HomeMy WebLinkAbout3338; Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creek Dredging; Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creek Dredging; 2009-10-30c INA
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
DUE TO THE
AGUAHEDIONDA
&
CALAVERA CREEKS
DREDGING AND IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
Prepared for
City of Carlsbad, California
October 30, 2009
v.
9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 201
San Diego, California 92123
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.
LIST OF TABLES ...
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Project Setting 1-2
1.2 Original Site Conditions 1-3
1.3 Existing Conditions 1-4
1.4 Authority and Acknowledgements 1-4
1.5 Coordination with Other Agencies 1-5
2. AREA OF STUDY 2-1
2.1 Scope of Study 2-1
2.2 Community Description 2-1
2.3 Principal Flood Problems 2-2
2.4 Other Features-(Flood Protection Measures) 2-3
3. ENGINEERING METHODS 3-1
3.1 Hydrology Preparation 3-1
3.2 Hydraulic Preparation 3-1
3.3 Model Assumptions 3-2
3.4 Boundary Conditions 3-3
3.5 Progression of Proposed Alternatives with Model Results 3-3
3.6 Modifications 3-4
3.7 Modeling Conclusions and Recommendations 3-4
3.8 Vertical datum 3-5
4. FORMS 4-1
5. OTHER STUDIES 5-1
6. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 6-1
7. LIMITATIONS 7-1
Report Limitations 7-1
REFERENCES REF-1
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\De!iverables\FEMA Resubmitta!\01-CLOMR Report Fi!es\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Caiavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
Table Of Contents ___Condjtjgnaj_Lgtterof MapReyision
APPENDIX A A
Application Forms for Conditional Letters of Map Revision A
APPENDIX B B
HEC-RAS Hydraulic Simulation B
APPENDIXC C
Chang Consultant Reference Documents C
APPENDIX D D
Rick Engineering Company Reference Documents , D
APPENDIX E E
Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Floodplain Limits & Work Map E
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Prpjects\Carisbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01 -CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
Table Of Contents Conditional Letter of Map Revision
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 1-1
Figure 2 - Location Map 1-3
Figure 3 - Horizontal Control Map -1 1-7
Figure 4 - Horizontal Control Map - 2 1-8
Figure 5 - Firm Map No. 0607360768 F 2-5
Figure 6 - Annotated Firm Map No. 0607360768 F 2-6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1-1. Feature Representation 3-2
Table 3.1-2. Pier Widths from Existing Model 3-2
Table 3.2-1. Steady State Flow Data 3-2
iii
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Caiavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
Table Of Contents Conditional Letter of Map Revision
This Page intentionally left blank
iv
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Cartsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltemsl>Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files'CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
1. INTRODUCTION
The city of Carlsbad has commissioned Brown and Caldwell to perform a hydrology and hydraulic analysis
for Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks to determine the base 100-year floodplain and its overall impact
upon the surrounding residential community, to modify the floodplain via vegetation removal and dredging
of the two creeks, and to provide other infrastructure modifications for flood control and protection. This
project is built upon a series of past-related projects which similarly were designed to contain a potentially
detrimental flood within the watershed for the purpose of restoring flood control and protection to the
surrounding community. Figure 1 provides the Vicinity Map for the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks
Dredging and Improvements Project.
The project information developed for this study will also support the Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to be submitted to fulfill the requirements of FEMA and the
City's Floodplain Management regulations which reference FIRM map requirements.
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
HIGHWAY
CITY OF VISTA
CITY OF
SAN MARCOS
PACIFIC
OCEAN
CITY OF ENCINITAS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
1-1
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\Q1-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda 8 Calavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
1: introduction Conditional Letter of Map Revision
1.1 Project Setting
Agua Hedionda Creek, as well as Calavera Creek, are within the Carlsbad Hydrologic unit located in the
southwest portion of California. Agua Hedionda Creek originates in the hills south of the San Marcos
Mountains and generally flows in a westerly direction. The conveyance varies from mild to steep slopes with
varying channel widths along its path of travel. The channel bottom and its side slopes have vegetation
features that range from sparse to dense ground cover, with an accompanying tree canopy of various types of
native species and residentially planted ornamental species.
Coupled with its major tributary, Buena Creek, the watershed drains an approximate area of 29 square miles
(18,560 acres) where it conveys the collected runoff and discharge to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, located
approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the project site. Agua Hedionda Lagoon then discharges through
major arterials, ultimately emptying into the Pacific Ocean. At this discharge point, the lagoon is in the
coastal zone, subject to the rules and regulations under Coastal Waters jurisdiction.
Calavera Creek originates at Lake Calavera, which receives surface flow from numerous easterly tributaries
that originate from the City of Vista. Calavera Creek meanders in a southerly direction through open space.
As it approaches the project site, the channel is noticeably smaller than Agua Hedionda Creek. Within the
project site, the channel bottom and side slopes are covered with natural vegetative features that range from
sparse to dense ground cover, along with an accompanying tree canopy of various types of native species
mixed in with ornamental species planted by adjoining residents. Similar vegetative features, as well as, a less
dense tree canopy can be found within the Agua Hedionda Creek alignment.
Within the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (RCMHP) community, Calavera Creek flows southwesterly,
along the northwest boundary of the RCMHP community to a point of confluence with Agua Hedionda
Creek located approximately 300 feet east of the El Camino Real bridge crossing. During a sufficiently large
rainfall event, the channel may overflow into a flood control detention facility designated as Basin BJB.
Runoff continues to flow southward through an 11-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box culvert under the
intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and enters the Rancho Carlsbad community at the point
of confluence with a tributary known as Little Encina Creek.
The RCMHP community is bounded by both Calavera Creek and Cannon Road to the north, El Camino Real
to the south and Rancho Carlsbad Drive to the east. Agua Hedionda Creek conveys runoff in a westerly
direction under Rancho Carlsbad Drive and through the center of the community. From this point, the
confluence flows in a westerly direction under the Cannon Road Bridge. (See Figure 2 - Location Map) The
RCMHP community is comprised of upscale manufactured homes totaling 502 units with typical lot widths
of 50 feet by a length of 80 feet. The community has a central recreational center which includes a
clubhouse, a pool, tennis courts, with an executive golf course and an open space east of the community.
1-2
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files'.CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
1: introduction Conditional Letter of Map Revision
c
CALAVERA CREEK
SITE
MO'TOSCAil
Figure 2 - Location Map
1.2 Original Site Conditions
According to construction plans dated in June 1969, the natural flow and channel configuration of Agua
Hedionda and Calavera creeks thru the project site were realigned in conjunction with the development of the
RCMHP residential community. The channels were reconstructed as man-made, earthen trapezoidal
channels as shown in the original "Grading Plans for the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park" prepared by
South Bay Engineering. The plans detail the grading and excavation for the Mobile Home Park development,
roadway work, channel reconstruction and extension, including work within both Agua Hedionda and
Calavera creeks.
The constructed alignment of Agua Hedionda Creek included both a 58-foot and 44-foot channel sections,
located immediately upstream of the El Camino Real Bridge and immediately upstream of the confluence
between the Calavera and Agua Hedionda creeks, respectively. The original Agua Hedionda channel was
typically 11.5 feet deep with 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) side slopes and an average channel bed slope of 0.15
percent (0.0015 ft/ft). Calavera Creek alignment began at the confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek and
proceeded upstream to the proposed intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. The original
Calavera Creek channel had a typical bottom width of approximately 4 feet, an average channel bed slope of
0.30 percent (0.0030 ft/ft), a channel depth of 9 feet, and 2:1 side slopes.
Agua Hedionda Channel improvement plans prepared by VTN Engineer, in August 1985, provided for rock
slope protection at the banks of the channel, around the El Camino Real crossing and the Cannon Road
Crossing. In addition, a rock slope protection berm 195 feet long by 15 feet wide was installed across the
mouth of the channel, 225 feet downstream of the Cannon Road Crossing.
In 1998, additional channel enhancement and repair work of Agua Hedionda Creek occurred immediately
west of El Camino Real with the construction of the Cannon Road Bridge. In addition, the creek bottom was
modified to a width of 80 feet under the Cannon Road Bridge, as well as, providing a width of 100 feet
midway between Cannon Road and El Camino Real bridges. The channel width narrows down to 76 feet as
the channel approaches the El Camino Real Bridge looking in an upstream direction.
1-3
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope items\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmitta!\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR lor Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
1: introduction Conditional Letter of Map Revision
1.3 Existing Conditions
Significant sediment movement and deposition along Agua Hedionda Creek channel bed has been occurring
since reconstruction and repair work was accomplished in 1969 and 1998, respectively. To facilitate the
discussion, multiple channel stationing is used as reference points (see Figures 3 & 4 - Horizontal Control
Maps 1 & 2, respectively) where feasible.
The banks along Agua Hedionda Creek are generally sloped at 2:1 and have vegetative ornamental
groundcover or trees that provide some slope stability. The channel width reduces from about 70-feet at
Station 18+99 to about 40 feet at Station 19+99, maintaining at 40-foot width to a point just upstream of the
first pedestrian/roadway crossing ("Line AH" Station 42+99).
The upstream portion of Calavera Creek within the RCMHP also has mild to steep slopes along the channel
banks. It also shows signs of local scour along its northern and southern bank faces ("Line CC" Station 8+00
to 11+00), as well as, around drainage appurtenances (Station 22+30). Furthermore, the channel capacity has
been reduced by sedimentation in the lower reaches of the channel near its confluence ("Line CC" Station
00+00) with Agua Hedionda Creek ("Line AH" Station 18+76.78) and by encroachment of non-native trees
and homeowner improvements such as decks, patios, retaining walls, and ornamental landscaping.
Towards the El Camino Real Bridge crossing ("Line AH" Station 16+00), a significant amount of sediment
has deposited under the structure. Water staining at the underside of the bridge indicates that the water level
in Agua Hedionda Creek reaches the bridge bottom under most large rainfall events. The vertical clearance
from the ground line to the bridge bottom is approximately 7 to 9-feet, limiting flow volume through the
conveyance channel. The channel section between the Cannon Road Bridge crossing ("Line AH" Station
12+50) and the downstream end of the El Camino Real Bridge ("Line AH" Station 15+00) is densely
vegetated and has rock slope protection around each bank. Under the Cannon Road Bridge crossing,
significant deposition of sediment and deleterious materials exist, restricting flow at this point. Similarly, the
vertical clearance from the ground line to the bridge bottom is approximately 6 to 8-feet. The two combined
restrictive flow conditions minimize the available open area for efficient discharge creating a backwater effect
that may lead to potential flooding upstream.
The sediments found within the channel bottom are largely composed of coarse to fine-grained sand with a
small percentage of gravel and trace amounts of fine material that can be easily transported downstream at
high velocities and deposited when the channel widens and flow velocities decrease. This deposition action
elevates the channel bottom, ultimately reducing the conveyance capacity of the channel.
1.4 Authority and Acknowledgements
The City of Carlsbad will have signatory authority and will be responsible for the facility in conjunction with
the RCMHP residential community. Aerial mapping has been provided by the Photo Geodetic Corporation.
Mapping and additional field points have been provided by Right of Way Engineers. Additional mapping has
been provided by the City of Carlsbad and Lyle Engineering, Inc.
HEC-1 Information for the Agua Hedionda Watershed has been provided by the Rick Engineering Study.
Additional modifications to the discharge volumes within the Calavera Creek have been provided by Chang
Consultants.
1-4
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09j.doc
1: introduction Conditional Letter of Map Revision
1.5 Coordination with Other Agencies
As part of on-going work to provide flood protection for the community, the City performed emergency
dredging work under the auspices of an Army Corps Regional General Permit No. 63 (File No. 200600151).
The emergency dredging work was performed between the limits of the Cannon Road Bridge and 0.16 miles
northeast of El Camino Real Bridge. Coordination with other governing agencies, such as the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game, and the Coastal Commission was
required to meet individual agency standards of care. Currently, appropriate agency permits have been
submitted and are under review.
1-5
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\DeBverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
1: introduction Conditional Letter of Map Revision
This page intentionally left blank
1-6
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope items\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Caiavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
BASIS OF BEARINGS
AND COORDINATES/BENCHMARK
NAD S3 (1991.35 EPOCH) POINTS AS SHOWN ON
CITY OF CARLSBAD CONTROL RECORD OF SURVEY
NO. 17271 USING BEARING: N 56' 44' 52' E
POINT 105
N 1999466.124
E 6241021.960ELEV. -26.13' (NGVD 1929)2.5* DISK IN NORTHEAST CORNER OF CANNON ROAD BRIDGE
OVER AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK. 120' SOUTHWEST OF EL CAMINO REAL
POINT 109N 1998301.767
E 6239246.162
2.5* DISK IN DRAINAGE BOX INLET ON SOUTH SIDE
OF CANNON RD. 0.2 Ml WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL
COMBINED SCALE FACTOR AT POINT 105 IS 0.999962440
GRID DISTANCE = (GROUND DISTANCE) X (COMBINED SCALE FACTOR)
LINE
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
L16
L17
H LINE TABLE
LENGTH
18.70
11.38
45.20
168.16
32.84
1017.71
117.35
233.62
117.89
208.27
121.24
36.04
228.89
450.55
407.64
1130.51
85.61
BEARING
N46"39'03"E
S62'5r58'E
S62'5T58"E
N23-24-33"E
N51"59'48"e
S63'44'29"E
N81*4?29"E
S83'21'53"E
seo-oisrE
N87'55X)3"E
S24"24'52"WS39"53'53"w
sesMi^s-w
N78"31'03-W
S48-19I21"W
SSIMTWW
N89-59WW
O CURVE TABLE
CURVE
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
LENGTH
399.24
326.81
149.68
560.79
300.64
129.39
203.69
111.90
54.05
225.08
189.58
463.91
133.42
RADIUS
325.00
200.00
300.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
200.00
200.00
500.00
303.48
500.00
200.00
DELTA ANGLE
7002Z59"
93'3T2ST
28"35'15"
64°15'43"
34*27TJ2"
14-4«r
23'20'26"
32°03'29'
15'29'Or
25'47132"
35M7"33"53'o9-37"
38'13'H"
"AH" STATION
7+00
7+18.70
11+17.93
11+74.51
15+1.32
16+69.48
18+19.16
18+52.00
24+12.79
34+30.50
37+31.14
38+48.49
39+77.87
42+11.50
44+15.18
45+33.07
46+44.97
48+53.25
HORIZONTAL COORDINATE TABLE
NORTHING
1999383.4911
1999396.3264
1999449.4819
1999423.7666
1999522.4555
1999676.7708
1999793.9752
1999814.1922
1999868.6073
1999418.3477
1999371.8521
1999388.5730
1999390.3257
1999363.3312
1999299.7987
1999240.8992
1999214.2787
1999221.8468
EASTING
6240499.8772
6240513.4742
6240884.2864
6240934.6818
6241209.1234
6241275.9308
6241366.5262
6241392.3997
6241921.4657
6242834.1517
6243126.6080
6243242.7600
6243371.7770
6243603.8370
6243795.8803
6243897.9970
6244005.1910
6244213.3280
DESCRIPTION
BEGIN CONTRACT
BEGIN CURVE C1
END CURVE C1
BEGIN CURVE C2
END CURVE C2
BEGIN CURVE C3
END CURVE C3
BEGIN CURVE C4
END CURVE C4
BEGIN CURVE C5
END CURVE C5
BEGIN CURVE C6
END CURVE C6
BEGIN CURVE C7
END CURVE C7
BEGIN CURVE C8
END CURVE C8
END CONTRACT
O EXISTING EASEMENT TABLE
No.
E1
E2
E3
E4
PURPOSE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
OWNER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DOCUMENT
DOC. 2003-1414301
DOC. 2003-1414303
F/N 2003-1414301 O.R.
F/N 2003-1414303 O.R.
RECORDED
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
CALAVERA CREEK - SEE SHEET 5
60' EASEMENT AND R/W FORftOAD PURPOSES
TO GEORGE W. AND EDWINA TARJW
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 10, 1957 BtSOOK 6740
PAGE NO. 102, OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17!
^N
"AH" LINE STA 7+00.00
N-1999383.49
£=6240499.88
*><»/
<i EASEMENT TO SDG&E RECORDED
OCTOBER 29, 1971 AS DOC. NO. 251396
OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985
°&lf &
60' EASEMENT TO JOSEPH &
LILLIAN CANTARINI
AND BANNING CANTARINI
RECORDED APRIL 1. 1967
AS DOC. NO, 58827 OR AND
SEPTEMBER 7, 1995
AS FILE NO. 1995-0398033 OR
AS SHOWN ON PM 17985
I
J
'«?>'%
DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED
AND ACCEPTED ON PM 17985
12' EASEMENT TO SDG&E RECORDED NOVEMBER 26, 1965
AS RLE/PAGE NO. 214035 OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985
t 20' EASEMENT TO SDG&E RECORDED MARCH 20,
1956 AS BOOK 6024 PAGE NO. 26 OR AS SHOWN ON
PM 17985
"AH" LINE STA 48+53.25
N=1999221.85
£=8244213.33
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK 100% SUBMITTAL
a
HORIZONTAL CONTROL MAP
x#*^f5j^.
lUV No. C 054987 LI\\txp- 6-30-08 1*11
\WiyJH«y
^sJjj^P^
WARNING
0 1/E 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING ISNOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
goes OCSAKAKE OWE, BUTE 201
SAHOCCO. CNFCMU OZI23(«M)5M-«22 FU(Kt)SM-«U
HORIZONTAL «s SHOWN
VERTICAL ASSH0M4
"AS - BUILT"
" mp DA1E
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENCMEER
wnuu.
OF want
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION OA1E
01HER Af
MIUL
niOVH.
DA1E
cm «p
NHAL
nravM.
SHEET I
4 1
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS I
22
mPBOVEMENT FLANS FOR
HORIZONTAL CONTROL MAP - 1
APPROCD:DAW) A. H
DEPUTY OTIf EHONEEF
OWN BY: -BSECHKD BY: HERvwn BV.
AUSCR
Pt 3M81 EXPRESi 06/30/06 DATE
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
rigure-j
i n
n
aU
LINE
1.1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
LU
L15
L16
L17
U LINE TABLE
LENGTH
18.70
11.38
45.20
168.16
32.84
1017.71
117.35
233.62
117.89
208.27
121.24
36.04
228.89
450.55
407.64
1130.51
85.61
BEARING
N46-39WE
S62'5r58"E
sersrsrE
N23°24133'E
N51Q59I48'E
S63-44'29'E
N81'48^9-E
S83*21'S3"E
SWOI^T-E
N87-55TO"E
S24"24152"W
SSS'SS'SS-W
ses"4nsvi
NTS'STO-W
S48°19711IW
ssT4r«rw
N89-59WW
O CURVE TABLE
CURVE
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
LENGTH
399.24
326.81
149.68
560.79
300.64
129.39
203.69
111.90
54.0S
225.08
189.58
463.91
133.42
RADIUS
325.00
20000
300.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
200.00
200.00
500.00
303.48
500.00
200.00
DELTA ANGLE
70'22'59"wsnsr
28'35'15'
64M5'43"
34'27'02"
14'4«r
23'20126-
32'0329'
15'29'Or
25'4713r
35"47-33"
S3'Qff3r
SB'IS1™-
HORIZONTAL COORDINATE TABLE
"CC" STATION
0+00
1+21.24
1*75.28
2+11.33
4+36.40
6+75.55
8+66.64
13+01.10
17+71.13
21+78.82
33+09.33
34+42.75
35+28.36
NORTHING
1999828.9518
1999939.3463
1999984.9645
2000012.6160
2000147.5704
2000246.0213
2000265.8632
2000174.1650
2000289.4521
2000560.5391
2001259.7402
2001302.5805
2001302.5578
EASTING
6241412.2849
6241462.3955
6241491.0742
6241514.1929
6241691.9510
6241909.8960
6242096.7163
6242521.3855
6242959.38S8
6243263.8876
6244152.2402
6244275.9897
6244361.6044
DESCRIPTION
BEGIN CONTRACT
BEGIN CURVE C9
END CURVE C9
BEGIN CURVE C10
END CURVE C10
BEGIN CURVE C11
END CURVE C11
BEGIN CURVE C12
END CURVE C12
BEGIN LINE L16
BEGIN CURVE C13
END CURVE C13
END CONTRACT
O EXISTING EASEMENT TABLE
No.
E1
E2
E3
E4
PURPOSE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
OWNER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DOCUMENT
DOC. 2003-1414301
DOC. 2003-1414303
F/N 2003-1414301 O.R.
F/N 2003-1414303 O.R.
RECORDED
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
CC- LINE STA 35+28.36
N=2001302.56
£=6244361.6060 EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD
PURPOSES TO GEORGE W. AND EDWINA TARRY
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 10. 1957 IN BOOK 6740
PAGE NO. 102 OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985
PARCEL MAP
BOUNDARY PARCEL MAP
BOUNDARY
PARCEL MAP BOUNDARY
AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
LAKEl CALAVERA CREEK
DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED
AND IACCEPTED ON PM 17985
PROPOSED
STAGING AREA
<L EASEMENT TO SDG&E RECORDED
OCTOBER 29, 1971 AS DOC. NO. 251396
OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985PARCEL MAP
BOUNDARY ,
60' EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD
PURPOSES TO GEORGE W. AND EDWINA TARRY
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 10, 1957 IN BOOK 6740
PAGE NO. 102 OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985
CALAVERA CREEK 100% SUBMITTAL
I
^IfUlKIr^i
UNo. C 054987\E«|). 6-30-08 >
HORIZONTAL CO
1
WARNING
0 1/g 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
1669 CHESWEME DMVE. SU1E 201SAN OEQo. cAinmu am(HO) 5M-O22 FAX (856) SI4-W33
•KCIIUIAn
„ HORIZONTAL AS SHOWN
VERTICAL « SHOWN
MTQ/~\I k I A DIMIHUL MAP
•AS - BUILT-
D r mo DATE
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENONtER
MIHAL
OF WORK
A,
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER Af
NUM.
«WVA1
DATE
an if
MHAL
PROVAL
SHEET
5 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS
22
HORIZONTAL CONTROL MAP - 2
APPROVED; DAW A. MAUSER
DEPUTY OjTY ENGMEER PE: 33001 fX*K& OB/30/tfl DATE
OWN BY: -SBCHKD BY-JSERVWD BY:
PROJECT NO.
3338-1
DRAWING NO.
436-2A
Figure-4
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
2. AREA OF STUDY
The ultimate goal of this study is to determine an effective hydraulic capacity of Agua Hedionda and Calavera
creeks which will aid in minimizing the floodplain boundary. Based on engineering judgment and
assumptions to reduce the 100-year floodplain elevations, the recommendations for design alteration of the
existing channel configurations through a proposed dredging methodology, and upon implementation of said
recommendations, will remove the threat of flooding to the maximum number of dwelling units within the
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (RCMHP) community.
2.1 Scope of Study
For the purpose of this study, the hydraulic investigation of the Agua Hedionda Creek alignment will
originate downstream, at the discharge point 440 feet west of the Cannon Road Bridge crossing ("Line AH"
Station 7+00), will incorporate major drainage features and will terminate at the Rancho Carlsbad Road
crossing ("Line AH" Station 48+50.35). The overall alignment length of Agua Hedionda Creek that will be
modeled using HEC-RAS will be at least 4,150 feet. The relevant Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM - Panel
768 of 2375), Map Number 06073C0768 F (with an Effective Date: June 19,1997) is included as Figure 5.
FIRM No. 06073C0768 F will be used for comparison of pre-project floodplain boundary for Agua
Hedionda Creek. See work map, Exhibit 2 — Agua Hedionda Proposed Water Surface Elevation (Final
Design) enclosed in Appendix E of this document.
Similarly, the hydraulic investigation of the Calavera Creek alignment will originate at the confluence with
Agua Hedionda ("Line CC" Station 4+49), will incorporate proposed channel features where applicable
(including gabion structures, rock slope protection, Vmax slope protection), and tie into an existing drop
structure feature ("Line CC" Station 35+26.20). The overall alignment length of Calavera Creek that will be
modeled using HEC-RAS will be at least 3,077 feet. Similarly, the FIRM No. 06073C0768 F will be used for
comparison of pre-project floodplain boundary for Calavera Creek. See work map, Exhibit 1 — Calavera
Creek Proposed Water Surface Elevation (Final Design) enclosed in Appendix E of this document.
The 100-year storm event will be modeled to determine the floodplain boundary of the channels under
current conditions. This model will serve as a benchmark for calibration. Modification of the existing
channel geometry, coupled with a lower finished grade profile will allow for more volume of runoff within
the banks and will provide efficient flow control. The proposed model with suggested improvements will re-
establish the floodplain elevation, thus removing the majority of housing units from the floodplain. The
extent of localized flooding will be confirmed after the channel dredging work is completed. For the
combined floodplain and relationship to the FIRM, see the Annotated Firm (Figure 6) and the work map,
Exhibit 3 — Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek Proposed Water Surface Elevation (Final Design) enclosed in
Appendix E of this document.
2.2 Community Description
The RCMHP community is mostly made up of single story dwelling units (totaling 502 units) and can be
classified as medium to high density residential, based on General Plan Land Uses for the City of Carlsbad.
The units have a typical lot width of 50 feet by a length of 80 feet. Approximately 52 units have the rear of
the property adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek, while 41 units have the rear of the property adjacent to
Calavera Creek. The dwelling units are typically raised at least 2.0 feet above the ground line of the original
2-1
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the iimitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Rles\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Caiavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
2: Area of Study Conditional Letter of Mapjeygjon
grade line. Streets are generally paved with asphalt concrete and have rolled concrete gutters and drainage '"**S,
swales to control onsite runoff. The community has an average gende slope of 0.50-percent (0.005 ••-*«•»'
foot/foot) that generally drains from the northeast corner at (elevation 60.00+) towards the southwest end of
the community (elevation 44.00+).
Existing drainage facilities are typically composed of concrete overside drains and drainage inlets with small
diameter culverts having flow lines that provide positive drainage away from the residential areas. The private
residential streets (which have a 2.00 % crown) force flow lines towards the gutters. These were constructed
in conjunction with intermittent inlets to provide an approximate 1.0-percent longitudinal slope in asphalt
areas.
Other typical drainage features and areas found onsite include rain gutters which would contribute to the
overall runoff by directing water from residential area roofs and driveways away from the residences and
towards the gutter lines.
Based on Parcel Map No. 17985, Parcel 1 contains all the housing units with an area equal to 88.44 acres.
Parcel 2, which contains the club house and other structures, has a corresponding area of 6.14 acres.
For purposes of diis study, the runoff from the community will not have a significant impact to the overall
discharge that is being contributed to the Agua Hedionda Creek. Additional runoff generated by this project
will be managed within the existing storm water conveyance system.
2.3 Principal Flood Problems
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks have historically been subject to varying amounts of unsteady state flow
conditions. This has caused the existing channel flow path and configuration to become inefficient over time.
These inefficiencies are a result of deposition, degradation and scour at various locations along each channel
alignment. It is proposed to model existing conditions in order to determine areas that are subject to
constrained flow, impingement or other conditions that are detrimental to the flow efficiency of the creeks.
Evidence of minor local scour caused by the channel runoff was observed around drainage appurtenances
(such as culverts and overside drains) and along the bank slopes ("Line AH" Station 19+50, 21+55, 24+85,
29+53). Similar occurrences of localized scour can be seen along the channel alignment where obstructions
to the flow path, such as trees or other appurtenances, impinge flow through the channel ("line AH" Station
16+70, 17+50, 19+50, 21+50, 24+00, 29+50, 30+50, 41+15).
There is evidence of scour around existing concrete aprons, sediment deposition, and movement of the
existing rock slope protection. These conditions are typically attributed to high velocities, changes in channel
geometry or changes in surface material (hard surface to softer surface).
Another example of scour can be found at "Line AH" Station 30+15, where the channel alignment has a
slight curve. A railroad tieback retaining wall protects that toe of slope and embankment at "Line AH"
Station 30+15. However, due to the flow velocity and height of die water column, die runoff has managed to
go behind die appurtenance (tie back wall) and scoured a hole at the bank slope.
2-2
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\ProjectslCarlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverabfes\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report FilesCLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
2: Area of Study Conditional Letter of Map Revision
2.4 Other Features-(Flood Protection Measures)
The Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks dredging project is a component of on-going floodplain
reconstruction work for the purpose of restoring flood control and protection. Several components
surrounding the project (depending on the timing of construction) will be incorporated into the design and
subsequent construction. These projects features will require construction tie-ins, coordination of design
features, or temporary facilities that may require diversion during the construction phase of this project.
These project features are briefly discussed below:
• Gabion Drop Structures at Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks - The project will incorporate five drop
down structures within Agua Hedionda (six for Calavera Creek) for velocity control and potential
vegetation enhancement.
• Desilting Basin - This design feature will provide temporary sediment control measures during
construction and will also serve as a permanent sediment control feature that will require long term
maintenance.
• Maintenance Access Road — The access road will provide an entry way for equipment to initially construct,
and ultimately maintain the channels.
" Slope and Drainage Repairs. — The proposed work will entail the slope stabilization of areas subject to
erosion or scour with slope treatment materials such as Vmax or other product, and replacement of
damaged headwalls and drainage appurtenances that discharge to the creeks.
• Rock Slope Protection at the Maintenance Access Road - The primary purpose of the rock is for
protection of the proposed slope that will be subjected to water forces at the bend of the channel.
" Ornamental Wall - This feature is to replace "in kind" the removal of the existing wall adjacent to
Calavera Creek. Removal of existing wall will allow maintenance access to the channel. This work may
require utility relocation of sewer, water and power.
• 84" Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert - Proposed Diversion upstream of Calavera Creek to reduce flow
volume (See Appendix C - Chang Study).
2-3
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmitta!\01-CLOMR Report Rles\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Caiavera Creeks (10-30-09j.doc
2: Area of Study Conditional Letter of Map Revision
This page intentionally left blank
2-4
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Cartsbad. City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
500 0 500
i i i"~ r i i i
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 768 OF 2375
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY
CARLSBAD. CITY OF
NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
060285 0768
MAP NUMBER
06073C0768 F
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JUNE 19,1997
Federal Emergency Management Agency
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map it
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may have been made subsequent to the date on the
title block. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance
Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.go1
Figure-5
0766
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 500
~* ! '
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 768 OF 2375
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS MOT PRINTED)
NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
CARLSBAD am of 5SQ28S 0768
MAP NUMBER
06073C07B8 F
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JUNE 19,1997
| Federal Emergency Management Agency
ZONE X
FIGURE 6 -ANNOTATED FIRM
This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map It
was extracted using F-MIT On-Line This map does not reflect changes
or amendments which may h^vc? been made subsequent to the date on the
title bfock For the late&t product information about Nations! Flood Insurance
Program flood mapfc check 1he FEMA Flood Map Store at www msc fbfna.gov
CM ID&/H AI
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
3. ENGINEERING METHODS
Brown and Caldwell (BC) has been commissioned to prepare HEC-RAS modeling for the existing and
proposed conditions of both the Agua Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek channels (project site). The
existing conditions (baseline) model has been prepared with the data provided by the City of Carlsbad, and
hydrology information provided for the 100-year event using the estimated flows developed by other
consultants (Rick Engineering Company and Chang Consultants). The baseline model, if feasible, will be
used to prepare calibration data for the project site. The baseline model will be compared to the existing
FEMA mapping to determine floodplain boundaries and other areas of concern. Upon completion of the
baseline simulations, proposed and alternative channel alignments will be modeled to determine the best fit
channel geometry and mitigation along the banks. The modeling effort is being performed in support of
proposed channel modifications.
HEC-RAS versions 3.1.3 and 4.0, developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center for use by the Army
Corps of Engineers, will be utilized for all hydraulic model simulations. The HEC-RAS program is intended
for use in calculating water surface profiles for steady state, gradually varied flow. The strength of the
program relies upon the basic computational procedures of the one-dimensional energy equation. Through
the standard equations, the program can compute subcritical, supercritical and mixed flow regime water
surface profiles. Energy losses in a system are evaluated by friction (use of Manning's equation) and
contraction/expansion (structure coefficients multiplied by the change in velocity head of the system). The
HEC-RAS program is ideal for modeling and studying floodway encroachments, floodplain studies and flood
insurance evaluations. Supporting information for the watershed will be provided by the Agua Hedionda
Watershed GIS Based Master Plan and the Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project Special Use Permit prepared
by Rick Engineering Company. Other supplemental information will be provided by the Conditional Letter
of Map Revision Request (Case #: 07-09-1313R) and the Letter of Map Revision (Case #: 09-09-0276P) for
Robertson Ranch prepared by Chang Consultants and information provided by the City of Carlsbad.
3.1 Hydrology Preparation
The Rick Engineering Company prepared a GIS-based Drainage Plan for the Agua Hedionda watershed
portion of the City of Carlsbad. The Drainage Plan calculated the 100-year peak runoff for the watershed
tributary to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and its ultimate discharge to the Pacific Ocean. The computations
provided preliminary information that included the Agua Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek channel flow
volumes. The initial data provided from the Rick Engineering documents was compared to the approved
FEMA floodplain. Adjustments were made, incorporating the additional hydrology and hydraulic analyses
performed by Chang Consultants. These studies are discussed further in Section 5.
3.2 Hydraulic Preparation
All model default parameters were used, except where noted. Flow lines provided for the existing conditions
were not modified. Features identified in the site walk photos and the survey data were added to the model,
as shown in Table 3.1-1. Manning's n values, not shown in Table 3.1-1, were adapted from the existing
HEC-RAS model.
3-1
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
3: Engineering Methods Conditional Letter of Map Revision
Table 3.1-1. Feature Representation
Agua Hedionda Creek
Calavera Creek
Box Culvert
Lower Agua Bridge
Cannon Road Bridge
El Camino Road Bridge
Right bank flood wall(1)
Houses on the right and left banks are
represented with a Manning's roughness of 0.2
• Houses on the left bank are represented with a
Manning's roughness of 0.2
• Riprap in channel is represented with a
Manning's roughness of 0.035
Notes:
(1)The flood wall top elevation was set to the elevation in the survey data: 46 feet at the downstream end and 67 feet at the most upstream cross section.
The information for the Agua Hedionda Creek bridges and culvert was obtained from the bridge AutoCAD
drawings and supplemented with pier widths from the existing HEC-RAS model. It was assumed that the
bridge cross section centerline coincided with the flow line provided. The pier width assumptions are
outlined in Table 3.1-2.
Table 3.1 -2. Pier Widths from Existing Model
Box Culvert
Lower Agua Bridge
Cannon Road Bridge
El Camino Road Bridge
n/a
4.5
1.5
1.3
3.3 Model Assumptions
A steady-state flow hydraulic analysis was performed wim the flow and boundary conditions shown on Table
3.2-1. Following the previous study by Rick Engineering, Chang Consultants performed a HEC-1 analysis to
model an upstream split flow scenario in Calavera Creek. An additional tributary input, upstream in this
scenario, results in increased flow from the upstream to downstream portions of this study. The flow data
used in our initial model runs is a result of the HEC-1 analysis.
Table 3.2-1. Steady State Flow Data
Agua Hedionda Creek
Calavera Creek
> 7,338 upstream of confluence
' 8,247 downstream of confluence
Upstream Flow 629
Downstream Flow 909
• Downstream water surface elevation = 35 feet
• Downstream water surface elevation = 43.32 feet
(from Aqua Hedionda model results)
3-2
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Cartsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope items\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files'CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
3: Engineering Methods _ __ _ _ _ _ Conditional Letter of Map Revision
100- Year Event Flow
Initial hydraulic simulation of Agua Hedionda Creek indicated flooding that extended beyond the cross
sections, reaching the Calavera Creek channel from "Line AH" Station 7+00 to 21+99. Therefore, the Agua
Hedionda cross sections were extended to the floodwall on the right bank of Calavera Creek up to and
including the section at "Line AH" Station 19+99.
This point ("Line AH" Station 19+99) was considered the "confluence" during design flow event (see Table
3.2-1) for the steady state flow analysis. Agua Hedionda Creek was modeled with a 100-year storm event
discharge volume of 7,338 cfs for the upstream portion of the channel "Line AH" Station 19+99 to 48+50.
Agua Hedionda was also modeled with a 100-year storm event discharge volume of 8,247 cfs for the
downstream portion of the channel ("Line AH" Station 19+99 to 7+00).
Since Agua Hedionda Creek's 100-year flow affects the confluence of Calavera Creek, the water surface
elevation of "Line AH" Station 21+99 was used as the downstream control for the Calavera Creek model
("Line CC" Station 4+49) simulation.
The Calavera Creek hydraulic simulation was modeled independently (of Agua Hedionda Creek) using the
100-year storm event discharge volume of 629 cfs acquired from an independent study prepared by Chang
Consultants (November 2008) and accepted by FEMA on September 2009.
3.4 Boundary Conditions
The Agua Hedionda Creek hydraulic model determined that a water surface elevation of 35.0 feet MSL could
be achieved at "Line AH" Station 7+00. This water surface elevation was used as the downstream boundary
control for determination of back water effects upstream of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks.
The hydraulic model simulation was run using a subcritical flow regime to determine the water surface
elevation and resulting floodplain boundary (footprint of flooding) as shown in the work maps Exhibits 1, 2
and 3, provided in Appendix E.
3.5 Progression of Proposed Alternatives with Model Results
1. The initial model run illustrated the existing conditions in Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks. This
model simulation generated the floodplain footprint as shown in FEMA mapping. This model
simulation showed flooding to impact half of the Rancho Carlsbad community (278 housing units).
2. Proposed modifications to Agua Hedionda Creek began by using a 70' channel width with 2:1 side
slopes. This model simulation decreased the amount of flooding within the Rancho Carlsbad community
although flooding still would impact 26 housing units.
3. A maintenance access road on the northern bank of Agua Hedionda Creek and a desiltation basin within
the channel floor were incorporated into the proposed modification design described in alternative 2 (70'
channel width with 2:1 side slopes), just downstream of the confluence.
4. A revision to the Agua Hedionda Creek geometry was proposed after the determination that further
protection was necessary for the Rancho Carlsbad community. The modification incorporated an 85'
channel width with 1.5:1 side slopes. The desiltation basin was also widened and incorporated into the
revised proposal. The proposed maintenance access road described in alternative 3 was withdrawn due
to the widening of the channel.
5. The proposed conditions of an 85' channel width with 1.5:1 side slopes incorporated both the widened
desiltation basin and the installation of a proposed maintenance access road to a new location, just
downstream of the confluence with Calavera Creek. A revised discharge volume was used based on the
3-3
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report FilesCLMR for Agua Hedionda & Caiavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
3: Engineering Methods Conditional Letter of Map Revision
modifications of the weir wall upstream of Calavera Creek. The change in condition was based on work
by Chang Consultants (November 2008) and accepted by FEMA on September 2009.
6. The final proposed conditions mimic those of alternative #5. In this alternative, drop structures were
incorporated into a 200 foot stretch of Calavera Creek for velocity control, just upstream of the
confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek and at 200 foot stretch of Calavera Creek almost 2,000 feet
upstream of the confluence. Similarly, drop structures were incorporated into a 200 foot stretch for the
design at Agua Hedionda Creek, just west of Rancho Carlsbad Drive.
3.6 Modifications
The current Agua Hedionda Creek channel geometry was modified in order to contain the 100 year flood
flows within the channel banks, lowering the footprint of the floodplain to minimize impacts to the
surrounding residential areas. The bottom channel width, between the Cannon Road Bridge ("Line AH"
Station 12+75) and the downstream of El Camino Real Bridge ("Line AH" Station 14+88) was widened to 85
feet. This 85 foot width was also incorporated to the upstream sections between the El Camino Real Bridge
("Line AH" Station 15+99) and just west of the confluence between Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks
("Line AH" Station 18+99). The channel slope from section "Line AH" Station 18+99 to "Line AH" Station
40+41 was set to a 0.15% grade with the channel elevation at "Line AH" Station 18+99 beginning at 32.01 ft.
Manning's roughness values from section "Line AH" Station 18+76 were also modified to 0.025 to reflect a
clean, uniform channel bottom.
3.7 Modeling Conclusions and Recommendations
The modeling performed for the "Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park Alternative Analysis for Agua
Hedionda Channel Maintenance", provided several alternatives that depicted undetained flow and detained
flow for the channel through the community. The undetained flow revealed flooding beyond the channel
banks, impacting at least half the community. The detained flow minimized the flood footprint but still
created a significant impact to the community. The additional alternatives, provided in this study were able to
reduce the flood footprint, minimizing flood impacts down to approximately 12 housing units. However, the
last detained alternative required the construction of retaining flood walls to contain the flow within the
channel banks.
The hydraulic modeling for the Agua Hedionda Dredging Project incorporated revised topography that
reflected different channel flow conditions due to heavy vegetation, changes in flow path and sediment
deposition within the channel footprint. Initial field observations revealed localized scour around
appurtenances that have encroached in the channel flow path, damage to existing drainage facilities and
appurtenances, such as overside drains, concrete aprons and displacement of rock slope protection.
Other impacts created within the channel include: emergency dredging within the center of Agua Hedionda
Creek to minimize flooding, vegetation removal between the bridges, and adjacent work upstream of Calavera
Creek. Future impacts such as new development with storm water facilities will alter drainage flow patterns,
create diversions and will make some facilities obsolete.
These existing and future channel conditions have been discussed and considered to determine if additional
assumptions must be incorporated into the hydraulic modeling for the Agua Hedionda Dredging Project.
The most significant of impacts will be the proposed development north of Cannon Road. This development
has proposed the design and subsequent construction of an 84-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe that will drain
the development and will divert 473 cfs from the Calavera Creek channel. This will relieve the volume of
flow at the upstream basin and will aid in the reduction of the overall volume at the downstream confluence
between Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks.
3-4
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
c
3: Engineering Methods Conditional Letter of Map Revision
Based on the above mentioned information, the assumption of reduced flow was introduced into the
hydraulic model. Utilizing the initial channel geometry width of 70 feet with 2:1 side slopes, the 100-year
discharge flow volume of 7,338 was used upstream of the confluence and 8,247 downstream of confluence.
The model results generated a floodplain footprint that exceeded the banks of both channels.
Revised hydraulic simulations introduced a desiltation basin and a maintenance access road. The addition of
a desiltation basin and the access road altered the geometry of the channel. However, this modification did
not have a significant impact to the channel capacity or the floodplain.
The next revision changed the geometry of the channel. Utilizing the channel geometry of 85 foot width with
1.5:1 side slopes, and the same discharge flow volumes of 7,338 (upstream) and 8,247 (downstream)
respectively. The model resulted in lowering the water surface elevation, as well as, lowering the floodplain
footprint. Thus, the flow volume was contained within the banks of both channels. Once this hydraulic
simulation became stable, the desiltation basin and maintenance access road were incorporated. Although,
the addition of a desiltation basin and the access road altered the geometry of the channel, this modification
did not have a significant impact to the channel capacity or the floodplain.
Additional features, such as gabion drop structures and rock slope protection, were added to the model for
purposes of sediment and velocity control. These control features slightly raised the channel bottom and
water surface elevation from the proposed modifications at Calavera Creek. However, this change in water
surface did not create a significant impact to the adjoining properties.
The current hydraulic model with channel geometry of 85 feet width and 1.5:1 side slope minimizes the
flooding potential to about 6 adjacent properties. Therefore, it is recommended to prepare a design that
incorporates the design features to minimize potential flooding described above. Details on elements that
make up the HEC-RAS hydraulic simulations are found in Appendix B.
3.8 Vertical datum
As part of the work order agreement, aerial mapping and field surveys was completed by our sub-consultants,
Photo Geodetic Corporation (San Diego, CA.) and Right-of-Way Engineering Services, Inc. (Oceanside,
CA.), respectively. Coordinate controlled aerial panels (targets) were set on October 2005 prior to the aerial
photography. The aerial photography survey was performed on October 27, 2005, flown at a preset elevation
to acquire and generate base mapping at one-foot contour intervals. The base mapping generated for the
Agua Hedionda & Calavera creeks project would have one foot contours with a standard accuracy of+. 0.5
foot on a 1"= 40' scale map. Additional field surveys were conducted to fill in the gaps where the vegetative
canopy was too dense to acquire ground elevations through aerial means.
Additional supplemental work (spot elevations and tie-in points) were acquired using Total Station electronic
equipment. The additional field points were required to tie in survey monuments and aerial panels, and
obtain rim and invert elevations for utility vaults, sanitary sewer manholes, cleanouts, headwalls, poles, fences,
bridge corners and bottom of bridges, existing flow line elevations for both creeks, and spot elevations in
areas that have rock slope protection. The spot elevations generated by the survey personnel have a standard
accuracy of +_ 0.1 foot on a 1"= 40' scale map. The one-foot contour mapping is justified for an accurate
assessment and delineation of the flood plain area for the project. The mapping also meets submittal
requirements as outlined by FEMA.
Plot files have been created which form the basis of the base map used for the development of the drawings.
The basis of bearings and coordinates/benchmarks are based on NAD 83 (1991.35 EPOCH) points as
shown on the City of Carlsbad Control Record of Survey No. 17271 using the following two points:
• Point No. 105, N 1999466.124, E 6241021.960, Elevation=26.13' (NGVD29) located on a 2.5" disk in
northeast corner of Cannon Road Bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek, 120' southwest of El Camino Real
3-5
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverabies\FEMA Resubmitta!\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
3: Engineering Methods Conditional Letter of Map Revision
" Point No. 109, N 1998301.767, E 6239246.162, on 2.5" disk in drainage box inlet on the south side of
Cannon Road, 0.2 miles west of El Camino Real
A utility contacts list was prepared and a request for information letter sent out to the utilities adjacent to and
within the community. The utility search was performed to determine the location of fuel and gas lines,
communications such as telephone and cable, and other underground utilities such as electrical, water and
sewer. The location and description of these utility features are identified in the design drawings.
The City of Carlsbad also provided development drawings from adjacent proposed developments which
identified features such as future drainage culverts, utility lines, lot lines and property boundaries. The
electronic files were overlaid on the base map as a raster image, and was then fitted to scale and converted
into a digitized image.
Property boundary lines and easement lines have been incorporated into the design drawings. These survey
features are based on the information acquired from Parcel Map No. 17985, recorded on February 4, 1998.
Control coordinates for Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks alignments are as follows:
Agua Hedionda Creek, Downstream Station 7+00, elevation 32.00, N=1999383.49, £=6240499.88.
Agua Hedionda Creek, Upstream Station 48+53.25, elevation 43.00, N=1999221.85, E=6244213.33.
Calavera Creek, Downstream Station 0+00, elevation 31.98, N=1999828.95, E=6241412.29.
Calavera Creek, Upstream Station 35+28.36, elevationSO.OO, N=2001302.56, £=6244361.60.
3
3-6
Use of data contained on'this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CAM36795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files'.CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
4. FORMS
In 1968, the U.S. Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act, which created the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP was designed to reduce future flood losses through local floodplain
management and to provide protection for property owners against potential losses through flood insurance.
As part of the agreement for making flood insurance available in a community, the NFIP requires the
participating community to adopt floodplain management ordinances containing certain minimum
requirements intended to reduce future flood losses. The NFIP regulations for floodplain management are
the minimum criteria a community must adopt for participation in the NFIP. The community is responsible
for approving all proposed floodplain development and for ensuring that permits required by Federal or State
law have been received. State and community officials, based on knowledge of local conditions and in the
interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction or may limit development in floodplain areas. If
the State or Community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria,
those criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements.
The community is also responsible for submitting data to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security -
Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS-FEMA) reflecting revised flood hazard information so that
NFIP maps can be revised as appropriate. This will allow risk premium rates and floodplain management
requirements to be based on current data.
Submissions to DHS-FEMA for revisions to effective Flood Insurance Studies (FISs), Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRMs), or Flood Boundary Floodway Maps (FBFMs) by individual and community requesters will
require the signing of application forms. These forms will provide DHS-FEMA with assurance that all
pertinent data relating to the revision are included in the submittal. They will also ensure that: (a) the data
and methodology are based on current conditions; (b) qualified professionals have assembled data and
performed all necessary computations; and (c) all individuals and organizations affected by proposed changes
are aware of the changes and will have an opportunity to comment on them.
If the submission involves revisions to multiple flooding sources, then separate forms should be completed
for each flooding source.
For purposes of this study, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be submitted for the
community. The appropriate forms have been included in Appendix A and are as follows:
Form 1 — Overview & Concurrence Form that provides the basic information regarding the revision request
and requires the signatures of the requester, community official, and engineer.
Form 2 — Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form provides the basic information on the scope and
methodology of hydrologic and/or hydraulic analyses that are prepared in support of the revision
request. This form is used for revision requests that involve new or revised hydrologic and/or
hydraulic analyses of rivers, streams, ponds, or small lakes.
Form 3 — Riverine Structures Form provides the basic information regarding hydraulic structures constructed
in the stream channel or floodplain. This form should be used for revision requests that involve
new or proposed channelization, bridges/culverts, dams/basins, and/or levees/floodwalls.
4-1
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA ResubmittaNJI-CLOMR Report RiesCLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
4: Forms Conditional Letter of Map Revision
This page intentionally left blank
4-2
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad. City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Fiies'iCLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09),doc
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
5. OTHER STUDIES
Brown and Caldwell (BC) was commissioned to prepare HEC-RAS modeling for the existing and proposed
conditions of both the Agua Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek channels (project site). The existing
conditions (baseline) model has been prepared with the data provided by the City of Carlsbad, and hydraulic
information provided for the 100-year event using the estimated flows developed by others consultants
(Chang Consultants and Rick Engineering Company).
Chang Consultant Analysis
Initial hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were prepared for the project by Chang Consultants in order to
establish the 100-year flow rates and water surface elevations. In particular, the analyses determined the
portion of the 100-year flow rate discharging from Detention Basin BJB that will be directed into the 84-inch
reinforced concrete pipe versus the portion that will remain in the 11-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box
(RGB) culvert. A summary of the analyses used for this determination is provided below.
Two HEC-RAS analyses were performed using this 100-year flow rate to determine the flow split in the 11-
foot by 7-foot RGB (see HEC-RAS output (Appendix C) and work map). A vertical wall in the RGB will
direct a portion of the flow into the 84-inch RCP, while the remainder will continue downstream in the RGB.
A HEC-RAS analysis was created starting in the 84-inch RCP, continuing upstream to the split, and ending at
the upper end of the RGB. A lid was added to the cross-sections to model the closed conduits and cross-
section interpolation was performed to increase the number of cross-sections. A second HEC-RAS analysis
extended up the entire length of the RGB, up to and including the flow split wall. The cross-sections
upstream of the wall are the same in both HEC-RAS analyses.
An iterative procedure was used to determine how the 971 cfs approaching the split would be divided
between the 84-inch RCP and the 11-foot by 7-foot RGB. In both HEC-RAS analyses (performed by Chang
Consultants on November 2008), the wall that splits the flow is located between cross-sections 5 and 6.
Cross-section 7 is just upstream of cross-section 6 and the wall. The individual flow rates in the RGB and
RCP below the split must add up to 971 cfs since this is the flow rate approaching the split. Therefore, the
total flow rate below the split was maintained at 971 cfs, but the individual flow rates were varied in the RGB
and RCP until the hydraulic grade lines above the split (above cross-section 7) matched in each analysis. This
procedure determined that approximately 473 cfs will be directed to the 84-inch RCP and 498 cfs will
continue in the 11-foot by 7-foot RGB.
Rick Engineering Analysis
A HEC-1 hydrologic analysis was previously performed by Rick Engineering Company (Rick) for the Agua
Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek watersheds, which are tributary to the project site. The analysis is
included in Rick's December 13, 2004 report, Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, Alternative Analysis for
Agua Hedionda Channel Maintenance. The watershed was delineated using the United States Geological
Survey's quadrangle maps (see the HEC-1 Work map located in Appendix D. Rick performed field
investigations to verify the watershed boundaries. The land uses and hydrologic soil groups were based on
the adopted land uses and the Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, respectively.
5-1
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Rles\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
5: Other Studies Conditional Letter of Map Revision
This page intentionally left blank
5-2
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
6. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The proposed hydraulic model of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks provides a relatively uniform slope at
0.0015 foot/foot from "Line AH" Station 41+50 to about Station 18+70. Beyond "Line AH" Station 18+70
and through die bridges (El Camino and Cannon Road), the slope matches die original graded slope of
0.0030 foot/foot. The hydraulic modeling shows that the relative velocities through the channel (past the
confluence and before die bridges) will have a range between 5.10 to 7.30 feet per second. This velocity
range can typically generate some sediment movement and scour around bridge abutments and columns
during various stages of flow.
Part of the design elements incorporated were drop structures to provide steps between grades. This would
allow a drop in elevations (one to two feet) between grades so as to maintain mild slopes as part of velocity,
scour and sediment controls. This would also aid in reducing the excavation required, particularly in the
Calavera Creek, to match existing conditions widiin the overall channel footprint.
It is anticipated tiiat the dredging will remove most of the existing sandy material. However, it will expose
the fine material, composed of clay and silt underneadi the existing finished grade. The potential sediment
movement and or transport widiin die water column cannot be easily predicted unless a sediment study can
be performed. To provide a measure of control with a velocity reduction measure, die introduction of a
desilting basin between "Line AH" Station 17+00 to 18+70 has been incorporated into the design. In
addition, a Gabion Structure has been added to provide a step down (change in grade elevation) into the
;' basin and to control the velocity of water entering the basin. This feature will provide a measure of
^*/ sediment/silt protection that can be anticipated based on the relative velocities generated in the modeling of
the creeks.
An essential component of the desilting basin is the maintenance required to keep it functioning at capacity.
To allow for periodic cleaning and sediment removal, a maintenance access road has also been incorporated
into the design. Unfortunately, the geometry of die access road has contributed to further excavation along
the north side of the slope just west of the confluence between Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks. The
channel widening and access road have also contributed to greater excavation quantities, removal of an
ornamental wall that will be replaced, and addition of rock slope protection at the base of the maintenance
access road.
It is also noted that there is existing rock slope protection around die bridge abutments and in front of die
bridges. However, sediment deposition has covered most of die rock within the bottom of the channel. In
anticipation of encountering the rock slope protection, a further investigation will have to be performed
during construction, since it is difficult to determine the current depth of rock due to its resident time
(original rock position at construction in 1969), potential movement due to undermining and settiement due
to its own weight. An added feature is die Gabion Structure added upstream of Agua Hedionda Creek. This
structure has been added to provide a step down (change in grade elevation) from the existing concrete
channel located underneath Rancho Carlsbad Drive ("Line AH" Station 41+50). Hydraulic modeling reveals
that velocities are approaching 10 feet per second through this section. There is also a difference in elevation
by about three feet due to scour damage downstream of the bridge. The proposal to introduce die gabion
structure at ("Line AH" Station 41 +50) the tie-in location (Rancho Carlsbad Drive) will mitigate for velocity
and elevation difference. This will provide a measure of velocity control and will step down the flow to the
milder proposed finished grade.c
6-1
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report FiiesCLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
6: Findings and Conclusions Conditional Letter of Map Revision
This page intentionally left blank
6-2
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad. City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01 -CLOMR Report Fiies\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION
7. LIMITATIONS
Report Limitations
This document was prepared solely for City of Carlsbad in accordance with professional standards at the time
the services were performed and in accordance with the contract between the City of Carlsbad and Brown
and Caldwell dated October 3, 2005. This document is governed by the specific scope of work authorized by
the City of Carlsbad; it is not intended to be relied upon by any other party except for regulatory authorities
contemplated by the scope of work. We have relied on information or instructions provided by the City of
Carlsbad and other parties and, unless otherwise expressly indicated, have made no independent investigation
as to the validity, completeness, or accuracy of such information.
c
7-1
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Rles€LMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
7: Findings Conditional Letter of Map Revision
This page intentionally left blank
7-2
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Fi!es\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
Conditional Letter of Map Revision
c
c
REFERENCES
Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures - Experience, Selection and Design Guidance, Hydraulic Engineering Circular 23 (HEC-
23), Publication No. FHWA-NHI-01-003, Second Edition, March 2001.
City of San Diego Regional Standard Drawings (Document No. 769332), May 1997.
Debris Control Structures - Evaluation and Countermeasures, Hydraulic Engineering Circular 9 (HEC-9), Publication No. FHWA-IF-04-016,
Third Edition, October 2005.
Geotechnical Evaluation, Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges, Carlsbad California (Project No. 105953001) prepared by Ninyo & Moore
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, San Diego, California, November 30,2006.
Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), April 2003.
HEC-RAS River Analysis System, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), Version 3.1, November 2002.
HEC-RAS River Analysis System, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), Version 4.0, March 2008.
Improvement Plans for Robertson Ranch East Village, (Project No. C.T. 02-16) prepared by O'Day Consultants, Carlsbad, California.
Improvement Plans for Cannon Road, (Project No. C.T. 02-16) prepared by O'Day Consultants, Carlsbad, California.
Limited Geotechnical Evaluation, Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project (Project No. 105132001) prepared by Ninyo & Moore
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, San Diego, California, January 7,2004.
Limited Environmental Analysis for Agua Hedionda Creek (Project No. 105760001) prepared by Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and
Environmental Consultants, San Diego, California, February 10,2006.
Letter of Map Revision Request for Robertson Ranch, prepared by Chang Consultants, (LOMR Case # 09-09-0276P) November 2008.
Revisions to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Maps (MT-2), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), February 2006.
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park Alternative Analysis for Agua Hedionda Channel Maintenance, (Job No. 13182-D) prepared by Rick
Engineering Company, December 2004.
REF-1
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Rles\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Caiavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
This page intentionally left blank
c
APPENDIX A
Application Forms for Conditional Letters of Map Revision
C
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files'CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
This page intentionally left blank
U.8. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY - FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
OVERVIEW & CONCURRENCE FORM
O.M.BN0.1660-W16
Expires: 12/31/2010
PAPERWORK BURDEN DISCLOSURE NOTICE
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 1 hour per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not required
to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send comments regarding
the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DO 20472, Paperwork Reduction Project (1660-0016).
Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send your completed
survey to the above address.
A. REQUESTED RESPONSE FROM DHS-FEMA
This request is for a (check one):
EJ CLOMR:
O LOMR:
A letter from DHS-FEMA commenting on whether a proposed project, if built as proposed, would justify a map revision, or
proposed hydrology changes (See 44 CFR Ch. 1 , Parts 60, 65 & 72).
A letter from DHS-FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show the changes to floodplains, regulatory floodway or
flood elevations. (See 44 CFR Ch. 1 , Parts 60, 65 & 72)
B. OVERVIEW
1. The NFIP map panel(s) affected for all impacted communities is (are):
Community No.
Ex: 480301
480287
060285
Community Name
CityofKaty
Harris County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
State
TX
TX
CA
Map No.
480301
48201 C
06073C
Panel No.
0005D
0220G
0768F
Effective Date
02/08/83
09/28/90
06/19/97
C
2. a. Flooding Source: Agua Hedionda Creek; Calavera Creek
b. Types of Flooding: • Riverine D Coastal Q Shallow Flooding (e.g., Zones AO and AH)
D Alluvial fan D Lakes D Other (Attach Description)
3. Project Name/Identifier: Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements, Project No. 3338-1.
4. FEMA zone designations affected: AE,X (choices: A, AH, AO, A1-A30, A99, AE, AR, V, V1-V30, VE, B, C, D,X)
5. Basis for Request and Type of Revision: New information will change and tower the floodplain elevations.
a. The basis for this revision request is (check all that apply)
• Physical Change D Improved Methodology/Data D Regulatory Floodway Revision • Base Map Changes
D Coastal Analysis • Hydraulic Analysis D Hydrologic Analysis D Corrections
D Weir-Dam Changes Q Levee Certification D Alluvial Fan Analysis D Natural Changes
Q New Topographic Data D Other (Attach Description)
Note: A photograph and narrative description of the area of concern is not required, but is very helpful during review.
b. The area of revision encompasses the following structures (check all that apply)
Structures: • Channelization D Levee/FloodwaH • Bridge/Culvert
D Dam D Fill D Other (Attach Description)
DHS- FEMA Form 81-89.DEC 07 Overview & Concurrence Form MT-2Form1Page1of2
C. REVIEW FEE
Yes Fee amount: S 4.400Has the review fee for the appropriate request category been included?
Previous fee submitted under Case No. 08-09-1743R. Review placed on hold
pending approval of Case No. 09-09-0276P. D
No, Attach Explanation
Please see the DHS-FEMA Web site at http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/frmjees.shtm for Fee Amounts and Exemptions.
D. SIGNATURE
All documents submitted in support of this request are correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statement may be punishable by
fine or imprisonment under Title 18 of the United States Code. Section 1001.
Name: Christian Herenda Company: Brown and Caldwell
Mailing Address:
9665 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 201
San Diego. CA 92123
Daytime Telephone No.: (858) 571-6703 Fax No.: (858) 514-8833
E-Mail Address: CHerencla@Brwncald.com
Signature of Requester (required):Date. November 30.2009
As the community official responsible for floodplain management, I hereby acknowledge that we have received and reviewed this Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) or conditional LOMR request. Based upon the community's review, we find the completed or proposed project meets or is designed to meet all
of the community floodplain management requirements, Including the requirement that no fill be placed in the regulatory floodway, and that all necessary
Federal, State, and local permits have been, or in the case of a conditional LOMR, will be obtained. In addition, we have determined that the land and
any existing or proposed structures to be removed from the SFHA are or will be reasonably safe from flooding as defined in 44CFR 65.2(c), and that we
have available upon request by FEMA, all analyses and documentation used to make this determination.
Community Official's Name and Title:Community Name: City of Carlsbad
Mailing Address:
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. Ca. 92008
Daytime Telephone No.:(760) 602-2739 Fax No.: (760) 602-8562
E-Mail Ad
Community Official's Signature (required):^Date:
CERTIFICATION BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND/OR LAND SURVEYOR
This certification Is to be signed and sealed by a licensed land surveyor, registered professional engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify
elevation information date, hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and any other supporting date. All documents submitted in support of this request are
correct to the best of my knowledge. All analyses have been performed correctly and in accordance with sound engineering practices. All project works
are designed in accordance with sound engineering practices to provide protection from the 1% annual chance flood. If "as-built" conditions date/plan
provided, then the structure^) has been built according to the plans being certified, is in place, and is fully functioning. I understand that any false
statement may be punishable by fine or Imprisonment under Title 18 of the United Steles Code, Section 1001.
Certifier's Name:Christian Herencia License No.: C 54987 Expiration Date: 06/30/10
Company Name: Brown and Caldwell Telephone No.: (858) 571-6703 Fax No.: (858) 514-8833
Signature:
Ensure the forms that are appropriate to your revision request are included in your submittal.
Form Name and (Number) Required if...
P Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form (Form 2) New or revised discharges or water-surface elevations
Q Riverine Structures Form (Form 3)
Q Coastal Analysis Form (Form 4)
n Coastal Structures Form (Form 5)
fj Alluvial Fan Flooding Form (Form 6)
Channel is modified, addition/revision of bridge/culverts,
addition/revision of levee/floodwall, addition/revision of dam
New or revised coastal elevations
Addition/revision of coastal structure
Flood control measures on alluvial fans
Seal (Optional)
DHS- FEMA Form 81-89.DEC 07 Overview & Concurrence Form MT-2Form1Page2of2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY - FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM
OMB ffo. 1660-0016
Expires: 12/31/2010
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Public reporting burden for this form Is estimated to average 3.25 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You
are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction
Project (1660-0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not
send your completed survey to the above address.
I Flooding Source: Agua Hedionda Creek
Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied
A. HYDROLOGY
1. Reason for New Hydrotogic Analysis (check all that apply)
D Not revised (skip to section B)
D Alternative methodology
D No existing analysis
• Proposed Conditions (CLOMR)
• Improved data
D Changed physical condition of watershed
2. Comparison of Representative 1%-Annual-Chance Discharges
Location
Upstream of Rancho Carlsbad
Upstream of Calavera Creek
At El Camino Real
Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
16.5
17.3
23.8
Effective/FIS (cfs)
7,810
8,080
9.850
Revised (cfs)
7,338
7,338
8,247
Methodology for New Hydrotogic Analysis (check all that apply)
nstatistical Analysis of Gage Records
Lfteglonal Regression Equations
•>recipitation/Runoff Model (HEC-1 Analysis)
Ipther (please attach description) Utilized HEC-RAS analysis
Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters) and documentation to support the
new analysis.
. Review/Approval of Analysis
If your community requires a regional, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval/review.
. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology
Was sediment transport considered? DTes Bto If yes, then t» out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your
explanation for why sediment transport was not considered.
Sediment transport was not considered. Once the channel is excavated, the underlying material is composed of sand, gravel with trace sediment.
B. HYDRAULICS
Reach to be Revised
Downstream Limit
Upstream Limit
Description Cross Section
500' East of Cannon Rd Bridge C-C
200' East of Rancho Carlsbad Dr Bridge L - L
Water-Surface Elevations (fL)
Effective Proposed/Revised
35.0 35.4
61.0 60.6
Hydraulic Method/Model Used
Hydraulic analysis performed using HEC-RAS 4.0
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89A, DEC 07 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT-2 Form 2 Page 1 of 2
B. HYDRAULICS (CONTINUED)
3. Pre-Submittal Review of HvdrauBc Models
DHS-FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS, to aid in the review of HEO2 and HEC-RAS hydraulic models,respectively. These review programs may help verify that the hydraulic estimates and assumptions In the model data are In accordance with NFIPrequirements, and that the data are comparable with the assumptions and limitations of HEC-2/HEC-RAS. CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS identify
areas of potential error or concern. These tools do not replace engineering Judgment. CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS can be downloaded from
vTema.gov/olan/Dreverit/mfn/frrri softshtm. We recommend that you review your HEC-2 and HEC-RAS models with CHECK-2 and
Review of your submittal and resolution of valid modeling discrepancies may result in reduced review time.
4. Models Submitted Natural Run
Duplicate Effective Model* File Name: InitialConds.prj
Corrected Effective Model* File Name:Existing or Pre-Project Conditions Model File Name: AHIntConds.prjRevised or Post-Project Conditions Model File Name: AH_NewLOMR.prj
Other - (attach description) File Name:
Plan Name:
Plan Name:Plan Name:Plan Name:
Ran Name:
Ftoodwav Run
File Name:
File Name:File Name:
File Name:File Name:
Datum
Plan Name: NGVD 1929
Plan Name:Plan Name: NGVD 1929
Plan Name: NQ¥D_1929Plan Name:
* For details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions.
• Digital Models Submitted? (Required) Yes, digital models & CHECK-RAS have been provided.
C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS
A certified topographic map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing, and
proposed conditions 1%-annual-chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1%- and 0.2%-annual-chance
floodplalns and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of al cross sections with stationing control
Indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's
property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered in the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the
referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.).
• Digital Mapping (GIS/CADD) Data Submitted Yes, mapping data submitted.
Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFMmust tie-In with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and/or FBFM, annotated toshow the boundaries of the revised 1%- and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie-in with the boundaries of the effective
1 %- and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area of revision.
• Annotated FIRM and/or FBFM (Required) FIRM Map provided.
D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS*
1. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, do Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase?DYes • No
a. For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations:
The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot.
The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with or without BFEs established and would result in Increases above 1.00 foot.
b. For LOMR requests, does this request require property owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases? D Yes D No
If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (if available). Elements of and examples of property owner
notification can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions.
2. Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill?D Yes • No
If Yes, the community must be able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or
proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the
NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3<a)(3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(aX14). Please see the MT-2 instructions for more information.
3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised?D Yes D No
If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(bX1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is
required for requests involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1%-annual-chance floodplains
[studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being added. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision notification
can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions.)
4. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, does this request have the potential to impact an endangered species?D Yes • No
If Yes, please submit documentation to the community to show that you have complied with Sections 9 and 10 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits anyone from 'taking' or harming an endangered species. If an action might harm an endangered species,
a permit is required from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 10 of the ESA.
For actions authorized, funded, or being carried out by Federal or State agencies, please submit documentation from the agency showing its
compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
* Not inclusive of all applicable regulatory requirements. For detaSs, see 44 CFR parts 60 and 65.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89A. DEC 07 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT-2 Form 2 Page 2 of 2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY - FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
RIVERINE HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS FORM
OM.B No. 1660-0016
Expires: 12/31/2010
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 3.25 hours per response. Tlie burden estimate includes the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You
are not required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction
Project (1660-0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not
•end your completed survey to the above address.
Flooding Source: Catavera Creek
[ Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied
A. HYDROLOGY
1. Reason for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply)
D Not revised (skip to section B)
U Alternative methodology
D No existing analysis
P Proposed Conditions (CLOMR)
B Improved data
D Changed physical condition of watershed
2. Comparison of Representative 1 %-Annual-Chance Discharges
Location
Calavera Creek
Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
5.8
Effective/FIS (cfs)
756
Revised (cfs)
629
3. Methodology for New Hydrologic Analysis (check all that apply)
nstatistfcal Analysis of Gage Records
l Regression Equations
•Precipitation/Runoff Model (HEC-1 Analysis)
•Other (please attach description) Utilized HEC-RAS analysis
Please enclose all relevant models in digital format, maps, computations (including computation of parameters) and documentation to support the
new analysis.
4. Review/Approval of Analysis
If your community requires a regional, state, or federal agency to review the hydrologic analysis, please attach evidence of approval/review.
5. Impacts of Sediment Transport on Hydrology
Was sediment transport considered? Or*es Bio If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport) of Form 3. If No, then attach your
explanation for why sediment transport was not considered.
Sediment transport was not considered. Once the channel is excavated, the underlying material is composed of sand, gravel with trace sediment.
B. HYDRAULICS
1. Reach to be Revised
Downstream Limit
Upstream Limit
Description Cross Section
Confluence into Agua Hedlonda B - B
Just upstream of Don Carlos Drive Bridge K - K
Water-Surface Elevations (ft.)
Effective Proposed/Revised
45.5 43.3
62.0 59.2
2. Hydraulic Method/Modal Used
Hydraulic analysis performed using HEC-RAS 4.0
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89A, DEC 07 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT-2Form2Page1of2
B. HYDRAULICS (CONTINUED)
3. Pre-Submittal Review of Hydraulic Models
DHS-FEMA has developed two review programs, CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS, to aid in the review of HEC-2 and HEC-RAS hydrauHc models,
respectively. These review programs may help verify that the hydraulic estimates and assumptions in the model data are in accordance with NFIP
requirements, and that the data are comparable with the assumptions and (imitations of HEC-2/HEC-RAS. CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS identify
areas of potential error or concern. These tool* do not replace engineering judgment CHECK-2 and CHECK-RAS can be downloaded from
httD://www.fema.QOv/Dlan/prevent/fhm/frm sofl.shtm. We recommend that you review your HEC-2 and HEC-RAS models with CHECK-2 and
CHECK-RAS. Review of your submitted and resolution of valid modeling discrepancies may result in reduced review time.
Models Submitted
Duplicate Effective Model*
Corrected Effective Model*
Existing or Pre-Project Conditions Model
Revised or Post-Project Conditions Model
Other - (attach description)
Natural Run Floodwav Run
File Name: CCInitialConds.prj Plan Name: File Name:
File Name: Plan Name: File Name:
File Name: CCInterConds.prj Plan Name: File Name:
File Name: CC LOMRflow.prj Plan Name: File Name:
File Name: ~ Plan Name: File Name:
Datum
Plan Name: NGVD 1929
Plan Name:
Plan Name: NGVD 1929
Plan Name: NGVD 1929
Ran Name:
* For details, refer to the corresponding section of the instructions.
• Digital Models Submitted? (Required) Yes, digital models & CHECK-RAS have been provided.
C. MAPPING REQUIREMENTS
A certified topographic map must be submitted showing the following information (where applicable): the boundaries of the effective, existing, and
proposed conditions 1%-annual-chance floodplain (for approximate Zone A revisions) or the boundaries of the 1%- and 0.2%-annual-chance
floodplains and regulatory floodway (for detailed Zone AE, AO, and AH revisions); location and alignment of all cross sections with stationing control
indicated; stream, road, and other alignments (e.g., dams, levees, etc.); current community easements and boundaries; boundaries of the requester's
property; certification of a registered professional engineer registered In the subject State; location and description of reference marks; and the
referenced vertical datum (NGVD, NAVD, etc.).
•J Digital Mapping (GIS/CADD) Data Submitted Yes, mapping data submitted.
Note that the boundaries of the existing or proposed conditions floodplains and regulatory floodway to be shown on the revised FIRM and/or FBFM
must tie-In with the effective floodplain and regulatory floodway boundaries. Please attach a copy of the effective FIRM and/or FBFM. annotated to
show the boundaries of the revised 1%- and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplains and regulatory floodway that tie-in with the boundaries of the effective
1%- and 0.2%-annual-chance floodplain and regulatory floodway at the upstream and downstream limits of the area of revision.
• Annotated RRM and/or FBFM (Required) FIRM Map provided.
D. COMMON REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS*
1. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, do Base Rood Elevations (BFEs) increase?rjYes • No
For CLOMR requests, if either of the following is true, please submit evidence of compliance with Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations:
The proposed project encroaches upon a regulatory floodway and would result in increases above 0.00 foot.
The proposed project encroaches upon a SFHA with or without BFEs established and would result in increases above 1.00 foot.
For LOMR requests, does this request require property owner notification and acceptance of BFE increases? D Yes D No
If Yes, please attach proof of property owner notification and acceptance (If available). Elements of and examples of property owner
notification can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions.
Does the request involve the placement or proposed placement of fill?D Yes • No
If Yes, the community must be- able to certify that the area to be removed from the special flood hazard area, to include any structures or
proposed structures, meets all of the standards of the local floodplain ordinances, and is reasonably safe from flooding in accordance with the
NFIP regulations set forth at 44 CFR 60.3(aM3), 65.5(a)(4), and 65.6(a)(14). Please see the MT-2 instructions tor more information.
3. For LOMR requests, is the regulatory floodway being revised?D Yes D No
If Yes, attach evidence of regulatory floodway revision notification. As per Paragraph 65.7(b)(1) of the NFIP Regulations, notification is
required for requests Involving revisions to the regulatory floodway. (Not required for revisions to approximate 1%-annual-chance floodplains
[studied Zone A designation] unless a regulatory floodway is being added. Elements and examples of regulatory floodway revision notification
can be found in the MT-2 Form 2 Instructions.)
4. For LOMR/CLOMR requests, does this request have the potential to impact an endangered species?D Yes No
If Yes, please submit documentation to the community to show that you have complied with Sections 9 and 10 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits anyone from taking' or harming an endangered species. If an action might harm an endangered species,
a permit is required from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 10 of the ESA.
For actions authorized, funded, or being carried out by Federal or State agencies, please submit documentation from the agency showing its
compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
* Not inclusive of all applicable regulatory requirements. For details, see 44 CFR parts 60 and 65.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89A, DEC 07 Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form MT-2 Form 2 Page 2 of 2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY - FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1
RIVERINE STRUCTURES FORM |
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
O.M.B No. 1660-0016
Expires: 12/31/2010
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 7 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not
required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears in the upper right comer of this form. Send
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction
Project (1660-0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send
your completed survey to the above address.
1Flooding Source: Agua Hedlonda Creek
Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied
A. GENERAL
Complete the appropriate section(s) for each Structure listed below:
Channelization complete Section B
Bridge/Culvert complete Section C
Dam/Basin complete Section D
Levee/Floodwall complete Section E
Sediment Transport complete Section F (If required)
Descriotion Of Structure
1. Name of Structure: Agua Hedionda Creek Channelization
Type (check one): • Channelization D Bridge/Culvert D Levee/Floodwall
Location of Structure: Agua Hedionda Creek from Cannon Road Bridge to 2,900 feet upstream
Downstream Limit/Cross Section: D-D
Upstream Limit/Cross Section: K-K
2. Name of Structure: Ornamental Masonry Wall
Type (check one): • Channelization D Bridge/Culvert D Levee/Floodwall
Location of Structure: Northwest side of Agua Hedionda Creek, just north of the El Camino Real Bridge
Downstream Limit/Cross Section: F-F
Upstream Limit/Cross Section: Confluence with Calavera Creek (B-B)
3. Name of Structure:
Type (check one) D Channelization D Bridge/Culvert D Levee/Floodwall
Location of Structure:
Downstream Limit/Cross Section:
Upstream Limit/Cross Section:
O Dam/Basin
D Dam/Basin
G Dam/Basin
1
NOTE: For more structures, attach additional pages as needed.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 1 of 10
B. CHANNELIZATION
Flooding Source: Agua Hedionda Creek
Name of Structure: Agua Hedionda Creek Channelization
1. Accessory Structures
The channelization includes (check one):
D Levees [Attach Section E (Levee/Roodwall)]
D Superetevated sections
D Debris basin/detention basin [Attach Section D (Dam/Basin)]
P Other (Describe): Rock Slope Protection at -AH" Sta. 16+50 to 21+50
B Drop structures
_ Transitions in cross sectional geometry
D Energy dissipator
2. Drawing Checklist
Attach the plans of the channelization certified by a registered professional engineer, as described in the instructions.
3. Hydraulic Considerations
The channel was designed to cany 8,247 (cfs) and/or the 100-year flood.
The design elevation in the channel is based on (check one):
B Subcriticalflow D Critical flow Q Supercritical flow Q Energy grade line
If there Is the potential for a hydraulic jump at the following locations, check all that apply and attach an explanation of how the hydraulic jump is
controlled without affecting the stability of the channel.
D Inlet to channel D Outlet of channel D At Drop Structures Q At Transitions
B Other locations (specify): At the confluence between Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks
4. Sediment Transport Considerations
Was sediment transport considered? DYes |No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport).
If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. Vegetation plan will be employed for sediment control
C. BRIDGE/CULVERT
Flooding Source: N/A
Name of Structure:
1. This revision reflects (check one):
D Bridge/culvert not modeled in the FIS
D Modified bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS
D Revised analysis of bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS
2. Hydraulic model used to analyze the structure (e.g., HEC-2 with special bridge routine, WSPRO, HY8):
If different than hydraulic analysis for the flooding source, justify why the hydraulic analysis used for the flooding source could not analyze the
structures. Attach justification.
3. Attach plans of the structures certified by a registered professional engineer. The plan detail and information should include the following (check
the information that has been provided):
Dimensions (height, width, span, radius, length)
Shape (culverts only)
Material
Beveling or Rounding
Wing Wall Angle
Skew Angle
Distances Between Cross Sections
4. Sediment Transport Considerations
Erosion Protection
Low Chord Elevations - Upstream and Downstream
Top of Road Elevations - Upstream and Downstream
Structure Invert Elevations - Upstream and Downstream
Stream Invert Elevations - Upstream and Downstream
Cross-Section Locations
Was sediment transport considered? DYes QNo If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport).
If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 2 of 10
D. DAM/BASIN
c
Flooding Source: N/A
Name of Structure:
1. This request is for (check one): D Existing dam D New dam D Modification of existing dam
2. The dam was designed by (check one): D Federal agency Q State agency Q Local government agency D Private organization
Name of the agency or organization:
3. The Dam was permitted as (check one):
a. D Federal Dam D State Dam
Provide the permit or identification number (ID) for the dam and the appropriate permitting agency or organization
Permit or ID number Permitting Agency or Organization
b. D Local Government Dam D Private Dam
Provided related drawings, specification and supporting design information.
4. Does the project involve revised hydrology? DYes D No
If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2).
Was the dam/basin designed using critical duration storm?
D Yes, provide supporting documentation with your completed Form 2.
D No, provide a written explanation and justification for not using the critical duration storm.
5. Does the submittal Include debris/sediment yield analysis? QYes D No
If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport).
If No, then attach your explanation for why debris/sediment analysis was not considered.
6. Does the Base Rood Elevation behind the dam or downstream of the dam change?
D Yes D No If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2) and complete the table below.
Stillwater Elevation Behind the Dam
FREQUENCY (% annual chance) FIS REVISED
10-year (10%)
50-year (2%)
100-year (1%)
500-year (0.2%)
Normal Pool Elevation
7. Please attach a copy of the formal Operation and Maintenance Plan
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 3 of 10
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL
2.
Station
Station
Station
to
to
to
System Elements
a. This Levee/Floodwall analysis is based on (check one):
D upgrading of an existing levee/fioodwall system
D a newly constructed levee/floodwall system
D reanalysis of an existing levee/floodwall system
b. Levee elements and locations are (check one):
D earthen embankment, dike, berm, etc.
D structural floodwall
[H Other (describe):
c. Structural Type (check one):
monolithic cast-in place reinforced concrete
reinforced concrete masonry block
sheet piling
Other (describe):
d. Has this levee/floodwall system been certified by a Federal agency to provide protection from the base flood?
D Yes D No
If Yes, by which agency?
e. Attach certified drawings containing the following Information (indicate drawing sheet numbers):
1. Plan of the levee embankment and floodwall structures.
2. A profile of the levee/floodwall system showing the
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), levee and/or waH crest and
foundation, and closure locations for the total levee system.
3. A profile of the BFE, closure opening outlet and inlet
invert elevations, type and size of opening, and
kind of closure.
4. A layout detail for the embankment protection measures.
5. Location, layout, and size and shape of the levee
embankment features, foundation treatment floodwall
structure, closure structures, and pump stations.
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
a. The minimum freeboard provided above the BFE is:
3.0 feet or more at the downstream end and throughout
3.5 feet or more at the upstream end
4.0 feet within 100 feet upstream of all structures and/or constrictions
Coastal
1.0 foot above the height of the one percent wave associated with the 1 %-annual-chance
stillwater surge elevation or maximum wave runup (whichever is greater).
2.0 feet above the 1 %-annual-chance stillwater surge elevation
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
DYes
DYes
DNo
QNo
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 4 of 10
2. Freeboard (continued)
Please note, occasionally exceptions are made to the minimum freeboard requirement. If an exception is requested, attach documentation
addressing Paragraph 65.10(b)(1)(ii) of the NFIP Regulations.
If No is answered to any of the above, please attach an explanation.
b. Is there an indication from historical records that ice-jamming can affect the BFE? QYes DNo
If Yes, provide ice-jam analysis profile and evidence that the minimum freeboard discussed above still exists.
3. Closures
a. Openings through the levee system (check one): Q exists D does not exist
If opening exists, list all closures:
Channel Station Left or Right Bank Opening Type Highest Elevation for
Opening Invert
Type of Closure Device
(Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference)
Note: Geotechnical and geologic data
In addition to the required detailed analysis reports, data obtained during field and laboratory investigations and used in the
design analysis for the following system features should be submitted in a tabulated summary form. (Reference U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers [USAGE] EM-1110-2-1906 Form 2086.)
4. Embankment Protection
a. The maximum levee slope landside is:
b. The maximum levee slope fioodside is:
c. The range of velocities along the levee during the base flood is: (min.) to (max.)
d. Embankment material is protected by (describe what kind):
e. Riprap Design Parameters (check one): l~l Velocity |~~| Tractive stress
Attach references
Reach Sideslope Flow
Depth Velocity Curve or
Straight
Stone Riprap
D100 Thickness
Depth of
Toedown
Sta to
Sta to
Sta to
Sta to
Sta to
Sta to
(Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference each entry)
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 5 of 10
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
C
4. Embankment Protection (continued)
f. Is a bedding/filter analysis and design attached? D Yes Q No
g. Describe the analysis used for other kinds of protection used (include copies of the design analysis):
Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
5. Embankment And Foundation Stability
a. Identify locations and describe the basis for selection of critical location for analysis:
D Overall height Sta. ; height ft.
Q Limiting foundation soil strength:
Sta. , depth to
strength = degrees, c = psf
slope: SS= (h)to (v)
(Repeat as needed on an added sheet for additional locations)
b. Specify the embankment stability analysis methodology used (e.g., circular arc, sliding block, infinite slope, etc.):
c. Summary of stability analysis results:
Case
1
II
III
IV
VI
Loading Conditions
End of construction
Sudden drawdown
Critical flood stage
Steady seepage at flood stage
Earthquake (Case 1)
Critical Safety Factor Criteria (Min.)
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.0
(Reference: USAGE EM-1110-2-1913Table6-1)
d. Was a seepage analysis for the embankment performed? Q Yes D No
If Yes, describe methodology used:
e. Was a seepage analysis for the foundation performed? D Yes D No
f. Were uplift pressures at the embankment landside toe checked? DYes D No
g. Were seepage exit gradients checked for piping potential? D Yes D No
h. The duration of the base flood hydrograph against the embankment Is hours.
Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 6 of 10
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
6. Floodwall And Foundation Stability
a. Describe analysis submittal based on Code (check one):
D UBC(1988) or D Other (specify):
b. Stability analysis submitted provides for:
D Overturning D Sliding If not, explain:
c. Loading included in the analyses were:
D Lateral earth @ PA = psf; P, = psf
D Surcharge-Slope® , Q surface psf
D Wind®P. = psf
D Seepage (Uplift); D Earthquake @ P., = %g
D 1%-amual-chance significant wave height ft.
D 1 %-annual-chance significant wave period: sec.
d. Summary of Stability Analysis Results: Factors of Safety.
Itemize for each range in site layout dimension and loading condition limitation (breach respective reach.
C
Loading Condition
Criteria (Win)
Overturn Sliding
Sta
Overturn
To
Sliding
Sta
Overturn
To
Sliding
Dead & Wind 1.5 1.5
Dead & Soil 1.5 1.5
Dead. Soil, Flood. &
Impact
1.5 1.5
Dead. Soil, & Seismic 1.3 1.3
(Ret FEMA114 Sept 1986; USAGE EM 1110-2-2502)
(Note: Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference)
e. Foundation bearing strength for each soil type:
Bearing Pressure Sustained Load (psf)Short Term Load (psf)
Computed design maximum
Maximum allowable
f. Foundation scour protection D is, D is not provided. If provided, attach explanation and supporting documentation:
Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
c
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 7 of 10
C
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
7. Settlement
a. Has anticipated potential settlement been determined and incorporated into the specified construction elevations to maintain the
established freeboard margin? D Yes Q No
b. The computed range of settlement Is ft. to ft.
c. Settlement of the levee crest is determined to be primarily from :
D Foundation consolidation
D Embankment compression
D Other (Describe):
d. Differential settlement of floodwalls D has D has not been accommodated in the structural design and construction.
Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
8. Interior Drainage
a. Specify size of each interior watershed:
Draining to pressure conduit: acres
Draining to ponding area: acres
b. Relationships Established
Ponding elevation vs. storage
Ponding elevation vs. gravity flow
Differential head vs. gravity flow
c. The river flow duration curve is enclosed:
d. Specify the discharge capacity of the head pressure conduit:
e. Which flooding conditions were analyzed?
Gravity flow (Interior Watershed)
Common storm (River Watershed)
Historical ponding probability
Coastal wave overtopping
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
cfs
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
If No for any of the above, attach explanation.
f.Interior drainage has been analyzed based on joint probability of interior and exterior flooding and the capacities of pumping and outlet
facilities to provide the established level of flood protection. Q Yes D No
• If No, attach explanation.
g. The rate of seepage through the levee system for the base flood is cfs
h. The length of levee system used to drive this seepage rate in item g: ft.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 8 of 10
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
8. Interior Drainage (continued!
1. Will pumping plants be used for interior drainage? QYes D No
If Yes, include the number of pumping plants:
For each pumping plant, list:
The number of pumps
The ponding storage capacity
The maximum pumping rate
The maximum pumping head
The pumping starting elevation
The pumping stopping elevation
Is the discharge facility protected?
Is there a flood warning plan?
How much time is available between warning
and flooding?
Will the operation be automatic?
Plant #1
*
QYes
If the pumps are electric, are there backup power sources? D Yes
Plant #2
QNo
QNo
(Reference: USAGE EM-1 11 0-2-31 01, 3102, 3103, 3104, and 3105)
Include a copy of supporting documentation of data and analysis. Provide a map showing the flooded area and maximum ponding elevations for all
interior watersheds that result in flooding.
9. Other Design Criteria
a. The following items have been addressed as stated:
Liquefaction D is D is not a problem
Hydrocompaction Q is G is not a problem
Heave differential movement due to soils of high shrink/swell D Is D is not a problem
b. For each of these problems, state the basic facts and corrective action taken:
Attach supporting documentation
c. If the levee/floodwall is new or enlarged, will the structure adversely impact flood levels and/or flow velocities floodside of the structure?
D Yes D No
Attach supporting documentation
d. Sediment Transport Considerations:
Was sediment transport considered? QYes D No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport).
If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 9 of 10
c E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
10. Operational Plan And Criteria
a. Are the planned/installed works In full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations?D Yes D No
b. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for closure devices as required in Paragraph 65.10(c)(1) of the NFIP regulations?
U Yes D No
c. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for interior drainage as required in Paragraph 65.10(c)(2) of the NFIP regulations?
D Yes D No
If the answer is No to any of the above, please attach supporting documentation.
11. Maintenance Ran
a. Are the planned/installed works in full compliance with Part 65.1 Oof the NFIP Regulations? DYes Q No
If No, please attach supporting documentation.
12. Operations and Maintenance Plan
Please attach a copy of the formal Operations and Maintenance Plan for the levee/floodwall.
F. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
Flooding Source:
Name of Structure:
If there Is any indication from historical records that sediment transport (including scour and deposition) can affect the
Base Flood Elevation (BFE); and/or based on the stream morphology, vegetative cover, development of the watershed and bank conditions, there is
a potential for debris and sediment transport (including scour and deposition) to affect the BFEs, then provide the (blowing information along with the
supporting documentation:
Sediment load associated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre-feet
Debris load associated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre-feet
Sediment transport rate (percent concentration by volume)
Method used to estimate sediment transport:
Most sediment transport formulas are intended for a range of hydraulic conditions and sediment sizes; attach a detailed explanation for using the
selected method.
Method used to estimate scour and/or deposition:
Method used to revise hydraulic or hydrologlc analysis (model) to account for sediment transport:
Please note that bulked flows are used to evaluate the performance of a structure during the base flood; however, FEMA does not map BFEs based
on bulked flows.
If a sediment analysis has not been performed, an explanation as to why sediment transport (including scour and deposition) will not affect the BFEs
or structures must be provided.
C
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 10 of 10
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY - FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
RIVERINE STRUCTURES FORM
O.M.BNO. 1660-9016
Expires: 12/31/2010
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 7 hours per response. The burden estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the needed data, and completing, reviewing, and submitting the form. You are not
required to respond to this collection of information unless a valid OMB control number appears In the upper right comer of this form. Send
comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collections Management, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Washington DC 20472, Paperwork Reduction
Project (1660-0016). Submission of the form is required to obtain or retain benefits under the National Flood Insurance Program. Please do not send
your completed survey to the above address.
I Flooding Source: Calavera Creek
Note: Fill out one form for each flooding source studied
A. GENERAL
Complete the appropriate section(s) for each Structure listed below:
Channelization complete Section B
Bridge/Culvert complete Section C
Dam/Basin complete Section D
Levee/Floodwall complete Section E
Sediment Transport complete Section F (if required)
Description Of Structure
1.
C
Name of Structure: Calavera Creek Channelization
Type (check one): • Channelization D Bridge/Culvert D Levee/Floodwall D Dam/Basin
Location of Structure: Calavera Creek from the confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek to 1,100 feet upstream
Downstream Limit/Cross Section: A-A .
Upstream Limit/Cross Section: K-K
Name of Structure: Ornamental Masonry Wall
Type (check one): • Channelization D Bridge/Culvert D Levee/Floodwall D Dam/Basin
Location of Structure: Northwest side of Calavera Creek, just north of the El Camino Real Bridge
Downstream Limit/Cross Section: A-A
Upstream Limit/Cross Section: B-B
Name of Structure:
Type (check one) D Channelization
Location of Structure:
Downstream Limit/Cross Section:
Upstream Limit/Cross Section:
D Bridge/Culvert D Levee/Floodwall D Dam/Basin
NOTE: For more structures, attach additional pages as needed.
C
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 1 of 10
B. CHANNELIZATION
Flooding Source: Calavera Creek
Name of Structure: Calavera Creek Channelization
1. Accessory Structures
The channelization includes (check one):
D Levees [Attach Section E (Levee/Floodwall)]
D Superetevated sectionsSDebris basin/detention basin [Attach Section D (Dam/Basin)]
Other (Describe): Rock Slope Protection at "CC" Sta. 0+50 to 1+50
B Drop structures
Transitions in cross sectional geometry
D Energy dissipator
2. Drawing Checklist
Attach the plans of the channelization certified by a registered professional engineer, as described in the instructions.
3. Hydraulic Considerations
The channel was designed to cany 891 (cfs) and/or the 100-year flood.
The design elevation in the channel is based on (check one):
• Subcritical flow D Critical flow D Supercritical flow D Energy grade line
If there is the potential for a hydraulic jump at the following locations, check all that apply and attach an explanation of how the hydraulic jump is
controlled without affecting the stability of the channel.
S Inlet to channel Q Outlet of channel D At Drop Structures D At Transitions
Other locations (specify): At the confluence between Calavera and Agua Hedionda Creeks
4. Sediment Transport Considerations
Was sediment transport considered? DYes HNo If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport).
If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered. Vegetation plan will be employed for sediment control
C. BRIDGE/CULVERT
Flooding Source: N/A
Name of Structure:
1. This revision reflects (check one):
D Bridge/culvert not modeled in the FIS
D Modified bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS
D Revised analysis of bridge/culvert previously modeled in the FIS
2. Hydraulic model used to analyze the structure (e.g., HEC-2 with special bridge routine, WSPRO, HY8):
If different than hydraulic analysis for the flooding source, justify why the hydraulic analysis used for the flooding source could not analyze the
structures. Attach justification.
3. Attach plans of the structures certified by a registered professional engineer. The plan detail and information should include the following (check
the information that has been provided):
Dimensions (height, width, span, radius, length)
Shape (culverts only)
Material
Beveling or Rounding
Wing Wall Angle
Skew Angle
Distances Between Cross Sections
4. Sediment Transport Considerations
D Erosion Protection
D Low Chord Elevations - Upstream and Downstream
D Top of Road Elevations - Upstream and Downstream
D Structure Invert Elevations - Upstream and Downstream
D Stream Invert Elevations - Upstream and Downstream
D Cross-Section Locations
Was sediment transport considered? DYes DNo If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport).
If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 2 of 10
D. DAM/BASIN
c
Flooding Source: N/A
Name of Structure:
1. This request Is for (check one): D Existing dam D New dam D Modification of existing dam
2. The dam was designed by (check one): D Federal agency D State agency D Local government agency D Private organization
Name of the agency or organization:
3. The Dam was permitted as (check one):
a. D Federal Dam D State Darn
Provide the permit or identification number (ID) for the dam and the appropriate permitting agency or organization
Permit or ID number Permitting Agency or Organization
b. D Local Government Dam D Private Dam
Provided related drawings, specification and supporting design information.
4. Does the project involve revised hydrology? DVes D No
If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2).
Was the dam/basin designed using critical duration storm?
D Yes, provide supporting documentation with your completed Form 2.
D No, provide a written explanation and justification for not using the critical duration storm.
5. Does the submittal include debris/sediment yield analysis? DYes D No
If yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport).
If No, then attach your explanation for why debris/sediment analysis was not considered.
6. Does the Base Rood Elevation behind the dam or downstream of the dam change?
D Yes D No If Yes, complete the Riverine Hydrology & Hydraulics Form (Form 2) and complete the table below.
Stillwater Elevation Behind the Dam
FREQUENCY (% annual chance) FIS REVISED
10-year (10%)
50-year (2%)
100-year (1%)
500-year (0.2%)
Normal Pool Elevation
7. Please attach a copy of the formal Operation and Maintenance Plan
c
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 3 of 10
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL
Station
Station
Station
to
to
to
System Elements
a. This Levee/Floodwall analysis is based on (check one):
D upgrading of an existing levee/floodwall system
D a newly constructed levee/floodwall system
D reanalyste of an existing levee/floodwall system
b. Levee elements and locations are (check one):
D earthen embankment, dike, berm, etc.
D structural floodwall
D Other (describe):
c. Structural Type (check one):
monolithic cast-in place reinforced concrete
reinforced concrete masonry block
sheet piling
3 Other (describe):
d. Has this levee/floodwall system been certified by a Federal agency to provide protection from the base flood?
D Yes D No
If Yes, by which agency?
e. Attach certified drawings containing the following information (indicate drawing sheet numbers):
1. Plan of the levee embankment and floodwall structures.
2. A profile of the levee/floodwall system showing the
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), levee and/or wall crest and
foundation, and closure locations for the total levee system.
3. A profile of the BFE, closure opening outlet and inlet
invert elevations, type and size of opening, and
kind of closure.
4. A layout detail for the embankment protection measures.
5. Location, layout, and size and shape of the levee
embankment features, foundation treatment, floodwall
structure, closure structures, and pump stations.
Freeboard
a. The minimum freeboard provided above the BFE is:
Riverine
3.0 feet or more at the downstream end and throughout
3.5 feet or more at the upstream end
4.0 feet within 100 feet upstream of all structures and/or constrictions
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
Sheet Numbers:
DYes
Yes
Yes
QNo
No
No
1.0 foot above the height of the one percent wave associated with the 1 %-annual-chance
stillwater surge elevation or maximum wave runup (whichever is greater).
2.0 feet above the 1 %-annual-chance stillwater surge elevation
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 4 of 10
2. Freeboard (continued)
Please note, occasionally exceptions are made to the minimum freeboard requirement. If an exception is requested, attach documentation
addressing Paragraph 65.10(b)(1)(ii) of the NFIP Regulations.
If No is answered to any of the above, please attach an explanation.
b. Is there an indication from historical records that ice-jamming can affect the BFE? DYes QNo
If Yes, provide ice-jam analysis profile and evidence that the minimum freeboard discussed above still exists.
3. Closures
a. Openings through the levee system (check one): O exists Q does not exist
If opening exists, list all closures:
Channel Station Left or Right Bank Opening Type Highest Elevation for
Opening Invert
Type of Closure Device
(Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference)
Note: Geotechnical and geologic data
In addition to the required detailed analysis reports, data obtained during field and laboratory investigations and used in the
design analysis for the following system features should be submitted in a tabulated summary form. (Reference U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers [USACE] EM-1110-2-1906 Form 2086.)
4. Embankment Protection
a. The maximum levee slope landside is:
b. The maximum levee slope floodside is:
c. The range of velocities along the levee during the base flood is:
d. Embankment material is protected by (describe what kind):
e. Riprap Design Parameters (check one): [H Velocity
Attach references
(min.) to (max.)
D Tractive stress
Reach Sideslope Flow
Depth Velocity Curve or
Straight
Stone Riprap
DIOO DSO Thickness
Depth of
Toedown
Sta to
Sta to
Sta to
Sta to
Sta to
Sta to
(Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference each entry)
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 5 of 10
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
4. Embankment Protection (continued^
f. Is a bedding/filter analysis and design attached? D Yes Q No
g. Describe the analysis used for other kinds of protection used (Include copies of the design analysis):
Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
Embankment And Foundation Stability
a. Identify locations and describe the basis for selection of critical location for analysis:
D Overall height Sta. ; height ft.
D Limiting foundation soil strength:
Sta. , depth to
strength = degrees, c = psf
slope: SS= (h)to (v)
(Repeat as needed on an added sheet for additional locations)
b. Specify the embankment stability analysis methodology used (e.g., circular arc, sliding block, infinite slope, etc.):
c. Summary of stability analysis results:
Case
1
II
III
IV
VI
Loading Conditions
End of construction
Sudden drawdown
Critical flood stage
Steady seepage at flood stage
Earthquake (Case 1)
Critical Safety Factor Criteria (Win.)
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.0
(Reference: USAGE EM-1110-2-1913 Table 6-1)
d. Was a seepage analysis for the embankment performed? D Yes D No
If Yes, describe methodology used:
e. Was a seepage analysis for the foundation performed? DYes QNo
f. Were uplift pressures at the embankment landside toe checked? LI Yes G No
g. Were seepage exit gradients checked for piping potential? DYes
h. The duration of the base flood hydrograph against the embankment Is hours.
Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
C
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 6 of 10
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
6. Floodwall And Foundation Stability
a. Describe analysis submittal based on Code (check one):
D UBC(198B) or D Other (specify):
b. Stability analysis submitted provides for
Q Overturning D Sliding If not, explain:
c. Loading included in the analyses were:
Q Lateral earth @ PA = psf; Pp = psf
D Surcharge-Slope @ . D surface psf
D Wind @ Pw = psf
D Seepage (Uplift); D Earthquake @ P., = %g
D 1%-annual-chance significant wave height: ft.
D 1 %-annual-chance significant wave period: sec.
d. Summary of Stability Analysis Results: Factors of Safety.
Itemize for each range in site layout dimension and loading condition limitation for each respective reach.
Loading Condition Criteria (Win)
Overturn Sliding
Sta
Overturn
To
Sliding
Sta
Overturn
To
Sliding
Dead & Wind 1.5 1.5
Dead & Soil 1.5 1.5
Dead. Soil, Flood, &
Impact
1.5 1.5
Dead, Soil, & Seismic 1.3 1.3
(Ret FEMA114 Sept 1986; USAGE EM 1110-2-2502)
(Note: Extend table on an added sheet as needed and reference)
Foundation bearing strength for each soil type:
Bearing Pressure Sustained Load (psf)Short Term Load (psf)
Computed design maximum
Maximum allowable
f. Foundation scour protection Q is, D is not provided. If provided, attach explanation and supporting documentation:
Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 7 of 10
C
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
7. Settlement
a. Has anticipated potential settlement been determined and incorporated into the specified construction elevations to maintain the
established freeboard margin? Q Yes D No
b. The computed range of settlement is ft. to ft.
c. Settlement of the levee crest is determined to be primarily from :
O Foundation consolidation
fj Embankment compression
Q Other (Describe):
d. Differential settlement of floodwalls D has D has not been accommodated in the structural design and construction.
Attach engineering analysis to support construction plans.
Interior Drainage8.
a. Specify size of each interior watershed:
Draining to pressure conduit: acres
Draining to ponding area: acres
b. Relationships Established
Ponding elevation vs. storage
Ponding elevation vs. gravity flow
Differential head vs. gravity flow
c. The river flow duration curve is enclosed:
d. Specify the discharge capacity of the head pressure conduit:
e. Which flooding conditions were analyzed?
Gravity flow (Interior Watershed)
Common storm (River Watershed)
Historical ponding probability
Coastal wave overtopping
B Yes D No
Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
cfs
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
If No for any of the above, attach explanation.
f.Interior drainage has been analyzed based on joint probability of interior and exterior flooding and the capacities of pumping and outlet
facilities to provide the established level of flood protection. D Yes D No
If No, attach explanation.
g. The rate of seepage through the levee system for the base flood is cfs
h. The length of levee system used to drive this seepage rate in Hem g: ft.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2 Form 3 Page 8 of 10
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
8. Interior Drainage (continued!
i. Will pumping plants be used for interior drainage? Q Yes D No
If Yes, include the number of pumping plants:
For each pumping plant list:
The number of pumps
The ponding storage capacity
The maximum pumping rate
The maximum pumping head
The pumping starting elevation
The pumping stopping elevation
Is the discharge facility protected?
Is there a flood warning plan?
How much time is available between warning
and flooding?
Will the operation be automatic?
Plant #1
DYes
If the pumps are electric, are there backup power sources? D Yes
Plant #2
DNo
QNo
(Reference: USAGE EM-1 11 0-2-31 01, 3102, 3103,3104, and 3105)
Include a copy of supporting documentation of data and analysis. Provide a map showing the flooded area and maximum ponding elevations for all
interior watersheds that result in flooding.
9. Other Design Criteria
a. The following items have been addressed as stated:
Liquefaction Qis Q is not a problem
Hydrocompaction D is D is not a problem
Heave differential movement due to soils of high shrink/swell D Is D is not a problem
b. For each of these problems, state the basic facts and corrective action taken:
Attach supporting documentation
c. If the levee/Doodwall is new or enlarged, will the structure adversely impact flood levels and/or flow velocities floodside of the structure?
QYes QNo
Attach supporting documentation
d. Sediment Transport Considerations:
Was sediment transport considered? DYes D No If Yes, then fill out Section F (Sediment Transport).
If No, then attach your explanation for why sediment transport was not considered.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 9 of 10
C
E. LEVEE/FLOODWALL (CONTINUED)
10. Operational Plan And Criteria
a. Are the planned/installed works In full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations?D Yes D No
11.
b. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for closure devices as required in Paragraph 65.10(cX1) of the NFIP regulations?
[3 Yes QNo
c. Does the operation plan incorporate all the provisions for interior drainage as required in Paragraph 65.10(c)(2) of the NFIP regulations?
DYes DNo
If the answer is No to any of the above, please attach supporting documentation.
Maintenance Plan
a. Are the planned/installed works in full compliance with Part 65.10 of the NFIP Regulations?
If No, please attach supporting documentation.
12. Operations and Maintenance Plan
Please attach a copy of the formal Operations and Maintenance Plan for the levee/floodwall.
QYes
F. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
Flooding Source:
Name of Structure:
If there is any Indication from historical records that sediment transport (Including scour and deposition) can affect the
Base Flood Elevation (BFE); and/or based on the stream morphology, vegetative cover, development of the watershed and bank conditions, there is
a potential for debris and sediment transport (including scour and deposition) to affect the BFEs, then provide the following information along with the
supporting documentation:
Sediment load associated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre-feet
Debris toad associated with the base flood discharge: Volume acre-feet
Sediment transport rate (percent concentration by volume)
Method used to estimate sediment transport:
Most sediment transport formulas are intended for a range of hydraulic conditions and sediment sizes; attach a detailed explanation for using the
selected method.
Method used to estimate scour and/or deposition:
Method used to revise hydraulic or hydrotogic analysis (model) to account for sediment transport:
Please note that bulked flows are used to evaluate the performance of a structure during the base flood; however, FEMA does not map BFEs based
on bulked flows.
If a sediment analysis has not been performed, an explanation as to why sediment transport (including scour and deposition) will not affect the BFEs
or structures must be provided.
DHS - FEMA Form 81-89B, DEC 07 Riverine Structures Form MT-2Form3 Page 10 of 10
c
APPENDIX B
HEC-RAS Hydraulic Simulation
B
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deliverables\FEMA Resubmittai\01-CLOMR Report Files'CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09) doc
HEC-RAS Plan: RevLOMR River: Aqua Hedionda Reach: 1 Profile: PF 1
Reach
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
t
t
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
* U '1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
•t
1
1
t
1
1
t
1
t
1
»
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WwrStt
4650.361
4800.691
4MW06
4SB5.W -
«*^W.4S74.896
4W, .
4480.664
4416.27
4374.902 .
4349.904
4299.908
4249.908
4189.038
*<ftf!9
««MI*,'-.
4«3L-:' v.«$» •**ir' -
40B1
4078<ow» • .
407S ' .
4005.91 '
4002.91 .
4002.81
3999.91
395S.911
3M2.911
39S2.811 ',
3949.911
3948
3«(MW .
3846.401
«RJ*| -'
3749.916 '
3731.052
3699,917
3874,918
3824*2 .
3574.923
3524.925
3474.927
3430.428
3399.93
3299.93
3199.93 "
3099.93
2999.93
2899.164
2799.93
2699.93
2599.93
2499.93
S389.8M
2349.933
2299.935
2249.938
2199.94,
2149.942
2099.9S
2098.945
2049.96
2049.947
1999.95
1999.949
1949.952
1839.954
1876.78
1876.68
ProSe
KM
Vf'i .
ff.i
riM»*i
f*t
PF1
t*1 '
f f,t
**M .«?'t
1*1
1*1
>f"1
IHM
PF.1
iff1 .i*i .:
*Hpi
|*i ..
(i*4
1*1f*ts*.'i
Wf
<«N
f*-1Si. .I*'*'-
PF1 '
ffi
W-1
i*f '|ri -
if-1 •it*i . •
l*t
«M
1*1
«M
PF1
PF1
pri
wt •
**1I* it.
1*1
PF1
1*1
PF1
PFi
1*1
PFt
PFt
PP1
PF1
W=1
PF1
?F1
Wl
«=1
PP1
f*»
W1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PM
E.S. Bev
W
63.21
63.09
62.94
61.47
60.98
60.18
60.02
Culvert
58.45
57.85
57.73
57.63
57.39
57.17
56.97
Bridge
55.54
55.48
55.09
55.00
52.58
52.51
51.63
51.56
50.25
50.20
49.84
49.83
49.66
49.66
49.54
W.S.EI8V
»
62.78
62.45
61.96
60.59
59.90
60.00
58.68
55.76
56.38
56.19
55.86
55.89
55.15
55.42
52.80
52.23
52.38
51.67
49.91
49.28
48.80
48.11
47.61
47.10
47.93
47.91
47.85
47.82
48.10
49.54, 48.10
49.53
49.38
49.20
48.98
48.84
48.76
48.63
48.58
48.43
48.32
48.22
48.09
47.99
47.92
48.12
47.82
47.41
47.30
47.03
47.03
47.10
47.06
47.10
46.79
46.68
46.42
46.32
46.25
47.69 46.06
47.47
47.23
47.01
46.79
46.54
46.29
45.80
45.69
45.31
45.10
44.99
44.90
46.08 44.52
45.86
45.61
45.48
45.33
45.18
45.01
44.83
44.65
44.65
44.42
44.42
43.86
43.85
44.20
43.74
43.66
43.34
43.03
42.94
42.51
42.39
42.39
42.42
42.42
43.46
43.32
43.79 43.29
43.74
43.72
43.72
43.28
43.22
43.22
Vet Head
W
0.42
0.64
0.97
0.89
1.08
0.18
1.33
2.70
1.46
1.54
1.78
1.50
2.02
1.56
2.74
3.25
2.71
3.33
2.67
3.23
2.83
3.45
2.64
3.09
1.91
1.92
1.81
1.84
1.44
1.44
1.41
1.56
1.79
1.67
1.81
1.73
1.53
1.51
1.33
1.53
1.54
1.67
1.67
1.67
1.64
1.67
1.54
1.70
1.69
1.55
1.39
1.56
1.66
1.87
1.81
1.99
2.14
2.07
2.32
2.26
2.26
2.00
2.00
0.40
0.53
0.50
0.47
0.50
0.50
FretnLoss
«
0.10
0.11
0.23
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.23
0.10
0.07
0.16
0.16
0.06
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.31
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.38
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.15
0.19
0.13
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.07
0.22
0.22
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.23
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
CSELoss
M
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.27
0.12
0.37
0.01
0.02
0.08
0.05
0.14
0.18
0.05
0.16
0.06
0.20
0.06
0.12
0.06
0.24
0.05
0.35
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.05
QLsft
***.'-..
2558.25
2475.62
2786.44
3152.87
2793.21
4404.33
103.92
0.06
0.03
0.00
0.02 0.13
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.27
. 0.47
0.28
0.29
0.13
0.02' 0.16
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.01
0.48
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.06
1.57
4.77
0.66
0.00 0.66
Q Channel
«*S
3544.44
3889.66
4300.29
4030.22
4454.35
2762.12
7106.53
7338.00
7337.94
7337.97
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7338.00
7332.37
7332.55
7331.40
7331.40
7329.99
7338.00
7337.97
7334.77
7337.60
7336.13
7333.67
7336.89
7337.71
7337.41
7337.65
7337.60
7337.84
7337.93
7337.95
7337.84
7334.60
7334.47
7335.53
7338.00
7337.87
7337.73
7337.53
7337.72
7337.71
7337.87
7337.84
7338.00
7338.00
7337.97
7337.97
7337.85
7337.85
4652.80
5262.74
7054.98
7155.82
7610.10
7610.11
Q Rightm
1235.31
972.72
251.27
154.91
90.44
171.55
127.54
Top Width
W
1098.39
1120.56
887.66
854.64
667.57
1075.74
186.48
80.86
96.23
91.47
93.64
101.97
128.30
257.18
134.83
94.44
105.04
75.19
82.56
78.92
76.12
72.17
86.27
83.46
88.03
87.95
5.63, 109.75
5.45 109.36
6.60 ! 112.66
6.60 112.66
8.01
0.03
3.23
112.90
85.97
90.83
161.17
0.41! 131.00
1.87 202.54
4.33 216.86
1.11
0.29
0.59
0.35
0.40
0.16
0.07
0.05
0.16
3.40
3.53
2.47
186.84
151.99
138.94
128.90
129.91
123.44
124.29
123.52
120.51
191.41
161.41
166.93
0.00 124.26
137.61
0.00 131.87
135.85
158.58
228.23
225.50
220.36
225.11
0.03
0.03
0.16
0.16
2685.10
2984.20
1190.45
1086.41
636.24
636.24
227.29
248.50
248.50
239.57
239.57
355.77
345.59
329.46
272.01
513.38
513.37
HEC-RAS Plan: RevlOMR River: Aqua Hedionda Reach: 1 Profile: PF 1 (Continued)
Reach
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•t
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
t
1
•1
1
1
RivwSta
1870,78
1870.88 ..
1867.78 .
«ffJ».Vjwihjfc '
*«*:£fnf&Hf? ,
«WW '. •«w*9w ...wit**;«P"W..,,,
1S8WW
1589.522
****»" '146|*» '.-
1351.03 ', '
1275.886
1238.54
1200.003
1142.497
1024.058
WtijWK •
928.4948
874.9925 •
824^947 .
magi*' '
724.9996
700.
Profile
Wt
PF1
l¥1
1*1iriffi
*H«M' 'i*'i' •
«F.1
WH
«F1
Wt
Wl
pri
i*t
(ip-t
PF.1
W1
«F1
PF1
PFt
W1
«P1
Wt
Wlprt
E.6.B9V
M
43.72
43.70
43.70
43.68
43.68
43.67
43.66
43.64
43.60
43.54
43.50
43.48
43.42
Bridge
43.11
42.99
42.91
42.82
42.77
Bridge
42.31
39.02
38.03
37.28
36.73
36.28
35.99
35.64
35.29
W.S.BBV
«
43.22
43.26
43.25
43.30
43.29
43.28
43.28
43.25
43.11
42.83
42.71
42.65
42.65
42.31
42.33
42.31
42.15
41.96
40.69
38.35
37.51
36.96
36.45
36.09
35.86
35.41
35.00
Vet Head
<*>0.50
0.45
0.45
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.38
0.39
0.49
0.70
0.79
0.83
0.77
0.79
0.66
0.60
0.67
0.81
1.62
0.67
0.51
0.32
0.28
0.19
0.13
0.23
0.29
Froln LOSS
«.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.04
0.00
3.01
0.95
0.69
0.54
0.42
0.28
0.34
0.35
C&EUM*m
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.28
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
Qua
«*J
0.63
0.88
0.87
1.41
1.38
1.19
0.53
0.14
0.04
0.26
Q Channel
<eW
7610.51
7665.27
7665.43
7610.48
7610.89
7613.01
7710.39
7354.86
7713.41
7988.25
8247.00
8247.00
8246.99
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
8247.00
Q Right
{<*»
635.86
580.86
580.71
635.10
634.73
632.80
536.07
891.99
533.56
258.50
0.01
TopWHtth
W
512.38
518.37
517.85
523.82
522.57
518.77
486.92
533.16
1027.26
1031.53
988.51
953.87
772.60
138.61
794.52
666.86
147.90
142.38
123.15
370.91
416.94
484.28
567.36
691.95
794.12
818.52
819.01
30
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
Aqua Hedionda 1 —>l
1000 2000 3000
Main Channel Distance (ft)
4000
Legend
EG PF1
WS PF 1
Crit^PF 1
•
Ground
5000
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
Legend
Ground
iiwff
Bank Sta
£
c.2
.035
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4850.351
—J-.04-4C .035
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4800.691
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4749.705
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Station (ft)
Legend
EGPF 1
1400
Legend
EGPF 1
1400
Legend
EGPF 1
1400
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4665.751
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600 800
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS= 4631.179
.03-
1000
-.035-
200 400 800600
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4574.898
- .035 »«- .03 -» < .035 -
1000
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Station (ft)
Legend
EGPF1
1200
Legend
EGPF1
1200
Legend
EGPF1
1400
g»
LLJ
65-
60-
55J
50-
45 ^
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4527.
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4506.998 Culv Culvert
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4506.998 Culv Culvert
-.04--.03 >-.04-
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Legend
EGPF1
1000
1000
1000
._§"S1
1tu
65
60-
55:
50
45
65:
60
55,
50:
45:
40
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4480.664
.04 .03 >-.04 —
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4416.27
400 600 800
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4374.902
-.03-
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
1000
1000
1000
70
65
60 •-
55:
50
45
40
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4349.904
.03
Legend
EGPF1
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4299.906
.03 *« .2-
800 1000
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4249.908
800 1000
Legend
EGPF 1
Ineff
Bank Sta
200 400 600 800 1000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4199.036
200 400 600
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4191.972 BR Lower Aqua Bridge
-.013-
800
200 400 600
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4191.972 BR Lower Aqua Bridge
800
200 400 600 800
Legend
EGPF 1
1000
Legend
EGPF 1
1000
Legend
EGPF 1
1000
Station (ft)
ILU
58-
56-
54-
52
50-
48-
46
44-
42—
55
50-
45-t
401
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS= 4159.973
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4153
< .025 x
800
100 200 300
Agua Hediona Resub
400 . 500
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4152.9
600 700
100 200 300 400
Station (ft)
500 700
Legend
EGPF 1
1000
Legend
EGPF1
800
Legend
EGPF1
800
£m
60
55
50
45
40
60:
58-
56-
* 54-
I So'"
& 48
m 46:
44
42
40
60-
58*
56-
54-
52J
H
48^
46^
44^42H
40 —
100
100
100
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4147
200 300 400
Station (ft)
500 600 700
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4081
-.025-
200 300
Agua Hediona Resub
400 500
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
600 700
RS = 4078
-.025-
200 300 400
Station (ft)
500 600 700
Legend
EGPF1
800
Legend
EGPF1
800
Legend
EGPF1
800
I
ffi
60
55
50
45
40
35
0
60-
55:
50:
45:
40J
35 -*
60:
55:
50:
45:
40:
35
0
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4077.9
.025
100 200 300 400
Station (ft)
500 600 700
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4075
-.03-
100 200 300 500400
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4005.91
.025 x .2
600 700
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Legend
EGPF 1
Ground
Bank Sta
800
Legend
EGPF1
800
Legend
EGPF 1
1000
£
•I
§
1
60-
m
55
50
45
40
35
60-
y-
55:
50:
45:
40:
35
0
60:
55:
501
45:
40:
35+-
0
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4002.91
.025
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 4002.81
800
- .2-.025--.2-
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3999.91
800
-.03--.2-
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
10
Legend
EGPF 1
1000
1000
1000
60
55
50
45
40
35
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3955.911
.025
Legend
EGPF1
WSPF 1
60-
55-
50:
45-
40
35
60
55
50
40
35
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3952.911
- .025 >h .2
800
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3952.811
- .025 >k .2
800
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
11
1000
Legend
EGPF 1
1000
Legend
EGPF1
WSPF1
1000
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3949.911
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3948
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3899.914
800
200 400 600
Station (ft)
12
1000
1000
1000
60
55
50
45:
40
35
30--
0
601
55 j
50-
45!
40:
35;
30:-
60
55:
50:
45:
40;
35-
304-0
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3848.401
.03 *t< -.2-
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3789.182
.03 4« .2 -
800
200 400 600
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3749.916
800
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
13
Legend
EGPF1
WSPF 1
1000
1000
1000
80;
70;
60;
50-"
40;
30:-
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3731.052 Upstream end of lateral weir
500 1000 1500 2000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3699.917
500 1000 1500 2000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3674.918
-»*-.025-»
500 1000
Station (ft)
14
1500
Legend
EGPF 1
2500
2500
2000
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3624.92
500 1000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3574.923
.025 -*|« .2 -
1500
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3524.925
1000
Station (ft)
15
1500
Legend
EGPF 1
2000
Legend
EGPF1
2000
2000
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3474.927
500
Agua Hediona Resub
1000
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3430.428
1500
500
Agua Hediona Resub
1000
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3399.93
.2
1500
1000
Station (ft)
16
1500
Legend
EGPF1
2000
Legend
EGPF 1
2000
Legend
EGPF 1
2000
*LU
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3299.93
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3199.93
500 1000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 3099.93
.2
1500
Y
500 1000 1500 2000
Station (ft)
17
Legend
EGPF1
2000
Legend
EGPF 1
2000
Legend
EGPF1
2500
mUJ
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2999.93
Y
500 1000 1500
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2899.164
-.2-
2000
500 1000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2799.93
-.2-
1500
Legend
EGPF1
2500
2000
2000
18
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2699.93
1000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2599.93
x- .025 ->~< .2
1500
200 400 600 1200800 1000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2499.93
.2
1400 1600
2000
1800
500 1000
Station (ft)
19
1500 2000
70
65-
60-
55
45
40
35
30
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2399.931
Legend
c PF 1
80:
70-
50
80:
70
60
50
40
30
200 400 600 1200
200
800 1000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2349.933
- .025 ->< .2
1400 1600
400 600 1000800
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2299.935
•H<- .025 ->* .2
1200 1400
1800
Legend
EGPF1
1600
Legend
EGPF1
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
20
1000 1200 1400 1600
§I
a>HI
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2249.938 Downstream end of lateral weir
Legend
EGPF 1
200 400 600 1000
70-
65
60-
55-
50
45J
40-
35
30
800
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2199.94
-»k- .025 -x .2
1200 1400 1600
Legend
EGPF 1
200 400 600 1000
70-
65-
60-
55-
50-
45*
40
35
30
800
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS=2149.942
>«-. 025—5* .2-
1200 1400 1600
Legend
EGPF 1
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Station (ft)
21
80
70
60
50:
)
40 j
30
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 1 0/1 6/2009
RS = 2099.95
.025
80
70:
60:
50
40
30
80-
70
50
40
30
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600 800
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2099.945
1000
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2049.95
1000
- .025 -.04-
1200
1200
200 400 600
Station (ft)
22
800 1000 1200
£.
cP
80
70
60
50:
40-
30+-
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 2049.947
.025-.04
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600 800
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1999.95
-.03-
1000
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600 800
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1999.949
-.03-
1000
1200
Legend
EGPF 1
1200
1200
23
70
65
60
55-
50-
45J1
40-
35
30--
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1949.952
200 400 600 800 1000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1899.954 Junction with CC
200 400 600 800 1000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1876.78 Road on right bank
.04
1200
1200
500 1000 1500 2000
Station (ft)
24
Legend
EGPF 1
1400
1400
Legend
EGPF1
2500
.975s
«u
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1876.68 Road on right bank
500 1000 1500
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1870.78 Road on right bank
-.04
2000
1500 2000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1870.68 Road on right bank
500 1000 1500 2000
Station (ft)
25
Legend
EGPF 1
2500
Legend
EGPF1
2500
Legend
EGPF 1
2500
iED
a
HI
80
70-
60
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1867.78 Road on right bank
500 1000 1500
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1867.68 Road on right bank
-.04
2000
500
-.04--.03-
1000 1500
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1861.78 Road on right bank
.04
2000
500 1000 1500 2000
Station (ft)
26
Legend
EGPF1
2500
Legend
EGPF1
2500
Legend
EGPF1
2500
E
§
AHI
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1849.957 Road on right bank
.04
500 1000 1500
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS=1819.12 Road on right bank
-.04
2000
1500
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1774.959
2000
1500 2000
Station (ft)
27
2500
Legend
EGPF1
2500
Legend
EGPF1
2500
80
70
60:
40^
30
70-
65
60
55
50-
45 <
40-
35
30
0
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1724.961
500
Agua Hediona Resub
1000
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1674.963
1500
-.04-
500
Agua Hediona Resub
1000
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1649.964
1500
.04-
500 1000
Station (ft)
28
1500
Legend
EGPF1
2000
2000
2000
.9
03i
70
65
60
55
50
45^
40
35
30 -
80:
70:
60:
50:
40:
30:-
80:
70:
:60;
50:
40-
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS= 1638.348
-.04-.03 .04
-.04-
500 1000
Station (tt)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows
RS= 1599.81
-x— 025 x
1500
10/16/2009
.04
1000
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows
RS = 1569.522 BR El Camino Road
1500
-.04-- .025 -
10/16/2009
.04
500 1000
Station (ft)
29
1500
Legend
EGPF1
2000
Legend
2000
Legend
EGPF1
2000
oI
48
46
44
42-
40
38
36
34
32
30
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1569.522 BR El Camino Road
.025
200 400 800600
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1488.443 Downstream El Camino Real Bridge
1000
200 400 800600
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1408.665
-.1— >(< .03-
1000
Legend
EGPF1
1200
Legend
EGPF 1
1200
Legend
EGPF 1
1200
30
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1351.03
200 400 800600
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1275.886
.03 —
1000
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1238.54
Legend
EGPF 1
1200
Legend
EGPF1
1000
Legend
EGPF1
600
31
iCD
48-
46-
44-
42-
40-
38-
36-
34
32
30
46 •--
44
42
40-
38
36
34-
32 -
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1200.003 BR Cannon Road
- .025 -.04
100
-.045
200
Agua Hediona Resub
RS = 1200.003 BR Cannon Road
300
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows
400
10/16/2009
500
100 200 400
-.045-
300
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1142.497 Downstream Cannon Road Bridge
.08 4* .045 -
500
100 200
Legend
EGPF1
600
Legend
EGPF 1
600
32
I111
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 1024.058
.08
100 200 400300
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 979.6722
-.08-
500
Agua Hediona Resub
400 500
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 928.4945
600
100 200 300 400 500 600
Station (ft)
33
600
700
700
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows
RS = 874.9925
10/16/2009
200
Agua Hediona Resub
400
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows
RS = 824.9947
600
10/16/2009
200 400
Agua Hediona Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Rev LOMR flows
RS = 774.9974
800
10/16/2009
800
1000
1200
34
§
1a
65
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 724.9996
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Agua Hediona Resub Plan: Rev LOMR flows 10/16/2009
RS = 700.
600 800
Station (ft)
1000
1000
35
This Page intentionally left blank
HEC-RAS Plan: CC Final River: Calavera Creek Reach: 1 Profile: PF 1
Reach
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
[1
1
Ll .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
River Sta
3526.202
3497.842
3440.587
3397.854
3347.869
3307.21 1
3300.001
3297.001
3293.911
3197.880
3097.880
2997.880
2897.880
2797.880
2697.880
2597.880
2497.880
2397.880
2297.880
2248.880
2243.880
2197.880
2100.000
2097.000
2000.000
1997.000
1992.930
1897.880
1880.880
1877.880
1797.432
1793.932
1747.886
1697.906
1647.922
1597.931
1547.946
1497.966
1447.987
1398.007
1348.021
1298.037
1248.033
1148.026
1048.018
948.0112
864.6447
823.6991
774.3492
724.7677
675.4707
649.9057
549.9057
1500.9156
496.8356
449.9057
Profile
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF 1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
PF1
E.G. Elev
(ft)
60.50
59.82
59.44
58.53
58.22
57.84
57.17
57.13
57.11
56.88
56.76
56.62
56.35
55.95
55.49
55.16
54.79
54.30
53.83
53.50
53.35
52.81
50.79
50.52
50.05
50.02
50.01
49.73
49.69
49.68
49.53
49.52
49.39
49.21
48.99
48.73
48.52
48.34
48.21
48.01
47.78
47.49
47.34
46.97
46.60
46.24
45.61
45.14
44.86
44.78
44.65
44.58
44.31
44.27
44.22
44.05
W.S. Elev
(ft)
59.22
59.49
57.99
57.92
57.55
56.77
56.63
56.67
56.68
56.66
56.55
56.35
55.76
55.15
54.90
54.57
54.11
53.46
53.42
51.97
52.14
51.08
49.15
49.69
49.50
49.53
49.46
49.33
49.26
49.28
49.13
49.12
48.80
48.48
48.18
48.05
47.92
47.82
47.70
47.20
46.89
47.02
46.77
46.26
46.11
45.42
44.28
44.30
44.54
44.45
44.17
44.08
44.22
44.18
43.70
43.32
Vel Head
(ft)
1.28
0.33
1.46
0.61
0.67
1.06
0.54
0.47
0.42
0.22
0.21
0.28
0.60
0.80
0.59
O.S9
0.68
0.84
0.41
1.52
1.22
1.73
1.63
0.83
0.55
0.50
0.55
0.40
0.43
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.59
0.72
0.81
0.68
0.61
0.53
0.50
0.81
0.88
0.47
0.57
0.71
0.49
0.81
1.33
0.84
0.32
0.33
0.48
0.51
0.09
0.09
0.52
0.73
Frctn Loss
TO
0.13
0.26
0.37
0.30
0.35
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.17
0.11
0.13
0.24
0.39
0.39
0.32
0.36
0.48
0.34
0.22
0.05
0.50
1.33
0.02
0.39
0.01
0.01
0.23
0.03
0.01
0.15
0.01
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.22
0.19
0.16
0.13
0.16
0.23
0.16
0.14
0.37
0.30
0.33
0.57
0.32
0.13
0.08
0.11
0.07
0.15
0.04
0.01
0.15
C & E Loss
(R)
0.28
0.11
0.25
0.01
0.04
0.16
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.00
0.01
0.03
• 0.02
0.06
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.24
0.08
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.15
0.16
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.04
0.02
QLefl
(cfs)
0.00
79.77
0.00
84.49
1.15
9.24
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.10
0.11
0.26
0.33
0.17
0.06
7.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.42
0.16
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.00
Q Channel
(cfs)
601.26
499.36
627.16
623.81
628.37
621.36
627.39
627.93
628.21
629.00
629.00
629.00
909.00
909.00
909.00
908.26
909.00
909.00
820.63
907.85
899.76
909.00
909.00
909.00
909.00
909.00
909.00
908.86
908.88
908.84
907.50
907.01
903.55
903.67
903.86
899.44
879.10
883.91
876.79
898.61
897.07
884.26
891.51
901.80
908.50
908.41
909.00
909.00
906.43
908.75
908.90
908.98
429.07
468.99
907.54
906.74
Q Right
(cfs)
27.74
49.87
1.84
5.19
0.63
7.64
1.61
1.07
0.79
0.74
3.88
0.02
0.05
1.24
1.66
5.28
5.27
5.14
2.54
29.89
25.09
32.21
10.39
11.93
24.74
17.49
7.20
0.50
0.59
0.15
0.09
0.09
0.01
479.92
439.95
1.44
2.26
Top Width
(ft)
29.95
123.06
24.83
41.56
47.86
68.21
66.75
67.72
68.56
34.89
36.28
35.44
31.91
28.48
33.46
32.90
33.49
30.81
449.59
121.28
223.05
24.95
25.90
28.19
34.82
35.08
35.08
44.70
44.75
. 45.26
64.03
69.10
42.78
31.80
32.27
88.97
45.55
41.59
40.83
31.74
29.77
46.28
43.61
52.43
76.74
81.72
26.92
87.44
146.61
111.15
162.56
160.38
182.70
197.20
154.97
142.47
65
35
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
Calavera Creek 1
500 1000 1500 2000
Main Channel Distance (ft)
2500 3000 3500
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
§
1i
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3526.202
50 100 200150
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3497.842
- .035 4s .04
250
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3440.587
300
300
300
64-
62 _
60*
58
56
54
52
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3397.854
Calavera Creek Resub
Station (ft)
Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3347.869
-.04--.035-.04-
250
Legend
EGPF1
50 100
Calavera Creek Resub
150
Station (ft)
Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3307.211
200
.035-.04-
250
Legend
EGPF 1
50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
62
58
56
54
52^
sot
0
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3300.001 us drop structure
.035 .04-
Legend
EGPF1
50 100 150
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3297.001 ds drop structure
-.035
200
- .045 -
50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3293.911
250
250
Station (ft)
£
c.975i
62
60•
58
56
54
52
50
48
•
621
60,
58-
56-.
54-
52
50-
48--
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3197.880
.035 .045
50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 3097.880
.035-.04-
50 100
Calavera Creek Resub
150
Station (ft)
Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2997.880
200
100 150 200
250
250
250
Station (ft)
1u
e.
§
56
54
52
50
48
60-
583
56
54
52
so;
48
60-
58
56
54-
52 _
50-
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2897.880
50 100 150 200
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2797 880
.035-.04-
50 100 200 250
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2697.880
-.035-.04
50 100 200 250
Legend
EGPF1
WSPF 1
250
300
300
sOJ
60
56
54
52
50
48
46
64
62
601
58^56|
54-
52-
50-
48-
460
64-
62-
60-
58-
56-
54J
52-
50-
48-
46-
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2597.880
.035
50 100 200150
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2497.880
- .2 4f .035
250
50 100
Calavera Creek Resub
150 200
Station (ft)
Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2397.880
250
-.035-
50 100 150 200 250 300
Legend
EGPF 1
WSPF1
300
300
350
Station (ft)
70
65
60:
55
50
45
65
60
50-
45
70-
65 .
60 ~_
50:
45
0
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2297.880
->KO:
200 400 600
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
800
RS = 2248.880
-.2-
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2243.880
-*K03:
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Legend
EGPF1
1000
Legend
EGPF1
1000
Legend
EGPF 1
1000
£
c.2
64
62
60
58
56
54-
52
50
48
46
42
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH
RS = 2197.880
10/16/2009
200 400 600
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2100.000 us drop structure
.2 x.035>f-
800
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2097.000 ds drop structure
.2 X.035XH .04-
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
8
Legend
EGPF1
1000
Legend
EGPF1
1000
Legend
EGPF1
1000
65
60:
55-^
50
45:
40:-
Ca\avera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 2000.000 ds drop structure
.2 »|<.035>*
65:
60:
55-k
50-
45:
40--
200 400 600 800
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1997.000 ds drop structure
.2 »|« .035 x 04
1000
Legend
EGPF1
65-
60:
551
50
45^
40
200 400
Calavera Creek Resub
600
Station (ft)
Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1992.930
800 1000
200 400 600 800 1000
Station (ft)
80
75
70
65-
60
55,
50
45
40
80-
75-
70
65-
60
55H
50~
45
40
80-
75
70-
65
60-
55
50
45-
400
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1897.880
.04-
Legend
EGPF1
200 400
Calavera Creek Resub
RS = 1880.880 us drop structure
600 800
Station (ft)
Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
1000 1200
.04-
200 400 600
Station (ft)
800 1000 1200
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1877.880 ds drop structure
.2 - >t<;03S»|« - .04 -
200 400 600
Station (ft)
10
800 1000 1200
5ED
«ED
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
75-
70:
65-
60 -.
55-
50
45-
40
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1797.432
.04
200 400
Calavera Creek Resub
600 800
Station (ft)
Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1793.932
.04-
1000
200 400
Calavera Creek Resub
600 800
Station (ft)
Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS= 1747.886
-.04-
1000
100 200 300
Station (ft)
~
400 500
Legend
EGPF1
1200
Legend
EGPF 1
1200
600
70
65
60:
55
50"
45
40
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1697.906
-.04-
T
Legend
EG PF 1
WSPF 1
0
65:
60:
55:
50-,
45-
40
100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1647.922
.04
600 700
Legend
EG PF 1
WSPF1
40
100 200 300 400
Station (ft)
500 600
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1597.931
100 200 300 400
Station (ft)
12
500 600
700
700
65
60
55:
501
45:
40 :-
.2
"roi
100
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1547.946
->*- .035 *K-.04
300 400 500 600
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1497.966
400 500 600
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1447.987
300 400 500 600
Station (ft)
13
Legend
EGPF 1
WSPF 1
•
Ground
•Bank Sta
700
700
700
Elevation (ft)g_
c.S
73!
HI
^cJ3
73>0)
LJJ
60
55
50
45^
40.
<
65-
60:
55-
50"
1
45;
40 '-.
35"(
60
55:
50:
451
40:
35J
C
) 100
, — ~ - — — ^
) 100
100
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS= 1398.007
^
r—J ^r
Legend
EGPF1
WSPF1
Ground
•Bank Sta
200 300 400 500 600 700
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1348.021
\
*
^_ /
Legend
EGPF1
WSPF1
Ground
•Bank Sta
200 300 400 500 600 700
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1298.037
200
^
Legend
EG'PF T
WSPF1
Ground
Bank Sta
300 400 500 600 700
Station (ft)
14
£c.2
60
55
50-
i
45
40
35
56-
54-
52-
50-
48*-
46-
44
42-
40-
38-
36:~0
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1248.033
.035 ).04-
100 200 300 400 500 600
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1148.026
100 200 300
Station (ft)
400 500
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 1048.018
-.04-
r
100 200 300
Station (ft)
15
400 500
700
600
600
.2UJ
54
52
50
48,
46
44
42
40
38
36
52
50
48
46*
44
42
40-
38
34
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 948.0112
100 200 300 400
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 864.6447
100 300 400
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 823.6991
100 200 300 400
Station (ft)
16
Legend
EGPF 1
WSPF 1
Grit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
•Bank Sta
500
Legend
EGPF 1
WSPF1
Crit PF 1
•
Ground
A
Ineff
•Bank Sta
500
Legend
EGPF1
WSPF1
Crit PF 1
Ground
Ineff
Bank Sta
500
J>UJ
£.
I
55
50:
451
40
35
30
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 774.3492
>|< —.035 >)< .04
100 200 300 400
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 724.7677
100 200
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 675.4707
>< .035 >< .04
100 400
Station (ft)
17
500
400
500
Calavera Creek Resub
54
52
50
48
46"
44
42
40
381
36
Plan: Dwnstrm per AH
RS = 649.9057
- .035 *|<- -
10/16/2009
-.04
Legend
EGPF1
52
50
48
46.
44
42-
40
38
36
0
100
Calavera Creek Resub
200
Station (ft)
Plan: Dwnstrm per AH
RS = 549.9057
300
1 0/1 6/2009
50 100 150 200 250
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 500.9156 us drop structure
300
Station (ft)
18
400
Legend
EGPF 1
350
Legend
EGPF1
350
52
50
48
46-
44-"
42-
40
38
36
34--
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 496.8356 ds drop structure
J< .04.035
Legend
EGPF1
52-
50
48-
46-
44 f-
42-
40
38
36
34 -
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Station (ft)
Calavera Creek Resub Plan: Dwnstrm per AH 10/16/2009
RS = 449.9057
.035--.04-
Legend
EGPF 1
50 100 150
Station (ft)
200 250 300
19
APPENDIX C
Chang Consultant Reference Documents
C
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\De!iverables\FEMA Resubmittal\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, B.C. 20472
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The Honorable Claude A. Lewis
Mayor, City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Case No.: 09-09-0276P
Follows Conditional
Case No.: 07-09-1313R
Community Name: City of Carlsbad, CA
Community No.: 060285
Effective Date of
This Revision:
Dear Mayor Lewis:
The Flood Insurance Study report and Flood Insurance Rate Map for your community have been revised by this
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). Please use the enclosed annotated map panel(s) revised by this LOMR for
floodplain management purposes and for all flood insurance policies and renewals issued in your community.
Additional documents are enclosed which provide information regarding this LOMR. Please see the List of
Enclosures below to determine which documents are included. Other attachments specific to this request may be
included as referenced in the Determination Document. If you have any questions regarding floodplain management
regulations for your community or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please contact the
Consultation Coordination Officer for your community. If you have any technical questions regarding this LOMR,
please contact the Director, Mitigation Division of the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) in Oakland, California, at (510) 627-7175, or the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll
free at 1-877-336-2627 (1-877-FEMA MAP). Additional information about the NFIP is available on our website at
http://www.fema.gov/nfip.
Sincerely,
Dahlia Kasperski, P.E., CFM, Program Specialist
Engineering Management Branch
Mitigation Directorate
List of Enclosures:
Letter of Map Revision Determination Document
Annotated Flood Insurance Rate Map
Annotated Flood Insurance Study Report
cc: Mr. David Hauser
Deputy City Engineer
City of Carlsbad
Mr. Wayne Chang
Chang Consultants
For: William R. Blanton Jr., CFM, Chief
Engineering Management Branch
Mitigation Directorate
Page 1 of 5 Issue Date: April 22, 2009 Effective Date: September 8, 2009 Case No.: 09-09-0276P LOMR-APP
Follows Conditional Case No.: 07-09-1313R
c Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, B.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT
COMMUNITY AND REVISION INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION BASIS OF REQUEST
COMMUNITY
City of Carlsbad
San Diego County
California
CULVERT
DETENTION BASIN
FILL
FLOODWAY
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
NEW TOPOGRAPHIC DATA
COMMUNITY NO.: 060285
IDENTIFIER Robertson Ranch LOMR APPROXIMATE LATITUDE & LONGITUDE: 33.186, -117.318
SOURCE: USGS QUADRANGLE DATUM: NAD 27
ANNOTATED MAPPING ENCLOSURES ANNOTATED STUDY ENCLOSURES
TYPE: FIRM*
TYPE: FIRM*
NO.: 06073C0768F
NO.: 06073C0766 F
DATE: June 19, 1997
DATE: June 19, 1997
DATE OF EFFECTIVE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: September 29, 2006
PROFILE(S): 526P
DELETED PROFILE(S): 527P
FLOODWAY DATA TABLE: 8
SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES TABLE: 4
losures reflect changes to flooding sources affected by this revision.
FIRM - Flood Insurance Rate Map; ** FBFM - Flood Boundary and Floodway Map; *** FHBM - Flood Hazard Boundary Map
FLOODING SOURCE(S) & REVISED REACH(ES)See Page 2 for Additional Flooding Sources
Calavera Creek - from just upstream of confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek to approximately 3,700 feet upstream of the confluence
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS
Flooding Source
Calavera Creek
Effective Flooding Revised Flooding
Zone AE Zone AE
Zone AE Zone X(Unshaded)
BFEs* BFEs
Floodway Floodway
Increases Decreases
YES YES
NONE YES
YES YES
NONE YES
' BFEs - Base Flood Elevations
DETERMINATION
This document provides the determination from the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
regarding a request for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for the area described above. Using the information submitted, we have determined that
a revision to the flood hazards depicted in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report and/or National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map is
warranted. This document revises the effective NFIP map, as indicated in the attached documentation. Please use the enclosed annotated map
panels revised by this LOMR for floodplain management purposes and for all flood insurance policies and renewals in your community.
This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have
any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at 1-877-336-2627 (1-877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the
LOMR Depot, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304. Additional Information about the NFIP is available on our website at http://www.fema.gov/nfip.
Dahlia Kasperski, P.E., CFM, Program Specialist
Engineering Management Branch
Mitigation Directorate 112553 10.3.1.09090276 102 I-A-C
Page 2 of 5 Issue Date: April 22, 2009 Effective Date: September 8, 2009 Case No.: 09-09-0276P LOMR-APP
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, B.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (CONTINUED)
OTHER FLOODING SOURCES AFFECTED BY THIS REVISION
FLOODING SOURCE(S) & REVISED REACH(ES)
Detention Basin BJB - from approximately 600 feet northeast of the intersection of Don Carlos Drive and Don Juan Drive to approximately 1,400 feet northeast of
the intersection
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS
Flooding Source
Detention Basin BJB
Effective Flooding Revised Flooding Increases Decreases
Zone AE Zone AE YES YES
Zone X (Unshaded) ZoneAE YES NONE
BFEs* BFEs YES NONE
NoBFEs BFEs YES NONE
* BFEs - Base Flood Elevations
This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have
any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at 1-877-336-2627 (1-877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the
LOMR Depot, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304. Additional Information about the NFIP is available on our website at http://www.fema.gov/nfip.
Dahlia Kasperski, P.E., CFM, Program Specialist
Engineering Management Branch
Mitigation Directorate 1 1 2553 1 0.3. 1 .09090276 1 02 I-A-C
Page 3 of 5 Issue Date: April 22, 2009 Effective Date: September 8, 2009 Case No.: 09-09-0276P LOMR-APP
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, B.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (CONTINUED)
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
APPLICABLE NFIP REGULATIONS/COMMUNITY OBLIGATION
We have made this determination pursuant to Section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) and in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, P.L. 90-448),
42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 44 CFR Part 65. Pursuant to Section 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
communities participating in the NFIP are required to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations that meet or exceed NFIP
criteria. These criteria, including adoption of the FIS report and FIRM, and the modifications made by this LOMR, are the minimum
requirements for continued NFIP participation and do not supersede more stringent State/Commonwealth or local requirements to which
the regulations apply.
We provide the floodway designation to your community as a tool to regulate floodplain development. Therefore, the floodway revision
we have described in this letter, while acceptable to us, must also be acceptable to your community and adopted by appropriate
community action, as specified in Paragraph 60.3(d) of the NFIP regulations.
NFIP regulations Subparagraph 60.3(b)(7) requires communities to ensure that the flood-carrying capacity within the altered or relocated
rtion of any watercourse is maintained. This provision is incorporated into your community's existing floodplain management
•dinances; therefore, responsibility for maintenance of the altered or relocated watercourse, including any related appurtenances such as
iridges, culverts, and other drainage structures, rests with your community. We may request that your community submit a description
and schedule of maintenance activities necessary to ensure this requirement.
COMMUNITY REMINDERS
We based this determination on the 1-percent-annual-chance discharges computed in the submitted hydrologic model. Future
development of projects upstream could cause increased discharges, which could cause increased flood hazards. A comprehensive
restudy of your community's flood hazards would consider the cumulative effects of development on discharges and could, therefore,
indicate that greater flood hazards exist in this area.
Your community must regulate all proposed floodplain development and ensure that permits required by Federal and/or
State/Commonwealth law have been obtained. State/Commonwealth or community officials, based on knowledge of local conditions
and in the interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction or may limit development in floodplain areas. If your
State/Commonwealth or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, those criteria take
precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements.
We will not print and distribute this LOMR to primary users, such as local insurance agents or mortgage lenders; instead, the community
will serve as a repository for the new data. We encourage you to disseminate the information in this LOMR by preparing a news release
for publication in your community's newspaper that describes the revision and explains how your community will provide the data and
help interpret the NFIP maps. In that way, interested persons, such as property owners, insurance agents, and mortgage lenders, can
benefit from the information.
This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have
any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at 1 -877-336-2627 (1 -877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the
LOMR Depot, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304. Additional Information about the NFIP is available on our website at http://www.fema.gov/nfip.
Dahlia Kasperski, P.E., CFM, Program Specialist
Engineering Management Branch
Mitigation Directorate 112553 10.3.1.09090276 102 I-A-C
Page 4 of 5 Issue Date: April 22, 2009 Effective Date: September 8, 2009 Case No.: 09-09-0276P LOMR-APP
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, B.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (CONTINUED)
This revision has met our criteria for removing an area from the 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain to reflect the placement of fill.
However, we encourage you to require that the lowest adjacent grade and lowest floor (including basement) of any structure placed within
the subject area be elevated to or above the Base (1-percent-annual-chance) Flood Elevation.
We have designated a Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) to assist your community. The CCO will be the primary liaison between
your community and FEMA. For information regarding your CCO, please contact:
Ms. Sally M. Ziolkowski
Director, Mitigation Division
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX
1111 Broadway Street, Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94607-4052
(510)627-7175
STATUS OF THE COMMUNITY NFIP MAPS
,We will not physically revise and republish the FIRM and FIS report for your community to reflect the modifications made by this
;OMR at this time. When changes to the previously cited FIRM panel(s) and FIS report warrant physical revision and republication in
future, we will incorporate the modifications made by this LOMR at that time.
This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have
any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at 1-877-336-2627 (1-877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the
LOMR Depot, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304. Additional Information about the NFIP is available on our website at http://www.fema.gov/nfip.
Dahlia Kasperski, P.E., CFM, Program Specialist
Engineering Management Branch
Mitigation Directorate 112553 10.3.1.09090276 102 I-A-C
Page 5 of 5 Issue Date: April 22, 2009 Effective Date: September 8, 2009 Case No.: 09-09-0276P LOMR-APP
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, B.C. 20472
LETTER OF MAP REVISION
DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (CONTINUED)
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF REVISION
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
FLOODING SOURCE
Calavera Creek
Detention Basin BJB
LOCATION OF REFERENCED ELEVATION
Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the confluence
with Agua Hedionda Creek
Approximately 3,500 feet upstream of the confluence
with Agua Hedionda Creek
Approximately 600 feet northeast of the intersection of
Don Carlos Drive and Don Juan Drive
Approximately 1 ,400 feet northeast of the intersection
of Don Carlos Drive and Don Juan Drive
BFE (FEET NGVD 29)
EFFECTIVE
49
63
None
74
REVISED
48
59
76
76
MAP PANEL
NUMBER(S)
06073C0768F
06073C0768F
06073C0768F
06073C0766F
ithin 90 days of the second publication in the local newspaper, a citizen may request that we reconsider this determination. Any
[uest for reconsideration must be based on scientific or technical data. Therefore, this letter will be effective only after the 90-day
appeal period has elapsed and we have resolved any appeals that we receive during this appeal period. Until this LOMR is effective, the
revised BFEs presented in this LOMR may be changed.
A notice of changes will be published in the Federal Register. A short notice also will be published in your local newspaper on or about
the dates listed below. Please refer to FEMA's website at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/Scripts/bfe_main.asp for a more detailed
description of proposed BFE changes, which will be posted approximately within a week of the date of this letter.
LOCAL NEWSPAPER Name: North County Times
Dates: 05/01/2009 05/08/2009
This determination is based on the flood data presently available. The enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this determination. If you have
any questions about this document, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at 1-877-336-2627 (1 -877-FEMA MAP) or by letter addressed to the
LOMR Depot, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22304. Additional Information about the NFIP is available on our website at http://www.fema.gov/nfip.
Dahlia Kasperski, P.E., CFM, Program Specialist
Engineering Management Branch
Mitigation Directorate 112553 10.3.1.09090276 102 I-A-C
o o o
Table 4. Summary of Discharges (Cont'd)
Floe and Location
Drainage Area
(Souarc Miles)
Buena Vista Creek Tributary 1
At Confluence with Buena Vista Creek
At Intersection of Monte Vista Drive
and Santa Fe Avenue
At Intersection of Monte Vista and
Valley Drives
Buena Vista Creek Tributary 2
At Confluence with Buena Vista Creek
At Intersection of Eucalyptus Avenue
and Tiger Tail Road
Buena Vista Creek Tributary 3
At Confluence with Buena Vista Creek
u; Approximately 1,000 feet Upstream of
""" North Santa Fe Avenue
Buena Vista Creek Tributary 4
At Confluence with Buena Vista Creek
Calavera Creek
Upstream of Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park
Confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek
Carmel Valley Creek
Above Confluence with Soledad Canyon
Below Confluence with Shaw Valley Creek
I
Carroll Canyon Creek
At Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway
At Interstate Highway 805
At Carroll Canyon Road
Coleman Creek
Approximately 1,800 Feet Downstream
of Highway 78
1Data Not Available
2.5
4.5
5.8
15.7
11.0
17.8
15.0
12.0
8.1
10-Year
Peak Discharges (cfs)
50-Year 100-Year 500-Year
2.6
1.7
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.5
0.5
460
320
210
110
110
350
130
1,180
800
510
410
280
760
280
1,510
1,010
630
530
360
950
350
2,020
1,350
840 I
700
480
1,240
460
570
—1
2,100
1,400
1,500
1,300
1,000
1,210
1
1
6,500
4,200
4,500
3,800
3,000
1,450 1,860
500
910
9,800
6,300
6,700
5,600
4,500
—* 8,750
—1
21,300
13,700
18,700
15,700
12,500
o o o
1
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
Ca
Ca
lavera Creek
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
t
M
lavera Creek
Split Flow
A
DISTANCE1
140
430
647
1083
1,313
1,583
1,933
2,533
2,811
3,101
3,530
3 Q5Q
4-620
4690 3
FLOODWAY
WIDTH
(FEET)
76
43
51
44
49
38
41
44
46
45
50
86
40
7Q
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
300
193
228
210
214
168
174
193
186
204
101
333
439
484
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
3.0
4.7
4.0
4.3
4.3
5.4
5.2
4.7
4.9
4.5
6.2
4^1-
&€
3,2
BASE FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
REGULATORY
48.02
48.02
48.02
48.02
48.02
48.5
50.2
55.5
56.5
57.4
58.9
68r8
14£
"^\
REVISED D
73vQ
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
(FEET
44.0
44.7
45.6
46.8
47.5
48.5
50.2
55.5
56.5
57.4
58.9
€&S
74rS
ATA
7*£
WITH
FLOODWAY
NGVD)
44.7
45.2
45.8
46.9
47.6
48.5
50.2
55.5
56.5
57.4
58.9
@&S
74r6
74<Q
INCREASE
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4^
&4
4^
Feet Above Confluence With Agua Hedionda Creek
2 Elevations computed with consideration of backwater effects from Agua Hedionda Creek
CO
mo>
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
FLOODWAY DATA
CALAVERA CREEK- CALAVERA CREEK SPLIT FLOW
o
u
100
90
80
70
S
O
g 60
mUJu.
I "
IU
40
30
20
10
4
••
0
c
n
ru
DJL
£
J
J
-
^
ft
f
*t
A
I
fI
•
(
«
—
I
^\
•
J
3i
j
3
L
^
X*
^
-*
1
\
•*
t
•~
1
,(Dii
m
1
IF
4-
«*
^
U
f\
H
^
~t
n
BH
|
s
>J
)
•»
X
^"
IL
?*
.^
Kr
^
r
/
•^
500
n
<
^
1
Qit
„
1
LI"M
r
V —
1
r
^
s.
x^
-=•—•«
X
s,
^ =
1
s
1000
*•
•-
^
••
••
^
^
1
\
^
ft
*+.
^
^•-
,1!
W1*T
1
.^
^!}P
^
>r
f*[
^
^
*
I
<1
'Wl
£
X
s
X1
^-
1500 2000
STREAM DISTANCE
•
X
X
'-(
<*
•rrrj:*•
»
^
IN FEET
<•
s!
i
X
*
^
S"
1rTHi->+
—•
^
s
x
••^•e
^>
••
—
••
1^>I
^"
^>
^m„••••
**
^
—• •
•^
^^
• I'st-4-
•*•
•^
1
^
?
^•i
^
^
^
•«
/
^^
/
i
^
/
1rfIKMs
+
*w
LE
—
•«?WW^
0
•GEND
Oi% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
en
30
2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK(AT CITY OF CARLSBAD)FLOOD PROFILES |CALAVERA CREEK 1FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCYSAN DIEGO COUNTY, CAAND INCORPORATED AREAS| 526P |
Legend
1% annual chance
(100-Year) Floodplain
1% annual chance
(100-Year) Floodway
0.2% annual chance
(500-Year) Floodplain
MAP SCALE 1"=500'
i—i i—=r
SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
CARLSBAD. CITY OF
OCEANSIDE. CITY OF
VISTA, CITY OF
060285 0766
060294 0766
060297 0766
Nonce to User: The Map Number shown below should be
used when placing map orders; the Community Number shown
aboveshould be used on insurance applkations for the subject
community.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
CITYOF CARLSB
I 060285
REVISED
AREA LIMIT OF
DETAILED
STUDY
JOINS PANEL 0768
Legend
1% annual chance
(100-Year) Floodplain
1% annual chance
(100-Year) Floodway
JOINS PANEL 0766 0.2% annual chance
(500-Year) Floodplain
Detension
Basin BJB
ZONE AE
(EL 76)
MAP SCALE
REVISED
AREA
DON
CARLOS
DRIVE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Calavera
Creek
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
CARLSBAD. CITY OF 060285 0768
DON
PORFIRIO
DRIVE Notice to User: Tne Map Number shown below should be
used when pbcing map orders; the Community Number shownabove should be used on insurance applcationstorthe subjectcommunity.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Agua
Hedionda
Creek
RANCHO
CARLSBADAgua
Hedionda AREA REVISED
BY LOMR DATED
OCTOBER 25,2001
CAM HILLS DRIVECITY OF CARLSBAD
060285 Letterbox
Canyon
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 50 100 200
1 INCH - 100 FEET
IK-MS aoss-SKvat
flKPOSCD CCMfa» 100-tBW ftOOOHAH
HNPOSED caenoH }OQ-i&it fiocomr
- — - HKFOSED CONDOM nOOCPLM CMTAW It OJLMTSr
^-^ asms caamof MM HBXMM caae FLOOOPUH KR
at HT-HAS aass-scams yam an MS Mir ac nx HUE spuuit nc-asA/WOK moss-same s.n mam wo IK rat *r Muras <r at uuteuan* mm anna, aass-sccmei mum t Mt rat we tmrss OF tt ir-rKa. MaOWS-SECXHSat MaaafiMffOf Of mtitsscr mrtffar fam»OTMTWACP nnixH WE am mm tr ne uTrrK*
UMf (S HCU 39 flfMt StA
WAYNE W. CHANG OATI
3ASIN BJB
WEST VILLAGE
(PARASITE)
CALAVERA GREEK
MAIN CHANNEL' .RANCHO CARLSBAD
MOBILE HOME PARK
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
MAIN CHANNEL
TEM10 AGUAcaotioo-iiMFUXDfUNHMM
-RANCHO CARLSBAD
MOBILE HOME PARK
CALAVERA CREEK HEC-RAS WORK MAP
c
APPENDIX D
Rick Engineering Company Reference Documents
C
Use of data contained on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document.
P:\Projects\Carlsbad, City of (CA)\136795 - FEMA Scope ltems\Deiiverabies\FEMA Resubmitta!\01-CLOMR Report Files\CLMR for Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks (10-30-09).doc
RICK
INEERINGCOMPANY
RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILE HOME PARK
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FOR
AGUA HEDIONDA CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
Job Number 13182-D
December 13,2004
RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILE HOME PARK
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FOR
AGUA HEDIONDA CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
Job Number 13182-D
Dennis C. Bowling,
RCE #32838, Exp. 0<
Prepared For:
City of Carlsbad
David Hauser
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
Water Resources Division
Rick Engineering Company
5620 Friars Road,
San Diego, California 92110
(619)291-0707
www.rickengineering.com
December 13,2004
C
c
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Exhibit 1. Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park Vicinity Map 4
Exhibit 2. Agua Hedionda Basin Flood Control Projects 5
Exhibit 3. Agua Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek Watershed Map 6
Exhibit 4. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 7
Hydrologic Analysis 8
Table 1: Description of Detention Basins 10
Table 2: 100-year Discharges in Calavera Creek and Agua Hedionda
Creek within the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park 13
Project Constraints 14
Hydraulic Analysis 16
Table 3. Anticipated Detained 100-year WSELs for the Agua Hedionda Creek
Grading Alternatives and Number of Inundated Lots 21
Exhibit 5. Alternative A Approximate Limits of Grading 22
Exhibit 6. Alternative B Approximate Limits of Grading.. 23
Exhibit 7. Alternative C Approximate Limits of Grading 24
Ongoing Maintenance Program 27
Conclusion 28
Table 4. Matrix Summary of Proposed Agua Hedionda Creek
Maintenance Alternatives. 29
APPENDICES (on CD)
Appendix A: Referenced Plans
• "Grading Plan Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park," June 27,1969,
South Bay Engineering
• "Cannon Road Bridge Over Agua Hedionda General Plan," sheet 59 of
131, February 19,1998, McDaniel Engineering (Drawing No. 333-2G)
• "El Camino Real Bridge Widen Over Agua Hedionda Channel General
Plan," sheet 68 of 131, February 19,1998, McDaniel Engineering
(Drawing No. 333-2G)
• "Lake Calavera Remedial Improvements General Site Plan," sheet 6 of 3 5,
"Lake Calavera Remedial Improvements Civil Site Plan 1," sheet 7 of 39,
"Lake Calavera Remedial Improvements Concrete Spillway Sections,"
sheet 10 of 39, "Lake Calavera Remedial Improvements New Outlet Pipe
Section," sheet 24 of 35, October 2003, CGvL Engineers (Drawing No.
411-6)
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jtfReport/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 12-13-04
• Grading Plans for Melrose Detention Basin Outlet: "Palomar Forum
Melrose Drive" sheet 11 of 17, June 3,2004,0'Day Consultants (Drawing
No. 399-4A)
• Grading Plans for Faraday Detention Basin Outlet: "Carlsbad Oaks North
Faraday Ave," sheet 20 of 37, February 2003, O'Day Consultants
(Drawing No. 415-9C)
• Grading Plans for Detention Basin BJB: "Calavera Hills Phase II," sheet 5
of 80, October 22,2002, O'Day Consultants (Drawing No. 390-9A)
• Grading Plans for Detention Basin BJ: Base Map "City of Carlsbad
Orthophoto Mapping," sheet 55 of 225, Copyright 1991 (Drawing No.
296-5)
Appendix B: Back-up Hydraulic Calculations
• Detention Basin Outlet Structure at Melrose
• Detention Basin Outlet Structure at Faraday
• Detention Basin Outlet Structure at BJB
• Capacity of 8x8 RGB at El Camino Real
Appendix C: Hydrologic Analyses
• 100-Year Ultimate Detained HEC-1 (FN: RC100.HC1)
• 100-Year Ultimate Undetained HEC-1 (FN: RCUNDET.HC1)
• 100-Year, 24-Hour Precipitation Map
• HEC-1 Workmap with USGS Topographic Map
Appendix D: HEC-RAS Analysis of No Action Alternative (Executable Files: Project -
RanchoCarlsbadAH.prj; Plan - RanchoCarlsbadAH.pOl; Geometry -
RanchoCarlsbadAH.g01; Steady Flow - RanchoCarlsbadAH.f04)
Appendix E: HEC-RAS Analysis of Existing Detained Alternative
(Executable Files: Project- RanchoCarlsbadAH.prj; Plan -
RanchoCarlsbadAH.p07; Geometry - RanchoCarlsbadAH.
RanchoCarlsbadAH.fO 1)
; Steady Flow -
Appendix F: HEC-RAS Analysis of Alternative A
(Executable Files: Project - RanchoCarlsbadAH.prj; Plan -
RanchoCarlsbadAH.p02; Geometry - RanchoCarlsbadAH.g21; Steady Flow -
RanchoCarlsbadAH.fOl)
Appendix G: HEC-RAS Analysis of Alternative B
(Executable Files: Project - RanchoCarlsbadAH.prj; Plan -
RanchoCarlsbadAH.p24; Geometry - RanchoCarlsbadAH.g23; Steady Flow -
RanchoCarlsbadAH.fOl)
Prepared by:
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division
DCB:KH:j£'Report/13182-D.002
12-13-04
C
C
Appendix H: HEC-RAS Analysis of Alternative C
(Executable Files: Project - RanchoCarlsbadAH.prj; Plan -
RanchoCarlsbadAH.p27; Geometry - RanchoCarlsbadAH.g26; Steady Flow •
RanchoCarlsbadAH.fOl)
MAP POCKETS
Map Pocket 1:
Preliminary Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project 100-Year Floodplain
Alternatives
Map Pocket 2:
HEC-RAS Workmap (Available on Request)
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jf/Report/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 12-13-04
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to summarize the design alternatives for Agua Hedionda Creek that
have been prepared by Rick Engineering Company for the City of Carlsbad as part of the Rancho
Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project. The Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (RCMHP) is an
existing residential area located north-east of El Camino Real, south-east of Cannon Road and
south-west of College Boulevard Reach 'A,' within the City of Carlsbad, California (see Exhibit
1 on page 4).
RCMHP contains portions of both Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks. Agua Hedionda Creek
flows westerly through the southern portion of RCMHP. Calavera Creek flows southwesterly
along the northern property boundary. The confluence of Calavera Creek with Agua Hedionda
Creek within the RCMHP is located approximately 300 feet upstream of El Camino Real. The
Agua Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek watersheds are shown on Exhibit 3 (page 6).
Original Channel Design
The original constructed Agua Hedionda Creek channel was an earthen trapezoidal channel, as
shown on the "Grading Plans for Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park" dated June 27, 1969
prepared by South Bay Engineering (Appendix A). The overall length of the channel was
approximately 1.2 miles and included both Agua Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek. The side
slopes were 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and the approximate average bed slopes were 0.15 and 0.30
percent in Agua Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek, respectively. The bottom width of Agua
Hedionda Creek varied from 58 feet at the El Camino Real Bridge to 44 feet upstream of the
confluence. The approximate channel depth was 11.5 feet. The bottom width and channel depth
of Calavera Creek were 4 feet and 9 feet, respectively.
Sedimentation Pattern within the Channels
Historically, Agua Hedionda Creek has been highly subject to sedimentation within the channel
along areas of the entire creek. Portions of the channel have experienced up to 6 feet or more of
sediment deposition within the Mobile Home Park. This high sediment load may be the result of
large agricultural areas upstream of the RCMHP as well as the effects of an increased peak
discharge within Agua Hedionda Creek due to development within the upstream watershed.
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jffReport/l 3182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 1 12-13-04
Because of the increased peak discharge and the accumulation of sediment in the channel over
time, the capacity of Agua Hedionda Creek to convey storm water through the RCMHP has
diminished, and currently a large number of properties within the Mobile Home Park are subject
to inundation during a 100-year storm event.
Calavera Creek has been subject to erosion within the upstream portion of the channel and
sedimentation within the downstream portion of the creek near the confluence with Agua
Hedionda Creek. As a result of the sedimentation and the encroachment of homeowners into the
channel, Calavera Creek no longer has capacity for the 100-year storm event.
Proposed Channel Maintenance
hi an effort to alleviate flooding within the Mobile Home Park, the City of Carlsbad has
investigated several alternatives to increase the capacity of the creeks and improve flood
protection in the area. Rick Engineering Company prepared a study entitled, "Rancho Carlsbad
Channel and Basin Project," dated June 30, 1998 that provided the preliminary design of four
detention basins within the watershed tributary to the RCMHP, determined the maintenance and
sediment removal required to return Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks to their original design
configurations per the 1969 Grading Plans, and analyzed the effects of the reduced flow and
restored channel capacity on the limits of inundation within the Mobile Home Park.
Since the 1998 study, further modifications to the proposed maintenance improvements were
required. These modifications include updates to the hydrologic model, exclusion of Calavera
Creek from maintenance and grading activities, the analysis additional alternatives, as well as
final design plans and calculations of three of the four proposed detention basins. The "Project
Constraints" section of this report addresses in detail the background of the required
modifications.
The existing Calavera Creek channel configuration results in split flow, with some flow being
conveyed north of the wall along the RCMHP as shown on Exhibit 4, the Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) panel number 06073C0768 F dated June 19, 1997 (page 7). The original Channel
and Basin Project design called for maintenance of Calavera Creek (i.e. widening the creek),
which would force all of the flow into Calavera Creek thereby eliminating the split flow to the
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jffReport/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company-Water Resources Division 2 12-13-04
] ROC ENGINEERING GOMB\NY
EXHIBIT 1
RANGHQ CARLSBAD MOBILE HOME PARK
VICINITY MAP
o
EXHIBIT 2
LAKE CALAVERA
OUTLET IMPROVEMENTS
CALAVERA CREEK
RANCHO CARLSBAD
MOBILE HOME
PARK
AGUAHEDIONDA
CREEK
DREDGING
MELROSE
BASIN
o p o
i
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
AND CALAVERA CREEK
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
500 0 500
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
[SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 768 OF 2375
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
CONTAINS
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANa SUFFIX
CARLSBAD. CITY OF WQ286 0706 F
MAP NUMBER
06073C0768 F
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JUNE 19,1997
Federal Emergency Management Agency
i )• «no*k4* copy ofaportlanarthiabowratomnc^floodinap. It
extracted utlna F-MTT On-Lin*. Thi« map doM not ralect change*m*nd«Mnt» v**ilch may hma bMn m«* •uM«qu«m to the date on theblock- For the M*»t pioduct InfanMdon rtxxit NMonal Rood lProgram iood m*x check the FEMA Flood Map Store «t www.m«e
u
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSES
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center HEC-1 computer program
was used to prepare hydrologic models of the watersheds tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek and
Calavera Creek upstream of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. The hydrology was used
to determine preliminary detention basin sizes and outlet structures for four proposed detention
basins upstream of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park; two within Agua Hedionda Creek,
one at Melrose Drive and one at Faraday; and two within Calavera Creek, Basins BJ and BJB,
near the intersection of the Cannon Road and College Boulevard extensions. The hydrology was
also used as a source in the HEC-RAS hydraulic analyses.
Since the publication of the 1998 study there have been several modifications to the hydrologic
analysis of the watershed related to the hydrologic modeling parameters, Calavera Dam, and
final design of three of the proposed detention basins.
Hvdrologic Modeling Parameters
One aspect of the hydrologic modeling parameters that has been modified since the initial study
was the channel Manning's "n" and basin factor values used to calculate the lag time for each
watershed. Since the hydrology is based on the ultimate development of the watershed, the
Manning's "n" and basin factor values were originally based on a typical developed condition for
the land-use type dominant in each watershed. However, based on current California State
Water Resources Control Board requirements for new developments, the tendency is less directly
connected impervious surfaces, resulting in a higher Manning's "n" and higher basin factors due
to more natural channels. Therefore, the hydrologic model was updated to reflect this change.
Calavera Dam
The City of Carlsbad has recently initiated a project involving the restoration and reconstruction
of the outlet structure for Calavera Dam. The modifications include replacing the existing outlet
tower, which currently does not function, with a new one. The new outlet tower will allow the
lake to be drawn-down in anticipation of large storm events, resulting in a lower peak flow out of
Calavera Lake, which has resulted in a change in the hydrology upstream of detention basin BJB.
The project is currently scheduled to go to bid in the Spring/Summer 2005. The hydrologic
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jffReport/l 3182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company-Water Resources Division 8 12-13-04
model was updated based on the following assumptions to reflect the impacts of drawdown of
Calavera Dam on the peak discharge in Calavera Creek.
• Lake elevation is at 209' (the crest of the outlet tower) when the storm begins
• The 3 valves are opened once the storm starts
• Valve geometry can be found on sheet 24 on the improvement plans prepared by CGvL
Engineers titled "Lake Calavera Remedial Improvements" (Drawing #: 411-6, dated
October 2003, Appendix A)
• Spillway elevation is at 214.5' per sheet 6 of the aforementioned plans
These analyses result in a 100-year peak flow into Lake Calavera of 1,831 cubic feet per second
(cfs) and a peak flow out of Calavera Dam of 967 cfs with a maximum ponded water surface
elevation (WSEL) of 219.2'.
Detention Basin Design
The goal of the detention basins proposed by the 1998 study is to detain less than 50 acre-feet of
volume, to avoid being within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Water Resources
Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The modifications to the hydrology, as well as the analysis
of the final basin grading, has resulted in some changes to the outlet structure geometries.
Three of the four proposed detention basin outlet structures have been designed. The Melrose
detention basin outlet design prepared by O'Day Consultants (Drawing #: 399-4A, dated June 3,
2004) has been signed and approved by the City of Carlsbad. The Faraday detention basin outlet
design prepared by O'Day Consultants (Drawing #: 415-9C, dated February 2003) has also been
approved. Based on the modifications to the hydrologic modeling parameters and the Calavera
Dam outlet, as well as the final design information provided by the City of Carlsbad for the
Faraday and Melrose basin grading, the detention basin routing has been updated. Copies of the
plans are included in Appendix A for reference and copies of the hydraulic calculations
(prepared by Rick Engineering Company) for the outlet structures are included in Appendix B.
The construction of detention basin BJB was completed with the construction of the College
Boulevard and Cannon Road extensions per the plans prepared by O'Day Consultants dated
October 22,2002 (Drawing #:390-9A sheet 5 of 80, Appendix A). However, the outlet structure
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jf/Report/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 9 12-13-04
for detention basin BJB will ultimately require modifications to further reduce flows once the
Calavera Dam improvements are constructed to maximize the flood control benefit of Basin
BJB. Copies of the hydraulic calculations (prepared by Rick Engineering Company) for the BJB
outlet structure are included in Appendix B.
Detention basin BJ is still modeled based on the preliminary design outlined in the 1998 report.
The preliminary plans are based on the map titled "City of Carlsbad Orthophoto Mapping" sheet
55 of 225, Copyright 1991 (Appendix A).
Table 1 provides a detailed summary of the detention basins.
Table 1: Description of Detention Basins
Location of
Detention
Basin
Melrose
Faraday
BJB*
BJ++
Q100
(cfs)
In
839
906
1094
629
Out
489
642
901
348
Max.
ponded
WSEL
(feet)
330.5
241 .4
75.16
75.9
Max.
Inundation
Area (ac)
6.8
6.8
2.4
8
Max. Storage
Volume
(ac-ft)
44.2
49.8
49.9
48
Outlet Structure Details
Box culvert with a rectangular orifice 5.6"
wide x 4' tall (FL @ 308.0')
Box culvert 4.3' wide x 5.7' tall (FL @
221.8')
72" RCP (FL @ 65.0') and a rectangular
box culvert 11' wide x 7' tall with a 10' wide
x 7' tall square-edged entrance (FL @
62.0') *
Rectangular box culvert 6' wide x 3' tall
(FL@62')++
* The ultimate configuration of detention basin BJB will require construction of a 7.5' x 7' rectangular opening over
the 10' x7' box and a V-notched opening with a 0.1'bottom width and a 1.4' top width placed over the 72" RCP to
maximize the storage in the basin once the Calavera Lake Dam improvements are constructed.
^ Preliminary design per 1998 Channel and Basin Project report. Subject to revision pending final design
FEMA Drainage Patterns
The current effective Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study for Calavera
Creek shown on the FIRM Panel number 06073C0768 F, dated June 19,1997 (page 7) shows the
flow splitting to the north and south sides of the existing concrete wall that is located along the
creek. Per the FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS), the total flow in Calavera Creek is 1350 cfs.
The FEMA models show approximately 805 cfs conveyed through Calavera Creek on the north
Prepared by:
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 10
DCB:KH:jfifReport/l 3182-D.002
12-13-04
side of the existing wall, and 545 cfs conveyed on the south side of the wall within the Calavera
Creek Channel in the RCMHP.
Modified Drainage Patterns
The analysis in the 1998 report assumed the entire flow from Calavera Creek would be conveyed
through the RCMHP because the flow would be concentrated from Basin BJB and the channel
would be graded to increase capacity (i.e. flow would not split to the north side of the wall).
However, the project approach to Calavera Creek was modified since the initial study for several
reasons. The majority of property owners adjacent to Calavera Creek have encroached into the
creek with the construction of decks, patios, retaining walls, and landscaping. Any grading
activities within the channel would result in the removal of the structures which will not be
acceptable to many of the RCMHP residents. Also, preliminary biological investigations of
Calavera Creek identified mature oaks and willows established within the channel. The removal
of these mature trees would require extensive mitigation. If the trees were attempted to be
preserved by relocation or structural measures (e.g. retaining walls, etc.), the engineering and
construction costs would be extremely high and the,survival rate of the trees is unknown.
Because the Calavera Creek channel does not have capacity for the entire flow in its current
condition, a split flow scenario that more closely mimics the current FEMA model was created
by the construction of a weir near the outlet of detention basin BJB at the entrance to Calavera
Creek. The proposed split flow will result in the conveyance of approximately 500 cfs along the
north side of the wall adjacent to the RCMHP and Calavera Creek. This flow will be conveyed
under Cannon Road through triple 10' wide x 7' tall reinforced concrete boxes (RGB), under El
Camino Real through an existing 8' x 8' RGB, and combine with Agua Hedionda Creek
upstream of the Cannon Road Bridge prior to discharging into Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
The 8' x 8' RGB beneath El Camino Real is a restriction of the amount of flow that can split to
the north side of the wall at the weir. If too much flow splits to the north, flow will overtop El
Camino Real at a low point in the road (elevation = 41.3') just upstream of the 8' x 8' RCB. The
peak discharge to be conveyed north of the wall was determined based on the capacity of the
existing 8' x 8' box assuming 500 cfs is diverted to the north side of the wall. Calculations
included the preparation of a HEC-2 hydraulic model for the north side of the wall extending
from the weir to the downstream face of the 8' x 8' box and a WSPGN hydraulic model of the 8'
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jCrReport/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 11 12-13-04
x 8' box. The following flow rates from the HEC-1 were input into the HEC-2: 500 cfs at the
weir, 522 cfs at the Cannon Road triple RGBs, and 568 cfs at the 8' x 8' RGB. Based on results
from the HEC-2 the WSEL at the location of the low point in El Camino Real was 39.6,' which
results in 1.7' of freeboard. The HEC-2-calculated WSEL at the upstream face of the 8' x 8'
RGB was compared to the WSPGN-calculated WSEL at the same location for verification.
Copies of the WSPGN, HEC-2, and HEC-2 workmap are included in Appendix B.
It should be noted that due to environmental considerations from the resource agencies, frequent
storm flows from detention basin BJB that result in a peak discharge of less than approximately
300 cfs will be conveyed in Calavera Creek without flow splitting to the north side of the wall.
Any modifications to the split flow or the drainage patterns on the north side of the wall should
be designed to maintain this scenario, and not intercept any portion of flows less than
approximately 300 cfs to preserve the downstream habitat.
The drainage basin modeling in the HEC-1 has been modified since the preparation of the 1998
study to reflect the split flow scenario. Refer to Appendix C for HEC-1 hydrologic calculations.
Table 2 shows a comparison of the 1998 study hydrologic results to those of the current 2004
study.
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jtfReport/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 12 12-13-04
c
Table 2:100-year Discharges in
Calavera Creek and Agua Hedionda Creek within the
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park
Location
Calavera Creek
upstream of the
Mobile Home Park
Calavera Creek north
of the wall (within
Robertson Ranch)
Calavera Creek
upstream of the
confluence with Agua
Hedionda Creek
Agua Hedionda Creek
upstream of the
confluence with
Calavera Creek
Agua Hedionda Creek
downstream of the
confluence with
Calavera Creek
Existing
Condition
(FEMA)
1350
805
545
7810
8080
1998 Hydrology*
City of Carlsbad
Ultimate Developed
Condition
(Existing Hydrology)
1910
N/A
8050
9950
Preliminary Ultimate
Developed Detained
Condition (Proposed
Hydrology)
1550
N/A
7600
8970
2004 Updated Hydrology
Undetained
Hydrology
1419
1410
7795
9195
Detained
Hydrology
749
500
756
7338
8092
* Source: "Rancho Carlsbad Channel & Basin Project" dated June 30,1998 (Rick Engineering Company)
Prepared by:
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 13 DCB:KH:jffReport/13182-D.002
12-13-04
PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
Additional factors affecting the limits of grading of this project have impacted the proposed
Agua Hedionda channel grading. These factors include, but are not limited to: the proximity of
the project to the Coastal Zone, the presence of native and non-native trees along the channel
banks, environmental processing requirements, and channel vegetation.
Coastal Zone
The limits of the Coastal Zone are located along El Camino Real in the vicinity of this project.
Any maintenance alternative proposing to grade between El Camino Real and Cannon Road
would require additional permits and coordination with the Coastal Commission. This area is
within the Local Coastal Zone administered by the City Council. The Coastal Commission could
appeal any decision to allow grading or maintenance within the proposed channel downstream of
El Camino Real.
Native and Non Native Trees within the Channel-^—^————-^———————^^———^—
The RCMHP Homeowners Association and the Environmental Resource Agencies have voiced
concerns regarding the removal of mature trees and native trees along the Agua Hedionda Creek
bank. In order to preserve as many existing mature trees as possible within Agua Hedionda
Creek, a site visit was conducted with representatives from Rick Engineering Company,
RECON, RCMHP, and the City of Carlsbad in the spring of 2002 to identify the native and
exotic trees along the channel to determine what trees located on the channel banks could be
preserved during the proposed maintenance. Survey data was also collected to assist in
determining the maximum limits of grading along Agua Hedionda Creek. Due to the location of
these trees along the channel side-slopes, the original channel bottom widths as shown on the
"Grading Plans for Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park" dated June 27,1969 prepared by South
Bay Engineering can not be completely restored.
Environmental Processing
The Agua Hedionda Creek maintenance project involves activities within a jurisdictional water.
Therefore, this project would require processing through the California State Water Resources
s
Control Board, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as the California Department of Fish
and Game. The detention basins proposed at Melrose, Faraday, BJB, and BJ are subject to
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jfiHeport/l 3182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 14 12-13-04
c
separate processing through the resource agencies as part of their associated development
projects since their construction, is linked to the construction of adjacent developments, not to the
maintenance of Agua Hedionda Creek channel.
Channel Vegetation
The existing condition hydraulic analyses of Agua Hedionda Creek that are discussed later in this
report show high velocities throughout the creek especially at bridge crossings during large
storm events. The high velocities as well as ongoing maintenance by the residents of the
RCMHP have prevented significant establishment of mature vegetation within the main channel
bed of Agua Hedionda Creek upstream of El Camino Real. The side slopes of the channel have
become vegetated with mostly ornamental and exotic species presumably planted by the
residents of the Mobile Home Park. Therefore, maintenance of the Agua Hedionda Channel
within RCMHP is expected to have little impact to environmentally sensitive habitat. The
hydraulic analysis of Agua Hedionda Creek assumes that the channel will continue to be
maintained regularly and the establishment of mature vegetation within the channel will be
prevented.
/
Due to the above-mentioned factors, the original design configuration of Agua Hedionda Creek
cannot be completely restored. Several design alternatives have been proposed for the grading in
Agua Hedionda Creek that address the project constraints. The Hydraulic Analysis section of
this report includes detailed discussion and hydraulic analyses of three proposed design
alternatives for maintenance of Agua Hedionda Creek.
Prepared by: DCB.KH:jtfReport/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 15 12-13-04
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center HEC-RAS computer
program was used to determine the hydraulic effects of the maintenance and sediment removal
from Agua Hedionda Creek based on the ultimate detained 100-year storm event.
The existing condition cross-sectional geometry is based on field surveys of Calavera Creek in
December 2001 and Agua Hedionda Creek in May 2002. Updated cross-sectional geometry
downstream of Cannon Road is based on field surveys in June 2004. The following
improvement plans were used to model the Cannon Road Bridge crossing and El Camino Real
Bridge crossing, respectively: "Cannon Road Bridge Over Agua Hedionda General Plan," sheet
59 of 131, and "El Camino Real Bridge Widen Over Agua Hedionda Channel General Plan,"
sheet 68 of 139, prepared by McDaniel Engineering (Drawing No 333-2G). Copies of these
improvement plans are included in Appendix A.
Description of Alternatives
Several alternatives for maintenance of the Agua Hedionda Creek channel within the Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park have been investigated since 1998. There are environmental and/or
community impacts within Calavera Creek and Agua Hedionda Creek that may render
maintenance within portions of the channels undesirable. However, maintenance of the Agua
Hedionda Creek channel is imperative to improving conveyance and reducing flooding in the
RCMHP. The proposed alternatives for Agua Hedionda channel maintenance are described
below. Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 show the approximate limits of grading for Alternatives A, B, and C,
respectively. A schematic of the cross-sectional geometry for Alternatives A, B, and C as well as
the 100-year floodplain limits are shown on the floodplain alternatives map in Map Pocket 1.
The HEC-RAS workmaps are located in Map Pocket 2.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative models the current channel topography within the RCMHP
and models the conveyance of the 100-year undetained ultimate development hydrology.
This alternative proposes no changes to the existing drainage patterns and is presented to
reflect the current flooding potential within the RCMHP if no channel maintenance
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jffReport/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 16 12-13-04
occurs and if none of the 4 proposed detention basins were constructed, and no
improvements were made to the Lake Calavera outlet structure. See Appendix D for the
No Action Alternative HEC-RAS model.
Existing Condition Detained Alternative
The Existing Condition Detained Alternative models the current channel topography
within the RCMHP and models the conveyance of the 100-year detained ultimate
development hydrology. This alternative is presented to reflect the potential flooding
within the RCMHP if no channel maintenance occurs, but assumes the 4 proposed
detention basins, Melrose, Faraday, BJB and BJ, are constructed, Calavera Dam
improvements are complete, the subsequent modifications to the BJB outlet structures
have been constructed, and 500-cfs is conveyed on the north side of the wall. See
Appendix E for the Existing Condition Detained Alternative HEC-RAS model.
Alternative A
**** Alternative A models the current channel topography within Calavera Creek, and models
the maintenance of approximately 2,500 feet of Agua Hedionda Creek between El
Camino Real and just downstream of Rancho Carlsbad Drive. Alternative A models the
conveyance of the 100-year detained ultimate development hydrology as discussed in the
Existing Condition Detained Alternative.
Alternative A proposed maintenance includes grading within Agua Hedionda Creek to
remove accumulated sediment in the channel bottom. The Alternative A channel
maintenance will require re-grading Agua Hedionda Creek back to the original
trapezoidal channel geometry shown on the "Grading Plans for Rancho Carlsbad Mobile
Home Park" dated June 27, 1969 prepared by South Bay Engineering. The channel
consists of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) side slopes and a 44-foot to 58-foot bottom-width.
The channel will be graded down to the original channel elevation between the existing
drop structure and El Camino Real Bridge. At El Camino Real the ground elevation will
C
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jCReport/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 17 12-13-04
begin to "ramp" up from the original channel flowline of 31.6 feet to the existing ground
elevation at cross-section 10.1 (elevation 35.5'). This alternative includes possible
complications related to the potential for continuous ponded water upstream of El
Camino Real. See Appendix E for the Alternative A HEC-RAS model.
Alternative B
Alternative B models the current channel topography within Calavera Creek, and models
the maintenance of approximately 3,100 feet of Agua Hedionda Creek between Cannon
Road Bridge and just downstream of Rancho Carlsbad Drive. This alternative models the
conveyance of the 100-year detained ultimate development hydrology as discussed in the
Existing Condition Detained Alternative.
Alternative B proposed maintenance includes grading within Agua Hedionda Creek to
remove accumulated sediment in the channel bottom while protecting the mature trees
that have established on the channel banks where possible. Upstream of the El Camino
Real Bridge this alternative will require grading a trapezoidal channel with 2:1 side
slopes, with the top of the proposed graded slope starting near the toe of the existing
channel slope. The channel grading will project down to the original channel flowline
elevation and longitudinal slope of 0.3%, with approximately a 40-foot bottom width.
Downstream of the El Camino Real Bridge to Cannon Road, the channel will be re-
graded with a 70-foot bottom width and 2:1 side slopes, to daylight. The channel
flowline will be graded at a 0% longitudinal slope from the current elevation at the
northerly edge of the Cannon Road Bridge of approximately 32.0 feet, upstream until it
meets the original Agua Hedionda Creek flowline elevation shown on the 1969 plans,
approximately 135 feet upstream of the El Camino Real Bridge.
This alternative minimizes impacts to the existing trees within the RCMHP. However,
grading activities downstream of El Camino Real are within an area of the Local Coastal
Plan (LCP) which is administered by the City and are subject to permitting requirements.
See Appendix G for the Alternative B HEC-RAS model.
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jtfReport/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 18 12-13-04
Alternative C"*w
Alternative C models the current channel topography within Calavera Creek, and models
the maintenance of approximately 3,100 feet of Agua Hedionda Creek between Cannon
Road Bridge and just downstream of Rancho Carlsbad Drive. This alternative also
includes widening of a portion of Agua Hedionda Creek between El Camino Real and the
confluence with Calavera Creek to improve the channel capacity. This alternative
models the conveyance of the 100-year detained ultimate development hydrology as
discussed in the Existing Condition Detained Alternative.
Alternative C proposed maintenance includes grading within Agua Hedionda Creek to
remove accumulated sediment in the channel bottom while protecting the mature trees
that have established on the channel banks where possible. Upstream of the confluence
with Calavera Creek this alternative will require grading a trapezoidal channel with 2:1
side slopes, with the top of the proposed graded slope starting near the toe of the existing
channel slope. The channel grading will project down to the original channel flowline
,*«•* elevation and longitudinal slope of 0.3%, with approximately a 40-foot bottom width.
Downstream of the confluence with Calavera Creek to El Camino Real Bridge, Agua
Hedionda Creek will be widened by approximately 27-feet to increase the channel
capacity. A vertical wall is proposed along a portion of the right channel bank (looking
downstream). Downstream of the El Camino Real Bridge to Cannon Road, the channel
will be re-graded with a 70-foot bottom width and 2:1 side slopes, to daylight. The
channel flowline will be graded at a 0% longitudinal slope from the current elevation at
the northerly edge of the Cannon Road Bridge of approximately 32.0 feet, upstream until
it meets the original Agua Hedionda Creek flowline elevation shown on the 1969 plans,
approximately 135 feet upstream of the El Camino Real Bridge.
Alternative C minimizes impacts to the existing trees within the RCMHP. Grading
activities downstream of El Camino Real are within an area of the Local Coastal Plan
(LCP) which is administered by the City and are subject to permitting requirements. The
construction of one vertical wall is required just downstream of the confluence of Agua
i^ Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek (between cross-sections 30 and 20). The wall will be
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jfi'Report/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 19 12-13-04
up to 10 feet high and 275 feet long along the opposite creek bank from the mobile
homes.
A second vertical wall may be required to protect an existing structure. This second
vertical wall located along the creek bank closest to the mobile homes will be up to 6 feet
tall and 120 feet long to preserve an existing structure.
hi final design, it may be possible to implement an alternative solution to the wall(s),
such as adjusting the property line and/or the perimeter wall location, so that the slope
can be extended without the need for a retaining wall. See Appendix H for the Alternative
C HEC-RAS model.
Bridge Improvements
The hydraulic analyses of all alternatives except the No Action Alternative include
improvements to the bridges at El Camino Real and Cannon Road. These improvements include
connecting the piers under the bridge to create one elongated pier to minimize hydraulic losses
and debris potential, as well as constructing a debris nose on the upstream face of the bridge
piers to minimize the impacts of floating debris on the hydraulics of the bridge crossing.
Preferred Alternative
Alternative C is the preferred alternative by the City of Carlsbad because it removes the largest
number of lots from the 100-year floodplain, while minimizing impacts to several of the mature
trees along the Agua Hedionda Creek channel banks within the RCMHP. Table 3 presents the
anticipated 100-year WSELs in Agua Hedionda Creek and the number of inundated lots for each
of the proposed alternatives.
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jf/Report/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 20 12-13-04
Table 3. Anticipated 100-year WSELs for the Agua Hedionda Creek
Grading Alternatives and Number of Inundated Lots
X-Sec
20.9
50.1
70.58
120.2
170.19
210.51
250.41
No Action
Alternative
49.6
50.2
50.4
50.5
50.4
51.3
51.3
Detained 100-year WSEL (feet)
Existing
Detained
48.6
49.2
49.4
49.5
49.5
50.9
51.0
Alternative A
48.5
48.8
48.8
48.8
48.6
49.0
49.1
Alternative B
43.1
43.9
43.9
44.9
46.0
46.6
47.2
Alternative C
42.8
42.0
42.8
44.8
46.0
46.6
47.1
Approximate
Number of
Inundated Lots
Maximum Water
Depth* Above
Channel Bank (feet)
278
7.4
210
6.5
141
6.1
45
1.2
12
0.4
* These depths were taken at cross-section 50.1 located just upstream of the Calavera Creek and Agua
Hedionda Creek confluence
C
The RCMHP consists of mainly elevated foundations. Therefore, although a lot deemed as
inundated may not necessarily mean the home is entirely flooded. The finished floor elevation of
the structure may be above the floodplain, in which case an elevation certificate may be prepared
to ensure the structure is not within the floodplain.
Prepared by:
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 21
DCBiKHyffReport/l 3182-D.002
12-13-04
4
\o
.3 .6 8 8.8' x Il
ii&'r r/Him Hi:.." V , - / I
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
EXHIBIT 5
Alternative A
Approximate Limits of Grading
J-13182 D December 13,2004
N
GRAPHIC SCALE <P= ZOO'AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
EXHIBIT 6
Alternative B
Approximate Limits of Grading
J-13182D December 13,2004
U
N
GRAPHIC SCALE V= 200'AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
EXHIBIT 7
Alternative C
Approximate Limits of Grading
J-13182D December 13,2004
Additional Alternatives Investigated but not Analyzed
^Hf"
The following alternatives were considered during the development of the proposed
improvement alternatives. However, preliminary investigations determined several alternatives
presented either limited flood control benefit or extensive engineering difficulties. Therefore, no
detailed analyses were prepared for these alternatives. The following provides a discussion of
alternatives investigated but not analyzed.
DSOD Jurisdiction^ Dam
Preliminary analyses of the feasibility for construction of a DSOD Jurisdictional Dam
upstream of the RCMHP was investigated to estimate the storage volume required to
provide flood protection within the RCMHP. The construction of additional detention
basins could minimize flooding in the RCMHP area without maintenance within Agua
Hedionda Creek.
The existing hydraulic capacity of the channel was determined using the HEC-RAS
C hydraulic program by modeling the existing topography in Agua Hedionda Creek with a
series of flows until the flow was contained within the channel through most of the
RCMHP. The HEC-RAS analyses show that the existing capacity of Agua Hedionda is
approximately 4000 cfs.
In order to reduce 100-year flows in Agua Hedionda Creek to approximately 4000 cfs,
along with the construction of the Melrose, BJ, and BJB detention basins currently
proposed, the detention basin at Faraday would require an increased storage volume from
49.8 acre-feet (currently designed) to 200 acre-feet of storage volume, and an additional
detention basin would need to be constructed within the Agua Hedionda watershed that
what would provide 895 acre-feet of storage volume. The location of this additional
detention basin is located in the vicinity of the City of Carlsbad and the City of Vista
corporate boundary. This preliminary investigation has determined that constructing two
DSOD darns as additional detention facilities will result in a significant impact to
available open space, would impact not only the City of Carlsbad, but potentially the City
of Vista, and is therefore not a practical alternative.
Prepared by: DCB:KH:j&Report/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 25 12-13-04
Levees within RCMHP
The impact of constructing levees along the existing channel banks to increase the
capacity of Agua Hedionda Creek was investigated for the RCMHP project. Water
surface elevations for the Existing Detained analysis are 5 feet or more higher than the
top of the channel throughout the RCMHP. FEMA requires a minimum of 3 feet of
freeboard for levees over the 100-year water surface elevation, which would require
construction of a berm up to 8 feet higher than the current bank throughout the RCMHP.
This alternative would not be aesthetically acceptable for many homeowners within the
RCMHP, and to construct a berm of this size assuming 2:1 side slopes would require
almost a 40' wide footprint impact on each side of the channel. The construction of this
alternative would also impact approximately 53 property owners by requiring removal of
their homes. Also, if similar improvements were not made to Calavera Creek several
structures and lots would still be subject to inundation.
Box Culvert along El Camino Real
An alternative to construct a box culvert system to divert flows exceeding the capacity of
Agua Hedionda channel around the RCMHP and into Agua Hedionda Lagoon was
investigated. However, this structure would be required to convey approximately 3,500-
cfs and would require approximately 6 ~ 10'wide x 6' high box culverts beneath El
Camino Real for approximately 2,500 linear feet. This option is cost prohibitive and has
significant constructability issues due in part to utility conflicts.
Prepared by:
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 26 DCB:KH:jfi'Report/13182-D.002
12-13-04
ONGOING MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
\UT
Once the initial channel maintenance and grading outlined by this project has been completed, it
is vital that ongoing maintenance including sediment removal and vegetation removal be
performed on a regular basis to preserve the capacity of the channel and to ensure an acceptable
level of flood protection within the RCMHP.
The maintenance area will begin at the north edge of the Cannon Road Bridge and extend
approximately 2,500 feet upstream to the drop structure underneath the Rancho Carlsbad Drive
bridge crossing. It is anticipated that ongoing vegetation removal maintenance will need to be
performed to ensure no vegetation becomes established between the aforementioned bridge
crossings.
It should be noted, however, that the sediment deposition in the channel is directly related to
each rainfall event and therefore, the frequency of maintenance may be more or less frequent
than anticipated. Monitoring of the sedimentation hi the channel over the first few years
%^ following the initial channel maintenance will be helpful in determining the future sediment
removal maintenance frequency requirements. Sediment posts marked in 1-foot increments can
be utilized in sections of the channel to assist in monitoring sediment depth. Once a depth of
approximately 2 to 3 feet of sediment has been accumulated, maintenance including sediment
removal between Cannon Road and the drop structure at the Rancho Carlsbad Drive bridge
crossing will be needed.
The maintenance must be performed routinely by qualified personnel and a sufficient budget
should be established for the maintenance. If any questions arise during the maintenance, a
professional engineer specializing in water resources should be consulted. The maintenance of
Agua Hedionda Creek must be incorporated into the environmental permitting when processed
through the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Region 9, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Coastal Commission if
appropriate.
C
Prepared by: DCB:KH:jf/Repoit/13182-D.002
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 27 12-13-04
CONCLUSION
Agua Hedionda Creek is highly subject to sedimentation for the majority of the creek. Portions
of the channel within the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (RCMHP) have experienced up to
6 feet or more of sediment deposition since the original channel construction. This high
sediment load may be the result of agricultural areas upstream of the RCMHP as well as the
effects of an increased peak discharge within Agua Hedionda Creek due to development within
the upstream watershed. Because of the increased peak discharge and the accumulation of
sediment in the channel over time, the capacity of Agua Hedionda Creek to convey storm water
has diminished, and currently a significant portion of the lots within the RCMHP are subject to
inundation during a 100-year storm event. In an effort to minimize flooding within the Mobile
Home Park, the City of Carlsbad has investigated several alternatives to restore the capacity of
the channel and improve flood protection in the area.
Updated hydrology for the watershed tributary to the RCMHP was prepared using HEC-1 to
determine the peak 100-year ultimate development runoff to the creeks. The detained hydrology
for the watershed models the construction of four proposed detention basins upstream of the
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park; two within Agua Hedionda Creek, one at Melrose Drive
and one at Faraday; and two within Calavera Creek, BJ and BJB, near the intersection of the
Cannon Road and College Boulevard extensions. The results of the HEC-1 analyses were
modeled in the proposed alternative hydraulic analyses.
The implementation of the proposed maintenance alternatives for Agua Hedionda Creek includes
the following considerations: proximity of the project to the coastal zone, native and non-native
trees within the channel, environmental processing, and channel vegetation. Table 4 shows a
matrix summary of the proposed alternatives presented for the maintenance of Agua Hedionda
Creek. All of the following alternatives include the proposed ultimate detained hydrologic
conditions with the exception of the No Action Alternative.
Prepared by:
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 28
DCB:KH:jf/Report/13182-D.002
12-13-04
Table 4. Matrix Summary of Proposed Agua Hedionda Creek Maintenance Alternatives
C
Alternative
Effective
FIRM
No
Action
Existing
Detained
A
B
C
100-year
Discharge at
El Camino
Real (cfs)
8,080
9,195
8,092
8,092
8,092
8,092
Grading
Downstream
of El Camino
Real
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Bridge Pier
Improvements
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Retaining
Wall
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Approximate
Number of
Inundated Lots
316
260
225
163
33
12
Maximum 100-
year Water Depth
Above Channel
Bank (ft)
N/A
7.4
6.5
6.1
1.2
0.4
Each alternative was analyzed hydraulically to determine the number of lots removed from the
floodplain. The resulting water surface elevations were mapped, and the floodplain for each
alternative is shown on the map entitled, "Preliminary Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin
Project 100-year Floodplain Alternatives," dated September 2004 included in Map Pocket 1.
Additional alternatives were investigated but not analyzed in detail, including: constructing a
DSOD Jurisdictional Dam, constructing levees within the RCMHP, or constructing a box culvert
along El Camino Real.
C
This report summarizes the maintenance design alternatives for Agua Hedionda Creek. In order
for the Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project to proceed into final design stages, the
following issues need to be resolved:
• Initiate environmental permitting through the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board - Region 9, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish
and Game.
• Initiate processing a Coastal Development Permit for maintenance of Agua Hedionda
Creek channel in-between Cannon Road and El Camino Real.
Prepared by:
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division 29
DCB:KH:jf/Report/13182-D.002
12-13-04
''.•:•• V , APPENblXA "' >-/V.::="- '•.":.;'•'
Referenced Plans
1. "Grading Plan Raneho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park," June 27,1969, South Bay Engineering
2. "CannonRoadBridge Over AguaHediondaGeneral Plan," sheet 59 of 131 .February 19,
1998, McDaniel Engineering (Drawing No. 333-2G)
3. "El Cainino Real Bridge Widen Over Agua Hedionda Channel General Plan," sheet 68 of
131,February .19,1998, McDaniel Engineering (Drawing No. 333-2G)
4. "Lake Calavera Remedial Improvements General Site Plan," sheet 6 of 35, "Lake Calavera
Remedial Improvements Civil SitePlan 1," sheet 7 of 39, "Lake Calavera Remedial
Improvements Concrete Spillway Sections," sheet 10 of 39, "Lake Calavera Remedial
Improvements New Outlet Pipe Section," sheet 24 of 35, October 2003, CGvL Engineers
5. Grading Plans for Melrpse Detention Basin Outlet; "Palomar Forum Melrose Drive," sheet
11 of 17, June 3,2004,rO'Day Consultants (Drawing No. 399-4A)
6. Grading Plans for Faraday Detention Basm Outlet: "Carlsbad Oaks North Faraday Ave,"
sheet 20 of 37, February 2003,0'Day Consultants (Drawing No,415-9C)
.7. Grading Plans for Detention Basin BJB: "Calavera Hills Phase II," sheet 5 of 8Q, October 22,
: 2002,0'Day Consultants (Drawing No, 390-9A)
8. Grading Plans for Detention Basin BJ: Base Map "City of Carlsbad Orthophoto Mapping,"
sheet55iof 225, Copyright 1991 (DrawingNo. 296-5)
Prepared by:
Rick Engineering Company - Water Resources Division DCB:KH:jOReport/13182-D.002
12-13-04
APPENDIX E
Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Floodplain Limits & Work Map
C
Project! DCariibad. City of (CA)a129309-Agua Hedlonda ft Colawro .... FIGURE l.dwg OLayout A landscape | R«f Has : Loyouttlf
PROJECT NUMBER
06/2007 I 129309
BROWN
C A L D W
SAN DIEGO
AND
ELL
AGUA HEDIONDA & CALAVERA CREEK
DREDGING AND IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 3338-1
PROJECT
LOCATION CITY OF CARLSBAD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
o
6/r3/2C6/r3/2007 4:45 PM
Vicinity Map
FIG- 1
JOINS PAIvEL 0766
ANNOTATED FIRM
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
500 0 500
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RAH MAP
SAN DIEGO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 768 OF 2375
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED}
COMMUNITY
CARLSBAD CITY OF
MUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
080285 0768
MAP NUMBER
06073C0768 F
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JUNE 19,1997
Federal Emergency Management Agency
TWt !»«no««l* copy ol* portion of th»«l»\»r»!»i*nc»d Hood map. «was extracted using F-MIT On-Une INs map doea not reteet changes
or amendment* which may have been made eubcequent to the date on the
tine Hock. For the latest product Information about National Rood Insurance
Program Hood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at wvw. msc.fema.gov
FFMA .qi IRMiTTAI
n
\
u
I
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
FOR
AGUA HEDIONDA & CALAVERA CREEKS
DREDGING AND IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO. 3338-1
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
CITY OF VISTA
CITY OFSAN MARCOS
PACIFIC
OCEAN
CITY OF ENCINITAS
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2008
CITY COUNCIL
CALAVERA CREEK
LOCATION MAP
CLAUDE A. LEWIS
ANN J. KULCHIN
MATT HALL
MARK PACKARD
JULIE NYGAARD
RAYMOND R. PATCHETT
GLENN PRUIM
CONRAD C. HAMMANN, JR.
MAYOR
MAYOR PRO TEM
COUNCIL MEMBER
COUNCIL MEMBER
COUNCIL MEMBER
CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CITY ENGINEER
100%SUBMITTAL
x^NKWfajSv
VU.c6-^£y*/
^t^p^
WARNING
0 1/g 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"
THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AMD CALDWELL
MS oesAPCAKE wmc, sure amSAN OEGQ, CALFOMA H129(BH) 9t4-aB21 FAX (•») 514-MU
4UMHTHD. DATE-
SCALE HORIZONTAL NONE
VERTICAL NONE
•AS - BUILT
PF ne DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DA1E
ENGINEER
Mnw.
CF WORK
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATC
OTHER f
MHAL
'MVAL
DATE
cmr»p
M1UL
PROVAL
SHEET
1 CITY OF CARLSBADENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS
22
IMPROVEMENT PUDS TOR
AGUA HEDIONDA & CALAVERA CREEKS
DREDGING AND IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
APPROVED: DAVK) A. MAUSER
DEPUTY crrr EMHEER ft 33081 EXPIRES oe/Jo/DB DATE
HUM HY>
CHKD BY: M
RVWD BY- DM
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
SHEET INDEX KEY LEGEND
1
I
u
SHEET NO. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
1 TITLE SHEET
2 INDEX MAP, LEGENDS AND ABBREVIATIONS
3 GENERAL NOTES, TYPICAL CREEK SECTIONS AND UTILITY TABLE
4 HORIZONTAL CONTROL MAP-1
5 HORIZONTAL CONTROL IMP-2
SHEET NO. CIVIL DESCRIPTION
6 AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK PLAN AND PROFILE - STA 7+00 TO STA 11+00
7 AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK PLAN AND PROFILE - STA 11+00 TO STA 24+00
B AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK PLAN AND PROFILE - STA 24+00 TO STA 35+00
9 AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK PLAN AND PROFILE - STA 35+00 TO STA 41 +98.71
10 CALAVERA CREEK PLAN AND PROFILE -STA 0+00 TO STA 11+00
11 CALAVERA CREEK PLAN AND PROFILE -STA 11+00 TO STA 23+00
12 CALAVERA CREEK PLAN AND PROFILE- STA 23+00 TO STA 34+00
13 MAINTENANCE ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE -STA 50+00 TO STA 52+16
14 MASONRY WALL PLAN AND PROFILE - STA 10+00 TO STA 13+91.92
15 AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK GABION CROSS-SECTIONS
16 CALAVERA CREEK GABION CROSS-SECTIONS
17 GABION STRUCTURE DETAIL -1
18 GABION STRUCTURE DETAIL - 2
19 GABION STRUCTURE DETAIL - 3 AND VMAX SLOPE INSTALLATION
20 DRAINAGE PROFILES
21 MISCELLANEOUS DRAINAGE DETAILS
22 SWING GATE DETAIL
EXISTING SEWER LINE
EXISTING WATERLINE
EXISTING RECYCLED WATERLINE
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
EXISTING ABANDONED WATERLINE
EXISTING FUEL LINE
EXISTING GAS LINE
EXISTING CABLE TELEVISION LINE
EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE
EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT
ABBREVIATIONS
AC ASPHALT CONCRETE
AH AGUA HEDIONDA (ALIGNMENT LINE)
AHMR AGUA HEDIONDA MAINTENANCE ROAD (ALIGNMENT LINE)
AWWA AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
BW BOTTOM OF WALL
CC CALAVERA CREEK (ALIGNMENT LINE)
CMLC CONCRETE MORTER LINED CHANNEL
CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
C.M.W.D CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CONC CONCRETE
DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE
DOC DOCUMENT
DWG DRAWING
EG EXISTING GROUND
EL ELEVATION
ELEC ELECTRICAL
FG FINISHED GROUND
FL FLUID LINE
HORIZ HORIZONTAL
HP HIGH PRESSURE
I.E. INVERT ELEVATION
IMP IMPLEMENTATION
LT LEFT
NO. NUMBER
MHP MOBILE HOME PARK
MIN MINIMUM
OG ORIGINAL GROUND
PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE
RCB REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX
RSP ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION
RT RIGHT
R/W RIGHT OF WAY
RW RECYCLED WATERLINE
STA STATION
TEL TELEPHONE
TYP TYPICAL
TW TOP OF WALL
UNKN UNKNOWN
VCP VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE
VERT VERTICAL
W WALL (ALIGNMENT LINE)
EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING EASEMENT
EXISTING EASEMENT CENTER LINE
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION, TOE OF SLOPE
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION, TOP OF SLOPE
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
REMOVE RETAINING WALL
EXISTING MASONRY WALL
REMOVE MASONRY WALL
PROPOSED MASONRY WALL
PROPOSED STAGING AREA
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
REMOVE TREE
REMOVE TREE - BROWN & CALDWELL
PROPOSED CONCRETE STRUCTURE
EXISTING CONCRETE STRUCTURE
EXISTING TREE OR STUMP
EXISTING ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION
PROPOSED ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION
PROPOSED VMAX SLOPE PROTECTION
PROPOSED GABION DROP STRUCTURE
\ //
100%SUBMITTAL
x#5SW?ESI§j£(!.
H&vssvJ'^fp^
WARNING
0 1/g 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING ISNOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
•HS CHEStfEMC HME. SUOE 201SAN KE& CMjnMMA HI23(850) 514-0032 MX (OSO) 514-0033
nMUECT VMMGBt
HORIZONTAL N»SCALE VERTICAL n»
•AS - BUILT-
PF n» DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENONEER
mnw.
OF WORK
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATEmoor •HTML
nwvAi
DATE
CITY w
HTML
PROVAL
SHEET
2 1 CITY OF CARLSBAD
1 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS
22
IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR
INDEX MAP
LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS
APPROVED: DAW A. HAUSER
DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER PE: 33061 EXPRE& 06/30/08 DATE
DUN HYf
CHKD BY: fiiRVW BY- DM
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
ri.
!i
i
1
S2
3j
1
|
i
!1
s1i
As
S
3
•«
|
id
1
I
eU
f
"DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE"
1 HEREBY DECLARE THAT 1 AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT 1 HAVE
EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, AND THAT THE DESIGN IS
CONSISTENT WTH CURRENT STANDARDS.
1 UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD DOES NOT RELIEVE ME. AS ENGINEER OF WORK, Of MY RESPONSIBILITIESFOR PROJECT DESIGN.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
9665 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUITE 201
SAN D/EGO. CALIFORNIA 92123
(858) 514-8822
CHRISTIAN HERENCIA
R.C.E. NO..- C 54987 REGISTRATION EXPIRATION DATE: 06/30/08
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY
TOPOGRAPHY SHOKN ON THESE PLANS WAS GENERATED BY AERIAL SURVEY METHODS
FROM INFORMATION GATHERED ON OCTOBER 27, 2005 BY PHOTO GEODETIC CORPORATION.
TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN HEREON CONFORMS TO NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS.
ADOmOfMi. TOPOGRAPHY SHOW ON THESE PLANS WAS GENERATED BY A SECOND AERIALSURVEY ROW ON MAY ?Q. ?006 BY T0m± SURVEY COMPANY FOR THE AGUA
HEDIONDA CREEK. THIS NEW INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY LVLE ENGINEERING, INC. ON
JULY 08, 2006. THIS REVISED TOPOGRAPHY REFLECTS INTERIM FINISHED GRADE FOR
EMERGENCY DREDGING THAT WAS PERFORMED AND COMPLETED (MAY 3. 2006} UNDER
ARMY CORPS PERMIT No. 2006QOI5I-KJC ISSUED ON MARCH 3. 2006.
CONTROL BASED FROM CUT RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 17271 WHICH IS NGVD 1929.HORIZONTAL COORDINATE DATUM IS CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM 83, VERSION
1991.35 (NAD 83)
TREE LOCATION SURVEY MAP INCORPORATED INTO DRAWNGS WAS ACQUIRED FROM RICK
ENGINEERING STUDY, TITLED "XXXXXXXXXXXX". DATED XXXXXJi. 20XX.
ADDITIONAL MAPPING
PROVIDED BY O'DAY CONSULTANTS, ROBERTSON RANCH EAST ULLAGE, C.T. 02-16
PROJECT LOCATION
EXISTING UTILITY DATA TABLE
fo
1
2
3
4
S
e
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DESCRIPTION
24" RW WATER LINE (CMLC)
1S" VCP SEWER LINE
12-AWWA C900 PVC WATER LINE
14" STEEL WATER LINE
12" PVC SEWER LINE
21" VCP SEWER LINE
10" HP FUEL' MAIN
4" HP GAS LINE
16- HP FUEL LINE
36" DIP WATER LINE
ABANDONED 20" STEEL WATER LINE
6" SEWER LINE
8" SEWER LINE
12" SEWER LINE
M" STEEL WATERLINE
24" VCP SEWER
42-RCP STORM DRAIN
18"PVC STORM DRAIN
4' SEWER LINE
36" RCP STORM DRAIN
48" RCP STORM DRAIN
8" PVC SEWER LINE
11'XT REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX
10" PVC SEWER LINE
REFERENCE DRAWING
C.M.W.D. 333-26
C.M.W.D. 333-2GE
C.M.W.D. 404-7
C.M.W.D. 85-101
C.M.W.D. 92-406
C.M.W.D. 144-7
SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINES, INC 122-41
C.M.W.D. 333-2G
SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINES, INC 126-75
C.M.W.D. 85-101
C.M.W.D. 333-26
RANCHO CARLSBAD MHP
RANCHO CARLSBAD MHP
RANCHO CARLSBAD MHP
C.M.W.D. S527-A
C.M.W.D. 333-26
CALA VERA HILLS PHASE II IMP PLANS DWG. 390-9
CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II IMP PLANS DWG. 390-9
CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II IMP PLANS DWG. 390-9
CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II IMP PLANS DWG. 390-9
CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II IMP PLANS DWG. 390-9
CALA VERA HILLS PHASE II IMP PLANS DWG. 390-9
CALA VERA HILLS PHASE II IMP PLANS DWG. 390-9
C.M.W.D. 404-7
THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUUBER(S)
168-050-37 HH/CH INCLUDE UNITS ( THRU 96
168-050- 38 WHICH INCLUDE UNITS 97 THRU 168168-050-J9 WHICH INCLUDE UNITS 169 THRU 22J
168-050-40 WHICH INCLUDE UNITS 224 THRU 297
168-050-41 WHICH INCLUDE UNITS 298 THRU 371
168-050-42 WHICH INCLUDE UNITS 372 THRU 419
16S-050-4J WHICH INCLUDE UNITS 420 THRU 504
DATA SHOW FROM SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP 168-05 SHEET 4. DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1998
THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE INDEX OF THIS PROJECT IS:
338-1671 (2002-6243)
(LrNo. C0549
^ BROWN AND CALDWELL
£\. WARNING MaafSm*fXK.mm
iXA «?£38,':nS'<!«lSSu3•%*&& 0 1/2 1 - IOB8IHP2 «M».l »«-»*.
*2 /»// IF THIS BAR DOES ™"m™!
$f ToTTSTALV.5 SCALE "™™™ ""
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
(VARIES 10B'-120'>
---.^//
•AH' LINE STA 7+00 - STA 11+33
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
(VARIES lOB'-iaO1)
PROPOSED MAINTEN/
SEE SHEET 13
(VARIES)
VARIES (4' - art
«. ,---'
£\- — i -/«•>•r -••
"CC" LINE STA 1+08 - STA 5+00
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
(VARIES)
4'
^~\r- -I -r^'
"CC" LINE STA 5+00 - STA 20+00
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
(VARIES)
~~"\
•CC- LINE STA 20+00 - STA 32+00
CALAVERA CREEK
TYPICAL SECTIONS
NOTTOSCALf
"AS - BUILT"
ft r» DATE
DATE -SmT w
EMONEBI OF HOIK REVISION DESCRIPTION f_iINSPECTOR DATE «*"*«* » "»»> "in
85'
42.5' * 42.5'_ -, •+-^ /•*"
'«sr r y&
•AH" LINE STA 1 1+33 - STA 18+00
kNCE ROAD
\ STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
\ (VARIES 132-150')
\ gj,
\ .42.5' I 42.5" I
— -X\\T X _! \7/'
"AH" LINE STA 18+00 - STA 19+50
VARIES (40'-85')
~~~"- . f
1/«>
"AH" LINE STA 19+50 - STA 20+00
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
(VARIES IDO'-IOB1)
40'
"~""L^>- *
W -i ti'
"AH" LINE STA 20+00 -STA 41 +60
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
TYPICAL SECTIONS
NOT TO SCALE
100% SUBMITTAL
1 1 1 sHtt' CITY
EN
DimOVEIIBIT PU
GENERAL ^
SFOTION
OF CARLSBAD SH5TS
SNEERING DEPARTMENT 22
US FOR
JOTES, TYPICAL CREEK
SAND UTILITY TABLE
APPTOVEO: DAW A. MAUSER
1C NDAL DATE M1IAL ^p pY- fp
» APPROVAL OPT APPROVAL RVW BY: 2H
Pfc 33061 EXPIRES: Og/30/DB DATE
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A |
1
oi
8
Si
i
i
1I
I
f
US
BASIS OF BEARINGS
AND COORDINATES/BENCHMARK
NAD 83 (1991.35 EPOCH) POINTS AS SHOWN ON
CITY OF CARLSBAD CONTROL RECORD OF SURVEYNO. 17271 USING BEARING: N 56' 44' 52" E
POINT 105
N 1999466.124E 6241021.960
ELEV. -26.131 (NGVD 1929)2.5" DISK IN NORTHEAST CORNER OF CANNON ROAD BRIDGEOVER AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK. 120' SOUTHWEST OF EL CAMINO REAL
POINT 109
N 1998301.767
E 6239246.162
2.5" DISK IN DRAINAGE BOX INLET ON SOUTH SIDE
OF CANNON RD. 0.2 Ml WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL
COMBINED SCALE FACTOR AT POINT 105 IS 0.999962440
GRID DISTANCE - (GROUND DISTANCE) X (COMBINED SCALE FACTOR)
LINE
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
L16
L17
H LINE TABLE
LENGTH
18.70
11.38
45.20
168.16
32.84
1017.71
117.35
233.62
117.89
208.27
121.24
36.04
228.89
450.55
407.64
1130.51
85.61
BEARING
N46'39'03"E
S62"57'58"E
S62*57'58"E
N23'24'33"E
N51"59'48"E
S63'44'29"E
N81M8'29"E
S83'21'53"E
seo'oisre
N87-55WE
S24'24'52"W
S39'53'53"W
SeSMI^-W
N78'31'03"W
S48"19'21'W
S51*47'40"W
NSg'SffOS-W
O CURVE TABLE
CURVE
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
LENGTH
399.24
326.81
149.68
560.79
300.64
129.39
203.69
111.90
54.05
225.08
189.58
463.91
133.42
RADIUS
325.00
200.00
300.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
200.00
200.00
500.00
303.48
500.00
200.00
DELTA ANGLE
70-22>59"
93'37'29"
28*35'15"
64"15'43"
34'27'02"
14-49W
23'2076"
32'03'29"
15-29W"
25'47^2"
35'4T3y
S3'osrsr
38'13'14"
HORIZONTAL COORDINATE TABLE
"AH" STATION
7+00
7+18.70
11+17.93
11+74.51
15+1.32
16+69.48
18+19.16
18+52.00
24+12.79
34+30.50
37+31.14
38+48.49
39+77.87
42+11.50
44+15.18
45+33.07
46+44.97
48+53.25
NORTHING
1999383.4911
1999396.3264
1999449.4819
1999423.7666
1999522.4555
1999676.7708
1999793.9752
1999814.1922
1999868.6073
1999418.3477
1999371.8521
1999388.5730
1999390.3257
1999363.3312
1999299.7987
1999240.8992
1999214.2787
1999221.8468
EASTING
6240499.8772
6240513.4742
6240884.2864
6240934.6818
6241209.1234
6241275.9308
6241366.5262
6241392.3997
6241921.4657
6242834.1517
6243126.8080
6243242.7600
6243371.7770
6243603.8370
6243795.8803
6243897.9970
6244005.1910
6244213.3280
DESCRIPTION
BEGIN CONTRACT
BEGIN CURVE C1
END CURVE C1
BEGIN CURVE C2
END CURVE C2
BEGIN CURVE C3
END CURVE C3
BEGIN CURVE C4
END CURVE C4
BEGIN CURVE C5
END CURVE C5
BEGIN CURVE C6
END CURVE C6
BEGIN CURVE C7
END CURVE C7
BEGIN CURVE C8
END CURVE C8
END CONTRACT
O EXISTING EASEMENT TABLE
No.
E1
E2
E3
E4
PURPOSE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
OWNER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DOCUMENT
DOC. 2003-1414301
DOC. 2003-1414303
F/N 2003-1414301 O.R.
F/N 2003-1414303 O.R.
RECORDED
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
CALAVERA CREEK - SEE SHEET 5
60' EASEMENT AND RAV FOR ROAD PURPOSES
?. EASEMENT TO SDG&E RECORDED
OCTOBER 29, 1971 AS DOC. NO. 251396
OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985
102, OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985
PARCEL
BOUNDARY 60 EASEMENT TO JOSEPH *
LILLIAN CANTARINI
AND BANNING CANTARINI
RECORDED APRIL 1, 1967
AS DOC. NO, 58827 OR AND
SEPTEMBER 7, 1995
AS FILE NO. 1995-0398033 OR
AS SHOWN ON PM 17985
PARCEL MAP
BOUNDARY
•CC" LINE STA 0+00.00 •
"AH" LINE STA 18+76.78
N=1999828.95
AH" LINE STA 7+00.00
N-1999383.49
£=6240499.88
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED
AND ACCEPTED ON PM 17985
12' EASEMENT TO SDG&E RECORDED NOVEMBER 26, 1965
AS FILE/PAGE NO. 214035 OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985 "AH" LINE STA 48+53.25
N=1999221.85
£=6244213.3320' EASEMENT TO SDG4E RECORDED MARCH 20.
1956 AS BOOK 6024 PAGE NO. 26 OR AS SHOWN ON
PM 17985
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK 100%SUBMITTAL
HORIZONTAL CONTROL MAP
^5^aFESlg&^
Jriti
VVS..C6»»/
^^^
WARNING
o i/a i
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING ISNOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
BUS OESAPCAKE DM. Suit 201SMI KCft CMJFOMA 92123(B58) 31+-H22 FAX (058) 514-WU
MOJECT kUNMBI
HORIZONTAL ASSMOWN
VERTICAL AS SHOWN
"AS-BUILT"
p p n» DATt
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENGINEER
INITIAL
OF WODK
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER AP
NTUL
PTOVAL
DATE
CITY AP
MITUL
PKOVAL
SHEET
4 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS
22
IMPROVEMENT PUDS FOR
HORIZONTAL CONTROL MAP - 1
APPROVED; DAVID A. HAUSER
DEPUTY C nr ENGINEER
HUM nv-
CHKD BY: 58pu«i py o"
PE: MOW EXPIRES: 06/M/OB DATE
PROJECT NO. II DRAWNG NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
O
f
t
•s£•oi
LINE
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
L16
L17
H UNSTABLE
LENGTH
18.70
11.38
45.20
168.16
32.84
1017.71
117.35
233.62
117.89
208.27
121.24
36.04
228.89
450.55
407.64
1130.51
85.61
BEARING
N46-39WE
S62*57I58T
S62P57'5B-E
N23'24'33"E
N5rS9l48'E
S63'44'29"E
N81'48'29"E
S83'21'53-E
S60'01'27T
Nerssra-E
S24'24IS2"W
ssg'ss'ss-w
sesMiTsi/v
N78'31'03'W
S48'19'21"W
S51'47'40'W
N89-59'05-W
O CURVE TABLE
CURVE
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
LENGTH
399-24
326.81
149.68
560.79
300.64
129.39
203.69
111.90
54.05
225.08
189.58
463.91
133.42
RADIUS
325.00
200.00
300.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
200.00
200.00
500.00
303.48
500.00
200.00
DELTA ANGLE
70-22'59-
93^T2ar
28'35'15'
64'15'43"
34'27>02"
14-49'37'
23'20'26"
32'03'29-
15-29W
25-47^2-
35'4T33r
syoorzr
38'13'U"
HORIZONTAL COORDINATE TABLE
"CC" STATION
0+00
1+21.24
1+75.28
2+11.33
4+36.40
6+75.55
8+66.64
13+01.10
17+71.13
21+78.82
33+09.33
34+42.75
35+28.36
NORTHING
1999828.9518
1999939.3463
1999984.9645
2000012.6160
2000147.5704
2000246.0213
2000265.8632
2000174.1650
2000289.4521
2000560.5391
2001259.7402
2001302.5805
2001302.5578
EASTING
6241412.2849
6241462.3955
6241491.0742
6241514.1929
6241691.9510
6241909.8960
6242096.7163
6242521.3855
^ 6242959.3868
6243263.8876
6244152.2402
6244275.9897
6244361.6044
DESCRIPTION
BEGIN CONTRACT
BEGIN CURVE C9
END CURVE C9
BEGIN CURVE C10
END CURVE C10
BEGIN CURVE C11
END CURVE C11
BEGIN CURVE C12
END CURVE C12
BEGIN LINE L16
BEGIN CURVE C1 3
END CURVE C13
END CONTRACT
60' EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD
PURPOSES TO GEORGE W. AND EDWINA TARRY
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 10, 1957 IN BOOK 6740
PAGE NO. 102 OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985
O EXISTING EASEMENT TABLE
No.
E1
E2
E3
E4
PURPOSE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
STORM DRAINAGE
OWNER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DOCUMENT
DOC. 2003-1414301
DOC. 2003-1414303
F/N 2003-1414301 O.R.
F/N 2003-1414303 O.R.
RECORDED
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
11-25-2003
PARCEL MAP BOUNDARY
AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
LAKE CALAVERA CREEK
DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED
AND ACCEPTED ON PM 17985
Q. EASEMENT TO SDG4E RECORDED
OCTOBER 29, 1971 AS DOC. NO. 251396
OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985PARCEL MAP
BOUNDARY
60' EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD
PURPOSES TO GEORGE W. AND EDWINA TARRY
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 10. 1957 IN BOOK 6740
PAGE NO. 102 OR AS SHOWN ON PM 17985
CALAVERA CREEK 100% SUBMITTAL
HORIZONTAL CONTROL MAP
^^xtai^.
ffr^HO S|B1\\,\ No. C 054987 L //V\Bq>. 6-30-08 1*11
^^^^
WARNING
0 1/2 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING ISNOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
9M5 OESAKMCE OBVE, SURE 201SMI OEEO, CMfORMA 12123(BSI) S14-M22 FAX (B5B) 514-HU
•aoumrn. tuTfcFHIIll. 1 UMUOCK
HORIZONTAL /ks SHOWN
VERTICAL AS SHOWN
•AS - BUILT
ft 00 DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENGINEER
MHAL
OF WORK
rt
REVISION DESCRIPTION
D«1E
onei AP
MI1UL
FRWM.
DATE
QTY AP
MUM.
PfXJVAL
SHEET
5 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS
22
mPROVEHEMT PLANS FOR:
HORIZONTAL CONTROL MAP - 2
APPROVED: DAW A. MAUSER
OEPUTT CITY ENGINEER P& 33061 EXPIRES: 06/30/08 DATE
HUM nv-
CHKD BY: BR«vm fiv. 01
PROJECT NO. II DRAWNG NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
Iiiu
-45
35
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00
HORtzrr?-4p"
6+00 7+00
yc
/ATATCENTERLINE
-8
CO
8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00
PARCEL MAP
BOUNDARY
0+00
GENERAL NOTE:
NO WORK SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING
LEGEND:
Q SEE SHEET 3 FOR EXISTING UTILITY TABLE
100% SUBMITTAL
Q 18 20 30 *0
SCAUINFEET
V\Exp. 6-30-08 ,J*I1
WARNING
0 1/g 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"
THEN DRAWING ISNOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
IMS CHESJKME OHM. SUTC 201SM OCBOL CMJOMA B2IZ3(BH) 9I4-4B12 FAX (BOB) 3T4-IB33
MOfCTIMMMat
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWNSCALE
VERTICAL AS SHOWN
•AS - BUILT
ff cvo DATE
INSPECTOR DATE
OA1E
ENONEER IF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER AP
M1UL
PROVAL
DATE
CITY AP
MTTAL
PROVAL
SHEET
6 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS I
22
IMPROVEMENT PUNS TOR
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
STA 7+00 TO 11 +00
APPROVED: DAVD A. HAUSER
IY ENGHEER PC 33061 EXPKES; 06/30/dB DATE
HUM BY-
CHKD BY: EfiRVWD BY- Q"
PROJECT NO. || DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
TOP OF RAIL T6PC
EL TIAMINtf-REAt'- -(BRIDGE -
JTQ&QFJ1AIU-
EL.461
-T^-O)
46££.*
•EXISTING DREDGED
•GROUNtVATCENTERLINE
'- -AXCENTERtltJE--
_/-FINISHED GRADE
/ ATCENTERUNE
it -uft-
-ORIGINAt GROUND
—34.97%
&
/—SEDIMENTATIpvl BASIN
/ EL> 30.00'?t -
:i
7
TSROP STROuj.UKb NOTEl: _
"JL1fteBE(^INSTir*»:4'*RTDIf "A TT3NE STATZOWT
fc.25-
HORI2:1'=j4ar
11+00 12+00 13+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00
jr SBCT5?IELD"^FIRMloCAln6jNIJ&F CABLE ~<cT!?~
' •^RAMSEY^VI ITfSBC WEST AT
* CDNTRACTORfO .FIELD VERIFY
22+00
-* SEE.SHEET 13 i "
D 10 20 30 40
- * ' —W' LlftE STA 21+55 .. /s\
/~^REMOtftAND REPLACE*^
/ ' OVERSIDE DRAIN
v /:;^*^4
ibiȣ^ ~;*^%*_X ~ / PER PM 1798^"
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
TOE OF SLOPE
••> *, ^^Sf^^. ^SA V^ LIMITS 6>EXCAV,«-'feT^5*^^^^< TOP OF SLOP/
^rs^?^;
t ^^mS^^ffm,^
u
JM' PF EXISTING I^JASONRY, \
WALL TO 3£ REMOVED
SEE SHEET 14
v JLA > " ^v* -AfriiNesw 19+so
Vifl
'Afl'LINE>TAj8+767fr= TREE OR STUMP/
<. TO
POSEfS OFf OR -CC- LINE^SEE f*EET fO "^S"MJ-i i^r-oTA ,o.^-,o , v nyj
LIMrTS.OF EXCAVATION
TOP OF SLOPE , _- .
^AGiUA HEDIQKDA.
EASEMENT LINE
< PER PM 17985
AGUA HEDIONDA cteBf
^EASEMENT LINE "
^ PERPk
Q SEE SHEET 3 FOR EXISTING
UTILITY TABLE
A SEE SHEET 13 FOR PROPOSED
ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (RSP)
O SEE SHEET 21 FOR MISCELLANEOUS
CONCRETE DETAILS
100% SUBMITTAL
^^' - ^ x£ •s^ft*- \ ^ "^ "
*^X <^ x>/ •» \
\L\ No. C 054987 *OV\EKp. 6-30-08 /y
WARNING
p i/a i
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
•MS CHRMCME MK. 5U1E 201
SMI DEBQ, CMJRMMA t»23(85B) »+-«32 FU (Bsa) 5M-M33
PKOCCT HMMCM
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWNSCALEVERTICAL AS SHOWN
"AS - BUILT"
P.F no DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENGHEER OF HORK REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER AP
MmAl
PROVAL
DATE
CfTY AP
MTIAL
PROVAL
SHEET
7 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS
22
mraOVEKDIT PLUO FOR:
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
STA 11 +00 TO STA 24+00
APPROVED: DAVD A. HAUSEH
DEPUTY OTT ENOMEER Pt 33M1 EXPIRES: M/30/DB DATE
CHKD BY: H£
RVW> "V DM
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.I
3338-1 || 438-2A
r 1
-its
LJu
UJ I 35
GROUND
-EXISTINGOREDGe*
GROUND-ArCENTERLINE
-FINtSHED GRADE
-AECEMTERLJNE'
4S-
35 --co-iiuLLI-
25--
24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00
D6ti MATA 0R/VE
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
TOt OF SLOPE,
REMOVE &SEPLACE
OVERSIDE DRAIN
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED
AND ACCEPTEefON P^\798S
LEGEND:
Q SEE SHEET 3 FOR
EXISTING UTILITY TABLE
O SEE SHEET 21 FOR
MISCELLANEOUS
CONCRETE DETAILS
DON RICARD01)RIVE
100% SUBMITTAL
0 10 ._»__30___<0
SCALE IN FEET
< "
^^^^//^mp(l ml\,\ No. C OM987 /,//
Y\E«P- 6-30-08 J*H
^^emtf^^s-t^vgjZr
WARNING
0 \/Z 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
QMS CHE5AKMC UHE. M1E SOISMI DEGft CMJFDHA U123(N) 5I4-M22 FAX (MB) S4-M33
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWNSCALEVERTICAL AS SHOWN
"AS - BUILT
tr ™> DATE
-smr
ENONEER
IM1UL
OFMRK
*>REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATC
OTHER AP
MIIAL
PMNAL
DATE
am if
M1UL
PROVAL
SHEET
8 CITY OF CARLSBADENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ISHEETS
22
mPBOVBOMT PUNS fOR
AGUA HEDIONDA
STA 24+00 TO STA 35+00
AmtOVEK DAW A. HAUSOt
DEPUTY OTT ENONEER
OWN BY:
CHKD BY:JfiRVWD BY: DM
PE: 330B1 EXPIRES: 06/30/OB DATE
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
(TS
:PRIGINAL,GROUNII
ATEENTERQNE"""
-GROUND AT ( ENTERLINE
IPROTECTIN PLACE
GABI0N DROP STRUCTURE-*sjTO BE REMOVED
DISPOSED OF
GABION PROP ST WCTURE
.SEEDETAC
(1ABION DROP STRUCTURE GABION DROP STB UCTURE
SEE DETAIL^ „i—„, / Q. -*-CONTRAeTORirQ FIELD-VE RIFY
40+00
BEGIN TAPER
"AH- UNE.^TA-39+25
•AH* LINESTA,3fe-S3 00
GABION DROPSTRUCTURE
SgEDETAJL"AH-LINESTA37-r09
EXISTING 18- PVC
LISnTS-OFsEXGAVATIOS
oR SLOPE
dlWTSQFJEXCAVATJON
TOEX3F SL6PE
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING CONG HEADWALL
SEE SHEET 20 AND 21 •AH' LINE
STA 39*77 88
AH' LIME STA 40+78.00
GABION DROP STRUCTURE
LEGEND:
SEE SHEET 3 FOR EXISTING UTILITY TABLE
O SEE SHEET 21 FOR MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE DETAILS
ITS 'OF EXCAVATJQfcL GABION DROP STRUCTURE
LIMITS 6% E
TOP OP-'REMOVE/iND REPLACE
EXISTING CQNC HEADWALL
S'EE SHEETED AND3f AGUA HEDIONPA CREEK
DRAINAGE EASEMENT LINE
PER 5M 17985,'
END REMOVAL OF
EXISTING RETAINING WALL
331 RT OF "AH? LINFSTA 35+42
TW= (44.7411
EG = (40.19-):
EXISTING RSP TO BE
REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF
PROPOSED VMAX
SLOPE PROTECTION
CTYP)
100%SUBMITTAL
u
-.
^^°^^(f\^'•ssy*/
^g|^
0 1/2 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING ISNOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
MS OCStfEMC HHC. SU1E 20tSAM DKsa CNfOMA tZIU(B96) SM-W2 FAX (as!) SI4-aS33
MOUCCTIMNAGa
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWNSCALE
VERTICAL AS SHOWN
•AS - BUILT"
ft np DATE
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
OtONEER
TNTTOT
OFWCRX
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER tf
MTIAL
PdOVAL
DATE
cm AF
M1UL
FROVM.
SHEET
9 CITY OF CARLSBADENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS
22
mPROVKHEHT FUHS rUK
AGUA HEDIONDA
STA 35+00 TO STA 41 +98.71
APFROKD: OAMD A. HAUSER
DEPUTY Cmr ENONEEK PE: 33081 EVKE& 06/JO/M DATE
OWN BY:
CHKD BY: B6RVWD BY: PM
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
n
EXISTING GROUND
AT CENTERLINE
TO BE: REMOVED
X^NDO'ISPOSEDOF
1i
o+oo 1+00 2+00
"CC" LINE STA 2+53.00
3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00
LAKE CALAVERA CREEK DRAINAGE EASEMENT
-DEpiCXTEBlSND ACCEPTED O^ PM 17985
JOiN'pROSpSEO "MASONRY WAL'L
TO EXISf^iG MASONfcY WALL
SEE SHEET 1'4
<D
GABIQN1DROP S^SUCTURE
SEETIEfAIL
PROPOSED STAGING AREA
EXISTING MASONRY WALL
PROTECT,IN,PLACE
REMOVE AND REPLACE
EXISTING CONG HEADWALL
SEE SHEET 20 AND 21
PROPOSED RSP^
SE6 SHEE LIMITS OF EXC«rAT|pl)l;
TOEOFStOPE " -^"~
trRTOF^GC'ONE STA3+72
(42.19')
EG = (3S.781)
EXISTING RAILROAD'TIE RETAINING WALL
PROTECT IN PLACE
irRtOF-CC' LINE STA 3+23
TWf(423S)
PROPOSEB^Ovi
VEHICLE TURNOUT LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
TOP OF SLOPELIMITS OF EXCAVA
TOP OP SLOPE"CC' tlNE-STA 2+03.00 LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
TOE OF SLOPE, , §EE DETAIL , ,~
•-CC'LINESrA 1+5000 ' 2
' GABION DROP STRUCTURE
SEE DETAIL'
xPRQPOSEDJ«SP-A ;
'AGBA HEDJO^DA CREEK^.
DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED
AND ACCEPTED ONM 1785- '
FOR "AH- LINE SEE SHEET 7
LEGEND:
Q SEE SHEET 3 FOR EXISTING
UTILITY TABLE
A SEE SHEET 13 FOR PROPOSED
ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (RSP)
O SEE SHEET 21 FOR MISCELLANEOUS
CONCRETE DETAILS
100% SUBMITTAL
^^oFQwafe^
JP%|,faff gp|\ \ No. C 054987 /.. //V\Exp. 6-30-08 J*lj
^Mjyj^^^
^sgl^P^
WARNING
0 1/2 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING ISNOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
MBS OCSMCWEDmE. SUITE 201SM DEGO. CMJFOHA U123{>») N4-M2Z FAX (BS§) 514-IB33
HORIZONTAL asHam
VERTICAL AS SHOWN
"AS - BUILT-
pp C)p DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENGINEER
INITIAL
OF WORK
/Iv
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER AP
N1UL
PROWL
DATE
QTY AP
MT1AI
PROVAL
SHEET
10 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS I
22
IHPBOVEIIEIIT PLUS lUK
CALAVERA CREEK
STA 0+00 TO STA 11 +00
APPROVED: DAW A. H
DEPUTY Cm ENGMEER
n«M HY-
CHKO BY: »RVWD BY: D»
AU5ER
PE UOm CXPKE& 08/30/M DATE
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
n
- EXISTING GROUNC-"EXISTlNi3~GROtlND~
AT-CENTEHLINE--
FINISHED GRADE
ATCENtERLINE
GABION DROP STRUCTURE
DROP STRUCTURE
-SEEDETAIL
IgRTOF-CC- LINE STA 11+21
TW=(46.89')
= (44.18t •CC" i-INE STA 21 +00,00 _,
GABION DROP STRUCTURE
SEE DETAIL'
EXISTING MASONRY WAU14'RTOF"CC-LINESTA11+63 /
REMOVE EXISTING
(JONC, APRONSGABKSN RRORSTRUCTORE
SEEfiETAlL S ~~~
LIMITS,OF EXCAVATIOM
TQPC<F SLOPE '
LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
TOEX>F SLOPE"
LAKE CALAVERA CREEK DRAINAGE EASEMENT
DEDICATED^ND ACCENTED ON gM 1^985
REMOVE^ONCRETE
AND INSTALL SLOPE
'TREATMENT (VMAXjf;
«CC"LINBSTA 21+01.00,
REMOVf AND LEGEND:
SEE SHEET 3 FOR EXISTING UTILITY TABLE
STISB RETAININ&WALU
TECT IN PLACE ' EXISTING STOMP^
PROTECT BWLACE GABION-DROP S
SEET5ETAIL SEE SHEET 21 FOR MISCELLANEOUS
CONCRETE DETAILSLIMITSOF
EXCAVATT6N
TCE OF SLOPE
LIMITS OF -
BCOWATION
SLOPE
100%SUBMITTAL
u
0 10 20 30 40
SCALE W FEET
OVERSIDE DRAIN
SEE SHEET 21
LA"*. C 054987 )"«
WARNING
0 1/2 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"
THEN DRAWING ISNOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
MB CHE5MCAKE UME, SITE 201SANOEGO, CMfOMA UI23(BH) 9M-KB2 FAX (HO) H4-M39
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWNSCALEVERTICAL AS SHOWN
"AS - BUILT
PC ro> DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENGMEER
MrlUL
OF WORK
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DAITi
OlMEfl AP
MTIIAL
ntOVAL
DATE
cmr AP
MTDAL
pflOVAL
SHLtl
11 CITY OF CARLSBADENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS I
22
mFBOVDUNT PUNS TOR
CALAVERA CREEK
STA 1 1 +00 TO STA 23+00
APPROVED: DAW A MAUSER
DEPUTY COT ENGMEER PE: 33061 EOTRE& 06/30/06 DATE
nuu BY.
CHKD BY:SERVWD BY- OM
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
u
MJ
.
UJOTOt
-.06j-cjyi EQ =+00
TCH LINE STA 23+00SEE SHEET 118
EXISTING GROUND
' -AT-OENTERLII
8
24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00
45
I*- &QNTRACTOR-TO FIELD-VE f»?tjsUomnnei '
29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00
S*
_--•nXiSTOG MASONRY VVAU- .PROTECT m
CALAVEftf: -CREEK
iJEDtCATEErANDiXCCEFKB Otf PHT7985"" — """ ~
v' ' *- • *-Mi ^~ EXISTS RSe^D RETAINIWG WALLPROTECT IN PLACE CONC R^fMNiNG WALL
PROTECT IN PLACE
GENERAL NOTE:
NO WORK SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING
LEGEND:
d SEE SHEET 3 FOR EXISTING UTILITY TABLE
100%SUBMITTAL
0 10 20 30 40
SCALE IN FEET
BROWN AND CALDWELL
VERTICAL »aHO,«
-AS-BUILT-
DATE ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION - .— «.
SHEET
12 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CALAVERA CREEK
STA 23+00 TO STA 34+00
APPROWD: DAW X HAUSEH
DEPUTY CITY ENGMEEft PE: 33081 EXWHtS; 08/30/00 DATE
PROJECT NO.
3330-1
DRAWING NO.
436-2A
n
AHMBf S TA 52+20.54
-EXISTrNGrGRGeNp-
EXISTING MASONRY WALL
g"AHMR« STA 52+00
PROPOSED fcRjEKGRADE
(EfEFORE MAINTENANCE S6to CONSTRUCTION)""
VECHIO.E TURNOUT
BACKING MATERIAL -I
BACKING MATERIAL'- 6" THICKNESS
"AHMR" STA 52*00.00 LINE SECTIONEXISTING PVC
SEWER LINE
MAINTENANCE ROAD PROFIL E TAHMRT
PROPOSED AC
VEHICLE TURNOUT
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED
AND ACCEPTED ON PM 17985 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
ANCHOR AND INSTALL
ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS
^LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
TOP OF SLOPE PROTECT IN PLACE
RIM EL. 41.36'
FILL WITH BACKING CLASS NO. 1LIMITS OF EXCAVATION
TOiOFSLOPE
TIE INTO EXISTING RSP
^PROPOSED RSP
SEEQETAHr
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEKSEE DETAIL
THISSffeEf DEDICATED AND ACCEPTED
A PROPOSED RSP
1 TON ENERGY DISSIPATION BOULDERS (TYP)
CUT INTO FINISHED GRADE
TRENCH BOTTOM
ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION (RSP) OR
RETENTION BASIN OVERFLOW ENERGY DISSIPATION
LIMITS OF ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION
A
1
2
3
4
FROM LOCATION/STATION
41' LT "AH" STA 16+25
491LT-CC"STAO+28
5' RT "CC" STA 1+50
30' LT -AH" STA 19+54
TO LOCATION/STATION
55- LT "AH- STA 18+12
S LT "CC" STA 1+50
21'RT-CC-STAO+82
17-LT "AH" STA 21+66
100%SUBMITTAL-J=- -.-,. --CLr-- -
\ A No. C OM987 LI\\tf- 6-M-08 /**
-~^_
WARNING
0 1/2 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
r~~~,X ^^\ ^^y ^=^5*-
BROWN AND CALDWELL
HIS OCSWEMCE MNE, SU1E 301SANOESa CAUFOMA 12129(HI) »4-M22 FAX (BM) 514-1833
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWNSCALE —VERTICAL AS SHOWN
^^<^^A;
I
"AS - BUILT
tc OP DATE:
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENGMEER
MITIAL
OFMRK
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER AP
MHIAL
PROVAL
DATE
an AP
MITIAL
PROVAL
SHtET
13 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS
22
mpBOVEMEMT PLAMS TOttCALAVERA CREEK
PLAN AND PROFILE
STA 32+50
APPROVED
DEPUTY O
DAW A. H
TY ENGMEER
HUM BY.
CHKD BY:«RWVD BY- o*1
AUSER
PE; 330B1 EXPMS: Ot/W/W DATE
PROJECT NO. || DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
48
-44
40
-32
24
83.60'
\FINISHEDGRADE
ATCENTERLJNE
V EXISTING GRADE
AT CENTS RLINE
I
,-5-"
50.00
"TVi
-PROPOSED-MASONRy WALL RROFJUE QAft.
10+00 10+50 11+00
_SCALEi, HpRIZ: y g;
' 'VfiRJjJ^ "
11+50
200.00*
'(44.20-)
.1
I"1"'Otz
>
ATCEI
1- ~
\ ~-
*J
I
-.
^
1JJ
EXISTIIIG GRADE
1 EXISTING'GRAPE
AT CENTERLlNE
12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50
jfeUABEDIONDA-CREEKDRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED
AND ACCEPTED ON PM 17985
CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED
CE ACCESS ROAD
EXISTING AC
12*00JJMffS OF EXCAVATION
TOEOrSUOPE
LIMITS OF-EXC^VATIONT-N
TOP OFSLG|lE
EXISTINGMASONRY WALt,
PROTECT IN PLACt ":
./K ^ROPPSEDRSB
SEE5HEE1L13
/EASEMENT LINE
B>ERPM1798S"WALl-TOBEI^EMOVED
(42.501 ,7 A PROPOSED RSP
SEE SHEET 13
A PROPOSEDfiSP
SEE SHEET 13
14+00
END WORK
JOIN PROPOSED MASONRY WALL
TO EXISTING MASONRY WALL
/Ir 1
*. • '••* , > .
'••••• /~.
^1-d
#5 BAR @ 32
#4 BAR
TOP OF FOOTING
TOTAL OF 3
FOOTING STEP DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
SPREAD FOOTING DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
100%SUBMITTAL
r
st^&XUlj&i-
\~\ No. C 054987 LllV\E«p. 6-30-08 J*H
^^OY&f^/^^r^&^r
WARNING
0 1/g 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
IMS CHESAPCMC ome. sunc miSMOCCQ. CMJRKMA »2123(HI] »4-aa22 FAX (*•» 514-8833
moccr uANAetn
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWNSCALEVERTICAL AS SHOWN
•AS - BUILT
ff np DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
DKKEX
MTTUL
or mane
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER AP
HTML
ntOVAL
DATE
CITY AP
MTIAL
FROVAL
SHLLI
14 CITY OF CARLSBADENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHU. IS
22
OffKOVEHBIT PUNS FORMASONRY WALL
PLAN & PROFILE
STA 10+00 TO STA 13.91.92
AmovED: DAW A HAMER
DEPUTY CITY ENONEER Pfc 330BI EXPKES 06/M/P6 DATE
CHKO BY: —RVWD BY- DM
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
n
32
30
28
80 70 60 40
AGUA HEDIONDA
GABION PROFILE @ STA 18+70.78
SCALE: 1"=10--0"
3'-0"3'-0"3'-o"
STA 18+61.78
-X" FL = 30.00'
STA 18+67.78^^^
FL = 31.00'
STA 1 8+70.78 /
15'-0"
r-0"
STA 18+76.78 ^^
FG = 32.00'
t
I
I
T
SECTION
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
52 STA 39+50
FL = 35.24'
40 30 40
3'-0"
DIAPHRAGM
' AT 3' CENTER
6--0"
AGUA HEDIONDA
GABION PROFILE @ STA 39+53
SCALE: 1" = 10'
SECTIONSCALE r = r-o"
V-6- 36T
32
30
28
1'-6"
u
I.•IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
40
60
56
52
-i 48
44
40
38
40 30 20 10 ^J
AGUA HEDIONDA
40
32
36
GABION PROFILE @ STA 40+03
SCALE: r^lff-O"
60
56
52
40 fir=-39:38-~
32
40 30 20 10 1 10 20 30 40
60
56
52
48
44
40
32
40
38
AGUA HEDIONDA
GABION PROFILE @ STA 40+78
SCALE: I'-W-O"
40 20 20 40
AGUA HEDIONDA
GABION PROFILE @ STA 41+53
SCALE: 1"=10'-0"
STA 40+03
FG = 38.43'
STA 40+00
FL = 36.93'
3'-0"
DIAPHRAGM
AT 3' CENTER
ff-O"
SECTION
STA 40+75
FL = 39.38'
3'-0"
DIAPHRAGM
AT 3' CENTER
SECTION
STA 41+47
FL = 42.00'
3'-0"
DIAPHRAGM
' AT 3' CENTER
6'-0"
SECTION
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
40
38
36
40
r-6-
.I'-6:38
44
42
r-o-
40
100%SUBMITTAL
BROWN AND CALDWELL
HORIZONTAL -— -VERTICAL «SHO«N
"AS - BUILT"
REVIEWED BY-'REVISION DESCRIPTION — -.^ ---
SHEET
15 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 22
MPROVQBNT FLAMS FOR:
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
GABION CROSS-SECTIONS
Appnovm DAW A. MAUSER
OEPUIY OTY ENGINEER Pfc 33061 EXPME& 06/30/06 DATC
PROJECT NO.
3338-1
DRAWING NO.
436-2A
n
oi
52
48
44
40
36
32
28
52
48
44
40
36
32
28
20 10
CALAVERA CREEK
GABION PROFILE Q STA 1+50
SCALE: 1-S10--0-
56
52
48
44
40
36
32
28
20 10 I 10 20
CALAVERA CREEK
GABION PROFILE @ STA 2+03
SCALE: r-W-0"
20 10 T 10 20
CALAVERA CREEK
GABION PROFILE @ STA 2+53
SCALE: r-lff
52
48
44
40
36
32
28
24
34
32
36
34
32
38
36
34
STA 1+50
FG = 34.00' \
STA 1+47
/ FL = 32.50'
3'-0"
DIAPHRAGM
/ AT 3' CENTER
6'-0"
SECTION fT\
SCALE:
STA 2+03
FG = SS.SffX
STA 2+00
/ FL = 34.00'
3M>"
DIAPHRAGM
/ AT 3' CENTER
6'-0"
SECTION /T\
SCALE: 1" = r-0" I - J
STA 2+53 3MT
FG = 37.00' \
STA 2+50
/ FL = 35.50'
/
DIAPHRAGM
/ AT 31 CENTER
6'-0"
SECTION C"&\
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" I - J
ILrNo. C 054987 O ,FV\E* 6-30-08 /y JjC
r-6-
32r-6-
36
1'-6"
r-6"
32
38
r-6"
36
1'-6-
-L 34
STA1B+80 V^- j I
60 — V -•!-••
56 \
52 V
48 """"^JxT. : Y:
- dTA48*77~. -Ilr: -.— jL-s,
36 J--9'^ "
32 f
20 10 |
CALAVERA C
GABION PROFILE g
STA 18+80
-60 FG = 42.28' \
56 >
52 42
i STA 18+77
;r- 48 S' FL = 41.28'
___^~^. 44
t~40
3'-0"
DIAPHRAGM
/AT 3' CENTER
32 4° 6^-i
10 20
REEK
8 STA 18+80
42
r-o"
40
SCALE: 1- = 10'-0- ~-~SECTION -fT\
STA 20+00 \"v/|
FG = 43.00' \
60 -"X-
56 V
52 i --^ X-
48 ^^-^ Y
44 STA f 9+97 H" — <1 j-
1 J2'-0"
36 '
SCALE: 1
44 STA20+00
FG = 43.00' \
60 \
ZR STA 19+97
s' FL- 42.00'
52 s/
--• 48 42 '
- ^.~r:' AA
'
40L .,
3'-0"
DIAPHRAGM
6'-0"
32 i 32
20 10 ^ I 10 20 4Q
CALAVERA CREEK
GABION PROFILE g
SCALE: r»10
STA 21 +00 \~-) I
64 VI
60 NT
56 V
52 J»^^^ X
48 -— ^ V
FL-=-43.00'i \ — i
40 !- - -j- ,12X1
44
r-o"
r-o-
40
5 STA 20+00 RFCTION ^5^
'•Q~ SCALE: 1
STA 21 +00
FG = 44.00' N.
64 44 \
fin STA 20+97
^/ FL = 43.0ff
56 ./^
-r . ^^.^ 5Z
.-^/ 48
— n- ** 12
• = 1'-0" I - ^
3'-0"
DIAPHRAGM
/ AT 3' CENTER
--H « B.J,"
.-.__- 44Tr-0"
r-o"
42
36 - f 36
20 10 I 10 20
CALAVERA CREEK SECTION fT\
GABION PROFILE (g
SCALE: 1--W
BROWN AND CALDWELL -AS-BUILT-
WARNING IMS CHESAPEAKE MNE, SU1E 201
, ,,, , (nefiitSm^rS^Kt) sf^iajj
r—i 1
P F FTV DATE
ENORAWNGIS HORIZONTAL «SHOWN REVIEWED BY:
OT TO SCALE. SCALE
VERTICAL « SHOWN INSPECTOR DATE
8SIA21+UU SCALE: 1--W V - V
-o- 100% SUBMITTAL
SHEET | CITY OF CA]
16 1 ENQNkLNING DbP
CALAVERA 1
RLSBAD ^ff3
WTMENT 22
DREEK
GABION CROSS-SECTIONS
APPROVED: DAVID A. HAUSfR
OEPUTT crrr ENCMEER Pt 33001 EXPIRES: at/x/at DAIE
»inui ^ ;;=— -_., - — D*N BY: .as PROJECT NO. IIDRA1MNG NO.
n— ',— REVISION DESCRIPTION — JL-, ^JT^ Sig Rg~ 3338-1 |436-2A
TWISTED MESH WIRE
1.25 in
w
0.38 in 'WIRE DIAMETER 0.12 In
BEFORE CLOSURE AFTER CLOSURE
INTERLOCKING FASTENER
. 0.75 In,
NOMINAL
SPACING
CONTINUOUS TIE WIRE
TO NEXT DOUBLE HALF
HITCH. TERMINAL ENDS
TO BE TIED OFF AND
CLIPPED.
STANDARD TIE WIRE DETAIL
ALTERNATING SINGLE AND DOUBLE HALF HITCHES (LOCKED LOOPS)
(SEE NOTE 2)
NOMINAL 1 in OVERLAP
WIRE DIAMETER 0.12 in
SPIRAL BINDER LACING
CRIMPED END
' OF JOINT
BEFORE CLOSURE AFTER CLOSURE
OVERLAPPING FASTENER 4
ALTERNATIVE GABION JOINT MATERIAL FASTENERS
(FASTENER DIMENSIONS NOMINAL)
(SEE NOTES 3 AND 4)
TO ASSEMBLE TRANSITIONAL GABION BASKET:
STEP (7) CUT MESH ALONG JOINT BETWEEN FRONT PANEL
AND BASE PANEL.
STEP (?) UNFASTEN END PANEL 'A' FROM BASE PANEL AND
ROTATE END PANEL 'A'. FASTEN END PANEL
PANEL 'A' TO BACK PANEL.
STEP (3) FOLD THE CUT PORTION OF THE BASE PANEL INTO
UPRIGHT POSITION ALONG DIAGONAL FROM THE
DIAPHRAGM TO THE CORNER OF THE BACK PANEL.
STEP (4) FOLD THE BACK PANEL, FRONT PANEL AND END
PANEL'S1 INTO UPRIGHT POSITIONS. FASTEN END
PANEL V TO THE BACK PANEL AND THE FRONT PANEL.
T) ROTATE END PANEL'A'AND THE CUT PORTION OF
THE FRONT PANEL INWARD AGAINST THE UPTURNED
PORTION OF THE BASE PANEL. FASTEN ALONG THE
OVERLAPPED PORTION OF THE FRONT PANEL AND
END PANEL'A1. FASTEN THE OVERLAPPED PORTION
OF THE FRONT PANEL AND END PANEL 'A1 TO THE
FOLDED UPRIGHT PORTION OF THE BASE PANEL
ALONG THE DIAGONAL (DESCRIBED IN STEP 3).
J) FILL THE TRANSITIONAL GABION BASKET WITH
ROCK AS PER SPECIFICATIONS.
7) CLOSE LID AND FOLD OVER CORNER OF LID PANEL.
FASTEN ALONG LID PANEL EDGES.
NOTES:
1. A JOINT CONNECTION MUST BE MADE WHERE ANY PANEL EDGE
MEETS ANOTHER PANEL. THIS INCLUDES ADJACENT GABION
BASKETS. INDIVIDUAL PANELS WITHIN A BASKET, DIAPHRAGM
EDGES, ETC.
2. STANDARD TIE WIRE MAY BE USED AS A JOINT CONNECTOR FOR
EITHER TWISTED OR WELDED MESH. SPIRAL BINDER IS TO BE
USED WITH WELDED MESH ONLY.
3. WHEN ALTERNATIVE GABION JOINT MATERIAL FASTENERS ARE
USED, ONE FASTENER MUST BE INSTALLED IN EACH MESH
OPENING (10 FASTENERS MINIMUM PER METER). MESH OPENINGS
ARE COUNTED ALONG ONE OF THE PANELS AT THE JOINT.
4. WHEN ALTERNATIVE GABION JOINT MATERIAL FASTENERS ARE NOT
CAPABLE OF ENCLOSING ALL WIRES ALONG A JOINT, ESPECIALLY
AT BASKET-TO-BASKET JOINTS, EITHER STANDARD TIE WIRE OR
SPRIAL BINDER, AS APPLICABLE, MUST BE USED.
FLAT LAYOUT OF
GABION BASKET
STEP(
STEP (
STEP ASSEMBLED TRANSITIONAL
DIAPHRAGM
END PANEL 'A1
GABION BASKET
9 GAGE SPIRAL BINDER
TRANSITIONAL GABION BASKET
(FOR 6 FT, 9 FT OR 12 FT GABION)
CRIMPED END
OF JOINT
STANDARD SPIRAL BINDER
(See Note 2)
100%SUBMITTAL
.-
I
ILrNo. C 054987 /-//
V\E»P. 6-30-08 J*H
WARNING
0 1/2 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
MS CHEttKAKE OWE, SU1E 301
(UO) 314-M22 FAX (85B) 314-1133
raojECT HMMcet
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWN
VERTICAL AS SHOWN
•AS - BUILT"
P.E n» DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENOMEER
MTTIAL
OF WORK
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER AP
MTIUL
PROVAL
OATE
crrr AP
M1UL
PROVAL
SHEET
17 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS I
22
HfPBOVBONT PLANS FOR
GABION STRUCTURE DETAIL - 1
APPROVED: DAW A. HAUSER
DEPUTY 01Y ENOMEER Pt 33061 EXPIRES: 06/30/06 DATE
OWN BY: MC
CHKD BY: IS
RVWD BY: m
PROJECT NO. || DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
ff"-"^t.n
I
1a
1.0 FT
/-INTERNAL
a CONNECTING
/I WIRES
OUTSIDE FACE
PLAN VIEW
FRONT VIEW
13.5-GAGE INTERNAL CONNECTING WIRES NOTE:
AREA OF OPENING
NOT TO EXCEED 10.0 IN2
3.5 IN MAX
MESH NEED NOT
BE TWISTED. SEE
TYPICAL ACCEPTABLE
MESH STYLES.
TWISTED MESH
NOMINAL 3.0-3.3 IN
TYPICAL GABION BASKET
WELDED MESH
TYPICAL ACCEPTABLE
MESH STYLES
NOMINAL GABION SIZES
LETTER
CODE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
LENGTH WIDTH HEIGHT
UNITS = (FT)
6
9
12
6
9
12
6
9
12
4.5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
3
NUMBER OF
DIAPHRAGMS
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
0
VOLUME
(FT)
54
81
72
27
40.5
54
18
27
36
40.5
NOTES:
1. INTERNAL CONNECTING WIRE (13.5-GAGE) TO BE
INSTALLED ACROSS WIDTH OF INTERIOR GABIONS
AND ACROSS WIDTH AND LENGTH OF END GABIONS.
2. INTERNAL CONNECTING WIRE AND GABION MESH
SHALL BE GALVANIZED.
3. INTERNAL CONNECTING WIRES REQUIRED ON ALL
GABIONS 3.0 FT HIGH AND TO BE INSTALLED AFTERTHE PLACEMENT OF EACH 1.0 FT LAYER
4. PREFORMED STIFFENERS (11-GAGE OR 9-GAGE)
ARE AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO INTERNALCONNECTING WIRES. INSTALL THEM AS RECOM-
MENDED BY MANUFACTURER OR AS DIRECTED
BY THE ENGINEER AT 1/3 POINTS.
5. TO AVOID DEFORMATION, PLACE ROCK IN END
GABION CELL FIRST, AND CONTINUE BY FILLING
INTERIOR GABION CELLS, AT NO TIME SHOULD ANY
GABION CELL BE FILLED TO A DEPTH EXCEEDING 1.0 FT
HIGHER THAN THE ADJOINING GABION CELL.
6. FOR GABION DIMENSIONS, REFER TO TABLE
•STANDARD GABION SIZES'.
100% SUBMITTAL
,X1!!SSI*V
l\..l No. C 054987 /- //W*V Exp. 6-30-0! J*
^j^r
WARNING
0 1/B 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING ISNOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
MSS CHCSWCAKE MVE. 9HE 301UN new auramu niza(B56) 914-M22 FAX («•} S14-U33
nmccT UANMEX
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWN
VERTICAL AS SHOWN
"AS - BUILT
vr rw DATF
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENGINEER
-BniAr
OF WORK
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER AP
MUM.
HtOVM.
OA1E
OlY AP
HTML
PKOVAL
SHEET
18 CITY OF CARLSBADENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHtLlS
22
DIPBOVBiraT PUNS FOB:
GABION STRUCTURE DETAIL - 2
APPROVED: DAW A. HAUSCR
D0MTT CITY ENGINEER P£ 33W1 CXPRCS: OB/3D/M DATE
OWN BY: "CCHKD BY; asRVHO BY- DM
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A
r>
(I
IS
1u
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
CROSSING WIRE
(Typ)
GABION BASKET DETAIL
INSTALLATION & FILLING NOTES:
1. AFTER THE FOUNDATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. THE PRE-ASSEMBLED GABIONS ARE
PLACED IN THEIR PROPER LOCATION TO FORM THE STRUCTURE. GABIONS SHALL BE
CONNECTED TOGETHER AND ALIGNED BEFORE FILLING THE BASKETS WITH ROCK. ALL
CONNECTIONS (PANEL-TO-PANEL AND BASKET-TO-BASKET) SHALL ALREADY BE CARRIED
OUT AS DESCRIBED IN THE ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS.
2. ROCKS FOR GABIONS MAY BE PRODUCED BY ANY SUITABLE QUARRYING METHOD AND BY
THE USE OF ANY DEVICE THAT YIELDS THE REQUIRED SIZES WITHIN THE GRADATION
LIMITS CHOSEN. ROCKS SHALL BE HARD, ANGULAR TO ROUND, DURABLE AND OF SUCH
QUALITY THAT THEY SHALL NOT DISINTEGRATE ON EXPOSURE TO WATER OR WEATHERING
DURING THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE.
3. GABION ROCKS SHALL RANGE FROM BETWEEN 4 INCHES AND 8 INCHES (100-200 mm).
THE RANGE IN SIZES MAY ALLOW FOR A VARIATION OF 5% OVERSIZE AND/OR 5H
UNDERSIZE ROCK, PROVIDED IT IS NOT PLACED ON THE GABION EXPOSED SURFACE.
IN ALL CASES. THE OVERSIZE ROOK SHALL NOT BE LARGER THAN 12 INCHES (300 MM)
AND THE UNDERSIZE ROCK SHALL NOT BE SMALLER THAN 2 INCHES (50 MM).
4. DURING THE FILLING OPERATION SOME MANUAL STONE PLACEMENT IS REQUIRED TO
MINIMIZE VOIDS. THE EXPOSED FACES OF VERTICAL STRUCTURES MAY BE CAREFULLY
HAND PLACED TO GIVE A NEAT, FLAT AND COMPACT APPEARANCE. THE CELLS SHALL
BE FILLED IN STAGES SO THAT LOCAL DEFORMATION MAY BE AVOIDED. THAT IS, AT
NO TIME, SHALL ANY CELL BE FILLED TO A DEPTH EXCEEDING 1 FOOT (300 MM)
HIGHER THAN THE ADJOINING CELL. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN WHEN PLACING THE
STONE TO ASSURE THAT THE PVC COATING ON GABIONS WILL NOT BE DAMAGED.
5. STIFFENERS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS INDICATED, FIXED AT 1/3 AND 2/3 OF THE
HEIGHT FOR 3 FOOT OR 1 m GABIONS AS THE CELL IS BEING FILLED. IN 1.5 FOOT
(500 mm) HIGH UNITS STIFFENERS MAY BE FIXED AT THE HALF HEIGHT LEVEL, IF
REQUIRED. MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF VOIDS BY USING A WELL-GRADED STONE
AND AVOID LARGE STONES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A DENSE, COMPACT STONE FILL.
ALL CORNERS SHOULD BE SECURELY CONNECTED TO THE NEIGHBORING GABIONS OF
THE SAME LAYER BEFORE FILLING THE UNITS.
6. WHEN MORE THAN ONE LAYER OF GABIONS IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
UNITS TO BECOME INCORPORATED INTO ONE CONTINUOUS STRUCTURE, THE NEXT LAYER
OF GABIONS MUST BE CONNECTED TO THE LAYER UNDERNEATH AFTER THIS LAYER HAS
BEEN SECURELY CLOSED.
7. PLACEMENT SHOULD BE FRONT-TO-FRONT AND BACK-TO-BACK SO THAT PAIRS OF
FACING LIDS CAN BE WIRED DOWN IN ONE PROCESS.
8. SECURE THE END FROM WHICH THE WORK IS TO START BY PARTIALLY FILLING THE
END UNIT WITH ROCK.
VMAX SLOPE INSTALLATION
INSTALLATION NOTES:
1. PREPARE SOIL BEFORE INSTALLING ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS (RECP's), INCLUDING ANY NECESSARY APPLICATION
OF LIME, FERTILIZER, AND SEED.
NOTE: WHEN USING CELL-O-SEED DO NOT SEED PREPARED AREA. CELL-O-SEED MUST BE INSTALLED WITH PAPER SIDE DOWN.
EXTENDED BEYOND THE UP-SLOPE PORTION OF THE TRENCH. ANCHOR THE RECP'S WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES
APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPLING.
SECURE RECP's OVER COMPACTED SOIL WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES SPACED APPROXIMATELY 12" APART
ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE RECP'S.
3. ROLL THE RECP's (A.) DOWN OR (B.) HORIZONTALLY ACROSS THE SLOPE. RECP's WILL UNROLL WITH APPROPRIATE SIDE
AGAINST THE SOIL SURFACE. ALL RECP'S MUST BE SECURELY FASTENED TO SOIL SURFACE BY PLACING STAPLES/STAKES
IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAPLE PATTERN GUIDE. WHEN USING THE DOT SYSTEM , STAPLES/STAKES
SHOULD BE PLACED THROUGH EACH OF THE COLORED DOTS CORRESPONDING TO THE APPROPRIATE STAPLE PATTERN.
4. THE EDGES OF PARALLEL RECP's MUST BE STAPLED WITH APPROXIMATELY 2" - 5" OVERLAP DEPENDING ON RECP'S TYPE.
5. CONSECUTIVE RECP'S SPLICED DOWN THE SLOPE MUST BE PLACED END OVER END (SHINGLE STYLE) WITH AN APPROXIMATE
3" OVERLAP. STAPLE THROUGH OVERLAPPED AREA, APPROXIMATELY 12" APART ACROSS ENTIRE RECP's WIDTH.
NOTE: IN LOOSE SOIL CONDITIONS, THE USE OF STAPLE OR STAKE LENGTHS GREATER THAN 6" MAY BE NECESSARY
TO PROPERLY SECURE THE RECP's.
* ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEETUNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN
100%SUBMITTAL
^^^^.
^^m\L\ No. C 054987 *O
ft*\ Exp. 6-30-08 1*11
^j^r
WARNING
p i/e i
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
9M5 OCSWCMC ORNE. SUITE 201SW OEM, CNJFONMA 92113(856) »4-M2Z FAX (HB) 5I4-U33
PMOKET 1UMAGOI
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWN
VERTICAL AS SHOWN
"AS - BUILT"
p f ™> DATE
INSPECTOR DATE
DATE
ENGINEER
INITIAL
OF WORK
At.
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER AF
MntAL
fflovAL
DATE
CITY AP
MTtAL
FROVAL
SHEET
19 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS
22
UPROVmnn PLANS TDK
GABION STRUCTURE DETAIL - 3
AND VMAX SLOPE INSTALLATION
APPROVED: DAVID A. MAUSER
DEPUTY OTT ENGMEER PEl MOM EWRE& DS/30/M DATE
OWN BY: JSS
CHKD BY:JSRVW) BY- PM
PROJECT NO. HDRAWNG NO.
3338-1 I 436-2A
i ri
EXISTING- —e-
-UNIT* 53 \
EXITING- —\
GRADE
;4S> RT OF "AMI STA 37*24
125! LT OF-AHISTA ?7+82
FINISHED GRADE
VERTiSCALEi-TH*
rN^AnTCOteREre'HEAaWALL1(5XS INSTALLCWCRESE HEADWALC
INSTALL CONCRETE:HEADW
§EE SHEET 21 FOR MIS.CELLANEOUSJPFWJNAGE.QETAILS
EXISTING
8* SEWERLINEEXISTING
yVAtERLINE
•tB'-CMP-r
8-x28'PVC
= 0".0867'1rT/FT31J,I OF "CC'STA 09+48
EXISTING
-SEWERLINE
;..:/
INSTALL CONCRETE HEADWALL
^^^^^ir^R3 SFlUJ No. C 054987 L ItV\ E«p. 6-X-Ot/J/
^%^^
0 1/2 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING ISNOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL9HS OCSMCME MK. SUITE MSM DCBCH OUFDniA 12123(KB) 51+^022 FAX (HO) SI4-U33
•MulTm ful»ntoccr MMumt
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWNSCALEVERTICAL AS SHOWN
"AS - BUILT"
p f np DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DA1E
CHOICER
INITIAL
OF WORK
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DATE
OTHER W
HUAL
movM.
DATE
O1Y AP
MHAL
movM.
SHEET
20 CITY OF CARLSBADENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS
22
MPROVnttHT PUNS FOK
DRAINAGE PROFILES
APPKOVEO:
DEPUTTC
DMO A. H
IY ENONCEK
OWN BY:
CHKD BY: •RVWD BY- DM
MJSER
PC 33081 EXPRES: 06/30/06 DA1E
PROJECT NO. IIORAVMNG NO.
3338-1 II 436-2A
jf-' n,r>
(I
T_oz
-ROLLED CONCRETE
CURB
CONCRETE OVERSIDE DRAIN
NOT TO SCALE
EXISTING AC OR
PCC TOP OF ROLLED
CURB
BASE |
SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
0
1
2
3
4
10
LOCATION/STATION
40' RT "AH" STA 19+50
40' LT "AH" STA 21 +55
40' RT "AH" STA 24+85
30' LT "AH" STA 29+53
2-RT'CC" STA 17+67
W
3'
3'
6'
3'
4'
L
13'
B1
91
91
2'
FG
32
321
33'
34'
41'
limn
ROUNDED PIPE ENDS
SEE DRAWING D-61
SECTION (C
NOT TO SCALE '
STRAIGHT CONCRETE HEADWALL TYPE B
NOT TO SCALE
SINGLE PIPE ELEVATION
DIAMETER (D)
12">
15"
18"
24"
30"
36"
A
2MT
yjy
2--0"
2--T
2--P
3MJ"
w
r-o"
r-1"
1'-2"
r-5"
1'-9"
2'-0"
H
4'-0"
4-3"
4'-8'
s-er
6'-0"
7M>"
L
4'-0-
5'-0"
6'-0"
8'-0"
10'-0"
12'-0-
CONC VOLUME
0.45 cy
0.63 cy
0.83 cy
1.53 cy
2.41 cy
2.88 cy
NOTES:
1. CONCRETE SHALL BE (560-C-3250)
2. CONCRETE CORNERS SHALL BE CHAMFERED 3/4".
o
5
6
7
8
9
11
LOCATION/STATION
25'LT"AHPSTA37+09
251LT"AH"STA 37+82
45'RT"AH"STA37+24
14' LT-CC'STA 04+26
31 LT -CC- STA 09+48
8'RT'CC'STA 21+01
D
18'
18"
18'
24"
IB-
S'
FG
as
35'
351
3T
37.5'
44'
B
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
12-
NOTES:
1. THE MINIMUM HEIGHT OFFSET (B) FROM THE FINISHED GRADE (FG) SHALL BE 6*.
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
HORIZONTAL w SHOWN
VERTICAL AS SHOWN
"AS - BUILT"
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR ENGINEER OF WORK
3" MAX GAP
NOTES:
1. PIPE COLLAR DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FINISHED IF COVERED.
2. CONCRETE SHALL BE (560-C-3250).
3. WHERE GAP EXCEEDS 3" BUT IS NOT MORE THAN 6" AN INTERNAL
FORM SHALL BE USED.
SECTION AD
NOT TO SCALE
PIPE COLLAR
NOT TO SCALE
100%SUBMITTAL
REVISION DESCRIPTION OIHOI APPROVAL CITY AmtOVAL
SHEET
21 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 22
MPROVEmNT PUDS FOR:
MISCELLANEOUS DRAINGE
DETAILS
APPROVED: DAUD A HAUSEX
DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER Pt UOBI EXPIRES. 06/30/00 DATE
OWN BY:
CHKD BY:M_
RVWD BY: US—
PROJECT NO.
3338-1
II DRAWING NO.
436-2A
,4V LI*.i n
jj
PROPOSED MASONRY WALL -
SEE SHEET 14
EQUAL EQUAL
- PROPOSED MASONRY WALL
SEE SHEET 14
NOTES:
1. ALL GATE FRAME MEMBERS SHALL BE CAST IRON.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE FABRICATION AND
INSTALLATION OF THE GATES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
INSTALLATION OF THE RELOCATED MASONRY WALL.
100%SUBMITTAL
1*1° "0, C 054987 '"O\\E»P- 6-30-08 /y
WARNING
0 1/g 1
IF THIS BAR DOES
NOT MEASURE 1"THEN DRAWING IS
NOT TO SCALE.
BROWN AND CALDWELL
9685 CHESAPEAKE MNE. SITE 101
SAN OCBX CAOTMA tH23(«se)!it-«tn FAX («e) si«-«u3
HORIZONTAL AS SHOWN
VERTICAL AS SHOWN
•AS - BUILT
or EVE DATE
REVIEWED BY:
INSPECTOR DATE
DA1E
ENGINEER
mnuu.
OF WORK
A
REVISION DESCRIPTION
DA1E
OTHER AP
N1UL
PROVAL
DATE
an AP
MTIAL
PROVAL
SHEET
22 CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SHEETS I
22
upRovnmn FUNS FOR
SWING GATE DETAIL
APPROVED: DAVO A MAUSER
DEPUTY cmr ENONEER PC: MOW EXPKCS: 09/30/M DATE
OWN BY: —
CHKD BY: JB
RVWD BY- DM
PROJECT NO. II DRAWING NO.
3338-1 || 436-2A