SDMSDocID 2027842

2027842

Mr. David RasingerWat.e<- DivisionU.S, U ?A Region IX75 Hawthorne Si (WTR-7)San F-nncisco, CA 94105-3901

August 14. 2002 Channel Relocation Conference Call

Dear David:

Enclosed and under separate cover. Don Hulling? of EMCON has submitted today finaldrawings and supporting calculations for the "hybrid thai -re"' deiign due to EPA by August 2b,2001: under the EPA mandated schedule. In addii'oa, in his letter, Mr. Hullings discusses the

f if the various design tasks identified in the August 14, 2002 call.

i-'.'i h this letter, however } M/acted to ;>;!>• -a fy--e!.-si rn?xr "trfewf^tf? made by vtu In\c-u, »' t;n i'/. ", '•>, 2002 e-mail wh;r-. subjecv 'AA-, Chc,ii- <r zr.ir~, men r-thftrt^ee cull foilc-H-up 'H p;.-pc-.,t!v:r, ai that e-mail, you stated tn-tf several o? >onr n'5jc- ' i i \ ,-vfi;r tre cull ''were at leas'.p^rt;;5'/> :•„'!.: 'h fed," with the appai^at imphcatvm thm :J-'ITU o!*',sc*Jves were net satisfied ;r all,aroLt thut evtii for those objectives :h;it wer^r 'par lull) sH!^^1<:'j " aiurH sjhould have been dene.You ac*U subsequently that, 'the presentation was mu:.i less tec h^ical than we had hoped/"

TratJcly, Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., d/b/'a Silver State Services of SouthernNevada ("Silver State") finds this characterization of the August 15, 2002 conference callicvis.omst and perplexing. On the call, neither you nor Hugh Barroll, as EPA personnel inattendance, expressed these concerns. In fact, even commented on your satisfaction with whatwas expected from the "Channel Status" call, correcting Ms. Doty on her expectation.

The only negative comments regarding the content of the call were made by Ms. SandraD.:-{y, an SAIC consultant who works with EPA, who had not been in attendance at the prior»if.efir-u i1! Sas^ Francisco where this call (or what was actually supposed to be a meeting), and itspurpose ard content had been originally discussed. Perhaps some of Ms. Dol>'s discontent mayhas-t; been eliminated if she had been part of the San Francisco discussions, or if a face-to-facenvctT-g hud been held instead of a conference ca I. We note Silver State's original intention,wb'sdh had been expressed to EPA, was to have a face-to face tedinical meeting with EPA on the.'hamit*] issues, in conjunction with the planned Oosent D.rret;" negotiations that EPA andSi'--»'f ' Slate had agreed to hold on August 14. Unfortunate "y. as you know, EPA requested that•!'v.. August 14 negotiations be postponed, with UC result ttv»l th; channel meeting became a< orutTence call.

77O East Sahara Avenue • Las Vegas, NV 891O4 • Telephone [702] 735-5151 • Fax: (7O2) 735-1986

In your e-mail, you also choose to state that, "it will be important to keep the meeting[the face-to-face meeting requested by EPA] focused on a detailed discussion of the technicalissues ... We prefer to defer any discussions of legal or policy matters to another occasion." Tomake sure that the record is clear, I wanted to clarify that whatever made the August 14conference call "less technical" than Ms. Doty wanted, the call was essentially devoid of "legal"or "policy" discussions, consistent with EPA's request. As you know, Silver State believessignificant legal and policy issues remain regarding the channel and other interrelated stormwatermanagement issues. Silver State, however, has agreed to defer discussions of these matters tothe Consent Decree negotiations.

Please call as necessary to discuss. We look forward to the technical meeting regardingthe channel.

Sincerely,

AlanJ. G;Republic

AG/im

o:\cli\24\34\l 1273Mtr\sgaddy to dbasinger8-23-02.doc

EMCON/OWT, Inc.

192 7 R/ng wood AvenueSan Jose, CA 95131-1721

408.453.7300k ' Fax 408,437.9526

Shaw The Shaw Group Inc."August 22,2002

Project 800080

Mr. Alan GaddyRepublic Services of Southern Nevada770 East Sahara AvenueLas Vegas, NV 89104

Re: Sunrise Landfill Channel Submittal

As we agreed in December, 2001, EMCON has developed a detailed design for diehybrid channel option. As stated in our previous analyses of alternatives submitted to theEPA, we do not believe that the hybrid channel option is the best alternative. Ourdetailed design and additional analyses indicate that flows are potentially much higherthan previous predicted only serve to reinforce our opinion that upcanyon basins andmodifications to the existing channel is the better alternative. At your direction, however,we have developed a workable design in general accordance with the EPA-prescribedhybrid channel alternative.

Attached please find the revised drawings and supporting calculations for the "hybrid"channel design. This is the completed design that is due on August 26,2002, accordingto the EPA-approved schedule. Also attached are the "Hydrology and Hydraulic DesignBasis Memorandum" and the "Main Channel Energy Management Memorandum." Bothof these documents were written originally for internal use only, but are being included asthey provide valuable information on the assumptions and methodologies used in thedesign. Note that both of these documents were produced to support the hybrid channelalternative and to create a workable design. While we have designed a channel that iscapable of carrying the entire design flow, we strongly suggest that detaining stormwaterin the Northwest Canyon and releasing the flow in a controlled manner is a better option.

The purpose of this letter is to summarize some of the discussion during the August 14,2002 conference call and address comments made in the follow-up e-mail from DavidBasinger on August 15, 2002. Note in particular that changes in the hydrologic modelhave resulted in flows much greater than those upon which our previous comparisons ofalternative were based. Because the EPA is not in favor of the upcanyon basin/existingchannel alternative, we have not developed that particular alternative further. I canconclude, however, that with the increases in design flow the basin/existing channelalternative is an even better option that it was before.

C.-AlanGaddyl.doc/deh Page 1

Hydrologic ModelAs mentioned during the conference call, revisions to the HEC-HMS computer model wehave been using have resulted in dramatically different results between the versions.Using the latest model version, we now estimate that flow in the channel is about 50percent greater than modeled using the older version.

Initial hydrologic modeling for the Sunrise Mountain Landfill project was performed in1999 and 2000 using the then current version of the HEC-HMS model (version 1.1)developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center of the US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE). Hydrologic data was assembled and assumptions made as documented inseveral submittals, including the Design Storm Evaluation (EMCON, 1999). Afteragreement by the concerned parties, the design storm, hydrologic data and assumptions(including runoff curve numbers, percent impervious area, transform methodology, lagmethodology, peak methodology, and design storm distribution) have been used hi allhydrologic modeling for the site.

During the course of the project, the USACE updated the HEC-HMS model and releasedversion 2.1.2 in 2001. Modeling for the checkpoint memorandums, completed in 2001,continued to use version I.I since we wanted to insure a direct "apples to apples"comparisons with previous modeling. We anticipated that different versions of the modelwould result in slightly different results and we didn't want this to confuse matters.

Additional modeling in support of the current main channel design was performed usingversion 2.1.2 of the model since it was the current version and we were no longerconcerned about direct comparisons of model results. We did not anticipate thatsignificantly larger flows would be predicted using version 2.1.2 compared with version1.1. To identify the source of these differences, we compared the results to an earlierwidely accepted mode! known as HEC-1. HEC-1 is the older USACE hydrologicmodeling Fortran program, which is discussed in the CCRFCD Hydraulic Criteria andDrainage Design Manual as an accepted methodology and is the precursor to the firstHEC-HMS model (the HEC-HMS was used for the modeling because it is much easier touse than HEC-1). Using identical input parameters, Sunrise Subwatershed 15 wasmodeled in HEC-1, HEC-HMS version 1.1, and HEC-HMS version 2.1.2. The resultsindicated that the HEC-HMS version 2.1.2 model results closely matched the HEC-1model results (71.87 cfs and 72 cfs, respectively), while the HEC-HMS version 1.1model results were significantly smaller (34.975 cfs). In this particular case for arelatively small watershed, the flow predicted by version 1.1 is about half of thatpredicted by the original HEC-1 model and the latest HEC-HMS version 2.1.2. Extensivemodeling with all three versions has not been done for all watersheds or various designiterations, but it is clear that the flow calculated by HEC-HMS version 2.1.2 for the entiresite is about 50 percent greater than estimated for substantially the same watershed byHEC-HMS version 1.1. At the end of the rockfall channel, we are now estimating a flowof 4643 cfs using version 2.1.2 which compares to 3050 cfs using version 1.1.

These inconsistencies among the model versions were discussed via e-mail with Dodsonand Associates, Inc., an authorized distributor of the HEC models for the USACE. This

C:AknGaddy!.doc/deh Page 2

discussion indicated that the source of the differences were changes in the methods ofinterpolation of depth-duration data between the two HEC-HMS versions. According tothe USACE, version 1.1 of the HEC-HMS model interpolated the depth-duration data inlog-log space using a second order polynomial to implement the guidance in the NOAATechnical Paper 40 (TP-40) regarding data smoothing, since in the experience of theUSACE, "almost no engineers actually perform this step before using frequencyprecipitation data". (EMCON's analysis in 1999, however, did perform graphicalsmoothing on log graphs per the TP-40 guidance). The USACE received complaintsfrom the model-user community regarding differences between HEC-HMS version1.0/1.1 and the older HEC-1 models. Because of the volume of the complaints, theUSACE decided to rewrite the precipitation model in version 2.1.2 to match themethodology used in HEC-1.

It was decided to use HEC-HMS version 2.1.2 results since these more closely replicatethe HEC-1 methodology, which is listed as an acceptable method in the CCRFCDmanual. In addition, the design storm distribution developed for the Sunrise project andaccepted by EPA was based on smoothed data. This is consistent with USACE advice inthe Dodson e-mail indicating that, with version 2.1.2, it is "vitally important that usersperform their own data smoothing before inputting data to the program." Since we havedone the data smoothing, version 2.1.2 is the applicable model.

Schedule

After some initial delays as we sorted out the model differences, we have beenproceeding in general accordance with the EPA-approved schedule as described below.

Task 1 ~ Resolve Cover. The final cover and waste removal issues have not beenresolved, but we have proceeded with the design at your request. We maintain, however,that without resolution of these key issues, it is difficult to determine what the bestchannel option may be. If, for example, waste is removed in the Northeast Canyon and abasin created, it would seem prudent to take advantage of the basin in the overall channeldesign.

Task 2 - Rockfall Channel Improvements. Because of the increase in design flow,improvements to the rockfall channel are more extensive than originally anticipated. Inaddition, the increased flow has required a reevaluation of our energy managementconcept for the site (see attached memorandum). After several alternatives wereevaluated, an excavated stair-step channel was selected which both increases the flowcapacity of the existing channel and aids in flowing down the flow velocity. A betteroption may be to attenuate the flow with a basin in the Northeast Canyon, but this wasnot considered in the design because the EPA does not favor a basin. This task has beencompleted for now, but we would still like to revisit the basin alternative because of itsability to attenuate flows.

C:AlanGaddyl,doc/deh Page 3

Task 3 - Hybrid channel. The increased flow predicted by version 2.1.2 results in alarger than anticipated channel and required us to reconsider the channel lining asdiscussed in the attached memorandum. Based on the energy management plan, theportions of the channel that have 3:1 sideslopes will be lined with gabions whichdissipate energy better than concrete lining. Portions of the hybrid channel arerectangular and concrete-lined where flow conditions and geometry dictate that this typeof channel would be more efficient. Also, additional energy dissipater features are added.A better option may be to control the energy by attenuating the flow with basin, but againa basin was not pursued for this design. This task has been completed assuming thatbasins are not an option.

Task 4 - Non-channel grading. Since other projects, such as the final cover andNortheast Canyon grading, are ongoing, we recognized that some grading would berequired to insure that surface flows enter the channel. As these other projects are stillongoing, little has been done on this task. Some regradtng in the Northeast Canyon todivert water from the existing channel to the new hybrid channel has been included in thedesign. Diverting water from the existing channel was done to appease the EPA's desireto keep stormwater from the existing channel. A better option may be to simply modifythe existing channel to handle the flow instead of creating an additional design element.

Task 5 - Stormwater management plan. This task was envisioned to develop an interimmanagement plan to handle stormwater during construction. For instance, stormwaterwould have to be diverted from the existing rockfall channel while the channel is beingblasted. In hindsight, this task was placed too early in the schedule, but will be addressedduring the review phase. Our initial thoughts are that some kind of temporary basin willbe required in the Northeast Canyon. Work cannot proceed in the rockfall channelwithout either detaining water in the Northeast Canyon or routing stormwater over thelandfill.

Task 6 - Final Hydraulic Analysis (channel flow). Once tasks 2 and 3 were completed,the entire system was modeled using HEC-RAS. A few iterations were made to optimizethe design assuming the channel would have to carry peak stormwater flow. We did notconsider the possibility of flow attenuation in our design, although a truly optimal designwould consider some flow attenuation with detention basins. During this task wedetermined which channel section and lining would work most efficiently at differentlocations and located the "optimal" energy dissipater locations. The most recent modelingoutput is attached, but some optimization analyses may be required for the ancillaryfeatures.

Task 7 - Plans/profiles/sections, Working copies of the plans, profiles and sections weredistributed two weeks ago. Some previous inconsistencies in these plans have beenresolved and the revised plans are attached.

Task 8 - Ancillary Improvements. Some ancillary details have been completed over thepast two weeks. Details are included in the current plan set. While this task is notcomplete, sufficient work has been done to complete a drawing set for review purposes.

C:AlapGaddyl.doc/deh Page 4

Task 9 - Prepare Bid Package. The preliminary drawings have been completed alongwith an engineer's cost estimate. Draft technical specifications have not been completedso the design package is not quite ready for bid. These specifications can be completedduring the review process.

Task 10 - Design complete milestone. A design sufficient for client/agency review hasbeen completed by August 26, 2002 according to the EPA-approved schedule. Theinterim stormwater management plan, draft technical specifications, and some details arestill being worked on. These items can be discussed during the proposed technicalreview meeting.

Revised Plans

The original plan set that was used for discussion purposes during the conference call wasan internal working set of plans created in between modeling iterations. There weresome inconsistencies between the modeling output and the flows identified on thedrawing as work was ongoing at the time. The attached set of plans and modeling outputresolves these previous inconsistencies. In addition, we have provided the grading for themain channel so that the actual extent of earthwork is shown, added a drawing ofancillary details, and clarified the plan set with additional call-outs and descriptions. Theplan set is issued as revision 1 dated August 22, 2002. These plans have been issued forreview purposes and are not for construction.

While the two attached memorandums have not been revised recently, they are stillrelevant and accurately reflect our assumptions and methodology. Inherent in both.memorandums is the assumption that the hybrid channel must carry the peak flowwithout flow attenuation in a basin. We suggest that EMCON be allowed to exploredetention basins as a viable flow attenuation and energy management technique.

Remaining Work

At your request, we have moved ahead with the hybrid channel design in generalagreement with the EPA-approved schedule. I understand that our next step is to meetwith Clark County and EPA representatives for a technical information exchange andreview session. While we are prepared to support the hybrid channel option under theconstraints that a detention basin is not an option, it is our hope that other options maystill be considered. Before this technical review session we will be working on providingsome more detail on the ancillary facilities, technical specifications, and interimstormwater management plan in support of the hybrid channel option. We request thatwe also be allowed to consider other options and discuss our findings at the reviewsession.

C:AlanGaddyl.doc/deh Page 5

We have moved ahead with the design before resolving some major issues relevant to thefinal cover and Northeast Canyon waste. I am not convinced that the hybrid channelalternative is the most effective way to convey stormwater from the Northeast Canyonand I don't believe we can make an informed decision without some resolution of thesematters. I am particularly concerned that the sharp increase in flow indicated in the latestmodeling will increase construction costs into the range of $13 million for the channelalone. Important design decisions have been made based on lower flows and lowerestimated construction costs. Without slowing down the hybrid channel design process, Ibelieve the detention basin and existing channel alternative must be revisited.

Sincerely,

EMCQN/OWT

Donald E. HulKngs, P.E.Project Manager

Attachments:

Drawings 0 through 12, A and BModeling outputHydrology and Hydraulic Design Basis MemorandumMain Channel Energy Management Memorandum

C:AlanGaddyl.doc/deh Page 6

TOTflL P.07

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: DonHullings DATE: August 23,2002PROJECT: 800080

FROM: Garth Bowers, P.E.Colby Fryar, EIT

RE: Main Channel Energy Management

Purpose

This memorandum is being prepared to document energy management issues related tothe Main Channel at Sunrise Mountain Landfill and to develop energy managementconcepts for further design at the site. Energy management is an important considerationin proper hydraulic design and is crucial when channels are steep and/or carry largeamounts of flow. In these cases, friction losses during flow through the channels may notbe sufficient to prevent acceleration of flows to excessive velocities. At excessivevelocities, flows may cause channel erosion, damage to channel linings, and/or wastewashout. These velocities also may be hazardous to lives or property, if individuals arepresent at the site during a flow event. In addition, Clark County requires that point flowsbe discharged to downstream properties at non-erosive velocities and depths of flow(CCRFCD, 1999).

At the Sunrise Landfill site, there is a total fall between the northern end of the landfill(Point EPA #1) and the southeastern property line of 320 feet. The energy gained by thelarge quantity of water flowing during design storm dropping this vertical distance mustbe dissipated by friction losses, engineered energy dissipation structures, or a combinationof the two. To illustrate the magnitude of energy dissipation required, the potential energyavailable in 4340 cfs of water (average of flows predicted, undetained, at point EPA #1and the downstream property line) dropping 320 feet, is 120 MW.

In order to develop energy management concepts for use in further design activities,EMCON performed preliminary calculations to evaluate energy management using astandard step backwater calculator. The Standard Step Method is more appropriate toaddress non-uniform flow conditions than Manning's equation, which only calculates flowdepths and velocities for uniform conditions. HEC-RAS modeling is proposed for useduring final design to evaluate the water surface and energy profile for channels withvarying combinations of cross-sections, longitudinal slopes, lining materials, and flowdirections. However, the standard step method was utilized to evaluate energy

TUC\C:\WiNDOWS\TEMP\energymgmt.doc-97\ rd: 1

Don Hullings Project 800080August 23, 2002Page 2

management concepts, because it is easier and faster to use for this type of application.The Main Channel was divided into three segments for purposes of this evaluation (thenorthern segment, central segment and rockfall segment). The existing channel alignmentwas used to evaluate energy management for the three segments and is anticipated to yieldsimilar energy losses and energy dissipation requirements as the Hybrid ChannelAlignment, though the existing alignment is shorter.

EMCON evaluated the broadest range of channel lining alternatives anticipated for use atthe site; the smoothest lining anticipated being concrete and the roughest being 1 footdiameter riprap. One mechanism for energy dissipation in flowing water is friction lossesdue to boundary layer friction between the flowing water and the channel lining, as well aslosses due to flow turbulence. Friction losses generally increase with increasing flowvelocity but also vary depending on the roughness of the channel lining. In general, therougher the surface of the channel lining, the greater the friction loss. The smoother thechannel lining, the lower the friction loss. Using the standard step method, friction losswas estimated for concrete, gabions and riprap. Please refer to Table 1 for friction lossachieved, total energy loss required and additional energy dissipation needed for eachchannel lining type. This table will be discussed in more detail in the Discussion ofResults section below. The additional energy dissipation needed is energy that is notdissipated through friction losses alone. As shown in the table, concrete generally requiresthe greatest amount of additional energy dissipation (especially on steeper slopes) andriprap generally requires the least amount of additional energy dissipation. Gabionsprovide a high level of friction loss as well and are relatively well suited for locations atwhich settlement is likely. Energy loss required is the amount of energy that must be lostto reduce velocities in the channel below those allowable for the particular liningalternative under consideration. Subtracting the friction loss achieved from the energyloss required gives additional energy dissipation needed. This additional energy must bereduced by means other than friction losses along the channel (i.e. energy dissipationstructures)

Energy dissipation would also be necessary to allow the discharge of water at non-erosivedepths and velocities in unlined channels at the property line. To illustrate the magnitudeand energy involved with the design flow of 4436-cfs (HEC-HMS discharge) at the lowerend of the rockfall channel (assuming concrete lining), the following representations areprovided:

• 4436 cfs or approximately 2 million gallons of water would be passing through anopening about 15 foot wide every minute.

TUC\C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\energymgmt.doc-97\ rd: 1

Don Hullings Project 800080August 23, 2002Page 3

• This amount of water would fill one Olympic sized swimming pool every 2.7minutes.

• Velocities calculated at the bottom of the rockfall channel are on the order of 60 ft/sfor a concrete-lined channel or about 40 miles per hour.

• The power generated by this mass of water would generate about 23 Megawatts,which is enough energy to serve a small city of approximately 16,000 people.

• The weight of water traveling through the channel is approximately 277,000 poundsper second and is equivalent to approximately two fully-loaded semi-trucks movingat 40 miles per hour through an opening only about 15 foot wide.

Discussion of Results

Please refer to Table 1 for the following discussion. The additional energy dissipationcolumn in Table 1 gives energy in feet of head (common unit of measurement for energyof flowing water) that is not reduced by friction. This energy must be dissipated by analternative method, such as an energy dissipation structure. Each of the three lining typesconsidered has advantages and disadvantages. As shown in the table, concrete generallyrequires the greatest amount of additional energy dissipation (especially on steeper slopes)and riprap generally requires the least amount of additional energy dissipation. Concretecan handle higher velocities, but is smoother and does not generate the amount of frictionloss that the other two lining types do and therefore, requires greater additional energydissipation. This means that concrete lining requires more dissipation structures than theother two lining types. However, concrete is anticipated to be the least costly liningalternative.

Compared to concrete gabion friction losses are relatively high and additional energydissipation needed is relatively low. In addition, the potential for damage due tosettlement under gabions is relatively low, because gabions tend to be more flexible andwill conform better to shifting subgrade. Gabions are the most expensive lining typeconsidered, however.

Riprap generates relatively high friction losses as well, requires the least amount ofadditional energy dissipation and performs relatively well at locations where settlement islikely to occur. Long Term Maintenance Costs for riprap is listed as medium, because therock will have a greater tendency to wash out than the other lining types. Riprap is

TUC\C'\WINDOWS\TEMP\energymgmt.doc-97\rd:l

Don Hullings Project 800080August 23, 2002Page 4

assigned a relative construction cost of medium, based on the size of rock necessary forthe velocities calculated.

The difference in allowable and maximum anticipated velocities further reinforces theneed for additional energy dissipation. These numbers represent the magnitude of velocitythat exceeds the allowable or maximum velocity recommended for each lining type(allowable velocities used are relatively conservative to account for high inflows, steepchannel gradient, waste settlement conditions and irregularities in channel lining,variations in channel cross-section and potentially rapidly varied flow conditions inportions of the channel). Note that velocity is a component of energy, which is why thedifference in allowable and anticipated velocities correlates so well with additional energydissipation needed. According to the velocity calculations, riprap and gabion velocitiesneed to be reduced much less than concrete velocities. Reduction of these velocitiesrequires additional energy dissipation structures, such as drop structures or spillways.

Relative costs provided in Table 1 are based on the memo submitted to Republic Servicesin March of 2000 (BMP Work Item 2 (WI-2)- Channel Lining), City of Tucson StandardsManual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson Arizona andEMCON's experience in performing cost estimates for similar projects.

In Table 2, EMCON evaluated drop spillways and stilling basins. Note that cells were leftblank in the table, either because the information is not applicable due to limitations of thestructure or information was not available for the parameters listed in the table. Dropstructures evaluated include gabion drops, straight drop spillways and Morris and JohnsonStilling Basins. The feature that differentiates these structures from other energydissipation structures is the vertical wall or drop. The stilling basins listed in the table arevariations of United States Bureau of Reclamation (USER) structures and the SaintAnthony Falls (SAP) Stilling Basin. All of these basins have sloping inlet aprons insteadof the vertical drop. USBR basins are standardized stilling basin designs that have beenused for many decades to dissipate energy.

Drop spillways are generally applicable to upstream subcritical flow while the stillingbasins are applicable to subcritical or supercritical flows (CCRFCD, 1999). A simplisticdefinition of supercritical flow is flow that occurs on steeper channel slopes with lessresistance or friction loss, higher velocities and lower flow depths. Subcritical flowgenerally occurs on flatter slopes with higher roughness or friction loss, lower velocitiesand higher flow depths. Please refer to the flow regime column located in the table andthe Anticipated Entrance Froude Numbers. Froude Numbers are a means of determiningflow regime. Technically, flows are supercritical if the Froude Number is greater than oneand supercritical if the Froude Number is less than one. However, in hydraulic practice,

rUOC \WINDOWS\TEMP\eneigymgmtdoc-97\rd 1

Don Hullings Project 800080August 23, 2002Page 5

flows with Froude Numbers greater than 1.16 are considered supercritical while flowregimes with Froude Numbers less than 0.86 are considered subcritical. Froude numbersbetween 0.86 and 1.16 are classified as critical flow, a relatively unstable flow regime (i.e.flow can transition between supercritical and subcritical due to minor changes in bedconditions, debris in the water or other minor flow disturbances). The AnticipatedEntrance Froude Number range of 1.0 to 6.9 is anticipated to be representative of the fullrange of Froude numbers for lining types as rough as one foot diameter riprap to relativelysmooth concrete in the Main Channel. For optimum performance of the associated basin,the USSR recommends the range of entrance Froude numbers under the column titledApplicable Entrance Froude Number (Chow, 1959 and CCRFCD, 1999). The full rangeof structure entrance velocities for the range of lining types mentioned previously is 12 to61.2 ft/s. For proper operation and to maintain an appropriate factor of safety, somestructures are assigned a maximum allowable velocity and/or a maximum allowable flowrate per foot of structure width (Chow, 1959 and CCRFCD, 1999). The entrance velocityand inflow rate exceed those allowable for the USER Type IX basin (Baffled Apron).

The relative economic impact column is based on a comparison of the various energydissipation structures in the table to the USBR Type I basin, which is relatively long andexpensive to construct (Chow, 1959). The relative economic impact was evaluated basedon length and type of entrance (sloping or drop), assuming that all basins are constructedof same material, have same thickness of material, same width and same height. Based onthis premise, the SAF Basin and USBR Type III Basins, which are similar in theirconstruction, reduce the jump-and-basin length by approximately 80 percent compared tothe USBR Type I Basin. Therefore, these basins are assigned a low economic impact.The USBR Type II Basin reduces this length by about 33 percent and was assigned amedium economic impact. The USBR Type IV basin requires the full length of basin(equivalent to length of USBR I basin), but was also assigned a medium economic impact,because the entrance is not a straight drop. The straight drop spillway, excluding theMorris and Johnson type, is anticipated to be the most expensive basin, because it requiresthe full length of basin and more excavation and/or blasting will be necessary to constructthe vertical drop. Based on calculations for the steepest channel reach, the Morris andJohnson Stilling Basin will reduce the jump-and-basin length by approximately 55 percentcompared to USBR Type I Basin. Though this basin is relatively short, the economicimpact is anticipated to be higher than the SAF and USBR Type III basins, because of theadditional excavation necessary to construct the vertical drop.

The relative energy loss (calculated using methodology in Chow for horizontal hydraulicjumps) associated with the stilling basins is calculated based on the Applicable EntranceFroude Number, because they are not designed to function properly for Froude numbersoutside the applicable range. EMCON calculated relative energy losses for drop structures

TUC\C \WINDOWS\TEMP\energymgmt doc-97\ rd 1

Don Hullings Project 800080August 23, 2002Page 6

at 9 to 12 percent. On steeper slopes, where the allowable length of stilling basins isrestricted, drop structures could be constructed in step-fashion downstream of a stillingbasin (hydraulic jump location where subcritical flow is forced to occur). To performproperly, drop structures require subcritical flow upstream of the structure. With itsvertical drop, the Morris and Johnson Stilling Basin requires less overall length than theUSBR and SAF basins, which have sloping inlets. Note that both drop structures andstilling basins are applicable to flatter slopes as well.

Recommendations

Based on the results shown in the tables and experience of the design team, a rougherchannel lining type such as gabions, reno mattresses or other similar lining type, whichwill dissipate more energy due to friction loss and handle settlement better, isrecommended to be used for channel lining. The construction cost is shown to berelatively high, but does not reflect the maintenance cost for the life of the material or thecost of drop structure construction. As shown in Table 1, the number of dissipationstructures required with gabions or similar lining will be considerably less than thenumber required with a concrete channel lining. In addition, the overall channelmaintenance anticipated is lower for gabions or similar lining type than maintenancerequired for riprap or concrete. Based on the large flow quantity and high velocities, thesize of rock required for loose riprap may be much larger than the size evaluated,dramatically increasing the cost for blasting/quarrying, transporting and placing rock. Forthe design flow evaluated, it is possible that the relative construction cost for riprap maymeet or exceed that for gabion construction.

EMCON recommends that energy management considerations be incorporated into thefinal design, regardless of the lining type used. As stated previously, lining typesevaluated represent the broadest range of losses due to linings anticipated for use at thesite. Based on the magnitude of friction losses presented with all three lining alternatives,it appears that additional energy dissipation is necessary with any of the three lining types.Energy management should involve additional energy dissipation structures such as

stilling basins and/or drop structures. In general, concrete lining requires the greatestamount of additional energy dissipation (dissipation structures) and riprap lining requiresthe least amount for the entire length of Main Channel. EMCON recommends that energydissipation structures similar to the USBR Type III basin and SAF basin be used at thebottom of steeper slopes or in relatively flat areas (if flow conditions preclude the use ofdrop structures), where they are more practical to construct and will be more effective atreducing energy. These basins have relatively low construction costs and can be used forthe entire spectrum of supercritical flows anticipated along the channel. United StatesBureau of Reclamation Standard stilling basins and the SAF basin are field-tested and

TUC\C \W1NDOWS\TEMP\energymgmtdoc-97\rd 1

Don Hullings Project 800080August 23, 2002Page 7

proven basins that have been used to dissipate energy for decades. Straight drop spillwaysor Morris and Johnson drop structures would be more appropriate on steeper slopesdownstream of stilling basin locations (downstream of hydraulic jumps where subcriticalflows occur). These structures will probably be necessary to reduce energy that thestilling basins do not entirely dissipate. Compared to the other drop spillways listed in thetable, Morris and Johnson basins are the most cost-effective, but are not recommended forflows greater than 167 cfs/ft of width.

Note that alternative energy dissipation alternatives should not be precluded from use atthe site, because they are not listed in this evaluation. The structures listed in Table 2 aresome of the most commonly used structures for use in open channel energy dissipation.However, there may be others which are more practical, cost-effective and applicable tothe large design flow and energy anticipated in the channel.

Attachments: Table 1, Comparison of Channel Lining AlternativesTable 2, Comparison of Various Energy Dissipation StructuresReference List

TUC\C \WINDOWS\TEMP\energymgmtdoc-97\rd 1

Don Hullings Project 800080August 23, 2002PageS

REFERENCES

Chow, Ven Te, 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics

City of Tucson, 1989. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and FloodplainManagement in Tucson, Arizona. Prepared by Simons, Li and Associates.

Clark County, 1999. Hydrologic Criteria and Drainage Design Manual.

Morris, B.T. and Johnson, D.C., 1942. Hydraulic Design of Drop Structures for GullyControl. Papers, American Society of Civil Engineers

Schwab, Fangmeier, Elliot and Frevert, 1993. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990. Hydraulic Design of Spillways.

IUC\C WlNDOWS\TEMP\energymgmtdoc-97\rd

Table 1Comparison of Channel Lining Alternatives

Lining Type

Concrete

Gabions

Riprap

MainChannelSegment

Northern

Centra]

Rockfall

Northern

Centra]

Rockfall

Northern

Central

Rockfall

Friction LossAchieved

(»)

39.3

47.7

53

—

—

""

41.8

39.4

83.6

EstimatedEnergy Loss

Required(ft)

45.7

56.6

104.1

—

—

..

42.9

38.7

94.3

AdditionalEnergy

DissipationNeeded

(ft)

6.4

8.9

51.1

1.8

1.2

16

1.1

0.0

10.7

Difference inAllowable and

MaximumAnticipatedVelocities

(ft/s)

25

25

46

15.9

15.9

29.2

13.4

13.4

25.6

Long-TermMaintenance

Costs

High

High

Low

Low

Low

Low

Medium

Medium

Low

RelativeConstruction

Cost

Low

Low

Low

High

High

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Notes:1) Gabion energy losses and requirements are linear interpolated using the roughness coefficient (n) for all three lining types. It isassumed that friction losses are linearly distributed based on the roughness coefficient.2) Calculations performed for existing channel alignment to bottom of 33 % slope of rockfall channel.3) Friction losses were calculated using upstream flow for the entire respective segment length. In actuality, friction losses will be lessthan those listed in the table, because of the increased flow at the downstream end of the segments. This means that additional energydissipation necessary should be higher.

CT

rocsQro

H1

in

I

m

8m

TO

sOJ

B!

(3Ul

TuMeiCafflfUtSMi of Variant Etwfy DlnlfiKfou Stntchuti

flydnnfcStructureType

DropStructures

SfflllnjBubc

N*n»«rStructure

CationDropi

StraightProp

Spilhny

MorriAJokum

Stilling Bail*

USBR TypeII

USBR Typem

USBR TypeIV

USBR TypeDC

SAF Bui*

MulanintA HOT* .bitEntrance

Velocity (ftfc)

60

12

AottdfMted •Entrance

Velocity (ftfi)

12-6U

12-6U

tt-6 1 2

U^U

12-61.2

12-61.2

12̂ 1.2

Vpttmm.FtewRtpmc

Subcnlic&l

Subcritical

Subcntical

SuhwiticalorSi^wcrilkal

SubcnticilorSupercrilicitl

Subcntical orSupercritical

Subcriucal

Suhcritical orSupercrilitd

AnticipifMlUpilresmFlnr

Repot*

CritealtoSupcrcriticai

"fSSSAto"'Supercritical

Critical toSupocritical

CriticiltoSuperciitica]

CtitiolloSupcTt-riticsl

CritiC4dtaSopcrcriticsl

OilkalloSupercritical

Critical toSupercritical

AppliedEatmoK Fronde

Nunbtr

"

>45

' >4.S

ZSto4.5

1.7 to 17

AntidpitedEntranceFraud*

Number

1.0106.9

!.0to6.9

1.01D6.9

I JO to 6.9

1.0 to 6.9

1.0 to 6.9

1.0(a6.9

1.0to6.9

~ RctetiveEconomkImpact

High

Low toMedium

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

RtbtirtEntrtyLosj

{%)

»to!2

9to!2

J44.5

>44.S

17.5 1044.5

4.6 to 51.5

MnlmnmAllsweil FlowR*tc(c&m)

35

567

500

60

AnScip»tedFJowRutt

(cam)

148 to 2%

148 to 2%

148 to 296

148 to 296

148 to 295

148 to 296

148 to 2%

148 to 296

Notes

Maximumallowable drop

is 8'

NotinCUifcCounty Msawd

Not in ClaikCounty Manual

Keoommccuttdfoi SmallStructures

Recontmendedfor Small

Stmchircs,NotinClnk

County Muraa)

CCD

row

6Qto

H»inIUUD

en

m

o

M

m

Notes Anticipated Flow Rate assumes* width upstream of The structure ranging between IS mid 30 feet.

Ji.C3m

vDin

SUNRISE LANDFILLMAIN CHANNEL DESIGN

HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICSDESIGN BASIS MEMORANDUM

Prepared for

INTERNAL USE ONLY

June 2002

Prepared by

EMCON/OWT, Inc.305 South Euclid Ave. Suite 101

Tucson, Arizona 85719

Project 800080

EMCONTUCAN iPtoposals\EMFI.UX\FMFLUX.DOC i Rev 0,8/23/02

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

2 HYDROLOGIC DESIGN BASIS 2-12.1 Overview of the HEC-HMS Model 2-12.2 Assumptions and Methodologies 2-12.3 Input Parameters 2-2

2.3.1 Watershed Parameters 2-22.3.2 Precipitation Parameters 2-42.3.3 Control Specifications Parameters 2-5

3 HYDRAULIC DESIGN BASIS 3-13.1 Historical Summary 3-13.2 Methodology 3-23.3 Procedures 3-3

4 REFERENCES

B\C \WlNDOWS\TEMP\Sunrise_DBM.doc-94\rd: 1 Rev. 0, 8/23/02

Error! Reference source not found. 11

1 INTRODUCTION

The following information presents the basis for the design of the main stormwaterchannel and appurtenant facilities at the Sunrise Landfill in Las Vegas, Nevada. Thisdesign basis memorandum (DBM) summarizes the assumptions made, evaluation anddesign methodologies used, and criteria agreed upon for design of the main stormwaterchannel. The DBM is based on work that has been accomplished on this project since1999, and includes assumptions, methodologies, and design criteria developed innegotiations between EMCON, Republic Services of Southern Nevada (RSSN), andregulatory agencies.

B\C \WINDOWSVTEMP\Sunrise_DBM doc-94Vd 1 Rev 0, 8/23/02

Error! Reference source not found. 1-1

2 HYDROLOGIC DESIGN BASIS

The hydrology of the Sunrise Landfill main channel and its contributing watershed wasevaluated using the HEC-HMS model developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Centerof the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (USACE, 1998a). The following sectionpresents an overview of the HEC-HMS Model and outlines the assumptions andmethodologies used to develop input parameters for the model including watershedparameters, precipitation data, and model control specifications.

2.1 Overview of the HEC-HMS Model

HEC-HMS is a hydrologic modeling system that was developed by the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center. It is a precipitation and runoff simulationsoftware package that supersedes the HEC-1 model. The HEC-HMS model is comprisedof a graphical user interface, integrated hydrologic analysis components, data storage andmanagement capabilities, and graphics and reporting facilities (USACE, 1998a). HEC-HMS Version 2.1.2 was used to evaluate the hydrology of the immediate vicinity of theSunrise Landfill.

The HEC-HMS model is organized into three major components: the basin model, theprecipitation model, and the control specifications. The basin model, which is the mostcomplex portion of the HEC-HMS model, allows the user to "build" a schematic diagramof the watershed being evaluated (i.e., subbasins, reaches, reservoirs, junctions, sinks,etc.). In addition, the user is able to enter data to define the components of the watershed.The precipitation model allows the user to define the storm that will be simulated. Thecontrol specifications model allows the user to specify the starting and ending dates andtimes, and the computation interval for the run.

2.2 Assumptions and Methodologies

The basin model requires initial losses, transform, and baseflow information for eachsubbasin. The basin model also requires the user to choose a routing method for eachreach specified, and requires a storage-outflow function for any detention or retentionbasin specified.

B\C.\WINDOWS\TEMP\Sunnse_DBM doc-94\rd:l Rev. 0, 8/23/02

Error! Reference source not found. 2-1

For the subbasins, the initial loss rates and Curve Numbers were calculated using the SoilConservation Service (SCS) method (US Department of Agriculture, 1986). The Snydermethod was chosen for the transform, and it was assumed that there was no baseflow.The Muskingum Cunge method, which requires channel geometry and a roughnesscoefficient, was used to route the runoff through the reaches.

The precipitation model requires the user to specify a method (such as a user-specifiedhyetograph, inverse distance weighing, grid-based precipitation, frequency-basedhypothetical storm, etc.) to represent the storm that is being modeled. A frequency-basedhypothetical storm was specified for the Sunrise Landfill model. Methods described inthe Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD) Hydrologic Criteria andDrainage Design Manual (CCRFCD, 1999) were used to calculate the design storm.Based on negotiations with the regulatory agencies, it was determined that the 200-yearstorm should be used for design of the off-site run-on controls for the Sunrise Landfill. Adetailed presentation of the development of the 200-year storm precipitation hydrologywas prepared by EMCON in a separate document (EMCON, 2000)

2.3 Input Parameters

2.3.1 Watershed Parameters

The SCS method for determining the initial losses uses the following equations:

(P-0.2S)2

Q =(P + 0.8S)

CN

la = 0.25

where Q = runoff (in),P = rainfall (in),S = potential maximum retention after runoff begins (in),la = initial abstraction (in), andCN = Curve Number.

A curve number ranging from 87.78 to 89.2 was calculated based on curve numbersdetermined by SCS for desert shrub with a poor hydrologic condition and soil group D.and adjusted (according to methods stated in the HELP Model EngineeringDocumentation for Version 3) for the average subbasin slope.

B\C \WlNDOWS\TCMP\Sunnse_DBM doc-94\rd 1 Rev 0, 8/23/02

Error! Reference source not found. 2-2

The Snyder method was used for the transform, as the SCS Unit Hydrograph method wasdeveloped for flatter watershed slopes more typical of cultivated lands and determined tobe inappropriate for the extremely steep slopes in many of the contributing watersheds(Dodson and Associates, 1993). The Snyder method requires two coefficients, the lagtime and the peaking coefficient. The lag time was calculated by the Riverside CountyMethod for Estimating Snyder Parameters, and the peaking coefficient was calculated bythe Tulsa District Method for Estimating Snyder Parameters (Dodson and Associates,1993).

The following equations were used for lag time:

Mountain areas:f T * T A 0 3 8

TL = 1 2 L LcaJ. J^ — 1 .£*\

IFoothill areas:

Valley areas:

where TL = lag time (hr),L = watershed length (mi),Lca = length to centriod (mi), andS = watershed slope (ft/mi).

The following equations were used for the peaking coefficient:

~ qp*TL( M —

640

where qp = peak flowrate (cfs per square mile),Cp = peaking coefficient, andTL = lag time (hr).

The contributing watershed for the Sunrise Landfill was broken into a total of 38subbasins, connected by 31 reaches. Subbasins range in size from 2 acres (on the topdeck

B\C \WlNDOWSVTEMP\Sunnse_DBM doc-94\rd 1 Rev 0. 8/23/02

Error! Reference source not found. 2-3

of the landfill) to 152 acres (in the northeast canyon). Lag times for the subbasins rangefrom 6 minutes to 16 minutes.

Reaches in the model have longitudinal slopes ranging from 1 percent to 4.6 percent, withthe exception of the rockfall channel, which has an average slope of 16 percent, andportions up to 33 percent. It was assumed that the main channel would grow increasinglywider as it progresses downstream, and the channel would be constructed with sideslopesof 5:1 (horizontahvertical). In addition, it was assumed that the channel would have aroughness coefficient of 0.025. Channel geometry, roughness coefficients, andlongitudinal slopes may change during final design due to a series of design iterations. Ifthese parameters change, the HEC-HMS model will be modified to reflect the results ofthe hydraulic design iterations.

2.3.2 Precipitation Parameters

A detailed discussion of the methodologies used to determine the precipitationdistribution for particular design storms at the Sunrise Landfill was prepared by EMCON(2000). The following discussion provides a summary of the input data relevant to the200-year design storm.

The CCRFCD Manual (CCRFCD, 1999) specifies a method to determine a rainfalldistribution for a given hypothetical storm. This method uses the following equations todetermine the rainfall distribution:

Y2 = -0.011 + 0.942 (44

riOO = 0.494 + 0.755 (x3/—V \x4

where Y2 = 2-yr, 1-hr estimated value (in),Y100 = 100-yr, 1-hr estimated value (in),xl = 2-yr, 6-hr value (in),x2 = 2-yr, 24-hr value (in),x3 = 2-yr, 6-hr value (in), andx4 = 2-yr, 24-hr value (in).

(2 - hr) = 0.341(6 - hr) + 0.659(l - hr)

(3 - hr) = 0.569(6 - hr) + 0.43 l(l - hr)

= (24-hr)-Q.5l((24-hr)-(6-hr))

B\C .\WINDOWS\TEMP\Sunrise_DBM.doc-94\rd:!

Error! Reference source not found.

Rev 0,8/23/02

2-4

where 2-hr = 2-hr'x'-yr value (in),3-hr = 3-hr 'x'-yr value (in),1-hr = 1-hr 'x'-yr value (in),6-hr = 6-hr 'x'-yr value (in),12-hr = 12-hr 'x'-yr value (in), and24-hr = 24-hr 'x'-yr value (in).

To determine precipitation values for 5- and 15-minute durations, the 1-hr value wasmultiplied by 0.29 and 0.57, respectively. Values for the 200-year storm weredetermined by plotting the 2-year and 100-year storms.

The design storm was assumed to encompass an area of 2.12 square miles. The following200-year, 6-hour precipitation distribution was entered into the HEC-HMS model for theSunrise Landfill:

DURATION DEPTH (INCHES)5 minutes 0.9515 minutes 1.851 hour 3.292 hours 3.603 hours 3.836 hours 4.25

2.3.3 Control Specifications Parameters

The model was run for a 24-hour period, with a time interval of 1 minute.

B\C \WINDOWS\TEMP\Sunuse_DBMdoc-94\id 1 Rev 0,8/23/02

Error! Reference source not found. 2-5

3 HYDRAULIC DESIGN BASIS

3.1 Historical Summary

In early 2000, EMCON was assigned the task of evaluating the capacity of the existingchannel alignment upstream of the rockfall channel (SCS Engineers performed originaldesign of rockfall channel). EMCON evaluated the existing channel using HEC-RAS formultiple flow quantities. Based on the calculations, it was determined that the channelwas not adequately sized to contain the 200-year storm. In June of 2000, EMCONsubmitted a draft Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the site, whichrecommended that the existing channel alignment (EGA) be resized.

EMCON performed a qualitative analysis of various channel-lining alternatives,including riprap, concrete, soil cement and modular linings in March of 2000. Of thelining types evaluated, riprap or its variations, soil-cement and concrete were consideredto be the most applicable.

During the process of draft SWPPP preparation, EMCON was requested to provide a peerreview of the SCS rockfall channel design. Recommendations from this peer reviewincluded the following:

• Evaluate surface profile using backwater analysis• Evaluate effects of variations in channel roughness• Determine air entrainment effects• Assign appropriate freeboard• Evaluate transition effects• Determine requirements for energy dissipation.

Following the draft SWPPP submittal, EMCON evaluated various channel options, otherthan the ECA alignment. These alternatives ranged from blasting through Frenchmanmountain to constructing a channel in the rock at the toe of the eastern slope (easternlandfill perimeter). Three channel alignment options were formally considered, referredto as the ECA, hybrid channel alignment (HCA), and Frenchman Mountain Channel(FMC). Included in this evaluation were costs for constructing the various channelizationoptions and upstream basin alternatives. Detention/retention basin alternatives evaluatedinclude:

1) Up canyon Retention Basin-basin at upstream end of northeast canyon2) Up canyon Retention Basin and Down canyon Detention Basin

EMCONTUCAN JPioposalsNEMFl UX\EMFLUX DOC Rev 0, 8/23 02

3-1

3) No Basins

Each channelization option was evaluated for multiple flow quantities depending on thedetention/retention basin alternative utilized. Costs were evaluated for each of thesealternatives as well. Results of this analysis were summarized into Run-on CheckpointMemorandum #1 (EMCON, 200la). This document was submitted to EPA with theacknowledgement that data gaps existed and would be addressed in CheckpointMemorandum #2.

In Checkpoint Memorandum #2 (EMCON, 2001b), EMCON evaluated northeast canyondrainage improvements, including training berms or channelization to transition flow toEPA #1 (upstream end of all landfill channel design options). Based on the costs,EMCON recommended that training berms be constructed instead of channels totransition flows. In addition, EMCON evaluated various rockfall channel constructionalternatives, including deepening, widening and extending revetment. This documentprovided a detailed summary of the ECA, HCA, and Frenchman Mountain Channel forNo Detention Basins, Up canyon Basin and both Detention/Retention basin alternatives.The cost evaluation determined that the ECA channelization option was the most-costeffective solution. However, EPA maintained its recommendation that a perimeterchannel be blasted into the rock at the toe of the eastern slope (HCA alignment).

EMCON then evaluated energy management for the ECA and HCA alignments using theStandard Step Method (EMCON, 2002). EMCON evaluated various lining alternatives,including concrete, gabions and rock riprap. Energy dissipation structures analyzedincluded drop structures and stilling basins. As a result of the analysis, EMCONrecommended that gabions or similar lining type be used wherever possible for channellining to assist in energy dissipation. Energy dissipation structures recommendedincluded USBR Type III basins or SAF basins at the bottom of steeper slopes orrelatively flat areas and straight drop spillways or Morris and Johnson drop structures onsteeper slopes.

In 2002, Republic instructed EMCON to proceed with the design of the main channel atthe Sunrise Landfill along the HCA. For purposes of this channel design, the hybridchannel design will be referred to as the "Main Channel Design".

3.2 Methodology

Methodologies that will be utilized to perform the channel design will be obtained frommultiple references, which include the Clark County Regional Flood Control DistrictDrainage Design Manual (CCRFCD, 1999), HEC-RAS manuals (USACE, 1998), OpenChannel Hydraulics (Chow, 1959), Main Channel Energy Management memorandum(EMCON, 2002), and Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipaters for Culverts and Channels(USDOTFHA, 1983).

-EMCONTUC\N -Pioposals'EMFL UX\EMFLUX DOC Rev 0, 8/23 02

3-2

Manning's equation will be utilized to perform a rough estimate of the size of channelnecessary to contain the 200 year storm. This equation does not adequately representvaried hydraulic conditions that are anticipated to exist in the main channel, but will beused to estimate the size of channel for HEC-RAS analysis. In addition, EMCON willevaluate freeboard conditions, utilizing three methodologies. These methods includeCCRFCD freeboard equations for subcritical and supercritical flow, critical flow depth(applicable to supercritical flows only) and sequent depth (depth downstream of hydraulicjump). EMCON will utilize the highest of the three freeboard depths to estimate channelsize necessary to contain the 200-year storm. However, if it is determined that flow in aparticular channel segment is stable (not in the critical flow range and the channel designin that segment does not contain elements that could trigger hydraulic instability) and thesequent depth is the highest of the three depths, the sequent depth may be overlyconservative. In such a case, the higher of critical depth or the CCRFCD freeboardrequirement will be used.

Following development of the preliminary channel cross-section, EMCON will utilize theHEC-RAS model to determine a more accurate flow profile for the channel. HEC-RASis capable of performing steady gradually varied flow calculations (USACE, 1998b). Themain channel will be divided into three or more segments to address increases in peakflowrate throughout the length of the channel due to side channel contributions, since theHEC-RAS model is incapable of evaluating unsteady flows. The model is not applicableto rapidly varied flow conditions, such as may exist on the steeper slopes and in portionsof the channel where hydraulic jumps are likely. Based on areas where rapidly variedflow conditions are likely to occur, EMCON will evaluate hydraulics using energydissipation methodologies. Energy dissipation will also be necessary in locations wherechannel velocities exceed those allowable for the lining type used. Energy dissipationstructures typically are analyzed using evaluation procedures specific to the structure.

Side channel inlets and junction design will be evaluated using procedures from the Cityof Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management inTucson, Arizona. Junctions and inlets will be designed to minimize flow disturbances inthe main channel and side channels.

3.3 Procedures

EMCON is currently in the process of developing the main channel alignment, profileand cross-sections at 50 foot longitudinal stationing. EMCON will assign bottom slopesto the channel to minimize cut and fill quantities, maintain a relatively smooth bottomprofile with as few slope changes as possible, minimize steep slope lengths and maintainexisting grade as much as possible at all channel junctions. EMCON will then utilizeManning's equation to estimate the cross-sectional configuration(s) to contain the 200-year storm.

EMCONTUCAN 1Pioposals\EMFLUX\EMFLUX DOC Rev 0, 8/23/02

3-3

As stated previously, EMCON will evaluate three channel segments: northern, centraland rockfall. These segments will be analyzed separately. Peak flows at the downstreamend of the respective segments, channel alignment, preliminary channel cross-sectionsand bottom elevations will be entered into HEC-RAS to determine the preliminary watersurface profile in the channel. It is anticipated that multiple iterations will be necessary todesign a channel that contains the 200-year storm with adequate freeboard and minimizesthe potential for erosive velocities and washout. In addition, it is preferred that thechannel be excavated as much as possible to limit height of containment berms or levees,which are more prone to failure. Iterations will also be necessary to incorporate energydissipation structures and side inlets/junctions into the design.

Drop structures will be preliminarily sized and located in the rockfall segment based onthe Energy Management Evaluation (EMCON, 2002) and preliminary HEC-RAS results.Multiple iterations will be performed to minimize the number of drop structures andmaintain a high level of energy dissipation.

Grading of the final cover of the landfill will be incorporated into the design as soon asthe design is completed by SCS to avoid future conflicts in site drainage. Non-channelgrading design will be performed outside the limits of the final cover design to eliminateareas without gravity drainage to the main channel.

Since the CCRFCD design manual does not include procedures for design of junctionstructures, where concentrated flows are required to enter the main channel, side channelinlets and junction structures will be analyzed using City of Tucson drainage manualdesign procedures (City of Tucson, 1989). Resulting inlet/junction configurations will beincorporated into HEC-RAS to evaluate the hydraulic effects in these locations. Ifnecessary, multiple iterations using reconfigured inlet/junction sections will be performedto minimize flow disturbances in the channels.

EMCON will utilize preliminary modeling results and Standard Step calculations tolocate structures in the northern and central segments where allowable velocities areexceeded and at locations where hydraulic jumps are likely. It is anticipated that aminimum of two stilling basins will be necessary for the flatter northern and centralsegments. A stilling basin will likely be necessary at the downstream end of the rockfallchannel as well, to reduce the energy in the flow exiting the property.

Following completion of the evaluation of individual segments, EMCON will combinesegments into one model. Plans and specifications will then be prepared to a levelappropriate for bidding purposes to determine a reasonable estimate for the constructioncost of the main channel improvements.

EMCONTUC\N:\Proposals\EMFLUX\EMFLUX.DOC Rev, 0, 8/23/02

3-4

4 REFERENCES

Chow, Ven Te, 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics.

City of Tucson, 1989. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and FloodplainManagement in Tucson, Arizona. Prepared by Simons, Li and Associates.

Clark County Regional Flood Control District, 1999. Hydrologic Criteria and DrainageDesign Manual.

Dodson and Associates, 1993. Hands-On HEC-1.

EMCON, 2000. Design Storm Evaluation, Sunrise Mountain Landfill, Clark County,Nevada. Prepared for DUMPCO, Inc.

EMCON, 200la. Sunrise Mountain Landfill - Run-On Control, CheckpointMemorandum #1. Letter from EMCON to Mr. David Basinger of US EPA.

EMCON, 200Ib. Sunrise Mountain Landfill - Run-On Control CheckpointMemorandum #2. Letter from EMCON to Mr. David Basinger of US EPA.

EMCON, 2002. Main Channel Energy Management, Task 0103. Internal memorandumfrom Garth Bowers, P.E. and Colby Fryar, EIT to Don Hullings, P.E.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990. Hydraulic Design of Spillways.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991. Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998a. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS User'sManual.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998b. HEC-RAS River Analysis System - User'sManual and Hydraulic Reference Manual.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural ResourcesConservation Service), 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release55 (TR-55).

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1983. HydraulicDesign of Energy Dissipaters for Culverts and Channels.

EMCONTUC\N \Pioposals EMFLUX\FMFLUX DOC Rev 0,8/23/02

4-5

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 1994. The Hydrologic Evaluation ofLandfill Performance (HELP) Model - Engineering Documentation for Version 3.

EMCONTUC\N Pioposals EMFI UX EMFLUX DOC Rev 0,8/23/02

EMCONTUCAN Pioposalb\EMFLUX\EMFLUXDOC Rev 0,8/23/02

4-1

HEC-RAS Plan: SunriseNSeg River: Hybrid Reach: NorthSeg Profile: NSeg

Reach River Sta ' Q Total ; Min Ch El ! W.S. Elev ' Crit W.S. j E.G. Elev ! E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chi

! (cfs)

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg }

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg .

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

7518.91

7450

7400

7200

7100

7000

6900

6850

6800

6700

6600

6400

6300

NorthSeg |6250

LNorthSeg

NorthSeg

6225.*

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) i (ft/s) (sqft) (ft)

2244.331 2253.06 2252.32 2254.94! 0.008977 '• 11.01 359.73 67.41 0.84

2243.71 2252.44 • 2254.32 0.009002; 11.02; 359.32 1 67.35 0.84

2243.26 2251.99

2241.46! 2250.18

2251.26 2253.87 0.008942 10.99 360.40 67.53 0.84

2252.07

2240.55 j 2249.30 2251.17

2239.66 j 2248.41 j 2250.28

2238.76

3960.00 2238.31

3960.00

3960.00

2237.86

2247.54

2247.11

2246.56

2249.39

2248.95

2248.49

2236.96 2245.71 2247.57

3960.00 2236.06 1 2244.80

3960.00

3960.00

2234.26 2243.16

0.009014 11.03

0.008918 10.98

0.008908 10.98

0.008760

0.008667

0.009224

0.008851

10.91

10.87

11.14

10.94

2244.08 2246.68 0.008939 10.99

2244.93 j 0.008249 10.67

2233.36! 2242.50 2244.11

3960.00 2232.91

3960.00 2232.73

2242.11 | 2243.74

2241.95

6200 ; 3960.00 1 2232.56 2241.79

NorthSeg 16100 L 3960.00 j 2231.86 2241.09

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

6000

5900

5800

5600

5500

5450

5400

5300

0.007282 1 10.17

0.007329 10.25

j 2243.54! 0.007134 10.13

j 2243.36 0.007015 10.05

2242.66] 0.007016i 10.05

3960.00 1 2231.16! 2240.39 2241.96

3960.00 2230.46 2239.69 2241.26

3960.00 2229.76 2238.99

3960.00 i 2228.36

3960.00

3960.00

2227.66

2227.31

3960.00 2226.96

3960.00

5200 3960.00

5100 ' 3960.00

NorthSeg J5000

NorthSeg i4800

NorthSeg 4700

NorthSeg j 4690.22*

^NorthSeg

NorthSeg j

4680.44*

4670.67*

NorthSeg 4660.89*

NorthSeg J4651.11*

NorthSeg 4641.34*

3960.00

2226.06

2225.16

2224.26

2223.36

3960.00 2221.39

0.007011

0.007017

359.16 67.34 i 0.84

360.56

360.73

67.46

67.48

362.98 67.68

364.41

355.40

361.99

67.80

66.69

0.84

0.84

0.83

0.83

0.85

67.77' 0.83

360.26 67.44 0.84'

371.18 68.40 0.81

389.31 70.20 0.76

386.17! 68.98 0.76

391.04

394.22

394.20

69.81 0.75

70.40 0.75

70.39 0.75

10.04 394.33 70.42^ 0.75

10.05

2240.56 0.007015 10.05

2237.53 j 2239.13

2236.79 J_ 2238.41

0.007229

0.007325

2236.32 | 2238.02 0.007816

10.16

394.15 70.38 0.75

394.21 70.39 0.75

389.84 70.02! 0.76

10.20! 388.31

10.46 378.68

2235.73 | 2237.59 0.008794 10.93 362.41

2234.90 1 ! 2236.71 '' 0.008492 10.78

2234.16

2233.53

2233.00

2232.57

2235.86

2235.08

2234.39

2233.42

3960.00 2220.63 2232.42 2233.11

3960.00

70.05 1 0.76

69.06 ! 0.79

67.61 0.83

367.18 68.04

0.007869! 10.48 377.77 j 68.99

0.006887

0.005936

0.002929

0.002273

9.98' 396.90 i 70.61

9.48

7.40

6.67

2220.53! 2232.37 2233.09 0.002367 6.81

3960.00 2220.42! 2232.31 j 2233.06 0.002455 6.95

3960.00! 2220.32 2232.24 2233.03, 0.002555 7.11

417.82

535.25

593.80

581.17

71.70

0.82

0.79

0.74

0.69

79.13 0.50

84.57; 0.44

82.20! 0.45

569.50 79.84' 0.46

557.30 f 77.45

3960.00 2220.211 2232.18 2233.00, 0.002643 7.25 546.05! 75.02

3960.00 2220.1 1j 2232.11 ( 2232.96 0.002739 7.42 533.93 72.47

0.47

0.47

0.48 1

3960.00 2220.00| 2232.04 2232.93! 0.002828 [ 7.57 522.85 70.03; 0.49

HEC-RAS Plan: SunriseNSeg River: Hybrid Reach: NorthSeg Profile: NSeg (Continued)Reach River Sta

NorthSeg ^631.56*

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4621.79*

4612.01*

4602.23*

4592.46*

4582.68*

4572.91*

4563.13*

4553.35*

4543.58*

4533.80*

NorthSeg J 4524.03*

NorthSeg 4514.25*

Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev

(cfs) t (ft) (ft)

, 3960.00 2219.90 2231.97

3960.00 2219.79 2231.89

3960.00 ! 2219.69

3960.00 1 2219.58

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

2219.48

2231.81

CritW.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope ' Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width , Froude # Chi

(ft) (ft)2232.90

2232.86

| 2232.83

2231. 73 j | 2232.79

2231.65

221 9.37 ( 2231.56

I 2232.75

2232.71

2219.27J 2231.46'

3960.00 2219.16 2231.36

3960.00, 2219.06 2231.25

3960.001 2218.95, 2231.14

3960.00

3960.00

2218.85 2231.03

2218.74 2230.91

3960.00 2218.64

NorthSeg 1 4504.47* 3960.00

NorthSeg 4494.70* , 3960.00

NorthSeg j 4484.92*

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4475.15*

4465.37*

4455.59*

NorthSeg 4445.82*

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4436.04*

4426.27*

4416.49*

4406.71*

4396.94*

NorthSeg j 4387.1 6*

NorthSeg j 4377.39

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4372.83*

4368.27*

NorthSeg 1 4363.72*

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4359.16*

4354.61*

L4350.05*

4345.49*

NorthSeg (4340.94*

NorthSeg 4336.38*

2218.53

2218.43

3960.00! 2218.32

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

2230.78

2232.67

(ft/ft) ' (ft/s)

0.002931 7.74

0.003026

0.003141

7.90

8.08

0.003247' 8.25

0.003374' 8.44

0.003501 8.62

0.003655 8.82

2232.62' 0.003800 1 9.02

2232.58

2232.53

0.003977

" 0.0041 51

(sq ft) (ft) i511.48

501.04

490.01

479.92

469.39

459.38

448.73

67.66 0.50 1

65.38 0.50'

63.13 0.51

60.95J °-52

58.83 0.53

56.76 0.53

54.70 0.54

439.13 52.75 0.55

9.23 i 428.89 50.82 0.569.44 1 419.44 48.95 0.57 !

2232.48 0.004348 9.66, 409.90| 47.15J 0.58

' 2232.43

2230.64!

2230.49

2230.34

2218.22 2230.17

2218.11

2218.01

2217.90

2217.80

2217.69

2229.99

2229.79

2229.58

2229.34

2229.08

2217.59 2228.78

3960.00 2217.48

3960.00

3960.00

2217.38

2217.27

3960.00 2217.17

3960.00 2214.54

2228.45

2228.00

2232.37

2232.31

2232.25

2232.18

2232.11

2232.04

2231.96

0.004560 9.89

0.004810 10.13

0.005065

0.005381

10.37

10.64

0.005708 10.91

0.006098

0.006505

11.20

11.49

0.007018i 11.82

2231.87 0.007563 12.14

2231.78' 0.008258

2231. 68 1 0.009033

2231.56

2227. 37 ] 2226.45

2226.35

2220.94

3960.00 2211.91 2217.38

3960.00' 2209.271 2214.19

3960.00 2206.64

3960.00 2204.01

2211.17

2208.24

3960.00' 2201.38 2205.37

3960.00' 2198.75 2202.55

3960.00] 2196.11 2199.74

3960.00 2193.48

2226.35

2223.73

2231.44

2231.29

0.010022

12.53

400.57 45.38 j 0.59

390.83

381.83

372.05

362.98

353.51

344.74

335.08

326.09

316.09

12.92 306.46

43.65 1 0.60

41.99 0.61

40.34 0.62

38.76 0.63

37.23 0.64

35.76 0.65

34.31 0.67

32.94 0.68

31.59 0.70

30.31 0.72 j

13.39 295.83 j 29.09 0.74

0.011159 13.87

0.012855 14.55

2231.11 0.015512

2230.97 0.004227

2230.45

2221.11 2230.39

0.011716

15.51

17.26

24.75

285.43

272.18

255.34

229.45

159.97

0.018444 28.94 136.83

2218.461 2230.29 ! 0.025254 j 32.20 122.97

27.95; 0.77

26.85) 0.81

25.86 0.87

25.00 i 1.00

25.00 1.72

25.00 2.18

25.00! 2.56

2215.831 2230.16 0.032262i 34.97 113.23 25.00 2.90J

2213.21 2230.00 0.039526 37.43 1 05.79 i 25.00 i 3.21

2210.57! 2229.80, 0.047032 39.66 99.84 25.00 j 3.50 i2207.94J 2229.57 0.054765 41.72' 94.93' 25.00 3.77

2205.31

21 96.97 j 2202.67

2229.30' 0.062742 43.63 90.76 25.00 4.04

2229.00 0.070878 45.42 1 87.1 9 1 25.00 4.29

HEC-RAS Plan- SunriseNSeg River: Hybrid Reach: NorthSeg Profile: NSeg (Continued)Reach River Sta

;NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4331.83

4326

4321

4316

4311

4306

4301

NorthSeg j4296

^NorthSeg 4291

[NorthSeg J4286

NorthSeg 428384

NorthSeg i 4272.01

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4272

4263.*

4254.*

NorthSeg '4245.*

NorthSeg J4236.*

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

LNorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4227.*

4218.*

4209.*

4200

4190.*

4180.*

4170.*

4160.*

NorthSeg Ul50.*

NorthSeg 14140.*

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4130.*

4120.*

4110.*

4100

4092.93*

NorthSeg 1 4085 86*

NorthSeg 1 4078 79*

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4071.72*

4064.66*

Q Total ' MmChEl

(Cfs) (ft)

3960.00

3960.00

2190.85

W.S. Elev CritW.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope

(ft)2194.23

2190.85 2194.53

(ft) | (ft) (ft/ft)2200.04' 2228.27 0.672363

2200.05 2223.24

3960.00 2190.85, 2209.50 j 2200.04 2210.62

3960.00J 2190.85

3960.00 ! 2190.85

VelChnl Flow Area Top Width Froude* Chi

(We) , (sqft) (ft)

46.81, 84.59 25.00 4.49

0.519014, 42.99

0.005577 8.49

92.11 25.00, 3.95

466.35 25.00 ' 0.35

2209.47 1 2210.60 0.005600 8.51 465.58 l 25.00 i 0.35

2209.44

3960.00 2190.85] 2209.41

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

Inline Weir

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

L 3960.00^

2190.85 2209.38

2190.85

2190.85

2190.85

2190.85

2191.86

2191.82

2191.77

2191.73

2191.68

2191.64

2191.59

2191.54

2191.50

2191.45

2209.35

2209.32

2209.29

2210.57 0.005623 1 8.52 464.82 25.00 1 0.35

2210.54 0.005647! 8.53

I 2210.52 0.005670

2210.49 0.005694

i 2210.46

2209.27 2200.03

2201.06

2201.04

2201.02

2201.00

2200.99

2200.96

2200.95

2200.93

2200.91

2200.90

2191.40 2200.88

3960.00! 2191.35

3960.00! 2191.30

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

2191.25

2191.20

2191.15

3960.00 2191.10

3960.00! 2191.05

3960.00 1 2191.00

2200.87

2201.04

2201.00

2200.95

2200.91

2200.86

2200.82

2200.77

2200.72

2200.68

2200.63

2210.44

2210.42

0.005718

0.005742

0.005756

8.55

8.56

8.58

8.59

8.60

2205.66 j 0.004196 17.21

2205.62| 0.004174

2205.57

2205.53

2205.49

2205.45

2205.40

2205.35

2205.31

2205.26

2200.58 2205.22

2200.53

2200.85 ' 2200.48

2200.84 2200.43

2200.82

2200.80

2200.79' 2200.28

2200.77 2200.23

2200.18 2200.18

2205.17

0 004133

0.004110

0.004069

0.004047

0.004007

0.003967

0.003941

0.003902

0.003863

17.18

17.12

17.08

464.06 1 25.00 1 0.35

463 29 25.00 0.35

462.53 25.00 0.35

461. 77 ( 2500 0.35

461.00 25.00 0.35460.57

230.07

230.51

231.34

231.79

17.02 232.63

16.99

16.93

16.87

16.83

16.77

16.70

0.003825 1 16.64

2205.121 0.003787! 16.58

233.09

233.94

234.80

235.34

236.20

237.06

25.00' 0.35I

25.00 1.00

25.00 1 00

25.00 0.99

25.00 0.99

25.00 0.98

25.00 0.98

25.00 0.98

25.00 0.97

25.00 0.97

25.00 0.96

25.00 0 96

237.92 25.00 0.95

238.78 25.00! 0.95

2205.08 1 0.003749 16.53 239.64 25.00' 0.94

2205.03 0.003713, 16.47

2204.98

2204.94

2204.89

2204.80

3960.00 2190.96 2199.91; 2200.15 2204.77

3960.00

0.003676

0.003641

0.003605

0.004227

16.41

240.50 1 25.00 ' 0.94;

241.36 25.00 i 0.93,

16.35 242.21 25.00 0.93

16.29 243.07 '' 25.00 0.92 i

17.26! 229.45 25.00 1.00

0.004529 17.69 223.82

2190.93, 2199.84 2200.13 2204.75 0.004587 17.77 22279

3960.00 2190.89

3960.00 2190.86

3960.00 2190.82

2199.77 2200.08 2204.71' 0.004632 17.84

25.00 1.041

25.00 1.05

222.01 25.00 1.05

2199.70 2200.05 2204.69 0.004693 17.92 i 220.97 25.00 1.06

2199.63 2200.02J 2204.65 0.004739| 17 98J 220.19 25.00 107

HEC-RAS Plan: SunriseNSeg River: Hybrid Reach: NorthSeg Profile: NSeg (Continued)Reach

-- - —

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

River Sta Q Total MinChEl ' W.S. Elev ; CritW.S. E.G. Elev j E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude* Chi

(cfs) (ft) (ft) | (ft) j (ft) (ft/ft)4057.59* ; 3960.00 1 21 90.78 1 2199.56 2199.97j 2204.62! 0.004787

4050.52* 3960.00 2190.75

4043.45* 3960.00 2190.71

4036.38* | 3960.00; 2190.68

NorthSeg J 4029.32 3960.00

NorthSeg 4025.13* 3960.00

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

4020.94*

4016.75*

NorthSeg j 401 2.56*

NorthSeg 4008.37*

NorthSeg _J4004.18*

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

3960.00

NorthSeg 4000 ,' 3960.00

NorthSeg 3900 3960.00

NorthSeg

l_NorthSeg

NorthSeg

NorthSeg

3800 3960.00

3700 3960.00

3600 3960.00

3400 3960.00

2190.64

2190.56

2190.47

2190.39

2199.53 2199.94 2204.58] 0.004786

(ft/s) (sq ft)

18.05 219.41(ft)

25.00' 1.07

18.05 219.42 25.00 1.07

21 99.50 j 2199.91 2204.54 j 0.004770 18.03 219.68

2199.47

2199.44

2199.07

2198.76

2198.54

2199.87 2204.511 0.004769

2199.83J 2204.471 0.004753

2199.76 2204.45I 0.005221

2199.66

2199.58

2204.43

2204.41

2190.30 2198.31 2199.49 2204.38

2190.22 2198.13! 2199.42

2190.13

2190.05

2188.05

2186.05

2184.05

2182.05

2178.05

2197.94

2197.78

2194.73

2192.28

2190.012187.84

2183.62

2199.32

2199.24

2197.25

2195.24

2193.24

2191.252187.24

2204.35

2204.33

0.005608

0.005890

0.006171

0.006394

18.02 219.70

25.00! 1.07

25.00 1.07

18.00 219.96! 25.00; 1.07

18.62! 212.68 25.00

19.10

19.44

19.76

20.02

0.006640 20.28

2204.30 0.006833

2203.47 0.010371

2202.332200.97

2199.47

2196.16

0.012673

0.014379

0.015682

0.017485

20.49

23.73

25.44

26.57

27.38

28.42

207.31

203.71

200.36

197.85

195.22

193.24

166.90

155.68149.04

144.65

139.36

25.00

1.13

f 1.17'25.00) 1.20

25.00 1.23

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

1.25

1.28

1.30

1.62

1.80

25.00 1.9225.00 2.01

25.00) 2.12

HEC-RAS Plamsta.ft Profile: PF 1Reach ' River Sta

NorthSeg

Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev(cfs) (ft) (ft)

3399.792 3960.00 2178.05NorthSeg 3395.04 3960.00 2175.16NorthSeg .3389.76 3960.00 2172.27NorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSeg

3385.008 ' 3960.003380.2563374.9763372.3363367.0563362.3043357.5523352.2723347.523342.243337.4883332.2083327.4563322.1763317.4243312.1443307.3923302.112

NorthSeg 3297.36NorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSegNorthSeg

3292.083287.3283282.0483277.2963272.544

NorthSeg 1 3267.264

NorthSegNorthSegNorthSeg

3960.003960.00

|_ 3960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.003960.00

u 3960.003960.003960.00

3262.512 3960.00

2169.382166.492163.602162.052162.052162.052162.052162.052162.052162.052162.05

CritW.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope VelChnI Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chi

(ft) (ft) (Wft) (Ws) (sqft)2183.62 2187.232180.162176.862173.662170.532167.442180.832180.832180.822180.822180.812180.812180.802180.80

2162.05' 2180.792162.052162.05

2180.79

2180.7821 62.05 1 2180.782162.05 2180.772162.05J 2180.772162.052162.052162.052162.05

2184.342181.452178.56

2196.18 0.017523 28.442195.772195.352194.90

139.25(ft)

25.000.024133 31.71 124.88 25.000.030987 34.50 114.78) 25.000.0381 13 \ 36.98! 107.09 25.00

2175.67 2194.43' 0.045508 39.232172.781 2193.92! 0.053138 41.302171.23

2180.762180.762180.752180.75

2162.05 2180.742162.052162.05

2180.742180.73

2162.05) 2180.73

2181.94

2181.932181.932181.922181.922181.92

2181.912181.912181.902181.902181.892181.892181.89

0.0006340.0006340.0006340.0006350.0006350.0006360.0006360.0006360.0006370.0006370.0006380.0006380.000639

2181.88 0.0006392181.882181.87

8.438.448.448.448.448.448.458.458.458.458.468.468.468.46

100.9495.88

469.55469.43469.31469.18469.06468.94468.82

468.70468.57468.45468.33468.21468.08467.96

0.000639, 8.46| 467.840.000640

2181.87 0.0006402181.86) 0.0006412181.862181.862181.852181.85

2162.05; 2180.73 2181.843257.232 ' 3960.00 2164.55 2180.203252.48 ! 3960.00 2167.05

NorthSeg 3251.424 3960.00 2167.55Central ,3167.64* ( 4596.00 2167.14Central 3146.70* 4596.00 2167.05Central ,3125.76* 4596.00Central 3104.81* 4596.00

2166.95

2178.882178.062176.852174 .93 1 2176.352174.21 1 2175.91

21 66.85 [ 2173.72

2181.79

0.0006410.0006420.0006420.000642

0.0006430.001011

2181.66 0.0021172181.592181.212180.70

8.478.478.478.478.488.48

467.72467.60467.47467.35467.23467.11

8.48' 466.998.48 466.86

10.1213.39

391.27295.66

25.00

2.122.502.843.153.44

25.00 3.7225.00 1 0.3425.00! 0.3425.00, 0.3425.0025.0025.0025.00

25.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.00

0.340.340.340.340.340.340.340.340.340.340.340.340.340.350.35

25.00 0.3525.00 i 0.3525.0025.00

0.350.35

25.00, 0.3525.0025.00

0.450.69 1

0.002914J 15.07) 262.72 25.00, 0.820.014188| 16.760.021636 19.28

2180.19 0.024103) 19.632175.50 2179.67 0.02551 5 j 19.57

274.29 31.48' 1.00238.37 35.51) 1.31234.07 39.51234.86! 43.33

1.421.48

HEC-RAS Plan- sta.ft Profile: PF1 (Continued)

Reach

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

River Sta

3083 87*

3062.92*

3050.256

3041.98*

3021.04*

3000.096

2949.936

2899.776

2850.144

2843.28

2799.984

2749.99*

270001*

2650.03*

2600.04*

2550.06*

2500.08*

2450.09*

2400.11*

2350.12*

2300.14*

2250.16*

2200.176

2150.016

2099.856

2050.224

2000.064

1949.904

1899.744

1850.112

1800.10*

1750.09*

1700.08*1650.07*

1600.06*

1550.05*

Q Total

(cfs)

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596 00

4596.00j

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596 00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596 00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596 00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

Min Ch El

(ft)2166.76

2166.66

2166.55

2166.41

2166.03

2165.65

216475

2163.85

2162.95

2162.83

2162.05

2161.15

2160.25

2159.35

2158.45

2157.55

2156.65

2155.75

2154.85

2153.95

2153.05

2152.15

2151.25

2150.35

2149.45

2148.55

2147.65

2146.75

2145.85

2144.95

2144.05

2143.15

2142.25

2141.35

2140.45

2139.55

W.S. Elev

(ft)2173.48

2173.29

2173.06

2172.79

2172.14

2171.55

2171.24

2170.54

2169.61

2169.49

2168.77

2167.82

2166.91

2166.00

2165.09

2164.19

2163.29

2162.39

2161.49

2160.59

2159.69

2158.79

2157.89

2156.99

2156.09

2155.19

2154.29

2153.40

2152.50

2151.60

2150.70J

2149.80

2148.90

2148.00

2147.10

2146.20

CritW.S.

(ft)2175.13

2174.782174.54

2174.30

2173.74j

2173.17

2172.27

2171.37

2170.47

2170.35

2169.57

2168.67

2167.77

2166.87

2165.97

2165.07

2164.17

2163.27

2162.37

2161.47

2160.57

2159.67

2158.77

2157.87

2156.97

2156.07

2155.17

2154.27

2153.37

2152.47

2151.57

2150.67

2149.77

2148.87

2147.98

2147.08

E.G. Elev

(ft)2179.03

2178.39

2178.05

2177.85

2177.30

2176.71

2175.18

2174.15

2173.26

2173.15

2172.33

2171.46

2170.57

2169.67

, 2168.78

2167.88

2166.98

2166.08

2165.18

2164.28

2163.38

2162.48

2161.58

2160.68

215978

2158.88

2157.97

2157.07

2156.17

2155.27

215437

2153.47

2152.57

2151.67^

2150.77

2149.87

E.G. Slope

(ft/ft)

0.024817

0.023551

0.023743

0.024777

0.027042

0.028612

0.019720

0.017435

0.017729

0.017825

0.017184

0.017619

0.017823

0.017919

0018014

0.018008

0.018000

0.017995

0.017990

0.017982

0.017977

0.017969

0.017964

0.017958

0.017950

0.017945

0.017937

0.017932

0.017927

0.0179190.017914

0.017906

0.017901

0.017896

0.017888

0.017882

Vel Chnl

(ft/s)

18.91

18.13

17.92

18.04

18.22

18.23

15.9315.24

15.33^

15.36

15.16

15.29

15.36

1539

15.42

15.42

1541

15.41

15.41

15.41

15.41

15.40

15.40

15.40

15.40

15.40

15.39

15.39

15.39

15.39

15.39

15.38

15.38

15.38

15.38

15.38

Flow Area

(sqft)

243.01

253.56

256.44

254.72

252.18

252.12

288.47

301.66

299.83

299.24

303.25

300.51

299.26

29867

298.10

298.14

298.18

298.21

298.25

298.29

298.33

298.37

298.40

298.44

298.48

298.52

298.56

298.59

298.63

298.67

298.71

298.75

298.78298.82

298.86

298.90

Top Width

(ft)47.38

51.51

53.74

54.79

57.58

60.42

63.93

65.15

64.98

64.93

65.30

65.05

64.93

648864.82

64.83

64.83

64.83

64.84

64.84

64.85

64.85

64.85

64.86

64.86

64.86

64.87

64.87

64.87

64.88

64.88

64.88

64.89

64.89

64.90

64.90

Froude # Chi

1.47

1.44

1.45

1.47

1.53

1.57

1.32

1.25

1.26

1.26

1.24

1 25

1 26:

1.26)r 1.27'

1.271.271.271.27

1.27

1.27

1.27

1.27

1.27

1.26

1.26

1.26

1.26

1.26

1.26

1.26

126)

1.261

1.261.26'

1.26

HEC-RAS Plan: sta.ft Profile: PF1 (Continued)

Reach

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

^Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

River Sta

1500.048

1450.02*

1399.99*

1349.96*

^299.936

1294.95*

1289.96*

1284.97*

1279.98*

1275.00*

1270.01*

1265.02*

1260.04*

1255.056

1249.776

1245.024

1239.744

1234.992

1230.24

1224.96

1220.208

1214.928

1210.176

1207.008

1202.256

1196.976

1192.224

1187.472

1182.192

1176.912

1172.16

1171.104

^166.88

1162.128

1156.848

1152.096

Q Total

(cfs)

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4596.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

u 4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

Min Ch El

(ft)2138.65

2137.65

2136.65

2135.65

2134.65

2131.76

2128.87

2125.98

2123.09

2120.20

2117.31

2114.42

2111.53

2108.64

2108.64

2108.64

2108.64

2108.64

2108.64

2108.64

2108.64

2108.64

2108.64

2108.64

2111.14

2113.64

2116.14

2118.64

2117.24

2113.64

2108.04

2106.64

2106.64

2106.64

2106.64

2106.64

W.S. Elev

(ft)2145.30

2144.11

2142.85

2141.58

2140.36

2136.92

2133.76

2130.69

2127.67

2124.69

2121.73

2133.62

2133.64

2133.58

2133.58

2133.57

2133.57

2133.57

2133.57

2133.57

2133.57

2133.57

2133.56

2133.56

2133.31

2132.92

2132.23

2128.84

2125.22

2120.04

2113.34

2125.78

2125.78

2125.77

2125.77

2125.77

CritW.S.

(ft)2146.18

2145.18

2144.18

2143.19

2142.20

2139.63

2137.05

2134.45

,_ 2131.87

2129.30

2126.70

2124.10

2126.34

2128.84

2127.46

2123.86

2118.26

2116.86

E.G. Elev

(ft)2148.97

2148.10

2147.34

2146.68

2146.15

2145.79

2145.44

2145.07

2144.69

2144.29

2143.86

2134.46

2134.45

2134.44

2134.44

2134.43

2134.43

2134.43

2134.43

2134.43

2134.43

2134.43

2134.42

2134.42

2134.40

2134.36

2134.29

2133.98

2133.62

2133.09

2132.39

2127.24

2127.24

2127.24

2127.23

2127.23

E.G. Slope

(ft/ft)

0.017875

0.015722

0.013000

0.011107

0.007860

0.012992

0.017637

0.022076

0.026443

0.030903

0.035628

0.000356

0.000348

0.000430

0.000430

0.000430

0.000430

0.000430

0.000430

0.000430

0.000430

0.000430

0.000430

0.000430

0.000574

0.000814

0.001293

0.004343

0.008566

0.016060

0.027843

0.000830

0.000830

0.000830

0.000831

0.000831

Vel Chnl

(ft/s)

15.37

16.03

16.99

18.11

19.31

23.90

27.43

30.43

33.10

35.53

37.76

7.38

7.18

7.44

7.44

7.44

7.44

7.44

7.45

7.45

7.45

7.45

7.45

7.45

, 8.37

9.63

11.54

18.20

23.25

28.99

35.03

9.70

9.70

9.70

9.70

9.70

Flow Area

(sqft)

298.94

286.79

270.47

253.73

240.29

194.12

169.18

152.46

L_ 140.17

130.60

122.89

628.89

l_ 646.20

623.41

623.38

623.34

623.30

623.27

623.23

623.19

623.16

623.12

623.08

623.05

554.24

482.01

402.17

254.95

199.59

160.06

132.48

478.34

478.29

478.24

478.19

478.14

Top Width

(ft)64.90

63.77

62.21

60.58

59.23

50.20

44.24

39.75

36.15

33.18

30.67

40.53

33.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

u 25.00

25.00

, 25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00]

25.00

L 25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

L Froude* Chi

1.26

1.33

1.44

1.56

1.69

2.14

I 2-47

2.74

2.96

3.16

3.32

0.33

0.29

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.26

0.31

0.39

0.51

1.00

1.45

2.02

2.68

0.39 1

0.39

0.39 j

0.39

0.39

HEC-RAS Plan: sta.ft Profile: PF1 (Continued)Reach

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Centra!

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

'Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

River Sta

1146.8161142.064

1136.784

1132.032

1126.752

1122.

1117.248

1111.968

1107.216

1101.936

1098.768

1094.016

1088.736

1083.984

1082.928

1078.704

1073.952

1069.2

1063.92

1059.168

1053.888

1049.136

1043.856

1038.576

1033.824

1029.072

1023.792

1022.736

1019.04

1013.76

1009.008

1003.728

998.976

993.696

988.944

984.192

Q Total

(cfs)

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

Min Ch El

(ft)2106.64

2106.64

2106.64

2106.59

2106.54

2106.49

2108.99

2111.49

2110.09

2106.37

2106.35

2104.95

2101.35

2095.75

2094.35

2094.35

2094.35

2094.35

2094.35

2096.85

2099.35

2097.95

2094.30

2094.25

2092.85

2089.25

2083.65

2082.25

2082.25

2082.25

2082.25

2082.25

2084.75

2087.25

2085.85

2082.20

W.S. Elev

(ft)2125.77

2125.77

2125.76

2125.77

2125.77

2125.77

2125.08

2121.69

2118.07

2112.74

2112.72

2110.99

2106.74

2100.47

2113.77

2113.75

2113.74

2113.71

2113.69

2112.99

2109.55

2106.00

2100.77

2100.88

2099.16

2094.87

2088.56

2101.68

2101.66

2101.64

2101.61

2101.59

2100.89

2097.45

2093.90

2088.67

CritW.S.

(ft)

2119.19

2121.69

2120.31

2116.59

2116.57

2115.17

2111.57

2105.97

2104.57

2107.05

2109.55

2108.17

2104.52

2104.47

2103.07

2099.47

2093.87

2092.47

2094.95

2097.45

2096.07

2092.42

E.G. Elev

W2127.23

2127.23

2127.23

2127.22

2127.22

2127.21

2127.14

2126.83

2126.47

2125.93

2125.90

2125.66

2125.17

2124.46

2115.19

2115.17

2115.16

2115.14

2115.12

2115.04

2114.69

2114.25

2113.56

2113.06

2112.60

2111.83

2110.71

2103.10

2103.08

2103.06

2103.04

2103.02

2102.94

2102.59

2102.16

2101.46

E.G. Slope

(ft/ft)0.000831

0.000831

0.000831

0.000825

0.000820

0.000814

0.001293

0.004343

0.008569

0.016313

0.016286

0.019020

0.026534

0.039123

0.000800

0.000801

0.003403

0.003413r 0.003424

0.005438

0.018403

0.0354560.066174

0.061678

0.071064

0.099586

0.147353

0.003382

0.003393

0.003403

0.003413

0.003424

0.005438

0.018411

0.035484

0.066203

Vel Chnl

(ft/s)

i_ - 9J1

9.71

9.71

9.68

9.65

9.63

11.54

18.20

23.25

29.15

29.13

30.74

34.46

39.30

9.56

9.57

9.57

9.58

9.60

11.50

18.20

23.05

28.71

28.01

29.42

33.05

37.77

9.55

9.56

9.57

9.58

9.60

11.50

18.20

23.06

28.71

Flow Area

(sqft)478.09

478.05

478.00

479.40

480.71

482.01

402.17

254.95

199.55

159.19

159.28

150.96

134.67

118.06

485.41

485.05

484.68

484.10

483.52

403.36

254.98

201.28

161.64

165.64

157.69

140.39

122.86

485.85

485.27

484.69

484.11

483.53

403.37

254.94

201.22

161.62

Top Width

(ft)25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

Froude # ChiI

0.39J

0.39'

0.39

0.39

0.39

0.39

0.51

1.00

1.45

2.04

2.03

2.20

2.62

3.19

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.50

1.0o!

1.43

1.99

1.92

2.06

2.46

3.00

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.50,

1.00

1.43

1.99

HEC-RAS Plan:sta.ft Profile: PF1 (Continued)

Reach

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

CentralCentral

Central

River Sta

978.912

974.16

968.88

964.128

963.072

958.848

954.096

948.816

944.064

938.784

934.032

928.752

924.

918.72

913.968

908.688

903.936

902.88

899.184

893.904

889.152

883.872

879.12

873.84

869.088

863.808

859.056

853.776

849.024

843.744

840.576830.544

825.264

820.512

819.456

815.232

Q Total

(cfs)

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

Min Ch El

(ft)2082.15

2080.75

2077.15

2071.55

2070.15

2070.15

2070.15

2070.15

2070.15

2072.65

2075.15

2073.75

2070.10

2070.05

2068.65

2065.05

2059.45

2058.05

2058.05

l_ 2058.05

2058.05

2058.05

2058.05

2058.05

2058.05

2058.00

2060.50

2063.00

2061.60

2057.80

2057.77

2056.37

2052.77

2047.17

2045.77

2045.77

W.S. Elev

(ft)2088.78

2087.06

2082.77

2076.46

2089.58

2089.56

2089.54

2089.51

2089.49

2088.79

2085.35

2081.80

2076.57

2076.68

2074.96

2070.67

2064.36

2077.45

2077.44

2077.42

2077.41

2077.40

2077.38

2077.37

2077.36

2077.34

2076.64

2073.20

2069.65

2064.22

2064.30

2062.61

2058.34

2052.06

2065.16

2065.15

CritW.S.

(ft)2092.37

2090.97

2087.37

2081.77

2080.37

2082.85

2085.35

2083.97

2080.32

2080.27

2078.87

2075.27

2069.67

2068.27

2070.70

2073.20

2071.82

2068.02

2067.98

2066.59

2062.99

2057.39

2055.99

E.G. Elev

(ft)2100.96

2100.50

2099.73

2098.61

2091.00

2090.98

2090.96

2090.94

2090.92

2090.84

2090.49

2090.06

2089.36

2088.86

2088.40

2087.63

2086.51

2078.87

2078.86

2078.85

2078.84

2078.83

2078.81

2078.80

2078.79

2078.77

2078.69

2078.34

2077.90

2077.19

2076.83

2076.36

2075.58

2074.45

2066.58

2066.57

E.G. Slope

(ft/ft)

0.061704

0.071088

0.099611

0.147375

0.003382

0.003393

0.003403

0.003413

0.003424

0.005438

0.018410

0.035484

0.066203

0.061704

0.071088

0.099611

0.147375

0.003397

0.003403

0.003409

0.003415

0.003421

0.003428

0.003434

0.003440

0.003424

0.005438

0.018409

0.035456

0.067479

0.064215

0.073452

0.101950

0.149794

0.003401

0.003407

Vel Chnl

(ft/s)

28.02

29.43

33.05

37.77

9.55

9.56

9.57

9.58

9.60

11.50

18.20

23.06

28.71

28.02

29.43

33.05

37.77

9.57

9.57

9.58

9.59

9.59

9.60

9.61

9.61

9.60

11.50

18.20

23.05

28.90

28.41

29.76

33.32

37.98

9.57

9.58

Flow Area

(sqft)165.62

157.67

140.37

122.86

485.85

485.27

484.69484.11

483.53

403.37

254.94

201.22

161.62

165.62

157.67

140.37

122.86

485.01

484.67

484.33

483.98

483.64

483.30

482.96

482.62

483.53

403.37

254.95

201.28

160.55

163.34

155.90

139.26

122.18

484.79

484.43

Top Width

(ft)25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

Froude # Chi

1.92

2.07

2.46

3.00

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.50

1.00

1.43

1.99

1.92

2.07

2.46

3.00

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.39

0.39

0.38

0.50

1.00

1.43

2.01

1.961

2.10

2.49

3.03

0.38|

0.38

HEC-RAS Plan: sta.ft Profile: PF 1 (Continued)Reach ! River Sta Q Total MinChEl W.S. Elev CritW.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope

(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft)

Central '810.48 4640.00 2045.77; 2065.13'

Central 805.2

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

800.448

795.168

790.416

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

785.664 4640.00

780.384

775.632

770.352

4640.00

2045.77 2065.12

2045.77

2045.77

• 2045.77

2045.72

2048.22

2065.10

2065.09

2065.08

2065.06

2064.35 2058.42

2066.56

2066.55

2066.54

2066.52

0.003414

0.003420

0.003427

0.003433

2066.51 0.003438

2066.49 0.003424

2066.41

4640.00 2050.72 2060.92 2060.92 i 2066.06

4640.00, 2049.32 2057.37 2059.54

765.6 , 4640.00 i 2045.52) 2051.94 2055.73

Central i 760.32 4640.00} 2045.47 2052.04 2055.67

Central < 755.568 4640.00 2044.07 2050.34 2054.27

Central J750.288 4640.00 ! 2040.47

Central

Central

Central

Central

745.536 ! 4640.00

744.48 | 4640.00

740.256

735.504

4640.00

4640.00

2034.87

2033.47

2046.06

2039.77

2052.87

2033.47 2052.86

2033.47

Central \ 730.224 4640.00 1 2033.47

Central 725.472 ' 4640.00

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

720.192

715.44

710.16

705.408

700.656

695.376

690.624

685.344

680.592

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

2033.47

2033.47

2033.47

2033.47

2033.42

2035.92

2038.42

4640.00 1 2037.02

4640.00

4640.00

2033.22

2033.17

2052.84

2052.83

2052.82

2052.80

2052.79

2052.78

2052.76

2052.06

2048.62

2045.07

2039.64

2039.75

675.312 4640.00 2031.77. 2038.04

2050.67

2045.07

2043.67

2065.63

2064.91

2064.412063.94

2063.16

2062.04

2054.29

2054.28

2054.27

2046.12

2048.62

2047.22

2043.42

2043.37

2041.97

2054.26

2054.25

0.005438

Vel Chnl Flow Area \ Top Width Froude* Chi

(ft/s) (sqft)

9.59! 484.07

9.59

9.60

9.61

9.61

9.60

483.71

483.35

482.99

(ft)25.00 j 0.38

l_ 25.00 ' 0.38

25.00

25.00

482.73 25.00

483.52 25.00

0.38

0.39

0.39

0.38

11.50 403.36 i 25.00 i 0.50

0.018403 18.20 254.98 25.00 1.00

0.035484 23.06

0.067542! 28.91

0.062966

0.072265

0.100778

0.148583

0.003397

0.003403

0.003409

0.003415

0.003421

2054.23) 0.003427

2054.22

2054.21

2054.19

2054.11

2053.76

2053.33

2052.61

2052.11

2051.64

670.56 4640.00! 2028.17; 2033.76! 2038.37' 2050.86

0.003434

0.003440

0.003423

0.005437

201.22 25.00 i 1.43

160.50 25.00 2.01

28.21, 164.46 25.00

29.60

33.19

37.87

9.57

9.57

9.58

9.59

9.59

9.60

9.61

9.61

9.60

11.50

0.01 8410 1 18.20

0.035473

0.067497

0.062922

23.06

28.90

28.21

0.072256 29.59

0.100772 33.19

156.78 25.00

139.82

122.52

485.02

484.67

484.33

483.99

483.65

483.31

482.97

482.62

483.53

403.37

254.94

201.24

160.53

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

1.94

2.08

2.47

3.01

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.38

25.00! 0.38

25.00 1 0.38

25.00

25.00

25.00

0.39

0.39

0.38

25.00J 0.50

25.00

25.00

25.00

1.00

1.43

2.01

164.50, 25.00 1.94

156.78 25.00 2.08

139.82 25.00' 2.47]

665.28 4640.00J 2022.57) 2027.47J 2032.77 2049.74 0.148572 37.871 122.52 25.00 3.01 1

660.528 4640.00 2021.17! 2040.63 2031.371 2042.04) 0.003372' 9.54J 486.43 25.00 0.38i

655.248

650.496

4640.00

4640.00

2021.17 2040.60 2042.02

2021.17

Central ; 645.21 6 4640.00] 2021.17

.Central '640.464 4640.00J 2021.17

2040.58) • 2042.00

2040.56

2040.53

2041.98

2041.96

0.003382 9.55 485.85 25.00 1 0.38 j

0.003393 9.56 485.27

0.003403 9.57

0.003413 9.58

25.00 0.38 i

484.69 25.00 0.38

484.11 25.00 0.38.

HEC-RAS Plan: sta.ft Profile: PF 1 (Continued)

Reach

Central

Central

Central

Central

.Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

River Sta

635.184

630.432

625.152

620.4

615.648

612.48

607.2

602.448

597.168

596.112

592.416

587.664

582.384

577.632

572.352

567.6

562.32

557.568

552.288

547.536

542.256

537.504

536.448

532.070*

527.699*

523.321*

518.950*

516.02

511.02

506.02

501.02

495.91

492.096

487.344

482.592

477.312

Q Total

(cfs)

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

Min Ch El

(ft)2021.17

2023.67

2026.17

2024.77

2021.07

2020.99

2019.59

2015.99

2010.39

2008.99

2008.99

2008.99

2008.99

2008.99

2011.49

2013.99

2012.59

2008.94

2008.89

2007.49

2003.89

1998.29

1996.89

1996.89

1996.89

1996.89

1996.89

1996.89

1999.39

2001.89

2000.49

1996.81

1996.79

1995.39

1991.79

1986.19

W.S. Elev

(ft)2040.51

2039.812036.37

2032.82

2027.52

2027.50

2025.81

2021.55

2015.27

2028.42

2028.40

2028.38

2028.35

2028.33

2027.63

2024.19

2020.64

2015.40

2015.51

2013.80

2009.51

2003.20

2016.30

2016.29

2016.28

2016.26

2016.25

2016.23

2015.53

2012.09

2008.54

2003.27

2003.38

2001.67

1997.39

1991.09

Crit W.S.

(ft)

2033.87

2036.37

2034.97

2031.27

2031.19

2029.79

2026.19

2020.59

2019.19

2021.69

2024.19

2022.79

2019.14

2019.09

2017.69

2014.09

2008.49

2007.09

2009.59

2012.09

2010.69

2007.01

2006.99

2005.59

2001.99

1996.39

E.G. Elev

' (ft)2041.94

2041.86

2041.51

t 2041.08

2040.38

2040.11

2039.64

2038.85

2037.72

2029.84

2029.82

2029.80

2029.78

2029.76

2029.68

2029.33

2028.90

2028.21

2027.70

2027.25

2026.47

2025.35

2017.72

2017.71

l 2017.70

2017.692017.67

2017.66

2017.58

2017.23

2016.80

2016.10

2015.70

2015.24

2014.46

2013.34

E.G. Slope

(ft/ft)

0.003423

0.005438

0.018413

0.035500

0.066651

0.064736

0.073999

0.102501

0.150360

0.003382

0.003393

0.003403

0.003413

0.003424

0.005438

0.018409

0.035500

0.066213

0.061718

0.071100

L 0.099624

0.147385

0.003391

0.003397

0.003404

0.003410

0.003417

0.003423

0.005438

0.018413

0.035500

0.066430

0.062671

0.072017

0.100534

0.148331

Vel Chnl

(ft/s)

9.60

11.50

18.20

23.06

28.7828.49

29.84

33.38

38.02

9.55

9.56

9.57

9.58

9.60

11.50

18.20

23.06

28.71

28.02

29.43

33.06

37.77

9.56

9.57

9.57

9.58

9.59

9.60

11.50

18.20

23.06

28.74

28.17

29.56

33.16

37.85

Flow Area

(sqft)483.53

403.37

254.93

201.19

161.24

162.88

155.50

139.01

122.03

485.85

485.27

484.69

484.11

483.53

403.37

254.95

201.19

161.61

165.61

157.66140.37

122.85

485.36

484.99

484.63

484.26

483.90

483.53

403.37

254.93

201.19

161.42

164.72

156.96

139.93

122.59

Top Width ; Froude* Chi

(ft)25.00 0.38

25.00 0.50

25.00 1.00

25.00 1.43

25.00 2.00

25.00 1.97

25.00! 2.11

25.00] 2.49

25.00 3.03

25.00 0.38

25.00 0.38

25.00! 0.38

25.00 0.38

25.00 0.38

25.00 ' 0.50

25.00 1.00

25.00 1.43

25.00 1.99

25.00 1.92

25.00 2.07

25.00 i 2.46 1

25.00 i 3.00

25.00 0.38

25.00 0.38,

25.00 0.38

25.00 0.38

25.00, 0.38

25.00 1 0.38

25.00; o.so25.00 1.00

25.00 1.43

25.00) 1.99

25.00 1.931

25.00 2.08

25.00, 2.47 i

25.00 3.01

HEC-RAS Plan: sta.ft Profile: PF 1 (Continued)

Reach River Sta

Central 476.256

Central 1471.731*

Central ! 467.206*

Central 462.681*

Central 458.150*

Central 1 456.02

Central i 451 .02

Central 446.02

Central 1 441 .02

Central 435.91

Central

Central

432.432

427.152

Central 422.4

Central j 41 7.648

Central 416.592

Central ^12.304*

Q Total MinChEl W.S. Elev CritW.S. E.G. Elev

(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)

4640.00 1984.79 2004.19 1994.99; 2005.61

4640.00 j 1984.791 2004.18

4640.00 1984.79 2004.17

4640.00 1984.79J 2004.15

4640.00- 1984.79

4640.00 1984.79

4640.00

4640.00

1987.29

1989.79

2005.60

E.G. Slope Vel Chnl

(ft/ft) (ft/s)

0.003398

0.003403

2005.59 0.003408

9.57

9.57

9.58

2005.58 i 0.003413 9.58

2004.14

2004.13

2003.43 1997.49

1999.99 1999.99

2005.57

2005.56

2005.48

2005.13

4640.00 1988.39 1996.44 1998.59 2004.70

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

1984.72

1984.69

1983.29

4640.00 5 1979.69

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

1974.09

1972.69

1972.69

1991.18

1991.26

1989.56

1985.28

1978.99

1992.11

1992.10

Central 408.012* j 4640.00' 1972.69 1992.08

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

403.724*

399.432*

396.02

391.02

386.02

1994.92

1994.89

1993.49

1989.89

1984.29

1982.89

2004.00

2003.64

2003.18

2002.40

2001.27

1993.53

1993.52

1993.50

4640.00, 1972.69 1992.06 | 1993.49

4640.00, 1972.69

4640.00 j 1972.69

1992.05 1993.48

1992.03

4640.00 1975.19 1991.33

4640.00, 1977.69

381.02 | 4640.00 1976.29

375.91

Central 372.24

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

367.752*

363.264*

358.776*

354.288*

349.8*

Central ] 345.31 2

Central '340.311*

Central 335.306*

Central 330.306*

Central .325.306*

Central 320.300*

1987.89

1984.34

4640.00 1 1972.62! 1979.08

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

1972.59

1969.99

1967.38

1964.78

4640.00! 1962.18

4640.00 1959.57

4640.00 1956.97

4640.00' 1956.97

1979.17

1975.97

1972.93

1970.01

1967.16

1964.34

1961.56

1961.70

4640.00 1 956.97 j 1961.83

4640.00

1993.46

1985.39 1993.38

1987.89

1986.49

1982.82

1982.79

1980.19

1977.58

1974.98

1972.38

1993.03

1992.60

0.0034181 9.59

0.003424 j 9.60

0.005438 11.50

0.018409 18.20

0.035475

0.066329

0.063080

0.072399

0.100913

0.148714

0.003387

23.06

28.73

28.23

29.62

33.20

37.88

Flow Area Top Width ' Froude* Chi

(sqft) (ft)484.95 25.00) 0.38

484.66 25.00 0.38 i

484.38

484.09

483.81

483.53

403.37

254.95

201.24

161.51

164.35

156.68

139.75

122.48

9.56, 485.60

0.003394J 9.56! 485.19

,_ 25.00 ̂ 0.38

25.00 0.38

25.00 0.38

25.00 0.38 j

25.00 0.50

25.00 1.00

25.00 1.43

25.00 1.99

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

1.94

2.08

2.47

3.02

0.38

0.38

0.003401! 9.57 484.77 25.00; 0.38 1

0.003409 9.58

0.003416 9.59

0.003423

0.005438

0.018413

0.035473

1991.90 0.066321

1991.52 0.062872

9.60

11.50

18.20

23.06

28.73

28.20

484.36 25.00^ 0.38

483.94! 25.00! 0.38

483.53 j 25.00 0.38

403.37

254.93

201.24

161.51

164.54

25.00 1 0.50

25.00

25.00

25.00

25.00

1990.93 0.082941 31.04, 149.49 25.00

1990.28 0.102863

1989.55 0.122474

1988.75, 0.141920

1969.77 1987.87

1967.17

1967.17

1967.17

1 956.97 i 1961.97 1967.17

4640.00 1956.97 1975.20

4640.00 1956.97 1975.17

1967.17

1986.92

1985.64

33.42

35.47

37.29

0.1 61227 1 38.93

1 38.84 i 25.00

1.00

1.43

1.99

liMj2.24 1

2.50

130.821 25.00 2.731

124.44 25.00 2.95

119.19 25.00; 3.14

0.180074, 40.41 114.83

0.165362' 39.26' 1 18.17

25.00 3.32

25.00

1984.45 0.151962 38.1 6 1 121.59 25.00

3.18

3.05

1983.35 0.139814, 37.1 0' 125.07 25.00 j 2.92

1976.81 0.003975! 10.18 455.86) 25.00' 0.42,

1976.79] 0.003991 10.20 455.11' 25.00 0.42[

HEC-RAS Plan: sta.ft Profile: PF 1 (Continued)Reach

CentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentralCentral

River Sta

315.300*310.295*305.294*300.294*295.289*290.289*285.289*280.283* _j275.283*270.277*265.277*260.277*255.272*250.272246.84*243.408238.339*233.270*228.201*223.132*218.064213.333*208.602*203.871*199.140*194.409*189.678*184.947*180.217*175.486*170.755*166.024*161.293*156.562*151.831*147.100*

Q Total(cfs)4640.004640.004640.004640.004640.00

L 4640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.004640.00

Min Ch El

(ft)1956.971956.971956.971956.971956.971956.971956.971956.971956.971956.971956.971956.971956.971956.971958.741960.511960.491960.461960.441960.411960.391960.371960.341960.321960.291960.271960.251960.221960.201960.17

1960.151960.131960.101960.081960.051960.03

W.S. Elev

(ft)1975.141975.111975.081975.051975.021974.991974.961974.931974.901974.871974.841974.811974.781974.751974.111972.431972.251972.061971.881971.701970.591967.411966.181965.391964.811964.371964.021963.721963.501963.301963.141963.011962.891962.79

[ 1962.701962.63

CritW.S.

(ft)

1970.591969.631968.821968.191967.651967.191966.801966.441966.121965.84

1965.591965.361965.151964.941964.761964.58

E.G. Elev

(ft)1976.761976.741976.71

1976.691976.671976.641976.621976.591976.571976.541976.521976.491976.471976.451976.371976.201976.121976.041975.971975.901975.731975.331975.051974.771974.491974.181973.861973.49

1973.061972.601972.111971.621971.121970.621970.131969.65

E.G. Slope(ft/ft)0.0040080.0040250.0040420.0040590.0040760.0040940.0041110.0041290.0041460.0041640.0041820.0042000.0042180.0042360.0061700.0120650.0125220.0129730.0134810.0139590.0183920.0350470.0441540.0518430.0589240.0653200.0710480.0758900.0791630.0814800.0824430.0825610.0818930.0804080.0783410.075761

Vel Chnl(ft/s)

10.2110.2310.2510.2610.2810.3010.3110.3310.3510.3710.3810.4010.4210.4412.0815.5715.7916.0016.2316.4418.1922.6023.9024.5824.9625.1425.1725.0724.8224.4824.04

23.5523.0222.4621.8721.26

Flow Area

(sqft)454.35453.60452.85452.10451.35450.60449.85449.10448.35447.60446.85446.10445.35444.60384.16298.00293.90290.05285.95282.28255.04205.35194.12188.78185.87184.58184.33185.05186.98189.57193.04197.04201.53206.62212.16218.21

Top Width

(ft)25.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0025.0029.6433.9838.1942.3246.4150.4654.5058.5262.5566.5970.6374.6778.7482.8086.90

Froude # Chi

0.42 10.42 !

0.420.430.430.430.430.430.43

I 0.43'' 0.43

0.430.440.440.540.790.810.830.850.861.00,1.511.761.9512.10,2.222.322.402.452.482.49

2.48 (

2.472.442.412.36

HEC-RAS Plan: sta.ft Profile: PF 1 (Continued)

Reach River Sta Q Total Min Ch El

(cfs) (ft)

^Central 142.369*

Central 137.639*

Central 132.908*

Central 128.177*

Central 123.446*

Central '118.715*

Central '113.984*

Central 109.253*

Central 104.522*

Central 99.792

W.S. Elev

(ft)4640.00 1 1960.01 1962.57

CritW.S.

(ft)

E.G. Elev

(ft)1964.43, 1969.18

4640.00 ( 1 959.98 j 1962.50' 1964.27 1968.72

4640.00J 1959.96! 1962.46' 1964.14

4640.00 1 1 959.93 j 1962.41 1964.00

4640.00 < 1959.91

4640.00' 1959.89

4640.00 j 1959.86

4640.00 1959.84

1962.381 1963.87

1962.35

1962.31

1965.18

4640.00 1959.81 1965.21

4640.00

Central 1 94.8288* 4640.00

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

89.8656* 4640.00

84.9024*

79.9392*

74.976*

70.0128*

65.0496*

60.0864*

55.1232*

Central '50.16

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

45.144*

40.128*

35.112*

30.096*

25.08*

20.064*

15.048*

Central 10.032*

Central j 5.01 6*

Central

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

1959.79 1965.23

1959.77

1959.74

1965.25

1965.27

1959.72 1965.28

1959.691959.67

1959.64

4640.00' 1959.61

4640.00

4640.00

1965.29

1965.30

1965.31

1965.32

1959.59 1965.33

1959.57 1965.34

4640.00 1959.54

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

1959.50

1959.47

1959.43

1959.39

4640.00' 1959.35

464000 1959.32

1965.35

1965.27

1965.15

1964.96

1968.29

1967.88

1967.49

1963.76 1967.12

1963.64

1963.53

1966.77

1965.98

E.G. Slope Vel Chnl

(ft/ft) ; (ft/s)

0.072566 20.63

0.069399

Flow Area Top Width ' Froude* Chi

(sqft) (ft)

224.95! 91.01 2.31

20.01 231.85 95.13 2.26

0.065786 19.38 239.48 ] 99.27 2.20

0.062379 18.77 247.20) 103.44 2.14

0.058616 18.14

0.054855 ! 17.52

0.051554

0.003486

1965.94 1 0.003132

1965.90

1965.86

1965.83

0.002855

0.002588

0.002338

1 965.79 j 0.002142

1965.7^ 0.001956

1965.74

1965.71

1965.69

1965.68

1965.66

0.001800

0.001651

0.001516

0.001403

0.001301

1 965.65 ! 0.001201

1965.64

1965.61

1965.58

1964.73 ' 1965.54

1964.69] j 1965.51

1964.76 1965.42

4640.00! 1959.28 1964.82

4640.00 1959.24

4640.00! 1959.21

0. 4640.00] 1959.17

Central -5.016*

Central -10.032*

Central -15.048*

Central '-20.064*

Central -25.08*

Central ! -30.096*

4640.00! 1958.89

4640.00 1958.61

4640.00

1964.87

1964.92

1964.97

1964.92

1964.87

1958.32 1964.80

4640.00 1958.04' 1964.73

4640.00 1957.76 1964.64

4640.00 1957.48 1 1964.54

0.001770

0.002559

0.004068

0.006119

0.007194

255.76 107.63 2.07

264.83 111.86. 2.01

16.95 273.71 116.08 1.95

7.16

6.84

6.55

6.27

647.75) 131.42 0.57

678.81 136.57 0.54

707.96

740.32

141.73 0.52

147.42) 0.49

5.99 774.75 153.20 0.47

5.75 806.86 j 158.98 0.45

5.52 840.95

5.31 874.11

5.10

4.91

4.73

4.57

4.40

4.87

5.49

6.32

909.36

945.27

980.15

1015.63

164.84 0.43

170.78 0.41

176.78 0.40

182.87' 0.38

189.05 0.37

195.33 0.35

1053,45] 201.69 0.34

952,95

846.82

185.51, 0.38

173.19 0.43

741.93! 211.50 0.50

7.30^ 674.72 215.47 0.59,

7.66, 675.19, 221.37 0.61

0.006463 6.99! 733.68 i 228.67 0.55

1965.33 0.004599

1965.281 0.002908

1965.23 0.001695

1965.20 0.000967

1965.191965.17

1965.15

0.001201

5.811 823.42 235.92 0.45

4.47' 941.66 242.97 0.34

3.36 1089.87! 250.02 0.25

2.47 1271.681 257.06 0.18

2.74, 1189.12

0.001503 3.06 1110.15

251.21] 0.20

245.31' 0.23,

0.001905 3.44 1034.00 239.41, 0.25!

1965.12| 0.002419 3.87 963.13 233.42 0.29

j 1965.09' 0.003094 4.36 i 896.04

; 1965.06, 0.003987 4.92 832.24

227.36 j 0.32

221.27. 0.37

HEC-RAS Plan: sta.ft Profile: PF 1 (Continued)

Reach

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

Central

River Sta

-35.112*

-40.128*

-45.144*

-50,16

-55.123*

-60.086*

-65.049*

-70.012*

-74.976*

-79.939*

-84.902*

-89.865*

-94.828*

-99.792

-104.80*

-109.82*

-114.84*

-119.85*

-124.87*

-129.88*

-134.90*

-139.92*

-144.93*

-149.952

Q Total

(cfs)

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

4640.00

Min Ch El

(ft)1957.20

1956.91

1956.63

1956.35

1955.98

1955.61

1955.24

1954.87

(__ 1954.50

1954.13

1953.76

1953.39

1953.02

1952.65

1952.39

1952.12

1951.85

1951.59

1951.32

1951.06

1950.80

1950.53

1950.27

1950.00

W.S. Elev

(ft)1964.44

1964.30

1964.12

1963.49

1962.93

1962.57

1962.24

1961.91

1961.56

1961.19

1960.76

1960.251959.74

1959.28

1958.85

1958.47

1958.10

1957.76

1957.44

1957.12

1956.76

1956.38

1955.99

1955.60

Crit W.S.

(ft)

1963.49

1963.24

1963.01

1962.77

1962.51

1962.26

1961.98

1961.66

1961.34

1960.98

1960.42

1960.11

1959.73

1959.33

1958.93

1958.52j

1958.11

1957.70

1957.31

1956.92

1956.52

E.G. Elev

(ft)1965.03

1964.98

1964.92

1964.81

1964.66

1964.49

1964.31

1964.12

1963.91

1963.69

1963.44

1963.16

1962.83

1962.49

1962.14

1961.77

1961.39

1960.99

1960.58

1960.18

1959.80

1959.43

1959.04

1958.65

E.G. Slope

(ft/ft)

0.005133

0.006743

0.009110

0.019564

0.028491

0.032650

0.035512

0.038003

0.040636

0.043867

0.049284

0.058697

0.064353

0.067873

0.072429

0.075498

0.077524

0.077748

0.077173

0.075598

0.074715

0.075835

0.076375

0.076816

Vel Chnl

(ft/s)

5.55

6.30

7.20

9.78

11.28

11.85

12.18

12.43

12.64

12.86

13.19

13.69

14.10

14.38

14.54

14.58

14.56

14.41

14.21

14.06

13.99

14.06

14.09

14.14

Flow Area

(sqft)

773.49

714.26

652.73

511.89

454.08

434.29

421.60

410.25

397.63

382.60

360.77

339.46

329.06

322.73

319.09

318.16

318.78

322.09

326.44

330.68

334.39

335.26

335.83

335.35

Top Width ' Froude* Chi

(ft)215.12 0.41

208.82, 0.47

202.08' 0.55

190.34 0.79

186.31 0.94

184.20) 1.00

182.46 1.04

180.54 1.07

176.33 1.10

170.94 1.14

143.61 1.20

101.21 1.29

96.62 1.35

95.78 1.38

97.89 1.42

100.35 1.44

102.94 1.46

105.92 1.46

108.97' 1.45

122.11 1.43

137.36 1.42

144.92 1.43

142.58 1.44

139.66 1.441

HMS * Summary of Results for EPA1

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : mainZOO

Start of Run : 01Jan02 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 3380.2 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1117

Total Outflow : 3.09 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results for J-V

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : OUan02 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 3601.0 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1118

Total Outflow : 3.09 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results for J-19

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : Oljan02 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 3945.1 (ofs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1119

Total Outflow : 3.09 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results for J-21

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : 01Jan02 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 3959.9 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1120

Total Outflow : 3.09 (in)

HMS * Summary o£ Results for J-37,43

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : 01Jan02 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 590.65 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1110

Total Outflow : 3.03 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results for J-EN

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : 01Jan02 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 4399.5 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1119

Total Outflow : 3.09 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results for J-38

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : 01Jan02 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 4416.4 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1119

Total Outflow : 3.08 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results for J-39

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : 01Jan02 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 4431.8 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1119

Total Outflow : 3.08 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results for J-40

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : 01Jan02 0800 Basin Model : OlOlJMainChannel

End of Run : 02jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 4526.0 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1120

Total Outflow : 3.08 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results for J-16,41,42

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : OlJanOZ 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 4596.3 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1120

Total Outflow : 3.08 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results for J-14

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : 01Jan02 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 4639.8 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1121

Total Outflow : 3.08 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results for EPA1

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : 01Jan02 0800 Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800 Met. Model : EPA200

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501 Control Specs : EPA200

Computed Results

Peak Outflow : 3380.2 (cfs) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01 Jan 02 1117

Total Outflow : 3.09 (in)

HMS * Summary of Results

Project : SunriseFinalDesign Run Name : main200

Start of Run : 01Jan02 0800

End of Run : 02Jan02 0800

Execution Time : 06Aug02 1501

Basin Model : 0101_MainChannel

Met. Model : EPA200

Control Specs : EPA200

HydrologicElement

W

J-W

El

5

J-5

E2

36

J-36E3

37

43

J-37,43

A

J-A

NEC1L

B

J-BLNEC2M

J-M

NEC3

N

J-N

NEC4

D

C

J-CD

NEC50

J-0

NEC6E

J-E

NEC7

P

J-P

NEC8

F

J-F

NEC9

DischargePeak

(cfs)

160.86160.86160.22

49.464208.04

207.5969.249

274.53273.89

62.830257.54

590.65115.56115.56115.34211.53114.20429.19428.9983.843512.00511.48264.64

775.39774.12

36.500

119.60922.75922.08145.591064.61062.991.243

1143.01140.6336.401476.81475.6125.261591.2

1590.8

Time ofPeak

0101

01

01010101

0101

010101

0101010101010101010101

010101

0101010101

0101

010101010101

01

01

Jan

JanJan

JanJanJanJan

JanJanJanJanJan

JanJanJan

JanJanJanJanJan

JanJan

JanJan

JanJan

JanJan

JanJanJanJanJan

JanJanJanJanJanJan

Jan

Jan

02

0202

020202

020202

020202

02020202020202020202

020202

020202

0202

020202020202

02020202

02

1108

11081110

110811101110

110811101111110811111110

111011101112

11151110111311131112

11131114

11151114

11141108

11131114111411121114

11141109

1114111511141114111511111115

1115

Volume(ac

ft)

7.7.7.

2.9.

9.3.1212

2.1329

6.6.6.135.25254.

3030

1747471.

7.

56568.64644.

69692089896.96

96

2702

27022704

258552905298

1619.692.694

9109.551.156

062706270631.6908316.585.5857012.287

.288

.171

.458

.4606500

1931.303

.3053491.654

.6544344

.089

.088

.857

.945

.9467549.701

.702

Drainage

Area(sq mi)

0

000

000

00

000

00000000

000

000

000

0000

000

0000

0

.044

.044

.044

.014

.058

.058

.020

.078

.078

.018

.084

.180

.037

.037

.037

.083

.035

.155

.155

.029

.184

.184

.104

.288

.288

.010

.044

.342

.342

.051

.392

.392

.027

.419

.419

.126

.546

.546

.041

.587

.587

Hydrologic

Element

Q

J-QNEC10

R

G

J-GR

NEC11

H

J-H

NEC12

S

J-S

NEC13

I

J-I

NEC14

T

J-T

NEC-15

U

Jl

EPA1

Nl

V

J-V

N2

J2

J-J2

N3

K

J-K

N4

20

J-20

N5

19

J-19

N6

21

J-21

J-EN

Cl

38

J-38

C2

39

J-39

C3

18

J-18

C4

Discharge

Peak

(cfs)

202.79

1793.6

1791.9

546.82

92.258

2415.9

2412.9

103.92

2507.2

2505.9

122.49

2622.8

2621.8

183.21

2791.3

2790.3

147.13

2936.8

2931.6

225.92

246.53

3380.2

3376.6

251.19

3601.0

3600.8

162.71

3720.6

3716.9

71.353

3764.5

3759.4

107.50

3847.7

3842.5

126.88

3945.1

3941.0

31.744

3959.9

4399.5

4396.6

29.453

4416.4

4410.7

32-. 498

4431.8

4429.5

81.818

4487.5

4487.4

Time of

Peak

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

Jan

Jan

Jan

JanJan

Jan

Jan

Jan

JanJanJanJan

Jan

Jan

JanJan

JanJan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02Page

1115

1115

1115

1118

1111

1116

1117

1111

1116

1117

1113

1116

1117

1112

1116

1117

1116

1117

1118

1114

1114

1117

1118

1112

1118

1118

1109

1117

1118

1108

1118

1119

1111

1119

1119

1111

1119

1120

1108

1120

1119

1119

1108

1119

1119

1108

1119

1120

1110

1120

1120: 2

Volume

(ac

ft)

13.153

109.86

109.86

39.592

5.1123

154.56

154.56

5.7801

160.34

160.35

7.3473

167.70

167.70

10.533

178.23

178.24

9.9259

188.16

188.17

13.896

15.105

217.17

217.16

14.412

231.58

231.58

7.8096

239.39

239.38

3.2486

242.63

242.63

5.9036

248.53

248.54

6.8729

255.41

255.41

1.4524

256.86

286.01

286.02

1.4053

287.43

287.44

1.5056

288.94

288.95

4.1497

293.10

293.11

Drainage

Area

(sq mi)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

110

1100

110

110

110

110

110

110

1110

110

110

11

.080

.667

.667

.239

.031

.937

.937

.035

.972

.972

.045

.017

.017

.064

.081

.081

.060

.141

.141

.084

.092

.317

.317

.088

.405

.405

.048

.452

.452

.020

.472

.472

.036

.508

.508

.041

.549

.549

.009

.558

.738

.738

.009

.747

.747

.009

.756

.756

.025

.781

.781

Hydrologic

Element

40

J-4005

17

J-17C6

41

42

16

J-16,41,42

Rockfall

15

J-15End

14

J-14

Discharge

Peak

(cfs)

62.830

4526.0

4525.3

49.934

4555.9

4554.9

9.9939

26.314

32.113

4596.3

4593.4

59.639

4628.4

4619.4

36.311

4639.8

Time of

Peak

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

01

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

Jan

JanJanJanJan

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

02

110811201120

11081120112011081108

11081120

11201108

11201121

11081121

Volume

(ac

ft)

2.9109

296.02

296.03

2.3082

298.34

298.35

0.47683

1.2187

1.4524

301.49

301.50

2.6973

304.20

304.19

1.6615

305.85

Drainage

Area

(sq mi)

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

110

110

1

.018

.800

.800

.014

.813

.813

.003

.008

.009

.833

.833

.016

.849

.849

.010

.859

Page: 3