63 231 .01
12 .50 348 .97 318 .49 19 .14 2 .69 265 .00
12 . 75 393 .01 356 .82 19 .83 2 .78 314 .25
13 . 00 434 .42 398 .36 20 .57 2 .87 370 .69
13 .25 469 .30 437 .42 21.27 2 .95 426 .53
13 .50 523 .38 486 _88 21.98 3 .03 482 .21
13 .75 661.39 588 .21 23 .11 3 .15 569 .08
14 .00 922 .87 784 .06 25 .30 3 .39 750 .00
14 .25 894 .96 903 . 97 26.64 3 .53 868 _72
14. 50 736.50 819 .22 25 .70 3 .43 784..21
� . 75 611 .06 679 .54 24.13 3 .26 651.38
�5. 00 554 .37 586 .55 23 .09 3,. 15 567 . 62
15 .25 501 .40 530 .21 22 .46 3 . 08 518 _77
15 .50 420 .98 463 .92 21.72 3 . 00 463 _21
15 .75 344 .45 403 .70 20 .67 2 . 88 378 .18
16 .00 283 .74 338 .29 19 .49 2 . 74 290 .09
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 922 .87 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 903 _97 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 26 . 64 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 3 .53 ft at 14 .25 which is 1 .53 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 242 .56 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 229 .14 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 13 .42 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 7 Calced
* * * File q100 Written to Disk
_
�j �o
* * * File Q50 Written to Disk
Pgm ' SBUH' , Calculates Hydrographs by JMS
eTNTA BARB�IRA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 22 :10 :47
Delta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours
* * * File Q50 Read from Disk
SAN`i'A BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4
Outlet Pipe (s) : Diameter = 107 in
Btm Slope = . 002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = . 013 fintrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 203 .00 188 .64 2 _77 5 .14
12 .25 232 .70 203 .01 3 .22 5 _34
12 .50 280.40 229 .35 4 .06 5 . 72
12 .75 317 .70 264 .15 5 .14 6 .19
13 .00 347.00 298 .89 6 .19 6 . 64
13 .25 369.80 329 .28 7 .10 7 . 03
13 .50 436.60 368 .23 8 .23 7 .48
1 .75 660 .00 459 .58 11 .00 8 .58
�4 .00 761_50 569 . 07 15 .06 10 . 09 2 .93
14 .25 633 .20 689 . 66 16 .47 10 . 58 50 .85
14 .50 520 .50 583 . 61 15 .23 10 . 15 6 .43
14 .75 432 .40 524 .37 13 .63 9 .56
15 .00 363 .40 475 .76 11 .52 8 .78
' 15 .25 297 . 10 403 .83 9 .26 7 .90
15 .50 233 _10 330 .74 7 .14 7 . 04
15 .75 182 . 90 268 .08 5 .26 6 .24
16 .00 143 .70 215 .89 3 . 63 5 . 53
«< Summary of Results »> ,
Max INFLOW = 761.5 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 689 .66 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 16 .47 ac-ft at 14 . 25
Max DEPTH = 10 .58 ft at 14 . 25 which is _ 58 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 171.66 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 171. 66 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 4 Calced
I �S6
Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 , Peak Flow =
755 . 0637
t * * File Q50 Written to Disk
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPIi METHOD
� Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7
Outlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 1 in
Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft
� Manning' s n = . 013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
' (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
' 12 .00 213 .64 206 .47 14 .64, 2 .45. 138 . 32
12 .25 234.31 221 .65 14 .84 2 .48 153 . 85
12 .50 269.85 248.04 15 .20 2 .54 182 .12
12 .75 308 .95 283 .90 15 .68 2 .62 223 . 02
13 .00 345 .99 321.68 16 .19 2 .70 268 . 99
13 .25 377.58 356 .46, 16 .66 2 .77 313 . 78
13 .50 429 .83 397 .43 17 .21 2 .86 369 .40
13 .75 571.28 495 . 67 18 .33 3 .04 489 .56
14 .00 684.77 648 .10 19 .49 3 .22 622 . 63
14 .25 755 .06 730 . 81 20 .12 3 .32 699 .18
14 .50 624 .31 683 .45 19 .76 3 .27 654 . 99
4 .75 553 .07 574 .32 18 .93 3 .14 556 . 89
�5 . 00 498 .06 518 .17 18 .50 3 .07 508 .53
15 .25 419 .23 452 .18 17 .95 2 .98 448 .31
15 .50 339 .44 389 .01 17 .10 2 . 85 357 . 72
15 .75 273 .28 317 .34 16 .13 2 .69 263 .56
16 . 00 219 .19 255 . 68 15 .30 2 .56 190 . 61
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 755.06 cfs at 14 .25
Max OUTFLOW= 730 . 81 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 20 .12 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 3 .32 ft at 14.25 which is 1 .32 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 190. 76 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 178 . 91 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 11 .86 ac-ft
' Hydrograph # 7 Calced
* * * File Q50 Written to Disk
� 4s�
i
SAI�ITA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22 :15 : 57
, "'�dgph # : 1 2 3 4 5 7
Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr
7 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 2 0
7 .25hrs 2 0 0 1 2 0
7 .50hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
� 7 .75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
G S .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
8 .25hrs 4 0 0 3 4 0
8 .SOhrs 7 1 1 6 7 0
8 .75hrs 10 1 1 9 11 0
9 .00hrs 12 1 1 11 13 0
9 .25hrs 24 2 2 21 26 0
9.50hrs 43 4 4 41 49 0
9 .75hrs 59 5 5 57 68 0
10 .00hrs 71 5 6 70 81 0
� 10.25hrs 93 7 8 90 105 0
10 .50hrs 122 9 il 118 138 0
10 .75hrs 145 10 12 125 147 30
11.00hrs 163 10 13 138 162 138
11 .25hrs 177 10 14 153 177 165
11.50hrs 188 10 14 166 191 181
11.75hrs 196 10 14 178 203 195
12 .00hrs 203 10 15 189 214 206
' 12 .25hrs 233 14 17 203 234 222
' .SOhrs 280 19 22 229 270 248
�t .75hrs 318 20 25 264 309 284
13 .00hrs 347 21 27 299 346 322
13 .25hrs 370 21 28 329 378 356
13 .50hrs 437 28 34 368 430 397
13 .75hrs 660 55 57 460 571 496
14 .00hrs 762 53 63 569 685 648 �
14.25hrs 633 22 44 690 755 731
14 .SOhrs 521 10 30 584 624 683
, 14 .75hrs 432 7 22 524 553 574
15.00hrs 363 6 17 476 498 518
15 .25hrs 297 4 12 404 419 452
15 .50hrs 233 1 8 331 339 389
15 .75hrs 183 0 5 268 273 317
16 .00hrs 144 0 3 216 219 256
16.25hrs 113 0 2 173 175 205
� 16.50hrs 89 0 1 140 141 165
16.75hrs 70 0 1 98 99 126
17 .00hrs 55 0 1 40 41 78
17.25hrs 43 0 0 55 55 52
' 17 .SOhrs 34 0 0 29 30 44
17 .75hrs 27 0 0 32 32 33
18 .00hrs 22 0 0 21 21 27
18.25hrs 17 0 0 19 19 21
18.50hrs 14 0 0 14 14 17
' .75hrs 11 0 0 12 12 14
.00hrs 9 0 0 9 9 11
19 .25hrs 7 0 0 8 8 9
19.SOhrs 6 0 0 6 6 7
19 .75hrs 5 0 0 5 5 6
20 .00hrs 4 0 0 4 5 5
9tir
Watershed Area = 1116 ac = 1 .74 sq miles
Impervious = .01 watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2 .65 miles
Watershed Slope = .037 Manning� s 'n' (roughness) _ . 04
1.. .gph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
� 1 4 .40in 0 .22 1. 06 3 . 65 66 1 .35in 125 .6 611cfs 0 .55
� Watershed Area = 51 ac = .08 sq miles
i Impervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles
Watershed Slope = .17 Manning' s 'r_� (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
2 4 .40in 0 .22 0 .24 1.51 66 1.35in 5 .7 46cfs 0 .90
Watershed Area = 73 ac = .11 sq iniles
Impervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles
, Watershed Slope = .O1 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .03
Hydgph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-£t cfs Q
3 4 .40in 0 .22 0.57 1.23 66 1.35in 8 .2 52cfs 0 . 71
r * * File Q25 Written to Disk
I Qz=
i
SANI'A BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Aydrograph is 4
� .:let Pipe (s) . Diameter = 107 in
� Btm Slope = . 002 Length = 50 ft
Manning� s n = .013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
, (hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 130 . 64 123 .39 0. 53 4 .10
12 .25 155 .72 132 .47 0 . 85 4 .24
12 .50 196 .34 152 .45 1.54 4 .57
12 .75 228 .42 180 .04 2.49 5 .02
13 .00 253 .75 210 .07 3 .45 5 .44
13 .25 273 .76 236.48 4 .28 5 .82
' 13 .50 331 . 18 269 .64 5 .30 6 .26
13 .75 522 .19 350 .43 7.71 7 .27
14 . 00 610 . 63 460 .62 11.04 8 .59
14.25 503 .60 503 .66 12 .59 9 .18
14 .50 408 .67 484 . 62 11. 80 8 _88
, 14 .75 333 . 69 429 . 02 10. 03 8 .20
15 .00 274 .48 364 .43 8 .12 7 .44
15 .25 222 .45 304 .11 6.34 6 .71
15.50 176 .11 250 .71 4 .73 6 .02
� 5 .75 139 .51 204 .96 3 .28 5 .37
; .00 110 .60 166 .53 2 . 03 4 .80
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 610 .63 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 503 . 66 cfs at 14 . 25
Max STORAGE= 12 . 59 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 9 . 179999 ft at 57
Total INFLOW = 125 .54 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 125 . 54 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 4 Calced
�
I `V'i.0"
Hydrographs # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 , Peak Flow =
556 .335
' * * File Q25 Written to Disk
SANTA BARBARA URBAN IiYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7
Outlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 1 in
Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = . 013 fintrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 139 .92 136 .30 13 .69 2 .30 74. 19
12 .25 154 .53 145 .77 13 .82 2 .32 82 .05
12 .50 182 .49 165 .49 14 .08 2 .36 99 .25
12 .75 213 .83 193 . 82 14 .47 • 2 .42 125 .80
13 .00 245 .85 225 .06 14 .89 2 .49 157 .41
13 .25 273 .40 255.04 15 .29 2 _55 189.89
13 .50 318 .15 290 .36 15 .77 2 . 63 230 .68
13 .75 442 .43 368 .34 16.82 2 .80_ 329 .60
14.00 556 .34 489 . 18 18 .28 3 .03 484 .14
14.25 556 .06 566 .36 18 .87 3 .13 549 .95
14.50 515 .43 531 .10 18 .60 3 .08 519 .54
.75 449 .30 474 .97 18 .17 3 .02 472 .33
i5 .00 379 .00 418 .53 17 .50 2 .91 399 .21
15 .25 313 .98 356 .06 16 .65 2 . 77 313 .25
15 .50 256 _55 294 .67 15 .83 2 . 64 235 .83
15 .75 208 . 61 240 .83 15 .10 2 .52 174 .24
16 .00 168 . 89 195 .66 14 .49 2 .43 127 .60
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 556 .34 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 566 .36 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 18 .87 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 3 .13 ft at 14 .25 which is 1 .13 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 139 .49 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 127. 64 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 11 .86 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 7 Calced
* * * File Q25 Written to Disk
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22 :26 :06
F 'gph # : 1 2 3 4 5 7
Hydgph Hydgph Eiydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr
7 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7 .25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
- I
4tir
7 .SOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7 .75hrs 1 0 0 1 2 0
8 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 2 0
' ^ 25hrs 2 0 0 1 2 0
; 50hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
� 8 .75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
� 9 .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
E 9 .25hrs 7 1 1 6 7 0
9 .SOhrs 17 2 2 15 18 0
9 .75hrs 24 2 2 23 28 0
10 .00hrs 30 2 3 29 34 0
10 .25hrs 45 4 4 43 51 0
10 .50hrs 67 6 6 64 76 0
10 .75hrs 85 7 8 83 97 0
11 .00hrs 99 7 8 97 112 0
11.25hrs 110 7 9 109 124 0
i1 .50hrs 118 7 9 117 134 67
11 .75hrs 125 7 9 120 136 126
12 .00hrs 131 7 10 123 140 136
12 .25hrs 156 10 12 132 155 146
12 .SOhrs 196 14 16 152 182 165
12 .75hrs 228 15 18 180 214 194
13 .00hrs 254 16 20 210 246 225
13 .25hrs 274 16 21 236 273 255
13 .50hrs 331 22 26 270 318 290
13 .75hrs 522 46 46 350 442 368
14 .00hrs 611 44 52 461 556 489
14 .25hrs . 504 17 35 504 556 566
14 .50hrs 409 7 24 485 515 531
: 75hrs 334 4 16 429 449 475
15 .00hrs 274 3 12 364 379 419
15 .25hrs 222 2 8 304 314 356
15 .50hrs 176 1 5 251 257 295
15 . 75hrs 140 0 3 205 209 241
16 .00hrs 111 0 2 167 169 196
16 .25hrs 88 0 1 136 137 159
16 .SOhrs 70 0 1 89 90 120
16 .75hrs 55 0 1 46 47 75
17 .00hrs 44 0 0 52 52 53
17 .25hrs 35 0 0 32 32 44
17 .SOhrs 28 0 0 31 31 34
17 .75hrs 22 0 0 22 22 28
18 .00hrs 18 0 0 19 19 22
18 .25hrs 14 0 0 15 15 18
18 . SOhrs 12 0 0 12 12 14
18 . 75hrs 9 0 0 10 10 12
19 .00hrs 8 0 0 8 . 8 9
19 .25hrs 6 0 0 7 7 8
19 .50hrs 5 0 0 5 6 6
19 .75hrs 4 0 0 5 5 5
20 . 00hrs 4 0 0 4 4 4
Peak Flow 611 46 52 504 556 566
F- 3rograph # 1 has been Erased
/J�T QfL' Wesr PiPE
Curve
Plotted Curves for Circular Channel -�70�✓� �vcvc'a r F�o�..> Q,�z,y
Project Description
; Project File c:�haestadlfmw�newspr.frn2
' Worksheet Aftemative B/C�Culverts
� Flow Elemerrt Circular Channel ��
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Fuil Flow Diameter
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.010
Discharge 90.00 cfs
� Input Data
� Minimum Ma�dmum Increment
� Channel Slope 0.005000 0.030000 0.001000 ftlft
Full Flow Diameter vs Channel Slope "
42.0
40.0
, 38.0
c
� .
� 36.0
E
m
�
o s.a.o
�
�
LL
32.0
30.0
28.0
0.005 0.0'i 0.015 0,02 0.025 0.03
Channel Siope (ftfft)
03/12198 John L.Wallace&Associates FlowMaster v5.07
0326:35 PM Haeslad Methods.Inc. 3�Brookside Road Waterbury.CT 06708 (203)7EiS166G Page t of t
Q!b
xydrograph # 2 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 3 has been Erased
: _rograph # 4 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 5 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 7 has been Erased
Watershed Area = 1116 ac = 1 .74 sq miles
Impervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2 .65 miles
Watershed Slope = .037 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS� Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
1 3 .70in 0 .23 1. 10 3 .53 65 0 .88in 82 .3 456cfs 0 .41
Watershed Area = 51 ac = .O8 sq miles
Impervious = . O1 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles
Watershed Slope = .17 Manning� s 'n' (roughness) _ .04
: Hydgph P (24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in ' in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
2 3 .70in 0.23 0 .24 1 .49 65 0 .88in 3 .8 36cfs 0 .71
Wacershed Area = 73 ac = .11 sq miles
Zmpexvious = .O1 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles
Watershed Slope = .O1 Manning' s 'n� (roughness) _ .03
Aydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
3 3 .70in 0 .23 0 .58 1 .19 65 0 .88in 5 .4 40cfs 0.55
* * * File Q10 Written to Disk
�(O
I Pgm 'SBUH' , Calculates Hydrographs by JMS
� SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD 22 :30 :47
P ' ta T (Time Increment) _ .25 Hours
* * * File Q10 Read from Disk
, SANTA BARBARII URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
'� Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4
I Outlet Pipe (s) : Diameter = 107 in
Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = . 013 fintrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth tft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 63 .20 62 _83 0.19 2 .88
12 .25 83 .00 79 .38 0 .24 3 .24
12 .50 115 .70 . 111.60 0.32 3 .88
' 12 .75 141 .70 123 .71 ` 0_54 4 .10
13 .00 162 .50 136 .74 1. 00 4 .31
13 .25 179.00 152 .34 1. 54 4 .57
13 .50 226.10 175 .38 2_34 4 .95
13 .75 382 .40 238 .53 4 .35 5 .85
i4.00 455.90 330 .2.7 7 .13 7 .04
.25 371.00 374 .10 8 .40 7 .55
14 .50 295 . 80 352 _65 7 .78 7 .30
14 .75 236 .00 307 .61 6 .45 6 .75
, 15.00 188 .40 259 .00 4 . 98 6 .13
15.25 150 .40 214 .59 3 .59 5 .51
15.50 120 .00 175 .75 2 .35 4 .95
15 .75 95 . 90 144.64 1. 27 4 .44
16 .00 76. 70 117 .88 0 .34 4 . 01
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 455 . 9 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 374 .1 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 8 .399999 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 7 .55 ft at 57
ToGal INFLOW = 82 . 19 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 82 .19 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 4 Calced
* * * File Q10 Written to Disk
� Q,o
Aydrographs # 2 , + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 , Peak Flow =
413 . 0984
TA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 7
� Outlet Pipe (s) : Diameter = 1 in
i Btm Slope = . 002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = . 013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No_ of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 71.13 0 .01 7 . 98 1.36
12 .25 92 .28 0.01 9 . 67 1. 64
12 .50 131.10 5 .24 11.92 2 .01 0 .56
12 .75 146.41 121.03 13 :48 2 .26 62 .07
13 .00 161.24 149 .47 13 . 87 2 .32 85.19
13 .25 177 .74 166 . 83 14 .10 2 _36 100 .46
13 .50 210 .38 190.44 14 .42 2 .41 122 .53
13 .75 309 . 63 250 .77 15 .23 2 .55 185 .14
14 .00 404 .67 343 .02 16 .48 2 .75 296 .20
14 .25 413 .10 400 .14 ' 17 .25 2 . 87 373 .18
14.50 373 .95 394.40 17 _17 2 .86 365 .19
14 .75 320.21 353 .37 16 . 62 2 .77 309.70
15 .00 266 .80 301.46 15 . 92 2 .66 244 .02
.25 219 .59 250 . 93 15 .24 2 . 55 185 .32
i� .50 178 . 95 206 .13 14 . 63 2 .45 137.98
15 .75 146 . 84 168 .64 14 . 13 2 .37 102 .10
16 .00 119 .38 137 .83 13 .71 2 .30 75 .44
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 413 .1 cfs at 14 .25
Max OUTFLOW= 400 .14 cfs at 14 .25
Max STORAGE= 17 .25 ac-ft at 14 .25
Max DEPTH = 2 . 87 ft at 14 .25 which is . 87 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 91.31 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 79 .45 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 11 . 86 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 7 Calced
* * * File Q10 Written to Disk
`�i D
SANPA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22 :34 :28
u'•dgph # : 1 2 3 4 5 7
Hydgph xydgph Iiydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr
7 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
' 7 .25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7 .SOhrs 1 0 0 1 1 0 ' .
7 .75hrs 1 0 0 1 1, 0
S .00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
8 .25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
B .SOhrs 1 0 0 1 2 0
8..75hrs 2 0 0 1 2 0
9 .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 ,
9 .25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
9 .SOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
9 .75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
10 .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0 ,
10 .25hrs 10 1 1 7 10 0
10 .50hrs 23 3 2 21 26 0
10 .75hrs 34 3 3 33 40 0
f iT.00hrs 43 3 4 42 49 0
11.25hrs 50 4 4 49 57 0
11.50hrs 55 4 5 55 63 0
11.75hrs 60 4 5 59 68 0
12 .00hrs 63 4 5 63 71 0
12 .25hrs 83 6 7 79 92 0
.50hrs 116 10 10 112 131 5
ia .75hrs 142 11 12 124 146 121
13 .00hrs 163 11 14 137 161. 149
13 .25hrs 179 11 14 152 178 167
13 .50hrs 226 16 19 175 210 190
13 .75hrs 382 36 35 239 310 251
14 .00hrs 456 35 40 330 405 343
14 .25hrs 371 12 27 374 413 400
14 .SOhrs 296 4 17 353 374 394
14 .75hrs " 236 1 11 308 320 353
15 .00hrs 188 1 7 259 267 301
15 .25hrs 150 0 5 215 220 251
15 .50hrs 120 0 3 176 179 206
15 .75hrs 96 0 2 145 147 169
16 .00hrs 77 0 1 118 119 138
16 .25hrs 61 0 1 40 41 88
16 _SOhrs 49 0 1 64 65 58
16 .75hrs 39 0 0 32 32 50
17 .00hrs 32 0 0 38 38 37
17 .25hrs 25 0 0 23 24 32
17 .SOhrs 20 0 0 23 23 24
17 .75hrs 17 0 0 16 17 20
18 .00hrs 13 0 0 14 14 16
18 .25hrs 11 0 0 li 11 13
18 .SOhrs 9 0 0 9 9 11
" " .75hrs 7 0 0 8 8 9
. .00hrs 6 0 0 6 6 7
19 .25hrs 5 0 0 5 5 6
19 .SOhrs 4 0 0 4 4 5
19 .75hrs 4 0 0 4 4 4
20 .00hrs 3 0 0 3 3 4
�
Peak Flow 456 36 40 374 413 400
Hydrograph # 1 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 2 has been Erased
Hydzograph # 3 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 4 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 5 has been Erased
Hydrograph # 7 has been Erased
Watershed Area = 1116 ac = 1.74 sq miles
Impervious = .01 Watershed Length = 14000 ft = 2 .65 miles
Watershed Slope = .037 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
1 2 .ZOin 0.25 1.15 3 .40 67 0 .24in 22 .5 165cfs 0.15
Watershed Area = 51 ac = .08 sq miles .
- ervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 1300 ft = .25 miles
Wacershed Slope = .17 Manning' s 'n' (roughness) _ .04
Hydgph P (24} Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-ft cfs Q
2 2 .20in 0.25 0 .25 1 ,47 67 0 .24in 1.0 16cfs 0 .32
Watershed Area = 73 ac = .11 sq miles
Impervious = .O1 Watershed Length = 2500 ft = .47 miles
Watershed Slope = .01 Manning� s 'n' (roughness) _ .03
Hydgph P(24) Loss T(c) Vel SCS Runoff Vol Peak Q Unit
Number in in/hr hrs ft/s CN Depth ac-£t cfs Q
3 2 .20in 0 .25 0 .60 1 .15 67 0.24in 1 .5 16cfs 0 .22
* * * File 42 Written to Disk
QZ
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD
� Routing Hydrograph 1 thru a Basin, Outflow Hydrograph is 4
ftlet Pipe (s) . Diameter = 107 in
, Btm Slope = . 002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = . 013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
� No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 4
Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) (cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs) �
12 . 00 1 .80 1_80 0 .01 0 .20
12 .25 3 .50 2 .98 0 .01 0 .33
12 .50 6 .50 5 .78 0 .03 0 .64
12 .75 8_80 8 .37 0 .04 0 .93
13 .00 10. 80 10 .46 0 .05 1 .07
13 .25 12 .30 12 .10 0 .05 1 .15 '
13 .50 33 .00 27 .97 0 .11 1 .93
13 .75 117.80 104 .24 0 .30 3 .73
14 .00 164 . 80 130 .78 0 .79 4 .22 '
14 .25 132 . 70 139 .02 1 .08 4 .35
14.50 106 . 90 130 .20" 0 .77 4 .21 �
14 .75 86 .20 107 .72 0 .31 3 .80 �
15 .00 69 . 50 59 .55 0 .19 2 .79 !
15 .25 56 .10 64 .77 0 .20 2 .93 �
15 .50 45 . 20 42 .08 0 .14 2 .34 ,
15 .75 36 .$0 40 .10 0 . 14 2 .28 �
5 .00 29 . 50 28 .73 0 .11 1 .97 �
«< Su�nary of Results »> !
Max INFLOW = 164 . 8 cfs at 14 �
Max OUTFLOW= 139 .02 cfs at 14 .25 �
Max STORAGE= 1 .08 ac-ft at 14 .25 I
Max DEPTii = 4'.35 ft at 57 '
Total INFLOW = 22 .5 ac-ft �
Total OUTFLOW = 22 .5 ac-ft �
Storage at end" of 24 hours = 0 ac-ft �
Hydrograph # 4 Calced �
I
* * * File Q2 Written to Disk ;
�
�
;
t
Qz
Hydrograpris # 2 + 3 + 4 + Added to make Hydrograph # 5 , Peak Flow =
163 .1762
* * * File Q2 written to Disk
SANTA BARBARA URBAN HYDROGRAPH METFIOD
Routing Hydrograph 5 thru a Basin, 0utflow Hydrograph is 7
Outlet Pipe (s) : Diameter = 1 in
Btm Slope = .002 Length = 50 ft
Manning' s n = . 013 Entrance Loss Ke = .5
No. of Pipes = 1 Pipe Inv below Basin Btm = 0
, Storage data entered from keyboard
Time Inflow Outflow Storage Water Flow Over
(hrs) {cfs) (cfs) (ac-ft) Depth (ft) Weir (cfs)
12 .00 2 .00 0 .00 0 .72 0 .12
12 .25 3 .58 0. 00 0 .78 0 .13
12 .50 7 .08 0 .00 0 .89 0 .15
12 .75 9 .97 0 .00 1 .06 0 .18
13 .00 12 .26 0.00 1 .29 0 .22
13 .25 13 .90 0 .00 1.56 0 .27
13 .50 35 .17 0 .00 2 .07 0 .36
13 .75 132 .44 0 .00 3 .80 0 .65
14 .00 163 .18 0 .01 6 .86 1 .17
14 .25 155 .02 0 .01 10 .14 1.72
14.50 139 .10 55 .94 12 .60 2 .12 19 .50
.75 113 .02 116 .75 13 .43 2 .25 58 .81
_� .00 62 .85 91.76 13 .09 2 .20 40 .98
15 .25 66 . 97 68 .48 12 .77 2 .15 26 .42
15 .50 43 .58 57 .03 12 .62 2 .12 20 .07
15 .75 41.10 44 .29 12 .45 2 .10 13 .74
16 .00 29 .33 36 .42 12 .34 - 2 .08 10 .24
«< Summary of Results »>
Max INFLOW = 163 .18 cfs at 14
Max OUTFLOW= 116 .75 cfs at 14 .75
Max STORAGE= 13 .43 ac-ft at 14 .75
Max DEPTH = 2 .25 ft at 14 .75 which is .25 ft over weir
Total INFLOW = 24 .94 ac-ft
Total OUTFLOW = 13 .09 ac-ft
Storage at end of 24 hours = 11 .85 ac-ft
Hydrograph # 7 Calced
* * * File Q2 Written to Disk
Qz
SANTA BARBAR.Fa URBAN HYDROGRAPH METHOD - PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW ARRAY 22 :42 :58
xT�rdgph # : 1 2 3 4 5 7
, Hydgph Hydgph Hydgph Basinr Addhyd Basinr
7 . 00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7 .25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7 .50hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
7.75hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
8 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
8 .25ars 1 0 0 1 i 0
8.50hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
8 . 75hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
9 .00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
9 .25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
9 .50hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
9 .75hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
10.00hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
10.25hrs 1 0 0 1 1 0
10 .50hrs 1 0 0 1 2 0
10 .75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
11.00hrs 2 0 0 � 2 2 0 -
11.25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
11.SOhrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
11.75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
12 .00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 0
12 .25hrs 4 0 0 3 4 0
.50hrs 7 1 1 6 7 0
�� .75hrs 9 1 1 8 10 0
13 . 00hrs 11 1 1 10 12 0
13 .25hrs 12 1 1 12 14 0
13 .50hrs 33 4 3 28 35 0
13 .75hrs 118 16 13 104 132 0
14 .00hrs 165 16 16 131 163 0
i 14 .25hrs 133 5 11 139 155 0
14 .50hrs 107 2 7 130 139 56
i 14.75hrs 86 1 5 108 113 117
i5 .00hrs 70 0 3 60 63 92
� 15 .25hrs 56 0 2 65 67 68
� 15 .50hrs 45 0 1 42 44 57
15 .75hrs 37 0 1 40 41 44
' 16. 00hrs 30 0 1 29 29 36
16 .25hrs 24 0 0 26 26 29
16 .SOhrs 19 0 0 20 20 24
16 ,75hrs 16 0 0 16 17 19
17 . 00hrs 13 0 0 13 13 15
17 .25hrs 10 0 0 11 11 13
17 .SOhrs 9 0 0 9 9 10
17 .75hrs 7 0 0 7 7 8
18 .00hrs 6 0 0 6 6 7
18 .25hrs 5 0 0 5 5 6
18 .SOhrs 4 0 0 4 4 5
' "' .75hrs 3 0 0 3 3 4
.00hrs 3 0 0 3 3 3
19 .25hrs 2 0 0 2 2 3
19 .50hrs 2 0 0 2 2 2
19 . 75hrs 2 0 0 2 2 2
20 . 00hrs 2 0 0 2 2 2
COST ESTIMATES
NEWSOM SPR/NGS DRA/NAGE PROJECT
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION A-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
2-72"CIP sto;m drains, 5 to 10 ft of cover 800 LF $210.Q0 $?58,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $6,000.00 $12,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Double Inlet 1 EA $16,000.00 $16,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00
Ditch Excavation (900 ft, avg 4.5 ft deep) 4275 CY $4.00 $17,1D0.00
Finish Grading 135000 SF $0.10 $13,500.00
Subtotal $401,600.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $461,840.00
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Pertnanent Easements '
Dixson- Open ditch on Ag prope�ty (1100 x 50-70) 1.38 ACRES $18,000.00 $24,840.00
Caldwell-Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00
Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal - Pertnanent Easements 2.23 $42,640.00
Temporary Easements
Stilwell- Construction in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotai -Temporary Easements 0.41 $3,280.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY AC(1UISITION $45,920.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Constniction Cost $461,840.00
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $45,920.00
Subtotal $507,760.00
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $177,716.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST $685,476.00
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $690,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGSxIs
4/4/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION A-2
UNIT TOTAL �
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Ditch Excavation (1750 x 10' avg depth) 2269 CY $4.00 � $9,076.00
West Outlet facilities at Creek 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00
Bridge @ Cherry 1 LS $15a,000.00 $150,000.00
Bridge @ Myrtle 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000:00
Finish Grading 135000 SF $0.10 $13,500:00
Subtotal $497,576.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 75% CONTINGENCY $572,212.40
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
I Dixson-Open ditch on Ag property (1100 x 50-70) 1.38 ACRES $18,000.00 $24,840.00
' Caldwell-Bridge across road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stitweli-Open Diich in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $36,000.00 $14,760.00
Stilwell -Open Ditch in RR zone (varies 0.07 ACRES $36,000.00 $2,520.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $4,500.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easements 2.23 $48,820.00
Temporary Easements
Stilwell-Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotai -Temporary Easements 0.41 $3,280.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $52,100.00
I �
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $572,212.40
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $52,100.00
Subtotal $624,312:40
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $218,509.34
TOTAL PROJECT COST $842,821.74
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $840,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/4/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION A-3
, UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST
� CONSTRUCTION
j 2- 72" RCP storm drains, 5 to 10 ft of cover 800 LF $210.00 $168,000.00
1 -48" RCP storm drain, 5 to 10 ft of cover 700 LF $90.00 $63,000.00 � '
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 3 EA $6,00�.00 $18,000.00 �
Concrete Wing Wall Double Iniet 1 EA $16,000.00 $16,000.00 u -�-
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00 `
Finish Grading 135000 SF $0.10 $13,500.00
$457,656.00
' Subtotal $526,304.40
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION -
' Permanent Easements
j Dixson -Open ditch on Ag property (1100 x 50-70) 1.38 ACRES $18,000.00 $24,840.00 -
Caldwell- Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilweli - Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 30) 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00
Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easements 2.23 $42,640.00
j Temporary Easements
i Stilwell - Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 0.41 $3,280.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $45,920.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $526,304.40
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $45,920.00
Subtotal $572,224.40
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection ai
35% $200,278.54
TOTAL PROJECT COST $772,502.94
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $770,000.00
�� -
- . ;:
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/8/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Srarch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
, 48" CIP Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
� Concrete Wing Wali Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48"Stortn Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10'avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70,000.00 $280,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads(4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $657,208.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH�5% CONTINGENCY $755,789.20
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Pertnanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90fl) 4.13 ACRES $15,000.00 $74,340.00
Dixson-Open ditch on AG property(900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell- Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2200.00
Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00
Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone 0.07 ACRES N/A $4,500.00
Subtotal -Pertnanent Easements 5.38 $98,760.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell -Construction in RR zone ' 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $4,500.00
Subtotai -Temporary Easements 2.71 $13,700.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $112,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $755,789.20
Total Right of Way AcquisRion Cost $112,460.00
Subtotal $868,249.20
Design, Processing and Pertnitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection
at 35% $303,887.22
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1;172,736.42
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,170,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/5/98
i NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-1
UNIT TOTAI
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
� 3r2nch Mill Road Ditcn Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
� 48"CIP Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wali Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilftes for 48" Stortn Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (t 900 x 10'avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 3 EA $70,000.00 $210,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subiotal $587,208.00
, CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $675,289.20
�
� RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
I pertnanent Easements
( Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00
Dixson-Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell- Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilweil- Underground pipe in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00
Stilweil- Underground pipe in RR zone 0:07 ACRES NIA $4,500.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easeme�ts 5.38 $98,760.00
Temporary Easements
ConstrucHon in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell - Construction in RR zone ' 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $4,500.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $73,700.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $112,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $675,289.20
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $112,460.00
Subtotal $787,749.20
Design, Processing and Pertnitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection
at 35% $275,712.22
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,063,461.42
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,060,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mill Road Ditch EYCava?ion (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48"CIP Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 �72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilftes for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000.00 $140,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads(4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotai $517,208.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $594,789.20
RIGHT OF WAY ACQU�SITION
Pertnanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340:00
Dixson -Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell-Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES WA $2,200:00
Stilwell - Undetground pipe in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $16,000.00 $6,560.00
Stiiwell-Underground pipe in RR zone 0.07 ACRES N!A $4,500.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easements 5.38 $98,760.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilweil - Construction in RR zone ' 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $4,500.00
Subtotai -Temporary Easements 2.71 $13,700.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $112,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $594,789.20
Total Right of Way Acquisitioo Cost $112,460.00
_ Subtotal $707,249.20
Design, Processing and Pertnitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection
at 35% $247,537.22
TOTAL PROJECT COST $954,786.42
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $950,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4I5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-2
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
' Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70,000.00 $280,000.00
�I East Outlet facilities at Creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $464,052.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15%CONTINGENCY $533,659.80
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00
Stilwell- Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920:00
Subtotal -Pertnanent Easements 4.13 $82,260.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.30 $9,200.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $91,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $533,659.80
Total Righi of Way Acquisition Cost $91,460.00
Subtotal $625,119.80
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $218,791.93
TOTAL PROJECT COST $843,911.73
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $840,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4!5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-2
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION `
I Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
t Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 3 EA $70,0OO.00 $210,000.00
I East Outlet facilities at Creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotai $394,052.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $453,159.80
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone(2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00
' Stilwell-Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Pertnanent Easements 4.13 $82,260.00
i
Temporary Easements
Constniction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.30 $9,200.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $91,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $453,159.80
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $97,460.00
Subtotal $544,619.80
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $190,616.93
TOTAL PROJECT COST $735,236.73
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $740,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xis
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-2
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 10' avg depth) 2463 CY $4.00 $9,852.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000.00 $140,000.00
East Outiet facilities at Creek 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage • 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $324,052.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $372,659.80
RIGHT OF WAYACQUISITION
PertnanentEasements
Open ditch in AG zone (2000 ft x 90ft) 4.13 ACRES $18,000.00 $74,340.00
Stilwell-Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal-Permanent Easements 4.13 $82,260.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (2000 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Subtotal-Temporary Easements � 2.30 $9,200.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $91,460.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construdion Cost $372,659.80
Total Right of Way Acquisition CosY $91,460.00
Subtotal $464,119.80
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,.
Testing, Contrac[Administration, and Inspection at
35% $162,441.93
TOTAL PROJECT COST $626,561.73
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $630,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
415/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION B-3
� UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTI UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48" CIP Stc�� Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 1500 LF $90.00 $135,000.00
Concrete Wing Wail Inlet 3 EA $3,500.00 $10,500.00
Outiet facilites for 48" Stortn Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
2-90" CIP storm drains, 5 to 13 ft of cover 2100 LF $365.00 $766,500.00
Inlet Falicities for pouble 90" 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00
Subtotal $1,261,156.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $1,450,329.40
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
� Pertnanent Easements
' Underground Pipe in AG property (2100 x 30) 1.45 ACRES $8,000.00 $11,600.00
Dixson - Pipe and Ditches in AG zone (1100x30+_) 0.76 ACRES $2,000.00 $1,520.00
Caldwell- Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwell -Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easements 2.86 $27,720.00
Temporary Easements
, Construction in AG zone (2100 x 50) 2.41 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,640.00
Stilweli -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.82 $12,920.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $40,640.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
, Total Construction Cost $1,450,329.40
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $40,640.00
Subtotal $1,490,969.40
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $521,839.29
TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,012,808.69
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $2,010,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xis
4/7/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
� Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3:5) 1039 CY $4.00 ' $4,156.00
48"CIP Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,00�.�0
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48"Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9' avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70,000.00 $280,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $636,644:00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $732,140.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
� Pertnanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Fuit Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
Dixson- Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell - Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilweli- Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell- Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Pertnanent Easements $129,560.00
; Temporary Easements '
Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell- Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $732,140.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $874,180.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $305,963.21
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,180,143.81
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,180,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
. Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
4E"C!P Storm Drain (5 to 10 feet of ccver) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wail Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48"Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,o00.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9'avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288_00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 3 EA $70,000.00 $210,000.00
Outlet facilfties at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $566,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $651,640.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Pertnanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
Dixson- Open ditch on AG property(900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell- Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell- Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easements $129,56D.00
Temporary Easements -
Construdion in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell-Construdion in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal - Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $651,640.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $793,680.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35°/a $277,788.21
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,071,468.81
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,070,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48" CIP Sto.rm Drain ( 5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9'avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Fiatcar Bridge) 3 EA $70,000.00 $210,000.00
Outlet faciiities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $566,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $651,640.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone(1500 ft x 90ftj 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
Dixson-Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal - Permanent Easements 6.77 $129,560.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell -Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00
, PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $651,640.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $793,680.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $277.78821
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,071,468.81
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,070,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
418/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48"CIP Storm Drain ( 5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48"Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9'avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Fiatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000.00 $140,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $496,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $571,140.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Full Value of Lot in AG zone(2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
' Dixson-Open ditch on AG property(900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell - Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES. N/A $2,200.00
, Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone(598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone(varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilweli -Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easements 6.77 $129,560.00
Temporery Easements
� Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
�I Stilwell - Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $571,140.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $713,180.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $249,61321
TOTAL PROJECT COST $962,793.81
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $960,000.00
NEWSOM SPR�NGS.xIs
4/Sl98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
4�" CI° Storm Drain (5 to ?0 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.G0 $72,�OO.OU
Concrete Wing Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48" Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9' avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 2 EA $70,000.00 $140,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recorciing Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $496,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $571,140.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Pertnanent Easements
Operi ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
Dixson-Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldwell -Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N!A $2,200.00
Stiiwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell- Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell- Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 0.22 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Pertnanent Easements $129,560.00
Temporary Easements •
Construc[ion in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell- Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $72,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUIStTION $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY '
Total Construction Cost $571,140.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $713,180.60
Design, Processing and Pertnitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $249,613.21
TOTAL PROJECT COST $962,793.81
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $960,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/5/98
NEWSOM SPRINGS DRAINAGE
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE OPTION C-1
UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTIT UNIT PRICE COST
CONSTRUCTION
Branch Mill Road Ditch Excavation (1100 x 3.5) 1039 CY $4.00 $4,156.00
48"CIP Storm Drain ( 5 to 10 feet of cover) 800 LF $90.00 $72,000.00
Concrete Wi�g Wall Inlet 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Outlet facilites for 48"Storm Drain 1 LS $110,000.00 $110,000.00
Ditch Excavation (1900 x 9'avg depth) 2322 CY $4.00 $9,288.00
Equipment Crossing (60 ft Flatcar Bridge) 4 EA $70,000.00 $280,000.00
Outlet facilities at creek 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Finish Grading Access Roads (4600 x 20) 92000 SF $0.10 $9,200.00
Recording Stream Gage 1 LS $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Subtotal $636,644.00
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL WITH 15% CONTINGENCY $732,140.60
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
Permanent Easements
Open ditch in AG zone (1500 ft x 90ft) 3.10 ACRES $18,000.00 $55,800.00
Full Value of Lot in AG zone (2.4 Ac) 2.40 ACRES $20,000.00 $48,000.00
Dixson - Open ditch on AG property (900 x 30) 0.62 ACRES $18,000.00 $11,160.00
Caldweli - Pipe through access road 0.15 ACRES N/A $2,200.00
Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone (598 x 15) 0.21 ACRES $16,000.00 $3,360.00
Stilwell - Underground pipe in RR zone (varies) 0.07 ACRES $16,000.00 $1,120.00
Stilwell - Ditch maintenance in RR zone (638 x 15) 022 ACRES $36,000.00 $7,920.00
Subtotal -Permanent Easements 6.77 $129,560.00
Temporary Easements
Construction in AG zone (1500 x 50) 2.30 ACRES $4,000.00 $9,200.00
Stilwell - Construction in RR zone 0.41 ACRES $8,000.00 $3,280.00
Subtotal -Temporary Easements 2.71 $12,480.00
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION $142,040.00
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Total Construction Cost $732,140.60
Total Right of Way Acquisition Cost $142,040.00
Subtotal $874,180.60
Design, Processing and Permitting, Bidding,
Testing, Contract Administration, and Inspection at
35% $305,96321
TOTAL PROJECT COST $1,180,143.81
ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET $1,180,000.00
NEWSOM SPRINGS.xIs
4/8/98
ATTACHMENT 2
�" � , —�a�::.
s,�, '"'� b w s.�k � ` ,; � '
� � 4 Hd ij .. i� .
. �
-��,� _ :-�� � � ;�
.
� a k �F x �� `y"��
. � r� �� � �
�� � � �•. � �... �`� ��� 'v� �'� �� . � ' .
�
� � �� �.� � ���
`°� � ��' t .4�`.> il � s '1�" .
,i .' t➢ � ,.§ _ 1 k ,J�_'"� .
i ���
�,� .... � � E. � T ✓y� ..
Y b t�,�. ` a� .y� � 1
� .f.. l� ��" �n � 'r ..
�. '`� ° � _, �=� �'X'����� ..
� "� e� .
� �
. ,� � ,� ��
Y ` � ,
� �", h '
�
� �� � f� .
• 'W.���w► .r 1 $
i -� � - �..i� � / � �� �
� � 1 �"�� "��
- e r.'.� �, , /
i , a �y � I/
�
'd � ti� kt
, �� 1 � 1 �._
�• ' '� � '� � t
� ; ��� :�,' ,�;
�..#r ,t � �t' �Vy ``x : ::;`k�*
�� � � � �
� �,� . .... -
�F�. . . - ' . `�
...o- � / .,j,'w•r _
• � � � F. <� �.: .
/ ����"� � �� � '-`.
M��f �,
� :rW_ �y��,� '�'���w'—
� ,r r� ;,
W:� �;�- ��.
''� � ��, � � ��r' k �,� ; ,� •^a' .
� i � ai`i ++ �. =_
6` � 8� �: g �_x. w.s - . � . .
y � k
�. `x,,,, `�,� r��� ' �c
r, . s
�* a i `4 �
� �'L7� � k. .�.- �' �+a� 00
!d ���� � d
. � . �:l� .� . . � � .. _'1"r< 's
� �
�•� : � ' r s : w ; � ; �• � • , r �
, �� � . .,�, .
. .""xm'3�i. �A /r.�y 1 ^!�1. � � a.�, r,:
� ��� �� � � � . � s-;�4 s� ._.. , '. v� �<h C1�7, t�+�s':.
�. , - �
p :: "$, �a.. . _ .
� w� � . ,`. ,��� ''� .�� r-::
fi�,�� . ,� ... �t
. - �
�` � �
�
i � �
� � i rs �.. ,_ .,
;,� . . �:'w, �,: , .
'h.�^..� ; � %%�,q s�ar� . ��. .�, ,�k� � �,.� ' • a:.,r,�-' .� � .G.
,$ � �., � ��
���.. E���y; a_ �g�� t
, ` `
��� � � �
� d� '�, �.:�r
d , � s:. �, /A " ,l «��► §�`�� �
r �., f � � �,�'?� �
�¢. ; �3 Y�' F k� K . . Y � '� T ^
� i � 5 i fi Y �w ` �, ,� ` � �c
�,� � �
�a� , t.�
t s,,'�i � s��� r ra� ' � . : '
t ' �"
: :�., p :� � ,�,. �
� q � ; �, � �, ��' �
,.,
�` � �' � "
.� ��°
�� '� � � ;
;. � r `�
� ���� � `�, �,�
.
> �
< .�
r
'� � .� � ,
� . . ,�. .. z. � �° _ .
�� �,�y .
,� t � � � �,"
�
' :"�.. �, 4 �^
•Protects Tract 409 only �V ' �'� ` � '�
•Requires easements on existing Ag land ` •'���;�
S1 �
�,,�'� II �
�_ �
+. 1 y'* t � � • �, R � i � � • � � :�?4
k� -+., a , � s� �R � � �.� `x.„;€ ;��,.
�`��. � ..�� e q. A y� �,� �� j� � �5,..�''" ,
� 4.. ,... . . _ +• , .,i '. .� �%
i �
� y r � � �R%y� � �'.. � '.>- s�.i�w�.... t ? ..� .
m
. . i. .
� � �.n ��}��d. � , � ,
�j.�...._. �Y Y �L . , . ... *�+ .' .�ia.rlw�'
�y ��A .
... � ��r',���. . .T".+ r.W.� �' �r ��$..
t r
3� y
. �.. � � . +1.. �' '.. � !{' 0.�
� i ��
���y . � . �� � 1�
,:jmN.* R � A��j
� �..C�� '{ +f , j . � � ���i i ��� �?�� �
� ���F� � r
��t �",� � � :`g��,�+ !1 � i
� ��" �• �r�,
+�>�,• �� ? `� s� ' ��•m
+�"` ..� �
i � y"
� 9: �. . � �.. �. .�
_ ±'_ �, � . y!»y� �� � ,
I � _ 3 ST j i` � ���e��
i i. bw' J_ � 7
�' . r � z
- ����� � ��r �
i e z � �* ♦ ♦
i
�1=: � � ti °?. v5 � �.t . � � �'W� r.ti �
3
'� - �Y. - 4 ' \� "�
y\
•Protects Tract 409 only
•Requires easements on existing Ag land �
•Ditch can be constructed with filtering capabilities f • , �
. -�; � , . .
- r � o � • ' c � • . E . . • .° ' � , • _
� 4 t ~
� G 1
�' � � � ,�,�q` ;n4�� � �'�3+` "'
`�' '' �� '
� :� 4`
;+ +�.i. ,;,,�� i� � �"��'� �
��,�. ,t: ` �. r.� $�:� ���� '� � , ti
�:*-�'` ., . � � � �a�»
,� " :ef :. � 'Y�s t
� .�°, • . � t � � .. 'r.. f ,.,..'
, 31N�._".�a � � �
,TS�a tt �,�abx' '� #�3 . #��'�.�..�!'
� � � � �
t h�� "�' r&�w #� 4� " . .
� � � ��,„:
''�'������� �� s�a � � .$ �! �
`. :: M ��r�;dfR`�: . .:. ;� y i�` �
� � � .�� � �" '�LL' .
2 �n,+, ';i '�,�:';. !r '��lP
I� � � � � � e� . �� ..
�i p ��[ � � i�.
�.
C 1'�_
.' . w � �''�l
� � � ` �... �..Y. : :.. i t... V
� �
•Protects Tract 409, Tract 139, and downstream areas
3.
•Requires easements on existing Ag land - -�
. . � • , �
�
I�I
'
I
_;� ,
T 1 _ , , #f
.
� ,�, • � o ,� d • - � - � e � w�.
, .
, . ��
��t , ,�
,
�
� �,,,� �1� ��i . � . � N ,,.. � .. �� �,� �
f
r °i � -
��� � ��c � �� � � � ��
� � .
� � e �.�ti ��� µ�h�� �
��, � , �k �
�
� '� , _, y�s a
R
, . ' �-� l�.; `�t ' s '„ � � � �.
• � � " P, •
- `� ,. . _ � � ° �^ '. �_ "� '
�' �' ��� !Ir� ��
-� - ,r � E .� t
� `
;k� ��.����d 3 �',� �� fb � '+a ��� a_+ �7'
v�d`'r ,,�` . � « .hf +* '� .
s .�. + . � .�
� �� � �* `� � � �:
� ,
�;� -;� '� , s � +� t !t ,,
,� ,.
, �` -`�� • — • � � � #6 y, :. , y .
' ` �F �,� ��.� � . ?.�
�r � r _ �, � . ��° � �-- ` •�� c�
a � e
� �� �} ; _�� . . i .
< �t' � �. �,
_'" �.:_ —s.
' ,w.° �,i
I �
x
_ , � �� �
- .
,
y y�, � .` k ,, �* -
� z.._.;.. f.� ,a , ' �� �'� ` `�� .
�` •Protects Tract 409, Tract 139, and downstream areas -
•Does Not requires easements on existing Ag land �
•Ditch can be constructed with filtering capabilites r • � , .
F � , •
.. . _.. . . � � . .. . :. y... :aK ... x-.. . �. _
, � • `���.��: ���►a. � } � � � �� T�¢ �'�r. ��
, � �
i .';� v�. � '��" , ��,
. �� � � � �
: �c � �...4t —= �.
�:: irs :�'s��t.'.� i � � e.'' a
* , � � � [ ' -��'� � [ y��
� �t
.'� _ � �Y�� a , • i � n
k . :n, 5vs�, .-�r . *,�� • .,"� y
. ' � xy4F F� r �� �.r.
.d7t' 3 :Jk# � O��-�;� ' a
. .: �" ' �y 1 ,� r' 7 " � .
�y� j ` =, � i"y�:c � �� . � �r�ii:�:��y�
5 , ��ITJ.� '.�'N� Y .a . "�4 � lN
C 1e .k'
A 1 )
k';�. �'mn ���� ��
�`` `i . Y,�+�����". ..�� �' ;� � .+1
�
. � � � , - �♦ - �
+ �� M; l�f �T"; �
A!�`
¢ . . ',�,`..... �� � fky`
N �.
�
J � �yg y
�y �a�� . , F �, 1 �.�
S
r .�. � . �� �4.;' • • � t
'.� ��� +1 .� � Y.;, ,"
a6 5
� `� � �iR� . � � � b,t } �Y
#� � A7�
. .. ��: .ri 'f�q� � ���
_ . .� .. �� � m . .i� : . r , . .. .. - 'fn�! E \ �e,`'�
•Protects Ag Land, Tract 409, Tract 139, and downstream �;;�
areas
•Requires easements on existing Ag land
• / • • ��1 �+ � �� , � ��`Y �'7 S
�� ' '+ �� �
� � '� i ��.�� 1 _ 1��.
�. y
' T ` '. '�. '
� � �» ���'�'j� �# �;
p=¢�3 '� �" ' '���'� �. � ;`'�
• ,�4�� �.
�. <
_, �,� ��
.
�,: . .--. ��=
- � �' �� � o �`i�,^ .t ;* ;rlM �, �-.
,,�. � ��'� "�►,
�' a � �� . . "r �,� l � � � .`��"`� `.''
S'. '�� ?#'� � 4 �' W�,. ; �
��+ �'� A . "; �,�:;e.,<. a ^n'�#�k."Y
�,: �.: . ."_4 " . �'�'T
��'� �
. -:I� � � -�.
Y ��` 1t�1 �� �.� ¢, �� :,
��� � Wr . i� � 'a' .
� , . �`�;��.
�,.,,,y. � F ',,b., ��� " �:.
� y+ � � + � .
. � f
'� � �p� ��e�� � 4 1'
"+.
b r v3
- �'. �' x >4 1�'�*�r�q. � ,'.�`���.� ���.�� .
. . . , � �.. � � 0 s : �
� ;,r ,� '
r ,�r... . .„� 's • x �r`.. 4 f �'.�� .�
� '#� m,i�+ �.
. � • 3jrr,�.. �.� ,
k ��: y k�5.1
y' . . `k, � � ,',g .��a
f.
, ' " � :� ,�, �.
., „
�� � ... ' . � .�t � . . ;^ � .
,II . .. . �>,�7 � .�.. - � .��:: � ' � ..:... ��`� l".�' � .:
•Protects Ag Land and Tract 409 ' ,,,�„�
' •Requires easements on existing Ag land
Mt�` � ��� +� - N f q °
,�
■ l�
e A � '� � �� � �• ,�IS .�.. c11 � fr k��� MF�
'
,
, ����t
_ .
.
�. .�
, ,� "��� � "t-����". ��: ' � '� !.�. �
i^ ;'� � : �' ':,
s� -� y -.�'�� —+ , ,,=.
� " ��€-" i •.' �
m �",r`] . � ��y�"�� `�"�� �- ,�
. � ��� ` X � � Y N �
��. � �` ._. .,�� ' � ���,
.
, • � ;; � � �� ,�� _
'' '' . v ''a�'�� �� � _ r 1. _-, . �. .
k� �'n s�.�. yt . > _ ' 1 t� ,
� ' �"l^ � ,�,�'i� ���k'� � _-y.•:
a ~ � , '±�
' ',� � �'„�j� +* � � w �.� �' `'# *7ts =
' � �� ,, ' "� ��e,
I ��' � ' � E
I „ � , �
� . � . M �"°.'��RS..�
�-0 a
°� " �` �� ,��,I� � ' � ���y, .
.. , � ..., , :�
`�;s» }` ;�. a � , �
.
.
a . - '�' r ,� .. s �.,
. . . �� �. a�' 1 @MS,�r�' �„'!
1 .k,�k, � �",.."'^• ' R� j..(�
� :'�r�^ ���� � ,� .. f d
� ,
- Y1 �� :a.. z � �
u„' �. ���6'`n •
� g.� 4 .�� f� � �^ 1� � .�'1�m
, . :.� � �4 � ��� a C b� '� �•
. � ��
n: `�
d : �
t �
` � � ��
� 1 ,� r� IMy. Y 1- .:�� ��i�+t �t
. . dw � ti. -, , � �, r
•Protects Ag Land, Tract 409, Tract 139, and downstream �" �,�
areas
•Requires easements on existing Ag land
�7. • � '��.�i . � t: ��� ,� � �� � '�„ •. .- ��.'•��•
� � �� �
; � •�=�,���- - � �-��,�� ; .,
��� .: �
� �� �. r� .
�,}'��`�. ,� i , ,+: �
�,�, g� ."� �'"�„�. #
• * ' ��
.f
�. 3. : '.y.� _,� ,�., �
� - S J1C�:� h'�v�. 6 '�\
� .... � � � g , � . ::
» . -�+� • f�E k i .,� - �...�'
.YI,�S �Z•1 ,�� IX�� �� •."��. i r ���" ��
,. " � � d � 4; 'b� - "yi, � s7M1S
"r - •�,� r� �it s. ,�� ��
��� �.
�'. •. .
,
� � �.
�3:.F... ¢ �, :; ,+���s,�".
+� .��' Y1 , . � • , �t, .0
`.��- , � � .���
� �''�` ,,�r , ` � ��,
�►'"E"' � ' • �, i t ,
�!.1{�"' �, - �,
r . . S A' . . W.,�M (��r P
• V� •Y �
. :^�` .. i! [:.. .
t
K ��y �
� y� � �`� '!. . �Y� i� � .��+�i
_ F��� ;� r�� �
� 's ,� �^ ''�
r
r� �.. � y � � �n �fi ��S•.
,. . ,� -� � �. :��
��.q-y . .r . �+ � .a
�e4�� �r�.�ir
•Protects Ag Land, Tract 409, Tract 139, and downstream ` �,�
areas
•Requires easements on existing Ag land