HomeMy WebLinkAbout; HARMONY GROVE FIRE; PHASE I EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN; 1997-03-14FINAL REPORT
PHASE I EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
PLAN FOR THE
HARMONY GROVE FIRE
CITY. OF, CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
qt Engr.1Const.
I
go
Ln VED
City of Carlsbad '
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1519
Woodward-Clyde Project No. 9651135F
March 14, 1997
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Sunroad Plaza Ill, Suite 1000
1615 Murray Canyon Road
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 294-9400 Fax (619) 293-7920
FINAL REPORT
PHASE I EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
PLAN FOR THE
HARMONY GROVE FIRE
CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive•
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1519
Woodward-Clyde Project No. 9651135F
March 14, 1997 S
'T5TTh'ti i• -
,1I S
Woodward-Clyde Consultants' S
Sunroad Plaza III, Suite 1000
1615 Murray Canyon Road S
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 294-9400 Fax (619) 293-7920
Woodward-Clyde w
Engineering & sciences applied to the earth & its environment
March 14, 1997
Mr. Dick Cook
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-1519
SUBJECT: PHASE I SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN FOR THE HARMONY
GROVE FIRE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CA
Woodward-Clyde Reference No. 965113 5F
Dear Mr. Cook:
Woodward-Clyde is pleased to. provide this final Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
for the Harmony Grove Fire within the City of Carlsbad, California. This work was provided
in accordance with our scope of work dated November, 1996. This final report incorporates
the comments received from you and other City staff in February, 1997.
Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to provide this report. If you require additional
information of have any questions please give me a call at (619) 294-9400.
Very truly yours,
WOOD WARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
Carol L. Forrest, P.E.
Vice President
I 7Y Woodward-Clyde Consultants • A subsidiary of Woodward-Clyde Group, Inc.
Sunroad Plaza 3, Suite 1000• 1615 Murray Canyon Road • San Diego, California 92108
619-294-9400 • Fax 619-293-7920
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1
Section2 Background ................................................................................... . ................................... 2-1
Section 3 Early Action Measures .............. . ...... .............................................................................. 3-1
Section 4 Phase I Erosion and. Sediment Control Plan ................
.
.
.
................................................ 4-1
4.1 Identify Issues and Concerns (Step 1) ...................................................... 4-1
4.2 Develop Goals and Objectives (Step 2) ...................................................... 4-1
4.3 Perform the Erosion and Sediment Yield Study (Step 3) ........................4-2
4.3.1 Site Reconnaissance and Review of Available Information........4-2
4.3.2 Field Evaluation of the Harmony Grove Fire Area in
Carlsbad........................................................................................4..3
4.3.3 Hydrology and Sediment Yield Analyses....................................4-4
4.3.4 Potential Mitigation Measure Locations......................................4-8
4.4 Develop Mitigation Measure Selection Criteria (Step 4).........................4-9
4.5 Nominate and Evaluate Alternatives (Step 5) ........................................ 4-10
4.6 Screen and Select Best Alternatives (Step 6) .......................................... 4-24
4.7 Develop Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and
Specifications (Step 7) ...........................................................
.
................. 4-26
.4.7.1 Location Map ............................................................................... 4-26
4.7.2 Details and Standard Specifications ...........
.
................................. 4-26
4.8 Schedule and Implement the Plan (Step 8) ......... . .................................. 4-26
4.9 Operate and Monitor the Installed Systems (Step 9) .............................4-26
4.9.1 Storm Events ............................................................................... 4-27
Woodward-Clyde 0
. i
List of Tables, Figures and Appendices
Tables
Table I Sediment Storage Capacity of Temporary Check Dams - San
Marcos Creek Watershed ....... ............................................................................... 3-2
Table 2 Summary of Results from HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Analysis ...........................4-5
Table 3 Sediment Yield Analyses, Flaxman Method - Pre-Burn Condition ..................4-7
Table 4 Sediment Yield Analyses, Flaxman Method - Post-Burn Condition.................4-7
Table 5 Erosion and Sediment Control Measure Alternatives ........................
.
.. . ............. 4-Il
Table 6 Selection of Preferred Alternatives .................................. . ................................. 4-25
Figures
Figure 1 Study Area Map
Figure 2 Watersheds and Concentration Points
Figure 3 Locations of Preferred Mitigation Measures S
Appendices S
Appendix A HEC-1 Hydrology Study
Appendix B Details and Standard Specifications
Appendix C Site Visits to Localized Areas of Potential Problems
odydo S W:9651135FEC01-D-R.DOC\13-Mar-97'9651135FSDG ii
SECTIONONE Introduction
This report presents a Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the portion -of the City of
Carlsbad that was affected by the October, 1996 Harmony Grove fire. This report presents
specific recommendations for the control of erosion and sediment within the Carlsbad area at this
time. The plan should not be applied to other areas or occurrences without modifications to
account for changes in site conditions. -
This Phase I plan addresses immediate actions that Woodward-Clyde Consultants (Woodward-
Clyde) recommends be taken to reduce the potential adverse erosion and sedimentation effects
due to this winter's rain storms. Later phases may include longer term recommendations to
address issues that may arise in future years
IOOthIIyIO 0 W:'9651135FEC01 -DA DOC\1O-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG 14.
SECTIONTWO Background
On Monday, October 21, 1996, the City of Carlsbad (City) and. adjacent areas including San
Marcos, Olivenhain, Encinitas, and San Diego County unincorporated experienced a major
firestorm that began in the Harmony Grove area. The fire burned for approximately twenty-four
hours, fanned by Santa Ana winds from the east. The fire consumed over 8,600 acres of public
and private land and destroyed more than 100 homes, including- 54 homes in Carlsbad. Many
acres of vegetation were destroyed, leaving the slopes unprotected from the erosional effects of
wind and rain.
In November 1996, the City retained Woodward-Clyde to assess the hazards due to erosion and
sedimentation resulting from the fire and to prepare a Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
to address potential mitigation actions that could be taken to protect resources and improvements
in the City. The objective of the Phase I Plan is to focus on the reduction of sediment transport
from the denuded slopes through existing drainage courses to areas where the sediment could
potentially impact public and private facilities or residences, as well as sensitive habitat and
receiving water bodies, including Batiquitos Lagoon.
Woodward-Clyde W:9651135F\EC01-0-R.D0C\14-Mar-97\9651 135F\SDG 21
SECTID NTHREE. Early Action Measures
The first step in the emergency erosion and sediment control program is to provide immediate
action items for the City to start implementing with City, NCCC, CDF Corrections, or other
work force crews. The City employed NCCC and CDF Corrections labor crews to install
approximately 144 burlap gravel-bag check dams in the small drainage tributaries that flow to
Box Canyon and discharge through San Marcos Creek. Approximately 40 more check dams
were constructed in tributaries and canyons draining to Encinitas Creek.
The constructed check dams have a wide, solid base, relatively uniform weir section, and raised
abutments. With only a few minor corrections, the check dams-have performed well in the first
three winter storms, including a storm with a volume of more than 2.50 inches.
Table 1 provides the sediment holding capacity of the gravel bag check dams constructed by the
City, The total volume available to store sediment behind the check dams in the San Marcos
Creek watershed is approximately 118,000 cubic feet. A more detailed assessment of the
capacity of these measures relative to the anticipated increased sediment yield is provided in
Section 4.3.3.
In addition to the check dams, the detention basin adjacent to and upstream of the Arizona
crossing (see Figure 1) was dredged to remove accumulated. sediment and restore capacity.
Additionally, the previously blocked outlet pipe was re-opened, and a new riser was added on the
upstream side. The volume available to store sediment upstream of the Arizona crossing is
approximately 32,000 cubic feet. These immediate action items were reviewed in the field by
Woodward-Clyde both before and after storms with Richard Cook of the City Engineering
Department. Although Woodward-Clyde did not design or supervise the actual installation of
the check dams or the restoration of the Arizona crossing detention basin, the installation of these
measures were observed during field visits and are consistent with what would have been
recommended and designed had we been involved in the Early Action Plan implementation
immediately after the fire event.
Woodward-Clyde W:9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC\14.Mar-97\9651135F'SDG 3-1
I
LI
SECTIONTHREE Early Action Measures
Table 1
I SEDIMENT STORAGE CAPACITY OF TEMPORARY CHECK DAMS
SAN MARCOS CREEK WATERSHED
Check
Dam
Number
Check Dam Dimensions
(crest to invert x length x depth, in feet)
Estimated Sediment Holding
Capacity Behind Check Dam
(ft)
1A 50x40x20 2,000
lB 5x30x15 1,125
1C 4x32x20 1,280
1D 54820 2,400
1E 3x20x15 450
iF 4x22x20 880
2A 02422 1,056
2B 4x30x22 1,320
2C 5x26x20 1,300
21) 4x26x24 1,248
2E 4x28x20 1,120
3A 02018 864
3B 02016 768
3C 4x24x16 768
4A 5x27x18 1,215
4B 4x28x20 1,120
4C 4x26x16 832
4D 02416 768
5A 5x20x16 800
SB 5x22x18 990
5C 4x22x18 792
SD 02020 960
6A 5x22x14 770
6B 5x22x18 990
6C 42016 768
60 42416 768
6E 02406 768
6F 4x28x18 1,008
7A 4x20x14 560
7B 5x22x16 880
7C 4x22x16 704
70 5x26x18 1,170
7E 42608 936
7F 4x26x20 2,080
8A 4x28x18 1,008
8B 4x30x22 1,320
9A 3x26x16 624
9B 4x30x18 1,080
9C 5x30x14 1,050
9D 5x30x12 900
9E 4x28x18 1,008
9F 4x20x24 960
10A 4x26x14 728
Woodward-Clyde W:9651135F\ECO1-D-R. DOW O-Mar-97\9651135FSDG 3-2
I
SECTIONTHREE Early Action Measures
Table 1 (Continued)
SEDIMENT STORAGE CAPACITY OF TEMPORARY CHECK DAMS
SAN MARCOS CREEK WATERSHED
Check
Dam
Number
Check Dam Dimensions
(crest to invert x length x depth, in feet)
Estimated Sediment Holding
Capacity Behind Check Dam
(ft')
lOB 4x26x16 832
lOG 3x28x17 714
101) 4x26x20 1,040
IOE 5x30x16 1,200
10F 4x28x20 1,120
hA 3x18x12 324
lB 3x20x12 360
11C 3x20x14 420
liD 3x18x20 540
liE 02006 640
hF 3x21x17 535
hG 3x22x18 594
11H 02002 480
ill 02204 616
11J 5x36x22 1,980
ilK 3x38x26 1,482
ilL 4x36x20 1,440
11M 4x30x20 1,200
41N 5x24x20 1,200
110 02208 792
1P 4x22x19 836
11Q 5x22x18 990
12A 3x28x11 462
12B 3x38x10 570
12C 3x40x8 480
13A 3x28x10 420
13B 0304 480
13C 4x30x10 600
13D 4x30x10 500
13E 4x30x12 720
13F 3x26x12 468
13G 012600 2,520
14A 3x28x10 420
14B 4x30x10 600
14C 03002 720
140 3x26x12 468
14E 4x126x10 2,520
iSA 02802 672
15B 02606 832
15C 3x24x10 360
150 02808 1,008
16A 4x26x12 624
16B 02014 672
I
Woodward.Clyde W9651135F'EC01-0-R.DOC1O-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG 33
I
I
Li
I
I
I
I
LI
I
Li
I
I
LI
I
1
I
I
SECTIONTHREE Early Action Measures
Table 1 (Continued)
SEDIMENT STORAGE CAPACITY OF TEMPORARY CHECK DAMS
SAN MARCOS CREEK WATERSHED
Check
Dam
Number
Check Dam Dimensions
(crest to invert x length x depth, in feet)
Estimated Sediment Holding
Capacity Behind Check Dam
(ft')
16C 3x80x10 1,200
17A 4x26x14 728
178 02012 576
17C 4x4x12 576
17D 4x26x10 520
18A 4x27x12 648
18B 02801 616
18C 02014 672
18D 4x29x16 928
19A 4x28x16 896
19B 4x32x18 1,152
19C 3x32x20 960
19D 4x27x20 1,080
19E 5x26x21 1,364
19F 4x26x18 936
19G 02016 768
19H 4x24x18 864
191 02012 576
191 5x20x10 500
19K 5x20x10 500
19L 5x20x10 500
19M 4x46x10 920
20A 3x42x6 378
21A 4x28x14 784
21B 4x30x16 960
21C 5x30x16 1,200
21D 4x30x16 960
22A 02602 624
228 4x26x12 624
22C 5x30x16 1,200
22D 03006 960
22E 03008 1,080
22F 02808 1,008
22G 5x29x20 1,450
22H 4x30x20 1,200
221 4x24x18 864
22J 5x26x16 1,040
22K 5x26x14 910
22L 5x24x14 840
22M 02014 672
23A 3x32x10 480
238 3x30x10 450
23C 3x28x8 336
Woodward-Clyde 0 W:\9651135FECO1-D-R.DOC1O-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG 34
SECTIONTHREE Early Action Measures
Table 1 (Continued)
SEDIMENT STORAGE CAPACITY OF TEMPORARY CHECK DAMS
SAN MARCOS CREEK WATERSHED
Check
Dam
Number -
Check Dam Dimensions
(crest to invert x length x depth, in feet)
Estimated Sediment Holding
Capacity Behind Check Dam
(ft')
24A 0304 480
24B 4x30x8 480
25A 3x40x12 720
25B 3x40x10 600
26A 3x18x4 108
26B 3x20x6. 180
26C 3x18x6 162
26D - 3x20x4 120
27A 3x18x4 108
27B 3x18x6 162
27C 3x20x6 180
270 3x14x8 168
27E 3x20x6 180
28 305 (length) ND
29 140 (length) NDa
30A 4x26x0.5 26
30B 0402 176
ALL CHECK DAMS TOTAL - 118,169
a Not Determined
Woodward-Clyde W9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC10-Mar-979651135F\SDG 35
I
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
This Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (Plan) was prepared for the Carlsbad area of the
I Harmony Grove fire. The limits of the burn area and the limits of this study are shown on
Figure 1.
Development of any erosion and sediment control plan requires a stepwise process, which must
be documentable and defensible. The key questions that must be answered are:
When and where is erosion and sediment control needed?
I • . How much is enough?
The essential steps to be followed in developing a plan are as follows:
I Step 1. Identify the Issues and Concerns
Step 2. Develop Goals and Objectives
Step 3. Perform.the Erosion and Sediment Yield Study
Step 4. Develop Mitigation Measure Selection Criteria
Step 5. Nominate and Evaluate Alternatives
I
. Step 6. Screen and Select Best Alternatives
Step 7. Design the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Specifications
Step 8. Implement the Plan
I Step 9.. Operate and Maintain the System
The following sections describe how each step was followed for development of.the City's
I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
I
Phase
4.1 IDENTIFY ISSUES AND CONCERNS (STEP 1) .
I . Based on discussions with the City and other affected parties, the identified issues and concerns
for the areas of the City affected by the Harmony Grove Fire are as follows:
I .
• Public health and safety
The potential for ash, debris, sediment, and flood damage to developed areas
The impact of ash and sediment into Batiquitos Lagoon
I . The interests of agencies having jurisdiction in the areas being addressed
Environmental compatibility of the temporary mitigation measures
4.2 DEVELOP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (STEP 2)
Based on these identified issues and concerns, a set of goals and objectives for the Plan were
I developed as follows:
. Coordinate with concerned agencies and meet regulatory requirements
I.. Reduce short-term erosion and sedimentation
Maximize the use of cost-effective solutions .
Maximize the use of environmentally-compatible solutions
I . Provide mitigation options for transport of debris and sediment onto downstream property
and sensitive water bodies .
WOOdWaIdClyde W
. W:9651135FEC01-D-R.D0C\1 1-Mar-97\9651 135FSDG 44
I
I
. SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
4.3 PERFORM THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT YIELD STUDY (STEP 3)
The erosion and sediment yield study includes the following tasks:
Site reconnaissance and review of available information
I . Field evaluation of the burn area
Hydrology and sediment yield analysis
Identification of potential mitigation locations
I These tasks are described below.
1 4.3.1 Site Reconnaissance and Review of Available Information
On November 11th and 12th, Woodward-Clyde performed preliminary field assessments to assist
I
in the identification of immediate action items to help protect the City-owned streets and storm
drains from clogging with sediment. In addition Woodward-Clyde met with the Director of
Engineering at the Resort of La Costa to tour the golf course area and to discuss appropriate
I actions that the Resort could take to protect their property from increased post-fire flooding and
sedimentation. Woodward-Clyde discussed pre-existing drainage problems in the golf course
area with Mr. Cook.
I Concurrent with the site reconnaissance, available information was reviewed. The following
information was collected for this study:
I . City of Carlsbad storm drain maps
Initial burn area estimate map prepared by City of Carlsbad, dated October 1996
I . U.S.G.S. 7minute quadrangle topographic maps, dated 1975 and 1983
Two-foot topographic map of and prepared by the "Villages of La Costa," not dated
I . U.S.G.S. Geologic maps
"Hydrologic Studies of San Marcos Creek at the Rancho Santa Fe Road Bridge," prepared by
I
Rick Engineering, dated August 8, 1996
"Sediment Studies in the Final EIRJEIS for Batiquitos Lagoon," prepared by City of Carlsbad
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dated June 1990
I . "Dredging and Grading Plan for Batiquitos Lagoon," prepared by Moffatt & Nichol,
Engineers, dated December 17, 1993
I • Harmony Grove Fire Area map overlain with the drainage areas, prepared by City of
Carlsbad, dated October 1996
I . Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey Maps and two-volume text, dated December 1973
. Aerial photographs (scale: 1 in. 1,310 ft) for pre- and post-bum conditions, dated
I
November 1996 .
County of San Diego Hydrology Manual, dated 1985
1 .
Woodward.Clyde W:\9651 135EECO1-D-R.DOC\11-Mar-979651135F\SDG 4-2
I
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources, "Rainfall
Analysis for Drainage Design, Volume 1. Short-Duration Precipitation Frequency Data," I dated 1975
San Marcos Creek Floodplain Information, prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, dated
1 April 1971
"Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data
- 1993, San Diego,
I CA," U.S. Department of Commerce - NOAA, National Climatic Data Center
Using the topographic maps, aerial photographs, drainage maps, and field observations,
Woodward-Clyde reviewed the size and condition of natural drainages affected by the fire. We
also observed the condition of the burned slopes in the fire area, as well as the relationship of the
surviving vegetation and drainage facilities to the burn areas and, based on those observations,
identified potential locations and control measures for the areas within and downstream of the I burned area.
In addition to the field reconnaissance, suppliers of erosion control materials and erosion control ' contractors were contacted to obtain information on prices and availability of alternative
candidate control measures.
4.3.2 Field Evaluation of the Harmony Grove Fire Area in Carlsbad
The majority of the Carlsbad burn area is within the watershed of the large east-west trending
I drainage of San Marcos Creek. This area is known as Rancheros and drains to the sensitive
coastal receiving water body, Batiquitos Lagoon, via "Box Canyon," a deep and narrow drainage
I
reach of San Marcos Creek. A $55 million restoration project that included the creation of new
wetland habitat area and nesting islands in the lagoon was completed in January, 1997. Tidal
flushing will be restored to the lagoon by artificially opening the lagoon mouth to the Pacific
I Ocean.
In general, the watershed slopes around San Marcos Creek downstream of the Lake San Marcos
Dam were 80 to 100 percent burned. There is visible evidence of active erosion on these slopes.
I A number of homes on the ridge of south side of Box Canyon were destroyed by the fire. There
is a potential for soil to erode from the slopes of Box Canyon and be transported as sediment in
the creek and into the Resort of La Costa golf course. If the water and sediment volume is large
I enough, overbank flow laden with sediment could spread onto the golf course. The flow would
ultimately continue through the golf course and potentially impact Batiquitos Lagoon.
I On November 12th, 1996, Woodward-Clyde's field assessment team, comprised of civil and
geotechnical engineers with backgrounds in hydrology, hydraulics, erosion, and sediment
transport, performed further field evaluations of the burn, area. The evaluation included
I documentation of the site characteristics (topography, soils, vegetation, etc.), drainage
information, erosion and sedimentation information, and mitigation planning information.
Written and photographic documentation were prepared. The completed field assessment was
then summarized and utilized for selection and prioritization of areas for mitigation.
Li
Woodward-Clyde W
W:\9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC\12-Mar-97\9651 135F\SDG 43
I
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Two subsequent site visits were made by our erosion and sediment control specialist with Dick
I Cook from the City on November 27th and December 16th. The purpose of the site visits was to
make field visits to specific, localized areas that were of concern to the City. Descriptions of
these localized areas and our recommendations are provided in Appendix D.
4.3.3 Hydrology and Sediment Yield Analyses
I Hydrology and sediment yield analyses were performed to determine the peak discharge in cubic
feet per second, the volume of discharge in acre-feet, and the total sediment yield in tons per acre
per year, for both pre-burn and post-burn conditions. These analyses were performed for San
I Marcos Creek downstream of Lake San Marcos.
An additional analysis was performed to evaluate the effects on the peak flow of a 5-foot
I . drawdown in Lake San Marcos for post-burn conditions. Lake San Marcos is formed by a
concrete arch dam located approximately 7.75 miles upstream of the mouth of San Marcos
Creek. The dam was completed in 1952, and the lake is used as a recreation area with finger
I piers and docks extending into the lake for the mooring of privately-owned boats. The Lake San
Marcos development around the lake includes single-family homes, condos, and a golf course.
San Marcos Dam is approximately 45 feet high and 300 feet in length. There are no operating I gates in the dam, so the lake level is not controlled. As a result, the reservoir is usually full to the
dam crest, which allows the dam to act as a weir. The lake, therefore, in its present condition
(i.e., full) would have little to no effect on attenuating the peak or volume of flows in San Marcos I Creek downstream, aside from some minimal storage on the surface of the lake.
The hydrologic analysis was performed for selected concentration points in the watershed using
I the Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package. The HEC-1 model is designed
to simulate the surface runoff response of a river or creek basin to precipitation by representing
the basin as an interconnected system of hydrologic and hydraulic components. Each component
I models an aspect of the rainfall-runoff process within a portion of the basin, commonly referred
to as a subbasin. A component may represent a surface runoff entity, a stream channel, or a
reservoir. The result of the modeling process is the computation of streamfiow hydrographs at
I desired locations in the river basin.
The results of the HEC-1 analysis for the study area are provided in Appendix A and summarized
I in Table 2. The model was run for the pre-burn condition, post-burn condition, and post-burn
condition with 5 feet of drawdown of the water level in Lake San Marcos, and flow peaks and
volumes were calculated at various concentration points within the San Marcos and Encinitas
I Creek watersheds for the 2-year 6-hour, 25-year 6-hour, 50-year 6-hour, and 100-year 6-hour
storms.
I Figure 2 presents the location of each contributing drainage area and corresponding
concentration point. The results indicate that for the post-burn 2-year 6-hour storm event a 10 to
20 percent increase in the peak discharge will occur in San Marcos Creek, and a 40 percent
I
Woodward-Clyde 0
W:\96511 35F\ECO1-D-R.00C11-Mar-979651135FSDG 44
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Table 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM HEC-1 FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ANALYSIS
2-year 6-hour Storm 25-year 6-hour Storm
Co ncentration Post-Burn with Post-Burn with
Point Units Pie-Bum Post-Bum Drawdowna Pie-Burn Post-Burn Drawdowna
Lake San Marcos Dam Q (cfs) 612 686 --- 4,608 4,876 4,760
(at spillway crest) Volume (ac-ft) 241 272 -- 1,691 1,781 1,486
Arizona Crossing Q(cfs) 611 717 38 4,816 5,264 5,149
Volume (ac-ft) 241 282 10 1,769 1,943 1,659
El Camino Real Bridge Q (cfs) 688 835 104 5,577 6,038 5,852
Volume (ac-ft) 277 318 45 2,111 2,285 2,003
Batiquitos Lagoon Q (cfs) 735 931 243 6,184 6,787 6,572
(at mouth of San Marcos Creek) Volume (ac-if) 302 368 95 2,375 2,628 2,346
Encinitas Creek Q (cfs) 79 143 143 868 1,185 1,185
(at confluence with San Marcos Creek) Volume (ac-ft) 25 49 1 49 264 f 343 343
50 -year 6-hour Storm 100 -year 6-hour Storm
Concentration Post Burn with Post-Burn with
Point Pie-Bum Post-Bum Drawdowna Pre-Burn Post-Burn Drawdowna
Lake San Marcos Dam Q (cfs) 5,936 6,262 6,177 7,321 7,668 7,624
(at spillway crest) Volume (ac-if) 2,150 2,251 1,956 2,618 2,728 2,433
Arizona Crossing Q (cfs) 6,242 6,766 6,701 7,717 8,282 8,268
Volume (ac-if) 2,264 2,467 2,187 2,776 3,005 2,714
El Camino Real Bridge Q (cfs) 7,232 7,784 7,668 8,961 9,543 9,525
Volume (ac-ft) 2,707 2,910 2,631 3,327 3,557 3,267
Batiquitos Lagoon Q (cfs) 8,053 8,762 8,645 9,960 10,765 10,691
(at mouth of San Marcos Creek) Volume (ac-ft) 3,054 3,347 3,068 3,759 4,089 3,799
Encinitas Creek Q(cfs) 1,172 1,544 1,544 1,487 1,916 1,916
(at confluence with San Marcos Creek) Volume (ac-if) 347 437 437 432 532 532
a "Drawdown indicates a 5-foot lowering of the water level in Lake San Marcos from the dam crest elevation.
Woodward-Clyde @ W:9651135F\EC01-D-R.00C11-Mar-97\9651 135F\SDG 45
I
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
I
increase in peak flow at the confluence of San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek is possible.
I However, by drawing down the water level in Lake San Marcos five feet, a 67 to 94 percent
decrease in peak discharge is possible for the 2-year 6-hour storm through San Marcos Creek.
From our previous experience, it is anticipated that post-fire storm flows will gradually decrease
1 to pre-burn conditions over the next 3 to 5 years.
The sediment yield analysis was performed using the Flaxman Sediment Yield Method for both
the pre-burn and post-burn conditions.
- Elliot Flaxman published a predictive equation which relates sediment yield as a dependent
variable to five independent watershed characteristics. The equation was derived from empirical
data in areas where the terrain afforded a close relationship between erosion and sediment yield,
and that gully and channel erosion were not significant contributors. The Flaxman equation is as
i follows:
.
.
Y° = -86.07 - 5.30 (X1)°5 + 7.33 (X2)°5 - 1.63 (X3)05 + 10.79 (X4)° + 0.92(X5)°5
I where:
Y = average annual sediment yield in tons per square mile
I
. X 1 = (PIT)/l .43 with PIT expressed as percent
P = average annual precipitation, inches
I
, T = average annual temperature, degrees F
X2 = average slope of the watershed in percent
1 . X3 = percentage of particles coarser than 1.0 mm in the surface 2 inches of soil divided
by 72 (expressed as a percent).
X4 = percentage of clay in the surface 2 inches of soil plus 100 (if the pH of the soil is
I greater than 7), and 100 minus the percent clay (if the pH is equal to or less than
7)
I ,X5 = the 50 percent chance peak discharge in cubic feet per second per square mile
For the purposes of this study local precipitation and temperature data were collected from
"Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data - 1993, San Diego, CA," I U.S. Department of Commerce - NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, as follows:
Precipitation: 1964-1993 9.97 inches (average)
Temperature: 1964-1993 , 62.4 °F (average)
The sediment yield analysis using the Flaxman method was performed for both pre-bum and
I post-burn conditions, and the average annual sediment yield was calculated at two concentration
points each in San Marcos Creek and Encinitas. Creek, and a total sediment yield into Batiquitos
Lagoon was calculated. Tables 3 and 4 provide the pre- and post-burn results, respectively.
I
WOOdWard-Clyde W:\9651 135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC12-Mar-97\9651135FSDQ 4-6
I
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Table 3
SEDIMENT YIELD ANALYSIS
FLAXMAN METHOD - PRE-BURN CONDITION
Area
Lake San Marcos
to Rancho
Santa Fe Road
Arizona Crossing
to Rancho
Santa Fe Road
Encinitas Creek.
East of Rancho
Santa Fe Road
Encinitas Creek-
East of
Olivenhain Road
Total Sediment
Yield at
Batiquitos
Lagoon
Xl 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
X2 '34 26 20 17
X3 7 14 7 8
X4 21 38 .25 26
X5 688 226 99 125
Yl 506 488 5 2 1,001 tons/sq. mi
Y2 0.8 0.8 0.008 1 0.003 1 1.6 tons/acre
Table 4
SEDIMENT YIELD ANALYSIS
FLAXMAN METHOD - POST-BURN CONDITION
Area
Lake San Marcos
to Rancho
Santa Fe Road
Arizona Crossing
to Rancho
Santa Fe Road
Encinitas Creek-
East of Rancho
Santa Fe Road
Encinitas Creek-
'. East of
Olivenhain Road
Total Sediment
Yield at
Batiquitos
Lagoon
Xl 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
X2 34 ' 26 20 17
.X3 7 14 7 .8
X4 21 38 25 26
X5 771 266 179 ' 227
"(1 572 540 29 24 1,165tonslsq.mi
Y2 0.9 ' 0.8 ' 0.05 1 0.04 1.8 tons/acre
As can be seen from the results above, the average annual sediment yield from the watershed
below Lake San Marcos increases from 1.6 tons per acre for the pre-burn condition, to 1.8 tons
per acre for the post-bum condition. This represents a 12.5 percent increase in sediment yield
from the watershed. It is our experience with past fires that this condition will gradually reduce
to' the pre-bum conditions over the next 3 to '5 years, as the vegetation grows back and the
watershed stabilizes. The results of the pre-burn sediment yield analysis were compared with the
sediment yield results in the Final EIRJEIS for Batiquitos Lagoon, and the results appear to be
consistent.
Because water-generated erosion is the result of two types of erosive actions: raindrops falling
and striking bare ground, and runoff traveling over the land, even moderate storm events could
I
Woodward-Clyde W:\9651135F\ECO1-O.R.DOC11-Mar-97\9651 1 35F\SDG 47
I
i
I
I
I
L
I
1
I
I
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
potentially create significant erosion impacts. In addition the lack of vegetation after a major fire ' increases the flow velocity off slopes and leads to increased erosion and transport of sediment
downstream.
Once raindrop impact loosens soil particles and splashes them into the air, they can be moved by I water traveling over the land. Sheet erosion is caused by shallow sheets of water flowing over
the land, carrying soil particles. As the water flows, it concentrates in surface irregularities, and ' erodes rills and gullies. As channels are eroded, the velocity of the water increases and greater
amounts of soil are washed away. This increase in sediment transport downstream causes road
culverts to clog, roads to be covered with sediment, and may result in public and private property
I damage.
A volumetric comparison was conducted relating the total estimated annual sediment yield from
the San Marcos Creek watershed for the post-burn condition, and the estimated sediment holding I capacity behind the temporary gravel bag check dams and within the Arizona crossing detention
basin. It is estimated that approximately 9,000 tons of sediment holding capacity is available for
I these structures. Using the Flaxman method, it was estimated that 1.7 tons per acre per year of
sediment would be yielded from the San Marcos Creek watershed downstream of Lake San
Marcos. These results indicate that the check dams and the detention basin should provide
I sufficient capacity for approximately 2 years assuming that no maintenance (dredging the
detention basin or removing sediment from behind the temporary check dams) is performed.
Naturally, this period could vary .depending on the nature of the actual storms.
4.3.4 Potential Mitigation Measure Locations
I
Erosion control measures, such as applying hydraulic mulches and binders to the burned slopes
was considered, but for several reasons was not recommended. At the time of our field
investigation and preparation of this report, the area experienced several low intensity, long
'I duration storms followed by warm weather. This fortunate sequence of weather events served to
promote the rapid regrowth of vegetation in the burned area, which has grown in some areas as
high as 6 to 8 inches. The species that are growing the fastest appear to be grasses, which I provide good cover for the soil, and help reduce erosion of the slopes. This condition, combined
with prohibitive costs of applying hydraulic measures over widespread areas, was the basis for
not recommending erosion control measures, and focusing instead on strategically sited sediment I control measures.
Based on the hydrology and sediment yield analyses described above, the areas that were
I identified as offering the best opportunities for sediment control in the study area are:
Arizona Crossing ' The Arizona Crossing provides a good opportunity and broad location for trapping sediment
prior to discharging downstream. The crossing is readily accessible to large equipment that
can be utilized for sediment removal and maintenance of the detention basin. I
I
Woodward-Clyde @ W:9651135FECO1-D-R.DOC11-Mar-979651135F\SDG 4-8 I
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Box Canyon
Box Canyon has a relatively narrow creek channel to install temporary sediment control
structures. However, the limited accessibility, steepness of the channel and side slopes, and
magnitude (volume, flow rate, and velocity) of flows would have to be evaluated prior to the
design and installation of sediment control measures.
Lake San Marcos
Lake San Marcos provides an opportunity to trap both water and sediment from the upstream
watershed of San Marcos Creek. The lake is relatively deep (up to 80 feet), and the docks are
floating which allows them to tolerate changes in water surface elevation. By lowering the
lake level below the dam crest between major storm events, considerable storage capacity
could be provided for water and sediment from the watershed above the lake. This option
would considerable reduce the peak and volume of flow and sediment in San Marcos Creek
downstream of the dam that discharges to Carlsbad.
These are shown on Figure 1.
4.4 DEVELOP MITIGATION MEASURE SELECTION CRITERIA (STEP 4)
The severity of the erosion and sedimentation potential within the affected area and the degree of
damage that could occur from downslope delivery of ash, debris, and sediment necessitates the
use of the best practical and available technology. In addition, a wide range of conditions
requires a variety of solutions designed to address sediment control under site-specific
circumstances.
The mitigation measures selected for implementation by the City should be evaluated utilizing
the following criteria:
Cost-Effectiveness:
Performance histories, both field and laboratory, must be evaluated for a number of
materials and techniques and compared to relative material costs.
AvailabiliIy.
The material must be readily available from a local supplier or be capable of immediate
shipment to the area within the timeframe designated by the plans.
Feasibility:
The material must be capable of relatively quick and easy application with minimal
training required to orient crews or contractors to proper application procedures. Each
material should be considered for its flexibility or applicability to a variety of field
conditions.
I
Woodward-Clyde W:19651 135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC1 1-Mar-97\96511 35FSDG 49 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTIONFOUR Phase lErosion and Sediment Control Plan
Durability: S
Given the severity of site conditions, with slope gradients sometimes exceeding
65 degrees, it is necessary that erosion and sediment control measures maintain their
integrity during high flows and persist until vegetation has established effective erosion
control cover.
Compatibility:
Materials should be selected with regard to public acceptability and environmental
sensitivity.
4.5 NOMINATE AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES (STEP 5)
This section presents a description of alternative measures for erosion and sediment control
measures recommended for use in the Carlsbad area. A meeting was held on November 21st,
1996 between Woodward-Clyde and the City of Carlsbad to discuss the alternatives to be
incorporated into this Phase I Plan. Table 5 identifies specific options presented to the. City.
Woodward-Clyde and the City subsequently identified their preferred alternatives and those that
were most feasible for implementation. The selected alternatives are presented in Section 4.6,
Screen and Select Best Alternatives (Step 6).
5
Woodward-Clyde @ W:\9651135F\ECO1-D-RDOC11-Mar-979651135F\SDG 4-10
mm mm — MM — — — — - — — — — MW —
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Table 5
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE ALTERNATIVES
Relative Relative
Location Alternative Cost Advantages Disadvantages Capacity
Box A. Utilize geoweb to construct layered 2- to A. Low A. Native on-site materials, (rocks, debris, etc.) can be A. and B. A. Low
Canyon 3-foot high check dams within the utilized. Access to canyon is prohibitive.
canyon. Flexible, can take high loads, strong. Can only be constructed to certain height due
to excess hydraulic loading leading to failure.
B. Utilize geogrid to construct tubular 3- to B. Low B. Native on-site materials, (rocks, debris, etc.) can be B. Low Requires trenching and staking which may be
4-foot high check dams within the utilized. Strong, light-weight material; can difficult due to shallow bedrock.
canyon. withstand excessive loading. Slope of canyon limits sediment capacity.
C. Utilize rock filled gabions to construct C. Medium C. Native materials (rocks, etc.) can be utilized. C. Cumbersome. Removal can be difficult. C. Low
flexible check dams within the canyon. Flexible, strong, can take' high loads.
D. Utilize erosion control measures on D. High D. Provides protection from raindrop and wind D. Extent of area too large to be cost effective. D. Low
slopes tributary to Box Canyon. impacts.
E. No action E. N/A E. None E. Increase in peak flow. E. None
Arizona A. Elevate the roadbed at the Arizona cross- A. Medium A. and B. , A. Periodic sediment removal after storms A. Moderate
Crossing ing approximately 2 to 3 feet using 9-inch Easily accessible. necessary. ' to high
gabion mattresses or geoweb to increase Upstream from sensitive receptors.
sediment retention capacity. Install rip- Area available to create moderate sediment
rap on up- and downstream face. retention capacity.
B. Elevate the roadbed at the Arizona B. Medium B. Periodic sediment removal after storms B. Moderate Relatively uncomplicated maintenance procedures.
crossing approximately 2 to 3 feet using Area conducive to wetland habitat enhancement. necessary. to high
a gravel base overlain by asphalt-
concrete to increase sediment retention
capacity. Install riprap on up- and
downstream face.
C. Install K-rail on the upstream and down- C. Low C. Quick to install and remove. C. K-rail may require anchoring to keep from C. Moderate
stream sides of the Arizona crossing, and sliding. to high
fill between with compacted soil.
D. No action D. N/A D. Basin is currently accessible for cleaning out and D. Requires more frequent sediment removal than D. Low to
has some sediment retention capacity. other alternatives due to lower capacity. moderate
Woodward-Clyde 0 W:9651135FEC01-D.R.D0C11-Mar-97\9651135FSDG 4-11
— — — — — No ON — — — — - - - - - - - - SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Table 5 (Concluded)
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURE ALTERNATIVES
Relative Relative
Location Alternative Cost Advantages Disadvantages Capacity
Resort of A. Clean out sediment, debris and A. Low A. Will provide a small increase in flow capacity of A. None A. Moderate
La Costa vegetation from channel. . channel through golf course.
Golf
Course
B. Utilize HDPE geotextile tubes filled with B; High B. B. B. Moderate
water along channel banks to temporarily Increases flow capacity in channel through golf Aesthetically incompatible with golf course
increase channel capacity. course by adding 4 to 5 feet of additional setting and usage unless creative landscaping
freeboard. is utilized as temporary camouflage.
Can be quickly and easily installed and removed Temporary modification of golf cart bridges may
during the winter rainy season. be required.
May be reused every year.
C. No action. C. N/A C. None C. Flooding on golf course C. Low
Lake San Draw down water level in Lake San Marcos 5 Moderate Stores sediment and water in lake from upstream Not within City jurisdiction. High
Marcos to 6 feet between storms to reduce peak watershed, thus reducing peak flows and sediment Would require pumping since the dam has no
flows downstream. loads downstream in Carlsbad. outlet control.
Woodward-Clyde @ W:9651 135FECo1-D-R.DOC\1i.Mar-97\9651 135FSDG 4-12
I
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
The following is list of alternative erosion and sediment control measures identified for use in the I City:
• SF1 Prefabricated Silt Fencing
G132A Gravel-filled Burlap Bag Check Dams I .
• GB213 Gravel-filled Burlap Bags for Inlet Filter
• G132C Gravel-filled Burlap Bag for Curb Inlet Filter
I . CC3 Cellular Confinement System
• GM4 9-inch Gabion mattress.
• FC5 Flexible Concrete Revetment
I . KR6 Concrete Traffic. Barriers (K-rail)
• TL7 . Temporary Levees
I .
•
DM8
SB9
Straw Mulching with Tackifier or Nets
Straw Bales
. BM1O Bonded Fiber Matrix
EB11 Erosion Control Blankets I s
HS 12 Hydraulic Soil Sealing
These erosion and control sediment control measures and local sources are described below. It
I should be noted that some measures have been included for information purposes in the event
future conditions require their use.
SF1 Prefabricated Silt FenciAg
I Description
Filter fences prefabricated from woven geotextile with attached posts are proposed for limited
use in the firestorm area. The sediment retention structures are generally 3 feet in height and
I 100 feet in length, with wooden 1-in. x 1-in. x 36-in, stakes spaced every 8 to 10 feet along the
length of the fabric.
I Silt fences function by retaining sediment behind the geotextile fabric, while allowing water to
flow through. In order to be effective, the bottom of the fabric must be placed in a trench,
backfilled with soil and compacted to keep water from flowing under the fence.
Silt fence has limited use in the burn area, primarily as debris fences when work crews are on
slopes, to prevent debris from cascading Off slopes. When used for sediment control, they should
be periodically inspected and repairs made after each storm event. Sediment and other deposited I material should be removed before the material reached one-half the fence height.
H
F7
I
Woodward-Clyde W:\9651135FECO1-D-R.DOC1 1-Mar-979651 135F\SDG 4-13
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Sources
Two sources of silt fencing have been identified in San Diego County:
Drainage Products, Inc.
444 Via El Centro
Oceanside, CA 92054
Tel: (619) 757-7211
Fax: (619) 757-7214
ACME Bag Company Inc.
2528 Main Street, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Tel: (619) 429-9800
Cost
Costs are variable ranging from $1.00 per linear foot to $1.40 per linear foot depending on grade
of geotextile and size of stakes.
I GB2A Gravel-Filled Burlap Bag Check Dams
GB2B Gravel-Filled Burlap Bags for Inlet Filter
I GB2C Gravel-Filled Burlap Bag for Curb Inlet Filter
Description
I Burlap bags filled with 1 inch minimum clean gravel can be used in the fire area in a variety of
applications. The use of the gravel in a biodegradable textile of open weave allows water to
percolate through the system, while retaining sediment behind the bag.
The bags can be place by workers in the following situations:
As velocity reduction and sediment retention structures in incised gullies, particularly those
I on slopes which are active or have the potential for massive sediment transport during storm
events. The bags should be placed under the guidance of field engineers, stacked alternately
to a depth of no more than 24 inches and with the middle flow line portion of the bag weir
I lower than the sides; 24-inch stakes may be driven in front of the downstream portion of the
bag-wall for additional support (Practice GB2A). This practice may also be adapted for use
as linear sediment barriers along roads or at the base of slopes.
As filter barriers for storm drain inlets, where the bags are placed in alternating rows around
the perimeter of the drain (Practice GB2B).
1 3. As filter barriers for storm drain curb inlets, in which case they will be place in alternating
fashion, two bags high, in a semi-circle in front of curb storm drain inlets (Practice GB2C).
I 4. As velocity reduction and sediment retention structures along the curbs of roads, where a line
of alternating bags, 2 feet high and 8 to 10 feet long will be extended up gradient and away
from the curb at an angle not to exceed 30 degrees (Practice GB2C).
I
Woodward-Clyde W:\9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC11-Mar-979651135FSDG 4-14
I
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
An option is for gravel filled bags to be kept within a short distance of the storm drain inlets and
thereby ready for immediate deployment before or during rainfall events. Field engineers, under
the direction of the City, may paint a dashed line prior to storm events on the pavement and away
from the curb, indicating the positioning of the gravel bags.
Sources
Two local sources for burlap bags are:
JAM Compaction and Erosion Control
2649 Vista Way, Suite 8-21.
Oceanside, CA 92054
Tel: (619) 722-2285
Fax: (619) 722-1055
ACME Bag Company, Inc.
2528 Main Street, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Tel: (619) 429-9800
Costs
Costs are variable, ranging from $0.40 to $0.60 per bag Price breaks may be negotiated
depending on quantity.
CC3 Cellular Confinement System
Description
Geoweb and EnviroGrid are lightweight flexible cellular confinement systems constructed of
either polyethylene or metal. The system consists of three-dimensional cells in a honeycomb-
like structure. After installation with on-site fill material or rock, geogrid acts as a semi-rigid
slab, distributing loads laterally, and reducing subgrade contact pressures. When combined with
on-site fill or rock materials geogrid creates an economical structural base for temporary roads,
permanent roads or pad site construction.
Sources
One source for Geoweb is:
Presto Products Company
P.O. Box 2399
Appleton, WI 54913-2399
Tel: (800) 548-3424
Fax: (414) 738-1418
Woodward-Clyde W:\9651135F\ECO1-O-R.DOC11-Mar-9751135F\SDG 4-1 5
I
I
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
One source for EnviroGrid is:
I Drainage Products, Inc.
444 Via El Centro
I Oceanside, CA 92054
Tel: (619) 757-7211.
Fax: (619) 757-7214
I Costs
The cost for cellular confinement systems is approximately $1.40 per square foot plus $0.10 per
I square foot for installation. Cost for fill material or washed rock is not included in quoted
installation and material costs.
GM4 Gabion Mattresses or Baskets
Description
Gabions are fabricated from welded, corrosion-resistant, steel, wire interlock mesh formed into
large boxes, usually rectangular in shape but variable in size. They are designed to reduce the
complex problems of erosion, sedimentation, and flooding at relatively low cost. Gabions are
erected at the project site, quickly joined together and filled with stones, often obtained on site.
They can be handled as building blocks to form monolithic, permeable, flexible structures of any
size and shape. Because of their inherent flexibility, gabion structures can yield to earth
movement and retain their full efficiency while remaining structurally sound.
Sources
Four sources for gabions are:
Maccaferri Gabions, Inc.
3650 Seaport Blvd.
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Tel: (916) 371-5805
Terra Aqua Gabions
P.O. Box 7546
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: (702) 828-1390
Fax: (702) 828-1394
Hilficker Retaining Walls
3900 Broadway (99503)
P.O. Box 2012
Eureka, CA 95502-2012
Tel: (707) 443-5093
Fax: (707) 443-2093
Woodward-Clyde 40 W:\9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC\11 -Mar-97\9651135F\SDG 4-16
I
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Modular Gabion Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 230150
Houston, TX 77223-0150
Tel: (800) 324-8282 or (334) 633-2393
Fax: (334) 633-4188
Cost
I Costs are variable for 9-inch gabion mattresses, ranging from approximately $30 to $35 per
square yard installed. Material costs range from $10 to $15 per square yard. Additional costs
would be incurred from overlaying the gabion mattress with asphalt.
FC5 Flexible Concrete Revetment
I Description
Flex-block (from Drainage Products, Inc.) or Armorfiex (from Erosion Technology, Inc.) are
I interlocking matrices of precast concrete blocks of uniform size, shape, and weight,
interconnected by a series of cables which pass through preformed ducts in each block. The
ducts allow for drainage and vegetation growth through the matrix. The interlocking blocks are
I made into mats for use in channel lining, river bank protection, drainage ditch lining, pipeline
protection, bridge abutment protection, dam crests and spillways, and weirs and overflow basins.
I Sources
- One local source for Flex-block is:
I Drainage Products, Inc.
444 Via El Centro
Oceanside, CA 92054
I Tel: (619)757-7211
Fax: (619) 757-7214
One local source for Armorfiex is:
Erosion Technology, Inc.
Jim Fish
I P.O. Box 441
7367 Noche Tapatia
I Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Cost
The cost of flexible concrete revetment materials is approximately $4.00 per square foot, plus I $2.00 per square foot for installation.
I
Woodward-Clyde W.\9651135FEC01-D-R.DOC\11Mar-979651135SOG 417
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
KR6 Concrete Traffic Barriers (K-rail)
Description
This practice involves the placement of concrete or water-filled plastic traffic barriers, also
known as "K-Rail," in areas of potential sediment loads to direct the material away from
significant resources or create capacity in a basin. Key considerations when using this practice
are access to the area of placement and operation and maintenance once in place.
Barriers are placed end-to-end in a predesigned configuration and gravel-filled bags are used at
the upstream toes of the barriers and also at their abutting ends to seal and prevent movement of
sediment beneath or through the barrier walls. These systems should be used only after an
evaluation of the debris potential and only when the flow can be directed onto areas where it will
not cause significant impacts. K-rail may also be used to increase the size of upstream retention
by placing two rows of K-rail with compacted soil in between them.
Costs for K-rail are usually nominal if the City has K-rail available. Concrete barriers require a
crane to install, while plastic barriers may be installed by hand and filled with water on site.
TL7 Temporary Levees
Description
Temporary levees, or Water Structures®, are based on a patented idea that combines three or
more polyethylene or woven geotextile tubes and any available water supply. Two "inner" tubes,
contained by an outer "master" tube, are pumped full of water simultaneously. Counter friction
between the master and inner tubes results in a stable, non-rolling "wall" of contained water,
which adjusts automatically to- bottom terrain. The result is a temporary water structure dam.
Water structures are light, easy to handle, temporary, and can be used in virtually any location.
Available sizes range from 1 foot to 10 feet high. Water Structures® were recently used along
the Mississippi River to help reduce flooding of adjacent areas.
Sources
One source of Water Structures® is:
Water Structures Unlimited
P.O. Box 206
Carlotta, CA 95528
Tel: (707) 768-3439
Fax: (707) 768-1723
Cost
The cost for a 3-foot high, 68-inch wide, 1,130 lb./linear foot water structure is $24/foot
installed. Discounts are available for large quantity orders.
Woodward-Clyde W:\9651 135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC11-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG 4-18
I
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
DM8 Straw Mulching with Tackifier or Nets
Description
Weed-free, bright straw can be' used as part of a three-step surface erosion control practice.
Straw mulching,can also be anchored with nets, which is primarily a homeowner practice. The
three-step process is economically impractical on small, individual lots. See Appendix B for
details.
Sources
The following suppliers can provide wood fiber mulch and/or tackifier for the three-step process:
Tackifier:
S&S Seeds
P.O. Box 1275
Carpenteria, CA 93103
Tel: (805) 684-0436
Fax: (805) 684-2798
Wood Fiber Mulch:
Weyerhaeuser Company
7001 396th S.E.
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
Tel: (800) 443-9179
Fax: (296) 888-7504
Acrylic Copolymer:
Environmental Soil Systems, Inc.
13234 Whistler Avenue
Granada Hills, CA 91344
Tel: (800)368-4115
Fax: (818)368-9393
Jute Netting:
Santa Fe Bag Company
102 Varni Road
Corralitos, CA 95076 '
Tel: (408)728-9359
Fax: (408) 728-4672
Dayton Bag & Burlap
322 Davis Avenue
Dayton, OH 45403
Tel: (513) 258-8000
Fax: (513)258-0029
Woodward-Clyde 0 W:\9651135F\EC01-D-R,DOC\l1Mar.97\9651135F\SDG 4-19
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Belton Industries, Inc.
8613 Roswell Road, No. 200
Atlanta, GA 30350
Tel: (800) 225-4099
Fax: (404)992-6361
Synthetic Netting:
Conwed Plastics
2690 Patton Road
Roseville, MN 55331
Tel: (612) 831-5720
Synthetic Industries
4091 Industry Drive
Chattanooga, TN 37416
Tel: (800) 621-0444
Fax: (615)449-0753
Costs
Typical costs for the three-step practice, including materials and application, range from $1,250
to $1,450 per acre, without seed.
SB9 Straw Bales
Description
I Straw bales may be used for check dams to temporarily stabilize gullies and channels, as storm
drain inlet filters, or a perimeter filter barriers. To be effective, bales must be installed in a
I trench (generally no deeper than 4 inches), with the strings placed to the side, and held in place
using 1-in. x 1-in. x 36-in, wooden stakes. When used as temporary perimeter barriers along
roads, trenching may not be necessary.
I When used as check dams, the edges must be higher than the center point; and the crest of the
downstream check dam should be approximately level with the toe of the upstream check dam.,
Straw bales may be used as storm drain inlet filters where the area around the drain is composed
Of soil.
Bales should weigh between 40 and 60 lbs. Finally, it is important that any allotment of straw be
I bright and dry when purchased and covered or otherwise protected from rain until use.
Sources
A wide range of agricultural sources for straw exist, but it is essential that only weed-free rice
straw or wheat straw be used, so as to reduce the potential for spread of unwanted plants onto the
- burn area.
I S
Woodward-Clyde W:\9651135F1EC01-D-R.DOC\11-Mar-979651135SDG 4-20 I
I
SECTION FOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Costs
I Prices for straw bales range from $3.25 for wheat straw to over $7.00 for heavy bales of rice
straw.
BMIO Bonded Fiber Matrix
I Description
A bonded fiber matrix (BFM) is a hydraulically applied erosion control blanket composed of
wood fibers held together by a high strength adhesive. Upon cross-linking, the adhesive holds
the wood fibers together in a three-dimensional matrix which prevents erosion from rainfall
splash and overland sheet flow. One of the unique features of the BFM is that once cross-linked,
I rewetting of the matrix does not affect the bond strength, and field and laboratory evaluations•
have shown the matrix to be just as effective in controlling erosion as standard, roll-type erosion
control blankets.
The BFM is delivered in standard 50 pound bags and is added to a hydraulic seeder tank much in
the same manner as conventional hydraulic mulch. However, application is somewhat different
as the applicator is required to "build a blanket" rather than just spray mulch and seed. In this
I regard, care must be given to thickness of application and elimination of "shadow effect" during
application. The BFM may be used with or without seed but exhibits its best performance when
used in combination with seeding mixtures. It is a straw yellow color when applied, gradually I weathering to an earthen-tone brown over time.
A BFM may be used on slopes around high-priority areas, and in general, where steepened slope
I conditions and safety concerns preclude the installation of erosion control blankets.
Source
I Although there are quite a few companies that make components which can be combined to
simulate a BFM, only one company currently manufactures a "one-bag" system:
I Weyerhaeuser Company
7001 396thS.E.
Snoqualmie, WA 98065
I Tel: (800)443-9179
Fax: (296) 888-7504
I . Costs
Current pricing (based on an application rate of 3,000 pounds per acre) is about $5,000 per acre
for labor and materials.
I.
I
I
Woodward-Clyde W:\9651135FECO1-D-R.DOC\11-Mar-97\965l 1 35F\SDG 421
1
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
EBII Erosion Control Blankets
I Description
Erosion control blankets (ECBs) are rolled materials which contain plant fibers (straw, coconut
fiber or wood fiber) held between plastic netting. When used following seeding, the ECBs are
rolled our in the direction of water flow and held in place using 6-in. x I-in. x 6-in, wire staples.
I ECBs may be used on those areas where a high velocity water channel requires protection or on
steepened slopes above existing homes, and then only if access to the site and slope conditions
do not pose a safety concern.
I Another use of the blankets, particularly those made of 100% coconut fiber, is as a longitudinal
buffer strip, installed along the contour of a slope to reduce sheet flow velocities, settle our soil
I fines, and trap ash from overland flow.
Sources
I :Two sources for the 100% coconut fiber blanket are:
Pacific Soil Stabilization
1004 East Cypress
I Santa Maria, CA 93454
Tel: (805) 925-7737
Fax: (805) 922-3769 I :
Drainage Products, Inc.
44 Via El Centro
I Oceanside, CA 92054
Tel: (619) 757-7211
Fax: (619)757-7214
I Costs
Installed costs for the coconut blanket are around $1.25 per square yard for labor and materials or
over $6,000 per acre.
I HSI2 Hydraulic Soil Sealing
Description
I SS6 is a supplemental erosion control practice that may be applied with or without seed. The
practice is applied by hydraulic seeding methods and binds the soil surface, ash, seed and mulch
together through the use of an acrylic copolymer. The mixture is applied on critical slopes,
I around foundations, and on off-road sites with limited access to straw-blowing (DM5)
equipment.
Typically, the SS6 is a one-step process which includes the following components on a per acre I basis.
I
Woodward-Clyde W:\9651135F\EC01-D-RO0C1 1 -Mar-979651 135F\SOG 4-22 I
I
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
500 pounds of wood fiber mulch;
1,000 pounds of recycled paper mulch;
Appropriate seed mixture (or no seed mixture); and
55 to 110 gallons of acrylic copolymer, depending on soil conditions.
I Upon curing, usually within 24 hours, the mixture forms a crust on the surface which protects the
soil and ash from erosion but also allows water to infiltrate. Over time, the crust biodegrades as
I plants develop.
Sources
I Wood Fiber Mulch:
Weyerhaeuser Company
7001 396th S.E.
I Snoqualmie, WA 98065
Tel: (800) 443-9179
Fax:. (296) 888-7504
I Recycled Paper Mulch:
United Fibers
4280 IA Street I :
Benicia, CA 94510
Tel: (707) 745-9030
1 Central Fiber Corporation
4814 Fiber Lane
Wellsville, KS 66092 I Tel: (800)654-6117
Fax: (913)883-4429
I Acrylic Copolymer:
Environmental Soil Systems, Inc.
13234 Whistler Avenue : I Granada Hills, CA 91344 :
Tel: (800)368-4115
I Fax: (818) 368-9393
Soil Seal
3015 Supply Avenue
I Los Angeles, CA 90040
Tel: (213)727-0654
Fax: (213) 727-6037
I Costs
:
The costs for this practice, including labor and materials, range from $1,200 for low application
rates of the copolymer to $1,900 for the higher application rates, without seed.
Woodward-Clyde : W9651 1 35Eco1DR:Doc\1 Mar-951135F\SDG 4-23 I
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
4.6 SCREEN AND SELECT BEST ALTERNATIVES (STEP 6)
Based on discussions with the City regarding the selection criteria described above in Step 4, and
the alternatives described above in Step 5, the mitigation measures for each-site were selected.
As indicated in Table 2, some alternatives require interagency coordination or .interjurisdictional
agreements before further action may be taken. The City will need to make decisions on whether
or not to implement the suggested measures. However,'we',recommend the following
prioritization based on potential adverse impacts.
Priority 1 'Increase capacity of the Arizona crossing upstream detention area and unplug
outlet pipe; replace the upstream inlet riser.
Priority 2 Install gravel bag check dams within the Rancheros area.
Priority 3 Raise bed of road crossing at the Arizona crossing.
Priority 4 Remove sediment, vegetation, and debris from San Marcos Creek channel through
golf course.
Priority 5 Pump down lake level 5 to 6 feet in Lake San Marcos
Priority 6 Construct temporary check dams within Box Canyon.
The measures were ranked using the following criteria
1. Public health and safety
2 Damage to drainage infrastructure and sensitive receiving water bodies
3. 'Access
Table 6 discusses the selection of preferred alternatives recommended by 'Woodward-Clyde for
each candidate location and identifies the actions/decisions that have been taken .by the City to
date.
Woodward-Clyde W:9651 135F\ECO1-D-RDOC1 1-Mar-979651135F\SDG - 4-24
— — — — — — — — — —. — — — — — — —
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Table 6
SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
Location Action Cost Status Decision
Lake San Marcos Pump down lake level 5 to 6 feet between Currently undetermined Curiently This is a preferred alternative; however, the
winter storms to store water and sediment and discussing with dam is not a City-owned property.
reduce downstream peak flows and sediment HOA and County Coordination with Lake San Marcos
loads. S Association and County of San Diego is
necessary.
Box Canyon Temporary check dam structures constructed N/A Not feasible This alternative is deemed not practicable due
within the canyon bottom. to the inaccessible nature of Box Canyon and
the high potential for failure of the temporary
structures during high peak flows.
Rancheros Area Install gravel bag check dam structures within N/A Completed Performed under direction of City.
the Rancheros area.
Rancheros Area Apply soil stabilization measures to denuded N/A Not feasible This alternative is deemed not feasible due to
slopes, large area where measures would be applied.
Cost prohibitive.
Arizona Crossing Increase the capacity of the upstream detention Completed Performed under direction of City.
area; unplug the outlet pipe; replace the
upstream outlet riser.
Arizona Crossing Raise the bed of the road crossing the structure 9-inch gabion mattress Under Temporary roadbed enhancement structures
and maintain capacity of upstream side. $10,000 to $12,000 (installed) consideration are under consideration relative to the
frequency of sediment removal to determine Geogrid roadbed the most cost-effective and feasible $4,500 (installed) (additional cost for fill alternative material)
Flex-block or Armorfiex
$18,000 (installed)
Resort of La Costa Remove sediment, vegetation, and debris from N/A In progress The resort has initiated removal of sediment,
Golf Course San Marcos Creek channel through golf course. debris, and vegetation from the channel, and
will do so on an on-going basis.
Woodward-Clyde 0 W:',9651 1 35F\ECO1-D-R.00C\1 1-Mar-97',9651 135F\SOG 4-25
SECTIONFOUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
4.7 DEVELOP EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS (STEP 7).
Based on the screened and selected erosion and sediment control alternatives, plans and
specifications were developed. These plans and specifications are provided in Appendix B.
4.7.1 Location Map
Provided on Figure 3 is an erosion and sediment control measures Location Map. Shown on the
map are color-coded areas for each of the selected control practices described in Table 6.
4.7.2 Details and Standard Specifications
Provided in Appendix B are installation details and standard specifications for the selected
practices. Also included in Appendix B are details and specifications for other practices not
presently included in the Plan, but which the City may want to install on an as-needed basis.
Modifications to the Plan may include installation of these additional measures and possibly
others not currently identified. Modifications to the Plan will be provided as appropriate based
on the performance of the installed measures and additional problems that may need to be
addressed during the rainy season.
4.8 SCHEDULE AND IMPLEMENT THE PLAN (STEP 8)
The initial installation of the gravel bag check dams and barriers was completed in November,
1996 with NCCC labor crews and CDF Corrections labor crews under the City's direction.
Installation of the new measures requiring separate contractors (Arizona crossing and Lake San
Marcos) will take approximately 2 weeks to complete, after contractor selection and notice-to-
proceed. The pump-down of Lake San Marcos should be performed between significant storm
events throughout the winter in order to maintain adequate storage capacity.
4.9 OPERATE AND MONITOR THE INSTALLED SYSTEMS (STEP 9)
To provide for the continued performance of the installed mitigation measures, they must be
operated and monitored throughout the rainy season. In particular, measures should be
monitored before, during, and after storm events.
Measures should be operated using the following guidelines:
Gravel bag barriers should be cleaned of accumulated materials when the material is within 6
inches of the top of the barrier. If the City chooses not to clean out the accumulated
sediment, then the barriers will become ineffective as sediment control devices.
Check dams (gravel bag) should be cleaned when accumulated sediment reaches one-half the
height of the check dam. If the City chooses not to clean out the accumulated sediment, then
the barriers will become ineffective as sediment control devices.
OOdWarcLClyde W:\9651135F\EC01-D-R.DOC\12-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG 4-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
Li
I
I
LI
I
1
I
n
I
SECTIONF OUR Phase I Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
I
Inlet filters for storm drains should be cleaned when sediment covers the first course of
I gravel bags.
U • The detention basin upstream of the Arizona crossing should be cleaned of accumulated
I
sediment when the sediment is within one foot of the crest of the crossing. Erosion and sedimentation problems that occur during the rainy months or lack of-vegetative
growth should be addressed on a case-by-case bases with remedial mitigation provided as
I appropriate.
I . 4.9.1 Storm Events
The control measures recommended in this plan will not control all problems. Further, more
intense storm events may result in problems that must be addressed to reduce property damage.
I The most important step in controlling runoff damage from intense storm events following a
major fire is pre-storm planning. This involves identifying potential problem areas, developing
I emergency measures, and locating needed resources. Problem areas can include possible water
and/or debris flows, storm drains subject to plugging, flooding, erosion, and sediment transport.
These areas can be identified by field observation and consideration of problem areas that existed
I prior to the fire.
In specified areas, the Plan identifies some extensive control measures to reduce the impact of
I problems resulting from more intense storms. However, additional control measures may be
needed in these and other problem areas as identified during an evaluation of the performance of
the mitigation measures during the winter storms. The problem areas should be documented and
I control measures developed and implemented immediately.
Contractors and suppliers of materials that may be needed should be identified ahead of time and
after-hours contact numbers provided to emergency coordinators. Prior to a forecasted
I precipitation event, materials and equipment that may be needed should be deployed to the
vicinity of the potential problem areas. For example, backhoes should be placed in the vicinity
I of major storm drains inlets that may become blocked.
Communications are often disrupted during major storm events. The City's radio communica-
tion system should be used to provide a reliable backup to telephone communications.
I Appropriate City staff should be placed on-call during predicted storm events. To the extent
possible, storm-related assignments should be made prior to the storm to minimize the amount of
I organization effort required during the event. Also, rain gear and necessary equipment (shovels,
flashlights, etc.) should be distributed prior to the storm event or be made readily available at
convenient and known locations.
I Following each storm, an assessment should be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of
control measures and to identify additional measures needed to control problems resulting from
i subsequent storms.
I
Woodward-Clyde
W:9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC11-Mar-97\9651135FSDG 4-27 I
-
-
Itb
Ag
/1 -
1
4 j\: I[AKE SAN MARCOS DA
IN
MJ
-
5 -
*1
IF rtJd
A
ci
I
no
IF rp"sw NOW
04 w10
71 j
-
* N
1ióx CANYON -
P'
- i - -
4
; LAGOON ESORTOFCOSTAGO CO ! LSANTMARCOS CRE(1
-
, '
r
- ARIZONA CROSSING WITH UPSTREAM
ADJACENT DETENTION BASIN
JF
7K
-.. Et. CAMINO REAL BRIDGE] -
Mt\r: UU /.0 MII'IU IC. CINLIINI I# /\I'4L)
RANCHO SANTA FE QUADRANGLES
LEGEND
INDICATES APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF DRAINAGE AREAS
INDICATES APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF BURN AREA ® INDICATES UNBURNED AREAS
o 2000 4000
__j
APPROXIMATE GRAPHIC SCALE
(FEET)
WOODWARD—CLYDE
- - __P_•_-.__•_ *
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HEC1 SIN: 1343001570 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: Y:\SANDIEGO\PRE-BUR1.HC1
******+* ************ *****44+********* ****
+
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) *
+ MAY 1991
* VERSION 4.0.1E
* *
* RUN DATE 11/26/1996 TIME 20:36:10 *
* * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * *
* 4
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS *
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER *
* 609 SECOND STREET
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 *
* (916) 756-1104 *
*4* ******* *********+*******************
x x. xxxxxxx 'xxxxx x
x x x x x xx
x x x x
xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x
x x x x
x x x ,x x x
x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx
Full Microcomputer Implementation
by
Haestad Methods, Inc.
37 Brookside Road * Waterbury, Connecticut 06708 * (203) 755-1666
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RN-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE ; SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND P.NPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
HEC-1 INPUT PAGE
LINE ID . 1.2.•. 3.4.5..6.7. 8.•.9. 10
*DIAGRAM
1 ID
2 ID
3 ID .
4 ID * *
5 ID * WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS *
6 ID *
7 ID
8 ID
9 ID
10 ID
11 ID CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
12 ID PRE-BURN 2 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
13 ID FILE NAME: PRE-BUR1 NOVEMBER 26, 1996
14 ID ......1 .......2 ........3 .......4. ................6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10
15 . ID
16 IT 15 100
17 IN 8
18 10
*
0
19 XX LSM
20 PB 1.18
21 PC .009 .016 .025 .034 .045 .054 .065 .077 .090 .104
22 PC .120 .137 .157 .180 .210 .255 .322 .410 .506 .588
23 PC .629 .656 .679 .700 .720 .739 .756 .772 .790 .800
24 PC .816 .831 .845 .860 .872 .885 .895 .905 .914 .924
25 PC .935 .945 .954 .963 .972 .981 .991 1.000
26 BA 27.3
27 LS 0 81
28 UD
*
1.86
29 . XX DAM
30 RS I ELEV 493
31 SA 5 59 59 59
32 SE 413 488 493 503
33 SS
*
493 325 3.3 1.5
34 XX STRM1
35 RD
*
18000 0.0228 0.04 TRAP 50 3
36 XX AZC
37 PB 1.18
38 BA 4.1
39 LS 0 63
N
LI
0
PAGE 2 NEC-i INPUT
ID.......1 .......2 ........3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 ........8 .......9 ......10
KK BOX
KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM STRM1 AND AZC
NC 2
*
KK STRM2
RD 8500 0.0035 0.04 TRAP 600 10
*
KK CcR
PB 1.18 5 5
BA 6.8
LS 0 77
UD 1.26
*
KK COMB1 . .
KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECR AND STRN2
NC . 2
KK ENC
PB .89
BA 7.4
LS 0 81
UD 1.18
KK COMB2 . S
KM COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE .HYDROGRAPHS FROM COMB1 AND ENC
NC 2
zz
LINE
41
42
43
454
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
RUNOFF SUMMARY
OPERATION STATION
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM
ROUTED TO
DAM
ROUTED To
STRM1
HYDROGRAPH AT
AZC
2 COMBINED AT
- BOX
-ROUTED TO
STRM2
HYDROGRAPH AT
ECR
2 COMBINED AT
COMB1
HYDROGRAPH AT
ENC
2 COMBINED AT
COM82
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
FLOW PEAK - AREA - STAGE MAX STAGE
- 6-HOUR 24-HOUR - 72-HOUR -
631. 600 - 449. 121. 118. 27.30 -
612. 6.75 429. 121. 118. 27.30 - -
493.68 6.75
611; - - 1.25 428. - 118. 27.30
- 0. - 7.00 - 0. 0. - - 0. - 4.10
-611. 7.25 - 428. -- 121. 118. 31.40
621. 7.50 421. - - 118. 31.40 -
104. 6.00 68. 17. 17. 6.80
688. 7.50 446. 140. - 135. 38.20
79. 6.00 50; - - 13.
-
12. - 7.40 - -
735. 7.50 465. 152. 148. 45.60 -
- - - - - - - - - - ,- - - - - - - - -
SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
(FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
INTERPOLATED TO
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
'PEAK PEAK
(MIN) (CE'S) (MIN) ' (IN) (MIN) (CE'S) (MIN) (IN)
STRM1 MANE 13.50 612.16 432.00 ' 0.17 1500 611.42 435.00 0.17
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0.2405E+03EXCESS=0.0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0.2408E+03 BASIN STORAGE=0.4899E+00 PERCENT ERROR= -0.3
STRM2 MANE 12.75 647.68 446.25 0.14 15.00 620.90 ' 450.00 0.14
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0.2406E+03 EXCESS=0.0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0.2419E+03 BASIN STORAGE=0.1838E+01 PERCENT ERROR= -1.3
- - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - -.
NEC-i INPUT PAGE 1
LINE ID.......1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5. ......6 .......7 .......8. ......9 ......10
1 ID
2 ID
3 ID
4 ID *4*4* * ************************** *44*4* **
5 ID
6 ID WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS *
7 ID * *
8 ID *4* ***#**** ***********************************
9 ID
10 ID
- 11 ID
12 ID CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
13 ID PRE-BURN 25 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
14 ID FILE NAME: PRE-BUR1 NOVEMBER 26, 1996
15 ID .....1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 ........8 .......9 ......10
16 ID
17 IT 15 100
18 IN 8
19 10
*
'0
20 KK LSM
21 PB 2.80
22 PC .009 .016 .025 .034 .045 .054 .065 .077 .090 .104
.23 PC .120 .137 .157 .180 .210 . .255 .322 .410 .506 .588
24 . PC .629 .656 .679 .700 .720 .739 .756 .772 .790 .800
25 - PC .816 .831 .845 .860 .872 .885 .895 .905 .914 .924
26 PC .935 .945 .954 .963 .972 .981 .991 1.000
27 BA 27.3
28 LS 0 81
29 UD
*
1.86
: .30 KK DAN
31 RS 1 ELEV 493 -
32 SA 5 .59 59 59
33 SE 413 488 493 503
34 SS
*
493 325 3.3 1.5
35 KK STRN1
36 RD
*
18000 0.0228 0.04 TRAP 50 3
37 1(1< AZC
38 PB 2.80 -
39 BA 4.1
40 LS 0 63
I I I I I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
HI
I
mom mm — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
NEC-i INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID.......1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10
42 KK BOX
43 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM STRM1 AND AZC
44 MC
*
2
45 KK STRM2
46 RD
*
8500 0.0035 0.04 TRAP 600 10
47 KK ECR
48 PB 2.80
49 BA 6.8
50 LS 0 71
51 UD
*
1.26 °
52 KK COMB1
53 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECR AND STRM2
54 HC
*
2
55 KK ENC
56 PB 2.10
57 BA 7.4
58 LS 0 81
59 UD 1.18
60 KK COMB2
61 -KM COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE HYDROGRAPHS FROM COMBI AND ENC
62 HC 2 °
63 ZZ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
• TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK : AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
• S 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM 4684. 5.00 3159. 853. 827. 27.30
•• ROUTED TO •
DAM 4608. 5.25 3105. 853. 827. 27.30
/ • 495.64 5.25
•
• ROUTED. TO • .
STRM1 4596. 5.50 3100. 853. 827. 27.30
HYDROGRAPH AT S . S
AZC 233. 4.75 154.
•
39. 38. 4.10
2 COMBINED AT -
BOX 4816. 5.50 '3232. :892. 865. 31.40
ROUTED TO S
STRM2 4790. 5.75 3213. 893. 866. 31.40
HYDROGRAPH AT • S • S • S •
S ECR 1088. 4.00 663. 171. 166. 6.80 5
2 COMBINED AT S
COMB1 5577. 5.75 3667. 1064. 1032. 38.20 5 5
S HYDROGRAPH AT . S
S ENC 868. 4.00 519. 133. 129; 7.40 • S S S
2 COMBINED AT
COMB2 6184. 5.75 4074. 1197. 1161. • 45.60 • • S
- - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - -
SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
(FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
INTERPOLATED TO
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
PEAK PEAK
(MIN) (CFS) (MIN) (IN) (MIN) (CFS) (MIN) (IN)
STRI'11 MANE 11.25 4611.64 326.25 1.16 15.00 4595.86 330.00 1.16
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0.1691E+04 EXCESS=0.0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0.1692E+04 BASIN STORAGE=0.5934E+00 PERCENT ERROR= -0.1
STRN2 MANE 12.00 4803.84 348.00 1.06 15.00 4790.32 345.00 1.06
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOWO 1769E+04 EXCESS=O 0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0 1771E+04 BASIN STORAGE=0 1844E1-01 PERCENT ERROR -0.2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - -
NEC-1 INPUT PAGE 1
LINE ID ........ l ....... 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10
1 ID
2 ID
3 ID * *4*4*44*4*4*4* *******************************
4 ID * 4
5 . ID * W000WARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS *
6 - ID * *
7 ID 4*4* ******************************************
8 ID
9 ID
10 ID
11 ID CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
12 ID PR-BURN50 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
-13 ID FILE NAME: PRE-BUR1 NOVEMBER 26, 1996
14 ID .....1 .......2 ........3 .......4........5 ......-.6 .........7 .......8 .......9 ......10
15 ID
16 IT 15 100
17 IN 8
18 10
*
0
19 KM LSM
20 PB 3.21 -
21 PC .009 .016 .025 '.034 .045 .054 .065 .077 .090 .104
22 PC .120 .137 .157 .180 .210 .255 .322 .410 .506 .588
23 PC .629 .656 .679 - .700 .720 .739 .756 .772 .790 .800
24 PC .816 .831 .845 .860 .872 .885 .895 .905 .914 .924
25 PC .935 .945 .954. .963 .972 .981 .991 1.000
26 BA 27.3 -
27 LS 0 81 -
28. . UD
4
1.86 •
- 29 KM DAN .
30 RS 1 ELEV 493
31 SA 5 59 59 59
32 SE 413 488 493 503
33 SS
*
493 325 3.3 1.5 -
34 KM STRM1
35 - RD
*
18000 0.0228 0.04 TRAP 50 • 3
36 KM AZC -
37 PB 3.21
38 BA 4.1
39 - LS 0 63 .
40 UD 0.89 .
HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID ....... .1 ........2 .......3 .......4 ........5 .......6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10
41 KK BOX -
42 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM STRM1 AND AZC
43 NC 2
44 KK STRM2
45 RD
*
800 0.0035 0.04 TRAP 600 10
46 KK ECR
47 PS 3.21
48 BA. 6.8
49 LS 0 77 :
50 UD 1.26
51 KK COMB1
52 ' • KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECR AND STRM2
53 NC 2
54 - KK ENC • • •
55 1 PB 2.41 • •
56 BA 7.4 •
57 LS 0 81
58 • UD 1.18 • •.
59 KK COM82 • •
60 KM COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE HYDROGRAPHS FROM COMB1 AND ENC
61 • HC 2 .-
• 62 ZZ • • • • • : • •
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA - STAGE MAX STAGE
6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM 6038. 4.75 4016. 1084. 1051. 27.30
ROUTED TO
DAM 5936. 5.00 3956. 1084. 1051. 27.30
496.13 5.00
-ROUTED TO
srRM1 5921. 5.25 3950. 1084. 1051. 27.30
HYDROGRAPH AT
AZC 356. 4.00 229. 58. 56. 4.10
2 COMBINED AT -
BOX 6242. 5.25 4139. 1142. 1107. 31.40
ROUTED TO
STRM2 6203. 5.75 4122. 1142. 1108. 31.40
HYDROGRAPH AT
ECR 1461. 4.00 865. 223. 216. 6.80
2 COMBINED AT
COMB1 7232. 5.50 4745. 1365. 1324. 38.20
HYDROGRAPH AT
ENC 1172. 4.00 682. 175. 170. 7.40
2 COMBINED AT S S
COMB2 8053. 5.50 5310. 1540. 1493. 45.60
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
(FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
INTERPOLATED TO
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
PEAK PEAK
(WIN) (CFS) (WIN) (IN) (MIN) )CFS) (WIN) (IN)
STRM1 MANE ' 10.50 5920.92 315.00 1.48 15.00 5920.92 315.00 1.48
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-ET) - INFLOW=0.2150E+04 EXCESS=O.0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0.2151E+04.BASIN STORAGE=0.6149E+00 PERCENT ERROR= -0.1
STRM2 MANE" 12.00 6222.24 336.00 1.35' 15.00 6202.66 345.00 ' 1:35
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW0.22655+04 EXCESSO.0000E+00; OUTFLOM0.2266E+04 BASIN STORAGE0.1835E101 PERCENT ERROR -0.1
- -S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HEC-1 INPUT PAGE
LINE ID . 1.2.3.4.5•. 6.7..:... .8.9.10
1 ID
2 ID
3 ID * *
4 ID WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
5 ID
6 ID
7 ' ID
8 ID '
9 ID
10 - ID CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
11 ID PRE-BURN. 100 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
12 ID , , FILE NAMED PRE-BUR1 NOVEMBER 26, 1996
13 ID .....1 ........2 ........3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 ........8 .......9 ......10-
'14 ID'
15 IT 15 100
16 IN '8
17 IC-
*
0
-
18 KK LSM
19 - PS 3.61 -
20 PC .009 .016 .025 .034 .045 .054 - .065 .077 .090 .104 -
21 - PC .120 .137 .157 .180 .210 .255 .322 .410 .506 .588
- 22 PC .629 .656 .679 .700 .720 .739 .756 .772 .790 .800
23 PC .816 .831 .845 .860 .872 .885 .895 .905 .914 ;924
24 PC .935 .945 .954 .963 .972 .981 .991 1.000
25' - BA 27.3
26 LS 0 81
27 - UD .1.86
28-' KK DPI1
29 RS 1 ELEV 493 5
30 ' SA 5 59 59 59
31 SE 413 .488 493 503
32 '. SS
*
493 325 3.3 1.5 - -
33 KK STRM1
34 RD
*
18000 0.0228 0.04 TRAP 50 3
35 KR AZC
36 'PB 3.61 - -
37 BA 4.1 5 '
38 - 'LS 0 63
39 UD
*
0.89
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NEC-i INPUT 0 PAGE 2
LINE ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
43 KK STRM2 . . 44 RD.
*
8500 0.0035 0.04 TRAP 600 10 . .
45 KK ECR . 46 PB 3.61
47 BA 6.8 0
48 LS 0 77 . . .
49 UD
*
1.26 - 0 0
0
.
50. . KK COMB1 0 0•
51 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECR AND STRM2
52 - HC
*
2
0 0
0
53 10< ENC
54 PB 2.71
55 BA .7.4 0 0
56. LS. 0 81 0
0 57
0
UD
* 0
1.18 - 0
0
58 KK CONB2
0
0
59 . KM COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE HYDROGRAPHS FROM COMB1 AND ENC 0
60 NC 2- 0 0
61 ZZ 0 0 0 0
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM 7427. 4.75 4888. 1320: 1280. 27.30
ROUTED TO
DAM 7321. 5.00 4827. 1320. 1280. 27.30
496.59 5.00
ROUTED TO
STRM1 7298. 5.25 4813. 1321. 1281. 27.30
HYDROGRAPH AT
AZC 511. 3.75 311. 79.. 76. 4.10
- 2 COMBINED AT
BOX 771. 5.25 5082. 1400.
-
1357. 31.40
ROUTED TO
STRM2 7675. 5.50 5051. . 1401. 1358: 31.40
HYDROGRAPH AT
ECR 1851. 4.00 1074. 277. 268. 6.80
2 COMBINED AT
COMB1 8961. 5.50 5857. 1677. 1627. 38.20
HYDROGRAPH AT
ENC 1487. 4.00 850. - 218. 211. 7.40
2 COMBINED AT
COMB2 9960. 5.50 6572. 1895. - 1838. 45.60
- - - - - - -: - - - - - - - - - - - -
SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
- (FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
INTERPOLATED TO
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
PEAK PEAK
(Mir ') (CFS) )MIN) (IN) (MIN) (CFS) (MIN) (IN)
STRM1 MANE 11.25 7297.92 315.00 1.80 - 15.00 7297.92 315.00 1.80
CONTINUITY SUMMARY )AC-FT) - INFLOW=O.2618E+04 EXCESS=0.0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0.2619E+04 BASIN STORAGE=0.6259E+00 PERCENT ERROR -0.1
STRM2 MANE 12.75 7687.93 331.50 1.66 15.00 7674.55 330.00 1.66
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) -INFLOW=0.277E+04 EXCESS=0.0000Ef00 OUTFLOW=02779E+04 BASIN STORAGE=0.1890E+01 PERCENT ERROR -0.1
NORMAL END OF HEC-1
HEC1 SIN: 1343001570 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: Y:\SANDIEGO\POS-BUR1.HC1
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * . *U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS *
MAY 1991 . * . * HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING. CENTER - *
VERSION 4.0.1E. * * 609 SECOND STREET *
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616- . *
RUN DATE 11/26/1996 TIME 20:36:41 . * (916) 756-1104 *
x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x
x x x x xx-
x x x x
xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x
x x x x
x x-x x. x x
x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx - -
Full Microcomputer Implementation
by
Haestad Methods, Inc. :
37 Brookside Road Waterbury, Connecticut 06708* (203) 755-1666
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW - -
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STY.E INPUT STRUCTURE
THE DEFINITION OF -ANSKK- ON RN-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE EORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS DAMBREAX OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION DSS WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION -
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE.ALGORITHM •
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - -
NEC-i INPUT PAGE
'LINE ID ........ 1 ....... 2 . 3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10
*DIAGRAM
1 ID
2 ID '
* 3 ID -
4. , ID
5 ID , , WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
6 'ID
7
8 ID '
9 ID
10 ' ID
11 , ID ' CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
12 ID POS-BURN 2 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
13 ID ' FILE NAME: POS-BURi NOVEMBER 26, 1996
14 ID .....1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10
15 ID
16' IT 15 ' 100
17 IN 8
18 , 10 0
19 KK LSM
20 PB 1.18
21 PC .009 .016 .025 .034 .045 .054 .065 .077 .090 .104
22 PC .120 .137 .157 .180 .210 .255 .322 .410 .506 .588
23 PC .629 .656 .679 .700 .720 .739 .756 .772 .790 .800
24 * PC .816 .831 .845 * .860 .872 .885 .895 .905 .914 .924
25 PC .935 * .945 .954 .963 .972 .981 .991 1.000
26 BA 27.3 '
27 LS 0 82
28 LID 1.86
29 KK DAM
30 RS 1 ELEV 493
31 SA 5 59 59 59
32 SE 413 488 493 503
33 SS 493 325 3.3 1.5
34 KK STRM1
35 RD 18000 0.0228 0.04 * TRAP 50 3
36 KK AZC ' • * ' *
37 PB 1.18
38 BA 4.1
39 'LS 0 73
I I H I I .: .: .'
I H..,
i. ''1
I
1
0
'S
I S S
1 1••
I .
I S. H
1 S S
.: S
Si
S S
55
SS
I
I . I
0
.5
i s
.
;':
.5
..
S
S 55
I
S•.S S ...
S....
S,
I - - -MI.-M MON. - -
HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID ....... 1 .......2 .......3 .......4 ........5 .......6. ......7 .......8 .......9 ......10
41. KK BOX
42 . KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM STRM1 AND AZC
43
• HC
.*
2
.
44 .KK STRM2 .
45 RD
*
8500 0.0035 0.04 TRAP 600 10
• 46 KK ECR
47 PB 1.18
48 BA 6.8
49 LS 0 77
50 UD 1.26
51 KK-COMB1
52 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECS AND STRM2 •
53 : HC 2
• •
54. KK ENC • . .
55 PB .89 .
56 BA 7.4 •
57 LS 0 85 . S
58 • UD 1.18 . • • S
•
• S
59 KK COMB2 S S
60 KM COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE I-1YDROGRAPHS FROM COMB1 AND ENC
61 NC 2
62 ZZ S .
-.- - -.-. - - -, - - - - - -.- -.- .- -.
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK . AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
• 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM 709 5 75 508 137 133.'27 30
ROUTED TO
DAM 686. 6.50 486. 137. 133. 27.30.
493.74 6.50
ROUTED TO • .
STRM1 687. 7.00 484. 137. 133. 27.30
HYDROGRAPH AT
AZC 38. 6.25 21. 5. 5. 4.10
2 COMBINED. AT • •
BOX 717. 6.75 501. 142. 138. 31.40
ROUTED TO
STRM2 754 7 25 495 143 139 31 40
HYDROGRAPH AT . . S •• S • .
..
ECR 104. 6.00 68. 17. 17. 6.80
2-COMBINED AT . S
COMB1 835. 7.25 . 525. 160. 156. 38.20
HYDROGRAPH AT . S
ENC 143. 5.00 . 97. 25. 24. 7.40
2 COMBINED AT • S S
S COMB2 . 931. 6.75 562. 185. 180. 45.60 • S
SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
(FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW) S
INTERPOLATED TO
5'
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME DT PEAK TIME' TO VOLUME - S
SPEAK ' PEAK
• -
(MIN) • , (CFS) • (MIN) (IN) • (MIN) (CFS) (MIN)
•
(IN)' - S • •
-
0' , , • • STRM1 MANE 13.50 686.96 418.50 • 0.19 • 15.00 686.66 420.00 0.19
- CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-ET) - INFLOW=0.272,1E+03,EXCESS=0.0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0.2724E+03 BASIN STORAGE=0.4965E+00 PERCENT ERROR= -0.3
-
- STRM2 MANE 15.00 754.12 435.00 0.17 15.00 754.12 435.00 0.17
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0.2824E+03 EXCESS=O.0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0.2837E+03 BASIN STORAGE=0.1825E+01 PERCENT ERROR -1.1
- .- - - -5- - - 5- - - - no - No, No. ON - -
PAGE 1 NEC-i INPUT
LINE ID .1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10
1 ID
2 ID
3 ID
4 ID -
5 ID
6 ID .- ' S WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS ' *
7 ID-
8 ID
9- ID
10 ID
11 ID S
12 ID CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
13 ID POS-BURN 25 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
14 ID FILE NAME: POS-BUR1 NOVEMBER 26, 1996
15 ID .....1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 .......'8 .......9 ......10
16 ID
17 IT 15 ' 100
18 IN 8 5
19 10
*
0
20 KK --LSM.
21 PB 2.80
22 - PC .009 .016 .025 .034 - .045 .054 .065 .077 .090 .104
23 PC .120 .137 .157 .180 " .210 .255 .322 - .410 .506 ' .588
24 PC - .629 .656 .679 .700 .720 .739 .756 .772 .790 .800
25 Pc .816 .831 .845 .860 .872 .885 - .895 .905 .914 .924
26 ' - PC .935 .945 .954 .963 '.972 .981 .991 - 1.000
- 27 ' ' BA 27.3
28 LS 0 82
29 UD
*
1.86 5
5
5
30 KK - DAM
31 RS 1 ELEVS 493 .
32 SA 5 59 - 59 59
33 SE 413 488 493 503'
34 ' SS
'*
493 325 3.3 - 1.5
35 - KK 'STRMi -
36 - RD 18000 0.0228 0.04 TRAP ' -50 3
37 KK AZC
38 PB 2.80 5 5
39 BA 4.1 -
40 - LS 0 73 5
1 0 : 0• I' 1 I
1
000
0
01
0•••
H
01•
0
0•
0•
0•
I
I
I 0•
0 0•
10 1
0
- -
'I
00
:-
I.
S 0
-
S
I.
:-
'1
1•- 0
- -. - ,- .- - . '- -. - - - - - - •.,. a a -
HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID ........ 1 ........ 2 ........3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10
42 KK BOX
43 KM. COMBINE RUNOFF FROM STRM1 AND AZC
44 . HC
- *
2 .
.
-45 KK STRM2 . . . .
46
•
RD
. *
8500 0.Ô035 0.04 TRAP 600 10
.
47 KK ECR .
48 PB 2.80
49 BA 6.8
50 LS 0- 77 .
51 UD
*
1.26
52 - KK COMB1 - - - -
53 KM - COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECR AND STRM2
54 HC
*
2
55 KK - ENC
56 -PB 2.10
57 BA 7.4
58 LS 0 85 - - -
59 UD 1.18
60 KK- COMB2 S
61 - KM COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE HYDROGRAPHS FROM COMB1 AND ENC S
62 NC 2 5 5 5 5
63 ZZ -
- - - -- - - - - - -- ,-- - - -
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM 4966. 4.75 3327. 898. 871. .27.30
ROUTED TO S
DAM 4876. 5.25 . 3270. 898. 871. 27.30
495.74 5.25
ROUTED TO
STRN1 4860. 5.50 3267. 898. 871. 27.30
HYDROGRAPH AT
AZC 568. 3.75 321. 81. 79. 4.10
2 COMBINED AT .
BOX 5264. 5.25 3511. 980. 950. 31.40
ROUTED TO .
STRN2 5251. 5.75 3503. 981. 951. 31.40
HYDROGRAPH AT . .
ECR 1088. 4.00 663. 171. 166. 6.80
2 COMBINED AT . . . .
COMB1 6038, 5.75 3991. 1152. 1117. 38.20
HYDROGRAPH AT . . .
ENC 1185. 4.00 674. 173. 168. 7.40
2 COMBINED AT ..
COMB2 6787. 5.50 4534. 1325. 1285. 45.60
- - - - - - - - - '- - - - - - on No -
SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING,
(FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
INTERPOLATED TO
- COMPUTATION INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME D'1 PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
PEAK PEAK
(WIN) (CES) (WIN) (IN) (MIN) (CES) (WIN) (TN)
STRM1 MANE 11.25 4880 98 326.25 1.22 15.00 4859.90 330.00 1.22
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0.1781E+04 EXCESS=0.0000Ei-00 OUTFLOW=0.1782+04 BASIN STORAGE=0'.5959E+00 PERCENT ERROR= -0:1
STRM2 MANE' 11.25 5254.70 348.75 1.16 15.00 5251.23 345.00 1.16
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT( - INFLOW=0 1943E+04 EXCESS=0 0000E+0O OUTE'LOW=O 1945E+04 BASIN STORAGE=0 1795E+01 PERCENT ERROR= -0.2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PAGE 1 HEC-1 INPUT
LINE ID. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7 .8.9.10
1 ID
2 ID
3 ID ***********************
4 ID * *
5 ID WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS *
6 ID * *
7 - ID
8 ' ID
9 ID
10 ''ID
11 ID CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
12 ' ID POS-BURN 50 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
13 -ID FILE WANE: POS-BUR1 NOVEMBER 26, 1996
14 ID .....1 ................3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10
15 ID
16 IT 15 100
17 - IN 8
18 10 0
19 .. KK LSM .•.
20 PB 3.21 .
21 . PC .009 .016 .025 .034 .045 .054 .065' .077 .090' .104
22 PC .120 .137 .157 .180 .210 .255 .322 .410 .506 .588
23 ' PC . .629 .656 .679 .700 .720 .739 .756 .772 .790 .800
24 PC .816 .831 .845 .860 .872 .885 .895 .905 .914 .924
25 PC .935 .945 .954 .963 .972 .981 • .991 • 1.000
26 , BA' 27.3 •
27, LS 0 82
28 UD
*
1.86
29 KK' DAN '
30 RS 1 ELEV 493'
31 SA 5 59 59 59
32 SE 413 488 493 503
33 SS
*
493 325 3.3 1.5
34 KK STRM1 •
35 RD 18000 0.0228 0.04 TRAP 50 . 3 •
36 KK AZC -,
37 - - PB 3.21
38 BA .4 .1
39 LS 0 73
40 UD 0.89
— — — — — — — — — — — — —on,— — got — —
HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID ........ 1 .......2 .......3 .4 .......5.......6 .......7 .......8 .....9 .....10
41 KK BOX .
42 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM STRM1 AND AZC .
43
*
MC
44 KK STRM2
4,5 RD
*
. .8500 :0.0035 0.04
. .
TRAP 600
..........
. 10 . .,
. .. . .
46 KK ECR
47 PB 3.21 . . . . .
48 BA 6.8 . .
49 LS 0 77 . .. . .
50 LiD 1.26
.
51 KK COMB1 . . . . .
52 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECR AND STRN2 . . . . . . . 53 HC 2 . . . ...,. .. . . .
54 :. KK ENC . . . . ... .
. 55 PB 2.41 • . . . . 0 0 0 0 0
. .56 . BA 7.4
5 . LS .0 85 •
0 0
58 • LiD 1.18 . •0 • 0
.. •.
0
•• 0 0
0 • •
59 KK COMB2 •
0
• 0
0
0 • 0 • 0
60 KM . COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE HYDROGRAPHS FROM COMB1 AND ENC 0
61 HC. 2 .
62 ZZ 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RUNOFF SUMMARY S
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM 6359. 4.75 4204. 1135. 1101. 27.30
ROUTED TO ..... . . -
DAM 6262. 500 4145. 1135. 1100. 27.30
496.24 5.00
ROUTED TO
STRM1 6243. 5.25 4135. 1135. 1100. 27.30
HYDROGRAPH AT
AZC 794. 3.50 431. 109. 106. 4.10
2 COMBINED AT .
BOX 6766. 5.25 4475. 1244. 1206. 31.40
ROUTED TO -
STRM2 6725. 5.50 4451. 1244. 1207. 31.40
HYDROGRAPH AT
•
.. ECR 1461.. 4.00 865. 223. 216. 6.80 5
?*COMBINED AT . •
COMB1 7784. 5.50 . 5121. 1467. 1423. 38.20 5
HYDROGRAPH AT .
ENC 1544. 3.75 859. 220. 214. 7.40
2 COMBINED AT • . 5
S COMB2 8762. 5.50 5840. 1688. 1636. 45.60 5
5 5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - I- - - - - -
- SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
(FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
INTERPOLATED TO
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
PEAK PEAK
(MIN) (CFS) (WIN) (IN) (WIN) (CFS) (WIN) (IN)
STRM1 MANE 10.50 6242.68 315.00 1.55 15 00 6242.68 31S.00 1 55
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INELOW=C 2251E+04 EXCESS=0 0000E+00 OUTE'LOW=O 2252E+04 BASIN STORAGE=O 6174E+0O PERCENT ERROR= -:0.1
STRM2 MANE 12.00 6751.58 336.00 1.47 15.00 6724.61 330.00 1.A7
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0 2468E+04 EXCESS=O 0000E+00 OUTE'LOW=O 2470E1-04 BASIN STORAGE=0 1842E+01 PERCENT ERROR= -0.2 .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PAGE 1 HEC-1 INPUT
ID....... 1 ....... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5 ....... 6 ....... 7 ....... 8 ....... 9 ...... 10
ID
ID
ID * . •• *
ID * WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS +
ID
ID . .
ID
ID
ID .
ID . CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
ID POS-BURN 100 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
ID FILE NAME: P05-BUR1 NOVEMBER 26, 1996
ID .....1 .......2 .......3 ........4 ........5 .......6 .......7 .......8 ....... 9 ....... 10
ID
IT 15 100
IN 8
10 0
KK LSM .
PB 3.61 . .
PC .009 .016 .025 .034 .045 .054 - .065 .077 • .090 .104
PC .120 • .137 .157 .180 .210 .255 .322 .410 .506 .. .588
PC .629 .656 .679 .700 .720 .739 .756 .772 • .790 .800
PC .816 • .831 • .845 .860 .872 .885 .895 .905 .914 .924
PC..935 • .945 .954 .963 .972 .981 .991 • 1.000
BA 27.3
LS .0 82
UD 1.86
*
KK DAM * • •
RS •. 1 ELEV 493
SA 5 59 59 59
SE 413 488 493 503
SS 493 • 325 3.3 1.5
KK STRM1
RD 18000 .0.0228 0.04 • TRAP 50 3
*
KK AZC- • . •
PB 3.61 •
BA 4.1 *
LS -0 73 • :- •
UD 0.89
LINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
. 10
* 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1:9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
3*7
38
39
'HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID....... 1 .......2 .......3 .......4 ........5 .......6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10
43 KK STRM2
44 RD 8500 0.0035 0.04 TRAP 600 10
45 KK ECR
46 'PB 3.61:
47 BA 6.8 , .
48. LS. 0 77 .
49 UD
*
1.26 . .
50 KK ' COMB1
51 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECR AND STRM2
52 HC
53 KK ENC .
54 P8 2.71
55 BA 7.4
56 LS 0 85.
57 UD
*
1.18
'
58 KK COM82
59 KM COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE HYDROGRAPI4S FROM.COMB1 AND ENC
60 HC ' ' 2
61.' ZZ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES 0
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM 7778. 4.75 5093. 1376. 1334. 27.30
ROUTED TO
DAM 7668. 5.00 5033. 1375. 1334. . 27.30
496.71 5.00
ROUTED TO 0
STRM1 7639. 5.25 5020. 1377. 1335. 27.30
HYDROGRAPH AT 2
AZC 1045. 3.50 547 138 134 4.10
2 COMBINED AT
BOX 8282. 5.25. 5454. 1515. 1469. 31.40
ROUTED TO
STRM2 8256. 5.50 5440. 1517. 1471. 31.40
HYDROGRAPH AT
ECR 1851. 4.00 1074. 277. 268. 6.80 0
2 COMBINED AT -
0
COMB1 9543. 5.50 6288. 1793. 1739. 38.20
HYDROGRAPH AT 0 0 0 0
ENC 1916. 3.75 1045. 268. 260. 7.40
2 COMBINED AT 0
COMB2 10765. 5.25 7182. 2062. 1999. 45.60
- - -.- - -•.- - -.- - - - - _ -- - -
SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE.- MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
- (FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
- • INTERPOLATED TO
• COMPUTATION INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT • PEAK TIME TO VOLUME . DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
PEAK . • PEAK
(MIN) , (CE'S) (MIN) (IN) (MIN) •(CE'S) • • (MIN) • . (IN) • •
• STRM1 MANE . 11.25 7639.34 • 315.00 1.87 15.00 7639.34 .315.00 1.88 - • • -
'CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-ET) - INFLOW=0.2728E+04 EXCESS=0.0000E+000UTE'LOW=0.2729E+04 BASIN STORAGE=0.6280E+00 PERCENT ERROR= -0.1
STRM2 MANE 12.75 8263.56 331.50 1.80 15.00 8256.03 330.00 1.80
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0.3005E+04 EXCESS=0.0000E+00OUTFLOW=0.3008E+04 BASIN STORAGE=0.1896E+01 PERCENT ERROR= -0.1
NORMAL. END OF HEC-1 " - . •
• •: • . . . • - . • • - . • .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : - - -
HEC1 SIN: 1343001570 HMVersion: 6.33 Data File: y:\sandiego\pos-bur2.hcl
***********k******4******** 4*4*4*4*444*4*
* *
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
+ MAY 1991 *
* VERSION 4.0.1E *
* *
* RUN DATE 11/26/1996 TIME 21:58:21
* *
*44*4*4*4*4 ** * *4*4*44*4*4*444* k* ** 4*4*4*
**** ******** ******+***+**************
* *
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS *
* HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER *
609 SECOND STREET *
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 *
* (916) 756-1104
* *
x x xxxxxxx xxxxx X .
x x x x x. xx
x x x
xxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx x
x x x x
x x x x x
x x xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx
Full Microcomputer Implementation
by
Haestad Methods, Inc.
37 Brookside Road * Waterbury, Connecticut 06708 * (203) 755-1666
THIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC-1 KNOWN AS HEC1- (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEC1KW.
THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP- AND -RTIOR- HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973-STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK- ON RN-CARD WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS -IS THE FORTR.AN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS:READ TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN ANDAMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
- - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - -
HEC-1 INPUT ' PAGE
LINE . ID.. ....... 1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10
DIAGRAM .
1 ID
.2 ID
3 ID
4 '. ID
5 ID . . . WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
6 ID
7 ID
8 ID
9 'ID
10 ID
11 ID . CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
12 ID . POS-BURN W/DRAWDOWN 2 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
13 ' ID FILE NAME: POS-BUR2 NOVEMBER 26, 1996
14 ID .....I ........2 .......'3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 ......8 ..............1D
15 ID
16 IT 15 100
17 IN. 8 . . .
18 10
*
0
* REMOVE DAM and ITS WATERSHED BECAUSE DRAWDOWN TRAPS THE WATER FOR A 2-YR STORM
.19 KK PtZC
20 PB 1.18
21 PC .009 .016 .025 .034 .045. .054 .065 .077 .090 .104
22 PC .120 . .137 .157 .180 .210 .255 .322 .410 ' .506 .588
23 PC .629 .656 '.679 700 .720 .739 .756 .772 .790 - .800
24 PC .816 .831 .845 .860 .872 .885- - .895 .905 .914 ' .924
25 PC .935 .945 .954 .963 . .972 .981 .991 1.000
26 BA 4.1
27 - LS 0 73 . . .
28 ' - UD 0.89 -
29 - KK STRN2
30 RD 8500 0.0035 0.04 TRAP 600 10
31 KK CCR
32 . - PB 1.18
33 BA 6.8
34 LS 0 .77
35 ,UD
*
1.26
. . .
36 KK COMB1 . .
37 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECR AND STRM2
38 MC 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID ....... I .......2 .......3 ......4. .......5 ........6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10 •
39 KK ENC •
40 PB .89
41 • BA 7.4 • •
42 LS 0 85
43 UD 1.18 • •
44. KM COMB2 • •. • S S S S
45 KM COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE HYDROGRAPHS FROM COMB1 AND ENC .
46 HC 2, • S
47 ZZ S S
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEETPER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX. STAGE.
6-HOUR 24-HOUR 2-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
AZC 38 6.25 , 21. 5 5 410
ROUTED TO
STRM2 53 8.25 20 6 5 .4 .10
HYDROGRAPH AT
ECR 104. 6.00 68. 17. 17: 6.80
2 COMBINED AT
COMB 104. 6.00 76. 23. 22. 10.90
HYDROGRAPH AT .
ENC 143. 5.00 97. 25. 24. 7.40
2 COMBINED AT
COMB2 243. 5.50 171. 48. 46. 18.30
.- - - - -.- -- -- -.- -.- -
SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
(FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
INTERPOLATED TO
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
PEAK PEAK
(MIN) (CE'S) (MIN) (IN) (MIN) (CE'S) (MIN) (IN)
STRM2 MANE 11.25 52.88 495.00 0.05 15.00 52.88 495.00 0.05
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-Fl) - IMFLOW=0.1024E+02 E<CESS=O.00OOE+00 OUTFLOW=0.1082E+02 BASIN STORAGE=0.1069E+00 PERCENT ERROR= -6.7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NEC-i INPUT PAGE
LINE ID ..... ..1 ........2 .......3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 .......B .......9 ......10
1 ID :
2 ID
3 ID -
4 ID -
5 ID * *
6 ID * WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS *
7 ID * *
8 ID
9 ID -.
to ID
11 ID
12 ID CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
.13 ID POS-BURN W/DRAWDOWN 25 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
14 ID FILE NAME: POS-BUR2 NOVEMBER 26, 1996
15 ID .....1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5 .......6. .-.-... 7 .......8 .......9 ...... 1.0
--16 ID
17 IT 15 100
18 IN 8
19 19
*
0 .
. .
20 KK LSM .
21 . PB 2.80
22 PC .009 .016 .025 .034 .045 .054 .065 .077 .090 .104
23 PC .120 .137 .157 .180 .210 .255 .322 .410 .506 .588
24 - PC .629 .656 .679 .700 .720 - .739 .756 .772 .790 .800
25 PC .816 .831 .845 .860 .872 .885 .895 .905 .914 .924
26 . PC .935 .945 .954 .963 .972 .981 .991 1.000
27 - BA 27.3 .
28 LS 0 82
29 - .UD
*
1.86
30 KK DAN -
31 RS 1 ELEV 488
32 .SA - 5 59 59 59 --
33 - SE 413 488 493 503
34 - . . SS . 493 - 325 3.3.
-
1.5 --
35 - KK STRN1---
36 RD 18000--- 0.0228 0.04 TRAP 50 3 -- -
37 -KK -. - AZC.,
38 PB 2.80 - . --
39 BA 4.1 -
40 LS 0 73
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I H
-.-
HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID.1.2.3. 4.5.6.7.8.9.. 10
42 KK BOX
43 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM STRM1 AND AZC
44 HC 2 0
45 KK STRN2 0
46 RD 8500 0.0035 0.04 TRAP 600 10
47 KK 0 ECR
48 PB 2.80
49 BA 6.8
50 LS 0 77 0
51 UD • 1.26 • 0
52 KK COMB1
53 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECR AND STRM2 •
54 HC 2 0
55 KK ENC •
56 PB 2.10
57 BA 7.4 •
58 LS 0 85 0
59 UD 1.18
60 KK COMB2
61 KM COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE HYDROGRAPHS FROM COMB1 AND ENC •
62 NC 2
.63 ZZ
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW. PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM 4966. 4.75 - 3327. 898. 871. 27.30
ROUTED TO
DAM 4760. 5.25 2837. - 749. 727. 27.30
495.69 5.25
ROUTED TO -
STRN1 4767. 5.50 2838. 755. 732. 27.30
HYDROGRAPH AT
AZC 568. 3.75 321. 81. 79. 4.10
2 COMBINED AT .
BOX 5149. 5.50 3017. 836. 811. 31.40
ROUTED TO
STRM2 - 5108. 6.00 3007. 839. 814. 31.40
HYDROGRAPH AT
ECR 1088. 4.00 663. 171. 166. 6.80 -
2 COMBINED AT
COMB1 5852. 6.00 3425. 1010. 979. 38.20
HYDROGRAPH AT 0
0
ENC 1185. 4.00 674. 173. 168. 7.40
2 COMBINED AT
COMB2 6572. 5.75 3965. 1183. 1147. 45.60
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
(FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
INTERPOLATED TO
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
PEAK PEAK
(MIN) (CFS) (MIN) (IN) (MIN) (CFS) (MIN) (IN)
STRM1 MANE 3.75 4767.48 j30.00 1.02 15.00 4767.48 330.00 1.03
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT).- INFLOW=0.1486E+04 EXCESS=O.0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0.1487E+04 BASIN STORAGE=0.5902E+00 PERCENT ERROR= -0.1
STRM2 MANE 8.25 5137.22 354.75 '0.99 15.00 5108.46 360.00 0.99
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - II'IFLOW=0.1659E+04 EXCESS=O.0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0.1661E+04 BASIN SToRAGE=0.!791E+01 PERCENT ERROR= -0.2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HEC-1 INPUT PAGE
LINE ID ....... 1 ....... 2 ....... 3 ....... 4 ....... 5.6 .8.9.10
1 ID
2 ID
3 ID
4 ID
5 ID * NOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
.6 ID
7 ID *********4'**********4'*********•***************
8 ID
9 ID
10 ID
11 ID CARLSBAD FIRESTORM
12 ID POS-BURN W/DRAWDOWN 50 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
13 ID EILE'NANE: POS-BUR2 NOVEMBER 26, 1996
14 ID .....1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 .......8 .......9.......10
15 ID
16. IT 15 100
17 IN 8
18 ' 10,
*
0
19 -KK LSM
20 PB 3.21
21' PC .009 .016 .025 .034 '.045 .054 .065 .077 .090 .104
22 ' PC .120 .137 .157 .180 .210 .255 .322 .410 .506 .588
23 PC .629 .656 .679 .700 .720 .739 .756 .772 .790 .800
24 , PC .816 .831 .845 .860 .872 .885 . .895 .905 .914 .924
25 PC .935 .945 .954 .963 .972 .981 .991 1.000
26 , BA 27.3
27 LS 0 82
28 lID
*
1.86
29 KK DAM .
30 RS 1 ELEV 488
31 SA - 5. 59 59 59 -
32 SE 413 , 488 493 '503
33 SS
*
493- 325 3.3 1.5 -
34 KK STRM1
35 RD
*
18000 0.0228 0.04. TRAP 50 . 3
36. . -KK, AZC.
37 PB 3.21
38 BA 4.1
39 LS 0 73
40 'lID 0.89 -
HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID.......1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5.......6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10
41 KK BOX
42 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM STRM1 AND AZC 43 MC 2
44 KK STRM2
45 'RD
*
8500 0.0035 0.04 TRAP 600 10
46 KK 6CR : 0
47 PB 3.21
48 BA 6.8
49 LS 0 77
50 UD
*
1.26
51 KK COMBI
52 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM 6CR AND STRM2 0
.53 HC
*
2
54 KK ENC 0
55 PB 2.41
56 BA 7.4 0
57 LS 0 0 85 0
58 UD. 1.18 0 0
59 KK COMB2
60 KM 0
COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE HYDROGRAPHS FROM COMB1 AND ENC 61 MC 2
62 ZZ
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION . FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
6-HOUR 24-HOUR .72 -HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM 6359. 4.75 4204. 1135. 1101. 27.30
ROUTED TO . .
DAM .6177. 5.25 3729. 986. . 956. ' 27.30
496.21 5.25
ROUTED TO
'STRMl 6178. 5.25 ' 3728. 993. 963. 27.30 -.
HYDROGRAPH AT
AZC ' 794. 3.50 431. 109. 106. 4.10
2 COMBINED AT
BOX 6701. 5.25 3984. 1102. 1069. 31.40
ROUTED TO
STRM2 6674.. 5.75' 3971. 1103. , 1070. 31.40'
HYDROGRAPH AT"
ECR 1461. 4.00 ' 865. 223. 216. 6.80 '
2 COMBINED AT
COMB1 .7668. 5.75 4559. 1326.1 1286. 38.20
HYDROGRAPH AT
ENC 1544. 3.75 859. 220. 214'. 7.40 '
2 COMBINED AT . '
COM82 8645. 5.50 5274. 1547. 1500. 45.60
SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
(FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
INTERPOLATED TO
COMPUTATION 'INTERVAL
ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
PEAK PEAK
(MIN) (CE'S) (MIN) (IN) (MIN) (cE'S) (WIN) (IN)
STRM1 MANE 4.50 6178.72 319.50 1.34 15.00 6178.2 315.00 1.35
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0.I956E+04 EXCESS=0.0000E+00 OUTFLOW=0.1958E04 BASIN STORAGE=0.6057E+00 PERCENT ERROR= -0.1
STRM2 MANE 8.2,5 6683.87 346.50 1.31 15.00 6674.22 345.00 1.31
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0.2185E+04 EXCESS=0.O000E+00oUTE'LOW=0.2187E-04 BASIN STORAGE=0.1796E+01 PERCENT ERROR= -0.2
-- - - - No - - - - - - - - - - - -
NEC-i INPUT S PAGE
LINE ID ...... .1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5 ........6 .......7 ........8 ........9 ......10
1.. ID
2 . ID
3 ' ID
A ID * WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS,
5 ID *
6 ID
7 'ID
8 ID
9 ID ' 10 ID CARLSBAD'FIRESTORM 11 ID POS-BURN W/DRA'JDOWN 100 YEAR 6-HOUR STORM 12 , ID FILE NAME: POS-BUR2 NOVEMBER 26, 1996 V 13 ID .....1 .......2 .......3 .......4 ........S .......6 .......7 .......8 .......9 ......10 14 ID
15 IT 15 100 V 16 IN 8
17 ' 10
*
0
V
.18 KK LSM
19 PB 3.61 20 PC .009 ' .016 .025 .034 .045 .054 .065 .077 .090 .104 21 PC .120 .137 .157 .180 .210 .255 .322 .410 .506' .588 22 PC .629 .656 .679 .700 .720 .739 .756 .772 .790. .800 23 PC .816 .831 .845 .860 .872 .885 .895 .905. .914 . .924 24 , PC .935 .945 .954 .963 .972 .981 .991 1.000 S
25 BA 27.3 • • . . • V 26 . LS 0 :82' 27 ' UD
*
1.86 . S
28. KK DAM V 29 RS 1 ELEV 488
30 ' SA 5 59 59 59 • 31 SE 413 488 493 503 . V 32 SS
*
493 325 3.3 1.5
V
33 KK STRM1 34 RD 18000 0.0228 0.04 . TRAP 50 3 • V • V V •
35 KK AZC • V S • V V,
V
36 PB 3.61 5 . S • 37 BA V 4.1 V • V,
• 38- LS 6 13 V • V •
39 UD
S *
0.89
V S V
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• HEC-1 INPUT PAGE 2
LINE ID ...... ..1 .......2 .......3 .......4 .......5 .......6 .......7 .......8 ........9 ......10
43 K}( STRM2 . .
44 RD
*
8500 0.0035 0.04. TRAP 600 10
- •1
45 KK ECR . . .
46 . PB. 3.61 • .. . . . 47 BA 6.8 • 48 LS 0 . . . . .
49 .UD.
*
.1.26 • . • . . .
50 KK COMB1 .
51 KM COMBINE RUNOFF FROM ECR AND STRM2 • . .
52 MC
*
2
53 KK ENC •
54 PB • 2.71 . . . . . . 55 BA 7.4 . -. . . •
56 LS 0 85 : . • . . . . . 57 - UD
*
1.18 • . ..
. - • •
58 KK COMB2 • . . . . •
- 59 KM COLLECTION POINT--COMBINE HYDROGRAPHS FROM COMB1 AND ENC . . .
60 . HC 2
61 ZZ . . . . . . - • . . •
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
• PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK , AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
LSM 7778. 4.75 5093. -1376. 1334. 27.30
ROUTED TO
• DAM 7624. 5.00 4629. 1227. 1189. 27.30 •
496.70 5.00
ROUTED TO • •
STRMI 7625. 5.25 4617. 1230. 1193.. 27.30
HYDROGRAPH AT • AZC 1045. 3.50 • 547. 138. 134.•, 4.10
2 COMBINED AT • - BOX 8268 5.25 4952 1368 1327 3 40
ROUTED TO • . -.
S
STRM2 8238. 5.50 4943. .1371. 1329. 31.40 -
HYDROGRAPH AT - - - •
ECR 1851 4.00 1074 277 268 6.80
2 COMBINED AT
-
COMB1 - 9525. 5.50 • 5717. 1647. 1597. 38.20
HYDROGRAPH AT - S
ENC 1916. 3.75 - 1045.. 268. 260. 7.40
2 COMBINED AT
COM82 10691. 5.50 6613. 1915. 1857. 45.60 5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
• SUMMARY OF KINEMATIC WAVE- - MUSKINGUM-CUNGE ROUTING
(FLOW IS DIRECT RUNOFF WITHOUT BASE FLOW)
- INTERPOLATED TO
COMPUTATION INTERVAL ISTAQ ELEMENT DT PEAK TIME TO" VOLUME DT PEAK TIME TO VOLUME
• PEAK PEAK
(WIN) (CE'S) (WIN) (IN) (MIN) (CES) (MIN) (IN)
STRMJ MANE 4.50 7624 95 315.00 1.67 15.00 7624 95 315.00 1.68,
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0 2433E+04 EXCESS=0 0000Ef00 OUTFLOW=0 2436E+04 BASIN STORAGE=O 6141E+0O PERCENT ERROR= -0.1
STRM2 MANE 9.00 8255.61 333.00 1.62 15.00 8238.03 330.00 1.62 • :
CONTINUITY SUMMARY (AC-FT) - INFLOW=0.2717E+04 EXCESS=0.0000E#00 OUTFLOW=0.2719E404 BASIN STORAGE=0.1789E+01 PERCENT ERROR= -0.1
APPENDIMB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, City of Carlsbad
PRACTICE NAME: SF1 Prefabricated Silt Fencing
DESCRIPTION:
S
Prefabricated silt fences are constructed of geotextile attached to wooden support st
a
k
e
s
.
T
h
e
fabric itself shall be of.. woven polypropylene or polyester treated to resis
t
u
l
t
r
a
-
v
i
o
l
e
t
degradation.
The fabric shall extend a minimum of two feet above the ground surface an
d
t
h
e
s
t
a
k
e
s
a
minimum of 36 inches in length so that at least 12 inches of stake is driven into the groun
d
.
T
h
e
silt fence is generally placed along the contour such that it does not channel water or
d
e
b
r
i
s
a
l
o
n
g
its length.
INSTALLATION PROCEDURES:
S
S
I. Using trencher or shovel, dig a trench along the line where the fence is to b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
;
minimize disturbance.
Unroll the fence, place it upright in the trench with the bottom flap in the excavated
t
r
e
n
c
h
.
Hammer the stakes into the trench bottom with the stakes on the downstream side.
Backfill the trench with soil, compacting the material onto the bottom flap of the geote
x
t
i
l
e
.
WOodWard.CIydO
S W9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC10-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG B-i
I . _T_
2' (MIN.) PREFABRICATED MATERIAL
ATTACHED TO WOODEN
POSTS
BACKFILLED TRENCH
WOODEN POSTS
TO FABRIC
AITACHED
j- ULTRAVIOLET-STABILIZED / FABRIC MATERIAL ANCHORED
/ IN TRENCH
S COMPACTED BACKFILL
RUNOFF
1(!4IM)
TRENCH
PRACTICE SF1
PREFABRICATED SILT FENCING
HARMONY GROVE FIRE, Clii OF CARLSBAD
FN: S-FENCE DRAWN BY JMA CHECKED BY: PROJECT Nth 9651135F (IlAiTE: 12-17-96 FiGURE NO: SF1
I • WOODWARD-CLYDE
APPENDIXB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, City of Carlsbad
PRACTICE NAME: GB2A Gravel-Filled Burlap Bag Check Dams
DESCRIPTION:
Gravel-filled burlap bags may be used for temporary check dams in areas of concentrated flow.
The burlap bag flaps shall be folded under the bags in a direction away from the water flow.
Gravel bag check dams shall be spaced such that the crest of the downstream check dam is
approximately level with the toe of the upstream check darn.
Each check dam shall be installed so the side and end points are higher than the centerline crest.
Erosion caused by high flows around the edges shall be corrected immediately.
Collected sediment shall be removed when it reaches one-half the height of the check dam.
Woodward-Clyde W:\9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC1O-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG B-2
AAXIMUM
18-20"
HEIGHT
WATER
FLOW
-
FRONT VIEW: SIDE VIEW:
NARROW SWALES
2 BAGS
HIGH
FRONT VIEW: SIDE VIEW:
IJADDAW 4ZWAI r4Z NARROW SWALES
FOLD FLAPS AWAY
FROM WATER FLOW ALTERNATE BAGS
WATER FLOW (
Cr)
i- PLACE DOWNSTREAM BALES SUCH
I THAT POINT "B" IS APPROXIMATELY
I LEVEL WITH THE LOWEST GROUND
/ ELEVATION OF THE UPSTREAM BALE
PRACTICE GB2A
GRAVEL-FILLED BURLAP BAG CHECK DAMS
HARMONY GROVE FIRE, CITY OF CARLSBAD
FN: C-BCD DRAWN BY. JMA I CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO: 9651135F DATE: 12-17-96 1 FiGURE NO: G132A
I WOOD WARD-CLYDE
APPENDIXB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET :
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, City of Carlsbad
PRACTICE NAME: GB2B Gravel-filled Burlap Bags for Inlet Filter
DESCRIPTION:
Burlap bags may be filled with gravel to filter runoff water before it enters storm drain inlets.
The bags shall be filled with 1 inch clean gravel and placed in alternating rows around the
perimeter of each drain, overlapped and folded as described in Practice GB2A.
The system shall be inspected during and after storm events and repaired if necessary. Sediment
shall be removed when it covers the first course of bags.
W9651135F\ECO1-D-R. DWI O-Mar-979651135FSOG B-3
GRAVEL BAG FILTER (APPROXIMATELY
1 INCH DIAMETER ROCK PLACED IN
BURLAP BAGS. \
A\
I \ 4
•• :. - . I \ - •
I IO.WU iN LkJLN hAl IN IQ
=1
... ... 4 . 4
I .4.
:
1• I - . _______________________ . a
AREA INLET
.WITHGRATE
A
- OVERFLOW
.
N mm
FILTERED WATER
.
.. SECTION AA
GRAVEL FILTER CAN BE USED ON . .
PAVEMENT OR BARE GROUND
PRACTICE GB213
. . I GRAVEL-FILLED BURLAP BAGS FOR INLET FILTER
HARMONY GROVE, FIRE, CITY OF CARLSBAD -
FN: ROC....F1L DRAWN BY: JMA CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO: 9651135F DATE 12-17-96 FIGURE NO: GB2B
WOODWARD-CLYDE
APPENDIXB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, City of Carlsbad
S
PRACTICE NAME: GB2C Gravel-filled Burlap Bag for Curb Inlet Filter
DESCRIPTION:
Burlap bags can be filled with gravel to filter runoff water before it enters curb drain inlets.
The bags shall be filled with 1-inch diameter clean gravel and placed in a semicircular
configuration around each drain. They shall be. overlapped and folded as described in Practice
GB2A.
As with all sediment control structures, the system shall be inspected periodically, as well as
during and after storm events, and sediment shall be removed when it covers the bottom layer of
bags. : S
Gravel-filled burlap bags may also be used as velocity reduction and sediment retention
structures along the curbs of roads, where a line of alternating bags, 2 feet high and 8 to 10 feet
long are placed up gradient and away from the curb at an angle not to exceed 30 degrees.
WOOdW$d.CIYdO W:9651 135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC10-Mar.97\9651135F\SDG B-4
-U
I-'
SECTION A-A'
GRAVEL FILTER CAN BE USED ON
PAVEMENT OR BARE GROUND
PRACTICE G132C
GRAVEL-FILLED BURLAP BAGS FOR CURB INLET FILTER
HARMONY GROVE FIRE, CITY OF CARLSBAD
FN: C-CIF DRAWN BY: JMA I CHECKED BY: PROJECT N0 9651135F DATE: 12-17-96 1 FIGURE NO: G132C
WOODWARD-CLYDE
I
APPENDIXB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, City of Carlsbad
I PRACTICE NAME: CC3 Cellular Confinement System at Arizona Crossing
DESCRIPTION:
I Cellular confinement is a lightweight flexible, polyethylene confinement system consisting of
three-dimensional cells in a honeycomb-like structures. After installation with on-site fill
materials the confinement material acts as a semi-rigid slab, distributing loads laterally, reducing
I sub-grade contact pressures, and reducing conventional storm design base thickness by
50 percent. When combined with on-site fill materials, the confinement system creates an
economical expedient structural base. A standard section of the confinement material has
I nominal expanded dimensions of 2-inch, 3-inch, 4-inch, 6-inch, and 8-inch cell depths, with a
width of 8 feet. The cells are uniform in shape and size.
I Stake placement is recommended for the purpose of keeping the cells straight and round as the
infill materials is added. The stakes may be rebar, wood, metal, or similar.
The subgrade should be prepared to accommodate anticipated traffic loads. Soft or wet 1 subgrades should be improved by means of a suitable geotextile.
Run a string line or chalk line center or side border for the width and length of the cellular ' confinement material to be installed. Set stakes approximately 8 inches apart over both the
length and width.
The material should be interlocked with the edge cells overlapping by 4 inches and the end I cells touching; if necessary, staples, hog rings, or clamps should be used.
4. A front end loader bucket is the preferred equipment for filling the grid. The infill
I
should be
shaken or sprinkled until the cells are at least partially filled and then the loader can dump its
bucket and spread the infill by floating the bucket over the cells. The cells should be
overfilled by approximately 2 inches to allow the loader to drive over the cells without
I damaging the cell walls. A ramp of infill material should be built over the top of the grid and
compacted. After compaction, a minimum surcharge of 1 inch should be left over the grid.
I
I
I
I
I
WOO rd.CIydo W:\9651135FECO1-D-R.DOC%10.Mar-97%9651 1 35F\SDG B-S
I
* I " CLEAN GRAVEL
cm OCk,70C=,V-
PROFILE
CELLULAR 1" CLEAN GRAVEL
CONFINEMENT
SPILLWAY
DETENTION BASIN
PLM VIEW
PRACTICE CC3
CELLULAR CONFINEMENT SYSTEM AT ARIZONA CROSSING
HARMONY GROVE FIRE, CITY OF CARLSBAD
FN: GEOGRID DRAWN BY: CB J CHECKED BY: J PROJECT NO: 9651135F DATE: 12-17-96 RGIJRE NO: CC3
I WOODWARD-CLYDE
Critical Water Limit Water Revetment Thickness Stone Size Velocity Velocity
inches cm. Type Diameter (fps) (fps)
Gabion Mattress 6 15 3" to 6" 9 14
9 23 to 6" 12 17
Gabions 12 30 to 8" 15 19
18 45 4'108" 21 26
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIXB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, City of Carlsbad
PRACTICE NAME: GM4 9-inch Gabion Mattress
DESCRIPTION:
Gabions are fabricated from welded corrosion-resistant steel wire mesh formed into large boxes,
usually rectangular in shape but variable in size, designed to create flexible structures. Gabions
are erected at the project site, quickly joined together, and filled with stones, often obtained on
site. Highly permeable gabion structures act as self draining units which bleed off ground
waters, relieve hydrostatic heads, and dissipate energy from flood, current, and wave action.
When utilizing gabions for a structure that will be driven over, an asphalt-concrete topper should
be applied over the top to prevent damage to the wire mesh.
The following is general guidance for gabion channel revetments:
I
F
it
I
WøodwardCtydo W:\g651135F\ECO1-D-RDOC1O-Mar.97\9651135F\SDG B6 I
ADUAI T_1"AIJCDT
SPILLWAY
ABION MATTRESS
ASPHALT CONCRETE
DETENTION BASIN
PLAN VIEW
PRACTICE GM4
9-INCH GABION MATTRESS AT ARIZONA CROSSING
HARMONY GROVE FIRE, CITY OF CARLSBAD
FN: GABON DRAWN BY: CB CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO: 9651135F DATE: 12-17-96 1 FIGURE N0 GM4
WOODWARD-CLYDE
I
APPENDIIIB V Details and Standard Specifications I V
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, City of Carlsbad V
I PRACTICE NAME: FC5 Flexible Concrete Revetment
DESCRIPTION:
I. Flexible concrete revetment consists of machine compressed cellular concrete blocks of a unique
interlocking shape which are made up into mats for easy handling. The blocks are constructed of
4,000 psi concrete that is sulfate-resistant to ensure durability. The revetment permits up to
1 20 percent open area to provide for free drainage of water and the growth of vegetation. The
revetment is free of projections so pedestrians, animals, and vehicles have safe and convenient
:I access. The revetment is also flexible to form to any underlying surface.
V
BLOCK SPECIFICATIONS
1 (Typical Values) V
Concrete Block
Class
Specific
Weight
lbs/cu ft
Compressive
Strength
lbs/sq in
Maximum
Absorption
Nominal Dimensions,
in -
Gross
Area/
Block
sq ft
Block Weight"
Open
Area
% A B C lbs lbs/sq ft
S-Class
Open Cell
30S 130-150 4,000 l2 lbs/cu ft 13.0 11.6 4.75 0.98 31-36 32-37 20
50SI 130-150 4,000 12 lbs/cu ft 13.0 11.6 6.0 0.98 45-52 45-53 20
S-Class
Closed Cell
455 130-150 4,000 12 lbs/cu ft 13.0 11.6 4.75 0.98 39-45 40-45 10
555 130-150 4,000 12 lbs/cu ft 13.0 11.6 6.0 0.98 53-61 54-62 10
Open
Cell
40 130-150 4,000 12 lbs/cu ft 17.4 15.5 4.75 1.77 62-71 35-40 20
50 130-150 V 4,000 12 lbs/cu ft 17.4 15.5 6.0 1.77 81-94 46-53 20
60 130-150 4,000 12 lbs/cu ft 17.4 15.5 75 1.77 99-113 56-64 20
70 130-150 4,000 12lbs/cuft 17.4 15.5 9.0* 1.77 120-138 68-78 20
Closed
Cell
45 130-150 4,000 12lbs/cuft 17.4 15.5 4.75 1.77 78-89 43-50 10
55 130-150 4,000 12lbs/cuft 17.4 15.5 6.0 1.77 94-108 53-61 10
75 130-150 4,000 12lbs/cuft 17.4 15.5 7.5 1.77 120-138 68-78 10
85 130-150 4,000 12lbs/cuft 17.4 15.5 9.0* 1.77 145-167 82-95 10
LI
~ I
d
WOOdWardCIyde 0 W:\9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC\1 0-Mar-97',9651135FSDG B-7 I
I-]
PROFILE
FLEXIBLE CONCRETE REVETMENT
--
u ___ ..• II s IIr El
.- DETENTION BASIN
.. PLAN VIEW
..
PRACTICE FC5
FLEXIBLE CONCRETE REVETMENT AT ARIZONA CROSSING
HARMONY GROVE FIRE, CITY OF CARLSBAD
FN: RFLEX DRAWN BY: CB I CHECKED BY: J PROJECT NO: 9651135F
•
DATE: 12-17-96 FIGURE NO: FC5
I • . •• • ••• . • WOOD WARD-CLYDE. .
APPENDIXB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, City of Carlsbad
PRACTICE NAME: KR-6 Concrete Traffic Barriers (K-Rail)
DESCRIPTION:
Concrete traffic barriers or "K-rail" are 2-foot high rectangular shaped concrete blocks that can
be attached together to form a wall or barrier. These barriers can be placed perpendicular to on-
coming flow to impede the niovement of sediment downstream. At the Arizona crossing the
traffic barriers should be placed on either side of the road and the compacted fill should be placed
in between the two barriers. Rip rap or gravel-filled bags should be placed upstream of the toe of
the barriers and also at their abutting ends to seal and prevent movement of sediment beneath or
through the barrier walls.
Woodward.Clyde W:\9651135FECO1-D-R.DOC1O-Marg7\9651135F\SOG B-8
CONCRETE K-RAIL
UPSTREAM FRONT VIEW
DETENTION BASIN
PROFILE
)N
mdruls w..T -
PRACTICE KR
CONCRETE TRAFFIC BARRIER (K-RAIL) AT ARIZONA CROSSING
HARMONY GROVE FIRE, CITY OF CARLSBAD
FN: BARRIER DRAWN BY: CB CHECKED BY: PROJECT N0 9651 135F DATE: 12-17-96 FIGURE NO: KR6
WOOD WARD-CLYDE
I
APPENDIXB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, City of Carlsbad
I PRACTICE NAME: TL7 Temporary Levees
DESCRIPTION:
I Temporary levees are polyethylene or woven geotextile tubes that are pumped full of water.
Two Winner tubes contained by one master tube provide counter friction and result in a stable non-
rolling wall of contained water which adjusts automatically to bottom terrain. The tubes come in
I .inflated heights anywhere from 1 to 8 feet and weigh anywhere from 105 to 11,000 lbs. per linear
foot when filled. No residual fill materials are necessary to deploy the structures and they are
easily removed when necessary. .
1 . . .
.1 .
I. S . .,
S5 •S
i
.
WOOd N rd-Clyde S W:\9651135FECO1-D-R.DOC1O-Mar-97't9651135F\SDG B-9 1
OUTER TUBE R TUBE/
INNER
TUBE TUBE
La lx 0 WATER OUTER TUBE
,STRUCTURESe,
GOLF 8 INNER
COURSE TUBES
iv
'S.
CORE MATERIAL
FOR INSTALLATION
AND TRANSPORTATION
PLAN VIEW
19felloofm 14ed e!ght
Empty Empty
1 ft 24 In 1.0 lb 105 lb 12.5
2 ft 46 In 1.5 lb 420 lb 50
3 ft 68 In 2.6 lb 1,130 lb 135 PROFILE 4 ft 120 In 4.0 lb 2,400 lb 290
6 ft 186 In 9.0 lb 5,800 lb 700 -
8 ft 282 In 17.9 lb 11,000 lb 1,270
PRACTICE TL7
TEMPORARY LEVEES (WATER STRUCTURES)
HARMONY GROVE FIRt, CITY OF CARLSBAD
FN: WATER DRAWN BY: CB CHECKED BY; J PROJECT NO: 9651135F j DATE: 12-17-96f FIGURE NO: Th7
W000WARD-CLYDE
I
. APPENDIXB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, County of San Diego
I PRACTICE NAME: DM8 Dry Straw Mulch with Tackifier or Nets
DESCRIPTION:
I Weed-free, bright straw can be used as part of a three step surface erosion control practice, which
proceeds as follows:
Step 1:. Apply recommended seed mixture with hydraulic seeder, mixing in tank a
I wood fiber mulch (with tackifier) at a rate of 1 to 2 bags of mulch per acre
depending on soil conditions.
I Step 2: Apply with straw blower, approximately 2 tons per acre of loose straw.
Step 3.: Apply a tack mixture to hold straw in place at a rate (per acre) of either
I 100 lbs. M binder; 150 lbs. Tak Pak or 55-gallons acrylic copolymer
Where native plant materials already in the soil are expected to regenerate, the first step of DM8
practice may be eliminated. The DM8 practice is recommended to be applied to steep slopes
I
along roadsides accessible to mulching equipment.
.
Straw mulching with nets is primarily a homeowner practice, ,where using tackifier is
I economically impractical on small, individual lots. For the application of straw mulching on
areas not covered by the DM5 practice, straw shall be "flaked out" or shaken out by hand over
the soil surface. In lieu of a tackifier application to hold the straw in place. A netting shall be
I rolled out over the straw and held in place using 6-in. x 1-in. x 6-in, wire staples.
Nettings which can be used are:
I a. Natural fiber jute (biodegradable)
b. Polyjute (photodegradable)
C. Plastic netting (V2-in. x '/2-in, mesh)
I
I
I
Woodward-Clyde @ W9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC11-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG B-10
I
I
APPENDIXB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, County of San Diego
I
PRACTICE NAME: SB9 Straw Bales
DESCRIPTION:
I Bales should be composed of weed-free, wheat or rice straw. Straw bales can be used as dikes to
stabilize channel flow lines or as a perimeter filter barrier. Straw bales shall be installed in a
trench, staked and backfilled if they are to be effective in reducing flow velocity and filtering
I sediment from runoff. When used as a perimeter filter, sediment shall be removed when material
Js within six inches of the tope of any bale.
I INSTALLATION PROCEDURE: .
Step 1: Dig trench across flow line the width of the straw bale. ' Step 2: Place bales on edge in trench, tightly abutted against each other with no gaps
between end of bales.
Step 3: Stake in place using two 1-in. x 1-in. x 36-in. (or 1-in. x 2-in. x 36-in.) stakes
Step 4: Backfill and compact excavated soil along upslope edge of bale. ..
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WOOdWard.CIytSO W:9651 135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC\1 O-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG B-Il I .,... ., .
BALES MUST BE TIGHTLY
ABUTTING WITH NO GAPS
1"X2" STAKE OR
1"X1" STAKE
1-WEDGE LOOSE STRAW
I BETWEEN BALES
4" MIN.
- TWINE/WIRE
2. PLACE AND STAKE STRAW BALES 1. EXCAVATE THE TRENCH
BACKFILL MATERIAL
FROM TRENCH
3. BACKFILL AND COMPACT EXCAVATED SOIL
1"X2" WOOD STAKE STAKED AND ENTRENCHED (OR 1"X1 50 LB. (APPROXIMATE)
STRAW BALE
TWINE/WIRE COMPACTED SOIL TO
PREVENT PIPING
SEDIMENT LADEN RUNOFF
CROSS-SECTION OF A PROPERLY INSTALLED STRAW BALE
PRACTICE S1319
GENERAL INSTALLATION OF STRAW BALES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
FN: SIR-BALE [DRAWN BY: CB CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO: 9651135F DATE: 1-28--97 FiGURE NO: S89
WOOD WARD-CLYDE
APPENDIIB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, County of San Diego
PRACTICE NAME: BM1O Bonded Fiber Matrix
DESCRIPTION:
A bonded fiber matrix (BFM) is a hydraulically applied erosion control blanket composed of
wood fibers held together by a high strength adhesive. Upon cross-linking, the adhesive holds
the wood fiber together in a three dimensional matrix which prevents erosion from raindrop
splash and overland sheet flow. One of the unique feature of the BFM is that once cross-linked,
rewetting of the matrix does not affect the bond strength, and field and laboratory evaluations
have shown the matrix to be just as effective in controlling erosion as standard, roll-type erosion
control blankets.
The BFM is delivered in standard 50-pound bags and is added to hydraulic seeder tank much in
the same manner as conventional hydraulic mulch. However, application is somewhat different
as the applicator is required to "build a blanket" rather than just spray mulch and seed. In this
regard, care must be given to thickness of application and elimination of "shadow effect" during
application. The BFM can be used with or without seed. It is straw yellow in color when
applied, gradually weathering to an earthen-tone brown over time.
A BFM is recommended for use on slopes around high-priority areas, and in general where steep
slope conditions and safety concerns preclude the installation of erosion control blankets.
WOOdWardCtYdO - W\9651135FECO1-D-R.DOC10-Mar-97\9651135FSDG B-12
APPENDUIB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
I PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, County of San Diego
I PRACTICE NAME: EB1 1 Erosion Control Blankets
DESCRIPTION:
Erosion control blankets (ECBs) are rolled materials which contain plant fibers (straw, coconut I fiber, or wood fiber) held between plastic netting. When used following seeding the ECBs are
rolled out in the direction of water flow and held in place using 6-in. x 1 -in. x 6-in, wire staples.
I Blankets shall be installed as per manufacturer's guidelines.
- ECBs are recommended on those areas where a high velocity water channel requires protection
or on steep slopes above existing homes, and then only if access to the site and slope conditions
do not pose safety concerns.
Another application of the blankets, particularly those made out of 100% coconut fiber, is as
I longitudinal filter strips, installed along the contour of a slope in various widths to reduce sheet
flow velocities and settle out soil fines and trap ash entering from overland flow.
I
WOOdWaVd.CIydO W:9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC1O-Mar-97\9651135FSDG B43
NOT TO SCALE
MATS/BLANKETS SHOULD
BE INSTALLED VERTICALLY 4 - DOWNSLOPE.
P SOIL OVER MAT BLANKET
--
-4Yii -:- a:O• ;J
/4
/
4
12
(3o t
I, /
MIN 4" /
(1OOmm) ' / gill OVERLAP /
4
ISOMETRIC VIEW
TYPICAL SLOPE
SOIL STABLIZATION
NOTES:
SLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE FREE OF
ROCKS, CLODS, STICKS AND CRASS. MATS!
BLANKETS SHALL HAVE GOOD SOIL CONTACT.
LAY BLANKETS LOOSELY AND STAKE OR
STAPLE TO MAINTAIN DIRECT CONTACT WITH
THE SOIL. DO NOT STRETCH.
PRACTICE EB11
EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
FM: Bt.NKSLP I DRAWN BY: CB I CHECKED BY: I PROJECT NO: 9651135F DATE: 1-28-97 FIGURE NO: EBI 1
WOOD WARD-CLYDE
4
7
(150mm)
12
(300mm). U
STAPLES
APPENDUIB Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, County of San Diego
PRACTICE NAME: HS12 Hydraulic Soil Sealing
DESCRIPTION:
HS 12 is an erosion control practice that can be applied with or without seed. The practice is
applied by hydraulic seeding methods and binds the soil surface, ash, seed and mulch together
through the use of an acrylic copolymer. The mixture is applied on critical slopes, around
foundations, and on off-road sites with limited access to straw-blowing (DM5) equipment.
Typically, the HS 12 is a one-step process which includes the following components on a per acre
basis:
500 pounds of wood fiber mulch;
1,000 pounds of recycled paper mulch;
-
Appropriate seed mixture (or no seed mixture); and
55 to 100 gallons of acrylic copolymer, depending on soil conditions.
Upon curing, usually Within 24 hours, the mixture forms a crust on the surface which protects the
soil and ash from erosion but also allows water to infiltrate. Over time, the crust biodegrades as
plants develop.
Woodward-Clyde W:9651 135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC1O-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG B-14
APPENDIXB . Details and Standard Specifications'
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, County of San Diego
I PRACTICE NAME: SRi 3 Storm Drain Repair/Modification
DESCRIPTION:
I Wildfires in vegetated watersheds (both developed and undeveloped) affect hydrology, soil
properties, slope stability, and sediment and debris production. The removal of vegetation and
heat of the fire can result in hydrophobic soil layers, increased runoff, and increased potential for
I . mud and debris flow.
Some storm drain systems were damaged during fires and may experience further damage during
subsequent storms. The damages include plastic storm drain pipes that were consumed during
the fire, clogged inlets, collapsed culverts, overtopped basins and roads, outlet scour and
undermining from increased flow.
I These damages need to be repaired on a site-specific basis, and modifications to the storm drain
system may be necessary to accommodate increased flows and sediment/debris loads.
I .. .'.
I
,
I S.S
1 5
5
5'
•0
I S
S
I
WOOdWaIdCIydO
S W: 651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC1O-Mar-97'965l 135F\SDG B-15
I S
S S
APPENDIIB . Details and Standard Specifications
STANDARD SPECIFICATION SHEET
I PROJECT NAME: Harmony Grove Fire, County of San Diego
I PRACTICE NAME: CM14 Channel Repair/Modification
DESCRIPTION:
I .Wildfires in vegetated watersheds (both developed and undeveloped) affect hydrology, soil
properties, slope stability, and sediment and debris production. The removal of vegetation and
heat of the fire can result in hydrophobic soil layers, increased runoff, and increased potential for
I mud and debris flows.
Some existing channels have experienced damage in fires and subsequent storms. These
damages are associated with clogging, scour, and overtopping. The damages to existingchannels
need to be repaired on a site-specific basis, and modifications to the channels may be necessary
to accommodate increased flows and sediment/debris loads.
I ..
I
0•
•
.
.
.
I
.
1 . .. . .
I •
•..•
I
•.
...
I
I
I
. . . . .
.
ii • S
.5
WOOdWId.CtydO @
S W9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC1O-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG B-16
.
I
APPENDIXC Site Visits to Localized Areas of Potential Problems
After the field work was completed for development of this Plan, two subsequent site visits were
I made by our erosion and sediment control specialist with Dick Cook of the City on
November 27th and December 16th. The purpose of the site visits was to make a field visit to
specific localized areas within the burn area that were of possible concern to the City.
I These areas include the following:
Gullying behind the residences at 2902 and 2904 Managua Place at two locations
A burned slope above an unburned slope in the Alicante Hills area, above Bolero
A steep fill slope in the Alicante Hills area west of Bolero along an SDG&E easement that is
I exhibiting slumps and significant tension cracks indicating potential slope failure
A west-facing slope behind residences along Box Canyon, just above the Arizona crossing
I 5. A number of relatively small tributary drainages where the open space in the canyons below
the residences was burned, but the homes were generally not burned.
I Based on our field assessment and experience, we recommend the following for these areas:
1. The two gullies behind the residences at 2902 and 2904 Managua Place were in existence
before the fire due to concentrated runoff being directed onto an extremely steep, erodible
I slope. The gullying may be more visible now that the fire has removed the previously-dense
vegetation from the slope. The gullying does show signs of widening and deepening since
the fire due to increased runoff from the adjacent slopes.
I While not posing an immediate threat to public health and safety, we recommend that the
City consider installing some gravel bag check dams in both gullies at frequent enough
I spacing to slow the velocity of the concentrated flow and trap some sediment behind the
check dams. This would be particularly effective on the upper half of the slope before it
becomes steeper on the lower slope. We recommend that the abutments of the check dams be
I high enough to avoid outflanking, which could result in worse gullying, and that the
structures be sturdy enough to avoid overturning failure caused by high flows. We also
recommend that care be taken by the workers on the slopes to stay in the proximity of the
I existing gullies as much as possible so as to avoid disturbing the rest of the slope and
aggravating the slope erosion.
I 2. The burned slope area above the unburned slope in the Alicante Hills above Bolero does not
appear to present a significant problem. The upper slope is denuded of vegetation and will
exhibit higher runoff and sediment loads until it revegetates. The runoff appears to be
I primarily sheet flow, and the slope does not exhibit signs of gullying due to concentrated
flow. The lower slope is well-vegetated and irrigated, and will act as a filter for the increased
runoff and sediment loads. Below the vegetated slope is a street, not residences, so the
I impacts of increased sediment-laden runoff would be to the street only, and would most
likely require increased street cleanup.
I 3. The steep fill slope in the Alicante Hills area along the SDG&E easement that is showing
signs of potential failure is a pre-existing condition that was there before the fire. The fire
may aggravate the instability to some extent due to increased runoff from unvegetated areas
I
WOOdWaFd.Clyde & W:9651135F\ECO1-D-R.DOC10-Mar-97\9651135F\SDG CA Li
I
APPEtIDlIC Site Visits to Localized Areas of Potential Problems
that has more opportunity to enter the exposed tension cracks and further reduce the slope's
strength. Fortunately, the slope is directly above a street, Bolero, rather than residences. A
failure of this slope could result in a considerable volume of soil on the street, limiting
ingress/egress for those homes near the end of the cul-de-sac. We recommend that the City
notify the homeowners association of the potential problem.
The west-facing slope behind residences along Box Canyon just above the Arizona crossing
is burned, but not showing imminent hazard to the homes because they are above the slope.
This slope will exhibit increased runoff and surficial erosion for the next several years. Due
to the rocky nature of the slope and the presence of larger rocks that have been deposited on
the slope, there may be some potential for rocks to become dislodged due to increased
erosion around the base of the rocks. There are no structures at the base of the slope that
would be jeopardized by this occurrence. The dislodged rocks would most likely land in or
near the creek bottom.
There is a gully below the northernmost home at the top of this slope. The gully pre-existed
the fire and is due to concentrated flow being discharged onto the slope, probably from
irrigation runoff. This gully may show signs of deepening and widening due to increased
runoff from adjacent burned slopes; however, the upper part of the gully near the landscaped
property should not worsen because the source 'of runoff from the residential area itself has
not increased.
The relatively small tributary drainages where the open space in the canyons below the
residences was burned, but the homes were generally not burned, exhibit some similar
characteristics. The canyons are typically steep, the soils are typically thin and rocky, and
there are no structures in the bottoms of the drainages that could be impacted. All of these
types of areas will exhibit increased runoff due to the loss of vegetation, and increased
sediment loads into the creeks for the next few years.
I The placement of temporary check dams in these drainages would serve primarily to trap
some sediment and reduce flow velocities. They would not have a significant impact on
attenuating peak flows, however. We recommend that the City consider the installation of I check dams in these areas on a case-by-case basis, depending on the relative severity of the
problem.
I All of the slopes in these drainages are showing signs of natural, revegetation at a rapid rate.
The sequence of low intensity storms followed by sunny weather that Carlsbad has
experienced since the fire has been ideal for the seeds to germinate and grow.
I We also recommend that the City evaluate its storm drain plans to identify utility crossings of
the creeks in the burn area. Due to the increased flows and increased scour potential in the
I creeks, these utilities may be vulnerable to exposure and damage if they are not adequately
buried or otherwise protected. If any such utilities appear to be at risk, we recommend that
the City consider the installation of a grade control device at or below the utility crossing to
I stabilize the creek invert.
I
WOOdWard.CIydO 0 W:9651135F\ECO1-D-R, DOC\1O-Mar-979651135F\SDG C-2 I