HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/09/16 - Agenda Packet - Attachments (2)LEGEND
ORIGINAL
POOR QUALITY
· RECORDED OR ESTIMATED
DEBRIS INFLOW
CONSIDERED DEBRIS BASIN
RESERVOIRS
I. BIG DALTON
2. BIG TUJUNGA
3, EATON WASH
4 SAN GABRIE:
J SAWPIT
6 PACOIMA
7, DEVIL'S GATE
DEBRIS BASINS
JANUARY 1969 8 WILSON SUBAREA D.A.,,SO, MI.)
MARCH 1938 9. HAINES (I) .39
MARCH t938 I0. HALL- BECKLEiY (2) .05
MARCH 1938 II. WEST RAVINE (3) II
JANUARY 1969 12. RUBY (4) 04
(5) ,24
MARCH 1938 13, HARROW (6) .15
,MARCH t938 !4. HOOK E&ST
']4,
~"
"~'.
3OC.,OO0 ........ t
200,OOO
L~J
] o ,3,Or_.O
20 C - i
't rCC'
15. BAILEY
6. SHIELDS
7, NICHOLS
JANUARY 1969
MARCH 19 38
MARCH 1938
MARCH 1938
dANUAF~'~' 1969
dANUARY 1969
JANUARY t969
JANUARY 1954
MARCH 1938
MARCH 1938
DEBRIS PRODUCTIONS FOR
SAN ANTONIO HEIGHTS
CU. YDS,,*SQ. MI,
142,OOO
70 000
8ZOO0
b9,000
147:000
127000
* : : ,.[,} i ' : ' ; t EER
' , i ~ : - , ~ -
%',';,',. ' - %'A ' ;
,:- . ..... ; .... '. . :
, ~ !,C 4 0 5 0 u:) 'C,
' '" ....... {'-~ .... ~ ...... ~ .... DEBRIS INFLOWS
2 ,COC '-
,52 ,'_3 .0,4 ,05 0 I
0.2_ 0 3 'l,-; C.5 ,.0 2 3 4
~,.R,-,,i',~P, uE AREA ,N SQUARE MILES
2O
DEBRIS AND FLOOD-CONTROL BASINS
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT
LOS ANGELES, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
~li_E NO 224/174 APR 6 PLATE 15
POOR QUALITY
U. S. ARI',iY ENGINEER DISTRICT
LOS ANGELES, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TO ACCOMPANY REPORT DATED:
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA
CUCAMONGA CREEK
AERIAL MOSAIC
PHOTOGRAPH NO. 2
,ooo o ,ooo zooo
SCALE I"4 ~ !-~ ; I FEET
PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FEBRUARY 7, 1970
~-00,000
~ 0,000
Z
z
0
LEGEND
O' DEBRIS BASIN
"13-'R~.SERVOIR
'-- Z
4: C)
O
>
-ZO._NE B --.' DEBRIS-' PRODi. J~'i:i-O'~I-'C-uRVE
......... ~T: .
Z
0
ORIGINAL
POOR QUAUI~
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
DEBRIS PRODUCTION
AS A FUNCTION OF
DRAINAGE AREA
ZONE B WATERSHEDS
STORM OF JANUARY 18-26,1969
A
~0°~
500 MB ANALYSIS
FEBRUARY 24 1969
1600 PST
°o
ORI(glNA!.
~ c~U.~Lrr~
P ATE
NO. 54
LOS ANGELE.3 COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DI3TRICT
ISOBAR MAP
FEBRUARY 24~ 1969
STORM OF FEBRUARY 23-25~1969
.534
/
540
$0·
540
,546 -
558 ~
570
500 MB ANALYSIS
0400 PST
ORIGINAL
,TE NO. 55
LO,.% ANGELE,.% COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
13OBAR MAP
FEBRUARY 26, 1969
STORM OF FEBRUARY 23-25 1969
OI:IIGINAL
~OR GIU,ACI'T'¥
Sent by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 09/16/98 6:11PM;]~_a,L#477;Page 2/3
LOEB J..OEB LLP
213-688-3400
213.688-3460
10154 D~37
F^x 212-4074~9~
NASr~VILLE. TN
~ ~.;,: 615. 749-U31~,~
¥~L r~l 1-396-6~-84.,b6
F,,,:, · 011 396.674-B,223
Direel: Dial No.
213-688-3622
e-mat I: BDVE IRIN(~locb.com
September 16, 1998
BY H_AND__DEI,IVERY
The 1tonorable City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 East Civic Center Drive
Ranclho Cucamonga, California
Re:
Administrative Record in Support of Cucamongans United
For Reasonable Expansio. n August 22. 1998 Appeal
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion hereby submit the
enclc, sed documents in support of this appeal. It also incorporates by reference as set
forth fully all documents subrnitted in connection with the 1997 proceedings by any
party thcrcto before the City Council with regard to Lauren Devclopment's Design
Review and Cristiano Partners Final Map. We further incorporate by reference all
pleadings submitted to the Superior Court for the State of California and the United
States District Court in connection with Haven View Estates Homeowners Association,
et el. v. City of Rancho Cucamonaa,. ¢t al., SBSC Case No. RCV-31906; Cristiano
P"~iers I v. Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven ¥!cw Estates. et el., SBSC Case No. RCV-
3390,5; Cristiano Partners. I v. 'William Angel, et el., SBSC Case No. RCV-33906.
Finally, we incorporate by reference as set forth fully all documents
reqw~sted in Thomas B~adford's Public Records Act Request dated September 10, 1998,
which the City staff was requested to bring to the City Council hearing this evening.
Sent by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 09/16/98 6:11PM;JetFa~__#47';';Page 3/3
The Hionorablc City Council
September 16, 1998
Page 2
Arrangements will be made immediately for a bonded copy service to copy those
documents upon being made av~filable.
Very truly yours,
"~-~ 'Brant H. Dveirin ~
of Loeb & Loeb LLP
BHD:Itl
PI6312408
MCM25463.L02
Enclosures
T H E
ANCH
0
C
C
I T Y 0 F
UCAHONG
A
VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL
September 9, 1998
Malissa McKeiith
Loeb & Loeb
1000 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2475
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13
Dear Ms. McKeith:
The appeals of the Planning Commission decision to approve Development Review 98-13 have
been scheduled for the September 16, 1998, City Council meeting. A copy of the public notice for
that meeting is. attached.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 477-2750 or the City Clerks office at
(909) 477-2701}.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
.,~NN~__I'VISION
'l'om Grahn, AICP
Associate Planner
TG/jfs
Attachment
RECEIVED
SEP 1 2 1998
MHM
Mayor William J, Alexander
Mayo~ Pro-Tern Diane Williams
Jaak LaB, AICP City Manager
Councilrnember Paul Biane
Councilmember Bob Dutton
Councilmember James XZ Curatalo
30500 Civic Center Drive · P(D Box 807 · I;!anch(, Cuc:ornonga CA 91729 · (909) 477-2700
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL
The Rancho Cucamonga City Council will be holding a public hearing at 7 p.m. on
September 16, 1996, at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, Council Chamber, located
at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, to consider the
following described project.
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-13 - THE HEIGHTS AT HAVEN VIEW
ESTATES, LLC. - The appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a design review of the
detailed Site Plan and building elevations for Tract 14771, consisting of 40 single family homes on
25.35 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located
east of Haven Avenue and north of Ringstem Drive -APN; 1074-511.-27 through 31 and 1074-621-
01 through 35.
Anyone having concerns or questions or wishing to review or comment on the project is
welcome to contact the City Planning Division at (909) 477-2750 or visit the offices located
at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Monday through -i"hursday from ;~' a.m. to 6 p.m.
Also, anyone objecting to or in favor of the above, may appear in person at the above-
described meeting or may submit their concerns in writing to the City prior to said meeting.
Written comments should be addressed to the Planning Division, City of Rancho
Cucamonga, P.O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729.
1F YOU CHALLENGE ANY OF THE FOREGOING ACTIONS IN COURT, YOU MAY BE
LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FINAL ACTION DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT,
OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Mailing Date: September 10, 1998
2
Sep-15-98 01:34P Bradford & Barthai/Rancho 909 476 0554
Debra Adams, City Clerk
Brad Bailer, Planning Director
O'Neill, Engineer
LAW OFFICES OF
BRADFORD & BARTHEL, LLP
10737 Laurel Street, Suite
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
t909) 476-0552 - Fax (9(}9) 47fi-0554
September 10, 1998
LNotlhcrn C-qifi)mii,
555 U~i','crslt?' Avellue, Suite
5acramcmo, (?A 95825
(916)
Ce~ral Califomta
10,13 "R" $tred
Ft~Ino. CA 0372 l
{2(~4) 442-5 ~'.'2
5530 C(,rbin ~.vcnuc, Suite 222
?,'u'zana. CA 9135fi
1.818) 654-04t
Sali. as. CA 93901
(41.18 ~ 75S-861 ¢
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS ~4 CT REOUEST
Dear Ms. Adams. Mr. Bullet, and Mr. O'Neill:
We are requesting that you bring to the city Council Hearing each and every. documc~,t in your possession
concerning 'h'act No. 12331; Tract No. 1 a771; and any and all docgments 0ncludmg all cngineenng plans)
that refer to or relate to the Lauren Deveiopment's project from 1980 through the present date, Following
the H'eanng, we will send a bonded messenger service to bcbqn copying all documents pemnent to this
Please make ctxtain to check your basement and microfiche as we are requesting documents going back as
early as 1980
Additionally, we ate requesting a complete accounting of all attorney .~ees incurred by lite City in connectJim
with the l.auren l')evelopmenl Project through the present date. We arc not requesting a copy of actual bills,
however, we want to see the month to month breakdown of attorney ~bes and costs. Further we would like
an accounting of what monies have been received by Mr. Christioho or Lateten Development.
We expect the above materials on Wednesday, September 16, 19.98, al 6d)O p,m.
If you have any quesuons, please do not hesitate to erintact me directly.
Very truly yours,
BRADFORD & BARTHEL, LLP
'1 WB;cai
Dict./not read
BY: THOMAS W. BRADFORD
Attorney ul I,aw
3
S~p-15.-g8 01:28P Bradford & Barthel/Rancho 909 476 0554
P.02
l'nomas w, Bra~forO
Donald R. B~I
David F
Alan L.
Theodoee O. Schneider
e,~gcn¢ C. Bradford
Bill Anlnrn
Ma,-k S.
Michelle G, Bettis
Tmhmeena I, Ahrr~.d
James E, Hummel
O]'C~umeL Nicholu A. Sanford
Jean M, Pricrc~
Z.4W O!rglC£$ OF
BRADFORD & BARTHEL, LLP
10737 Laure) Street, $uim !00
Rancho Cucamonga. California 91730
(909) 476.0652 · Fax (909) 476-0554
September [ 5, 1998
Debra Adams, City Clerk
Brad Buller, Planning Director
O'NeilL Engineer
553 Univrr~ity Avenue. ~e 150
Sacr~nto. CA
(~ 16)
1043 '~R' S~reet
Fresno. CA 9.1721
(209)
10737 Laurel Sa'eeL Same
R~c~ C~ CA 917~
q~) 47~552
55~) Corbi~ Avenue, Smu 222
li~-Aana. CA 91356
(8 i8) f~4-04 ] I
RE: PUBI-IC S~'@RO~.4CT ItEOUF.,~T
Dr~r Ms. Adams, Mr. Buller, and Mr. O'Neill:
Tiffs will serve as a reminder thau on Scpt~tbcr 10, 1998 1 d¢liverod to your office a written request
that any and all documentation pertaining to the Lauren lX, velopment be madc available for copying
on Scptcmber 16, 1998, In addition, I also requested that a complete accounting be made available
of'all attorney fee~ iacurred in connection with the Lauren Development Project and ~y monies
received by Mr. Chriatiano and the Lauren Development.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation m this regard.
Very truly yours,
BRADFORD & BARTHEL, LLP
BY: THOMAS W. BRADFORD
Attorney at Law
TWB*cal
Dict.lnot r~ad
4
FJ'3,"15/i'~78 2'!: 13 ~i. 6UU ~9~7 LOE~ ,:~ LCiEP b.l!]::D PRE: F'AGE
1
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DAVID T. WILLIAMS, PH.D., P,E.
1. I am the president of WEST Consultants, Inc., a San Diego based
3
water resources engineering firm. I received a B.$. degree in Civil Engineering from
4
the University of California, Davis, and an M.S. in Environmental Civil Engineering at
6 the same university, I also received a Ph.D. in Hydraulics and Sedimentation from
7 Colorado State University. I am a fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
8
an adjunct professor at San Diego State University in the Civil Engineering
9
Department, a certified Professional Hydrologist, a Certified Professional in Erosion
10
and Sediment Control (CPESC), and a California registered professional Civil
11
12 Engineer. I have over 25 years of experience in water resources, with a specialty in
13 flood hazard evaluation. I current!y supervise over 20 engineers who conduct flood
14 related studies for the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of
15
Transportation, and Federal Emergency Management Agency. I am familiar with the
16
Corps of Engineers' procedures as I was employed by the Corps for approximately 15
17
years. I am also familiar with FEMA regulations as I teach FEMA remapping
18
19 procedures as part of a course on hydraulics engineering for the American Society of
Civil Engineers. I authored the Reservoir Sedimentation Chapter in the U.S. Corps of
21 Engineers Manual on Sedimentation Investigation and the HEC-6 user's manual for
the Army Corps Hydrologic Engineering Center. I previously submitted a declaration
23
to the City of Rancho Cucamonga on August 20, 1997, concluding that new
24
information not available to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles (ACOE)
25
26 at the time the Deer Creek Debris Basin ("Debris Basin") was constructed
necessitates a serious safety review before the secondary containment levee is
28
5
r-
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
t6
17
18
19
20
21
2.2
23
24
25
27
26
removed. This new information included the existence of landslide areas above the
, Debris Basin channel that were not identified or addressed by the ACOE at the time
of the Debds Basin Construction. Further, the magnitude of the Cucamonga Fault,
which runs virtually beneath the Debris Basin and directly under the channel, is
significantly higher than the ACOE's projections when the Debris Basin was designed.
I base these conclusions upon my review of the original Design Memorandum
developed by the ACOE in connection with the Debris Basin, which is too voluminous
to attach and which is available Io your staff. The statements made in my original
declaration are incorporated by reference.
2. This declaration is made in support of Cucamongans United for
Reasonable Expansion (CURE) challenge to the Lauren Development Project. I have
personally visited the Debris Basin, the adjacent levee, and the property down slope
of the Debris Basin. Based upon my significant experience with hydraulics and
sediment transport, which spans over 25 years, I have concluded that removal of the
existing secondary levee and constructicn of homes in its location places future and
existing home owners in danger. Therefore, I urge the City Council to hire qualified
Debris Basin experts to thoroughly evaluate the vulnerability of the Debris Basin prior
to approving the Project.
3. The volume capacity of the Debris Basin for the design event was
based upon the Tatum Method, which was developed in 1963 by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles. $ubsecluent to the construction of the Debris
Basin, the ACOE updated the Method and released the publication entitled "Los
Angeles District Method for Prediction of Debris Yield," in February 1992 (revised in
6
LOEB .~ LOEB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
August 1992) a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A". Since the 1963 publication,
23 years of additional flood information (and resulting debris production) was
collected and used to update the coefficients of the debris production equations in the
1992 publications. Significant floods have occurred since 1963 which provide
important information; in particular, the floods of November 1965, January 1969, and
February 1978. In statistical analysis, when large events occur, the information
gathered is used to update a frequency study, i.e., the relationship of how frequent a
certain phenomenon such as debds discharge occurs, as the information can change
drastically. For example, suppose a 50 year flood event produces 10,000 cubic yards
of debris using frequency analysis based upon measurements available prior to 1963,
Subsequently, three significant flood events occurred with the resulting debris
production measured and used to update the frequency relationship. Using the
updeted frequency relationship, the 10,000 cubic yards of debris would now be
related to a more frequent event, for example, a 20 year flood event. In turn, the
debris production of a 50 year flood event would be higher than the original 10,000
cubic yards. Based on the new information and statistical analysis, the debris basin
no longer provides the original design level of protection; in actuality, there is a
greater risk than originally anticipated, When the volume capacity is exceeded during
a flood event, the debris torrent goes up and over the basin spillway and can overtop
and tax the embankments that are on each side of the spillway. Since the channel
downstream of the spillway is designed for "clear" water, this debris torrent can easily
overwhelm the channel, overflow into the adjacent area, and subsequently damage
the property and endanger the lives of the people down slope of the debris basin.
3
7
213-688-3927 L. OE~: ,f:, LOEe I,dDPD PF'.C PAGE
1 4. The above phenomenon occurred at many locations in the San
2 Gabriel Mountain Range in 1969. The Deer Creek Debris Basin similarly is located in
3 the San Gabriel Mountains. To protect down slope and future homeowners in
4
Rancho Cucamonga, a qualified engineer with Debris Basin experience must re-
5
compute the design capacity based upon the updated information and check it
6
7 against the actual capacity of the Debris Basin just before maintenance excavatioz~ is
8 performed. This analysis has not been conducted by the ACOE, the San Bernardino
9 County Flood Control District, FEMA, the City Engineer, nor Lauren Devetopment's
10 consultants. Without such an analysis, the City is placing its families in the same
11
position as those who were caught in Debris Flow down slope of other San Gabriel
12
Mountain Basins that failed.
13
5. Another phenomenon for which the Debris Basin was not
14,
designed is what is termed as "run up" over the spillway. Because of the steepness
16 of Cucamonga Peak, the area just upstream of the Debris Basin, a debris torrent
17 entering the Debds Basin will have extremely high velocities. Even if the Debris
18
Basin has adequate volume capacity, which is seriously in question, the debris
19
torrent, by virtue of its high velocity, can have enough momentum to "run up" the
20
21 approach slope of the spillway and overtop it. As a result of the property damage
22 and loss of life in 1965, 1969 and 1978, the Los Angeles County Department of
23 Public Works required an analysis of "run up" for one of their Debris Basins before
24 permitting development of the area down slope of the basin. Attached as Exhibit "B"
25 is a copy of the American Society of Engineers (ASCE) paper entitled "Overtopping
26
Prevention of the Harrow Debris Basin in Los Angeles County," presented at the
27
ASCE Water Resources Engineering 98 conference, which documents the analysis.
28
4
8
21:13 213-~88-3927 ~-~_EB a?: LOE'.~ HCIF'D r-RC PAGE C15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In this paper, the Harrow Debris Basin was deemed to have adequate volume
capacity (50 year design flood) when a 10 year flood event caused the basin to
overtop by a combination of debris volume loss and "run up" phenomenon. This
overtopping caused the downstream channel to "plug up" and spill onto the adjacent
land, causing damage to the property down slope of the debris basin. The Harrow
Debris Basin is uncomfortably similar to the Deer Creek Debris Basin since it is along
the same side of the San Gabriel Mour~tain Range. The similarities are supported by
the fact that the 1992 ACOE debris method showeC high correlation between debris
yield and watershed parameters when analyzing the area that encompasses both
Deer Creek and Harrow Debris Basins. Such an analysis has not been performed by
the ACOE, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, FEMA, the City
Engineer nor Lauren Development's consultants. Evaluating the "run up" capacity of
the Deer Creek Debris Basin is a critical step that must be undertaken by the City
prior to placing its residents at risk by approvi~,g the Lauren Development project.
6. In light of the previously mentioned concerns, a complete safety
and impact study should be performed on the Deer Creek Debris Basin, its
downstream channel, and potential effects of the down slope areas. This study is
recommended due to the seriousness of the potential damage to life and property. I
should also emphasize that the perimeter levee proposed to be removed was rated
by FEMA to a 100 year flood event in 1983. Attached is correspondence from FEMA
to the Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga dated September 4, 1997, confirming this fact. I
previously testified that the small breach in the levee can be easily repaired and does
not detract from FEMA's rating. An earthen levee can be easily maintained.
5
9
_~- I E,-' 998 5:16Plq FROI?I v','EST CONSULTANTS C, 19a879~4.~.: P. 2
~J~J/]~1J.~ ].7:~,7 2].3-688-392?
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
10
~2
~3
14
'15
~6
~?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
28
7. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
correct and that this declaration is signed at ~an Diego, Califorrfia on September 13,
1998. Bec, aule of the short notice provided in connection with the September 16,
1998 meeting, I cannot attend the meeting as I am performing studies for the
University ~ Wisconsin; however, I would be wilting to speak with any of the City
Council Members, their counsel, or Laden Development, its counsel ar~l consultants
to discuss these serious issues further. The consequences of the City failing to
conduct the above studies are serious and these recommendations should not be
ignorec~. I personally would n~t consider living in the homes being constructed or the
existing homes given my assessment of tl~e dangem.
David T. Williams, Ph.D, P.E
6
10
9-1 "-'1998 t 0: E~SAf.'~ FROf4 WEST CONSULTANTS 61948'794,::1.8 P 9
WATER RESOURCES
ENGINEERING 98
Volume ]
PROCEEDINGS OFTHE INTERNATIONAL
WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING CONTERENCE
SPONSOR.liD BY I'HE
Water Resources Engineering
Div/sion of the American Society of CMI l~ngineers
CO.$PON$ORED BY TIlE
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmenial Protection Agency, Wetland~ Division
HOSTBD BY ~
West Term¢sse¢ Branch, ASCE
C. rromld Water Imtitute, Un/versity of Mempkis
IN COOPER.&T1ON %TTH
Alabama Water Environm, en~ Association
American Fisheries Society'
American Society of AEricultural Engin~.a%
Arkamsaz Water Resources Center
Catifom2a Department of Water Resources
City of Memphis, Te.'messee
International Association for Hydraulic Research
lntematicma} Association of Hydrological Sciences
International Water Re$ourc~s Association
Socie~ of American Military Engineer~
U.S. Army Corps ¢fEngineers
August 3-7, 1998
Memphis, Termessee
EDITED BY
SIcwen R. AbL Ja~¢ Young-PezesbI and Chester C. Watson
~SCE ~m.rir.~n $o¢i. ty
Civil
1801 ALEXANDER BELL DRIVE
RESTON, VIRG~TLA 20191-4400
11
9-1~-!998 18:~8Ak~ FRO~ ~'EST CONSULTANTS
WAT£R RF~OURC£S Er~GIN£ERING
Proceedings of the 1998 Confercnce
,/eftroy B. Bradley, Chair
Wayne C. Huber, Vice-Chair
Philip H. Surgi, Member
Albe~ J. Clemt:~e~, M,mber
R/chard H. French, Member
William ~ Johnston, Member
Pegs' A. Joha$o~, $eere~q'
0~o J. Helw~, Past Chair
Conference OrganizinR Committee
Jayne Young pezeabk, Conference Chair
Steven R. Abe, Conference Co-ChairJ?rogram Chair
Robert Bailey, Exhibits Chair
Anne Hoot~ Publicity/PrOmOtion Chair
Stacey' Morris, Activities Chair
Roger A, Gaines, Tecl~nieal Tour Ckair
Robert Rehkopf, Local ASC!~ Contact
Sympo$ia chair
John W. Smith
Mini-Sympo~ia Chairs
Lisa C. Roi~, Chair, MinLSympo$ia on Hydrsuli~ artd Hydrolog~' of Wetlands
Davi0 S. BieOenbar~, Chair, Mini-Symposia on Stem B~k Protection
Jo~ K. Pngaa-O~ Chair, Mini-Sympo$i~ o~ ~dge Sco~c
P,tcr C. ~ingeman, Chair, Mini-Symposia oa Channel R~toration
ASCE Conference Coordinator
julie Taylor
12
9- I ", - '19,98 1 B: E~9AI'"i FROH '¢:EST C'ONSULTAI".JTS 6194,97944,8 P 'I 1
Overtopping Prevention of the Harrow Debris Basin
in Los Angeles CounD.'
Da~Sd T. Williams~, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE, Marin J. Tea?, P.E., P.H., M. ASCE
a.,M Sree K~mar~,
Abstract
l.n Jan~.mrY of 1969, a 10-year frequency m',nfall ever~t o¢.cu,mng approximately one .,.'cm-
after a bum kiitiat~ a debris torrent that ove~opped Ire Harrow Debris Basin in
Angeles Cou:~ty. This b~in wa~ designed to contain the debris volume for a 50-yeas
~'equency event fore' years after a burn (called the capital fic'~od event). The b~in
been properly cleaneel out before the ev=nt, tugposting that the over'topping
probably due Io toomen 'l'tam .-tm.~,,p and not solely to the loss of debris capaciW. When
a subdivision developer re, questex:l permits to cormtr~¢'. houses dov,'nsu~¢am of the ~eYr,
basin, the LoS Angeles County Department of Pubtic Workg was concerned abo~::
overtopping potential mud requested a speci,l s~udy that adeXtossed the problem. This
paper ex~nine$ the probable combirmtion of e~:ents that led to ~he ! 969 oveaoppir, g
the b~sin and presents ¢omp~t,~ions to veri~' that :he ove~opping was c~used by
c.ombination of ~ebris x'olume loss an~ mome~.mm ."~n-up. The paper compares debn.~
volume estimates of the Los .~ugel~ District Corps of Engineers' Debris Method
:he Sedimentation Manual of the Los Ange',es Co'amy Hyd:oloD' M~ual. IT also
contains rec, ommended counte.rmea~mes to ~:'0~¢ b~in over~opplng due to morned. tan
run-up does not o¢ct~r :luring the ;~ixal (design) event
Introduction
%X'~$T Consultants, Inc. (WEST) w~ retained ~o provide ~nalysis and r¢co.mrc, endad°n'~
for modifications to t~e d~bris b~sin to preec~ against over'topping similar to that
was experienced in JanuarS' of 1969. At ,.~,at time, a !0.year frequency rainfall
:"': Respectively, Pre~ident and Project .Manager. \VEST Consuhants Inc., 11848
~emardo Plaza, Suite 140-B. $~n Diego, CA !;~21 ~$
~ S=pe~'i5ow C~vil Er. gineer lit, Los ,~n~eles Counv:' Depl. of Public Works ?.O
Box 1~60, Alhm'nbr~. CA 91802
13
9-11-i998 ':~:89Af'4 FRQ,~.'I WEST CONSLLT~NTS 6'9,&87944-8 P 12
WATER RESOURCES ENGINEE RiNG
occumng approximately one year after a bum initiated a debris torrent that overtopped
the spillway (el. 1270) as well as the top of the structure (el, 1277.,"5). Since The Harrow
Debris Basin was designed for a 50-year fiequency event four years after a burn (capital
flood), tke damage caused by a 10-year event was particularly alarming The ,nab'sis
consisted of simulating a debris flow similar to the one experiencee in 1969 and
esti.mating the amount of run up on the structure using a momentum approach to
determine if. indeed. the debris flo~' momentum caused the overtopping The sections
tMt follow descr4be the assumptions made, the ana!ys~s procedure, and our
recommendations regarding this project.
Assumptions
Fxamin?.ti.qn of the I%69 Fyent
ARer examination of post e'~'ent photographs and convert:ions ~'hh :he los
County Department of Pubiic Works (LACD?W), the nature ef the damage resulting
from the 1969 event led us to suspect that a si~fificam contribution to ~he overtopping
of the debris basin was du; t,o momentum overflow. A portion of the debris ov~rt~pping
occurred on the sout?l-wesI ;mban,k,m,nt of the spillway at a~ elevation h. ig.her than other
points along the spillway crest,
Of the three tributaries contributing debris, the tributary. on the eas: side of the watershed
('l'ributaD' C) ,eemed the mo~t tik¢ly to have caused this overflow. C~m,idering that
the trajectory of the debris flow from Tributary C is directly m line with the t~omt of
embankment overflow, we postulate that a mass movement of d,bfis from t&is tributary
','as transported to the base of the debris basin structure at which poim the slope :>fthe
structure acted as a ramp to ca..--y it up tl~e face and over the top of the :tam.
Assumption~ ¢,elated to "Run Up" Mozorntum and Blotking
This "momentum overflow" phenomenon is described m [he Los ,~mgles CounD~
Hydrology Manual (LACDPW, 1991), which particularly references its occurrence
during :ke i969 event. Ln simulating the momentum overflow, some assumptions were
required ;o simplify the Frobiota. First, the run up caused by the memenmm of the
debris was assumed to equal the kinetic energy of the P, ow (v:/2g) when the debn, flow
reaches ~k.e base of the structure,
Tb. is assumption errs on the conservative side (maximtzes run up velocm,.') by neglecting
losses due to change in direction avd tiffetlon. Second, the debris flow was assumed to
have the h'.'draulic properties of water aRer bulking for debris, The peak flows from
hydrolog)' were bulked using procedures defined in the L.A. County Hy,irology Manual
to compute debris flow rates. These rates were then used in subsequent c~lcutations.
14
9-1'I-'i998 10: lD&'.! FROFt WEST CONSULTANTS 619,:l. 873,.4.48 P 13
OFIIGINA
g i0 W^TER RESOURCES ENGINEEKING 95
Analvsis Procedure
- .~..
~e ~alysis p~ced~e c~ be divided ~to ~ee st~s -- calculating the "b~e elcvafi~.:f'..
o~e debris b~ dete~i~ng ~e p~ "buSed m~d b~ed" flow, ~d ~n~ing ~e'~""
up venicaI distrace. ~e first st~ of ~e ~al~is w~ to e~:imate ~he b~e elevation?
· .m e!evatien of~e bouom ofthe d~fis b~in at ~e time ofpe¢: flow. I~ w~
· at 50% ¢f~e desi~ vol~e of the debris b~in would be filled du~ng ~e dsL~g ~'"
of the desi~ sto~ hydrogapk (50-yem, 4 ye~$ a~er b~), ju~: before ~e ~-
~ a latter section of this paper, a p~a~aph desc~bes in detail that ~he 10-ye~,, I y~
a~er b~m event produces a l~ger bulk~ pe~ disch~ge tb~ does the 50-ye~
4 ye~ after a b~m--~erefore we us~ she 10-ye~ bused pe~ disch~ge. I~ would
~e~ reachable t¢ use the 10-ye~ debris vol~e ra~her ¢~ ~e 50-ye~ debris voI~
~ ealeulatbg ~e b~e elevation. H~wever, since ~ke L.A. Counb' Hy~relo~, M~'~.
does no~ provida a metboa fo~ calculadn~ the 10-ye~ debd~ vol~, we used a
.~y Co~ of Engme~s method ~SACE, I9~2) f~r est~aung debts ~eld. ~'
ro~d that the debris y~eld for the 10-)era, , ye~ a~er b~ event ~mg ~e
m~od w~ much less ~ the des~ debris wl~e. ~ere:ore, to be covae~aUv~ ~ ~.~.
el~t~ to ~e ~e de~i~ debris vot~e ~ pro~4ded by ~e LACDPW (1996) ~f62~
cu. yd., w~eh e~espends to the 50,ye~ event, 4 ye~s a~er a b~. '~?]
qebfis Volume ~o~tat~ens '.'
~e elevation ~ ~e tge of the d~ co~ndin~ ~o ~s vel~e w~ ~o be ~
b~e elevation for calculating the ~ up. ~e volume ca2cutadon for ~e b~in
each ~bu~ comis~ of level sto~ge md cone sto~ge. ~e level sto~g~ is ~e d~:
b~ ~ ot~e below a ~ven elevation, ~d ~e cone s~orage is the cone-shaped vol~ '
above a ~v~n ~levauon ext~dmg up ~e ~but~'. Vo!~e c~lcuiatiom w~e b~
~E~ 'As Cons~ct~d plans for th~ H~ow Debris B~in (L~CFCD, t958).
pl~eter w~ ~ed to find ~he ~ea of each 5 t~t conto~ below ~e ~iIlway ele~;.
(eI. 1270), inclung ~e cornour at 1,256 feet w~ch r~[esen~s ~e bonom ofee
b~in. U~ing ~e average end ~ea method, volumes were calzulated below a ~'~.
elevation to find ~e level slo~age.
Next, the ~alweg p~file of each ~b'at~ w~ piqued ve~gs distrance ~¢m ~e
:o ~sist in est~at~g available vot~e ~om cone ~torage. ~e L.A. Co~b'
M~ual r~ends using ~ of~e na~al slope up to a m~ of~% in
· e slope fo~ed by debr. s flow for cone storage calculations. Since the slope o[.~?
tfibut~D, w~ ~eater than 1~%, a m~im~ 5% slope w~ used to estimate ~e
volume deposited by each tfibut~,. To simpl~ geometric calculations, ~e
shaped vol~e w~ ~s~ed to be wedge-shaped (tfi~gul~ in cross.section ~ew '~
rectangular in pl~ view). A~cr cstimating thc widt~ of thc wedge.shaped st.~'.~
volume for each ~but~, the elevation on the face of the d~ represea:ing a~Ut .~?.
the total ~esi~ debris volume (31,150 cu. yd.) was dete~ined as 1263.7 feet. ~'~.
15
9-1!--1998 19:'~A~.1 FRQf.I WEST CONSULTANTS 6194879~48 P 14
WAT[R, ;~£soLrRcEs ENGD,"EER~NO 98
$11
Peal< F[ox,/C.o. rnputetions
The second step of the analysis was to determine the peak "bulked ~nd burned" flow,
.vhere "bulked" refers to increasing the peak flow to account for a larger volume
debts ~or a given volume of water, and "barneS" me~$ that the decreased i~[hrafion
:2p~ta] flood (50-ye~, ('our years aher bum) "burned and ba'~ked" was prov[ded to
WEST by the LACDPW for use in our analysis. Ho~s¢ver, the e%ent that caused :he
y,.erflcw in 1969 was the 10-y~ar, 1 year after barn evenit-nor the camtal
[n a,q effort Io compare the relative difference m debris flow volumes berxveen these r~vo
:vents, we applied the procedures out]ined :n the Los ~ngeles Dislficl Co~s of
Engineera Debris M~thod for computing upA~ debris )~eld (p. 38). [q cornprong the ~nit
J~bSs yield cxp~cted ~om the capit~l flood ~ith that expected ~om :he 10-ye~, l year
:~r b,~ flood, a'e fo'~d tha~ zhe laser evem produced 2bout 40% more debris ~h~ the
iomer one. ~erefore, instead ofu,ing the capital flood peak in cur analysis. we used
bulked peak flow Gr the t0-yeer, I ye~- ~r~er b~, w~;ich was s~mil~ to the 1969
peak discharge dunng this eveat was estimated by the L.A. CounD' Flood Control
Dist,,Sol Hy&ologic Keport "Storms of 1969" to be 626 cfs (LACD?W, 196.9, Table II,
o..~. Since this estimate ,,v~ tbr water, we applied a bulking factor according to lhe
:.,'ocedures described or~ page ~-8 of the Sedimentation Man'~taI (LACD?W, 199~.).
drainage area of 98 acres and a Debris Potential Area Zone of 1, ~he resulting
factor was 2.0. Applying this to a peak discharge of'626 cia yields a bulked
di$chazge of 1,252 cf$ for th~ 10-year, 1 }'ear acer bum ¢ve:.:. This compares to
(bu,"n, ed and bulked) for the capital flood; therefore, us:ng 1,252 cfs for design
conservatwe than ,.~sing the capital flood.
C.-'mOza,'.2tion ofthe. P>~n [Jp Height
7',-.e third step of the anatys!s was to find :he run up distance from ¢l¢'.'adon 1263.7,
.:'r:'.'iously determined. M~ing'$ resi$tance equation w~ used to ~oix'e for the veloctvd
'.xb,[c5 ~'outd ~hen be ~ed lo find the kinetic energy, V::2g The slope alvng Tnbutau
C ',~'as found to b~ 0.126. We elected to use halfof:hat slope in M~ng's equation
-3.068) ~ ~ estimate of ~he debris cone $tope. Although the L.A. County Hydeology
Manua~ recommends using a maximum of 5% (0.05) for esumafing ~e debh~ cone
¢.ope for desi~ volt~e calculafien$, we elected tc use 0068 betause the 5% m~ximum
:s m~endsd as a consol'afire guideline for storage calculations rather than an upper
;h>,~cat limh For debris cone slopes. Ma~ing's n was set a~ 0.02 to simulate the
:*n,~;5oes i~erent to deEns flow.
sing the site plan topography, we estimated the effective debS, cha.',,.n¢l width to
::~%ition ~cm abou~ 10 f, ct in the uFs~re~m r¢aches ~o about 30 feet where the tnbut~
toters ~b.: debts basin. From this poin~ the effective width or,he debris flow would
16
9-I r-'i9S8 'IS:''IA~.I FROhl WEST CONSULTANTS 6!948794&8 P. 15
W~T£R KESOURCIe$ ~NG~£RJNG 9~
probably continue Io increase ~ the f~ow approaches the structure, but we chose to !imit
the charmel v,'id~h to 30 feet (with verti:al sides ra~her than slopi:~g) to yield a higher
velocity. (more conservative) %r use in run up estimation. Using the above slope and
n value, the 30 foot width corresponds to a flow velocity of about 25 feet per second,
which is considered by the LACDPW as an upper limit for debris flow velocity
(Personal communication, 1996).
Preliminary Results and Recommendations
The run up that resuhed f~om the con&lions ~le~cribed above '.,,'as ], 0.$ feet. Added
the elevation representing 50% efthe debris basin volume, 1263.7, ~e highest aleraton
of debris flow is 1274.2 for The design con~iitions (10-year, 1 year aRer, bum). This
elevation is a.2 feet ~bove the spillway. In order to prevent debris from entering the
s?i]lw~y for a similar event, we recommended any combination ~f the following
measles :ha~ would effecdve!y increase the height bet~'een the spillway and
ax emge basin el~,ation by at least ~.2 feet or disrapI the momentum flow:
lower the elevation of the debris b~sin
2) raise the elevation of the spillway md embankments
3) add energy dissipating structures to the face of the dam
The selection ofcoumerme~ures will ultimately depend on an economic analysis of the
options listed above. If option number I is to be used exclusively, the procedure
outlined m the A.nalysis secdon of this paper should be ~epea~ed with the new basin
topo~hy in order to compute ~he elevation on ~e fa~e of the d~m that r~resents 50%
of the desi~ dobbs b~in volume (31,i50 cu. yd.). Once ~his elevalJon is dete~ined,
10.5 feet should be added ~o ~sure ~hat the spillw2y is not ove~opp~.
Momentum Analysis
Subsextuem to release of the preliminary results and reex~mmendations, the client elected
tO implemon; item 3. Previously, the velocity of the debris flow at the base of the dam
(at the calculated b~e elevation ~ descfib~ a~ve) had bee~ compute. Assuming no
ener~ losses, :he velocity higher up on the face of the dam, i~ediately before the
existing debHs-cal~h~ (vertical l-be~s embedded along the upstre~ ~ace of the
debris s~cture) was also calculated. A momentum analysis at the I-be~s was then
perfo~ which >'ie~de6 ~he resulting velocity of the tonent after t~e I-beams h~d
exed~ ~eir force on ~he flow. With ~he existing l-beams, the r~aining ¥elccity was
enough for ~he flow to overtop ~he spillway. To reduce the ~ticipated mn up
moment~, a second row of I.be~s w~ prop6se~ (staggered eomp~ed 1o the existing
foxy). ~hen ~he momemum ar, alysi~ x~.as perforated with the additional I-beams in
place, ~e reguhing ve',oeity wa~ not e~ough for the flow to ove~op the ~piEway.
17
9-i '1- }998 ~ 8:11A~.t FROM WEST CONSULTANTS 649,~879,&48 P I 6
WATER RJESOUI~CES £NG,.~I~IEP, ffNG 95
S u rrlm'.~ ry
Research and calculations sho~ved that the Harr¢,w Debris Dam 'r. ad oremopped during
the 1969 event not because the basin had filled but because of the phenomena of
momentum overflow. Additional energy dissipation was desired to prev~n; future
ove~opping due w momentum overflow for a sirefiat
References
H?-dr~Ic~gy Mav. t~al, Los A.,qgeles Coun~ Del~'artment ofP.abhc ;~'orks. December 1991.
qed~m.~ntafio~_Man'~l, Los .~geles County Dep~gmen: of P'abhc Works, December
199t,
C~s of EnBineers, L¢s .~g¢les Di~tfic~, Rex'~se3 August 1992.
Los A~ge'.es County Department of ?nbiic Works inte~t memo kern Michael S.
.~der~oe to ~oben G. Pedigo, "H~now DeBts Basia.-Hydrolog?' ~anua~ 29, 1996.
Los .~geles County Flood Control D~;t~c;, Ha~o,~ Debris ~asm -.- P~an and Section
of Ea~k, work for Basin & Dim, March 195~,
18
TABLE 15-1
PERTINENT DATA ON DEBRIS BASINS
Max. Probable Discha~e
c.f.s.
Sp~llway crest
length, ft.
Spillway crest
elev., lrt;
Critical depth
ft.
Top of embankment
elev. ft.
Bottom of basin
elev. ft.
Debris VoL,
Ac. Ft.
MPF Water Surface
elev. ft.
Cucamonga
Demens Deer Hillside
West Cucamonga
No. I No. 2
38,000 1t,500 15,000 4,100 2,400 390
220 120 140 40 28 !0
San Antonio Heights
No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6
650 320 1,300
18 10 20 t7
1890.0 1938.0 2664.0 2194.0 2320.5 2245.5 2243.5 2194 2280.5 2191
9.8 6.6 7.4 6.9 6.1 3.6
1951 2678 2207.50
3.5 3.2 5.1 4.3
1908
2335.5 2278 2254 2204.7 2291.5 2202
t865 1920 2624 2174 2296 2232
650 160 310 40 34 4
2234 2188 2257 2175
6 4 22 12
1904.6 1947.9 2674.4 2204.3 2329,7 2251.0 2248.7 2198.8 2288.1 2197.4
LEGEND
· RECORDED OR ESTIMATED
DEBRIS INFLOW
CONSIDERED DEBRIS BASIN
R ES E EVOIRS
i, BIG DALTON
BIG TUJUNGA
EATON WASH
SAN GABRIEL
5. SAWPIT
PACOIMA
7. DEVIL'S GATE
JANUARY 1969
MARCH 1938
MARCH 1938
MARCH 1938
JANUARY 1969
MARCH 1938
MARCH 1938
3oo~ooo
2oo, ooo
:2
0
IJJ I00,000
W
50,0C0
W
,~ 40,0CC
03 3C,CCO
20.000
0 I0,000
Z
5,000
rt- 4,000
b.I -
3,000
2,000
.0)
· 03 .04 .05
·
O. I 0,2 0.3 0,4 O, 5
DRAINAGE AREA IN SQUAR
20
DE§RI$
8. WILSON
9. HAINES
IO.HALL- BECKLEY
it.WESTRAVINE
12.RUBY
13.HARROW
14.HOOK EAST
15.BAILEY
16.SHIELDS
17.NICHOLS
BASINS
JANUARY 1969
MARCH 1938
MARCH 1938
MARCH 19:~8
JANUARY 1969
JANUARY 1969
JANUARY 1969
JANUARY 1954
MARCH 1938
MARCH 1938
DEBRIS PRODUCTIONS FOR
SAN ANTONIO HEIGHTS
SUBAREA
G)
(4)
(5)
D,A.(SO, MI,) CU. Y[)S,/S~,
39
O5 7000O
~11 87,000
.04 59,000
.24 147,000
.~5 ~.~7,ooo
·
~9
.8
_EER
£1~V£L. OPING C~IRYE OF DEBt~IS INFlOWS~
,C UCAMO h GA
·
·7
30 40 50 IO0 200
2 3 4
5 I0 2O
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN, CALIFORNIA
CUCAMONGA CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO
AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES
DEBRIS INFLOWS
DEBRIS AND FLOOD-CONTROL BASINS
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
21
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Los An~es District
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
DEBR IS ME THOD
L.~sl
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD
FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
FEBRUARY 1992
RIEVlSED AUGUST 1992
LOS ANGELES ]DISTRICT METHOD FOR
PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
u.s. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
I~;BRUARY 1992
REV~;ED AUGUST 1992
PREFACE
The Los Angeles District Method for Prediction of Debris Yield was developed
to provide a systematic approach for deterrnining the debris yield from a single
flood event to be used in design of debris basins.
The Method was developed using data from coastal-draining; mountainous,
Southern California watersheds, varying in area from 0.1 to 200 mi2. It is
intended to estimate debris yield for fio~ events greater than those with a
5-year recurrenc~
Outside the area from which the equations are based, application of the
Adjustrnent-2¥ansposition Factor and the Fire Factor must be carefully
applied.
.Los Angeles District
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. Box 2711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325
300 N. Los Angeles St., '.Los Angeles, CA 90012
Prepared by Eiden Gatwood, John Pedersen, and Kerry Casey
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Engineering Branch
(213)-89,4-4753
LOS ANGEL~.S DISTRICT METHOD FOR
PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title
1. INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVE, BACKGROUND, AND LIMITATIONS
1.1. INTRODUCTION
1.2. OBJE~IVE
1.3. ~CKGROUND
1.4. LIMITATIONS
1.4.1. Geo~raph£c Tocation .................
1.4.2. Drainage Area Constraints ..............
1.4.3. Topographic Constraints ...............
1.4.4. Frequency Constraints .................
1.4.5. Input Constraints ..................
HEROD OF DATA ANALYSIS
2.1. I~ULTIP~ LINEAR ~GRESSIONANALYSIS .............
2.2. .LOGARITHHIC TRANS~RMATION OF VARIOUS ...........
2.3. SE~CTION OF KEG~SSION PAC~GE ...............
~ALUATION AND SE~CTION OF VARIOUS ~R ANALYSIS .........
3.1. HYDROLOGIC VARIAB~S ....................
3.1.1. Precipitation ....................
3.1.2. Runoff .......................
3.2. PHYSIOGRAPHIC VARIAB~S ...................
.3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
3.2.7.
3.2.8.
Drainage Area ....................
Total Stream T.en~t~ .................
Drainage Densi~z ..................
Mean Bifurcation Ratio ...............
Hypsometric-Analysis Index .............
Elongation Ratio ..................
Relief Ratio ....................
Transport Efficiency Factor .............
Page
1
1
2
2
5
6
8
8
8
13
15
15
15
17
18
18
18
19
19
20
20
2O
TABLe'. OF COiNTENTS (cont.)
Section
Title Page
3.2.9, Mean Channel Gradient ................ 21
4. DATA SELECTION
4.1. DATA COT3.F. CTION ........................ 22
4.2. DATA ],,"JALUATION AND SELECTION ................ 22
5. DATA ANALYSIS
5.1. PRELIMINARY REGRESSION ANALYSIS ............... 27
5.2. DEVEI/)PMENT OF FIRE FACTORS ................. 28
5.3. DEVEIX)PMENT OF THE PREDICTI'VE EQUATIONS ........... 30
5.3.1, Equation 1 ..................... 30
5.3.2, Equation 2 ...................... 33
5.3.3, F. ouation 3 ..................... 34
5.3.4. Equation 4 ..................... 34
5.3.5. Eauation 5 ...................... 34
5.4. DEVEI/~PMENT AND USE OF THE ADJUSTMENT-TRANSPOSITION (A-T)
FACTOr'. ............................. 35
5.5. MEASUreS OF CONFIDENCE ................... 36
6. COINCIDENT FReqUENCY ANALYSIS .................... 37
6.1. INTRODUCTION ......................... 37
6.2. THEORY' · .......................... 37
6.3. DATA REQUIREMENTS ........................ 40
6.3.1. Years-Since-100% ~/ildfire Freauency Relationship 40
6.3.2. Discharge Frequency (or Precipitation Frequency)
Relationship ..................... 41
6.3.3. Debris Response Relationships for each Years-Since-
100% Wildfire Occurrence ................ 42
6.3.4. Response Freauency Parameter (Evaluation) Values 43
6.4. EXAMPLE CALCULATION ..................... 43
6.5. PROGRAM OUTPUT ....................... 46
7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND LIMITATIONS ................ 50
8. REFERENCES ............................. 52
TABL~ OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix Title Page
APPENDIX A. HOW TO USE FIRE FACTORS AND DETERHINE THE YEARS-SINCE-100%
WILDFIRE FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIPS
INTRODUCTION
DEBRIS YIELD FOR GIVEN FLOOR~ EVENT FOR SPECIFIC FIRE CONDITION A-2
EXAMPLE OF FIRE FACTOR CALCDIATIONS FOR PARTIAL BURNS ...... A-5
DEBRIS YIELD FREQUENCY RELATIONSflIP BASED ON TOTAL PROBABILITIES
OF 100% WILDFIRE AND FLOODING (CFA) ................ A-9
APPENDIX B. HOW TO DETERMINE ADJUSTMENT-TRANSPOSITION (A-T) FACTORS
INTRODUCTION
TECHNIQUE 1 - SEDIMENT/DEBRIS RECORD FOR SUBJECT WATERSHED CONTAINS
SINGLE EVENT DEBRIS YIELD VALUES ................. B-2
TECHNIQUE 2 SEDIMENT/DEBRIS RECORD FOR SUBJECT WATERSHED CONTAINS
PERIODIC SURVEY RESULTS ONLY ................... B-2
TECHNIQUE 3 - NO SEDIMENT/DEBRIS RECORD AVAILABLE FOR SUBJECT
WATERSHED. NEARBY WATERSHEDS HAVE PERIODIC SURVEY RESULTS ..... B-4
TECHNIQUE 4 - NO SEDIMENT/DEBRIS RECORD FOR SUBJECT WATERSHED OR
NEARBY WATERSHEDS B-9
APPENDIX C. HOW TO USE THE COINCIDENT-FREQUENCY ANALYSIS (CFA) COMPUTER
PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION ........................... C-1
PROCEDURE FOR SETTING UP A CFA INPUT FILE .............
COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS USER'S MANUAL ............
APPENDIX D. EXAMPLE, APPLICATIONS
EXAMPLe; 1: APPLICATION OF EQUATION 1. EXPECTED DEBRIS YIELD FROM
A SMALl. WATERSHED FOR A SPECIFIED PRECIPITATION EVENT ....... D-1
EXAMPLE 2: APPLICATION OF ~UATION 3. EXPECTED DEBRIS YIELD FROM
AN INTERMEDIATE-SIZED WATERSliED FOR A SPECIFIED FLOOD EVENT .... D-4
EXAMPLE 3: APPLICATION OF ~UATION 4 AND COINCIDENT FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS. EXPECTED DEBRIS YIELD FROM A LARGER WATERSHED WITH
AN A-T FACTOR OTHER THAN 1.0 ...................
PART 3A. APPLICATION OF A-T FACTOR TECHNIQUE 3 TO SANTA
PAULA CREEK WATERSHED ..................... D-10
PART 3B. APPLICATION OF A-T FACTOR TECHNIQUE 4 TO SANTA
PAULA CREEK WATERSHED ..................... D-12
PART 3C. DETERMINATION OF FREQU~CY DEBRIS YIELD FOR SANTA
PAUI.~ CREEK WATERSHEDUSlNG COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
D-15
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Table
1.
LIST OF TABI.~-S
Til:le Page
SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS ]~R METEOROLOGIC AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC
PARAMETERS
2. STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DEBRIS/SEDIMENT YIELD
ESTIMATION HETHODS
3. STATISTICAL SUI/MARY
....................... 12
4. EXAHPLE OF DEBRIS APPORTIONMENT ~rITH RESPECT TO MULTIPLE EVENTS 24
A-2.
A-3.
D-1.
D-2.
D-3.
D-4.
D-5.
D-6.
EXAHPLE OF :FIRE FACTOR HISTORY
FIRE FACTOR FREQUENCY CHART ...................
EXAMPLE OF ]?IRE FACTOR DETERMINATION
FOR YEARS-SINCE-100% %FiLDFIRE A-13
ADJUSTMENT - :[T, ANSPOSITION FACTOR TABLE .............. B-10
ADJUSTMENT-~5~%NSPOSITION FACTOR TABLE (SAME AS TABLE B-l) .... D-13
YEARS-SINCE..100% WILDFIRE FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIP ........ D-16
DISCHARGE F~QUENCY RELATIONSHIP ................ D-18
ADJUSTED DEBRIS YIELDS D-19
INPUT FILE fDR TEST NO. 1 - USING SANTA PAULA CREEK DATA .... D-20
OUTPUT FILE FOR TEST NO. 1 - USING SANTA PAULA CREEK DATA .... D-22
.................. A-4
A-11
TABLF~ OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tttle Page
PRINCIPLE AREA OF APPLICATION ..................... 3
FIRE FACTOR CURVE FOR WATERSHEDS FROM 0.1 TO 3.0 MI2 IN AREA 31
FIRE FACTOR CURVES FOR WATERSHEDS FROM 3.0 TO 200 MI2 IN AREA 32
DEBRIS FREQUENCY RESULTS SANTA ANITA DAM ............ 48
DEBRIS FREQUENCY RESULTS SAN DIMAS DAM ............. 49
aol.
A-3.
A-4.
B-1.
B-2.
D-1.
m-4.
FIRE FACTOR CURVE FOR WATERSHEDS FROM 0.1 TO 3.0 MIz IN AREA
(SAME AS FIG. 2) ......................... A-7
FIRE FACTOR CURVES FOR WATERSHEDS FROM 3.0 TO 200 MI~ IN AREA
(SAME AS FIG. 3) .......................... A-8
FIRE DURATION CURVE FOR SAN~A PAULA CREEK WATERSHED ....... A-12
GENERALIZED FIRE DURATION CURVES ................ A-15
AASY/AAP RATIOS FOR DRAINAGE AREAS FROM 0 TO 200 MIz ....... B-5
AASY/AAP RATIOS FOR DRAINAGE AREAS FROM 0 TO 200 MI~
WITH LOCAL AREA CURVE ....................... B-8
EXAMPLE APPLICATION 1 - BAII~'Y CANYON DEBRIS BASIN,
SIERRA M~DRE, CA. - DRAINAGE AREA - 384 ACRES ...........
EXAMPLE APPLICATION 2 - SAN~A ANITA DAM,
SIERRA MADRE, CA. - DRAINAGE~ AREA - 10.8 MIa ........... D-6
EXAMPLE APPLICATION 3 - SAN~A PAULA CREEK,
SANTA PAUL~, CA. - DRAINAGE AREA - 42.9 HI2 ........... D-10
AASY/AAP RATIOS FOR DRAINAGE AREAS FROM 0 TO 200
WITH LOCAL AREA CURVE (SAME AS FIG. B-2) ............ D-11
DISCHARGE FREQUENCY CURVE FG~R SANTA PAULA CREgK ......... D-17
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD FOR
PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
1. INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVE, BACKGROUND, AND LIMITATIONS.
1.1. INTRODUCTION.
In Southern California, tncr,sasing population pressure has resulted in
development on alluvial fans and floodplains, historically areas of
considerable erosion and aggradation. The estimation of debris yield from an
erosive upland watershed, resultin~g from the occurrence of a single large
storm event, is of great importance in Ale design and maintenance of debris
basins and reservoirs protecting ~ese areas,.
"Total debris yield" is the total debris outflow (silt, sand, clay,
gravel, boulders, and organic materials) from a watershed (or drainage basin)
measurable at a specified concentration point for a specified flood event.
"Debris yield", as determined by ~ie procedure discussed in this report, is
the quantity of debris actually caught by a debris-catching structure. Thus,
it is the quantity used to size a ~bris-catching structure. "Debris
production" is the gross erosion w~thtn a watershed. The entire debris
production may not necessarily reach the concentration point due to the
occurrence of intermediate storage within the watershed, resulting from a lack
of transporting capacity of the conveyance system. The ratio between debris
yield and debris production, called the "delivery ratio", is usually expressed
as a percentage and can be estimated if one is knowledgeable about the soils,
climate, topography, and geomorphic characteristics of the watershed. For
very small watersheds, debris yield and production may be equivalent (i.e.,
the delivery ratio may be unity). Delivery ratio decreases with increasing
drainage'area size. Since measured debris volume ("yield") records have been
used in developing the predictive equations presented herein, debris
quantities predicted by these equations will be referred to as debris "yields"
and represent the amount of debris for which a debris-catching structure
should be sized.
The extent, recency, and frequem:y of forest and brush fires (wildfire)
directly affects the amount of runoff and debris yield from a watershed.
Since the occurrence of-flood and wildfire events are independent processes,
coincident-frequency analysis depictin~ the relationship between fire
frequency and the frequency of flood events is a viable approach to determine
the probabilities of occurrence of debris yield events of various magnitudes.
1.2. OBJECTIVE.
The primary objective of this st~y is to develop a method to estimate
unit debris yield values for 'n-year' flood events for the design and analysis
of debris-catchin~ structures in coast&l Southern California watersheds,
considerinS the coincident frequency of' wildfire and flood magnitude. The
principle area of application is shown on FiEure 1. Such structures are
normally sized to intercept debris froel a sinsle larse flood event. Flood
history in Southe:ma California clearly demonstrates the debris yield hazard as
one associated with singular storm events. Normal maintenance practice is to
excavate immediately followinS a major flood event to resain storase capacity
before subsequent storms occur. Such maintenance practice is essential toward
keepinS construct:ion cost down to affordable levels and toward min[mtzinS
environmental eff~cts associated with structure size. The project owner's
ability to implem~nt such ~imely maintenance should always be considered when
determininS stora~e requirements in the design process.
1.3. BACKGROUND.
The necessil~ for a sinsle-event approach to debris yield versus a IonS-
tem approach is explained in part by examination of daily suspended sediment
discharse measurements takenby the U.S. Geolosical Survey (USGS) in selected
coastal Southern California watersheds (Ref. 8.25). It is apparent that the
bulk of debris yielded by watersheds in Southern California results from a
small number of discrete events. Records for San Dieso Creek in Oranse
CounTy, California indicate that, for [he 1978-79 water year, over 99% of the
t)' V*~ - .Bickersfield'
· ~ '%A.~ ~0 LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD
74 '~'l'~,q~ FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRI~ YIELD
_ . . .
The Itudy I~el extends from the ~
Colst. I / Deseft Drllnlge Divide ~
tO the Pitifie Coast ~Slfi DIoG~
0 10 20 3040 SO
Miles % MexiCO
Figure 1. Principle Area of Application
volume of suspended sediment was yielded by the watershed during less than 8%
of the time. Further examination indicated that over 50% of the suspended
sediment yielded by the watershed during this water year resulted from a
single ~wo day e~ent,, Records from the Santa Clara River in Ventura County,
California for the same water year indicate that over 60% of the suspended
sediment yielded by the watershed during the year resulted from a single two
day event.
3
During wetter years, watersheds in Southern Cali£ornia tend to yield an
even greater proportion of their total. debris load during short-term storm
events. Records from San Diego Creek for the wet 1979-80 season indicate that
over 99% of the annual volume of suspended sediment was yielded by the
watershed during less than 4% of the time. In addition, over 80% of the
annual volume of suspended sediment resulted from a single storm event.
Analysis of debt,is yield records indicated that the debris yielded by smaller
watersheds during short-duration events accounts for an even larger proportion
of the total than was apparent in larger watersheds.
Suspended !~ediment records do noC account for the bedload fraction of
the total load, or the sediment and debris ~htch moves along the streambed by
traction and salt:ation. This portion of the total debris yield varies
considerably with the ~a~nitude of a given flood event, but commonly ranges
'from 5% to over li0% of the total debris volume, depending on the nature of
debris movement. Since bedload requires larger amounts of flow to initiate
movement, and it is clear that even th~ bulk of the more easily-entrained
suspended load tends to result from a ~mall number of larger events, the
single-event approach is a necessi~y ~r the accurate prediction of debris
yield from floods impacting coastal Southern Califor~ia watersheds.
In 1963, H~. Fred Ta~un of the I~)s Angeles District of the Corps of
Engineers introduced a new method for eatt4nAting debris storage requirements
for debris basins. In the ensuing 23 years, numerous debris basins have been
planned, designed, and constructed using the Tatum method. However, during
that same period, several major floods have occurred, which provided a
considerable exp~asion in the debris d~ta base[ This s~udy seeks to utilize
the new data to ~date traditional hydrologic procedures and design concepts.
As more data acc~nulates in future years, updating of the current He%hod is
envisioned. To ~ais end, all agencies with a stake in the control of debris
are encouraged to actively collect useful data for ~he enhancement of future
designs.
,t
This report presents a scientific, application-oriented Coincident-
Frequency Analysis approach to assi~ning a frequency relationship to unit
debris yield based on the total probability of wildfire and flood. Equations
were developed to estimate unit $~bris yield from coastal Southern California
watersheds on an single-event basis. The estimation method is based on
multiple linear regression between measured unit debris yield and a set of
physiographic, hydrologic, and/or meteorologtc parameters found to influence
the process of debris yield from l:hese watersheds. Past experience has
demonstrated that a single universal equation, regardless of complexity, does
not. adequately describe the complex nature of the process of debris yield from
coastal Southern California watersheds.
In this study, multiple regression analyses indicated that unit debris
yield is most highly correlated with the unit peak runoff rate from a
watershed (or the maximum 1-hour iprecipitation depth), the relief of the
drainage basin, the contributing .area, =he fire history, and geomorphologic
characteristics of ~he watershed. The highest correlation was obtained with a
log-transformation (base 10) of all quantifiable variables used in the final
equations.
1.4. LIMITATIONS.
Limitations on the use of the Method include the following:
1.4.1. Geo~raphic Location. The Method is intended to be used
for the estimation of debris yield mainly' from coastal-draining, mountainous,
Southern California watersheds (see F£Eure 1). Outside of the area from which
the data were taken (San Gabriel Hountains), application of the Adjustment/
Transposition (A-T) Factor must be carefully applied. Use of the Method in
areas outside those delineated iF, FiEure 1 should be done with caution.
Conditions different from those c,f the San Gabriel Mountains neede to be
addressed. Because vegetation t~es and density are far different in desert-
draininS than coastal-draininS watersheds, the effects of wildfire will not be
the same. Therefore, the Fire Factor ~FF) variable, which accounts for the
impact of wildfire on debris yield froz~ these watersheds, must also be
carefully applied.
1.&.2. Drainage Area Constraints. The Method was developed for
use in watersheds of 0.1 to 200 mi2 in area. Use of the Method in watersheds
smaller or larser than this must be dor~ wi~h caution. Because the data from
which the resression equations were de~1oped fall entirely within ~his ranse,
and calibration was not performed on watersheds outside of this ranse, use o~
the Method should involve careful comparison with nearby watersheds for which
debris data are ~vailable.
1.4.3. Topo~raphic Constra£nts. The He~hod is intended for
watersheds with a hish proportion of their total area in steep, 'mountainous
~errain. It is ~t intended for use in low-sloped valley areas, watersheds
with a signif~can~ portion of Their total area in residential or commercial
development, or in areas with a larse portion under aSricul~ural usase. Use
of the Method for watersheds with a high percentase of alluvial fan or valley
fill areas (prima:~ily depositional environments) may result in debris
estimates hi~her l=han would actually be yielded by the watershed.
1.~.4. Frequency Constraints. The Method is intended to estimate
debris yield from runoff or precipitation events of sreater Than 5-year
recurrence. Esti~ates below this senerally display larse errors, and the
Coincident-Frequeucy Analysis (CFA) prosram may even yield nesative estimates
for these events. ..
1.4.5,, Ir~put Constraints. The MeThod should not be used to
estimate debris yt'.eld resultin~ from runoff events of less Than 3 cubic feet
per second per sqt~re mile (ft$/s/mi2) , or for events durinS which the m~funum
1-hour precipitation is less than 0.3 inches per hour (in/hr). Because the
equations were derived usinS data from saturated watersheds, best results will
be obtained for watersheds which have undergone significant antecedent
rainfall. In most cases, this antecedent rainfall condition will be satisfied
when the watershed has received at least 2 inches of prior rainfall in
approximately 48 hours. When the Method is applied to watersheds which have
not undergone sufficient antecederLt rainfall, predicted debris yield may be
considerably greater than that actually yielded by the watershed.
2. METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS.
2.1. MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS.
Nultiple linear regression analysis was selected as the method by which
unit debris yield would be estimated in this study for several reasons. It
has proven to be relatively rapid and accurate in prior studies (e.g., Refs.
8.1, 8.2, 8.7, 8.12 and 8.21). It also provides the investigator with a
certain degree of flexibility and allows extrapolation of results to
watersheds possessing similar geo].o~y, climate, and vegetation, within certain
broad limitations.
Multiple linear regression yields a mathematical equation correlatively
relating a dependent variable (in this case, unit debris yield in cubic yards
per square mile yd3/miz) to a group of independent variables chosen for
their value in explaining variation in the dependent variable (Ref. 8.27).
T~enty-four watershed variables used in prior studies were initially
analyzed to determine their importance in the explanation of variation in
debris yield by a simple graphical correlation between measured debris yield
(calculated i~er unit area) and the independent variable chosen for the
appropriate ,~atershed. Correlation coefficients yielded by simple correlation
of debris yield and the appropriate parameters are presented in Table 1. On
the basis of this initial selection process, 19 of the 24 variables were
selected for regression analysis. These variables are discussed in Section 3.
2.2. ~LO~AI{ITHMIC TP, ANSFOP,~.TION OF VAI{IABLES.
In prior regression analyses (Refs. 8.12 and 8.21), logarithmic
transformation (base 10) of all variables was carried out, for the following
reasons:
TABLE 1: SIMPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR ME'rEOROI.,OGIC
AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PARAMETERS '
Parameter
MAX 15 MINUTE RAINFALL
MAX 30 MINUTE RAINFALL
MAX 1 HOUR
MAX 3 HOUR RAINFALL
MAX 6 HOUR RAINFALL
MAX 24 HOUR RAINFALL
MAX 72 HOUR RAINFALL
MEAN ANNUAL RAINFALL
MAX 24 HOUR INFLOW
MAX 72 HOUR INFLOW
PEAK INFLOW
FIRE FACTOR
Coeff. Parameter [ Coeff.
0.172 DRAINAGE DENSITY 1 0. 951
0. 682 DRAINAGE DENSITY 2 0. 989
O. 967 HYPSOMETRIC INDEX 0. 889
0. 963 TOTAL CHANNEL LENGTH 1 0. 529
0. 404 TOTAL CHANNEL LENGTH 2 0. 973
0.524 MEAN BIFURCATION RATIO 1 0.259
0. ?30 MEAN BIFIR~CATION RATIO 2 0.986
0.087 ELONGATION RATIO O. 895
0. 629 TRANSPORT FACTOR T- 1 0. 986
0. 611 MEAN CHANNEL GRADIENT 0. 247
0. 989 DRAINAGE AREA 0. 976
0. 984 RELIEF RATIO 0. 993
Simple correlation coefficients for meteorologic and physiographic
parameters 'were determined by regressing each parameter individually,
with each value log transformed (base 10) to linearize the
relationship.
Parameters ,are defined in Section 3.
1) a simple linear relationship is obtained among the transformed
variables;
2) the distributions of the transformed variables resemble a normal
distribution more closely than do those of untransformed variables; and
3) the variation of the points along the regression line is more
homogeneous (i.e., variance is stabilized).
9
Therefore, in this study, all variables (with the exception of the non-
dimensional Fire Factor) were log l:ransformed. A log-transformation of
variables in hydrologic studies may introduce a bias in itself if the record
includes a predominance of small events and a relatively small number of large
events, since the use of least sqm~res of transformed variables in a multiple
regression technique gives greater weight to more commonly occurring smaller
values than to larger values (Ref. 8.2?). In this analysis, however, debris
yield measurements tended to enco~q~ass a broad range of values. t~hen log
transformed, the distribution had ]Little skew, and in fact, very closely
approached a normal distribution. In addition, debris yield records were
chosen not only for their applicability to the study, but also on the basis of
their representation of a broad ravage of hydrologic conditions and physical
characteristics.
In this study, the group of variables which explained the greatest
amount of variance in unit debris yield by examination of statistical indices
(maxtmizatio~ of the coefficient of multiple determination adjusted for
degrees of freedom - Rz, and significance at ~he 95% confidence level) was
selected for use in the final regression equations. Selection by statistical
indices ensures that the sum of sqtmred residuals of the dependent variable is
minimized (Ref. 8.10) and consequently, the regression equations chosen are
the best possible, considering the range and quality of the available data. A
comparison of the study results with those of other methods developed for use
in this area is presented in Table 2. In addition, a statistical stmu~ary for
t~o of the equations presented in t:his study is shown in Table 3.
Intercorrelation was minimized by successive substitution of similar
variables to determine that which produced the hi~hest degree of quantifiable
contribution (R2).
Some variables expected to contribute si~nificantly to unit debris yield
explanation (such as the Hypsometric-Analysis Index, Elongation Ratio, and
Hean Channel ,~radient) were found to possess less correlation with measured
unit debris yield than more simple measures of watershed topography such as
10
TABLE 2:
STAT][STICAL COMPARISON OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DEBRIS/
SEDIMENT YIELD E.qTIMATION METHODS
Correlation AR2 Rz
'Variable Coeff.
ANDERSON q 0.93
1949 D 0.11
(Ref. 8.1) C -0.10
SCOTT et al. Pe 0.61
1968 I 0.23
(Ref. 8.19) K1 0.62
FLAXtt~ p/t -0.~
1972 R 0.82
(Ref. 8.8) K2 -0.30
K3 0.56
LAD, COE P 0.65
EQ. I RR 0.62
(see Sec. 5) FF 0.12
A 0.18
LAD,COE Q 0.88
F,Q. 3 RR
(see Sec. 5) FF 0.20
A 0.06
0.88
0.02
0.01
0.50
0.04
0.33
0.10
0.40
0.09
0.33
0.98
0.003
O.001
0.001
0.90
0.86
0.92
Applicable
Basin
Area (miz)
4.5 - 202
3.3 - 425
0.01 - 50
0.987 0.1 - 3.0
0.98 0.99
0.01
0.001
0.001
10 - 25
the coefficient of multiple determination adjusted for degrees of
freedom, or a measure of the :celative worth of a regression
equation.
Variables:
iMaximuyearly unit peak dischar e (ft3 s mi2
~ Densit~ of non-incised champels ~fc/ac)/ / )
e Cover density of vegetative.l£tCer (%)
Effective precipitation (in~ohes)
I - Probable maximum 24-hour precipitation (inches)
K1 - Surface aggregation ratio (see Ref. 8.1)
p/t - Yong-t=erm average annual precipitation (inches>
Average annual temperature ('F)
L Z Weighted average catchment slope between contours (%)
~ercent of soil particles coatset ~hat 1.0 ma (by weight) in
the top 2 inches of =he soi:L profile (%)
K3 i Soil aggregation variable of the pH of the soil and =he
amount of clay in =he top 2 inches of soil
P Maximum 1-hour precipitation (inches to ~wo decimal places
times 100) for =he applicab:~e storm event
Relief ratio (ft/mile); (see explanatory text)
Fire Pactor (dimensionless).; (see explanatory text)
Drainsse area of watershed <ac)
~ Unit peak discharge for applicable storm event (ft3/s/mi2)
11
TABLE 3: STATISTICAL SUMMARY
EQUATION 1 (see Sec. 5.2).
Log Dy - 0.65 (Log P) + 0.62 (Log RR) + 0.18 (Log A) + 0.12 (FF)
Variable ~ Std ~rror of B F
RR 0.620
P 0.654
FF 0.119
A 0.182
Multiple R
0.9937'7
0.9874'7
0.069 80.325
0.095 47.760
0.021 32.538
0.040 20.820
Std Deviation
0.46531
EQUATION 2 (see Sec. 5.2; statistics for Eqs. 3-5 are similar)
LOg Dy - 0.85 (Log Q) + 0.53 (Log RR) + 0.22 (FF) + 0.04 (Log A)
Variable ~ Std F. rror of B F
FF
A
Multiple R
0.481 0.085 32.21
0.877 0.057 233.09
0.201 0.051 15.57
0.062 0.036 2.98
0.9983:L
0.996~
Std Deviation
0.24218
where:
B
F
-, the correlation coefficient of the independent variable.
-. a measure of the si~lificance of the variable; an F of
greater than or equal to 2.0 indicates significance at the
0.95 confidence interval, and greater than 4 indicates
significance at 0.99 confidence level.
R -multiple correlation coefficient; the square root of the
unadjusted coefficient of multiple determination.
R-~ - the coefficient of mlltiple determination adjusted for
degrees of freedom, or a measure of the relative worth of a
regression equation.
RR- the relief ratio of a watershed.
A - the drainage area of a watershed.
P - the maximum 1-hour precipitation times 100.
FF - the 'Fire Factor', or a measure of the impact of
wildfires within the watershed.
Q - the unit peak discharge from a watershed.
drainage area and relief ratio (see Table 1). This vas determined to be
either indicative of the homogeneity of certain characteristics in the studied
watersheds, or that the 'variable was not an adequate indicator of the
characteristic that it was intended to describe. This is not to imply that
these variables would not appear highly significant in other studies on this
topic.
2.3. SELECTION OF REGRESSION PAGKAGE.
A multiple linear regression analysis computer program, the 'Statistical
Package fok the Social Sciences' (SPSS, Ref. 8.14), was chosen for this
analysis. This program yields a large number of useful statistics and has the
added benefit of being relatively simplie to use. In the selected stepwise
regression routine, independent variables are progressively added by the
program in order of decreasing significance. Variables determined to be
si~nificant in earlier stages of the co~utations may be deleted upon
introduction of more sl~nificant variables at a later stage. This process
allows for determination of the effect of an independent variable on the
dependent variable as well as the change in the relative value of this
variable upon the inclusion of additional variables.
In addition 'to the regression equation(s) derived by the SPSS package,
the following stat:[stics were also calcu~lated:
1) The coefficient of multiple determination (adjusted Rz or ~),
which repres,~nts the variation in the dependent variable accounted
for by the regression equation, adjusted for degrees of freedom.
An R~ value represents the overall test for 'goodness of fit' of
the regression equation, wi~h a value of 1.0 representing perfect
correlation between estimated and observed, and a value of zero
representing no correlation. gl is t_he unadjusted value.
2) A simple correlation coefficient (B), which is the square root
of the coefficient o£ dete~aination for each independent variable,
or the proportion of the variance of the dependent variable
explained by the £ndependent variable.
3) Multiple correlation coefficient (R), which is the square root of the
unadjusted coefficient of determination
4) The change in the coefficient of multiple determination (&~)
that occurs upon inclusion of an additional independent variable.
5) The 'F' ratios, which are. used in tests of significance for the
individual coefficients. The square of the 'F' ratio, with an
appropriate sign, is the 'T' statistic, commonly used to evaluate the
significance of each variable at a desired level of confidence. Simply
stated, the higher the 'F" ratio, the more likely that the variable
chosen for analysis is appropriate.
6) A plot of residuals which indicate the difference between the
esttma~:e yielded by the regression equation and the observed
value.
In addition., the SPSS package includes several options that may be
chosen to enhance the usefulness of a regression equation. An important
option chosen for use in this analysis enabled the regression equations to be
forced throuf~ the origin. This simulates the process in which no debris
yield will result (nor will be predicted) when no precipitation or runoff
occurs within the basin (although considerable debris movement in the form of
"dry ravel' or 'gravity movement' may supply sediment to the channel system
within a watershed). Furthermore, regression equations which were not forced
through the origin had significantly lower R~ values and higher standard
errors associated with the coefficients.
14
3. EVALUATI[ON AND SELECTION OF VARIABLES FOR ANALYSIS.
3.1. ltYI)ROLOGIC VARIABLES.
3.1.1. Precipitation. Recorded data indicate that there exists a
great deal of variability in unit debris yield over a narrow range of rainfall
conditions. Because comprehensive raingauge networks do not exist within most
of the watersheds where historic debris yields were measured, a considerable
amount of variation in rainfall behavior exists which was not accounted for in
the recorded data. Factors not recognized include local variations in the
volume and intensity of rainfall due to orographic and other effects,
geographic a~pect of the drainage basin, wind circulation effects, and other
unmeasured parameters. A large number of precipitation variables were
collected and evaluated to determine their influence on unit debris yield.
Isohyetal maps were then prepared or obtained from local flood control
agencies for each storm period for which debris yield measurements were
available.
Precipt;tation variables pertaining to the storm event which caused
debris inflow (as well as mean annual rainfall) included the following:
1) Maximum 15-minute rainfall
2) Maximum 30-minute rainfall
3) Max].mum 1-hour rainfall
4) Maximum 3-hour rainfall
5) Max].mum 6-hour rainfall
6) Maximum 24-hour rainfall
7) Maximum 72-hour rainfall
15
Since it was noted that antecedent soil conditions are highly important
in the debris yield process, rainfall values were determined for the period
following partial saturation of the so~[1 mantle. Evaluation of the data
indicated that antecedent rainfall of about t~o inches in a period of about
t~eo days was necessary in order for sil,mificant debris yield to occur. Thus,
antecedent rainfall of approximately ~o inches within an approximately
hour period was used to designate the initiation of the rainfall period used
in the regression analysis.
Precipitation values were determined by reduction of available data from
several sources, such as county raingauge records, and isohyetal maps prepared
by local agencies, NOAA, and the Los Angeles District (LAD) of the Corps of
Engineers.
Debris yiel,d measurements from watersheds in which wildfire had not
occurred for at least ten years (to eliminate the possible effects of
wildfire) were re;~ressed against each c,f the precipitation variables
calculated for the storm event in question.. Correlation of unit debris yield
with any precipitation variable was poor for watersheds greater than about 3
mi= in area, although short-term maximum rainfall proved to be significant in
the analysis of smaller watersheds. This is probably due to the nature of
prevailing storm ~ystems that impact the' Southern California area. Debris
producing storms ~:end to be highly variable in intensity over large areas,
making runoff a better indicator variable than short-term precipitation when
dealing with the debr£s yield from large watersheds.
The choice of 3 mi2 as the dividi'ng line be~een Equations 1 and 2, and
bet~eeen the use off precipitation or runoff as the hydrologic variable, was
based on several ~[actors. Runoff data is generally unavailable for watersheds
under 3 mi2 in area, and the data that was available displayed poor
correlation with taeasured unit debris yield. ~atersheds larger than this were
more likely to be controlled by reservoirs, ~hich also commonly possessed
inflow records for the debris yield event of interest. Peak unit inflow for
16
these larger watersheds exhibited good correlation with measured unit debris
yield. Precipitation over these larger watersheds exhibited greater variation
areally than that falling on smaller watersheds, which resulted in poor
correlation with unit debris yield when compared to unit peak runoff.
In a sl:udy by Ferrell et al (Ref. 8.7), the use of a short-term rainfall
intensity variable had not proven to be as valuable an indicator of debris
yield as 24-hour or longer precipitation variables. Long-term precipitation
variables, however, do not account for the intensity of a given storm. Scott
and Williams (Ref. 8.21) developed a factor that included both short-term
intensity in conjunction with long-term precipitation. In the current study,
the inclusionof short-term intens£ty in conjunction with long-term
precipitation failed to improve R2 and only increased the error of the
estimates. ~[aximum 1-hour prectpi~ation was adopted for use in the regression
equation dealing with drainage areas of under 3 mtz because of its high
correlation ~,ith measured debris yield (see Table 2).
3.1.2. Runoff. The inclusion of a runoff factor in the analysis
(where this was available) proved to be a good predictor of debris yield from
larger watersheds. Values of maximum 2&-hour inflow, maximum 72-hour inflow,
(both expressed in acre-feet per square mile - ac-ft/mfZ), and peak inflow (in
ft~/s/mil) were obtained from local flood control agencies and LAD for
reservoirs and selected debris basins. Results indicated that unit peak
runoff values from small watershed~ were poor indicators of unit debris yield.
For watersheds over 3 miz in area, however, unit peak inflow (ft~/s/miz)
proved to be 'highly si~nificant in all phases of the analysis. The lack of
correlation i'n small watersheds is attributed to errors in the estimation of
runoff rates and the highly sporadic nature of debris movement in small
watersheds, rather than an actual lack of correlation between debris yield and
runoff. Unit peak inflow was adopted for use in the regression equations
dealing with drainage areas of 3.0 to 200 mi2 because of its high correlation
with measured unit debris yield.
17
3.2. PHYSIOGRAPHIC VARIABLES.
Selection c.f physiographic varig~les to be used in the analysis depended
on several factoz's. First, the variable ~ust have demonstrated some physical
significance in other studies. Second, it must also be easily calculated with
relative accuracy using readily-obtaimible maps or data. Third, the variable
must be relatively inexpensive to obtain and evaluate. Fourth, the variable
must have exhibited a hish degree of correlation with measured debris yield.
Although several variables used in other research have proven to be of
considerable value in the determination of debris yield (for example,
Anderson's 'Surface Aggregation Ratio', Ref. 8.1), collection of the data
necessary for the quantification of such variables was determined to be beyond
the scope of this analysis.
Variables selected by the aforementioned criteria for inclusion in the
preliminary analysis are discussed belc,w.
3.2.1. DrainaFe Area. This is defined as the contributing area
of the watershed upstream of the chosen~ debris collection site (measured in
both miz and ac). Drainage area has been found to possess a high degree of
correlation with debris yield in prior studies (Refs. 8.9 and 8.12), as well
as in the current analysis. Drainage area was selected for use in the set of
final regression equations.
3.2.2., Total Stream l-ngth. (L1, L2). This is the total length
of all streams in the watershed in miles. This variable was calculated for
the extent of streams indicated by a blue line representing perennial or
ephemeral flow on a standard USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic map (method 1 for
L1). Method 2 (L2) used the blue lines as well as extension of the lines into
areas on the map ~ere a series of V-shaped contours indicate a stream or
Sully (as described by Morisawa, Ref. 8.13). Extension of streams by the
latter technique %ms felt to better indicate the true extent of the stream
network, although this refinement did not prove to be statistically
significant. Neither L1 or L2 were used in the final regression equations.
3.2.3. Drainage Density. (DD1, DD2): The ratio of the sum of all
stream len§ths (in mi) to drainage area (in miZ). This factor was also
calculated by both of the methods indicated above (using L1 and L2) to
establish DD1 and DD2, respectively. It has been stated that stream density
appears to reach a maximum in areas of high debris yield (i.e., badlands
topography, see Ref. 8.22), and as such it was felt that this factor should be
included in the analysis. These variables, however, did not prove to be as
statistically significant as other variables and were not used in the final
regression equations.
3.2.4. Mean Bifurcation Ratio. (BR): The mean of the ratios of
the number of streams of each order to the number of streams of the next
order such that all first: order streams are summed and divided by the number
of second order streams, second order streams are summed and divided by the
number of third order stream, etc. The mean bifurcation ratio is the average
of all of these ratios. Stream order is defined as follows: the smallest
stream channels in a drainage basin are "first order". %;hen two first order
streams join, they form a "second order" stream. ~hen two second order
streams Join, they form a "third order" stream, and so on. For example, if a
watershed has 24 first order stre/uns, 12 second order streams, 4 third order
streams, and 1 fourth order stream, the Mean Bifurcation Ratio is 3.0 to 1
([24/12 + 12/4 + 4/1] /3 - 3). This factor was also calculated by both
methods discussed in Section 3.2.2 above. However, it did not prove to be as
statistically significant as other variables and was not included in the final
regression equations.
3.2.5. Hypsometric-Ana~ysis Index. (HI): This variable
represents [he relative height at which a watershed may be divided into two
equal ground surface areas (Refs. 8.11 and 8.23). For example, a watershed
with a maximum elevation of 3000 feet, and a minimum elevation of 1000 feet.
would have a Hypsometric-Analysis Index of 0.50 if the area of the watershed
was equally divided at the 2000 foot contour line. The watershed would have a
Hypsometric-Analysis Index of 0.75 if the area of the watershed was equally
divided at the 2500 foot contour line. Althoush the HI has proven to be
si~nificant in other studies (Ref. 8.23), it did not prove to be as
statistically si~,~ificant in this s~udy and was not included in the set of
final regression ~.quations.
3.2.6. ~1ongation Ratio. (ER): This ratio is produced by
dividing the diameter of a circle of area equal to ~he area of the watershed
by the maximum watershed length as measured along the longest stream from the
concentration point to the watershed boundary. Scott and Williams found this
variable to be highly significant in an analysis of erosion rates in the
Western Transverse Ranges of Southern California (Ref. 8.21); however, it was
not determined to be statistically significant in the current study and was
not included in the final regression equations.
3.2.7. Relief Ratio. (RR): This factor (akin to the slope of a
watershed) is determined by calculating the difference in elevation (feet)
between the highest point in the watershed (measured at the end of the longest
stream) and the lowest point (at the debris collection site) and dividing the
difference between, these two by the maximum stream length (in miles) as
measured along the longest stream (Refs,. 8.7 and 8.17). This variable proved
to be highly significant in all, phases of the analysis and was included in the
final regression equations.
3.2.8. Transport ~-fficiency Factor. (T1): This variable is the
product of the mean bifurcation ratio and total channel length (both
calculated by method 1). Lustig (Ref. ~.12) found this factor to be highly
significant in a r,egression equation calculated for use in Southern
California.. It di,t not prove to be as statistically significant in this
analysis as other variables and was not included in the final regression
equations.
3.2.9. Mean Channel (;tadlent. (S): The mean gradient of the main
stream (measured at 5% intervals along the main channel) between highest and
lowest points in the watershed (a~ defined in Sec. 3.2.7) in feet per mile.
This variable did not prove to be as si~nificant as other variables and was
not included in the final regression equations.
4. DATA SELECTION.
4.1. DATA CO~].~CTION.
Debris yield data selected for analysis included debris basin and
reservoir survey data obtained from the Los Angeles County Depar~nent of
Public Works (I~CDI~J, formerly known as the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District), IAD, the Ventura County Flood Control District (VCFCD), the San
Bernardino County Flood Control arid Water Conservation District (SBCFC~CD),
the Santa Barbara County Flood Control Dts:rict (SBCFCD), and USGS. All known
sources of ai?pltcabledebrts yield data in coastal Southern California were
contacted in order to collect the lar§est possible number of observations for
analysis. All agencies which were contacted responded, although in many
cases, short-term debris and sediment yield measurements are not available.
Debris volume measurements are taken by agencies at intervals dependent
on the noticeable reduction in reservoir or debris basin capacity, and as
such, are taken more frequently following storm periods which yield large
amounts of debris. In some cases, it is a matter of years between debris
surveys, and in other cases, as little as a few weeks. There is a great need
for short-tel~ debris yield measurements, especially from less erosive areas,
such as portJ[ons of Orange, San Diego, and Riverside Counties. These data are
vitally needed to calibrate the Method accurately for use in these poorly-
documented areas.
4.2. DATA EVALUATION AND SELECTION.
The primary goal of this study was to develop a method to estimate unit
debris yield on a storm-event basis, rather than as an average annual volume.
Therefore, each surveyed debris volume had to be related to only the storm
period(s) theft caused the debris inflow to the structure. For periods in
which only a single large storm e~ent occurred, apportionment of debris volume
to a single peak flow or precipitation value was straightforward. For periods
in which multiple storm events occurred, however, apportionment of debris
volume to the stc, rm events responsible was more complicated.
From a simple linear regression o~ single storm events, it was
determined that debris yield per unit area is approximately proportional to
~he peak flow per unit area or precipil:ation depth for the watersheds examined
in this s~udy. ~or multiple event sto~.m periods then, debris volumes were
divided up on the basis of being proportional to ~he magnitude of
precipitation or peak flow per unit area which occurred during ~he event in
question (Table 4). This. simple division of debris volume may not always be
accurate, such as when a wild£ire occurs in the period between surveys.
However, the majority of survey period~i were unaffected by the complicating
influence of wild£ire. For periods dux'ing which wildfire impacted the
watershed of inte:rest, apportionment of debris volume was performed on the
basis of cornparis,ran with similarly-sized watersheds for which single storm
event debris yiel,is following wildfire were available.
Because the debris yield from a uatershed is partly a function of ~he
debris in storage within the floodplain (where present), streams, and
hillslope storage sites, unit debris yield attributable to certain storm
events (Feb. 1940,, Feb. 1969, ~ar. 1978) which closely followed major events
(Mar. 1938, Jan. ]~969, Feb~ 1978) was deleted from ~he analysis due to
generally low voltuses. Cases in which debris volumes were
uncharacteristica].ly low resulted from the 'flushing' of debris storage sites
during earlier large events. This case is Typical of situations in which a
watershed has the vast majority of debris in storage 'flushed out' during a
large event, leaving little debris available for transport during later
events, regardless: of storm intensity or runoff magnitude. Debris yield
estimates for ~hese Types of 'follow-up' events consistently yielded the
largest errors in prediction of any set of observations included in the
analysis. Deletion of these observatio~.~s was considered to be appropriate
because of the in~ention to predict the debris yielded by watersheds during
TABLE 4: EXAMPLE OF DEBRIS APPORTIONMENT
WITH RESPECT TO MULTIPI.F~ EVENTS
(San Gabriel Reservoir Watershed was used in this Example)
Drainage Area = 201 mi2
SURVEY PERIOD MEASURED SIGNIFICANT PEAK PERCENT OF
DEBRIS FLOOD DISCHARGE DEBRIS DUE
YIELD* EVENTS (ft3/s/mt2) TO EVENT
(ac-ft) BET14EEN (%)
SURVEYS
NOV 1948.. 110 MAR 1949 172 21.5
NOV 1951 FEB 1950 481 56.5
APR 1951 176 22.0
100.0
NOV 1951., 275 JAN 1952 7683 92.0
JAN 1953 NOV 1952 585 9,0
100.0
JAN 1953-. 127
MAY 1954 JAN 1954 3592 100.0
A/.L OF 1955 < 50 0.0
MAY 1954-. 189 JAN 1956 2677 18.0
AUG 1958 JAN 1957 3420 23.0
APR 1958 8900 ~9,0
100.0
AUG 1958-. 248 JAN 1959 3773 84.0
SEP 1961 NOV 1960 695 [6,0
100.0
* Accumulated debris bet~ween s;urvey dates
discrete sin,~le events of 'n-year' recurrence for design purposes, not follow-
up events which may yield considerably lower total debris volumes than is
usual.
The hi;~hest recorded debris yields in Southern California have
historically been the result of larse storms impactinS recently burned small
watersheds (0.1 to 3.0 mi2) which 'have not experienced similar larse floods or
wildfire for some time. Field investigations indicate that during certain
storms, debris y~lelded by the flushing of canyon bottom and channel storage
sites may have exceeded' that yielded by all other sources of erosion. A small
number of storage; sites in extremely small watersheds may result in a moderate
debris yield per unit area over a long period of time, or alternatively, a
high yield immediately following a wildfire. However, the largest single unit
debris yields have been recorded from watersheds which yielded little debris
for an extended period o£ time as sediment moved into storage, followed by a
large event (or events) which flushed lcremendous amounts of debris from these
storage sites. ~%tis may be illustrated by examining the records of Auburn and
Bailey Debris Basins (LACDPW records). Both watersheds suffered 100% extent
wildfires in late 1978. Beginning three months later, in January 1979,
several small storms impacted these watersheds. Debris yields were slightly
tc considerably lower than might be expected from a flood event closely
'following a wildfire. This is especially true in the case of Bailey Canyon.
It is probable that a lack of debris actually measured at the debris basin
site was the result of debris going into storage in the channel system
upstream. Hence, during the storm of February-March 1980, precipitation
resulted in unit debris yields higher than that predicted by the regression
equation. Because of the high degree ¢,f soil saturation, locally high
rainfall intensities, and the availability of stored debris within the
upstream storage ~ttes, these watersheds flushed out much of the debris
considered to hav,e go. ne into storage during the period of February 1976 to
January 1980. This type of behavior may be expected in some Southern
California watersheds, which may typically exhibit highly sporadic debris
movement. Howevez, this type of behavior would not be predicted by the
regression equations, which were developed for a typical (average) design
debris - productng ,;vent.
Additional ~letions occurred in cases of conflicting information from
multiple sources, and in the case of missing precipitation or peak flow
values.
An additional difficulty encountered in the data selection occurred in
the case of debris retention structures located upstream of a site at which
debris yield-~: were measured (i.e., two debris basins in one watershed). In
these cases, it was not possible to determine the volume of debris which
"could have" reached the downstre-m structure and data from these was excluded
from the analysis. An example of this is the case of Morris Reservoir,
located a short distance downstrea~m of San Gabriel Reservoir in the San
Gabriel Mountains of Los Angeles County. Although debris volume data exists
for Morris RE:servoir, it is unkno~m exactly how much of the total volume has
resulted from flow carried through San Gabriel Reservoir during storm events
and whether or not a significant p~coportion of this volume has resulted from
sluicing. For these reasons, wate~csheds with a large part of their drainage
area influenc.ed by upstream controls were excluded from the analysis.
$. DATA ANALYSIS.
5.1. PRELIMINARY REGRESSION ANALYSIS.
Preliminary regression analysis provided the means by which to compare
different variables,. and was instx~mental in the decision to break the data
into different drainage area groupings. Because of data limitations (see Sec.
3.1.1.), one equation was designegl to be used in watersheds under 3 mil in
area for which runoff data is unavailable. Data for areas larger than 3 mtl
were initially used to calculate a single equation dealing with watersheds of
3 to 200 mil in area. This single equation did not adequately predict unit
debris yield from this broad a range of drainage area sizes, and hence,
equations were developed for sevezal ranges of drainage area sizes. Data from
this prelimi'nary analysis was also used to develop preliminary "Fire Factors"
(a non-dimensional variable relating wildfire impact to debris yield).
In the initial analysis of small watersheds for which runoff data was
generally unavailable (less than 3.0 mt/ in area), it was noted that short°
term precipi'~atton (less than 1-hour) intensity did not correlate well with
measured deb:cis yield attributable to the storm event (see Table 1). This is
probably because of the effects of variation in local intensities, wind, basin
aspect, and other factors not accounted for by existing recording devices.
Measures of 1-hour precipitation did, however, possess a strong correlation
and proved to be si~nificant in all phases of the analysis of small
watersheds. This variable was defined as the maximum 1-hour pr9cipitation
during the sl:orm event. In areas such as coastal Southern California, ~here
some degree of soil saturation is necessary to initiate soil movement because
of soil binding, precipitation should be measured following an antecedent
rainfall of ~proximately two inches in 18 hours (see Sec. 3.1.1.). If the
Method is to be used in desert areas where soil binding is minimal, this
constraint ~y be relaxed. Although 3-hour, 24-hour, and 72-hour
precipitation also correlated well with debris yield, maximum 1-hour
precipitation yielded the highest correlation.
27
Lower correlations were also obtained between wit debris yield and mean
channel gradient, mean bifurcation rat.~[o (method 1), Hypsometric-Analysis
Index, the transport efficiency factor,~ elongation ratio, and drai~ge
density. ~ initially high correlation between total strem length
(especially as measured by method 2), mean bifurcation ratio (method 2),
Hypso~tric-Analysis Index, and measured trait debris yield proved less
significant upon the inclusion of factors such as relief ratio m~d the size of
the drai~ge area. These parmeters are defined in Section 3.2.
Despite an :expected negative correlation between drainBe area and ~mit
debris yield, consistently positive correlations were indicated by statistical
a~lysis. This iS probably because of the high degree o£ intercorrelation
between relief ratio and drai~ge area in the regression a~[ysis. Became
relie~ ratio in s~11er watershe~ (in this a~lysis) was co~istently hiker
than that off lars,er watershed, drai~:e area apparently ~ctio~ as an
oEffset ~or the difEerences in ~it debris yield ~cco~ted Eor by ~e telleE
ratio variable. ~iven eq~li~ in both ~e hydrologic/meteorolosic (Q or P)
and Fire Factor (]~) variables, ~it ~bris yield does ~cline with increasin~
drat~se area became the relie~ ra~io co~lstently ~cl[nes a~ a hiker rate
~n ~e drai~se area increases. ~, the ~it ~bris yield Eor large
~atershe~ is [ess than that
~e ac~l ~ta m~ed in ~e a~lys[s, as ~e[1 as other research.
5.2. DEVEIX)PMENT OF FIRE FACTORS.
The occurrence of wildfire plays a significant role in the audenration
of erosion rates i"rom Southern California watersheds (Refs. B.?, 8.15, 8.16,
8.21, 8.23 and 8.5!4). Highly flsmm~ble chaparral species, steep slopes, loose
sediments, hydropD~obic soil conditions created by the intense heat generated
by wildfire, and the aggravating influence of dry offshore 'Santa ~a~a' winde
provide Southe~ Califo~ia with one of the most volatile fire/erosion
complexes in the ~,orld.
The combination o£ these £ac:tors is evident in the conclusions of Rowe
et al (Re£s. 8.15 and 8.16), who estimated that a 100% extent wildfire in
their study watersheds was responsible for a debris yield 35 times that of the
watershed in a 'normal' or unburned state. Wells (Ref. 8.26) has documented
an event during which debris yield increased by over 100 times its normal rate
from an extremely small (0.02 ac), steep local watershed. Although the
increase in debris production is uadoubtedly less severe in larger, less steep
watersheds which possess greater availability of debris storage sites, this
example serv,es to illustrate the power£ul idluence that wildfire plays in the
erosion of S,~uthern California watersheds.
Using :he relationship established by Rowe et al., F.E. Tatum (formerly
of the Los ~ageles District, Corps of Engineers) applied this knowledge to
correlate measured debris yield to, his computed values by means of a single
fire curve. The Tatum curve relates the percentage increase in debris yield
attributable to fire to the elapsed time following wfld£ire occurrence (Ref.
8.23) and wa.s used as the basis for the 'preliminary Fire Factor curve examined
in the current analysis. This curve assumed that watersheds of unequal size
and gradient respond (or recover) at the same rate over a period of time in
terms of debris yield. This technique, associated with watersheds of small
areal extent, acknowledges fire a~d its associated effects as a ma~or
~omponent in a debris yield estimation method. A similar treatment by Ferrell
(Ref. 8.7) indicated ~hat debris yield rates following a complete watershed
burn approach 20 times the normal rate.
Poor correlation with measured debris yield was obtained when percent
recovery (as defined by the individual 'Fire Factor' curves of Ferrell, Tatmm,
and Rowe et al.) were used as preliminary Fire Factors in the current
analysis. I~: was especially apparent that recently burned watersheds o£
greater than 3 mt2 in area exhibit a proportionally smaller increase inunit
debris yield when compared to watersheds of smaller areal extent. Thus, two
curves were developed, one for watersheds O.1 to 3.0 mi~ in area, and another
for watersheds larger than 3.0 mil in area. The ma~nitude of increase in
debris yield in larger watersheds ~mpacted less than one year after burn was
on the order of l:wo to ten times the normal rate (as opposed to 20-30 times
the normal rate i~iven by Rowe et al~ and Ferrell), when applied to single
flood events. Several variations of the Fire Factor curves were tested before
arriving at the final Fire Factor relationships. Each trial curve was
adjusted in a maimer that minimized the residuals (the amount that wasn't
explained by the equation), such that the remaining residuals for a given time
after burn and drainage area were clearly not attributable to wildfire impact
(i.e., presented no clear trend relating to time since burn or extent burned).
The final Fire Factor curves are presented in Figures 2 and 3. These
curves represent a 100% burn condition. It would be desirable to have a
single Fire Factor curve for Equations 1 to 5 (see Sec. 5.3 for Equations).
However, because of the fundamental difference in the hydrologic variable in
Equation 1 (precipitation) versus the hydrologic variable in Equations 2 to 5
(runoff), it shou,ld not be expected that the curves will be consistent at 3
miz (the interface between Eq. 1 and E~[. 2).
5.3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS.
The variables selected for use in the final equations were relief ratio
(RR), drainage area (A), unit peak flow (Q) or 1-hour precipitation (P), and
the non-dimensional Fire Factor (FF). Each of these variables was determined
to be si~nificant at the 95 percent confidence level.
5.3.1. Rquation 1. Regression Equation I was selected by
statistical criteria for use in watersheds from 0.1 to 3.0 miz in area for
which peak flow ~sta is not available. Equation 1 takes the form:
LOG Dy - 0.,$5 (LOG P) + 0.62 (LOG RR) + 0.18 (LOG A) + 0.12 (PT*)
/!
/
I
/
/
/
C)
C)
I:10.1. ~)'~I-I ~11:11J
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD
FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
FIRE FACTOR CURVE
FOR WATERSHEDS
0.1 TO 3.0 MI2
ARMY CORP8 OF ENGINEERS
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
FIGURE 2
where:
Dy - Unit Debris Yield (yd3/mia)
P - Maximum 1-Hour Precipitation (inches, taken to two
places after the decimal point, times 100)
RR- Relief Ratio (ft/mi)
A - Drainage Area (ac)
FF - Non-Dimensional Fire Factor
The co,efficient of multiple determination (R2) for this equation is
0.987.' All factors in this equation are st~ntficant at the 0.99 level of
confidence (:see Table 3 for "F" test values). A total of 350 observations
from 80 wate:rsheds were used in the final development of this equation.
5.3.2. Equation 2. Regression Equation 2 was selected by
statistical ~:riteria for use in watersheds of 3 mi2 to 10 mi2 in area for
which peak flow data is available. This equation may also be used for
drainage areas less than 3 mi2 if peak data is available, using Fire Factors
determined independently (for example vegetation is such that unburned
conditions may be assumed). Do not extrapolate the curves in Figure 3.
Equation 2 takes the form:
LOG Dy - 0.85 (LOG Q) + 0..53 (LOG RR) + 0.04 (LOG A) + 0.22 (FF)
where:
Q - Unit Peak Runoff (ft3/s/mia);
All o~er factors are as defined above.
33
5.3.3. Equation 3. Re&ression Equation 3, selected for use in
watersheds of 10 to 25 mi2 in area and for which peak flow data is available
takes the form:
LOG Dy - 0.88 (LO~ Q) + 0.48 (LO~ RR) + 0.06 (LO~ A) + 0.20 (FF)
5.3.~. Equation 6. Re&ression Equation 6, selected for use in
watersheds of 25 to 50 mi2 in area and for which peak flow data is available
takes the form:
Loc Dy - 0.96 (LOC Q) + 0.32 (LO~ RR) + 0.16 (LOO A) + 0.1? (FF)
5.3.~.. Ecuation 5. Resression Equation 5, selected for use in
watersheds of 50 to 200 mi2 in area and for which peak flow data is available
takes the form:
LOG Dy - 1.02 (LOG Q) + 0.23 (LO~ RR) + 0.16 (LOG A) + 0.13 (FF)
The coefficients of multiple determination for Equations 2 to 5 were all
in excess of 0.99. The RR, Q, and FF variables are si~nificant at the 0.99
level of confidence, while the A variable is stsnificant at the 0.95 level of
confidence (see Table 3). A total of 187 observations from ? watersheds were
used in the development of these equateions. Equation 2 may be used for
watersheds with a drainase area of O.1 to 3.0 mi2 for which runoff data
exists. If. recorded runoff data is used, care must be used to ensure that the
runoff data is of hiSh quality, and =hat the adopted peak unit runoff values
are not the result of 'debris flow' or landslide heishteninS of the recorded
flow.
Note ~aat some discontinuity exists between Equations I and 2 at the
drainage area size Juncture. ~hen dealing with borderline cases, such as a
watershed of 3.0 mf2 in size for Which both precipitation and runoff data
exist, it is advised that debris yield be calculated through the use of both
Equations 1 and 2. The higher of the two results should be used.
5.4. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE ADJUSTHENT-TRANSPOSITION (A-T) FACTOR.
The us4~ of regression equations developed from data pertaining to a
group of wat4~rsheds historically demonstrating extremely high unit yields will
result in ow~restimation of debris yield when applied to areas with less
volatile erosional activi~y. Reco~nition of this limitation, and the
importance of several unquantifiable geomorphtc and geologic parameters was
taken into a~:count by the development of an adjustment and transposition
variable (A-T Factor). This factor takes into account the importance of
surficial geology, soils, and hillslope and channel geomorpholo~y. Because
there are fe~ debris yield measurements available on an event basis for debris
retention st~uctures in low erosion areas, the A-T Factor was developed using
readily available average annual sediment yield data. Although this factor is
subjective in both development and application, there was no practical
alternative ~:hat permitted quantification of these var£ables. ~atersheds of
the San Gabriel Range from which the regression equations were developed would
use an A-T Factor. of 1.0. ~atersheds in areas of less debris yield potential
than the San Gabriel Hountains, such as the Peninsular Ranges of San Diego and
Orange Countries would have A-T Factors less than 1.0. Should a watershed
clearly poss~ss a higher debris yield potential than the San Gabriel
Hountains, an A-T Factor greater than 1.0 would be used. The calculation of
the A-T Factor is further discussed in Appendix B and its use is illustrated
in Example 3 of Appendix D. The unit debris yield is calculated using the
appropriate ~quation and then multiplied by the A-T Factor to give the
adjusted unit debris yield. The adjusted unit debris yield is then multiplied
by the drainage area to determine the debris volume for the watershed.
5.5. MEASI~ES OF CONFIDENCE.
The regress~ion equations presented herein give debris yield estimates
that should be considered as 'expected debris yield' under a given set of
conditions. Prediction of debris yield then, should include measures of
confidence or associated risk,, This ils accomplished in this study through the
use of the standard deviation (SD) of the estimate. The statistical summary
for Equation I (see Table 3) gives a standard deviation of 0.465 log units.
This indicates that we can be 67% confident that the 'true' value is within
0.465 log units (1 SD) above or below the estimate, and we are 95% confident
that the 'true' d,ebris yield will fall within 0.93 log units (2 SD) above or
below the estimate. Similarly, the stu~m-ry for Equation 2 (which is very
similar to the statistics for Eqs. 3-5] indicates that we are 67% confident
that the 'true' debris yield is within 0.242 log units (1 SD) above or below
the estimates and that 95% confident that it is within 0.484 log units (2 SD)
above or below the estimate.
6. COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS.
6.1. INTRODUCTION. The regression equations developed in this analysis
include two determined variables (drainage area and relief ratio) and two
estimated variables (discharge or precipitation and Fire Factor). The
magnitudes of discharge (or precipitation) and the fire condition are
associated with an exceedance probability and because the two are independent
of each other, any combination of the two can occur. Therefore, in order to
predict the exceedance probability of debris potential of a certain magnitude
for any watershed, all possible combinations of wildfire and flooding must be
evaluated. This is because more t~an one combination of wildfire and flooding
may result in the same debris yield. This entire range of possibilities is
the basis for the total probabtlit~ theorem (Ref. 8.3, pg. 58).
6.2. TIiEORY. There are several applications of the total probability
theorem in kydrologic analysis problems encountered in Corp's studies. The
application .discussed here has been termed "coincident frequency analysis".
The end product is a debris yield exceedance frequency relationship.
The total probability theorem is presented in most statistics texts as:
where:
P[A]
- the "total" exceedance probability of event A,
- the conditional probability of event A given
thai: event Bs has occurred,
37
and
- a set of mutually exclusive (only 1 B event can
occur at a time), collectively exhaustive (for
every A event, there is a correspondinS B event)
- the exceedante probability of event
In this armlysts, A represents the occurrence of debris yield of a given
quantity and B represents a wildfire condition. For calculation purposes,
interval probabt~[ittes of Bl are used and treated as discrete probabilities.
For example, the interval probability of the fire condition being from 2 to 3
Years-Since-100% VEldfire is equal to the incremental difference (probability
for 3 Years-Since-100% VEldfire minus the probability for 2 Years-Since-100%
VEldfire) and is treated as a discrete probability for 3 Years-Since-100%
Wildfire. The ran§e of possible fire conditions (Years-Since-100% Wildfire -
B~) should include the year o£ occurrence of wildfire (time - 0) to complete
recovery (usually 10-15 years after a 100% wildfire) and be divided into i
intervals. The ~tumber of intervals (t) should provide adequate definition of
the Years-Since-lO0% Wildfire frequently relationship (recommended 1-year
intervals).
For each Bl, there is only 1 flow - Fl (or precipitation value - Pl)
that produces a sIpecified debris yield (A). (This connection is dete~nined
usinE the debris response relationships presented later in this section.) So
the probability ¢,f debris yield (A), siren the specific fire condition (Bl),
beins Ereater thim or equal to the specified masnitude is equal to the
probability of the discharEe beins sreater than or equal to the flow (Fl) that
produces that debris yield (A), Eiven the specific fire condition (Bi). That
is:
The flow (Fl) is independent of the wildfire condition (B~), assuming
the impact of debris on the magnitude of ~he flow is small relative to the
magnitude of the flow. Since Fl is independent of Bl, the probability of F~,
given B~ has occurred, is equal to the probability of Fi. This is defined as:
P[FilBl] - P[Ft]
Therefore, all o~her factors being equal, the probability of the debris
yield (P[:A]) being greater than or equal to a specified magnitude (A), given
the specific fire condition (B~), is equal to the probability of a flow
greater than or equal to F~, where F, is the flow corresponding to the debris
yield A, giw~n the specific fire condition (BL). Thus:
By substitution, the actual calculation for total probability then
becomes:
P[A] -~.~ P[Fl] ·
In other words, the probability of debris yield (P[A]) equalling or
exceeding a s~pecified magnitude (A) is equal to the s-mm~tion of a product of
pairs made up of one exceedante probability (P[Ft]) and one interval
probability (P[B~]). Using the debris response relationships, which define
the unique correlation bet~eeen discharge and fire condition, the complete
debris yield frequency relationship can be determined by iteratively solving
the above eq~mtion for a ran~e of specified debris yields.
39
6.3. DATA I~EqUI~S. A Coincident Frequency Analysis (CFA) computer
program was developed by the Hydrologic. EngineerinS Center of the Corps of
Engineers at Davis, California. This prosram evaluates the coincident
frequency of occur:fence of ~wo independent events, in ~his case, wildfire and
flooding, using the theory discussed above. Appendix C presents the input
description, user's manual, and test input and output examples for using the
CFA program.
The CFA pro[~ram requires 4 types of data: Years-Since-100% Wildfire
frequency, discharge frequency, debris response relationships, and evaluation
values which are used to define the debris yield frequency relationship.
6.3.1. Years-Since-100% Wildfire Freouency Relationship (entered
as years versus exceedence frequency; see Table A-3, Appendix A). This
represents the exceedance frequency of Years-Since-100% Wildfire occurrence.
Appendix A present:s a comprehensive description of the procedure for deriving
a Years-Since-100% Wildfire frequency relationship. The number of values
should adequately define the Years-Since-100% Wildfire relationship (the CFA
program will accept up to 20 pairs of values). An example of the Years-Since-
100% Wildfire frequency relationship could look like this:
Frequency*
'0
0.1
0.3
0.7
1.4
2.2
3.2
4.6
7.2
12.0
13.1
16.7
24.1
34.5
49.0
IO0
Years- Since- 100% Wildfire
0
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
The frequency for which Years-Since-100% Wildfire is equalled or
exceeded. Cumulative. This is not P[B~]; P[Bi is the incremental
difference for each Year-Since-100% Wildfire.
6.3.2. Dischar~e Frequency for Prec~pitation Frequency)
Relationship (entered as discharge per square mile - or 1-hour precipitation
times 100 -'versus exceedence frequency). The relationship (for discharge)
could be developed analytically using the Corps of Engineers Flood Frequency
Analysis computer program, which is based on Bulletin 17B guidelines. The
number of values should adequately define the discharge (or precipitation)
frequency relationship (the CFA program will accept up to 20 pairs of values).
Values for a unit discharge frequency relationship misht look like this:
41
Frequency* Dis charge
( P [ F, ] **) ( ft'/s/mI2)
(F~)
0.2 1489
0.5 1000
1 719
2 499
5 288
10 176
20 96
30 61
40 40
50 29
60 19
70 13
80 8.0
90 3.9
95 2.2
* The frequency for which unit discharge is equalled or exceeded.
Cumulative.
** Probability is frequency divided by 100.
6.3.2,. Debris Response Relationships for each Years-Since-100%
Wildfire Occurrence (entered as unit discharge (ftS/s/mil) or precipitation
(inches x 100) versus debris yield (yd2/mt2)). These relationships reflect
the debris yield (A) for the watershed £or a range of unit discharge values
(Ft) or 1-hour precipitation values (Pi) for each interval of the Years-Since-
100% Wildfire occurrence (Bl). The number of values should adequately define
the debris response relationships (~he CFA program will accept up to 20 pairs
of values). The debris yield is calculated using the appropriate regression
equation for the range of unit discharges (or precipitation values) developed
as described in 6.3.2. above, using the Fire Factors associated with each
Year-Since-lOOt Wildfire value discussed in 6.3.1. above. Examples of debris
response relationships mislat look like these.
Years- Unit Dischar~e (ft3/s/mi2)
(B~) ., 1/489 1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
Debris yield (yd3/mi2) (A)
I 185417 127559 93585 66325 39612 24877 14025 4515 405
2 161677 111227 81603 57833 34540 21692 12230 3937 353
3 140977 96986 71155 50429 30118 18915 10664 3433 308
4 125357 86240 63271, /J~841 26781 16819 9482 3053 274
5 115465 79435 58278 41303 24667 15492 8734 2812 252
6 106770 73453 53890 38193 22810 14325 8076 2600 233
7 99896 68724 50420 35734 21341 13403 7556 2433 218
8 93100 64049 46990 33303 19889 12491 7042 2267 203
9 87791 60396 44310 31404 18755 11779 6641 2138 192
10 83397 57373 42093 29832 17817 11189 6308 2031 182
11 79607 54766 40180 28476 17007 10681 6022 1939 174
12 73901 50841 37300 26435 15788 9915 5590 1800 161
13 68336 47012 34491 244/~4 14599 9168 5169 1664 149
14 63190 43472 31894 22604 13500 8478 4780 1539 138
15 57299 39419 28920 20496 12241 7688 4334 1395 125
6.3.4. Response Frequency Parameter (Evaluation) Values. This a set of
debris yield values input by the user (or can be generated by the CFA program) which
will be used to define the debris frequency curve. The number of values should be
enough to adequately define the debris frequency relationship (the CFA program has a
maximum of 30 values).
6.4. I](AHPLE CA1/r0LATION. The following example hand calculation is included
to illustrat~, application of the coincident frequency theory described above.
Differences ~,tll result between the hand calculations and the CFA program
calculations primarily due to the methods used for interpolation and integration.
In the hand calculation, the intervals for Years-Slnce-lO0t Wildfire are
chosen using the values provided on the probability distribution. Interval
probabilities are determined using linear interpolation and numerically integrated
using the "trapezoidal rule" (Ref. 8.5).
The CFA program improves on this by using cubic spline interpolation to define
a smooth curve through all of the frequency curves and Causs Quadratures for
numerical integration (Ref. 8.5) to obtain a more accurate estimate of the total
probability than is obtained by the trapezoidal ~ule. Three points (Causs
Quadratures) are used to obtain the exceedante probability of the intervals rather
than only the two end points used by the trapezoidal rule. The CFA program then
uses cubic spline interpolation to obtain the conditional probability values at the
quadrature points within each interval. The ~ore values used in the hand
calculations, the better the agreement would be.
Using the example data above, the procedure for calculating the total
probability for a debris yield greater than or equal to 10,000 yd$/mi~ is:
Step 1/. Using the debris response relationships (6.3.3. above),
determine (using linear interpolation) the discharge necessary to produce 10,000
yd~/mi2 (A) for eech Year-Since-lO0t Wildfire. Then, use the discharge (or
precipitation) relationship (6.3.2 above) to determine the frequency of the
discharges, as sho~nbelow:
Years- Since- 100% Dischar~e
Wildfire (ft'/s/m[~)
[B~] FL
78
4 101
5 111
6 120
7 129
8 139
9 148
10 156
11 164
12 177
13 193
14 210
15 233
Frequency' Probab il ity"
28.0
24.7
21.5
19.0
17 3
15 7
14 5
13 3
12 4
11 6
10 9
9.9
8.9
7.9
6.8
280
247
215
190
173
157
145
133
124
116
109
099
089
079
O68
The frequency fgr which discharge is equalled or exceeded. Cumulative.
Probability i~ frequency divided by 100.
Step 2/. Determine the incremental exceed~nce probabilities for each
duration of the Years-Since-100% Wildfire relationship from the Years-Since-100%
Wildfire frequency relationship (6.3.1.).
Years-Since-100% Probability
Wildfire
[B~] Incremental
Cumulative
(from 6.3.1)
0 .000
1 .001
2 .003
3 .007
4 .014
5 .022
6 .032
7 .046
8 ~072
9 .120
10 .131
11 .167
12 .241
13 .345
14 .490
15 1.000
· 000
.001
· 002
· 004
007
008
010
014
026
048
011
036
O74
104
145
510
Step 3/. Determine the total probability for a debris yield greater
than or equal to 10,000 yd3/mtz (A) using the equation below:
This would result in a table such as:
4S
Years-Since-100%
Wild£ire
1 0.280 0.001 0.00028
2 0:247 0.002 0.00049
3 0.215 0.004 0.00086
4 0.190 0.007 0.00133
5 0.173 0.008 0.00138
6 0.157 0.010 0.00157
7 0.145 0.014 0.00203
8 0.133 0.026 0.00346
9 0.124 0.048 0.00594
10 0.116 0.011 0.00128
11 0.109 0.036 0.00393
12 0.099 0.074 0.00733
13 0.089 0.104 0.00924
14 0.079 0.145 0.01149
15 0.068 0.510 0.03485
Sum (P[A]) --> 0.0854780
(Frequency - 8.5)
This calculation represents one point on the debris yield frequency curve.
The complete debris yield frequency relationship is determined by iteratively
solving the above equation for a set of debris yields (evaluation values) covering
the range of possible yields. Note: the accuracy of the hand calculations will
approach the results from the CFA program by increasing the number of debris yield
values in the set.
6.5. PROGRAI~ OUTPUT. The Coincident Frequency Analysis program output
consists of:
a. a reprint of the input data.
b. the computed percent chance exceedante values for the response
values (evaluation values). This is a range of debris yields (input by the user)
and their corresponding exceedante frequencies which define the debris yield
frequency curve.
c. a table of interpolated debris yield results equalled or exceeded
for frequencies of 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0, 50.0, 60.0,
70.0, 80.0, 90.0, 95.0, and 99.0 percent.
Note: There are ~o options in CFA which allow the user to increase the
amount of output in order to trace the results throug~ intermediate calculations.
A more thorough description of the Coincident Frequency Analysis computer
proEram, as 'well as example input and output files, are included in Appendix C.
A sample of the results of two Coincident Frequency Analyses performed on
watersheds ~hat possess lonE-term debris yield records are presented in Figures &
and 5. Note that the actual debris yield values (plotted usinE median plottinE
positions) correspond closely to the expected debris frequency curve computed usinE
the Coincide~at Frequency Analysis proEram. Note: the 1-Year-Since-100% Wildfire and
the 15-Years-Since-100% Wildfire curves are plotted for comparison purposes. These
curves were determinedusinE the debris response data in the table in Section 6.3.3.
for 1- and l!5-Years-Since-lO0% Wildfire and the discharEe-frequency relationship
presented in Section 6.3.2.
47
,~'"-'~-~, ~ I I ....tlllltl]lliflilJlllillllllllJIIIIIIIIIIItlllli]11111111111l[ I f IIIllllllll] I II Ililllll I I
EXCEEDANCE FREQUEN~ PER HUNDRED YEARS
ao ~ so so ~0 so so m 5 ~ I o~ 02 o.I 0.0~ 0.~1,000,000
9
7
PREDICTED DEBRIS YIELD RATE
One Year After Wildfire
Coincident Frequency
15 Years or More
Following Wildfire
4
2 5 ~0 2~
EXCEEDANCE INTERVAL IN ~ARS
Ranked Debris Yield ~-~vents
1 March 1927
2 March 1938
3 Janua~ 1969
4 Janua~ 1954
5 Janua~ 1940
6 March 1943
7 March 1954
8 November 1965
9 February'1969
10 March 1978
so ~oo ~oo soo aooo .)~oo1'000
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD
FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
DEBRIS FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
SANTA ANITA DAM
D.A.= 10.8 MI2
U.S. ARMY CORP8 OF ENGINEER8
L08 ANGELE8 DI6TRICT
FIGURE 4
PREDICTED DEBRIS YIELD RATE
One Year After Wildfire
EXCEEDANCE: FREQUENCY PER HUNDRED YEARS
~ N ~J ~o ~o 713 60 5o 4o ~ 2o ~ 5 ~ i o5 o~ o.i o.~ o~
Coincident Frequency
15 Years or More
Following Wildfire
100,000
10,000
·
?
6
~ zo ~o ~o ~oo ~oo ~ooo ~ooo1'000
EXCEEDANCE INTERVAL IN YEARS
Ranked Debris Yield Events
1 January 1969
2 March 1938
3 March 1978
4 September 1961
5 November 1965
6 August 1966
7 November 1956
8 January 1934
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD
FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
~-'~ ~¥-~,'~-'~% ~ ~.~ ~ L Y S I S
SAN DIMAS DAM
D.A.= 16.2 MI2
U.S. ARMY CORP8 OF ENGINEER8
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
FIGURE 5
7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND LIMITATIONS.
The equations presented herein yielded the hi~hest Rz values of all trials as
well as using the group of variables indicated as possessing the greatest
significance in explaining variation in unit debris yield. Although errors in
estimation may still occur, the equations presented here will provide significantly
better reliability compared to methods presently in use for coastal draining streams
in Southern California. By methods presently available, evaluation of the entire
array of variables which influence debris yield from Coastal Southern California
watersheds is impossible. Because factors such as the potential mobility of debris
in storage within the watershed continue to defy quantificatton, debris yield
estimates are expected to vary somewhat from recorded data, depending on the stage
of a given cut-and-fill cycle, the time elapsed since the last major storm occurred,
and other factors. Only by application of the on-site Adjustment-Transposition (A-
T) Factor can certain unquantiftable parameters be evaluated and included in the
analysis of an individual watershed.
The predictive yield equations presented herein were derived from recorded
data for basins and dams located at the mouths of canyons. For locations that are
downstream from canyon mouths, it would be prudent to evaluate the sediment
transport capability of the stream in the reach immediately upstream from the site
to ensure that the stream is capable of transporting the estimated debris quantity.
If not, then consideration should be given to using the transport capacity of the
design flood as the adopted basin inflow debris estimate.
Recognition of the role that: human interference plays in the increase or
decrease in debris yield rates is important. Destruction of channel or hillslope
vegetation, grazing, homesite construction, road building, and other factors may
have a substantial effect on erosion from a given watershed. On-site evaluation of
these impacts, and the geomorpholoKy and soils of the watershed, should routinely
supplement application of the recommended regression equations.
This procedure does not address the hazard associated with major landslides,
nor those associated with overland mudflows.
Applications outside the San Gabriel Hountains should be conducted with
caution and should include full investigation of all available local information and
thorough field inspection.
8. REFERENCES.
8.1.
ANDERSON, H.W. (1949), Flood Freauenctes and Sedimentation from
Forest Watersheds, American Geophys. Union Trans. V. 30; p.
576-584.
8.2.
ANDERSON, H.W., WAI$~IS, J.R. (1965), Some Interpretations of
Sediment Sources and Causes. Pacific Coast Basins in Oregon and
California, Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference
Proceedings, U.S.D.A. Misc. Publ. 970; p. 22-30.
8.3.
BENJAMIN, J.R., CORNELL, C.A. (1970), Probability. Statistics and
Decision for Civil Eniineers, McGraw-Hill, New York; p. 40-65.
8.4.
BOGARDI, I., et al. (1986), Sediment Yield from Agricultural
Watersheds, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 1,
American Society of Civil Engineers; p. 64-70.
8.5.
BURDEN, FAIRES, and REYNOLDS, (1980), Numerical Analysis,
Prindle, Weber, and Smith.
8.6.
CHORI-~Y, R.J. (1969), The Drainage Basin as the Fundamental
Geomorphic Unit. Introduction to Fluvial Processes (Ed.),
Chorley, R.J.; Methuen and Co. Ltd., London.
8.7.
FERRELL, W.R. (1959), Debris Reduction Studies for Mountain
Watersheds: Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Rept.;
164 pp.
8.8.
FI22IMAN, E.M. (1972), Predictinl Sediment Yield in the Western
United States, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of
the A.S.C.E., Vol. 98, No. 12; p. 2073-2085.
8.9.
FI~, E.H., HIGH, R.D. (1955), Sedimentation in Drainage
Basins of the Pacific Coast States; A Summary of Published and
Unpublished Information, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service.
8.10.
JANSSON, H.B. (1982), l~nd Erosion by ~ater in Different
Cliomates, U.N.G.I. Rapport Nr. 57; Uppsala Universit-y, Uppsala,
Sweden.
8.11.
LANGBEIN, ~.B., et al. (1947), Topographic Characteristics of
Drainage Basins; U.S.G.S. ~ater Supply Paper 968-C, ~ashington,
D.C.
8.12.
8.13.
LUSTIG, L.K., (1965), Sediment Yield of the Castaic Watershed.
Westlern I~s A~eles County. California: A Quantitative Geomorphic
Approach; U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 422-F, ~ashington, D.C.
HORISAWA, H. (1957), Accuracy of Deter~ination of StreA- l-n~ths
from ?o~o~raphic Maps, American Geophys. Union Trans., Vol. 38,
No. 1; p.86-88.
8.14.
8.15.
NIE, N.H., HULL, C.H., JENKINS, J.G., STEINBRENNER, K., BENT,
D.H., (1975), Statistical Package for the Social Sciences,
ROI~E, P.B., COUNTRYHAN, C.H., STOREY, H.C. (1949), Probable Peak
Discharges and Erosion Rates from Southern California ~a~ersheds
as Influenced by Fire,' u.S.D'.A., Forest Service, California
Forest and Range Experimental Station.
8.16.
ROg-E, P.B., COUNTRIqiAN, C.H., STOREY, H.C. (1954), ~ydrolo~ic
Ana~ys'is Used-to Determine F. ffects of Fire on Peak Discharge and
F. rosion Rates in Southern California IJatersheds, U.S.D.A., Forest
Service, California Forest and Range Experimental Station.
8.17.
SCHOHH, S.A. (1954), The Relation of Drainage Basin Relief to
Sediment loss, International Union Geodesy and Geophysics, Assoc.
Sci. HydroloEy Gert. Assembly, Rome, Vol. 1; p. 216-219.
8.18.
SCHUHH, S.A., HADLEY, R.F. (1961), Progress in the Application of
l~ndform Analysis in Studies of Semi-Arid Erosion, U.S.G.S.,
Geol. Survey Girt. &37, Washington, D.C.
8.19.
SCOTT, K.M., RITTER, J.R., KNOTT, J.M., (1968), Sedimentation in
the Piru Creek Watershed. Southern California: USGS Water-Supply
Paper 1798-E, 48 pp.
8.20.
SCOTT, K.H., (1971), Origin and Sedimentology of 1969 Debris
Flows near Glendora. California; U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 750-C,
Washington, D.C.
8.21.
SCOTT, K.H., WILLIAHS, R.P., (1978), Erosion and Sediment Yields
in the Transverse Ranges. Southern California; U.S.G.S. Prof.
Paper 1030, Washington, D.C.
8.22. STRAHLER, A.N., (1957), Ouantitative Analysis of Watershed
Geomorphol~y, Amer. Geophys. Union Trans., Vol. 38; p. 913-920.
8.23.
'TATUM, F.E., (1963), A New Method of Estimating Debris Storage
iRequirements for Debris Basins, U.S. Army Engineer District, Los
,kngeles, California, Rept,,, 23 pp.
8.24.
'17{OXELL, H.C., PETERSON, J.Q., (1937), Flood in I~ Canada Valley.
!~alifornia, January 1, 1934; U.SfG.S. Water Supply Paper 796-C,
Washington, D.C.
8.25.
8.26.
U.S.G.S. (1979-80), ~ater ~eso-~ces Dst~: California: ga~er Years
78-79 &ud 79-80, Vo~. l; Colorado !~kver Basin, SouChe~nGrea~
Bas~Ln from'Hexic&n Border to Nono Lake Basin, and Pacific Slope
Bas:Lns from Tijuana River to Santa Herin River; U.S.G.S. ~acer
Da~e Repo~s ~-79-1, ~-80-1
l~tJ.S, ~.$., II. (1981), Some ~ffects of Brush Fires on ~rosional
Processes in Coastal Southern California. In: Erosion and
Sediment Transvort in Pe¢ific Rim Steeplands, International
Association of Hydrologists, Scientific Publication 132,
Ch:cist~hurch, N.Z., N. 2; p. 305-3~2.
8.27.
yEVJEVICH, V., (1972), Probability and Statistics in ltydrolo~,
Resources Publications, Fort Collins, Colorado.
APPENDIX A
HOW TO USE FIRE FACTORS
AND
iHOW TO DETERMINE THE
YEARS-SINCE-100% WILDFIRE
FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIPS
FOR USE IN THE
COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANAL YS'I$
COMPUTER PROGRAM
APPENDIX A
HOW TO USE FIRE FACTORS
AND DETERMINE THE YEARS-SINCF,-100% WILDFIRE FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIPS
INTRODUCIION.
"Fire Factor", as used in this report, is the name given the relationship
between debris yield and the time after burn for a given drainage basin. It is a
dimensionless parameter that relates the relative increase in debris yield caused by
wildfires. The occurrence of wildfire plays a sisnificant role in the quantity of
debris produced by any particular watershed. The Fire Factors developed in this
analysis displayed a high correlation to debris yield (see Table 1, main text) for
watersheds in the San Gabriel Mountains. The Fire Factor curves (see Fibres A-1
and A-2) relate the Fire Factor to the Years-Since-100% Wildfire occurrence, and the
drainage area of the watershed.
The Los Angeles District Method for Prediction of Debris Yield can be applied
for several .different purposes including: 1) determining the debris yield potential
from a hypo~hetical flood event (e.g., 100-year flood) given a specific fire
condition (e.g., 1 year since 100% wildfire); or 2) determining the debris yield
from a historic flood event for a specific wildfire condition; or 3) estimating the
debris yield frequency relationship based on the total probabilities of independent
random flood flows (or rainfall) and wildfire.
A-1
For the first wo purposes, ~he Fire Factors are used directly in the
appropriate regression equations. This approach might be used after a wildfire
occurrence to est:imate the size of emergency debris basins or estimate sediment
volumes for transport analysis. t/hen wildfire plays an insi~ni£icant role in the
production of debris yield, such as in desert watersheds where vegetal cover is
minimal, the Fire~ Factor is fixed at a 'normal' or unburned value of 3.0.
The third purpose for application of ~he Debris Herhod utilizes ~he Coincident
Frequency Analysis (CFA) co~puter progra~ to estimate debris yield and takes into
account the likelihood of wildfires of varied areal extent in conjunction with flood
events of various ma~nitudes. Estimates of debris yield from the CFA results are
used to determine the design size o£ single event debris basins and detention
bas ins.
Fire Factors are determined from ~he actual fire history of the watershed(s).
The fire history lsay be compiled by contactinE local flood control agencies, ~he
County Forester or Fire Warden, or'o~her local agencies. It is most haportant to
know the fire history of ~he watershed of interest for at least the past 15 to 20
years and preferably the last 50 years,' includin~ the approximate extent (percent)
of the watershed burned durinS each event and r~he location of each burn relative to
previous burns. The longer ~he history, the better the results.
DEBRIS YIELD FOR GIVEN FLOOD EVENT FOR SPECIFIC FIRE CONDITION.
If the intent of the investigator is to determine the debris yield from a
hypothetical or actual historic flood event given a specific fire condition (first
and second purposes above), the Fire Factor is determined in the followinS manner:
Step 1/. Determine the drainage area of ~he subject watershed (in mt2
and ac).
Step 2/. Determine the fire history for the watershed, if desired, to
get an idea of the siEnificance of wildfire in the watershed.
Step 3/'.
If step 2 is omitted, only the Fire Factor for the specific
fire event need be determined. If the investigator determines
that wildfire plays an insignificant role in debris
production, the Fire Factor can be set at 3.0. If step 2 is
not omitted, determine the Fire Factor for each year in the
fire history. l~hen determining the fire history, remember to
locate each burn relative to previous burns in the watershed.
A table such as Table A-1 can be developed showing the year
and Fire Factor along with the percent burn for each wildfire
occurrence. Following Table A-1 is an example of how to
calculate the Fire Factors for years with partial burns.
If the drainage area of the watershed is less than 3.0
mi2, use Figure A-1 to determine the Fire Factor(s) for
100% burn.
If the drainage area of the watershed is between 3.0 and
200 mi2, use Figure A-2 to determine the Fire Factor(s)
for 100% burn.
Step &/.
Use the Fire Factor for the given flood event and the
specified fire condition in the appropriate regression
equation with the appropriate A-T Factor to determine the
debris yield for the watershed.
A-3
TABLE A-l: EXAMPL~ OF FIRE FACTOR HISTORY
Santa Paula Creek Watershed Application
Drninage Area -- 42.9 mi2
PERCENT FIRE
BURNED FACTOR
1911 1% 3.03
1912 0 3.03
1913 0 3.02
1914 0 3.02
1915 0 3.02
1916 0 3.02
1917 0 3.01
1918 0 3.01
1919 0 3.01
1920 6% 3.19
1921 17% 3.67
1922 1% 3.62
1923 16% 4.03
1924 20% 4.48
1925 0 4.31
1926 0 4.17
1927 0 4.03
1928 0 3.91
1929 0 3.82
1930 0 3.73
1931 0 3.65
1932 38% 4.69
1933 0 4.45
1934 0 4.25
1935 0 4.02
1936 0 3.84
1937 0 3.66
1938 0 3.55
1939 0 3.49
1940 0 3.44
YEAR PERCENT FIRE YEAR
BURNED FACTOR
1941 0 3.37 1971
1942 0 3.34 1972
1943 0 3.30 1973
1944 0 3.22 1974
1945 0 3.11 1975
1946 0 3.00 1976
1947 0 3.00 1977
1948 0 3.00 1978
1949 0 3.00 1979
1950 0 3.00 1980
1951 2% 3.06 1981
1952 0 3.05 1982
1953 0 3.05 1983
1954 0 3.04 1984
1955 0 3.04 1985
1956 0 3.03
1957 0 3.03
1958 0 3.03
1959 0 3.02
1960 0 3.02 75
1961 0 3.02
1962 6% 3.20
1963 0 3.17
1964 0 3.15
1965 0 3.12
1966 0 3.11
1967 11% 3.42
1968 0 3.37
1969 0 3.33
1970 0 3.28
PERCENT FIRE
BURRED FACTOR
0 3.25
20% 3.81
0 3.71
0 3.63
0 3.53
0 3.46
0 3.42
0 3.37
0 3.32
0 3.26
0 3.20
0 3.18
0 3.16
0 3.12
70% 5.13
Events
A-4
~*2(FLE OF FIRE FACTOR CALCULATIONS - FOR PARTIAL BURNS
· The ~maximum and minimum Fire Factor values are 6.0 and 3.0,
respectively, for a watershed of 3.0 to 200 mi2 in area (Fig. A-2).
· The watershed used in this example is considered to be "fully-
recovered' from the effects of wildfire after 15 years (42.9 mi2).
· History (Table A-l) shows that the example watershed was fully
recovered from all previous fires in 1950 and then suffered a 2%
extelat burn in 1951 and a 6% burn in 1962.
· Since the watershed suffered a 2% burn in 1951, with no additional
wildfires in the period 1952 through 1961, the Fire Factors for
this time period are calculated as follows:
1951
1) 98% of the watershed has a "normal" (unburned) Fire
Factor of 3.0
2) 2% of the watershed has a (100% burn) 1 year after burn
Fire Factor of 6.0 (from Figure A-2)
Thus, the weighted Fire Factor for 1951 is:
0.98 (3.0) + 0.02 (6.0) - 3.06
1952
1) 98% of the watershed has a 'normal"
(unburned) Fire Factor of 3.0
2) 2% of the watershed has a "2 years after burn"
Fire Factor of 5.65 (from Figure A-2)
Thus, the weighted Fire Factor for 1952 is:
0.98 (3.0) + 0.02 (5.65) - 3.05
1953 1) 98% of the watershed has a 'normal'
(unburned) Fire Factor of 3.0
2) 2% of the watershed has a '3 years after burn'
Fire Factor of 5.30 (from Figure A-2)
Thus,, the weighted Fire Factor for 1953 is:
0.98 (3.0) + 0.02 (5.30) - 3.05
· The Fire Factor for the years 1954 to 1961 are determined in the
s~me m~nner.
· In 1962, the watershed suffered a 6% burn over a different part of
the watershed than that which occurred in 1951. The combined effect
of the two wildfires is determined in the following manner:
A-5
~-T~PLE OF FIRE ~&CTO~ CALCUIATZORS - ~0~ PARTIAL BURNS (cont.)
1) 92% of the watershed has a "normal'
(unburned) Fire Factor of 3.0
2) 2% of the watershed has a '11 years after burn"
Fire Factor of 3.84 (from Fisure A-2)
3) 6% of the watershed has a "1 years after burn"
Fire Factor of 6.00 (from Figure A-2)
Thus, the welshted Fire Factor for 1962 is:
0.92 (3.0) + 0.02 (3.84) + 0.06 (6.00) - 3.20
1) 92% of the watershed has a "normal'
(unburned) Fire Factor of 3.0
2) 2% of the watershed has a "12 years after burn"
Fire Factor of 3.65 (from Figure A-2)
3) 6% of the watershed has a '2 years after burn"
Fire Factor of 5.65 (from Figure A-2)
Thus, the weisbred Fire Factor for 1963 is:
0.92 (3.0) + 0.02 (3.6,5) + 0.06 (5.65) - 3.17
· The Fire !Factor for the years 1964 and 1965 are determined in the
same manner. In 1966, the 2% of the basin burned in 1951 has fully
recovered, and the Fire Factor for the year 1966 is calculated as:
9&% of the watershed has a "normal'
(unburned) Fire Factor of 3.0
2) 6% of the watershed has a '5 years after burn'
Fire Factor of 4.79 (from Figure A-2)
Thus, the weighted Fire Factor for 1966 is:
0.94 (3.0) + 0.06 (4.79) - 3.11
· In 1967, the watershed suffered a 11% burn over a different part of
the watershed than that ~hich occurred in 1962. The combined effect
of the t~eo wildfires is determined the same way as above.
A-6
0
C)
,I
I
I
| t
'k
0
UO/O¥-I 3UlJ
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD
FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
SAME AS FIGURE 2
A-7
FIRE FACTOR CURVE
FOR WATERSHEDS
0.1 TO 3.0 MI2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
FIGURE A-1
EI~ Z
DEBRIS YIELD FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIP BASED ON TOTAL PROBABILITIES
OF 10{)% WILDFIRE AND FLOODING (USING CFA).
If the intent of the investigator is to determine the debris yield for a
hypothetical frequency event (third purpose above) using the total exceedance
probabilities of 100% wildfire and flooding, a Years-Since-100% ~;ildfire Frequency
Relationship must be developed. This relationship is derived in the following
manner:
Step 1/. Determine the drainage area of the subject watershed (in mi2
and ac).
Step 2/. Determine the fire history for the watershed. Remember to
locate each burn relative to previous burns in the watershed.
Step 3/.
Determine the Fire Factor for each year of the history. A
table such as Table A-1 should be developed showing the year
and Fire Factor along with the percent burn for each wildfire
occurrence.
If the drainage area of the watershed is less than 3.0
mi2, use Figure A-1 to determine the Fire Factor for
100% burn.
If the drainage area of the watershed is between 3.0 and
200 mi2, use Figure A-2 to determine the Fire Factor for
100% burn.
Note: Refer to example following Table A-1 for computation
of Fire Factor for years with partial burns.
A-9
Step 4/.
Determine a Fire Factor frequency chart. Rank the Fire
Factors (from hish co low) and assisn each Fire Factor an
exceedance frequency based on the median plottinS position
formula:
m -~ 0.3
....... x 100
N+0.4
where:
m - the ordered sequence of Fire Factor values
ransinS from 1 to N
N - number of items in the data set
.an example of a Fire Factor frequency chart is shown in
Table A-2.
Step 5/.
:Derive a fire duration c~rve for the subject watershed. Plot
the Fire Factor values versus Percent Time Fire Factor is
Equalled or Exceeded (frequency) in Table A-2 on linear sraph
ipaper (10 x 10 x I inch recommended) and draw a smooth curve
'throush the plotted points. FollowinS the seneral shape of
'the smooch curve, extrapolate both ends, if necessary, so that
Fire Factors of 6.00 and 3.00 have estimated exceedance
frequencies. An example of a fire duration curve for the
Santa Paula Creek watershed is shown on Figure A-3.
Step 6/.
Determine a Fire Factor versus Years-Since-100% Wildfire
1:able. Set up the table for durations of 1 Year-Since-
[LO0% Wildfire to full recovery (10-15 years dependinS on
drainase area size). Use Figure A-2 Co determine the Fire
]Factor for each Year-Since-100% Wildfire (42.9 mie). This is
shown in the first two columns of Table A-3.
A-10
TABLE A-2: FIRE FACTOR FREQUENCY CHART
Santa Paula Creek Watershed Application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
FIRE
FACTOR
5.13
4.69
4.48
4.45
4.31
4.25
4.17
4.03
4.03
4.02
3.91
3.84
3.82
3.81
3.73
3.71
3.67
3.66
3.65
3.63
3.62
3.55
3.53
3.49
3.46
3.44
3.42
3.42
3.37
3.37
PERCENT OF
TIHE FF
EQUA~ -~ .~.n OR
EXCEEDED*
0.9
2.3
3.6
4.9
6.2
7.6
8,9
10.2
11.5
12.9
14 2
15 5
16 8
18 2
19 5
20, 8
22~ 1
23,5
24 8
26,1
27,5
28,8
30 1
31.4
32.8
34.1
35.4
36.7
38.1
39.4
RANK FIRE PERCENT OF RANK
FACTOR TIME FF
EQUA~.~.~n OR
EXCEE/)ED*
31 3.37 40.7
32 3.34 42.0
33 3.33 43.4
34 3.32 44.7
35 3.30' 46.0
36 3.28 47.3
37 3.26 48.7
38 3.25 50.0
39 3.22 51.3
4O 3.2O 52.7
41 3.19 54.0
42 3.19 55.3
43 3.18 56.6
44 3.17 58.0
45 3.16 59.3
46 3.15 60.6
47 3.12 61.9
48 3.12 63.3
49 3.11 64.6
50 3.11 65.9
51 ' 3.06 67.2
52 3.05 68.6
53 3.05 69.9
54 3.04 71.2
55 3.04 72.5
56 3.03 73.9
57 3.O3 75.2
58 3.03 76.5
59 3.03 77.9
60 3.03 79.2
FIRE PERCENT OF
FACTOR TIME FF
F.~U.~?.~ ED OR
EXCEEDED·
61 3.02 80.5
62 3.02 81.8
63 3.02 83.2
64 3.02 84.5
65 3.02 85.8
66 3.02 87.1
67 3.02 88.5
68 3.01 89.8
69 3.01 91.1
70 3.01 92.4
71 3.00 93.8
72 3.00 95.1
73 3.00 96.4
74 3.00 97.7
75 3.00 99.1
Exceedance Frequencies calculal:ed using median
* m - 1 to 75 & N - 75
plotting positions x 100.
A-11
I:10.L3V=I 3tll:l
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD
FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
FIRE DURATION CURVE
SANTA PAULA CREEK
U.8. ARMY CORP8 OF E,~cll,'-r:~J]-~-I
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
FIGURE A-3
TABL~ A-3: EXAMPL~ OF FIRE FACTOR~ DETERMINATION
FOR YEARS-SINCF~100% WILDFIRE
Santa Paula Creek Watershed
Drninage Area = 42.9 nfi2
Years-Since-100% Fire Factor · Percen= Time
lJ£1dfire Occurrence Fire Factor is
Equalled or
Exceeded~
I yesr after 6.00 0.1c
2 years after 5.65 0.3c
3 years after 5.30 0.7c
4 years after 5.00 1.4
5 years after 4.79 2.2
6 years after 4.59 3.2
7 years after 4.42 4.6
8 years after 4.24 7.2
9 years afCer 4.09 2.0
10 years af=er 3.96 3.1
11 years after 3.84 6.7
12 years after 3.65 4.1
13 years after 3.45 4.5
14 years af=er 3.25 9.0
15 years after 3.00 0.0
· From Figure A-2 for 42.9 mi2.
b From Fire Duration Curve for Santa Paula Creek (Fig. A-3).
~ From ~c=rapolation of the Fire Duration Curve for Santa Paula Creek.
A-13
Step ?/.
Determine ~he percent of time ~he Fire Factor is equalled or
exceeded for the Fire Factors from step 6 using the fire
duration curve from step 5. As a check, the probabiliL-y of
~:he watershed having suffered a 100t burn less ~han 1 year
earlier should be quite small, while the probabiliL-y of the
~atershed being in a 'normal' or unburned state should be
quite high. Expand Table A-3 to include a column for percent
t:ime Fire Factor is equalled or exceeded (see column 3, Table
A=3). Columns 1 and 3 of Table A-3 represent the Years-Since-
100t W£1d£ire frequency relationship.
Step 8/.
Enter the percent time Fire Factor is equalled or exceeded
and the corresponding Years-Since-lO0t Wildfire on DT and DP
records in ~he CFA computer program input file.
In the absence of any fire history, Fire Factors and the percent of time
the Fire Factor is equalled or exceeded can be obtained from the generalized
fire duration curves on Figure A-4. These curves were developed from a nmnber
of coastal Southern California watersheds ranging from Santa Barbara CounL-y to
Orange CourtLy and are not meant to be used outside the principle area of
application (see Figure 1, main text). The curves were developed by placing
the watersheds into size groups as shown on Figure A-4 (0.1-3.0 mt2, 3.0-10
mi2, 10-25 mi2, 2~i-lO0 mi2, 100-200 mi2), determining the fire history for each
watershed, calculating ~he Fire Factors for each year in the fire h£story, and
computing a ratio of ~he number of occurrences for Fire Factors to the total
number of years. Keep in mind that at the ends of the drainage area ranges,
there will be discon~inuities. These curves should be used with great
caution.
A-14
0
i
~JO/::)¥:l '~l:ilJ
0
0
Z
uJ
u,I
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT I~THOO
FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
GENERal r/F:n FIlE DURATION
CURVES FOR WATERSi"E!~
OF 0.1 TO 200 N!2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER8
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
FIGURE A-4
APPENDIX B
HOW TO DETERMINE THE
ADJUSTMENT-T~SPOSITION
FACTOR
APPENDIX B
HOW TO DETERMINE ADJUSTMENT-TRANSPOSITION (A-T) FACTORS
INTRODUCTION.
The Adjustment-Transposition (A-T) Factor was developed to account for
the difference in §eomorpholo~y between the subject watershed and the orisinal
watersheds from which the resresston equations were senerated. This factor
considers the surftcial seolosy, soils, and hillslope and channel morpholoKy.
Watersheds of the San Gabriel Hountatns from which the resression equations
were developed have an A-T Factor of 1.0. Watersheds in areas with hisher
debris potential would have an A-T Factor sreater than 1.0, while areas of
lesser debris yield capacity would 'have an A-T Factor less than 1.0.
Four techniques for calculatinS the A-T Factor are provided below.
Prelimina~ data collection should consist of findinE all sediment and/or
debris records for the subject watershed or, in the absence of these, for all
nearby watersheds possessinE similar seolo§y, climate, and topography. Any
available toposraphic, soil, and land use maps should be collected. After
determining a preliminary estimate of the A-T Factor, a field investlsation of
the watershed should be performed. The followinS techniques also make use of
the drainase area size and the averase annual precipitation for the subject
watershed.
To use the A-T Factor, first calculate the unadjusted unit debris yield
(LoS Dy) usin§ the appropriate resression equation. After taking the anti-loS
of Dy, multiply the result by the A-T Factor to determine the 'adjusted'
debris yield.
B-1
TECHNIQUE I - SEDIMENT/DEBRIS RECORD FOR SUBJECF WATERSHED
CONTAINS SINGL~ EVENT DEBRIS YIELD VALUES.
If the sediment/debris record contains single event debris yield values
(short term debris measurement clearly related to a single flood event), a
direct comparison may be made between ~he volume ~he subject watershed
actually yielded under the precipitation/runoff conditions contained in ~he
record pertaining to that event, and ~he volume that would be calculated using
the appropriate unadjusted regression equation under the same hydrologic and
fire conditions. Simply divide the measured debris yield for the subject
watershed by the debris yield calculated using the appropriate regression
equation. The result will be the A-T Factor for the subject watershed. If
there is information for several events, an average or weighted average can be
calculated.''
Actual Subject Watershed Debris Yield
Unadjusted Regression Equation Debris Yield
- A-T Factor
If, for example, the subject watershed yielded 60,000 yds$/mi2 for a
peak runoff event of 100 ft$/s/mi2, and the regression equation yields a value
o£ 80,000 yds$/mi2 under the same hydrologic and fire conditions, the A-T
Factor would be 60,000 divided by 80,000 or 0.75..
TECHNIQUE 2 - SEDIMENT/DEBRIS RF~ORD FOR S~ WATERSHED
CONTAINS PERIODIC SURVEY RESULTS ONLY.
If the only sediment/debris records that exist for the subject watershed
are in the form o£ accumulated sediment values from the results of periodic
surveys, obtain all of the long-term sediment records and determine the
average annual sediment yield. Divide the average annual sediment yield by
the average annual precipitation for the watershed. Average annual
precipitation values for the subject watershed may be found by contacting the
applicable county flood control agency, from National Weather Service
publications, or may be calculated by the investigator using available
prec£pitat:ion gauge dsta and an appropriate area-averaging method (tsohyetal,
Thiessen polygons, etc.). The result is the 'average annual sediment
yield/average annual precipitation (AASY/AAP) ratio~.
Using this technique, the A-T Factor is determined in the following
manner:
Step 1./. Determine the drainage area of the subject watershed.
Example (Ex.). Drainage Area - 40 mtz
Step 2/. Determine the average annual sediment yield of the subject
watershed from available periodic survey data.
Ex. Average Annual Sediment Yield - 1.69 ac-ft/miZ/yr
Step 3/. Determine the average annual precipitation for the subject
watershed.
Ex. Average Annual Precipitation - 25 in.
Step 4/. Determine the AASY/AAP ratio. Divide the average annual
sediment yield by the average annual precipitation.
Ex. AASY/AAP Ratio (for 40 mi2) -
1.69 ac-ft/mi2/yr / 25 in - 0.07 ac-ft/mi2/yr/in
Step 5/.
Determine the AASY/AAP ratio for an equivalent regression
watershed in the San Gabriel Nounrains from Figure B-l, using
the drainage area of the subject watershed.
Ex. AASY/AAP Ratio for Equivalent Watershed San Gabriel
HouriCains (for 40 mi2) -0.101
Step 6/.
Determine the AoT Factor for the subject watershed. Take the
the subject watershed's AASY/AAP ratio (0.07) and divide by
the equivalent ~egression watershed AASY/AAP ratio (0.101).
Ex. A-T Factor for the Subject Watershed -
0.07 / 0.101 - .67
TECHNIQUE 3 - NO SEDIMENT/DEBRIS RECORD AVAILABLE FOR SUBJECT
WATERSHED. NEARBY WATERSHEDS HAVE PERIODIC
SURVEY RESULTS.
If there are no sediment/debris records available for the subject
watershed, but nearby watersheds have records with data from periodic surveys,
obtain all of the long-term sediment records dealing with nearby reservoirs or
debris basins and determine the average annual sediment yield for each.
Eliminate any watersheds vhich are felt to have questionable records,
significant upstream sediment traps, etc.
Using this technique, the A-T Factor is determined in the following
manner:
B-&
0.16
0.14
< -~.1o,
0.06
AASY = AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENT YIELD
1
AAP = AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
160
....... Watersheds Used
In Regression Analysis
~ 1 San Dimas D~m
2 Big Dslton D~m
3 Devil' s Gate D~m
4 Eaton Wash D~m
6 Sawpit D~m
7 Paooi~a
8 Cogswell D~m
9 Big Tujunga Dam
10 San Gabriel D~m
IIt1~
180
LOS ANGELE8 DI8TRICT METHOD
FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
0.04
0.020
2O
4O
60 80
DRAINAGE AREA (MI")
100
120
140
AASY/AAP RATIOS
FOR DRAINAGE AREAS 0 TO 200 I~
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER
LO~ ANI3FLE$ OIE~TRICT
Step 1/. Determine the drainage area o£ each watershed.
Ex. Drainage Area - 14 mi2
Ex.. Drainase Area - 56 mi~
Ex. Draina&e Area - 200 mi2
Step 2/. Determine the averase annual sediment yield for each
watershed with periodic survey data.
Ex. Averase Annual Sediment Yield - 2.0 ac-ft/mi2/yr
Ex. Averase Annual Sediment Yield - 1.4 ac-ft/mi2/yr
Ex. Averase Annual Sediment Yield - 1.5 ac-ft/mi2/yr
Step 3/.
Step 4/.
Determine the averase annual precipitation for each watershed.
Ex. Averase Annual Preckp!tation - 29 in.
Averase Annual Precipitation - 27 in.'
Ex. Averase Annual Precipitation - 27 in.
Determine the AASY/AAP ratio for ,each watershed. Divide
averase annual sediment yield by ~he averase-armuai'-
precipitation of the watershed to determine a ratio and plot
these values on Fisure B-1. ~ '
Step
AASY/AAPRatio (for 14 mti) - 2.0 /29 - .07
Ex. AASY/AAP Ratio (for 56 mt2) - 1.4 /27 - .05
Ex. AASY/AAP Ratio (for 200 mi2) - 1.5 /27 - .06
Establish a best-fit curve ~hrough the points using either
regression or graphical techniques, and draw this on Fisure
B-1. This ~he new 'local area curve'.
Ex. Figure B-2 shows an example of what this should look
like.
Step
Determine the AASY/AAP yield ratios for the new local
area curve and the subject watershed from the original
regression watershed curve on Figure B-2 for the subject
watershed's drainage area size.
Ex. AASY/AAP Ratio from New Local Area Curve (for 42.9 mi2) -
.062
AASY/AAP Ratio from Original Regression Watershed Curve
(for ~2.9 mi2) - .100
0.1e .... AVERAGE ANN_UA~L _SEDIMENT- YIELD
It t
40 80 8O
AAP = AVERAGE ANNUAL'PRECIPITATION
I I]l ] I 1-J-r'l'~Ti i-J-r'l'-r-l-J-i i i_l,_l i .......... , ,i i'TT'I' I
- - - Watershet~ InThe
~11 Juncal Dam
12 MatiliJa Dam
13 Gibraltar Dsm
14 Piru Dsm (not shown) --
~ i SanDimas D~m 2 Big Dalton Dam
3 Devil's Gate Dam
4 EatoR Wash D~m
§ santa Anita Dam
6 Sawpit Dam
9 si~ Tujun~
10 San C~briel
160
i I
180 200
DRAINAGE AREA (MI2)
100 120 140
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD '
FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
AASY/AAP RATIOS
FOR DRAINAGE AREAS OTO 200 MI;
WITH LOCAL AREA CURVE
U.8. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER8
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
FIGURE B-2
Step 7/.
Determine the A-T Factor for the.subject watershed. Divide
the value from the new local area curve by the value from the
original regression watershed curve.
Ex. A-T Factor for the Subject Watershed-
(for 42.9 mt2) - .062 / .100 - .62
TECHNIQUE 4 - NO RECORDS AVAILABLE FOR SUBJECT WATERSHED OR
NEARBY WATERSHEDS.
In the absence of any applicable records of any kind for the subject or
nearby watersheds, Table B-I, in conjunction with a detailed field analysis,
can be used to determine an approximate A-T Factor. Table B-1 was developed
from average annual sediment yield estimation methods currently in use in
Southern California, including the Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Conference
(PSIAC) method. Application of this technique must be supported by comparison
with San Gabriel Mountain watersheds which were included in the regression
equations. Estimates made by use of this technique may possess larger errors
in estimation than would result from the application of Techniques 1, 2, or 3.
However, this technique provides an alternative approach when sediment or
debris yield records are not available at all, or when there are not enough
nearby watersheds with data to construct a "local area curve" (Technique 3).
For example, assume it is necessary to apply the regression equation to
a watershed for which no sediment or debris yield records exist, and which has
only one nearby watershed for which these records exist. Since there are not
enough comparative watersheds to establish a local area curve on Figure B-l, a
field investigation in both watersheds is required to determine the simtlari-
ties between them.
TABI.F. B-l: ADJUSTMENT-TRANSPOSITION FACTOR TABLR
A-T SUBFACTOR
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.. 10
0.05
PARENT MATF~IAL
SUBFACTOR GROUP 1
FOLDING Severe Moderate Moderate Minor to
to Severe Moderate
FAULTING Severe Moderate
Minor
Minor
FRACTURING Severe Moderate Minor
WEATHERING Severe Moderate Minor
SOILS
SUBFACTOR GROUP 2
SOILS Non-Cohesive Partly Highly
Cohesive Cohesive
SOIL
PROFILE
SOIL
COVE~
ClAY
COLLOIDS
Minimal Some Soil
Soil Profile
Profile
Much Bare Some Bare
Soil in Soil in
Evidence Evidence
Few Clay Some Clay
Colloids Colloids
SUBFACTOR GROUP 3
Few Segments Some Segments
In Bedrock in Bedrock
CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
BEDRO~
EXPOSURES
Well-
Developed
Soil Profile
Little Bare
Soil in
Evidence
Many Clay
Colloids
Hany Se~ents
in Bedrock
BANK >30% of Banks 10-30% of Banks <10% of Banks
EROSION Eroding Eroding Eroding
BED AND
BANK
~TERIA~
Non-Cohesive
· Bed and Banks
Partly Cohesive
Bed and Banks
Highly Cohesive
Bed and Banks
VEGETATION Poorly Some Much
Vegetated Vegetation Vegetation
HEADCUTTING Hany Headcuts Few Headcuts
HILLSLOPE MORPHOLOGY SUBFACTOR GROUP 4
RI!.T-~ AND Hany and Some Signs
GULLIES Active
No Headcuts.
Few Signs
HAgS
MOVEHENT
DEBRIS
DEPOSITS
Hany Scars Few Signs No Signs
Evident Evident Evident
Hany Eroding
Deposits
Some Eroding
Deposits
Few Eroding
Deposits
The A-T Factor is the su= of the A-T Subfactors from all 4 Subfactor
groups.
B-10
The one nearby watershed with records has an average annual sediment
yield of 1.1 ac-ft/miZ/yr. Field analysis indicated that the nearby watershed
is similar in many respects to the subject watershed. Using Technique 2 and
Figure B-1 gives a tentative A-T Factor of 0.80.
Field observations indicates that the nearby watershed appears to
possess the following geomorphic characteristics. The A-T Factor is the
summation of the subfactors from each of the four subgroups in Table B-1.
a). Moderate to severe folding, fracturing, faulting, and weathering of
parent material (Subfactor Group 1 - 0,20).
Partly cohesive soils with some soil profile development, some bare
soil in evidence, and the sotl appears to possess some clay
colloids (Subfactor Group 2 - 0.15).
c).
Channel morphology exhibits extremely active erosion, with greater
than 50% of all channels actively eroding both bed and banks, few
segments in bedrock, extremely unstable bed and bank materials,
little protective vegetation, and numerous headcuts in evidence
(Subfactor Group 3 - 0,~5).
Hillslopes are heavily rilled with some gullying, a few mass
movement scars, and a number of actively-eroding colluvial/alluvial
deposits (Subfactor Group 4 - 0.20).
Adding these four Subfactor Group values together (0.20 + 0.15 + 0.25 +
0.20) results in an A-T Factor of 0.80. This value corroborates the sediment
yield record value of 0,~0.
It must be recognized that Technique 4 is the most subjective of any of
the A-T techniques. Estimates determined using this technique should be
documented, and if possible, verified by use of one of the earlier techniques.
APPENDIX C
HOW TO USE THE
COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
PROGRAM
APPENDIX C
HOW TO USE THE COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS (CFA) PROGRAM
II~RODUC~ON.
Information on acquiring the Coincident Frequency Analysis computer
program made be obtained by contacting the Hydrologic Engineering Center in
Davis, California. The telephone number and address are listed on page ¢-5.
In order to evaluate the total probabilities of independent flood and
wildfire events, coincident frequency analysis is used to establish the
probabilities of varied debris yield volumes in conjunction with the fire
history and discharse/prectpitation frequency of a watershed. The Coincident
Frequency Analysis program was developed by the Hydrologic EnsineerinS Center
of the Corps of Engineers at Davis, California. This prosram evaluates the
total probabilities of occurrence of two independent events, in this case,
those of wildfire and flood events.
It must be reco~nized that the coincident frequency values generated by
the computer program are not the maximum debris yield values to be expected,
but rather the expected 'mean' debris response, and as such are highly
dependent on accurate frequency input for both hydrolosic data and fire
frequencies.
The followinS is a step-by-step procedure for settinS up an input file
for use with the Coincident Frequency Analysis prosram. The procedure assumes
the user is already familiar with the COE Debris Method and has previously
prepared the appropriate input data (see Example 3, Part 3C in Appendix D).
Located in this appendix followinS t. he step-by-step procedure is the
users manual for the CFA prosram and followinS this are the input and output
for 4 test examples provided by HEC.
Four types of data are used as input for the CFA prosram; 1) Years-
Since-100% Wildfire frequency, 2) discharge frequency, and 3) debris response
relationships, along with 4) evaluation data.
PROCED~ FOR SETrING UP A CFA INPUT FIIJ~
Step 1/. Enter alphanumeric in~ormation identifying the location of
analysis, project name, file name, user name, date, and any other pertinent
information on TI records. Any number of TI records may be used but at least
one is required.
Step 2/. Enter the Years-Since-100% Wildfire relationship using DS, DT,
and DP records. Refer to Appendix A for determining Years-Since-100% Wildfire
frequency relationships (see Table A-3, Appendix A for example).
The DS record contains the number of coordinates used to describe
the duration relationship in field 1, followed by an alphanumeric description
such as 'YEARS-SINCE-100% ~-iLDFIRE'.
exceeded.
The DT record contains values for percent of time equalled or
The DP record contains the values of Years-Since-100% Wildfire
occurrence corresponding to the percent of time equalled or exceeded values on
the DT record. ': "
Step 3/. Enter the precipitation or discharge frequency data using FS,
FR, and FP records (see Table D-3 for example of data).
The FS record contains the number of pairs used to describe the
discharge frequency relationship in field 1 followed by an alphanumeric
description such as 'PEAK FLOW (FT3/S/HI2) - EXISTING CONDITION'.
The FR record contains percent chance exceedance values.
The FP record contains flow values in ftS/s/mi2 corresponding to
percent chance exceedante on Fit record.
Step 4/. Enter ~he debris response relationships for Years-Since-100%
Wtld£ire using RS, RD, RF, and RP records.
The RS.record contains the nunbet o£ sets of discharge versus
debris response relationships in field 1 (max. 30) followed by an alphanumeric
description such as 'DEBRIS YIELD IN CU YD/SQ HI'.
The RD record contains the number of pairs ~hat will be used to
describe the debris response relationship followed by ~he set number for the
number of sets on the RS record.
The RF record contains the unit peak flow values (in ft3/mi2)
beginning with the lowest value and monotonically decreasir~.
The RP record contains the debris response (in yd3/miz)
corresponding to values on the RF record (the values will monotonically
decrease if they correspond to values on RF record).
Step 5/. Enter an array of evaluation values on an VS and VR records.
The program will use these values to define the debris frequency relationship.
The values should cover the range of possible debris yields (max. - 30).
The V$ record contains the number o£ evaluation values (~ax -30)
in field one, followed by an alphanumeric description of the response variable
name such as 'YIELD' left Justified in field t~o £ollowed by an alphanumeric
description of the response variable units such as 'YD3/HI2' (left Justified).
.The VR record contains values of the response parameter to be
evaluated. Successive values must monotonically increase or decrease.
Step 6/. Enter a RD record as an end-of-data indicator.
C-&
CFA
COINCIDENT-FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
UsePs Manual
(Preliminary)
December 1989
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Water Resources Support Center
The Hydrologic Engineering Center
609 Second Street
Davis, California 95616
(916) 756-1104
COINCIDENT-FREQUENCY ANALYSIS PROGRAM
This preliminary version of the Coincident-Frequency Analysis Program
was written by Harold E. Kubik. The procedures contained in the program are
described in lecture outline 64, handout 39, and workshop 25 that is part o£
the Statistical Methods in Hydrology training course. At this time the
program can only analyze situations where the frequency and duration
parameters can be assumed to be independent.
The Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) plans to add capabilities to the
program in the future. Assistance may be provided by John Peters at
(916) 756-1104.
INPUT DESCRIPTION
COINCIDENT-FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
(CFA)
I. TITLE INFORMATION (Required).
FIELD VARIA~!.~, VALU~
DESCRIPTION
0 ID TI
Record identifier.
1-10 TITLE Char
Character or alphanumeric information to
identify the location of the analysis.
Any number of TI records may be provided,
but at least one is required.
II. JOB SPECIFICATIONS (Optional).
This record defines the transformation that is made to the frequency
parameter before the curve fitting procedures are applied, sets number of
~ci~91 place~ 9nd significant figures, and sets amount of dia~nostic output.
iz this recore is not provided, the default values under the variable p,~es
will be used.
FIELD VARIAaI.F. VALU]i: DESCRIPTION
0 ID J1
Record identifier.
1 LOGTF 0
(0)
The frequency parameter (FP record) is not
transformed, reco-~ended for stage-
frequency curves.
Logarithmic transformation (base 10) will
be made, recommended for flow-frequency
Curves.
2 NDEC +
(2)
Number of decimal places in the table
of results; 0, 1, 2, or 3 allowed. If
blank, default value of 2 will be used.
3 NSIG
(5)
Number of significant figures in table
of results.
-1
No rounding will be done.
Round to five (5) significant figures.
Round values to NSIG significant fisures.
4 IDCST 0
(o)
1
No diagnostic output.
Interpolated values will be output during
the computational steps.
Diagnostic output will be provided for
eachinterpolated value. Caution, will
create a lot of output.
Input Page 1 of 8
C-7
III. DURATION DATA.
This set of records is used to input ~he duration curve for the less
influential variable. Either a set of DT and DP records must be provided or a
ZR record that reads the data from DSS.
A. Duration Data. Specifications (Required).
FIELD VARIAB!.~. VALUE
DESCRIPTION
0 ID DS
Record identifier.
I NDPTS +
2-10 LOCIDD Char
Number of coordinates used to describe the
duration curve. Data are input on DT and
DP records. Must be zero, or blank, if
data are read from DSS. (Maximum of 30
points.)
Location of the less influential variable.
Percent of Time Exceeded Ordinates (Optional).
This record is provided if NDPTS is positive.
FIELD VARIAB!.~ VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID DT
1 - 10 PTIME +
Record identifier.
Percent of time that the duration
parameter is exceeded. Values must
monotonically increase or decrease.
C. Duration Parameter Ordinates (Optional).
This record is provided if NDPTS is positive.
FIELD VARIAB!~ VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID DP
Record identifier.
1-10 DPA& +
D. DSS Input Pathname (Optional).
Duration parameter values that correspond
to the percent of time exceeded ordinates
provided on the previous record (DT).
This record is provided if NDPTS is blank or' zero.
FIELD VARIABLE VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID ZR
Record identifier.
1-10 (pathname) Char
DSS pathname of duration data. Must be
complete pathname or pathname parts if
this is the first ZR record. Subsequent
ZR records need only provide those
pathn~e parts that are different.
Input Page 2 of 8
C-8
IV. FREQUENCY DATA.
This set of records is used to input the frequency curve for the more
influential variable. Either a set of FR and FP records must be provided or a
ZR record that reads data from DSS.
A. Frequency Data Specifications (Required).
FIELD VARIABI~ VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID. FS
Record identifier.
1 NFPTS +
Number of coordinates used to describe the
frequency curve. Data are input on FR and
FP records. Must be zero, or blank, if
data are read from DSS. (Maximum of 20
points. )
-1
Frequency data are not provided and SFFV
values (RF record) provided for the
response function are percent chance
exceedance values.
2-10 LOCIDF Char
Location identification of the more
influential variable.
B. Exceedance Frequency Ordinates (Optional).
This record is provided if NFPTS is positive.
FIELD VARIABT.~ VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID FR
Record identifier.
1-10 FREQ +
Percent chance exceedance values.
C. Frequency Parameter Ordinates (Optional).
This record is provided if NFPTS is positive.
FIELD VARIAB?.~ VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID FP
Record identifier.
1-10 FPAR +
D. DSS Input Pathname (Optional).
Frequency parameter values that correspond
to the percent chance exceedance values on
the previous record (FR). These values
must monotonically increase or decrease.
This record is provided if NFPTS is blank or zero.
FIELD VaRIAB!A VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID ZR
Record identifier.
1-10 (pathname) Char
DSS pathname of frequency data. Must be
complete pathname or pathname parts if
this is the first ZR record. Subsequent
ZRrecords need only provide those
pathname parts that are different.
Input Page 3 of 8
C-9
V. RESPONSE FUNCTION DATA.
These sets of recorde input the physical relationship between the
frequency parameter, the response variable, and the duration parameter. A
frequency parameter versus response function is provided for NCURV duration
parameter values. If NFPTS (FS record) is equal to (-1), then the frequency
parameter record will contain percent chance exceedance values.
A. Response Data Specifications (Required).
~ VARIAB~.~. VAI/IE
0 ID ItS
1 NCURV +
D~SCRIPTION
Record identifier.
Number of sets o( frequency parameter-
versus-response =unction curves (RD, RF,
and RP records to provide. (Haximumof 30
points.)
Read from DSS (not progr-mmed yet).
-1
A negative value for NCURV indicates that
the response functions can be computed
from the duration parameter and the
frequency parameter. This is primarily
used for lake-stage frequency analysis
where the duration parameter is based on
mean monthly lake levels and the frequency
parameter is wind setup. The wind setup
is added to the mean monthly lake level to
obtain the response parameter. (Sets of
RD, RF, and RP must not be provided.)
2-10 LOCIDR Char
Location identification of response
function parameter.
B. Duration Parameter Value (Optional).
provided if NCURV is positive.
FIELD VARIABLE VALU~
0 ID RD
1 NRPTS +
NCURV sets of the records described in paragraphs B, C, and D are
2 SD~I +
DESCRIPTION
Record identifier.
Number of coordinates used to describe the
frequency parameter-versus-response
function relationship that is defined for
the duration parameter SDPV. (Maximum of
20 points.)
Value of the duration parameter on which
the following response function (defined
in paragraphs C and D) has been based.
The NCURV values of SDPV for the
successive sets must monotonically
increase or decrease.
Input Page & of 8
C-10
C. Frequency Parameter Values (Optional).
FIELD VARIABLE VALUE
0 ID RF
1-10 SFFV +
DESCRIPTION
Record identifier.
__N~PTS values of the_ frequency parameter.
If NFPTS is (-1), the SFPV values are
percent chance exceedante.
D. Response Parameter Values (Optional).
FIELD VARIABLE VALUE
DESCRIPTION
0 ID RP
Record identifier.
1-10 RFUN +
VI. EVALUATION DATA.
NRPTS values of the response parameter
that correspond to the SFFV values on the
previous record. These values must
monotonically increase or decrease.
This set of records provides for ~riting results to DSS and allows the
input of values of the response parameter that will be used to develop the
frequency curve of the response parameter. Be sure that the input values
include the full range of expected values otherwise inaccurate extrapolations
may take place.
A. Evaluation Specifications (Required)
FIELD VARIABLE VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID VS
Record identifier.
1 NEVAL +
Number of evaluation values of the
response parameter. (Maximum of 30
values.)
The evaluation values will be computed by
the program. The nominal number of values
will be set to the maximum size of the
array, currently dimensioned for 30
values.
The evaluation values will be computed by
the program. The nominal number of values
will be set to #.
A. Evaluation Specifications, VS record (Continued).
FIELD VARIABLE VALUE DESCRIPTION
2 RPNAME Char
3 RI~IT Char
Response variable name left Justified.
Only the first 4 characters are used in
the table heading and~ritten to DSS.
Response variable units left Justified.
All 8 characters are used in the table
heading and~rttten to DSS.
Input Page 5 of 8
C-ll
A. Evaluation Specifications, VS record (Continued).
FIELD VARIAB!.F. VALUE DESCRIPTION
4 RPMIN +
Minimum value for range of response
variable to use in computing evaluation
values. If both RPMIN and RPHAX are
blank, the values will be computed from
the input data.
5 RPHAX +
Maximum value for range. See description
of RPMIN.
B. Evaluation Values (Optional).
This record is provided if NEVAL is positive.
FIELD VARIABI~ VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID VR
Record identifier.
1-10 EVAL +
Values of the response parameter to be
evaluated. Successive values must
monotonically increase or decrease.
VII. DSS OUTPUT PATHNAHE (Optional)
This record is provided if results are to be written to DSS.
FIELD VARIABLE VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID Z~
Record iden~ifier.
1 - 10 (pat hname ) Char
DSS pathname to write results. Must be
complete pathname or pathname parts if
this is the first Z~ record. Subsequent
Z~ records need only provide those
paths-me parts chat are different.
VIII. END-OF-DATA INDICATOR (Required).
ED records are used to separate data sets. Another data set may follow
or the job will te~inate if no other records are found.
FIELD VARIABLE VALIIE DESCRIPTION
0 ID ED
End-of-data indicator for data set.
Program will process data and output
results before attempting to read the next
data set.
Input Page 6 of 8
C-12
SUMMARY OF INPUT RF~ORDS
COINCIDENT. FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
(CF )
II.
III.
Title Information:
* TI,TITLE
(One or more title records of character information).
Job Specifications:
J1 LO~TF NDEC NSIG JTRAC
0 2 5 0 (Default values if no J1 record).
Duration Data:
· . Specifications:
~ DS NDPT$ LOCIDD
+~ (Number of Duration data on each DT and DP record).
0 (Duration data will be read from DSS).
Percent of Time Values:
~T'FTIME (If NDPTS positive, NDPTS values).
Duration Parameter Values:
~P'DPA~ (See DT record).
DSS Input Pathname:
~R'(If NDPTS is blank or zero, DSS pathname for data).
IV.
Frequency Relationship: · Specifications:
+~ (Number of Frequency data on each FR and FP record).
0 (Frequency data will be read from DSS).
· -1 (Frequency data not input, response values [RF] are
frequency data).
· Exceedante Frequency Values:
~R FREQ (If NFFTS is positive, NFPTS values).
Frequency Parameter Values:
FPAR (See FR record)..
DSS Input Path~me:
~R'(If NDPTS is blank or zero, DSS path~me for data).
Input Page 7 of 8
C-13
SUMMARY OF INPUT RECORDS (cont.)
Vo
Response l~tnction Data:
. . Specifications:
~ ItS NCURV LOCIDR
+~ (Number of sets of RD, RF and RV records).
0 (DSS read not progr-,~ed yet).
-1 (Response functions computed, no RD, RF, R~ records needed)·
· Duration Parameter Value:
~D I/RFTS SDFV (If NCURV is posi~ive, NCURV sets of RD, RF and R~
records).
Frequency Parameter Values:
~F'SFPV (If NCURV is positive, NRFT$ values)·
Response Parameter Values:
~2'RFUN (See RD record).
VI. Evaluation Data:
VII.
· · Specifications:
~ VS NEVAL RPNAHE RFUNXT B21~XN RPHAX
+~ (Number of Evaluation values on VR record).
0 (Evaluation values will be computed by program, around 30).
-# (Nominal number o£ values desired, canno~ exceed 30).
· Evaluation Values:
~R EVAL (If NEVAL is positive, NEVALvalues).
D$S Output Patename:
Zg (Pathname if DSS write of results is desired).
VIII. End-of-Data Indicator: * ED
Another data set may follow or the Job will.terminate if no other records
found.
* Indicates a required record.
Input Page 8 of 8
C-14
TEST NO. 1
Input for Test No. 1
TI TEST NO. 1 COINCIDENT FREQUENCY WORKSHOP P-25
TI INPUT IS STAGE-DURATION CURVE, FLOW-FREQUENCY CURVE AND
TI CONDITIONAL BACKWATER CURVES
J1 1
DS 10
DT .01
DP 62.8
FS 7
FR 99.99
FP 1500
RS 6
RD 4
RF 1500
RP 52
RF 1500
RP 55
RD 4
RF 1500
RP 57.5
RF 1500
RP 59.6
RD 4
RF 1500
RP 62
RD 4
RF 1500
RP 62.5
VS 16
VR 55
VR 65
ED
MAIN RIVER STAGES AT B
10. 10.8 30. 39. 50. 62.5
62. 61.4 60. 58.6 56. 53.3
FLOW-FREQUENCYAT A
90. 50. 10. 1. .1 .01
3000 4200 6000 8000 10000 12000
RESPONSE -- STAGES AT C
50.
3000 6000 10000
55 60 65
53.33
3000 6000 10000
57.7 62.2 67.7
56
3000 6000 10000
60 64 68
58.6
3000 6000 10000
62.2 65.8 69.3
61.4
3000 6000 10000
64.5 67.6 70.7
62
3000 6000 10000
65 68 71
STAGEFEET
56 57 58
66 67 68
70. 84.5 99.99
52. 50.5 49.2
59 60 61 62 63 64
69 70
Outout for Test No. 1
AAAAAAAA*AAA~AAAAAAAAAAAAA~AAAAAAAAA
* CFA
* COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
* PROGRAM DATE: DEG 1989
* VERSION DATE: 18SEP1990
* RUN DATE AND TIME:
* 19 SEP 90 08:33:29
*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
&AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA~IAAA&A*
*
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* 609 SECOND STREET
* DAVIS. GALIFORNIA 95616
* (916) 756-1104
*
~AAAAAAAAaAA~A~AAAAAAAAA~AAAAA~A&AA*
INPUT FILE NAME: CFA.DAT
OUTPUT FILE NAME: CFA.OUT
DSSIN FILE NAME: CFA
DSSOUT FILE NAME: CFA
..... DSS .... ZOPEN: Existing File Opened, File: CFA.DSS
Unit: 71; DSS Version: 6-EA
**TITLE INFORMATION**
TI TEST NO. 1 COINCIDENT FREQUENCY WORKSHOP P-25
C-15
TI INPUT IS STAGE-DURATION CURVE, FLO~-FREQUENCY CURVE AND
TI CONDITIONA~ BACKWATER CURVES
** JOB SPECIFICATIONS
LOGTF NDEC NSIG
J1 1
JTItAC
**DURATIONCURVE'DATA**
DS 10 MAIN RIVER STAGES AT B
DT .01 10. 10.8 30.
DP 62.8 62. 61.4 60.
~ Ft~UENCY CURVE DATA*~
FS 7 FLO~-Ft~UENCYAT A
F~ 99.99 90. 50. 10.
FP 1500 3000 4200 6000
** RESPONSE FUNCTION CURVES **
RS 6 RESPONSE -- STAGES AT C
CURVE 1'
RD 4 50.000
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 52 55 60 65
CURVE 2
RD 4 53.300
KF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 55 57.7 62.2 67.7
CURVE 3
RD 4 56.000
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 57.5 60 64 68
CURVE 4
RD 4 58. 600
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 59.6 62.2 65.8 69.3
CURVE 5
RD 4 61.400
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 62 64.5 67.6 70.7
CURVE 6
KD 4 62.000
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
P-P' 62.5 65 68 71
39. 50. 62.5 70. 84.5 99.99
58.6 56. 53.3 52. 50.5 49.2
1. .1 .01
8000 10000 12000
** EVALUATION DATA**
NEVAL RPNAHE RPUNIT PRMIN
VS 16 STAGE FEET .00 .00
V~ 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
VE 65 66 67 68 69 70
** END OF INPUT DATA **
62 63 64
ED~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-COHPUTED PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE VALUES-
RESPONSE VALUES
55.00 56.00 57.00 58.00 59.00 60.00 61.00 62.00
63.00 64.00 65.00 66.00 67.00 68.00 69.00 70.00
C-16
FREQUENCY VALUES
97.55 94.05 87.78
44.62 36.62 26.77
80.17
15.98
- INTE/~OLATED
.¸2
10
20
50
10 0
20 0
30 0
40 0
50 0
60 0
70 0
80 0
90 0
95 0
99 0
* - INDICATES
FREQUENCY VALUES-
P, ESPONSE
STAGE IN FEET
69.74
69.15
68.67
68.16
67.37
66.63
65.62
64.69
63.60
62.16
60.61
59.26
58.02
56.69
55.79
54.14 *
EXTRAPOLATED VALUE(S)
72.07
7.23
64.35
2.~
57.33
.62
50.99
.13
JOB COMPLETE
C-17
TEST NO. 2
Input for Test No. 2
TI TEST NO. 2 INTERIOR PONDING EXAMPLE
TI INPUT IS STAGE.- DURATION CURVE AND RESPONSE CURVES CONDITIONED ON
TI PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE
TI IGNORE RESULTING FREQUENCY CURVE BELOW 565 FT.
DS 11 MISSISSIPPI RIVER STAGES AT MOLINE,ILL APR-JUN
DT . 01 . 12 . 22 . 50 1.10 2.20 4.30
DT 99.99 10.50 23.00 61.00
DP 572 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562
DP 561
FS -1 FREQUENCY CURVE NOT REQUIRED, RESPONSE IS VERSUS EXCEEDANCE FREQUENCY
RS 5 MAXIMUM FOND ELEVATION (APR-JUN) VS FREQUENCY FOR GIVEN MISS. STAGE
RD 10 562
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP 565.0 565.1 565.2 565.5 566.0 566.5 567.0 567.3 567.5 567.8
KD 10 564
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP 566.0 566.1 566.3 566.6 566.8 567.1 567.4 567.7 567.9 568.1
RD 10 566
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP567.35 567.4 567.45 567.5 567.6 567.8 568.1 568.3 568.5 568.7
RD 10 568
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP 568.4 568.45 568.5 568.6 568.7 568.9 569.2 569.4 569.6 570.0
RD 10 570
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP568.85 568.9 569.0 569.2 569.4 569.7 570.1 570.3 570.6 570.9
VS 7ELEVATONFEET
VR 565 566 567 568 569 570 571
ED
Output for Test No. 2
*'A'**~**AAAAAAAAAA&AAAAAAAAAAAA&A**
* CFA
* COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
* PROGRAM DATE: DEC 1989
* VERSION DATE: 18SEP1990
* RUN DATE AND TIME:
* 19 SEP 90 08:33:29
*
AAA~AAAAAA&AAAAAAAA&A~AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
A&A/AAAAAAAAA*AAAAAAA*Nc*****AAAAAAAAA
*
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* 609 SECOND STREET
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* (916) 756-1104
*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAA~******
INPUT FILE NAME: CFA.DAT
OUTPUT FILE NAME: CFA.OUT
DSSIN FILE NAME: CFA
DSSOUT FILE NAME: CFA
**TITLE INFORMATION**
TI TEST NO. 2 INTERIOR FONDING EXAMPLE
TI INPUT IS STAGE- DURATION CURVE AND RESFONSE CURVES CONDITIONED ON
C-18
TI PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE
TI IGNORE RESULTING FREQUENCY CURVE BELOW 565 FT.
** DURATION CURVE DATA
DS 11 MISSISSIPPI RIVER STAGES AT MOLINE,ILL
DT . O1 . 12 . 22 . 50 1.10 2.20
DT 99.99
DP 572 570 569 568 567 566
DP 561
APR-JUN
4.30
565
10.50 23.00 61.00
564 563 562
** FREQUENCY CURVE DATA **
FS -1 FR~.QUENCY CURVE NOT REQUIKED, RESPONSE IS VERSUS EXCEEDANCE FREQUENCY'
** RESPONSE FUNCTION CURVES **
RS 5 MAXIMUM POND ELEVATION (APR-JUN) VS FREQUENCY FOR GIVEN MISS. STAGE
CURVE 1
RD 10 562.000
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP 565.0 565.1 565.2 565.5 566.0 566.5 567.0 567.3 567.5 567.8
CURVE 2
RD 10 564.000
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP 566.0 566.1 566.3 566.6 566.8 567.1 567.4 567.7 567.9 568.1
CURVE 3
RD 10 566.000
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP567.35 567.4 567.45 567.5 567.6 567.8 568.1 568.3 568.5 568.7
CURVE 4
RD 10 568.000
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP 568.4 568.45 568.5 568.6 568.7 568.9 569.2 569.4 569.6 570.0
CURVE 5
RD 10 570.000
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP568.85 568.9 569.0 569.2 569.4 569.7 570.1 570.3 570.6 570.9
571
** EVAIJJATION DATA **
NEVAL RPNAME RPUNIT PRMIN PRMAX
VS 7 ELEVATON FEET .00 .00
VR 565 566 567 568 569 570
END OF INPUT DATA
EDI I I I lit I I III I i I I III I III i Ill lit II II II lllltlll III I III III I I III il I I I I Iil I I I llll Illlilt
-COMPUTED PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE VALUES-
RESPONSE VALUES
565.00 566.00 567.00 568.00 569.00 570.00 571.00
I~EQUENCYVALUES
61.54 21.40 6.95 1.29 .12 .01 .00
-INTERPOLATED FREQUENCYVALUES-
FREQ RESPONSE
ELEVATON IN FEET
.2 568.79
.5 568.42
1.0 568.12
C-19
2.0 567.77
5.0 567.23
10.0 566.70
20.0 566.06
30.0 565.71
6.0.0 565.6.6
50.0 565.24
60.0 565.03
70.0 566..82 *
80.0 566.. 57 *
90.0 566.. 23 *
95.0 563.95 *
99.0 563.6.2 *
* - INDICATES ~0LATED
JOB COHPLETE
VALUE(S)
C-20
TEST NO. 3
Input for Test No. 3
TI TEST NO. 3 LAKE LEVEL EXAHPLE FROM HANDOUT-39
TI RESPONSE FUNCTIONS COHIRITED BY ADDING ITiND SETUP TO DURATION CURVE VALUES
TI EVALUATION POINTS (VR RECORD) COHPUTED BY PROGRAH
DS 10 LAKE MICHIGAN-BORON DURATION CURVE
DT 99. 94. 85. 70. 50. 30. 15. 6. 1. .08
DP -1.10 -.4 .38 1.17 1.94 2.67 3.33 3.93 4.65 5.20
FS 9 ANNUAL WIND SETUP AT GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN
FR 99. 95. 80. 50. 20. 10. 5. 2. 1.
FP 1.16 1.57 2.06 2.58 3.09 3.35 3.58 3.83 3.99
RS -1 TOTAL LAKE LEVEL
VS -10 STAGEFEET
ED
Output for Test No. 3
* CFA *
* COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS *
* PROGRAH DATE: DEC 1989 *
* VERSION DATE: 18SEP1990 *
* RUN DATE AND TIHE: *
* 19 SEP 90 08:33:30 *
* *
* U.S. ARHY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* 609 SECOND STREET
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* (916) 756-1104
*AAAAAAAAA******~k~***~AA~AAAAA~AAA~
INPUT FILE NAHE:
OUTPUT FILE NAHE:
DSSIN FILE NAHE:
DSSOUT FILE NAHE:
CFA. DAT
CFA. OUT
CFA
CFA
** TITLE INFORRATION **
TI TEST NO. 3 LAKE LEVEL F2iAHPLE FROH HANDOUT-39
TI RESPONSE FUNCTIONS COHPUTED BY ADDING WIND SETUP TO DURATION CURVE VALUES
TI EVALUATION POINTS (VR RECORD) COHPUTED BY PROGRAM
** DURATION CURVE DATA **
DS 10 LAKE MICHIGAN-HURON DURATION CURVE
DT 99. 9&. 85. 70. 50.
DP -1.10 -.4 .38 1.17 1.94
30. 15. 6. 1. .08
2.67 3.33 3.93 4.65 5.:20
** FREQUENCY CURVE DATA **
FS 9 ANNUAL WIND SETUP AT GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN
FR 99. 95. 80. 50. 20. 10.
FP 1.16 1.57 2.06 2.58 3.09 3.35
5. 2. 1.
3.58 3.83 3.99
** RESPONSE FUNCTION CURVES **
RS -1 TOTAL LAKE LEVEL
(Note: Response functions have been computed by the program.)
CURVE 1
RD 9 -1.100
RF 1.160 1.570 2.060 2.580 3.090 3.350 3.580
3.990
RP .060 .470 .960 1.480 1.990 2.250 2.480
2.890
3.830
2.730
C-2,1
CURVE 2
RD 9
KF 1.160
3. 990
RP .760
3.590
-. 4O0
1. 570
1. 170
2. 060
1.660
2. 580
2. 180
3. 090
2.690
3.350
2. 950
3. 580
3. 180
3.830
3.430
Cl/R%q~ 3
RD 9
RF 1.160
3. 990
RP 1. 540
4. 370
.380
1.570
1. 950
2. 060
2.440
2. 580
2.960
3. 090
3. 470
3. 350
3.730
3.580
3.960
3.830
4. 210
CURVE 4
RD 9
RF 1.160
3. 990
2.330
5. 160
1.170
1.570
2. 740
2. 060
3. 230
2. 580
3.750
3. 090
4. 260
3.350
4. 520
3.580
4.750
3.830
5.000
CURVE 5
RD 9
RF 1.160
3.990
RP 3.100
5.930
1.940
1.570
3.510
2.060
4.000
2.580
4.520
3.090
5.030
3.350
5.290
3.580
5.520
3.830
5.770
CURVE 6
RD 9
RF 1. 160
3.990
RP 3. 830
6. 660
2.670
1.570
4.240
2.060
4.730
2.580
5.250
3.090
5.760
3.350
6.020
3.580
6.250
3.830
6.500
CURVE 7
RD 9
RF 1.160
3. 990
RP 4.490
7. 320
3.330
1.570
4.900
2.060
5.390
2.580
5.910
3.090
6.420
3.350
6.680
3.580
6.910
3.830
7.160
CURVE 8
RD 9
RF 1.160
3.990
RP 5.090
7.920
3.930
1.570
5.500
2.060
5.990
2.580
6.510
3.090
7.020
3.350
7.280
3.580
7.510
3.830
7.760
CURVE 9
RD 9
RF 1. 160
3. 990
RP 5. 810
8. 640
4.650
1,,570
6.220
2.060
6.710
2.580
7.230
3.090
7.740
3.350
8.000
3.580
8.230
3.830
8.480
CURVE 10
RD 9
RF 1. 160
3.990
6.360
9.190
5.200
1.570
6.770
2.060
7.260
2.580
7.780
3.090
8.290
3.350
8.550
3.580
8.780
3.830
9.030
** EVALUATION DATA **
NEVAL RPNAME RPUNIT
VS -10 STAGE FEET
PRMIN
.00
PRNAX
. O0
C-22
(Note: EvaluatEon values have been computed by the pro§ram.)
~ .000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000
8.000 9.000 10.000
EDI III I I I I I I tl I I I I I I I I I I i III III I III I i I I III I I I I I I I I I I !1114 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I III I III I|: :::
-COMPUTED PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE VALUES-
RESPONSE VALUES
.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
8.00 9.00 10.00
FREQUENCY VALUES
99.98 99.17 94.28 82,.40 62.50 37,37 15.60 3.84
.44 .01 .00
-INTERPOLATED FREQUENCY
FREQ RESPONSE
VALUES -
STAGE IN FEET
.2 8.27
.5 7.95
1.0 7.67
2.0 7.35
5.0 6.84
10.0 6.37
20.0 5.76
30.0 5.30
40.0 4.90
50.0 4.50
60.0 4.10
70.0 3.66
80.0 3.14
90.0 2
95.0 1.91
99.0 1.07
JOB COMPLETE
C-23
TEST NO. 4
Input for Test No. 4
TI TEST NO. 4 LAKE LEVEL DATA WITH DSS READ AND VRITE
DS 0 ~ MICHIGAN-HURON DURATION CURVE
ZR/CFA TEST NO. 4/LAKE LEVELS/F~oELEV//1974/DURATION CURVE/
FS 0 ANNUAL WIND SETUP AT GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN
ZR F-FREQUENCY CURVE
RS -1 TOTAL LAKE LEVEL
VS 0 ELEVFEET
Z~/¢FA TEST NO. &/I, AY~ LEVELS///1974/CFA OUTPUT/
ED
Output for Test No. 4
*********************************
* CFA
* COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
* PROGRAM DATE: DEC 1989
* VERSION DATE: 185EP1990
* RUN DATE AND TIME:
* 19 SEP 90 08:33:31
*
INPUT FILE NAME: CFA.DAT
OUTPUT FILE NAME: CFA.OUT
DSSIN FILE NAME: CFA
DSSOUT FILE NAME: CFA
*
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* THE HYDROLOGIC KNGINEERING CENTER
* 609 SECOND STREET
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* (916) 756-1104
*
AAAAAAAAA~AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA~AAA
** TITLE INFORMATION**
TI TEST NO. 4 LAKE LEVEL DATA WITH DSS READ AND WRITE
** DURATION CURVE DATA **
DS 0 LAKEMICHIGAN-HURON DURATION CURVE
ZR/CFA TEST NO. 4/LAKE LEVELS/FREQ-ELEV//1974/DURATION CURVE/
--ZREAD: /CFA TEST NO. 4/IAKE LEVELS/FREQ-ELEV//1974/DURATION CURVE/
DT .250 1.250 6.000 15.000 30.000 50.000 70.000 85.000
94.000 98.750 99.750
DP 581.620 581.120 580.320 579.700 579.110 578.340 577.580 577.000
576.450 575.720 575.430
** FREQUENCY CURVE DATA **
FS 0 ANNUAL WIND SETUP AT GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN
ZRF-FREQUENCYCURVE
--ZREAD: /CFA TEST NO. 4/LAKE LEVELSIFREQ-ELEVlI19741FREQUENCY CURVE/
fl~ .200 .500 1.000 2.000 5.000 10.000 20.000 50.000
80.000 90.000 95.000 99.000
tT 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650 3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
C-24
1. 950 1. 800 1. 700 1. 530
** RESPONSE FUNCTION CURVES
P.S -1 TOTAL LAKE LEVEL
(Note: Response functions have
CURVE 1
RD 12 581.620
RF 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 586,180 585,810 585,540 585,270
583,570 583,420 583,320 583,150
been computed by the program.)
3,290 3,010 2,730 2,280
584,910 584,630 584,350 583,900
CURVE 2
RD 12 581,120
RF 4,560 4,190 3,920 3.650
1,950 1,800 1,700 1,530
RP 585,680 585,310 585,040 584,770
583,070 582,920 582,820 582,650
3,290 3,010 2,730 2,280
584,410 584,130 583,850 583,400
CURVE 3
RD 12 580.320
RF 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 584,880 584,510 584,240 583,970
582,270 582,120 582,020 581,850
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
583.610 583.330 583.050 582.600
CURVE 4
RD 12 579,700
RF 4,560 4,190 3,920 3,650
1,950 1,800 1,700 1,530
RP 584,260 583,890 583,620 583.350
581,650 581,500 581,400 581.230
3.290 3,010 2.730 2.280
582,990 582,710 582,430 581,980
CURVE 5
RD 12 579,110
RF 4,560 4,190 3,920 3,650
1,950 1,800 1,700 1,530
RP 583,670 583,300 583,030 582,760
581,060 580,910 580,810 580,640
3,290 3,010 2,730 2,280
582,400 582.120 581,840 581,390
CURVE 6
RD 12 578.340
ILF 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 582,900 582,530 582,260 581,990
580,290 580,140 580,040 579,870
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
581.630 581.350 581.070 580.620
CURVE 7
RD 12 577,580
RF 4,560 4,190 3,920 3,650
1,950 1,800 1,700 1,530
ILP 582,140 581,770 581,500 581,230
579,530 579,380 579,280 579,110
3,290 3,010 2,730 2,280
580,870 580,590 580,310 579,860
CURVE 8
RD 12 577,000
.RF 4,560 4,190 3,920 3,650
1,950 1,800 1,700 1,530
RP 581,560 581,190 580,920 580,650
578,950 578,800 578,700 578,530
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
580.290 580.010 579.730 579.280
CURVE 9
RD 12 576.450
RF 4.560 4.190
3,920 3.650
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
C-25
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
581.010 580.640 580.370 580.100 579.740 579.460 579.180 578.730
578.400 578.250 578.150 577.980
CURVE 10
RD 12 575.720
RF 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650 3.290 3.010 2 730 2.280
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530 '
RP 580.280 579.910 579.640 579.370 579.010 578.730 578.450 578.000
577.670 577.520 577.420 577.250
CURVE 11
RD 12 575.430
RF 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650 3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 579.990 579.620 579.350 579.080 578.720 578.440 578.160 577.710
577.380 577.230 577.130 576.960
** EVAI/JATION DATA **
NEVAL RPNA~E RPUNIT PRMIN PRMAX
VS 0 ELEV FEET .00 .00
(Note: Evaluation values have been computed by the program.)
VR 576.500 577.000 577.500 578.000 578.500 579.000 579.500 580.000
580.500 581.000 581.500 582.000 582.500 583.000 583.500 584.000
584.500 585.000 585.500 586.000 586.500
~ ~ITE DSS PATHNAME/PARTS **
Z~/CFA TEST NO. 4/LAI~ LEVELS///1974/CFA' OUTPUT/
** END OF INPUT DATA **
E~~~~~~~~~~~~
-COMPUTED PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE VALUES-
RESPONSE VALIJES '
576.50 577.00 577.50 578.00 578.50 579.00 579.50 580.00
580.50 581.00 581.50 582.00 582.50 583.00 583.50 584.00
584.50 585.00 585.50 586.00 586.50
FREQUENCY VALUES
100.00 99.99 99.60 98.23 95.34 89.40 79.71 68.00
54.98 42.54 29.56 18.22 10.00 5.05 2.17 .77
.23 .06 .02 .00 .00
-I~ERPO~T~FREQU~ VAIJJES-
FREQ RESPONSE
ELEV IN FEET
.2 584.56
.5 584.18
1.0 583.88
2.0 583.54
5.O 583.01
10.0 582.50
20.0 581.91
30.0 581.48
(1-26
40.0 581.10
50.0 580.70
60.0 580.31
70.0 579.92
80.0 '579.49
90.0 578.96
95.0 578.56
99.0 577.77
--Z~ITE: /CFA TEST NO. 4/I~.KE LEVELS/FREQ-ELEV//1974/CFA OUTPUT/
JOB COMPLETE
..... DSS---ZCLOSE Unit: 71, File: CFA.DSS
Pointer Utilization: .25
Number of Records: 3
File Size: 6.7 Kbytes
Percent Inactive: .0
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
NORMALSTOP IN CFA
IIIIIIIII!1111111111
C-27
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLF~ APPLICATIONS
EXAMPI.~ 1: APPLICATION OF EQUATION 1. EXPECI'ED DEBRIS YIELD
FROM A SMALL WATERSHED FOR A SPECIFIED PRECIPITATION
Problem: Determine the expected unit debris yield and volume of debris to
Bailey Canyon Debris Basin in the San Gabriel Mountains (see Figure D-l) resulting
from a flood equivalent to that experienced during the storm period of February 5-
22, 1979. The predicted debris yield results will be compared to that actually
measured at this site for the same flood event.
Step 1/.
Determine the ~axi~u~ 1-hour precipitation (P) applicable to
the flood event and ~ultiply by 100.
Analysis of Los Angeles County Depar~ent of Public Works records
indicated a m~ximum I-hour precipitation for this site of 0.50
inches, as measured at gauge #63. The maximum 1-hour
precipitation multiplied by 100 is 50.
Step 2/.
Draw the drainage boundary and determine the area of the
watershed (A) in mi2 and ac.
Usin~ a standard 1:24,000 USGS topographic ~ap and a planimeter,
the area of the watershed was determined to be 0.6 mt2, or 384 ac.
Step 3/. Determine the relief ratio (RR) of the watershed.
Locate the hi~hest point in the watershed at the end of the
longest watercourse (4005 ft NGVD), and the lowest point (1170 ft
D-1
'SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS N
,, ,"
. .- ' --~,.,.,_,.~.,
'
_ ,-/ ,.) __.____._:
! '
uburn
Debris Basin
Cnrier Debris B-sin
Bailey Canyon ~
Debris Basin
LEGEND ooo o tooo 2ooo 3ooo
STREAM CHANNEL FEET
'DRAINAGE BOUNUARY
DEBRIS BASIN
Figure D..I: Example Application 1
Bailey Cuyon Debris !hsin, Sierra Madre, CL
DrninL, e Aru = 384 acres
1)-2
NGVD) at the existing debris basin site; determine the difference
be~een these t~o in feet. Next, determine the length off the
longest watercourse, in miles (1.59 mi). Express the difference
bemeeen the high and low elevations (in £t) and the length of the
longest watercourse (in mi) as a ratio. In this example:
4005 - 1170 - 2835 ft, divided by 1.59 mi - 1783 ft/mi
Step 4/. Determine the Fire Factor (FF) for the subject watershed.
UsinS Figure 2 from the main text because the drainage area is
less than 3 mi2, and knowing that the watershed suffered a 100%
extent burn less than 1 year earlier (in October 1978), we see
that the Fire Factor for a drainage area of 0.60 mi2 less than
one year after a 100% burn is 6.50. (Remember, we are determining
debris yield for the flood of February 5-22, 1979.)
Step 5/. Determine the Adjustment-Transposition Factor (A-T).
Since the watershed is located within the area in vhich the
regression analysis data was obtained, the A-T Factor is
assumed to be 1.00.
Step 6/. Calculate the Log (Base 10) of the factors P, RR, and A. FF
and A-T are dt~ensionless and are used as is.
From STEP 1, Log (P)
From STEP 2, LOS (A)
From STEP 3, LOg (RR)
From STEP 4, FF
From STEP 5, A-T
- Log (50)
- Log (384)
- Log (1783)
= 6.50
= 1.00
D-3
Step 7/.
Since the drainage area is iess ~han 3.0 mt2, the use of
Equation 1 is appropriate. Solve for unit debris yield using
rAae above values:
Log Dy - 0.65(Log P) + 0.18(LOg A) + 0.62(Log RR) + 0.12(FF)
LOg Dy - 0.65(1.70) + 0.18(2.58) + 0.62(3.25) + 0.12(6.50)
LOg Dy - 1.104 + 0.465 + 2.016 + 0.780
LoS Dy - 4.365
Step 8/. Calculate the anttloS of Dy
AntiLog I~ - 23.186 yd3/mi2
Step 9/. Multiply the resulting Dy by the A-T Factor to get the
adjusted unit debris yield for the basin.
Adjusted Dy - 1.0 (23,186) - 23.186 ¥d3/mi2
Step 10/. Multiply the adjusted unit debris yield by the drainage area
to determine the volume of debris.
23,186 yd3/mt2 x 0.60 mi2 - total debris yield of 13.911 yd3
Actual debris inflow to Bailey Canyon debris basin durinS this period was
13.974 yds, while predicted debris yield was 13.911 yd3.
EXAMPLE 2: APPLICATION OF EQUATION 3. EXPECTED DEBRIS YIELD
FROM AN INTERMEDIATE-SIZED WATERSHED FOR A SPECIFIED
FLOOD EVENT.
Problem: Determine the expected unit debris yield and volume of debris to
Santa Anita Dam in the San Gabriel Mountains (see Figure D-2) resultinS
D-4
SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS
,
"'~ , -~~ !
/
,q,~..Senta Ardta Debris B&iin /~ewplt
'Spreeding Ground /Debris 8loin
LEGEND
........ STREAM CHANNEL
I , DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
DEBRIS BASIN
I 112 0
I ·
MILES
FiL, ure D-2: Enmple Application 2
Santa Anita Dam, Siena Madre, Ca.
Draina~ Area = lUmi2
1)-5
from a flood equivalent to that experienced during the period of January 18-26,
1969, and compare to observed debris yield.
Step 1/. Determine the ~axi~u~ unit peak flow (Q) from the watershed
for the storm period in question in ft$/s/mi2.
Records obtained from the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works indicate that the peak flow during this period was 5500
ft$/s on January 25, 1969. Expressing this as unit peak inflow
results in a value of 509 ft3/s/mi2.
Step 2/. Draw the drainage boundary and determine the area (A)
of the watershed in both mt2 and ac.
Using a standard 1:2~,000 USGS topographic map and a planimeter,
the area of the watershed was determined to be 10.8 mt2, or
6912 ac.
Step 3/. Determine the relief ratio (RR) of the watershed.
Locate the highest point in the watershed at the end of the
longest watercourse (5595 ft NCVD), and the lowest point (1463 ft
NCVD) at the existing debris basin site; determine the difference
between these t~o in feet. Next, determine the length of the
longest watercourse, in miles (6.76 mi). Express the difference
be~een the high and low elevations (in ft) and the length of the
longest watercourse (in mi) as a ratio. In ~his exile:
5595 - 1463 - 6132 ft, divided by 6.7~ mi - 871 ft/mi
D-6
Step 4/. Determine the Fire Factor (FF) for the subject watershed.
Because the drainage area is greater than 3 mi2, use Figure 3 from
the main text. This watershed suffered a 100% extent wildfire
approximately 15 years prior to the event in question. Since no
wildfires of greater than 5% extent have impacted the watershed
during the intervening time period, the Fire Factor was determined
to be 3.00 for a drainage area of 10.8 mi2.
Step 5/. Determine the AdJust~nent-Tr&nsposition Factor (A-T).
Since this watershed is located within the area in ~hich the
regression analysis data was obtained, the A-T Factor is assumed
to be ~.00.
Step 6/.,
Calculate the Log (Base 10) of the factors Q, RR, and A. FF
_ and A*T are dianermionless and are used as is.
From STEP 1, Log (q):.:.
From STEP 2, Log (A)
From STEP 3, LoS (RR)
From STEP 4, FF ~.
From STEP 5, A-T
- Log (so9) -Z.,.Z1
- Log (6912) - 3.84
- Log (871) -2_,.~
- 3.00
-zoo
Step 7/.
Log Z~ - O.88(Log Q)
Log Dy - 0.88(2.71)
Log Dy - 2.382
Log Dy - 4.624
Since peak £1ov data is available for this watershed pertain-
ing to the event in question, and the drainage area of the
watershed is between 10 and 25 mi2, the use of Equation 3 is
appropriate. Solve for unit debris yield using the above
values.
+ 0.06(Log A) + 0.48(Log RR) + 0.20(FF)
+ 0.06(3.84) + 0.48(2.94) + 0.20(3.00)
+ 0.230 + 1.411 + 0.600
D-7
Step 8/. Calculate the antilog of Dy
Ant/Log Dy-- 42.043 yd3/~tz
Step 9/. Multiply the resulting Dy by the A-T Factor to get the
adjusted unit debris yield for the basin.
AdJustedDy- 1.0 (42,043) - 42.043 yd3/miz
Step 10/. Multiply the adjusted unit debris yield by the drainage area
to determine the volume of debris.
42,043 yd3/miz x 10.8 mtz - total debris volume of 454.061 yds
Actual debris yield to this structmre was determined by the Los Angeles County
Depar~nent of Public Works to be approximately ~0.000 yd~. Actual debris volumes
are well within one standard deviation of the estimate, reflecting the adequacy of
the calculated factors, the peak flow estimates and the estimated Fire and A-T
Factors.
EXAMPLE 3: APPLICATION OF EQUATION 4 AND COINCIDENT FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS. EXPECTED DEBRIS YIELD FROM A LARGER
WATERSHED WITH AN A-T FAC'I~R OTHER THAN 1.0.
Problem: Deter~ine the expected unit debris yield frequency relationship for
Santa Paula Creek watershed. This example differs from the previous two in that
Santa Paula Creek (see Figure D-3) requires an A-T Factor other than 1.0, and due to
a lack'of any complete debris yield data, requires a somewhat more complicated
procedure for determining the A-T Factor. A coincident frequency analysis
D-8
t
,,.? /x, ,,. u
J",( ~..
LEGEND
.... STREAM CHAHNEL
I-- DRAINAQE BOUNDARY ~ Proposed Debrlm Bamln
;~ DEBRIS BASIN
0 0.5 1 2
MILES
SANTA PAULA
l~gure D-3: Example Application 3
Santa Paula Creek, Santa Paula, Ca.
Dra~ Area = 42.9 m~2
approach is considered necessary to evaluate the expected unit debris yield from the
watershed for different wildfire and flood conditions.
PART 3A: APPLICATION OF A-T FACTOR TECHNIQUE 3 TO SANTA
PAULA CREEK WATERSHED.
This part of Example 3 problem utilizes Technique 3 for determining the A-T
Factor (see Appendix B, How To Determine The AdJus~ment-Transposition Factor). The
unadjusted equation (A-T Factor - 1.0) is not directly applicable to the Santa Paula
Creek watershed due to differences in vegetation cover, channel morphology, and
differences in the potential mobility of debris in storage within the watershed
itself.
Four watersheds in close proximity to Santa Paula Creek possess long-term
sediment yield records, as well as being quite similar to Santa Paula Creek
watershed in vegetation, topography, climate, and geomorphology. One of these
watersheds, MatiliJa Creek, has been studied in some detail by Corps of Engineers
personnel during a recent analysis of wildfire impacts following the ~heeler Fire of
August 1985.
A simple linear regression of average annual sediment yield to average annual
precipitation ratios (AASY/AAP; see Appendix B for derivation) was performed on the
data from the four nearby watersheds and compared to the original regression line
(Figure B-l, Appendix B). The comparison is shown on Figure D-4 (same as Figure B-
2). Dividing the AASY/AAP ratio from the local area curve for 42.9 miZby the
AASY/AAP ratio from the original regression curve for 42.9 miz gives an A-T Factor
of 0.60.
D-10
'0.16
0.14
AASY' = AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENt YIELD
0.06 t
I
0.04
I
0'020 20 ~0
SAME AS FIGURE B-2
AAP = AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I t I I_] ! ~I
- - - Wa~.rsheds In 'l~e
<~11 Juncal Dam 12 Matilija Dam
13 Gibraltar Dam
14 Piru Dam (not shown) --
60 80
DRAINAGE AREA (MI2)
1-u'u 120 140
I IIII
1~0
....... Wa~eds Used
In Regression Analysis
2 Big Dalton Dam
3 Devil's Gate Dam
4 Eaton Wash Dam
§ Santa Anita Dam
6 Sawpit Dsm
7 Pacoil~a
8 Cogswell D~m
9 Big Tujunga Dsm
10 San Gabriel Dam
1 SO 200
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD
FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
AASY/AAP RATIOS
· FOR DRAINAGE AREAS O TO 200 MI2
WITH LOCAL AREA CURVE
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
FIGURE D-4
PART 3B: APPLICATION OF A-T FACTOR TECHNIQUE 4 TO SANTA
PAULA CREEK WATERSHED.
As stated in Part 3A, the unadjusted equation (A-T Factor - 1.0) is not
directly applicable to the Santa Paula Creek watershed due to d£fferences in
vegetation cover, channel morphology, and differences in the potential mobility of
debris in storage within the watershed itself. This part of Example 3 problem
utilizes Technique & for determining the A-T Factor (see Appendix B, How To
Determine The Adjustment/ Transposition Factor).
A field analysis of .the watershed revealed a number of differences bet~een the
watersheds used in the regression analysis and the study watershed. A discussion of
these follows:
1/. The parent material of Santa Paula Creek watershed is somewhat different
from the materials of the San Gabriel Range. It appears that there is, in general,
less severe folding, fracturing, and faulting of the parent material in the study
watershed than is evident in the regression watersheds. This is not to say that the
rocks of Santa Paula are not highly modified and contorted by tectonic forces that
have acted on this area, but that parent materials in the San Gabriel Range appear,
in many cases,' to be a]~aost completely pulverized and ~uch more susceptible to
erosive processes than those of the Santa Paula Creek Watershed.
From Table D-1 (same as Table B-l), we determined the Parent Haterial factor
(Subfactor Group 1) to be approximately 0.15.
2/. Although the t~pe and structure of soils in the Santa Paula watershed
appear to be quite similar to those of the regression watersheds, the Santa Paula
Creek soils are better protected against raindrop impact and rill formation due to a
large proportion of grasses covering the soil surface in the study watershed. Under
normal vegetation cover, the study watershed will yield less debris per unit area to
the processes o£ sheetflow and rill formation than an equivalent watershed in the
D-12
TABLE D-l: ADJUSTMENT-TRANSPOSITION FACTOR TABLE
(SAME AS TABLE B-l)
SUBFACTOR
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10
PARENT MATERIAL SUBFACTOR GROUP 1
FOLDING Severe Moderate Moderate Minor to
to Severe Moderate
FAULTING Severe Moderate
0.05
Minor
Minor
FRACTURING Severe Moderate Minor
WEATHERING Severe Moderate Minor
SOILS SUBFACTOR GROUP 2
SOILS Non-Cohesive Partly
Cohesive
SOIL
PROFILE Minimal Some Soil
Soil Profile
Profile
SOIL
COVER
CLAY
COLLOIDS
Highly
Cohes
Well-
Developed
Soil Profile
Much Bare Some Bare Little Bare
Soil in Soil in Soil in
Evidence Evidence Evidence
Few Clay Some Clay Many Clay
Colloids Colloids Colloids
CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY
BEDROCK Few Segments
EXPOSURES In Bedrock
SUBFACTOR GROUP 3
Some Segments
in Bedrock
Many Segments
in Bedrock
BANK >30% of Banks 10-30% of Banks <10% of Banks
EROSION Eroding Eroding Eroding
BED AND
BANK
MAT~IALS
Non-Cohesive
Bed and Banks
Partly Cohesive
Bed and Banks
Highly Cohesive
Bed and Banks
VEGETATION Poorly Some
Vegetated Vegetation
HEADCUTTING Many Headcuts Few Headcuts
HILLSLOPE MORPHOLOGY SUBFACTOR GROUP 4
Much
Vegetation
No Headcuts
RILLS AND Many and Some Signs Few Signs
GWJLLIES Active
MASS Many Scars Few Signs No Signs
MOVEMENT Evident Evident Evident
DEBRIS Many Eroding Some Eroding Few Eroding
DEPOSITS Deposits Deposits Deposits
The A-T Factor is the sum of the A-T Subfactors from all & Subfactor
groups.
D-13
San Gabriel range (regression watersheds). This results in lesser amounts of debris
being delivered to debris storage sites during minor to moderate storm events, and
hence, lesser amounts o£ debris available for movement during major storm events.
Under conditions in which ~he vege~ative cover is burned, ~he study watershed will
respond in a manner similar to ~hat of ~he regression watersheds, although at a
lesser rate because of the lower availability of debris in storage, greater
stabili~y in ~he channel system, and better cementation in the soil profile.
From Table D-l, we determined ~he Soils factor (Subfactor Group 2) to be
approximately 0.15.
3/. The proportion of channel banks actively experiencing erosion is minimal
within the upper reaches of Santa Paula Creek and its tributaries. This is in
direct contrast to watersheds used in the regression analysis. Although it was
estimated that over 50% of the lower channel reaches appear to be eroding, less than
10% of the more numerous upper reaches show any signs of active or recent erosion.
This is in contrast to channel systems ~-ypical of the regression analysis watersheds
in which over 80% of the entire channel system displays signs of active or recent
erosion.
From Table D-l, we determined the Channel Horphology £actor (Subfactor Group
3) to be approximately 0.15.
4/. The proportion of upland areas in the study watershed that are presently
experiencing erosion due to mass movement (i.e., slumping, rockfall, soil slippage,
etc.), rilllug, or gullying is minimal when compared to regression watersheds.
Although the Hud Creek vatershed appears to be much worse, the overall debris
contribution of these areas is considerably less than is evident in watersheds which
were included in the regression analysis. Although mass movement and sheetflow
erosion has undoubtedly contributed large amounts of debris to the channel system
during times past, at present this source cannot be considered to play a primary
role in the supply of debris to the channel system.
D-14
From Table D-l, we determined that the Hillslope Horpholo~y factor (Subfactor
Group 4) is approximately 0.15.
Adding these factors together, use of Technique 4 from Appendix B would
indicate an A-T Factor of 0.60. This value agrees with the A-T Factor derived ustn§
Technique 3 in Part 3A of this example.
PART 3C: DETERMINATION OF FREQUENCY DEBRIS YIELD FOR SANTA
PAULA CREEK WATERSHED USING COINCIDENT FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS.
For the purpose of evaluating the potential debris yield of the Santa Paula
Creek watershed, Equation 4 was selected on the basis of drainage area and the
availability of flow frequency data. In order to evaluate the total probabilities
of independent fire/flood events in the Santa Paula watershed, a coincident
frequency analysis was performed (HEC computer program, Coincident Frequency
Analysis - CFA).
Four types of data are used as input for the CFA program; Years-Since-100%
Wildfire frequency, discharge frequency, and debris response relationships, alo~
with evaluation data (see Chapter 6 for a more detailed explanation of the ~nput
data and Appendix C for a discussion on how to use the CFA program).
The frequency of wildfires was quantified through the use of the Fire Factor
curves presented in Figure 3 in the main text (for 42.9 mi2) and placed in a Fire
Factor frequency chart as described in Appendix A (How To Determine Fire Factors).
The Years-Since-100% Wildfire frequency relationship is presented in Table D-2.
D-15
TABLE D-2: YEARS-SINC~lO0% WILDFIRE FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIP
Frequency*
Years- Since- 100% Wildfire
0 0
0.1 1
0.3 2
0.7 3
1.4 4
2.2 5
3.2 6
4.6 7
7.2 8
12.0 9
13.1 10
16.7 11
24.1 12
34.5 13
49.0 14
100 15
The frequency for which Years-Since-100% Wildfire is equalled or
exceeded. Cumulative. This is not P[Bi]; P[B~ is the incremental
difference for each Year-Since-100% Wildfire.
The unit discharge frequency data was determined using the discharge frequency
curve shown on Figure D-5. This data is shown in Table D-3.
D-16
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
126
105
F
L
0
W
!
N
C
F
S
123
121
122
99.79 '79.9 9~
I I I I I
PERCENT CHANCE EXCEED/~NCE
.1 .21
FIGURE D-5
ANN PK FREO CURUE - COMP PROB
ANN PK FREQ CURUE - EXP PROB
5X CONFIDENCE LIMIT
95X CONFIDENCE LIMIT
ANN MAX PK FLOW EUENT
DISCHARGE FREQUENCY CURVE
SANTA PAULA CREEK
D.A. 42.9 MI2
D"'t?
TABLE D-3: UNIT DISCHARGE FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIP
Frequency* Discharge
0.2 1489
0.5 1000
1 719
2 499
5 288
10 176
20 96
30 61
40 40
50 29
60 19
70 13
80 8.0
90 3.9
95 2.2
The frequency for wh[ch unit discharge is equalled or exceeded.
Cumulative.
Probability is frequency divided by 100.
Adjusted debris response relationships were then calculated using Equation
and A-T Factor of 0.60 for intervals of 1-15 years since 100% wildfire. These
relationships are listed in Table D-4.
D-18
TABLE I)-4: ADJUSTED DEBRIS YIELDS
As Calculated For Santa Paula Creek Watershed
Drainage Area = 42.9 mi2
ADJUSTMENT. TRANSPOSmON FACTOR (A-T) = 0.60
YEARS-
SINCE-
100%
WILDFIRE
0.2
FREQUENCY OF EXCEEDANCE
(PER 100 YEARS)
~ 0.5 ~ 1.0 ~ 2.0 ~ 5.0 ],,,,,.1.0.0 ,~ 20.0 ~ 50.0 ~ 95.0
DEBRIS YIELD (yd$/mi2)
1 185452 125559 93548 66363 39586 24917 14094 4575 405
2 161708 111227 81571 57866 34517 21727 12290 3989 353
3 141004 96986 71127 50457 30098 18945 10716 3478 308
4 125381 86240 63246 44867 26763 16846 9529 3093 274
5 115486 79435 58255 41326 24651 15516 8777 2849 252
6 106790 73453 53869 38214 22795 14348 8116 2634 233
7 99915 68724 50401 35754 21327 13424- 7594 2465 218
8 93117 64049 46972 33322 19876 12511 7077 2297 203
9 87807 60396 44293 31421 18743 11798 6673 2166 192
10 83413 57373 42076. 29849 17805 11207 6339 2058 182
11 79622 54766 40164 28492 16996 10698 6051 1964 174
12 73915 50841 37285 26450 15778 9931 5618 1823 161
13 68349 47012 34477 24458 14589 9183 5195 1686 149
14 63202 43472 31881 22616 13491 8492 4803 1559 138
15 57310 39419 28909 20508 12233 7700 4356 1414 125
A range of debris yield values (30) from 100 to 190,000 yd$/mim was input to
be used as evaluation data and to define the debris frequency relationship. The CFA
input file is shown in Table D-5.
The final results consist of a table relating the debris yield of Santa Paula
Creek watershed to the total exceedance frequencies of wildfire and floodinS for
0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0, 50.0, 60.0, 70.0, 80.0, 90.0, 95.0,
and 99.0 per cent. The output is presented in Table D-6.
The results indicate that for a total fire/flood frequency of 1.00 (an event
which has a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year), the debris
yield at the proposed debris basin site would be about 35,600 yds$/mi2 (from Table
D-6) or a total of approxiamtely 1,525,000 yds$ (35,600 yds$/mi2 x 42.9mi~).
D-19
TABLE D-5: INPUT FILE FOR TEST NO. 1
Using Snnta Paula Creek Watershed Data
TI
TI
TI
T!
TI
TI
J1 1
DS 15
DT 0.1
DT 16.7
DP- 1
DP 11
FS 15
FR 0.2
FR 60
FP 1489
FP 19
RS 15
RD 9 1
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96
RP185452 127559 93548 66363 39586 24917 14094
RD 9 2
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96
RP161708 111227 81571 57866 34517 21727 12290
1~0 9 3
RF 1489 1000 719 499 28~ 176 96
RP141004 96986 71127 50547 30098 18945 10716
RD 9 4
R.F 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96
RP12538! 86240 63246 44867 26763 16846 9529
-RD 9 ~5 '-
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96
RPl15486 79435 58255 41326 24651 15516 8777
RD 9 6
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96
RP106790 73453 53869 38214 22795 14348 8116
RD 9 7
RF 1489 1000 "''719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
RP 99915 68724 50401 35754 21327 13424 7594 2465 218
RD 9 8
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96
RP 93117 64049 46972 33322 19876 12511 7077
RD 9 9
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96
~ 87807 60396 44293 31421 18743 11798 6673
RD 9 10
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96
RP 83413 57373 42076 29849 17805 11207 6339
RD 9 11
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96
RP 79622 54766 40164 28492 16996 10698 6051
RD 9 12
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96
RP 73915 50841 37285 26450 15778 9931 5618
LOS ANOELES DISTRICT DEBRIS NETHOD ......................... FILE - TEST.DAT
i_O_I_N_C_IDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS .................... TEST FILE NO. 1
.~][qO SANTA PAULA DEBRIS BASIN DATA .............. ::::::::'~).A. - 42.9 SQ M!
, DT & DP IS YEARS-SXNOE-I~XLDFIRE FRF, QUF/%'Y RELATIONSHIP
FS, & FP IS DISCHA O F Um C¥ RELATIONSHIP
RD, RF & RP IS DEBRIS RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP ....................... JAN 1992
YEARS SINCE FIRE
0.3 0.7 1.4 2.2 3.2 4.6 7.2 12.0 13.1
24.1 34.5 49.0 100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12 13 14 15
PEAK FLOV CFS PER SQ MILE SANTA PAI/LA I~ATERSHED 42.9 SQ HILES
O. 5 I 2 5 10 20 30 40 50
70 80 90 95
1000 719 499 288 176 96 61 40 29
13 8.0 3.9 2.2
DEBRIS YIELD RATE IN YD3 PER SQ HILE
29 2.2
4575 405
29 2.2
3989 353
29 2.2
3478 308
29 2.2
3093 274
29 2.2
2849 252
29 2.2
2634 233
29 2.2
2297 203
29 2.2
2166 192
29 2.2
2058 182
29 2.2
1964 174
29 2.2
1823 161
D-20
TAB[,g D.S: INPUT FILE FOR TEST NO. 1 (cont.)
RD 9 13
~ 1489 1000
~ 68349 47012
R.D 9 14
R.F 1489 1000
1~ 63202 43472
RD 9 15
RF 1489 1000
RP 57310 39419
V$ 30 YIELD
VR190000 150000
VR 30000 20000
VR 1000 900
ED
719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
36477 26458 14589 9183 5195 1686 149
719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
31881 22616 13491 8492 4803 1559 138
719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
28909 20508 12233 7700 4356 1414 125
125000 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000
10000 9000 7500 6500 5000 3500 2500
800 700 600 500 400 300 200
40000
1500
100
D-21
TABt.~ D-6: OUTPUT FIi.~ FOR TEST NO. 1
Using Santa Paula Creek Watershed Data
* CFA
* COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
* PROGRAM DATE: DEC 1989
* VERSION DATE: 18SEP1990
* RUN DATE AND TIME:
* 06 JAN 92 08:14:05
*
IAAAAAAAA/AAAAAAAA/AAAAAAAAA/A//&AAA
*
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* 609 SECOND STREET
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
* (916) 756-1104
*
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
INPUT FILE NAP, E: TEST.DAT
OUTPUT FILE NAME: TEST.OUT
** TITLE INFORP, ATION **
TI LOS ANGELES DISTRICT DEBRIS METHOD ......................... FILE - TEST.DAT
TI COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS .............................. TEST FILE NO. 1
TI USING SANTA PAULA DEBRIS BASIN DATA ...................... D.A. - 42.9 SQ MI
TI DS, DT & DP IS YEARS-SINCE-WILDFIRE FRF~UENCY RELATIONSHIP
TI FS, FR & FP IS DISCHARGE FI~QUENG'Y RELATIONSHIP
TI RD, RF & RP IS DEBRIS RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP
** JOB SPECIFICATIONS **
LOGTF NDEC NSIG
J1 1
JTRAC
** DURATION CURVE DATA **
DS 15 YEARS SINCE FIRE
DT 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.2
DT 16.7 24.1 34.5 49.0 100
DP 1 2 3 4 5
DP 11 12 13 14 15
3.2 4.6 7.2 12.0 13.1
6 7 8 9 10
** FP, EQUgNCY CURVE DATA **
FS 15 PEAK FLOW CFS PER SQ MILE SANTA PAULA WATERSHED 42.9 Sq MILES
FR 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40
PT. 60 70 80 90 95
PT 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96 61 40
FP 19 1.3 8.0 3.9 2.2
50
29
** RESPONSE FUNCTION CURVES **
RS 15 DEBRIS YIELD RATE IN YD3 PER SQ MILE
CURVE 1
RD 9 1. 000
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
RP185452 127559 93548 66363 39586 24917 14094 4575 405
CURVE 2
RD 9 2.000
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
RP161708 111227 81571 57866 34517 21727 12290 3989 353
D-22
TABLE D-6: OUTPUT FILE FOR TEST NO. 1 (cont.)
Using Santa Paula Creek Watershed Data
CURVE 3
RD 9
RF 1489
RP141004
gORVE 4
RD 9
RF 1489
RP125381
CURVE 5
RD 9
RF 1489
R.P115486
CURVE 6
RI) 9
RF 1489
RP106790
CURVE 7
RD 9
RF 1489
RP 99915
CURVE 8
RD 9
RF 1489
RP 93117
CURVE 9
RD 9
RF 1489
RP 87807
3.000
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
96986 71127 50547 30098 18945 10716 3478 308
4.000
1000 719
86240 63246
5.000
1000 719
79435 58255
6.000
1000 719
73453 53869
7.000
1000 719
68724 50401
8.000
1000 719
64049 46972
9.000
1000 719
· 60396 44293
CURVE 10
zv 9 lO OOO
RF 1489 1000 719
lap 83413 57373 42076
CURVE 11
RD 9 11.000
RF 1489 1000 719
RP 79622 54766 40164
CURVE 12
RD 9 12.000
RE 1489 1000 719
RE 73915 50841 37285
CURVE 13
RD 9 13.000
RE 1489 1000 719
RE 68349 47012 3/4477
CURVE 14
RD 9
14.000
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
44867 26763 16846 9529 3093 274
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
41326 24651 15516 8777 2849 252
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
38214 22795 14348 8116 2634 233
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
35754 21327 13424 7594 2465 218
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
33322 19876 12511 7077 2297 203
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
31421 18743 11798 6673 2166 192
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
29849 17805 11207 6339 2058 182
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
28492 16996 10698 6051 1964 174
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
26450 15778 9931 5618 1823 161
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
2/~58 14589 9183 5195 1686 149
D-23
TABLE D-6: OUTPUT FILE FOR TEST NO. 1 (cont.)
Using Snnta Paula Creek Watershed Data
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
RP 63202 43472 31881 22616 13491 8492 4803 1559 138
CURVE 15
RD 9 15.000
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96 29
RP 57310 39419 28909 20508 12233 7700 4356 1414
** EVALUATION DATA**
NEVAL RPNAME RPUNIT PRMIN PRMAX
VS 30 YIELD YD3/MI2 .00 .00
VR190000 150000 125000 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000
VR 30000 20000 10000 9000 7500 6500 5000 3500
VR 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300
2.2
125
50000
2500
200
40000
1500
100
-COMPUTED PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE VALUES-
RESPONSE VALUES
100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00
900.00 1000.00 1500.00 2500.00 3500.00 5000.00 6500.00 7500.00
9000.00 10000.00 20000.00 30000.00 40000.00 50000.00 60000.00 70000.00
80000.00 90000.00100000.00125000.00150000.00190000.00
I~.EQUENCYVALUES
95.64 94.15 92.29 90.05 87.48 84.55 81.26 77.63
73.73 69.61 54.01 38.07 29.28 20.89 15.61 13.16
10.42 9.03 3.04 1.42 .78 .47 .31 .21
.14 .10 .07 .03 .01 .00
FREQ ~S~NSE
VALUES-
YIELD IN YD3/MI2
.2 70929.00
.5 48892.00
1.0 35559.00
2.0 25123.00
5.0 15134.00
10.0 9271.00
20.0 5208.90
30.0 3400.60
40.0 2347.10
50.0 1689.10
60.0 1281.60
70.0 989.30
80.0 735.69
90.0 402.28
95.0 145.82
99.0 -328.63 *
* - INDICATES EXTRAPOLATED VALUE(S)
JOB GOMPLEYE
D-24
APPENDIX B
HOW TO DETERMINE THE
ADJUSTMENT-TRANSPOSITION
FACTOR
APPENDIX B
HOW TO DETERMINE ADJUSTMENT-TRANSPOSITION (A-T) FACTORS
INTRODUCTION.
The Adjustment-Transposition (A-T) Factor was developed to account for
the difference in geomorpholo~ry between the subject watershed and the original
watersheds from which the regression equations were generated. This factor
considers the surficial geology, soils, and hillslope and channel morphology.
Watersheds of the San Gabriel Mountains from which the regression equations
were developed have an A-T Factor of 1.0. Watersheds in areas with higher
debris potential would have an A-T Factor greater than 1.0, while areas of
lesser debris yield capacity would have an A-T Factor less than 1.0.
Four techniques for calculating the A-T Factor are provided below.
Preliminary data collection should consist of finding all sediment and/or
debris records for the subject watershed or, in the absence of these, for all
nearby watersheds possessing similar geology, climate, and topography. Any
available topographic, soil, and land use maps should be collected. After
determining a preliminary estimate of the A-T Factor, a field investigation of
the watershed should be performed. The following techniques also make use of
the drainage area size and the average annual precipitation for the subject
watershed.
To use the A-T Factor, first calculate the unadjusted unit debris yield
(Log Dy) using the appropriate regression equation. After taking the anti-log
of Dy, multiply the result by the A-T Factor to determine the "adjusted"
debris yield.
B-1
surveys, obtain all of the long-term sediment records and determine the
average annual sediment yield. Divide the average annual sediment yield by
the average annual precipitation for the watershed. Average annual
precipitation values for the subject watershed may be found by contacting the
applicable county flood control agency, from National Weather Service
publications, or may be calculated by the investigator using available
precipitation gauge data and an appropriate area-averaging method (tsohyetal,
Thiessen polygons, etc~). The result is the "average annual sediment
yield/average annual precipitation (AASY/AAP) ratio".
Using this technique, the A-T Factor is determined in the following
manner:
Step 1/. Determine the drainage area of the subject watershed.
Example (Ex.). Drainage Area - 40 ~2
Step 2/. Determine the average annual sediment yield of the subject
watershed from available periodic survey data.
Ex. Average Annual Sediment Yield - 1.69 ac-ft/mt2/yr
Step 3/. Determine the average annual precipitation for the subject
watershed.
Ex. Average Annual Precipitation - 25 in.
Step 4/. Determine the AASY/AAP ratio. Divide the average annual
sediment yield by the average annual precipitation.
Ex. AASY/AAP Ratio (for 40 miz) -
1.69 ac-ft/mt2/yr / 25 in -,0.07 ac-ft/mi2/yr/in
B-3
,- ,- ,- ,- 0 0 O. 0
d d .d~ .~. ~ d o d ....
011,VH dVV/A~VV 15-5
Ex. Figure B-2 shows an example of what this should look
like.
Step 6/.
Determine the AASY/AAP yield ratios for the new local
area curve and the subject watershed from the original
regression watershed curve on Figure B-2 for the subject
watershed's drainage area size.
Ex. AASY/AAP Ratio from New Local Area Curve (for ~2.9 mi2) -
.062
AASY/AAP Ratio from Original Regression Watershed Curve
(for ~2.9 mi2) - .100
Step 7/.
Determine the A-T Factor for the subject watershed. Divide
the value from the new local area curve by the value from the
original regression watershed curve.
Ex. A-T Factor for the Subject Watershed -
(for 42.9 mt2) - .062 / .100 - ,6~
TECHNIQUE 4 - NO RF.,CO~$ AVAILABLE FOR SUBJEC'T WATERSHED OR
NEARBY WATERSHEDS.
In the absence of any applicable records of any kind for the subject or
nearby watersheds, Table B-l, in conjunction with a detailed field analysis,
can be used to determine an approximate A-T Factor. Table B-1 was developed
from average annual sediment yield estimation methods currently in use in
Southern California, including the Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Conference
(PSIAC) method. Application of this technique must be supported by comparison
with San Gabriel Mountain watersheds which were included in the regression
equations. Estimates made by use of this technique may possess larger errors
in estimation than would result from the application of Techniques 1, 2, or 3.
However, this technique provides an alternative approach when sediment or
debris yield records are not available at all, or when there are not enough
nearby watersheds with data to construct a "local area curve" (Technique 3).
For example, assume it is necessary to apply the regression equation to
a watershed for which no sediment or debris yield records exist, and which has
only one nearby watershed for which these records exist. Since there are not
enough comparative watersheds to establish a local area curve on Figure B-l, a
field investigation in both watersheds is required to determine the stmtlari-
ties between them.
The one nearby watershed with records has an average annual sediment
yield of 1.1 ac-ft/miZ/yr. Field analysis indicated that the nearby watershed
is similar in many respects to the subject watershed. Using Technique 2 and
Figure B-1 gives a tentative A-T Factor of 0.80.
Field observations indicates that the nearby watershed appears to
possess the following geomorphic characteristics. The A-T Factor is the
summ-tion of the subfactors from each of the four subgroups in Table B-1.
a). Moderate to severe folding, fracturing, faulting, and weathering of
parent material (Subfactor Group 1 - 0,20).
h).
Partly cohesive soils with some soil profile development, some bare
soil in evidence, and the soil appears to possess some clay
colloids (Subfactor Group
c).
d).
Channel morphology exhibits extremely active erosion, with greater
than 50% of all channels actively eroding both bed and banks, few
segments in bedrock, extremely unstable bed and bank materials,
little protective vegetation, and numerous headcuts in evidence
(Subfactor Group 3 - 0,~)..
Hillslopes are heavily rtlled with some gullying, a few mass
movement scars, and a number of actively-eroding colluvial/alluvtal
deposits (Subfactor Group 4 - 0,~0).
Adding these four Subfactor Group values together (0.20 + 0.15 + 0.25 +
0.20) results in an A-T Factor of 0.80. This value corroborates the sediment
yield record value of 0,~0.
It must be recognized that Technique 4 is the most subjective of any of
the A-T techniques. Estimates determined using this technique should be
documented, and if possible, verified by use of one of the earlier techniques.
B-11
APPENDIX C
HOW TO USE THE
COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
PROGRAM
APPENDIX C
HOW TO USE THE COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS (CFA) PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION.
Information on acquiring the Coincident Frequency Analysis computer
program made be obtained by contacting the Hydrologic Engineering Center in
Davis, California. The telephone number and address are listed on page C-5.
In order to evaluate the total probabilities of independent flood and
wildfire events, coincident frequency analysis is used to establish the
probabilities of varied debris yield volumes in conjunction with the fire
history and discharge/precipitation frequency of a watershed. The Coincident
Frequency Analysis program was developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center
of the Corps of Engineers at Davis, California. This program evaluates the
total probabilities of occurrence of two independent events, in this case,
those of wildfire and flood events.
It must be reco~nized that the coincident frequency values generated by
the computer program are not the maximum debris yield values to be expected,
but rather the expected "mean" debris response, and as such are highly
dependent on accurate frequency input for both hydrologic data and fire
frequencies.
The following is a step-by-step procedure for setting up an input file
for use with the Coincident Frequency Analysis program. The procedure assumes
the user is already familiar with the COE Debris Method and has previously
prepared the appropriate input data (see Example 3, Part 3C in Appendix D).
C-1
PROCEDURE FOR SETTING UP A CFA INPUT FILE
I I I I I IIIlllllllllll I II I I
Step 1/. Enter alphanumeric information identifying the location of
analysis, project name, file name, user name, date, and any other pertinent
information on TI records. Any number of TI records may be used but at least
one is required.
Step 2/. Enter the Years-Since-100% Wildfire relationship using DS, DT,
and DP records. Refer to Appendix A for determining Years-Since-100% Wildfire
frequency relationships (see Table A-3, Appendix A for example).
The DS record contains the number of coordinates used to describe
the duration relationship in field 1, followed by an alphanumeric description
such as "YEARS-SINCE-100% WILDFIRE".
exceeded.
.The DT record contains values for percent of time equalled or
The DP record contains the values of Years-Since-100% Wildfire
occurrence corresponding to the percent of time equalled or exceeded values on
the DT record. '
Step 3/. Enter the precipitation or discharge frequency data using FS,
and FP records (see Table D-3 for example of data).
The FS record contains the number of pairs used to describe the
discharge frequency relationship in field 1 followed by an alphanumeric
description such as "PEAK FLOW (FT3/S/MI2) - EXISTING CONDITION'.
.The FR record contains percent chance exceedance values.
The FP record contains flow values in ft3/s/miz corresponding to
percent chance exceedance on FR record.
C-3
CFA
COINCIDENT-FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
User's Manual
(Preliminary)
December 1989
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Water Resources Support Center
The Hydrologic Engineering Center
609 Second Street
Davis, California 95616
(916) 756-1104
¢-5
INPUT DESCRIPTION
COINCIDENT-FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
I. TITLE INFORMATION (Required).
FIELD VARIAB!.~. VALUE
DESCRIPTION
0 ID TI
Record identifier.
1-10 TITLE ~ar
Character or alphanumeric information to
identify the location of the analysis.
Any number of TI records may be provided,
but at least one is required.
II. JOB SPECIFICATIONS (Optional).
This record defines the transformation that is made to the frequency
parameter before the curve fitting procedures are applied, sets number of
decimal places and significant figures, and sets amount of diagnostic output.
If this record is not provided, the default values under the variable names
will be used.
FIELD VARIABI.F. VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID J1
Record identifier.
1 LOGTF 0
(0)
The frequency parameter (FP record) is not
transformed, recommended for stage-
frequency curves.
Logarithmic transformation (base 10) will
be made, recommended for flow-frequency
curves.
2 NDEC +
(2)
Number of decimal places in the table
of results; 0, 1, 2, or 3 allowed. If
blank, default value of 2 will be used.
3 NSIG
(5)
Number of significant figures in table
of results.
-1
No rounding will be done.
Round to five (5) significant figures.
Round values to NSIG significant figures.
4 IDGST 0
(0)
1
No diagnostic output.
Interpolated values will be output during
the computational steps.
Diagnostic output will be provided for
eachinterpolated value. Caution, will
create a lot of output.
Input Page I of 8
C-7
IV. FREQUENCY DATA.
This set of records is used to input the frequency curve for the more
influential variable. Either a set of FR and FP records must be provided or a
ZR record that reads data from DSS.
A. Frequency Data Specifications (Required).
FIELD VARIABI,~ VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID , FS
Record identifier.
1 NFPTS +
Number of coordinates used to describe the
frequency curve. Data are input on FR and
FP records. Must be zero, or blank, if
data are read from DSS. (Maximum of 20
points.)
-1
Frequency data are not provided and SFPV
values (RF record) provided for the
response function are percent chance
exceedance values.
2-10 LOCIDF Char
Location identification of the more
influential variable.
B. Exceedante Frequency Ordinates (Optional).
This record is provided if NFPTS is positive.
FIELD VARIAB!.~ VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID FR
Record identifier.
1-10 FREQ +
Percent chance exceedance values.
Frequency Parameter Ordinates (Optional).
This record is provided if NFPTS is positive.
FIELD VARIABLE VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID FP
Record identifier.
1-10 FPAR +
D. DSS Input Pathname (Optional).
Frequency parameter values that correspond
to the percent chance exceedance values on
the previous record (FR). These values
must monotonically increase or decrease.
This record is provided if' NFPTS is blank or zero.
FIELD VARIAB!I ~ DESCRIPTION
0 ID ZR
Record identifier.
1 - 10 (pathname) Char
DSS pathname of frequency data. Must be
complete pathname or pathname parts if
this is the first ZR record. Subsequent
ZR records need only provide those
pathname parts that are different.
Input Page 3 of 8
C-9
C. Frequency Parameter Values (Optional).
FI E~D VARIABLE VALUE
0 ID' RF
1-10 SFFV +
DESCRIPTION
Record identifier.
~S values of the_ frequency parameter.
If NFPTS is (-1), the SFPV values are
percent chance exceedante.
D. Response Parameter Values (Optional).
FI ELD VARIABLE VALUE
DESCRIPTION
0 ID RP
Record identifier.
1-10 RFUN +
VI. EVALUATION DATA.
NRPTS values of the response parameter
that correspond to the SFPV values on the
previous record. These values must
monotonically increase or decrease.
This set of records provides for writing results to DSS and allows the
input of values of the response parameter that will be used to develop the
frequency curve of the response parameter. Be sure that the input values
include the full range of expected values otherwise inaccurate extrapolations
may take place.
A. Evaluation Specifications (Required)
FIELD VARIABLE VALUE DESCRIPTION
0 ID VS
Record identifier.
1 NEVAL +
Number of evaluation values of the
response parameter. (Maximum of 30
values.)
The evaluation values will be co~uted by
the program. The nominal number of values
will be set to the maximum size of the
array, currently dimensioned for 30
values,,
The evaluation values will be computed by
the program. The nominal number of values
will be set to #.
A. Evaluation Specifications, VS record (Continued).
FIELD VARIAB!.~ VALUE DESCRIPTION
2 RPNAIt~ Char
3 RPUNIT Char
Response variable m-me left Justified.
Only the first 4 characters are used in
the table heading and written to DSS.
Response variable units left Justified.
All 8 characters are used in the table
heading and written to DSS.
Input Page 5 of 8
C-ll
SUMMARY OF INPUT RECORDS
COINCIDENT-FREQUENCY ANALYSIS
Title Information:
* TI,TITLE
(One or more title records of character information).
II.
Job Specifications:
J1 LOGTF NDEC NSIC JTRAC
0 2 5 0 (Default values if no J1 record).
III.
Duration Data:
· Specifications:
; 55 ND~T$ LOCIDD
+~ (Number of Duration data on each DT and DP record).
0 (Duration data will he read from DSS).
Percent of T~me Values:
~T'PTIHE (If NDPTS positive, NDPTS values).
Duration Parameter Values:
~P'DPAR (See DT record).
DSS Input Pathname:
~R'(If NDPTS is blank or zero, DSS pathname for data).
IV.
Frequency Relationship:
· . . Specifications:
* FS NFI~S I,OC~DF
4~ (Number of Frequency data on each FR and FP record)·
0 (Frequency data wiI1 be read £rom DSS).
-1 (Frequency data not input, response values [RF] are
£requency data).
· Exceedance Frequency Values:
~R FREq (If NFPTS is positive, NFPTS values).
· Frequency Parameter Values:
~P FPAR (See FR record).
DSS Input Pathname:
~R'(If liDITS is blank or zero, DSS pathname for data).
Input Page 7 of 8
C-13
TEST NO. 1
Input for Test No. 1
TI TEST NO.
TI
T!
J1
DS
DT
DP
FS
1 COINCIDENT FREQUENCYWORKSHOP P-25
INPUT IS STAGE-DURATION CURVE, FLOW-FREQUENCY CURVE AND
CONDITIONAL BACKWATER CURVES
1
10 MAIN RIVER STAGES AT B
.01 10. 10.8 30. 39. 50. 62.5
62.8 62. 61.4 60. 58.6 56. 53.3
7 FLOW-FREQUENCYAT A
FR 99.99 90. 50. 10,~ 1. .1 .01
FP 1500 3000 4200 6000 8000 10000 12000
RS 6 RESPONSE -- STAGES AT C
RD 4 50.
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 52 55 60 65
RD ' 4 53.33
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 55 57.7 62.2 67.7
RD 4 56
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 57.5 60 64 68
RD 4 58.6
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 59.6 62.2 65.8 69.3
RD 4 61.4
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 62 64.5 67.6 70.7
RD 4 62
RF 1500 3000 6000 10000
RP 62.5 65 68 71
VS 16 STAGEFEET
VR 55 56 57 58 59 60 61
VR 65 66 67 68 69 70
ED
70. 84.5 99.99
52. 50.5 49.2
62 63 64
Output for Test No. 1
AAAAAAA~A*AAAAAAAAAA&*A~*AAAAAA~AAAA
* CFA *
* COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS *
* PROGRAM DATE: DEC 1989 *
* VERSION DATE: 185EP1990 *
* RUN DATE AND TIME: *
* 19 SEP 90 08:33:29 *
. *
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA~AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
* *
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS *
* THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER *
* 609 SECOND STREET *
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 *
* (916) 756-1104 *
. *
AAAAAAAAAA~AAAAAAAAAAA~AAAAAAAAAAAAA&
INPUT FILE NAME:
OUTPUT FILE NAME:
DSSIN FILENAME:
DSSOUT FILENAME:
CFA.DAT
CFA.OUT
CFA
CFA
..... DSS---ZOPEN: Existing File Opened, File: CFA.DSS
Unit: 71; DSS Version: 6-EA
** TITLE INFORMATION **
TI TEST NO. 1 COINCIDENT FREQUENCY WORKSHOP P-25
C-15
FREQUENCY VALUES
97.55 94.05 87.78
44.62 36.62 26.77
80.17
15.98
72.07
7.23
64.35
2.44
57.33
.62
50.99
.13
- INTERPOLATED
FREQ
.2
.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
10, 0
20, 0
30, 0
40, 0
50, 0
60, 0
70, 0
80, 0
90, 0
95.0
99.0
* - INDICATES
FREQUENCY VALUES-
RESPONSE
STAGE IN FEET
69 74
69 15
68 67
68 16
6737
6663
6562
64,69
63,60
62.16
60.61
59.26
58.02
56.69
55.79
54.14 *
EXTRAPOLATED VALUE(S)
JOB COMPLETE
C-17
TI PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE
TI IGNORE RESULTING FREQUENCY CURVE BELOW 565 FT.
** DURATION CURVE DATA**
DS 11 MISSISSIPPI RIVER STAGES AT MOLINE,ILL
DT .01 .12 .22 .50 1.10 2.20
DT 99.99
DP 572 570 569 568 567 566
DP 561
APR- JUN
4.30
565
10.50 23.00 61.00
564 563 562
** FREQUENCY CURVE DATA **
FS -1 FREQUENCY CURVE NOT REQUIRED, RESPONSE IS VF~SUS EXCEEDANCE FREQUENCY
** RESPONSE FUNCTION CURVES **
RS 5 MAXIMUM POND ELEVATION (APR-JUN) VS FREQUENCY FOR GIVEN MISS. STAGE
CURVE 1
RD 10 562.000
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP 565.0 565.1 565.2 565,,5 566.0 566.5 567.0 567.3 567.5 567.8
CURVE 2
RD 10 564.000
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP 566.0 566.1 566.3 566,,6 566.8 567.1 567.4 567.7 567.9 568.1
CURVE 3
RD 10 566.000
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP567.35 567.4 567.45 567,,5 567.6 567.8 568.1 568.3 568.5 568.7
CURVE 4
RD 10 568.000
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP 568.4 568.45 568.5 568.6 568.7 568.9 569.2 569.4 569.6 570.0
CURVE 5
RD 10 570.000
RF 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2
RP568.85 568.9 569.0 569,,2 569.4 569.7 570.1 570.3 570.6 570.9
571
** EVALUATION DATA **
NEVAL RPNAME KPUNIT PRMIN PRMAX
VS 7 ELEVATON FEET .00 .00
VR 565 566 567 568 569 570
** END OF INPUT DATA
EDt I II |1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I tl I I I I I I I I I I I I Ii I I I I I I I I I I I I ii II II ii II II I I I II II tl I I I I I II: | |:|
-COMPUTED PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE VALUES-
RESPONSE VALUES
565.00 566.00 567.00 568.00 569.00 570.00 571.00
FREQUENCY VALUES
61.54 21.40 6.95 1.29 .12 .01 .00
-INTERPOLATED FP.F~UENCY VALUES-,
FREQ RESPONSE
ELEVATON IN FEET
.2 568.79
.5 568.42
1.0 568.12
C-19
TEST NO. 3
Input for Test No. 3
TI TEST NO. 3 LAKE LEVEL EXAHPLE FROM HANDOUT-39
TI RESPONSE FUNCTIONS CORPUTED BY ADDING WIND SETUP TO DURATION CURVE VALUES
TI EVALUATION POINTS (VRRECORD) CORPUTED BY PROGRAH
DS 10 LAKE MICHIGAN-HURON DURATION CURVE
DT 99. 94. 85. 70. 50. 30. 15. 6. 1.
DP -1.10 -.4 .38 1.17 1.94 2.67 3.33 3.93 4.65
FS 9 ANNUAL WIND SETUP AT GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN
FR 99. 95. 80. 50. 20. 10. 5. 2. 1.
FP 1.16 1.57 2.06 2.58 3.09 3.35 3.58 3.83 3.99
RS -1 TOTAL LAKE LEVEL
VS -10 STAGEFEET
ED
.08
5.2'0
Output for Test No. 3
* CFA *
* COINCIDENT FREQUENCY ANALYSIS *
* PROGRAH DATE: DEC 1989 *
* VERSION DATE: 18SEP1990 *
* RUN DATE AND TIHE: *
* 19 SEP 90 08:33:30 *
* *
INPUT FILE NAME: CFA.DAT
OUTFUT FILE NAItE: CFA.OUT
DSSIN FILE NAIiE: CFA
DSSOUT FILE NAHE: CFA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAA&AAAAA~
* U.S. ARHY CORPS OF ENGINEERS *
* THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER *
* 609 SECOND STREET ~
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 ~'
* (916) 756-1104 *
** TITLE INFOP, HATION **
TI TEST NO. 3 LAKE LEVEL EXAKPLE FROH HANDOUT-39
TI RESPONSE FUNCTIONS COKPUTED BY ADDING WIND SETUP TO DURATION CURVE VALUES
TI EVALUATION POINTS (VR RECORD) COHPUTED BY PROGRAH
30. 15. 6. 1. .08
2.67 3.33 3.93 4.65 5.:20
9 ANNUAL WIND SETUP AT GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN
99. 95. 80. 50. 20. 10. 5. 2. 1.
1.16 1.57 2.06 2.58 3.09 3.35 3.58 3.83 3.99
** DURATION CURVE DATA **
DS 10 LAKE HICHIGAN-HURON DURATION CURVE
DT 99. 94. 85. 70. 50.
DP -1.10 -.4 .38 1.17 1.94
** FREQUENCY CURVE DATA**
FS
** RESPONSE FUNCTION CURVES **
RS -1 TOTAL LAKE LEVEL
(Note: Response functions have been computed by the program.)
CURVE 1
RD 9 -1.100
RF 1.160 1.570 2.060 2~580 3.090 3.350 3.580 3.830
3.990
RP .060 .470 .960 1.480 1.990 2.250 2.480 2.730
2.890
C-21
(Note: Evaluation values have been computed by the program.)
VR .000 1.000 2.000 3~000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000
8.000 9.000 10.000
** END OF INPUT DATA **
-COMPUTED PERGENT CHANCE EXCEEDANtE VALUES-
RESPONSE VALUES
.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
8.00 9.00 10.00
FREQUENCY VALUES
99.98 99.17 94.28 82.40 62.50 37.37 15.60 3.84
.44 .01 .00
-INTERPOLATED FREQUENCY
FREQ RESPONSE
VALUES -
STAGE IN FEET
.2 8.27
.5 7.95
1.0 7.67
2.0 7.35
5.0 6.84
10.0 6.37
20.0 5.76
30.0 5.30
40.0 4.90
50.0 4.50
60.0 4.10
70.0 3.66
80.0 3.14
90.0 2.44
95.0 1.91
99.0 1.07
JOB COMPLETE
C-23
1. 950 1. 800 1. 700 1 ~ 530
** RESPONSE FUNCTION CURVES **
RS -1 TOTAL lAKE LEVEL
(Note: Response functions have
CURVE 1
RD 12 581.620
RF 4.560 4.190 3.920 3,.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 586.180 585.810 585.540 585.270
583.570 583.420 583.320 583.150
been computed by
the pro&ram.)
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
584.910 584.630 584.350 583.900
CURVE 2
RD 12 581.120
RF 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 585.680 585.310 585.040 584.770
583.070 582.920 582.820 582.650
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
584.410 584.130 583.850 583.400
CURVE 3
RD 12 580.320
RF 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 584.880 584.510 584.240 583.970
582.270 582.120 582.020 581.850
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
583.610 583.330 583.050 582.600
CURVE 4
RD 12 579.700
RF 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 584.260 583.890 583.620 583.350
581.650 581.500 581.400 581.230
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
582.990 582.710 582.430 581.980
CURVE 5
RD 12 579.110
RE 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 583.670 583.300 583.030 582.760
581.060 580.910 580.810 580.640
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
582.400 582.120 581.840 581.390
CURVE 6
RD 12 578.340
RE 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 582.900 582.530 582.260 581.990
580.290 580.140 580.040 579.870
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
581.630 581.350 581.070 580.620
CURVE 7
RD 12 577.580
RF 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 582.140 581.770 581.500 581.230
579.530 579.380 579.280 579.110
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
580.870 580.590 580.310 579.860
CURVE 8
RD 12 577.000
.RE 4.560 4.190 3.920 3.650
1.950 1.800 1.700 1.530
RP 581.560 581.190 580.920 580.650
578.950 578.800 578.700 578.530
3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
580.290 580.010 579.730 579.280
CURVE 9
RD 12 576.450
RF 4.560 4.190
3.920 3.650 3.290 3.010 2.730 2.280
C-25
60.0 581.10
50.0 580.70
60.0 580.31
70.0 579.92
80.0 '579.~9
90.0 578.96
95.0 . 578.56
99.0 577.77
--ZI~TR. ITE: /¢FA TEST NO. a/LAKE LEVELS/FREQ-ELEV//1974/CFA OUTPIJT/
JOB COHPLETE
..... DSS---ZCLOSE Unit: 71, File: CFA.DSS
Pointer Utilization: .25
Number of Records: 3
File Size: 6.7 Kbytes
Percent Inactive: .0
IIit1111111111111111
NORHAL STOP IN CFA
IIII!111111111111111
C-27
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS
APPENDIX D
EXAMPI.F. APPLICATIONS
EXAMPI.F. 1:
APPLICATION OF EQUATION 1. EXPECI~D DEBRIS YIELD
FROM A SMALL WATERSHED FOR A SPECIFIED PRECIPITATION
Problem: Determine the expected unit debris yield and volume of debris to
Bailey Canyon Debris Basin in the San Gabriel Mountains (see Figure D-l) resulting
from a flood equivalent to that experienced durinS the storm period of February 5-
22, 1979. The predicted debris yield results will he compared to that actually
measured at this site for the same flood event.
Step 1/.
Determine the maximum 1-hour precipitation (P) applicable to
the flood event and multiply by 100.
Analysis of Los Anseles County Department of Public ~orks records
indicated a m8ximum 1-hour precipitation for this site of 0.50
inches, as measured at sause #63. The maximum 1-hour
precipitation multiplied by 100 is 50.
Step 2/.
Draw the drainage boundary and determine the area of the
watershed (A) in miz and ac.
Using a standard 1:24,000 USGS toposraphic map and a planimeter,
the area of the watershed was determined to be 0.6 mtz, or 38& ac.
Step 3/. Determine the relief ratio (RR) of the watershed.
Locate the hisbest point in the watershed at the end of the
lonsest watercourse (&005 ft NGVD), and the lowest point (1170 ft
D-1
NG%~) at r~he existing debris basin site; determine the difference
between these t~wo in feet. Next, determine the length of the
longest watercourse, in miles (1.59 mi). Express the difference
bet~ween the high and low elevations (in ft) and the length of the
longest watercourse (in mi) as a ratio. In this example:
4005 - 1170 - 2835 ft, divided by 1.59 mi - 1783 ft/mt
Step 4/. Determine the Fire Factor (FF) for the subject watershed.
Using Figure 2 from the main text because the drainage area is
less than 3 mi2, and knowing that the watershed suffered a 100%
extent burn less than I year earlier (in October 1978), we see
that the Fire Factor for a drainage area of 0.60 mi2 less than
one year after a 100% burn is 6.50. (Remember, we are determining
debris yield for the flood of February 5-22, 1979.)
Step 5/. Determine the Adjustment-Transposition Factor (A-T).
Since the watershed is located within the area in which the
regression analysis data was obtained, the A-T Factor is
assumed to be ~.00.
Step 6/. Calculate the Log (Base 10) of the factors P, RR, and A. FF
and A-T are dimensionless and are used as is.
From STEP 1, Log (P)
From STEP 2, Log (A)
From STEP 3, Log (RR)
From STEP 4, FF
From STEP 5, A-T
- Log (50)
- LOg (384)
- Log (1783)
- 1.70
- 2.58
-3.25
- 6,~0
= 1.00
D-3
SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS
.- ~ , -%~ /
LEGEND
........... STREAM CHANHEL
DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
DEBRIS BASIN
I 112 0
MILES
Figure D-2: Example Application 2
Santa Anita Dam, Sierra Madre, Ca.
Drainge Arm = 10.8 mi2
I)-5'
Step 4/. Determine the Fire Factor (FF) for the subject watershed.
Because the drainage area is greater than 3 mt2, use Figure 3 from
the main text. This watershed suffered a 100% extent wildfire
approximately 15 years prior to the event in question. Since no
wildfires of greater than 5% extent have impacted the watershed
during the intervening time period, the Fire Factor was determined
to be 9.00 for a drainage area of 10.8 miz.
Step 5/. Determine the Adjustment-Transposition Factor (A-T).
Since this watershed is located within the area in~ich the
regression analysis data was obtained, the A-T Factor is assumed
to be
Step 6/.
Calculate the Log (Base 10) of the factors Q, RR, and A.
and A-T are dimensionless and are used as is.
From STEP 1, Log (q)
From STEP 2, Log
From STEP 3, LOg (RR)
From STEP 4, FF
From STEP 5, A-T
- Log (509) -2.7~
- LOg (6912) - 3.84
- Log (871) - 2.94
- 3.00
Step 7/.
Since peak flow data is available for this watershed pertain-
ing to the event in question, and the drainage area of the
watershed is between 10 and 25 mi2, the use of Equation 3 is
appropriate. Solve for unit debris yield using the above
values.
Log D~ - 0.88(Log Q)
~g ~ - 0.88(2.71)
Log D~ - 2.382
Log D7 - 4.624
+ O.06(Log A) + 0.68(LOg RR) + 0.20(FF)
+ 0.06(3.84) + 0.48(2.96) + 0.20(3.00)
+ 0.230 + 1.411 + 0.600
D-7
LEGEND
STREAM CHANNEl.
DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
DEBRIS BASIN
O 0.6 1 2
MILES
---~Proposed Debris B&sln Site
SANTA PAULA
Figure 1) 3: Example Appfication 3
Santa Paula Creek, Santa Paula, Ca.
~Area = 42~ mi2
Step 8/. Calculate the antilog of Dy
AntiLog Dy- 42.043 yd3/miz
Step 9/. Multiply the resulting Dy by the A-T Factor to get the
adjusted unit debris yield for the basin.
AdJustedDy- 1.0 (42,043) - 42.043 yd3/miz
Step 10/. Multiply the adjusted unit debris yield by the drainage area
to determine the volume of debris.
42,043 yd3/mi2 x 10.8 mi2 - total debris volume of 454.061 yd$
Actual debris yield to this structure was determined by the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works to be approximately 440,000 yds. Actual debris volumes
are well within one standard deviation of the estimate, reflecting the adequacy of
the calculated factors, the peak flow estimates and the estimated Fire and A-T
Factors.
EXAMPLE 3: APPLICATION OF EQUATION 4 AND COINCIDENT FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS. EXPECTED DEBRIS YIELD FROM A LARGER
WATERSHED WITH AN A-T FACTOR OTHER THAN 1.0.
Problem: Determine the expected unit debris yield frequency relationship for
Santa Paula Creek watershed. This example differs from the previous ~o in that
Santa Paula Creek (see Figure D-3) requires an A-T Factor other than 1.0, and due to
a lack'of any complete debris yield data, requires a somewhat more complicated
procedure for determining the A-T Factor.. A coincident frequency analysis
D-8
,i~- I
i J J- I
o
,(
--
(D ,~ C~
01J.VI:I dVV//,SVV
PART 3B: APPLICATION OF A-T FACI~R TECHNIQUE 4 TO SANTA
PAULA CREEK WATERSHED.
As stated in Part 3A, the unadjusted equation (A-T Factor - 1.0) is not
directly applicable to the Santa Paula Creek watershed due to differences in
vegetation cover, channel morphology, and differences in the potential mobility of
debris in storage within the watershed itself. This part of Example 3 problem
utilizes Technique & for determining the A-T Factor (see Appendix B, How To
Determine The Adjustment/ Transposition Factor).
A field analysis of .the watershed revealed a number of differences between the
watersheds used in the regression analysis and the study watershed. A discussion of
these follows:
1/. The parent material of Santa Paula Creek watershed is somewhat different
from the materials of the San Gabriel Range. It appears that there is, in general,
less severe folding, fracturing, and faulting of the parent material in the study
watershed than is evident in the regression watersheds. This is not to say that the
rocks of Santa Paula are not highly modified and contorted by tectonic forces that
have acted on this area, but that parent materials in the San Gabriel Range appear,
in many cases, to be al~aost completely pulverized and much more susceptible to
erosive processes than those of the Santa Paula Creek Watershed.
From Table D-1 (sa~e as Table B-l), we determined the Parent Haterial factor
(Subfactor Group l) to be approximately 0.15.
2/. Although the type and structure of soils in the Santa Paula watershed
appear to be quite similar to those of the regression watersheds, the Santa Paula
Creek soils are better protected against raindrop impact and rill for~ation due to a
large proportion of grasses covering the soil surface in the study watershed. Under
normal ve&etation cover, the study watershed will yield less debris per unit area to
the processes of sheetflow and rill formation than an equivalent watershed in the
TABLE D-l: ADJUSTMENT-TRaNSPOSITION FACTOR TABLE
(SAME AS TABLE B-l)
A-T SUBFACTOR
0.25
PARENTMATERIAL
0.20 0.15
SUBFACTOR GROUP i
0.10 0.05
FOLDING Severe
FAULTING Severe
FRACTURING Severe
WEATHERING Severe
Moderate
to Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Minor to
Moderate
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
SOILS
SOILS
SOIL
PROFILE
SOIL
COVER
CLAY
COLLOIDS
Non-Cohesive
Minimal
Soil
Profile
SUBFACTOR GROUP 2
Partly
Cohesive
Some Soil
Profile
Highly
Cohesive
Well-
Developed
Soil Profile
Much Bare Some Bare Little Bare
Soil in Soil in Soil in
Evidence Evidence Evidence
Few Clay Some Clay Many Clay
Colloids Colloids Colloids
CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY SUBFACTOR GROUP 3
BEDROCK Few Segments Some Segments Many Segments
EXPOSURES In Bedrock in Bedrock in Bedrock
BANK >30% of Banks 10-30% of Banks <10% of Banks
EROSION Eroding Eroding Eroding
BED AND
BANK
MATERIALS
Non- Cohe s ive
Bed and Banks
Partly Cohesive
Bed and Banks
Highly Cohesive
Bed and Banks
VEGETATION Poorly
Vegetated
HEADCUTTING Many Headcuts
HILLSLOPE MORPHOLOGY
Some
Vegetation
Few Headcuts
SUBFACTOR GROUP 4
Much
Vegetation
No Headcuts
RILLS AND Many and Some Signs Few Signs
GULLIES Active
MASS Many Scars Few Signs No Signs
MOVEMENT Evident Evident Evident
DEBRIS Many Eroding Some Eroding Few Eroding
DEPOSITS Deposits Deposits Deposits
The A-T Factor is the sum of the A-T Subfactors from all 4 Subfactor
groups.
D-13
San Gabriel range (regression watersheds). This results in lesser amounts of debris
beinf~ delivered to debris storage sites durinG minor to moderate storm events, and
hence, lesser a~ounts of debris available for movement during ~aJor storm events.
Under conditions in vhich ~he vegetative cover is burned, ~he study watershed will
respond in a~anner similar to that of ~he regression watersheds, althoush at a
lesser rate because of the lower availability of debris in storage, greater
stability in the channel system, and better cementation in ~he soil profile.
From Table D-l, we determined ~he Soils factor (Subfactor Group 2) to be
approximately 0.15.
3/. The proportion of channel banks actively experiencinS erosion is minimal
within the upper reaches of Santa Paula Creek and its tributaries. This is in
direct contrast to watersheds used in =he regression analysis. Al=housh it was
estimated that over 50% of the lower channel reaches appear to be eroding, less than
10% of the more numerous upper reaches show any signs of active or recent erosion.
This is in contrast to channel systems t~pical of the regression analysis watersheds
in vhich over 80% of =he entire channel system displays sisns of active or recent
erosion.
From Table D-l, we determined the Channel Morphology factor (Subfactor Group
3) to be approximately 0.15.
4/. The proportion of upland areas in the study watershed that are presently
experiencing erosion due to mass movement (i.e., slumping, rockfall, soil slippase,
etc.), tilling, or Sullyins is minimal vhen compared to resresston watersheds.
Although the Hud Creek watershed appears to be much worse, the overall debris
contribution of these areas is considerably less than is evident in watersheds vhich
were included in =he regression analysis. Althoush mass movement and sheetflow
erosion has undoubtedly contributed large amounts of debris to =he channel system
during ti~es past, at present =his source cannot be considered to play a primary
role in the supply of debris to the channel system.
D-14
From Table D-l, we determined that the Hillslope MorpholoEy factor (Subfactor
Group 4) is approximately 0.15.
AddinE these factors toEether, use of Technique 4 from Appendix B would
indicate an A-T Factor of 0.60. This value aErees with the A-T Factor derived usinE
Technique 3 in Part 3A of this example.
PART 3C: DETERMINATION OF FREQUENCY DEBRIS YIELD FOR SANTA
PAULA CREEK WATERSHED USING COINCIDENT FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS.
For the purpose of evaluatin§ the potential debris yield of the Santa Paul~
Creek watershed, Equation 4 was selected on the basis of drainaBe area and the
availability of flow frequency data. In order to evaluate the total probabilities
of independent fire/flood events in the Santa Paula watershed, a coincident
frequency analysis was performed (HEC computer proEram, Coincident Frequency
Analysis - CFA).
Four types of data are used as input for the CFA program; Years-Since-100%
Wildfire frequency, discharEe frequency, and debris response relationships, alonE
with evaluation data (see Chapter 6 for a more detailed explanation of the ~nput
data and Appendix C for a discussion on how to use the CFA proEram).
The frequency of wildfires was quantified through the use of the Fire Factor
curves presented in Figure 3 in the main text (for 42.9 mtz) and placed in a Fire
Factor frequency chart as described in Appendix A (How To Determine Fire Factors).
The Years-Since-100% Wildfire frequency relationship is presented in Table D-2.
D-15
TABLE D-2: YEARS-SINCE-I~ WILDFIRE FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIP
Frequency*
Years-Since-100% ~ildfire
0 0
0.1 1
0.3 2
0.7 3
1.4 4
2.2 5
3.2 6
4.6 7
7.2 8
12.0 9
13.1 10
16.7 11
24.1 12
34.5 13
49.0 14
100 15
The frequency for which Years-Since-100% Wildfire is equalled or
exceeded. Cumulative. This is noC P[B~]; P[Bt is the incremental
difference for each Year-Since-100% ~lldfire.
The unit discharge frequency data was determined using the discharge frequency
curve shown on Figure D-5. This data is shown in Table D-3.
D-16
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT METHOD FOR PREDICTION OF DEBRIS YIELD
126
F
L
0
I
N
C
F
S
le4
103
122
121
122
99.99 99.9 99
92 50 lg I .1 .21
PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE
FIGURE D-5
ANN PK FRED CURVE - COMP PROB
ANN PK FREQ CURVE - EXP PROB
5X CONFIDENCE LIMIT
95X CONFIOENCE LIMIT
ANN MAX PK FLOW EVENT
DISCHARGE FREQUENCY CURVE
SANTA PAULA CREEK
D.A. 42.9 MI2
D
TABI.~ D-3: UNIT DISCHARGE FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIP
Frequency* Discharge
(P [ F~ ]**) (ft$/s/m[2)
(F~)
0.2 1489
O.5 1000
I 719
2 499
5 288
10 176
20 96
30 61
40 &0
50 29
60 19
70 13
80 8.0
90 3.9
95 2.2
* The frequency for which unit discharge is equalled or exceeded.
Cumulative.
** Probability is frequency divided by 100.
Adjusted debris response relationships were then calculated using Equation
and A-T Factor of 0.60 for intervals of 1-15 years since 100% wildfire. These
relationships are listed in Table D-4.
D-18
TABLE D-4: ADJUSTED DEBRIS YIELDS
As Calculated For Santa Paula Creek Watershed
Drainage Area = 42.9 mi2
ADJUSTMENT-TRANSPOSmON FACTOR (A-T) -- 0.60
YEARS-
SINCE-
100%
WILDFIRE
FREQUENCY OF EXCEEDANCE
(PER 100 YEARS)
0.2 I 0.5 ] 1.0 i 2.0 ~ 5.0 ] 10.0 j 20.0 ~ 50.0 195.0
DEBRIS YIELD (yd$/mi2)
1 185452 125559 93548 66363 39586 24917 14094 4575 405
2 161708 111227 81571 57866 34517 21727 12290 3989 353
3 141004 96986 71127 50457 30098 18945 10716 3478 308
4 125381 86240 63246 44867 26763 16846 9529 3093 274
5 115486 79435 58255 41326 24651 15516 8777 2849 252
6 106790 73453 53869 38214 22795 14348 8116 2634 233
7 99915 68724 50401 35754 21327 13424 7594 2465 218
8 93117 64049 46972 33322 19876 12511 7077 2297 203
9 87807 60396 44293 31421 18743 11798 6673 2166 192
10 83413 57373 42076. 29849 17805 11207 6339 2058 182
11 79622 54766 40164 28492 16996 10698 6051 1964 174
12 73915 50841 37285 26450 15778 9931 5618 1823 161
13 68349 47012 34477 24458 14589 9183 5195 1686 149
14 63202 43472 31881. 22616 13491 8492 4803 1559 138
15 57310 39419 28909 20508 12233 7700 4356 1414 125
A range of debris yield values (30) from 100 to 190,000 yd~/mi2 was input to
be used as evaluation data and to define the debris frequency relationship. The CFA
input file is shown in Table D-5.
The final results consist of a table relating the debris yield of Santa Paula
Creek watershed to the total exceedance frequencies of wildfire and flooding for
0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0, 50.0, 60.0, 70.0, 80.0, 90.0, 95.0,
and 99.0 per cent. The output is presented in Table D-6.
The results indicate that for a total fire/flood frequency of 1.00 (an event
which has a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year), the debris
yield at the proposed debris basin site would be about 35,600 yds3/mi2 (from Table
D-6) or a total of approxiamtely 1,525,000 yds$ (35,600 yds$/mi2 x 42.9mi~).
D-19
TABLE D-S: INPUT FIT.~ FOR TEST NO. 1
Using Santa Paula Creek Watershed Data
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
TI
J1 1
DS 15
DT 0.1
DT 16.7
DP 1
DP 11
FS 15
FR 0.2
FR 6O
FP 1489
FP 19
RS 15
RD 9
l~F 1489
RP185452
RD 9
~ 1489
~161708
~ 9
~ 1489
~141004
~ 9
~ 1489
~125~81
~ 1489
~115486
~ 9
~ 1489
~106790
~ 1489
~ 99915
~ 9
~ 1489
~ 93117
~ 1489
~ 87807
~ 9
~ 1489
~ 83413
~ 1489
~ 79622
~ 1489
~ 73915
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT DEBRIS METHOD ......................... FILE - TEST.DAT
uC9_ _S_C DENT FP UENCY ...................... T -ST
SING SANTA PAULA DEBRIS lEA, SIN DATA ............... [[[[ .... ~ A - FILE NO. 1
DS, DT & DP IS YEARS-SINCE-~T~LDFIRE FI~UEN~ RELATIONS~i~ · . 42.9 SQ MI
FS, FR & FP IS DISCHARGE FREQUENCY RELATIONSHIP
RD, ~ & RP IS DEBRIS RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP ....................... JAN 1992
YEARS SINCE FIRE
0.3 0.7 1.4 2.2 3.2 4.6 7.2 12.0 13.1
24.1 34.5 49.0 100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12 13 14 15
PEA~ FLO~/ CF$ PER SQ MILE SANTA PAUIA WATEP~HED 42.9 SQ MILES
0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50
70 80 90 95
1000 719 499 288 176 96 61 40 29
13 8.0 3.9 2.2
DEEP, IS YIELD RATE IN YD3 PER SQ MILE
1
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
127559 93548 66363 39586 24917 14094 4575 405
2
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
111227 81571 57866 34517 21727 12290 3989 353
3
1000 719 499 28~ 176 96 29 2.2
96986 71127 50547 30098 18945 10716 3478 308
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
86240 63246 44867 26763 16846 9529 3093 274
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
79435 58255 41326 24651. 15516 8777 2849 252
6
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
73453 53869 38214 22795 14348 8116 2634 233
7
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
68724 50401 35754 21327 13424 7594 2465 218
8
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
64049 46972 33322 19876 12511 7077 2297 203
9
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
60396 44293 31421 18743 11798 6673 2166 192
10
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
57373 42076 29849 17805 11207 6339 2058 182
11
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
54766 40164 28492 16996 10698 6051 1964 174
12
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29 2.2
50841 37285 26450 15778 9931 5618 1823 161
D-20
TABLE D-6: OUTPUT Fll.~ FOR TEST NO. 1 (cont.)
Using Santa Paula Creek Watershed Data
CURVE 3
RD 9
RF 1489
RP141004
CURVE 4
RD 9
P.F 1489
RP125381
CURVE 5
P.D 9
RF 1489
RPl15486
CImVE 6
RD 9
RF 1489
RP106790
CURVE 7
RD 9
RF 1489
R/' 99915
CURVE 8
RD 9
RF 1489
RP 93117
CURVE 9
RD 9
KF 1489
R~ 87807
3.000
1000 719 499 288 176 96 29
96986 71127 50547 30098 18945 10716 3478
4.000
1000 719
86240 63246
5.000
1000 719
79435 58255
6.000
1000 719
73453 53869
7.000
1000 719
68724 50401
8.000
1000 719
64049 46972
9.000
1000 719
' 60396 44293
CI~VE 10
9 lO OOO
RF 1489 1000 719
~ 83413 57373 42076
CURVE 11
RD 9 11.000
RF 1489 1000 719
RP 79622 54766 40164
CURVE 12
RD 9 12.000
RF 1489 1000 719
RP 73915 50841 37285
CURVE 13
RD 9 13.000
KF 1489 1000 719
RP 68349 47012 34477
CURVE 14
P,~ 9
14.000
2.2
308
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
44867 26763 16846 9529 3093 274
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
41326 24651 15516 8777 2849 252
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
38214 22795 14348 8116 2634 233
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
35754 21327 13424 7594 2465 218
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
33322 19876 12511 7077 2297 203
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
31421 18743 11798 6673 2166 192
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
29849 17805 11207 6339 2058 182
499 288 176 96 29
28492 16996 10698 6051 1964
2.2
174
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
26450 15778 9931 5618 1823 161
499 288 176 96 29 2.2
24458 14589 9183 5195 1686 149
D-23
TABLF~ D-6: OUTPUT Fll.~ FOR TEST NO. 1 (cont.)
Using Santa Paula Creek Watershed Data
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96 29
RP 63202 43472 31881 22616 13491 8492 4803 1559
CURVE 15
RD 9 15.000
RF 1489 1000 719 499 288 176 96 29
RP 57310 39419 28909 20508 12233 7700 4356 1414
** EVALUATION DATA **
NEVAL RPNAME RPUNIT PRMIN PRFJ[X
V$ 30 YIELD YD3/HI2 .00 .00
VR190000 150000 125000 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000
¥'R 30000 20000 10000 9000 7500 6500 5000 3500
VR 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300
IIIIit111111111111111111111111111t111111111tllt11111111111111111
2.2
138
2.2
125
50000
2500
200
40000
1500
100
-COMPUTED PERCENT CHANCE EXCEEDANCE VALUES-
RESPONSE VALUES
100.00 200.00 300
900.00 1000.00 1500
9000.00 10000.00 20000
80000.00 90000.00100000
.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00
.00 2500.00 3500.00 5000.00 6500.00 7500.00
.00 30000.00 40000.00 50000.00 60000.00 70000.00
.00125000.00150000.00190000.00
FREQUENCY VALUES
95.64 94.15 92.29
73.73 69.61 54.01
10.42 9.03 3.04
.14 .10 .07
90.05 87.48 84.55 81.26 77.63
38.07 29.28 20.89 15.61 13.16
1.42 .78 .47 .31 .21
.03 .01 .00
- INTERPOLATED FREQUENCY
FREQ RESPONSE
VALUES -
YIELD IN YD3/HI2
.2 70929.00
.5 48892.00
1.0 35559.00
2.0 25123.00
5.0 15134.00
10.0 9271.00
20.0 5208.90
30.0 3400.60
40.0 2347.10
50.0 1689.10
60.0 1~81.60
70.0 989.30
80.0 735.69
90.0 402.28
95.0 145.82
99.0 -328.63 *
* - INDICATES EXTRAPOLATED VALUE(S)
JOB COHPLETE
D-24
ED RUZAK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
The Honorable City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center East
Rancho Cucamonga, California
September 13,1998
Re: Lauren Development
The MGA report in 1990 stated that the two streets (Tackstem and Ringstem) serving the
proposed development were collector streets with a width of 44 feet curb to curb on a 66 foot
right of way. However, the actual field conditions indicate a changed condition for these
roadways. The actual width is 28 feet wide. It is true that at the entrance to the gated community
the roadway is 64 feet wide. This narrows quickly to 28 feet wide. (See attached photos ).
Therefore, the 1990 study provides no meanh~gful assessment of the traffic impacts or risks to the
users.
The traffic volume levels and safety considerations are actually for a 28 foot wide streeet
as opposed to a 44 or 66 foot roadway. These are totally different concepts from the origh~al
report. The projected traffic volume levels of approximately 3100 velficles per day (MGA, 1990
report) on Ringstem are high for a residential type street h~ the setting that the existing subdivision
is located. Normally a residential street with a number of cross street cul de sacs serving single
family dwellings would handle 1000 to 1500 vehicles per day (vpd). Thus, there will be almost
tlu'ee times the volume level of a typical residential street: on Ringstem When coupled with the
speed of traffic on Ringstem, and the limited stopping sight distance, this volume of traffic will
substantially contribute to a dangerous condition along this roadway.
The subdivision site plan layout established Ringstem and Tackstem as the two main
collectors leading to Haven Avenue. The short cul de sac side streets intersect these curvilinear
alignments at locations that have inadequate comer sight distance and stopping sight distance.( See
attached Caltrans sight distance standards). Thus the users attempting to enter the collectors fi'om
the side streets are placed in a dangerous condition due to poor sight. This is especially true at the
first side street east of Haven Avenue (Clover Place). It is located on the apex of a curve and
relatively close to Haven Avenue. The stopping sight distance at this location is no less than 125
feet.
Likewise, intersections of streets such as Palomino Place and Tackstem, Morgan Place
and Ringstem, Lipizzan Place and Ringstem and Cringer Court and Ringstem provide sight
distance that is less than the 150 foot required stopping sight distance for access to the collector
street.
10061 TALBERT AVENUE SUITE 200 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CALIFORNIA 92708 (714)
FAX (714) 964-7219
22
CONCLUSIONS
The change in roadway width from 44 to 28 feet for the two major collector streets in this
project is a material changed circumstance that was not evaluated previously with serious safety
consequences. The poor sight distance at the intersections, high residential street traffic volume
projections and the substantially more narrow street widths are in my opinion a changed condition
fi:om the original 1990 report as well as a serious safety concern for the users coming in and om
of the various side streets.
ej r
rancho c.q)t
Res~ll~ubinitted'
Edward Ruza~f~CE 18824
?'1~ 0202
23
ED RUZAK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
RESUME
EDWARD RUZAK
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science,Civil Engineering
University of Illinois, 1962
EXPERIENCE
Over 30 years of practical experience in civil engineering, transportation, and traffic engineering,
related to City streets, highways, and private developments in both rural and urban conditions.
Work has been in conjunction with National, State, Municipal, and private agencies.
1962-1966
CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS (now CALTRANS)
Design of freeway projects, arterial highways and traffic signals. Traffic investigations related to
applications on the conventional State Highway system and major urban arterials. Primary work
in traffic investigations with emphasis on design utilizing standard applications, acceptable
guidelines and reasonable practices.
1966-1971
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO TRAFFIC ENGINEER
Supervised traffic operations including layout, design and placement of traffic control devices, i.e.
signs, signals and striping. Applied traffic engineering principles to ensure conformance with State
and National Standards in the areas of traffic control, construction and maintenance work areas and
geometric design.
As County Traffic Engineer, acted on behalf of eleven of the eighteen cities in the County as traffic
engineer in the capacity of investigator. Work involved accident analysis, surveillance and
improvement recommendations for problem locations,and upgrading of traffic control devices to
conform with statewide and nationally accepted practices.
10061 TALBERT AVENUE, SUITE 200 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 964-4880 FAX (71 24
2040 POLK STREET, NO. 343 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 (415) 929-8745
1971-JULY 1981
JHK & ASSOCIATES
Manager of Southern Califomia office for nationwide traffic and transportation engineering consulting
firm. Related Project Involvement included:
Co-Project Director for Federal Highway Administration, (FI-NVA), Department of
Transportation in development of 'Traffic Control Device Handbook", an operating guide
for traffic engineers in the planning, design, installation and maintenance of traffic control
devices.
Project Director for development of '"l'raffic Standards Manual" for City & County of
Honolulu, 1976. Manual included geometric design elements, traffic control devices, loading
conditions, and bicycle-pedestrian facility guidelines.
Project Director, State of New York TOPICS program, (Traffic Operations Program to
Increase Capacity and Safety).
Project Director for development of criteria and recommendations for posting speed limits
on all streets and highways in the Cities of Anaheim and La Palma, California.
Project Director for 17 mile section of Westminster Blvd./17th Street corridor in Orange
County, California. Project work effort identified traffic engineering problems, quantified
magnitude of problems and developed alternative solutions and mitigations.
Recommended improvements with regard to geometric design changes, signing and
marking, bus transit locations, traffic signals and parking removal/restriction.
Project Director for State of Wisconsin in development of "Planning and Engineering Guide
for Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities",
Developed pedestrian and bicycle safety programs and bicycle design guidelines for Cities
of Riverside, Compton, Carson & Lakewood, California.
Designed bicycle lane and bicycle path facilities for sections of Pacific Coast Highway and
Torrance Blvd. in the City of Torrance, California.
Project Director for comprehensive study of existing and future parking and circulation
needs, Cities of Santa Ana and Santa Barbara, California.
Project Director, City of Reno, Nevada, Traffic Signal Timing Project. Established signal
timing, phasing and modification designs for signalized intersections, citywide.
Developed computerized traffic accident analysis plotting procedures for City of San
Bernardino, California.
2
25
Developed traffic accident reporting systems for Cities of Lynwood, Cerritos, and Palm
Spdngs, California.
Co-Project Director, City of Tucson, Adzona, "Comprehensive Roadway Lighting" project.
Developed cdteda for Citywide street and roadway lighting practices.
July 1981 to October 1982
ALDERMAN,SWIFT & LEWIS(ASL) CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Southern Califomia Manager for Traffic & Transportation Engineering .Related Project Involvement
included:
Project Director for Comprehensive Traffic & Transportation Circulation Study for the City
of El Segundo, California. Study involved Transportation System Management (TSM)
strategy development, identification of traffic control device needs and bus transit needs.
Developed Circulation Element of the General Plan for the Cities of El Segundo and
Redondo Beach. Reviewed and recommended improvements to the Riverside County
Circulation Element for the City of Hemet.
Developed traffic circulation, access and parking plans including signing and stdping
recommendations for pdvate shopping centers and office developments in Santa Barbara,
and Orange County, California.
Coordinated traffic detour planning and layout with ASL design department on projects
related to hydraulic improvements and street designs.
Developed on and off street parking demand; identified deficiencies and developed
mitigation measures for project in the waterfront area of Santa Barbara.
Project Director on "Identification of High Accident Locations" studies in Cities of
Lancaster, Huntington Park and Garden Grove, California. As part of the Huntington Park
study the causative factors of single vehicle, run-off-the-road type accidents were
investigated.
Project Director for design of traffic signals, safety lighting and lane control display
systems for the U.S. Navy, Camp Pendleton Madne Base, Oceanside, C, alifomia.
As Project Director for City of Cerritos, California developed traffic signal timing, phasing
and hardware needs for 48 of the City's signalized intersections. Determined problem
locations relative to signal timing and hardware deficiencies using maintenance record
histories.
3
26
Developed traffic accident reporting systems for Cities of Lynwood, Cerritos, and Palm
Spdngs, California.
Co-Project Director, City of Tucson, Arizona, "Comprehensive Roadway Lighting" project.
Developed cdteda for Citywide street and roadway lighting practices.
July 1981 to October 1982
ALDERMAN,SWIFT & LEWIS(ASL) CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Southem Califomia Manager for Traffic & Transportation Engineering .Related Project Involvement
included:
Project Director for Comprehensive Traffic & Transportation Circulation Study for the City
of El Segundo, California Study involved Transportation System Management (TSM)
strategy development, identification of traffic control device needs and bus transit needs.
Developed Circulation Element of the General Plan for the Cities of El Segundo and
Redondo Beach. Reviewed and recommended improvements to the Riverside County
Circulation Element for the City of Hemet.
Developed traffic circulation, access and parking plans including signing and stdping
recommendations for pdvate shopping centers and office developments in Santa Barbara,
and Orange County, California.
Coordinated traffic detour planning and layout with ASL design department on projects
related to hydraulic improvements and street designs.
Developed on and off street parking demand; identified deficiencies and developed
mitigation measures for project in the waterfront area of Santa Barbara.
Project Director on "Identification of High Accident Locations" studies in Cities of
Lancaster, Huntington Park and Garden Grove, California. As part of the Huntington Park
study the causative factors of single vehicle, run-off-the-road type accidents were
investigated.
Project Director for design of traffic signals, safety lighting and lane control display
systems for the U.S. Navy, Camp Pendleton Madne Base, Oceanside, California.
As Project Director for City of Cerritos, Califomia developed traffic signal timing, phasing
and hardware needs for 48 of the City's signalized intersections. Determined problem
locations relative to signal timing and hardware deficiencies using maintenance record
histories.
3
27
Designed bicycle lane and path for section of bicycle facility along Palos Verdes Drive in
City of Rolling Hills Estates. Reviewed signing and striping along same section.
October 1982 to January 1987
BERRYMAN & STEPHENSON (BS!) CONSULTING ENGINEERS
From start date to March 1985, Project Manager for Traffic & Transportation. From March 1985 to
1987, Vice President in charge of the Los Angeles County region.
Project Engagements included:
Acting City Traffic Engineer for C_Jty of Oceanside, Califomia. Duties included traffic signal
design, traffic engineering studies, recommendations on implementation of signs, stdping
and marking; review of new development proposals for ddveway access, parking layout,
geometric design, sight distance, pedestrian and vehicle circulation and bicycle lane/path
design. Liaison with CALTRANS relative to proposed interchange and highway alignment
design for the Route 76 expressway through Oceanside.
Conducted Mission Avenue transportation corridor study in westem portion of Oceanside
to determine necessary roadway widening needs, channelization locations, bus transit
locations and relocations, signing and marking needs and traffic circulation changes to
improve traffic flow and reduce accidents.
Director, Pavement Marking Demonstration Grant, Cities of Huntington Park & Oceanside.
Project entailed preparation of plans, specifications, estimates and construction inspection
for the installation of raised pavement markers on selected routes within the cities.
Director, Citywide Traffic Signal Evaluation Study, City of Oceanside. Duties involved
evaluation of fifty existing traffic signal installations to determine deficiencies in signal
timing, operation and display. Analysis of locations with potential for future signalization
based on projected traffic volumes. Transportation planning and modeling, accident
history, sight distance requirements, etc. were also utilized.
Director, City of Anaheim, Commercial/Recreation area Circulation study, Anaheim,
California. Duties involved preliminary design of ground mounted and overhead sign
message signing and management plan for deployment of traffic engineering strategies
when certain commeroial/recreation events occur.
Director, City of Anaheim "Sign Installation and Maintenance Program Development".
Project entailed defining problems in administration and operation of current signing
installation and maintenance program. Output was the development of a workable
program to improve efficiency and reduce potential for accidents through improved signing
and maintenance.
4
28
Project Director for City of Redondo Beach Citywide Circulation Study. Analysis of impact
of land use growth on existing city street system was conducted. Recommendations
involved highway engineering improvements, parking management strategies and TSM
strategies.
Acted as Traffic Engineer for' City of Rolling Hills Estates. Duties involved traffic
engineering studies, review of signing, marking, traffic signal warrant studies and
investigations, accident history analyses, and conduct of speed surveys. Liaison with
planning department on new or existing developments with respect to impact on traffic
engineering aspects such as ddveway location, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, loading
and unloading and internal parking layout and circulation.
Project Director, City of Lawndale Citywide Transportation Study. Involvement included
development of engineering, channelization, access control, and signing to restrict
commuter traffic intrusion into residential neighborhoods. Conducted parking analyses to
optimize curb parking on major artedal through City. Developed alternative street designs
for restructuring major artedal traffic flow.
JANUARY 1987 to DATE
PRESIDENT, ED RUZAK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Specializing in street, highway and transportation engineering consulting and
consulting for litigation.
Traffic Engineer (Acting), City of Hermosa Beach, engaged to provide continuing traffic
engineering services and to conduct special projects. 1987 to date.
Traffic Engineering Consultant for City of Fountain Valley, reviewing special projects, traffic
impact studies and Environmental Impact Reports, (EIRS).1987 to 1991.
Circulation & Parking Study, La Mirada Ddve-ln Swap Meet. Analyzed access, reviewed
pedestrian circulation and assessed parking for Swap Meet Operation, Santa Fe Spdngs,
Calif. 1987
Project Manager, "City of Whittier, Transportation Access and Circulation Study, Magnolia
Avenue Closure", 1987.
· Traffic Study of "Duarte Road Corridor Operation", City of Monrovia, 1988.
Traffic Impact Study for "Long Beach Sports Complex" (El Dorado Park), Long Beach,
1989-1990.
29
Traffic Impact Study for "Mortimer Street Closure", City of Santa Ana, in conjunction with
proposed Northgate Commercial Project, 1995.
· Traffic Impact Study for "Closure of Pioneer Boulevard between Cities of Hawaiian
Gardens and Long Beach", 1995.
· Traffic Impact Study for "Circuit Ice Skating Center," Fountain Valley, California, 1997
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
Registered Professional Civil Engineer in the States of California (1969) #18824, New York
(1970) ~,8206, Hawaii (1974) ~k3721, Nevada (1976) #4190 and Arizona (1983) #15147.
· Registered Professional Traffic Engineer in the State of Califomia (1976) #0202
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
· Amedcan Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Associate Member
· Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Fellow
· American Public Works Association (APWA), Member
· Transportation Research Board (TRB), Member
· Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), Member
· Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners (MAUDEP)
TEACHING AND LECTURING ENGAGEMENTS
Instructor for Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), University of California, Berkeley,
teaching "Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering", 1978 to date.
Instructor for Office of Traffic Safety (OTS),State of California, teaching "Traffic Safety
Problems". Instruction involved practical & theoretical applications of traffic engineering
design and operations as it related to improving safety. Directed at traffic engineering and
law enforcement personnel. 1977 through 1981.
Guest lecturer on "Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Computerized Traffic Signal
Systems", International Municipal Signal Association, 1976.
Speaker on "Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety, State of Wisconsin", presented at MAUDEP
meeting in San Diego, California, 1976
Speaker on "Bicycle Safety in Carson California" ,presented at MAUDEP conference,
Chicago, Illinois, 1978.
6
30
Instructor for Institute of Transportation Studies one week course on "Construction Work
Zone Techniques and Practices", 1984 through 1985.
Instructor for ITS, University of California teaching "Capacity & Safety Along Rural State
Highways", 1984.
Speaker at APWA Transportation Conference in Los Angeles on "Transportation Systems
Management Techniques to Reduce Travel Congestion", 1982.
CIVIC INVOLVEMENT
· Member, City of Fountain Valley Traffic & Transportation Commission, 1979. Member, City
of Fountain Valley Planning Commission, 1979 though 1981.
COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT
Member, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Committee 5-BB , "Parking
Generation", 1980 through 1981.
Member, ITE Committee 4M-16, "identification of Research Areas Regarding Human
Factors In Traffic and Transportation Engineering Research Regarding Human Factors in
Transportation Engineering". 1983 through 1987.
Member, ITE Committee 4A-27, ''Traffic Control Devices for Low Volume Roads", 1986 to
1990.
American Public Works Association (APWA),Southem California Area Transportation
Committee. Member 1981 to date. Served as Chairman 1983 through 1984.
Institute of Transportation Engineers Reviewer of Manual On Uniform Traffic Control
Devices in assistance of NCUTCD Technical Committee, 1987 to date.
· Member, ITE Committee 5P-3, "Pedestrian Facilities", 1990 to 1995.
7
31
JUN-~-19~ 10:~9 W~LFF ~iN & ~M~T ~14 835 ?787 P.0~08
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
CHAPTER 200
GEOMETRIC DESIGN AND
STRUCTURE STANDARDS
Tope 201 - Sight Dirtanco
IBdex 201.1 · Generd
Sight distance is the continuous length of
highway al~ad visibk to th~ d~tv~r. T~re~ ~ of
sight distance are considered hem: passing.
stopping. and decision. Stopping ~ distance is
the minimum sight distance to be provided on mul-
tilane highways and on 2-lane reeds when passing
sight distance is not economically obtainable.
$toppinj sight ~i~--ce also is m be {n'ovidod for
all elements of interchanges and intersections at
grade, including privme rand commotions (see
J Top S0 , tudex 405.1. dt FiSu 4O5.7).
Decision ~t dis~ b used ~ mj~ d~on
~e foXYwins ~b ,how~ ~e s~s for
Table 201.1
Sight DIstnnr..o Standerdo
Desifn Speed(i) St~pping(2) Passing
(mph) (ft) (ft).
~ .........................125 ................~0
25 .........................1~0 ................9~0
30 ..........................200 ................1100
$5 .........................250 ................13(30
45 .........................360 ................1650
50 ..........................430 ................1800
~$ ..........................500 ................
60 .........................580 ................2100
65 ..........................660 ................2300
70 ..........................7~0 ................2~0
75 ..........................840
80 ..........................930 ................
200.1
Chal~tr [] of 'A Poticy on O~om~ttic Design
of ~gh~ys ~ S~' ~S~, I ~, c~ns
a ~ ~uMion ~ ~ ~va6on of stopping
sight ~.
sight
Passing sight distance is the minimum sight
distance re~iuired for the driver of one vehicle to
pass snother vebick safely and comfortably.
speed of an oncoming vehicle traveling at the
design speed should it corec into view after the
aveanklet ~ver is started. The sight distance
nvaild~le for passing at any place is the longest
distance Jtt which a driver whose eyes are 3.5 feet
above the pavement surface can see the top of an
Pusing sislit distance is considered only on 2-
lane roads. At critical locations, e su'wtch of 3- os'
4=lane Ming seGtion with stopping siJht distance
is sometimes mor~ economical than two lanes with
lmasinj sight distance (see index
Ftfure 20t.2 shows srqshWelty the relationship
among length .of vertical curve, design speed. and
alpdx, aic difference in Fades. An}, on~ focto~ can
See Chaperr 6 of the TraffK; Manual for criteria
rehtinS to hrrier s~pins of no-pmins zones.
The minimum stopping sight distance is the
distance required by the driver of · vehicle.
troydins at a given speed, to bring his vehicle to a
stop after an ~bjec~ on du road becon~s visible.
5toppin~ sight distance is measured from the
driver's eyes, which are assumed to be 3.5 fe~t
above the lmvement surface. to an object 0.S-foot
The st~pi~t~ s~gbt d~,~-s in T,I~I~ 201.1
shegirl b[ tneraate~4 b.Y 20d~ on sutt,.ino~4
dow~d,~ sto~!er the, 3~ set4 Io~,r the, 1
mih.
(1) b TopW 101 fen' S~bL'tiOm Of ¢lesi{n
~) Incmin. by 20'10 on sm~ainod downs31dss >{ql, & :, i
32
400-6
Mly S,
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Topic 405 - Intersection Design
Standards
405.1 Sight Distance
(1) Stopping $igbt Distance. See Index
201.1 for minimum stopping sight distance re-
quirements.
(2) Corner Sight Distance.
(a) Public Road Intersections--At unsignalized
public road intersections (see Index 405.7)
a substantially clear line of sight should
be maintained between the driver of a ve-
hicle waiting at the cross road and the
driver of an approaching vehicle in the
right lane of the main highway. Sight dis-
tance values given in Table 405.1A should
be used at unsignalized public road inter-
sections. On 2-lane highways, these values
allow 7-1/2 seconds for the driver on the
crossroad to turn left while the approach-
ing vehicle travels at the assumed design
speed of the main highway. On multilane
highways, a 7-1/2 second criteria for the
outside lane will normally provide in-
creased sight distance to the inside lanes
to compensate for the longer distance
traveled by the left-turning vehicle. Con-
sideration should be given to increasing
these values on downgrades steeper than
3% and longer than I mile (see Index
201.3).
In some cases the cost to obtain 7-1/2 sec-
ond corner sight distances may be exces-
sive. High costs might include right of
way, building removal, extensive excava-
tion, or environmental costs such as tree
removal, avoidance of wetlands, historic,
and archaeological sites. In such cases a
lesser value for corner sight distance may
be used, but the minimum value shall be
the stopping sight distance given In Table
201.1 measured from a 3.S-foot eye height
on the minor :road to a 4.2S-foot object
height on the major road.
Set back for the driver on the cross road
shall be a minimum of 1S feet from edge
of the traveled way. Set back assumes 6
feet to the stop bar, l-foot for the width
of the stop bar, anc~ 8 feet from front
bumper to driver. If the stop bar is more
than 6 feet from the traveled way, addi-
tional allowance should be considered.
(b) Private Road Intersections--Minimum cor-
ner sight distance shall be stopping sight
distance as given In Table 201.1 measurad
from a 3.S-foot eye height on the private
road to a 4.2S-foot oblect height on the
major road. Set back is a minimum of 15
feet, the same as for public road connec-
tions.
(c) Urban Driveways--Corner sight distance
requirements under (b) above do not apply
to urban driveways.
(3) Decision Sight Distance. At intersec-
tions where the State sign route turns or
crosses another State route, the decision sight
distance values given in Table 405.1B should
be used. In computing and measuring deci-
sion sight distance, the 3.S-foot eye height and
the 0.$.foot object height should be used, the
object being located on the side of the inter-
section nearest the approaching driver.
The application of the various sight dis-
tance requirements for the different types of
intersections is summarized in Table 405.1C.
Table 405.1A
Corner Sight Distonc. e.
(7-1-/2 Se 'ond Criterm)
Design Speed
(mph)
Corner Sight
Distance (ft)
30 ...........................................330
40 ...........................................440
50 ...........................................550
60 ...........................................660
770
33
rl
Study: Inland Valley could
be epicenter of major quake
From staff and wire reports
There cuu]d be more shock value
to local faults than originally
thought.
New information reveals that
two cracks in the Inland Valley
earl:h, the Chino fault and the S~m
Jose fault, could be the epicenter
of earthquakes as large as 6.5 to 7,
sizes comparable to the Northridge
quake of 1994, accordingto a study
in today's issue ef the journal
Nature.
Recent damaging quakes en
i larger thrust faults around South-
ern Callfoi~i'a?~ scient'~ to OVer-
estimate theif:~sei~mic~,'risk and
underestimutc the hhzards of
smaller thults that behave like the
San ~dre~, the study suggests.
Four of the strike-slip fa~ts-
the San Jose, C~no, Verdugo, and
Raymond - are more dangerous
than pre~ously l;hought, despi~
thek short lenChs ~d lack of his-
toric large raptures ~;ause stra~
is building finstot than pre~o~sly
believed, researchers s~d.
The San Jose fi~ult, which runs
from Pomona through Mon~hdr
~d into the mountains noahwest
of Upland, was active ]n 1988 m~d
1990, with quakes measu~d at 4.6
and 5.2. The Chino fhult, on which
there have been no large qumes
recorded histow, runs along
Chino Hills in ~;ual]y a s~aight
line ~om Pomona m L~&e E~inore
ItN~fically, these smiler Pa~
~nd i~ erupt more o~n th~ big-
ger ~ts such as fi:~e San ~dreas,
but in less magnitude, said ~te
Hutton, a se:ismolo~st for Cal~ch
Whose fault?
5%,
iTwo area faults - San Jose and Chino -
have been given a greater chance of
"caustn~ a large eart~luake in the fulum.,
.'. acc, ormr~g to a scientific joumal.
Source; Callech Chris Marlch/Dai!y Bulletin
tell, she said.
There isn't anything the average
resident can do, Hutton said. Build-
ing standards already estimate
earthquakes of the highest magni-
"The standards are set to what
we know at the time the building
is designed," she said. "It seems
like after every earthquake we fihd
out something new."
The study's co~author, James
Dolan, a geologist with the South-
ern California Earthquake Center
at USC, said, "These lesser-known
faults are probably bigger players
in the seismic risk facing (us) than
we've previously thought."
Strike-slip faults are those, like
34
by: LOEB
& LOEB
I-OEB EB
21 3 688
;346':); 09/1 6/98
LOI A#QILII, CA 80017-2475
"2:46PM;~#36,a;Page 26/26
Dirgt Dial No.
213-688-3622
c-mail: IvRdCKBITH@loeb,com
August 22, ~998
Fdd 011~B1~7441~1
Ms. Oail $anch~
Ms. Deborah Adams
City of Rancho Cu~mo~a
105OO Civic Cerder Ea~
RaG~o Cucamon8~ CA 91737
Re: App~ fl~rn'D~velopm~t R~vir,v 98-13
Dca~ MS. San~ez and M~ .a~l&nu:
Cecamongans United fo~ Re, uonabla ~xpmision ("CURE') hereby appeals
from the August 12, 1998 approval by ~ PlannlRB Conv~on of tim above
D~volopmo~t RoyJew Applicntion.
1998.
Pl~s~ prmid~ ma with a copy of ih~ hearing tapes from August 12,
Wo ~ill pay for tl~ copies aI th~ time of pick up.
If you have mr,/questions, pica,so contact me, Th&~ you.
MHM.~wl
P1631~405
MCM~lI3J.02
Very truly your&
of Loeb&Lo~bLLP
35
LOEB & LCE~
LOER &
21;3 688 3469j
09/!6/98 ~2:45PM;)P.J/.it,[_#364;Pa(e 25/26
Sen~ conrzr~at~on Report
' Type MoOe 8tetu~
10:24AU 0'50' 190~772B~9 ........... ~Sen¢ ...... '2! '2 E0144 Completed ............. T ........ I
Total: 0'5~"' Pages sent; 2 Pages printe~: 0
i
FACSIIIILI~ TRANsII~TTAL
36
by:
LOEB & LOE9
213 689 34{;0; 0g'16,'98 ~2:32P[I;~#384;Pacje
Federal
Emergency Management Agency
Wa[shington, D.C. 20472
$ E P 0 41997
The Honorable William Alexander
Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cur~monga, California 91729
RECEIVED
SEP 0 a
LOE;B a LOEB
Dear Mayor Alexander:
This follows our letter dated August 20, 1997, regarding the effective Flood Insurance Rat= Map
(FIRM) for San Bernardino County, California and Incorporated Areas, dated March 18, 1906. As
we indicated in the letter, we received a l~tcr dated August 19, 1997, in which Mr. David T.
Williams, Ph.D., P.E., of V~ST Consultants, Inc., describes concerns associated with the proposed
removal era portion era levee located on the aliavial fan downslope of Deer Canyon.
The levee was ~edited on a previously cf','ective FIRM for the City of Ramoho Cucamong~, dated
September 5, 1084, with providing protection from the flood havi~g a l-p~ent ch~ of being
~u~ or exceed during any given ye~ ~ fi~d). Sub~ucnt m the ismanco oft~t F~
a det~tion ~i~ desi~ by ~ U.S. ~y Co~s ofE~ ~$ACE), was constructed upslope
of the levee. That detention basin was cenifl~ by the USAGE ~ prodding b~ flood protection
to areas do~slope and, co~uently, credited with providing such protection on the effective
March 18, 1996, FI~.
In his letter. Mr. Williams hfformecl us of his intention to request, revision of the effective FIRM that
would indicate the detention basin does not mec: our requirements for crediling flood control
structures with prorid[rig base flood protection Mr. Williams rexlUCSt is on behalf of Cucamongans
United for Reasonable Expansion
The d~ta submittal requirements for requesting map revisions ~re described in Part 65 of the National
FIood ~nsunmc¢ Program (NTEP) regulations. The data submiltal requirements pertaining to levees
are described in S~ction 65 10. The data sabrnit~l n~quiremen~s pertaining to structural flood control
measures in areas subjecx to alluvial fan flooding, such as the areas downstope of where Deer Canyon
exits the mounttin front, e. re described it: Section 65.13 of the NFIP regulations.
It should be noted that we cannot revise tho FIRM as requested by Mr. Williams, unless we receive
documentation demonstrating that all reasons which preclude us from continuing to credit the
detention basin with providing base flood protection, do not also preclude us from continuing to
credit the levee with such protection. Further, for the purposes of mapping areas in the vicinity or
flood control structures that we cannot credit with providing bssc flood protection, we require
analyses of the flooding situation both ~vith the structures in place and operating as desired, and
without the structures in place.
37
Sen: by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3,;60j 09/16/98 '2:33PM;.,~.3,jF_.~r,._#364;Pa~e 3/26
We are sending a copy of' this letter, d~e NFLP regulations, and a set of' standard fortn, s to
Mr Williams to aid him in organizing the documentation u~e will need ~o begin our review of his
request. Please hole that the "Community Acknowledgment Form" in the forms package requires
the aclcnowledgrnent era community official and provides for comments regarding the community's
review of the request.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has implemented a procedure to recover costs
ss~ociated with reviewing and processing requests for modifications to published flood information
and maps. The initial fee for revision requests involving structural flood control measures in areas
subject to alluvial fan flooding is $5,000 Costs beyond the initial fee sre assessed at a ra:e of $50
per hour. We will not begin our review of Mr. Williams request without having received the initial
fee. After we l~ave completed our review and before we issue our determination, we will send
Mr. Williams an invoice for Ih~ outstanding balance. Our determination will be sent to you, wilh
copies to Mr. Williams and Ms. Malissa McKeith, of Uoeb & Lo~b, L,L.P,, after we receive the
outstanding balance.
We will keep your comnmnity informed ofous- processing of this request. If you have any que~tion.s
regarding This matter, ptease contact me in Wasl~ington, DC, either by telephos~e at (202) 646-2770 or
by facsimile at t, 202) 6464596.
cc;
David T. Williams, Ph.D, P.E.
WEST Consu[tants, Inc.
Ms. Malissa McKeith L,/'~
Loeb & Loeb, L.L.P.
38
Sen: by:
LOEB & LOEB
September 8, 1998
213
688 3463~
0~;'I6/98
? y
' 2; 33PM; )¢.]~_~!L#364 ;Pace 4/26
.... ILB.
M 0 N G A
Melissa Hathaway McKeith
Loeb & Loeb LLP
1000 Wilshire Boutovate Suile 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2475
SUBJECT: RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AUDIO TAPE
Dear Ms. McKeith:
Enclosed is a copy of the audio tape recorded at the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission meeting held on August 12, !998.
It was mentioned in the course of the meeting on several occasinns that we were
experiencing numerous audio/technical difficulties with new equipment. You will note t~at
approximately three minutes into the recording there is a fourteen minute portion of the
tape which is apparently blank. The system failed to record a portion of the response by
Deputy City Attorney Michael Estrada regarding design review, the staff report
presentation by Principal Planner Dan Coleman, and the opening of the public hearing by
Chairman McNiel. To my knowledge, all of the actual testimony during the public hearing,
the subsequent rebuttal, motion and vote is intact and no further tape failures occurred
If I can be of further assistance to you cr if you have further questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Lois Schrader
Planning Division Secretary
LS:me
cc: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner
Enclosure
39
.Sen'. by: LOEB & LOEB 2.13 688 ;3463; 09,16/98 '2:33Pi',~;,,~#36~;Pac.:e 5/26
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
Meeting of August 12, 1998
The Heights of Haven View Estates v. Haven View Estates
Chairman McNie!:
We are back at Item I Development of Review 9813 The Heights of'Haven
View Estates LLC. Design of the det~led site plan and building elevations for
track 14771 consisting of 40 single family homes on 25.35 acres of land of a
ve~ low residentia~ district, less than two dwelling units per acre. Located
east of Haven Avenue, north of Ringstom Drive. This I.~em was noticed in the
direction of C',ty Council, al{hough not n~e~arily required by law. This is
the Desig~ Review, and I would like to have that defined by our legal attorney
so that xve can keep this in focus as to what our purpose and function is here
this evening. If'you would give us exactly what our parameters
are sir.
Legal Council:
Again, the Item is the Design Development Review for The Heights of Haven
View Estates. This is a project as the Commission knows that has an
approved tract map back: in 1990, as . ~ (blank space on tape)
Mr. Alday:
(Blank sp~e on tape)., will be made, saying that we have only seen five or
six footprints. That's, that's not at ~1 accurate and on top of that, as we have
sho~q with all these exhibits, no matter what the footprint simila~4ties might
be, even. on those that split front to ba~k the same, or side to side the, same,
there are many variations which totally ar~ct the outward appearance of the
homes wtfich is what this whole process has been oriented to doing. We have
submitted everything Staff wanted, it is here. We have models, I didn't get
to them I didn't described them in any derail. If there are any questions, I
coul~ get into many of the details of these. We prepared these to show the
City how a front on elevation does not really convey the beauty, the detail, of
lhe many architectural features that are on, that will actually be on these
homes Tl,,ese models were prepared during the last nine months since the
City Council disapproved this project. We started with the basics and began
added elements to the home to show ourselves, our architects prepared ~o
show us, so we could show you how the houses could be buried, just real
quick, this is an example, this element, the portico share (sic) is on some
homes and not on others, but is will always be where it is plotted to be and
above it, this room above it, is a bonus area that when is there makes a
significant difference is appearance as when it is not.
Clearly to us, and hopefi~lly to you, we have accomplished what the City
Counsel directed us to do, which was ~o make significant changes to this
App!icafion I am limiting my comments to Design Review. I believe that I
40
by: LOEB & LCE9 213 688 3463; 0;,'16,'98 !2:34Pr,1;.l~uF._.~hl_#36z.;Pa.ce 6/26
Chairman Mc Niel:
Housing Developer:
Chairman MoNier:
I-[ousin$ Developer.
Chairman MeNtel:
~chard Stone:
have covered our Application in that regard If there are any questions, I
would be glad to answer them
Are there any q.aest~ons of the applicant,
I would lik~ to have the opportunity to rebut, if necessary.
That is absolutely procedure
Thank yeu very much
Thank you, Would anybody else care to speak to this issue?
Good evening Honorable Chairman and Commissioners. I am Richard Stone.
I repres~t the Haven View Estates Homeowners Association ~d the Rancho
Cucamonga Five Homeowners Association, which is comprised of the
property owners who live adjacent :o the proposed project.. [ am going to
address :we issues. The first is a request by my clients to continue IhJs
hearing for two, at least two weeks, for all the reasons which are going to be
stated her,, but bd~y we just got a copy ofthe Staff.Report with the exhibits
today. There has been no Technical Review Community review of' this
project, The applicant tussn't rr~de it the one year since the last denial, and
the applicant has not filed the filing requirements required by the Hillside
Development Regulations. So once those are filed v,e think it would be
appropriate to take it up at that time, but for now we request a continuance
Beyond that issue there are numerous reasons to deny Design Development
Review outright. 1 mm going to try to restrict my remarks to the inconsistency
of the project with the General Plan designation applicable to it, As you
know, to approve Design Development Review under your Code, you musl
make a finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan. In this
nose, the property is subject to three open space designations in the General
Plan. Unde~ the Genera} Plan, the density of development in an open space
designation is limit< to one dwelling unit per ten acres. In this case, it would
result in a total number of dwellings units of two. This is proven, in Isrge
pad, by lhe Cities own documents which we have obtained in the last ~ar.
I know that last year this body did not consider the issu~ of consistency with
the General Plan and did not have INs information before it. Likewise, [ was
brought in just before the final map hearing and did not have some of the
documents ][ am about to reference.
The starting plan is the General Plan itself which was adopted in 1981. There
4'1
LOEB & LCEB 213 688 3462; 09,,16,'98 12:34Pf',~;./~#38,4;Pac.:e: 7/26
Chairman McNiel:
~Jchard Sto~e:
Unknown Speaker:
P, Jchard Stone:
have been no amendmerits to the General Plan for this proper~y since 1981,
so the sole isle is what was the General Plan designations for this property
in 1981, when the General Plan was adopted. The City has admitted that
conceptually the Lo:en Development prepay w~ o~n space under the 1981
General Plan. The property ~ you may know, is bordered on
southwesterly portion by a forty foot ~ flood control ]e~. Until 1983, :his
levy provided the only flood control protection for the do~ gr~ient
prope~ie~. It's listed a~ a major flood control feature on the General Plan
map. fi~re V-6. The flo~ control ~p ~tually shows th~ le~ which fo~
the ~utherly border of this pro.fly.
Mr, Stone, I thinx that wa are, we would like to cor~fine this the business that
we have :o deal with, tb. at is ~he design of this project, and that is the sites
specific Design Review of the pro3ect
With all doe respect, I disagree with that limited definition of Design Review
under the Cities Code, and in fact under the proposed Resolution that is
before you, tlms body must make a finding that this body is consistent with the
General Plan and that is what my remarks are limited to, is the lack of
consistency with the General Plan, so I do think that is directly on point
I think t!u~t you shou':d allow him to speak. Certainly, if he is speaking oflhe
General Plan that is a required finding, and the Commission can make a
deterrmnation upon the close of hearing of what matter to consider and what
matters are relevant.
Thank you. Until 1986 the entire property was impressed with a County
Flood Control District, flood control easement prohibiting development on the
property to control the flood control levy which forms this southerly border.
The tex~ of the General Plan makes it clear that the flood control lands, such
as this property wan until 1986, a major source of open space in Kanzho
Cucamonga So the tex~ cortfirrc. s that this property is open space. Removing
any doubt, is the .General Plan maps themselves which define the spacbl
dimensions of :he General Plan itself Under two separate maps, the Land
Use Plan Map and the Open Space Land Map, the property is designated
under t~ree categories of open space. If you look at the Land Use Plan Map,
the propeaxy is designated as flood cantrol lands open space. This is clearer
from the overlays that the City did at the hearing on the final map. The City
has claimed that the property is only partially in the open space, but if
look at: the overlay of the Land Use Map over my client's tracts, you will see
that over ~gh.'y percent of it is in the open space category under the Land Use
Plan Map Now' ,~.hat the City did not do a year ago, is overlay the Open
Space Plan Map over my client's tracts. If you do that, it is quite evident that
42
by: LOEB & LCE~ 213 6~ 34Q3; 09/!6/98 !2:35PM; ~.,,~,~.~_jUL_#38~;Pa?e 8/28
one hundred percent of' the Loren Development property falls within the
category of flood centtel utilities corridor on the Open Space Plan Map and
falls approximately ninety-nine pcr~ent within lhe stream side woodland and
water recharge area. [t is obviously to tell from the maps because this
property has the prominent tlaod ¢<~ntrol Ira3' £orrning its southerly border and
:he northern border of the property is essentially the City limit. So it is ~
:o match up this property to the General Plan maps. No reasonable person
can look a: the G~neral Plan maps ~nd te~t without concluding that there are
at least three :pen space designations for this property. Confirming this
Furlher is Ihe City's own Staff Reports, which £ know that this body did not
have before last year and neither did the City Counsel. But is 1983, 1986 and
1989, this same S~aff found that the Loren Development property was in the
open space category unde~ the flood control category and the Land Use Plan
Map. These are set forth in the three Staff Reports with respect to Tracl
12~ 32, which i~ immedi~teiy below the flood control levy.
The City F,a.s not disputed that the StaR' Reports found the property to be the
open space, nor have th%' ever claimed those Staff Reports are mistaken. TF, e
designation was miraculously cha~ged in the next City Staff.Report, but the
only difference was that bf J Brock had applied for a tentative tract map for
this property So from '83 to '89 the Staff' consistently found that this
property was open space. So it is ur~eniable and unambiguous that it is open
space and therefore is limited to two dwelling units The City has nevec
qur,.ntified its admission that the property is partially in open space under the
t~ee separate categories. That should at least be drawn out to $tsff~,t some
point, so tha~ we understand what th~ are con:ending it partially. As i
contended before, it appears to be one hundred percent with respect to one
category, ninety-nine percent with respect to mother, and at least eighty
percent with respect to the Land Use Plan Map
As I noted betbre, the City has played a little fast and lose with the overlay
maps, but they have never done such an exercise with the Open Space Plan
Map which has two c~t:¢gories of open space governing the property. Finally,
the City has made an ~rgurr. ent that the maps are not precise. Our response
to that is, :hey are p~ecise enough to show that this property is at least nir, e~y
percent within categories of' open space on the two different maps. The
General Plan itself states that ~he maps define the spacial dimensions of the
General Plan The City's own Code says it',at consistency with the General
Plan is determined by reference to the Land Use Plan Map. Staff was able to
correctly determine that this property was open spac~ in three separate Staff
Reports as I have mer.~ioned They were also able to do so for virtually every
project. That is under consideration before either this body, or the Ci,.y
Counsel. And. again, the text oft. he O~neral Plan makes it clear that ~1ood
4
43
Sort'. I~y: LOEB & LCEB 213 688 34(i9; og/r16/98 '2:35PLl;$~ffmZ #36~;Pa~e 9/26
Chairman MeNtel:
Richard Stone
Chairman MoNte!:
Jack Rubens
control lands are open space and :his property was undeniably flood control
lands until, at the very earliest, 1986, when the flood control easement over
the entire property was removed However, as l've said before, there has
never been a General Plan amendment, so the designation of 1981 carries
forward to this day. There has also been a contention that while the zoning
in ] 983 was very low density and tha[ has to be consistent with the General
Plan, therefore the General Plan must be very low density. That is now true
under the law, lhe General Plan controls the zoning, as I am sure that you are
all aware. This City simply made a mistake. The critical issue is what did the
General Plan designate this in 198 l, and if the zoning is inconsistent, it falls
to the General Plan designation which. cpntrols and it is the General Plan and
the four corners of the General Plan to which you must look to determine
consistency.
That leaves the remaining issue of'why doesn't the applicant simply process
the General Plan amendment It seems to us that what is really going on here,
is that someone within the City is hell bcnt on pushing this project through no
matter what. Ira General Plan amendment were processed, there would be
no fdrther argument againat an Environmental Impact Report, and if' one were
done :he ~-ery significant impact of this project would have to be disclosed to
the public. That is the only explanation we can come up with, wi~h the
studied ignorance of the General Plan. Thank you very much.
Thank you vet3' much Mr Stone Would you sign in please?
Would anybody else care to speak to this issue9
Good evening Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Jack Rubens. I am
also an attorney with the Law Firm of Shepard, Mall, Richter and Hampton,
and I am also here tonight representing the Haven View Estates and Rancho
Cucamonga Five Homeowners Associations. You have just heard fiom Mr,
Stone a very ~ncise review of why this project is flatly inconsistent with the
City's General Plan. What I would like to address are a number of other
issues regarding the Design Review Application and the many ways in ~vhich
it is, Lfapproved tonight by the Planning Cornmission, in violation of not r>nly
the City's Development Code, but also State Law.
These matters are all set forth in the letter that I balieve you all have a copy
of, and I am just going to briefly summerize it for you.
The Ci:y's Development Code states that if Development Design Review is
44
S;er]~. !:y: LOE~ & LOEB 213 688 3463; 09;16.'98
denied for a proj~l, a new Applicazion cannot be filed for one year if the use
roma!ns the same ~r substantially the same, ~nd the project is on the site or
substantially lhe same silo. Use is actu~ly de~ed in the City's Development
Code ~ the conduct of~ acliv[ty or the pe~ormance of a ~nction, etcet~ra,
Cl~ly, the use is r~ide~:i~, S~cifica!!y, it is the const~cdon offo~ single
¢am/Jy homes and on precisely ~he s~me lot, or Iot~, that were proposed last
year Desgin Developm~t Ee~ew w~ denied by ~he City Co~sel on
September 3, 1997, which was less {hun one year a~o. There is some
confession ~ to when the n~. ~si~ ~5~ Application was submitted, but
it was not [ater titan June 2, of t~ year. Obviously, as we stand here tonight
a ye~ h~ not pas~d At the Design Renew Committee meeting last week,
we ~nd~stand from Mr. Coleman that the City's intoproration of the Code
is thai use actually means design, and the ~gument is lhat the design of the
project has subslandally changed so ~ha[ a new Application could be file in
less thin a y~. With ~1 due respea to the staff', use is no~ desgin. The
desitn is also defin~ in the De¥clopment Code and it includes such t~n~s as
street improvements, grading, and the like, The Minutes for the De~i~
Review Committee state unequivocally, lh~ ~he u~ remains unchanged,
Uz~der ~hose cir~st~ces we simply do no~ under,and how ~s body can
be c~nsiderint this Application toniEht. ~Ve don't under~tand how the
could ha~ ~en accepted t~s AppliCon for d~elopm~nt before September
3, 1998. S~ond, the D~clopment ~ew proc~ures of the City require
compli~ ~th ~ pro~siom oft~ D~e~pment Ced~ ~d those p~ovisions
include.y:ur ~11side Development Regulations. The Hillside Development
~l~ions r~uirc the ~b~ssion era nutone of~ps ~d repels md other
do~ments with the Application for Design ~vi~. Those include a nature
ficatur~ map, a color cut ~d ~11 map, a concepm~ drYhuge and flood centre:
Facilities map, a ~1opc analysis map, a ~ope profiles, a teelogic. ~d soils
rope, and a statement of conditions for ultimate ownership or,he property
We have made a Public Kecords ~t request that the City responded
yesterday. well actually to&y I should say. No~ of ~hose d~umen~s where
it, eluded ~n Ihc do~m~ts ~'e received. Our clients have ~lio gone down
~o your offlees ~re and requested all of the do~ments in the file. None of'
these document~ exist. At the Grading Commitlee. meetin8 last week it ~
~nceded that none ofthose documents exist, ~nd apparently a condition has
been added tha~ before this meeting tonight, these various documents would
be submitted We have received no in~o~ation that even as we stand here
tonight th~ have been submitted Even if they were submitted, that would
ob~ously blatmfiy ~olate ~he Hillside Development ~lations be~u~ the
whole idea i~ that they are to be submitted wi~h the Application ~ they c~
be ~nsider~ ~ ~e ~ading Co~tt~ as well ~ t~ other Committees who
c'an then m~ke a recommendation you. The id~ is ~t to skip that process
and present thom to you the day of the he~tng. ~d ~his is not just
45
LOEB & L~.E9 213 688 3,.163; 09,'16/98 !2:36PM;,~l,F,~r,,_.#36~.;Pa.c.e '1/26
procedural issue, I mean obviously you need to have these maps and lhese
reparts to understand the true impacts of the project. Not only from a grading
standpoint, but with respect to drainage issues with respect to a number o£
issues. ^ number o£ issues franMy that raise environmental concerns as well
as d~sign concerns. $o again, given the very straight forward provisions of'
your ow~ Hillside Development Regulations, we do not understand how this
body can be considerins Ihis matter tonight.
Third, the Development Design Review procedures require review by three
different Committees who each make a recommendation to this body. The
Grading; Committee, ',he Desig~ Review Committee, and the Technical
Re<ew Commiltee We know that the first two o£those Committees did in
fact consider this matter on August 4, and did make recommendations. The
third Committee did not They did nol consider this matter, nor make a
recommendation. We asked last we~k at the Desil~n Review Committee
meeting why that x~as lhe case, and did not r~ceive and ~mswer. At this poim
we do not understand why that review did not take place, but we can hazard
a guess. The ,guess would be based on the City AttototT's very improper
interpretation of the Development Code as he stated a few moments ago, it
is the City's position that the Development Design Review procedure here is
only timired to desi~ review, If you read the Development Code you will see
that there is absolutely no basis for that interpretation The Development
D¢s'gn Renew procedure applies to any residential development with five or'
mor~ units, anti it states that ~11 development proposal submitted pursuant to
[his Section are initially reviewed by the three Committees. 'Not some of'
them, nol the ones for u~'hich there was no prior map approved. All of them,
and that each Committee shall make a recommendation on each project for
consideration by the Planning Committee. And again, this goes on beyond
mere procedure, this is vitally important. I.t is the Technical Review
Committee that should be considering whether or not there is consistency in
the project with the General Plan it is the Technical Review Committee tha~
considers all the requirements of environmental processing, and considers a
host of issues relating to the development of'tl'us project as opposed to mere!y
design issues. The Development Design Review procedures are also
unequivocal that ~her,- is no exception under which only design issues are
considered as opposed to both development and design issues. So for that
reason, we cannot understand how this body can be considering this matter
tonight
Nex~ is tt~e issue is compatibility. A year ago the City Counsel designed, as
you heard, denied Design Plan Review on primarily two grounds. That there
were too few floor plans, and that there was not enough elevations. A
number of speakers aRer me are going to address these issues more
46
by: LOEB & LCE9 213 688 3460; 09/16/98 12:37PM;.~.~.~i,~L_#364;Pa~:e 12/26
specifically, but I would like to make a few comments.
First, the number of'floor plans has not changed. It was very interesting that
the Desig-~ Review Committee meeting last week Mr. AJday went out of his
way to avaid using the words "floor plan" ~,hich, of course, was the term that
the City Counsel used a year age, and was the term that was imprinted on all
of the developer's plans in elevations !ast year. Now there is no more
reference to the term "floor plan", and the reason is that the number floor
plans haven't changed. What the developer has done is to make some of the
optional elements of the design from last year rr~ndatory to flip some of the
garages on some of the units from their location last year, and to exchange,
chang~ some the e~terior features of some of the units. Many ortho units
remain exactly the same. The number of' floor plans has no~ chanl~ed at all.
The elevations were increased from three to five, but those changes in those
two new arct:itectural s;ylcs ar~ very limited. You are still dealing with a tract
development, not custom homes. and very much incompatible with ~he
surroundin6 homes in our eliones two ccmmur, ities. They will speak more to
that issue in a momen~
Finally, you have two Resolutions before you tonight, rather than one which
I know is unusual. The second one, the first one rein(es to your ~pprovsl of
Design Review which is the one you are used to seeing. The second one is
one ~hat you are very much not used to seeing, and i~ is a Resolution in which
you find that ~o more Environmental Review is required under Sequa (sic).
The reason ~hat that has been presented ~o you tonight is because the City
believes that there will be a lawsuit over this project if it is approved, which
may well be ~he c~se, and our desires of having a re~ord that shows you
considered this issue and tbund that :.~ere was no further Environmentat
Re,,~ew required. That is interesting for a couple of, for many reasons. The
first of which it is e~tirely inconsistent with wha~ your City Attorney just reid
you. He just told y~u th~l you are limited ~o design issues ~onight and yet
you have a Resolution before you claiming that across the board that no
further erwironmemai ~eview is required That doesn't make a whole Im of
sense Seconal, let me poin~ you to two of the findings, the prima~ two
fi~din~s in the Resolution The first o~,e states that the Development Design
Review process states lhat d~e environmentaI maledais presented in an
envi~onm~tal c, onc:¢rns raised a~ the hearing on :his D~siff~ Review matter did
no~ rein!to 'co the discretionary matter before the Commission. The Io! specific
desiff~ of~hc residences ir~ question. £ will put aside for the moment how the
Staff could know what issues ~d e,,~denoe were going to be presented b~fore
the meeting actually occurred, but once aftsin this goes to the City Attorney's
erroneous in',erpret,,tion of your own DcveIopmcnl Code. There is not~ing
within your Developmen~ Design Review procedures or any~hin~ e~se
47
LOEB & L,2E3 2'13 628 3469; 0g,,'16198 "2:37PI,,~;,,~..~r,_#36,4;Pac. e "3/;~G
anywhere in any or' your Codes that indic~e your ability to restrict this
precedings to design review issue.~. On the contrary, every provision in your
Code states the opposite, and i think that is why the City Attorney save I'ds
opinian, but did not provide any support for it a few moments ago.
Paragraph four of'that Resolution in;ludes an additional finding that based on
subs,~tial evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the Ausust 12,
he~ng, no supplemental envirov, memal review is required wi~h respect 7o the
Commissions actions As you know, there is currently a lawsuit pending in
which another organization, Cure, has alleged that the, re are very significant
changed circumstances with respect to this project. In all of the issues they
have raised in that litigation Fully apply here because this is a discretionary
approval, this appties to both development and design review issues and if
there are changed circumstances you are duty bound to do a supplemental
Environment~i Review ! found it interesting that Commissioner Matins on
an earlie: rna~ter noted that wi~h respect to a six year old tentative map
approve! that there should be a~ditional re,low, not withstanding that there
were changeg circumstances you can point ~o, while here you have been
provided information on a host of very significant changes in circumstances.
I am not going to rehash that. What 1 do ~ant to r~ise is two new issue, not
regarding the changed circumstances of the project, but changes in the project
itself. I am going to limit myself to tel!in8 you about two of them.
Th~ fu~ h~s to do with ~he. on~nal concoptua~ grading plan. There have been
finfly inconsistent statements made about the ori~inal conceptual grading plan,
bo~'h in documents we have airearly :eviewed and by staff tonight. [ think that
it is fair to say that the original conceptual grading plan, and ~he City has
ac 'kr. owledged this, did not look at any lot specific grading issues because at
the time the tentative map was approved, this was a custom home project, and
the project has obviously cMnged. I~ is not a custom home project home
anymore, it is a tract development and therefore, that original conceptual
grading plan fi'om ei~ years ago just doesn't address the stating issues with
respect to this project. That is, in fac~, why the developer has had to submit
a new concep:ual §fading plan which you need to approve before a grading
permit can be issued, and really in connection with the approval of
Development Design Review tonight, So to say. well I don't want to
ahead of myself The $~affP,.¢port sta~es that the new conceptual grading plan
is in subslantial contbrmance with the old conceptual grading plan, but we are
at a !oss to understand how ;hat can be. This is simply a different conceptual
g~ading plan. It address site specific issues that are simply nonexistent on the
old one. Clearly that is a result in ~h¢ change of,he project One of the few
items in the original conc~pt'Jal grading plan thai aclually remained in the new
one, is the drainage channel tha~ runs across the northerly boundary of' the
9
S, erq'; Dy: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3463; 09/16/9B 12:38PM;,},~36,4;Pa?e 14/26
Spea~r Unknown.
Chairman McNiel.
Mr, Montgomery:
property. As you mgy know, that the construction and operation of that
draSnage ch~nel would require an easement from the owner of the prol~rty
located directly north of the project site. The owner of that property is
CiW of Los ~geles, Department of W~er &nd Power, ~d they have stated
in writing that they will not provide ~ easement to the developer for that
proj~t. The City is aware oftha~, and not ~thstandin8 that, before you deny
it is a conceptual grading plan, and, other do~ments still include that plan.
However, what you may not know is that the City has in its pos~ssion
con~p~ ~:~ative s:o~ dr~n plan in response to th~ unwillingness ofth~
Dep~m~t of Water ~d Power to provide t~ e~em~nt. We have obtained
a co~y of it from the City~ It was submitt~ by Loren Development ~d it
pur~s to b~ an alternative that would not r~uiro Loren to go onto the
Depa~ment of Water and Power prope~y. It is si~ficantly different
the proposed drainage channel, and may ~ell have significant environmem~
impacts that are different from those associated with the current on~. What
we s~speet the City int~.ds to do, is after approving Design Review, illhat
in fact hap~n$, that quietly Building and Safety, if that is correct name ofthe
dep~m hem, will approve a change to the drainage channel that won't be
subject to discretional' review Given that, th~ map is eu~ently in the
peasessen oft~ City, and we have heard conflicting stories as to whether
has been informally or Fo~ally plan ~hecked from diffof~nt City officials,
again we don't know how you can approve a project toni~t that include~ a
drainage channel teat cannot be built, when you have in y~r possession an
altematiw plan that you have not consider~ and is different from the
drainage channel currently ~fore you
For nil ¢f those reasons, we would respectfi.:lly request that you deny
Development Design Review 9813. In the absence of a denial, we would
hope, as Mr. Stone said earlier (blank space on tape)
Despite.
What is your add reaP
12966 Arapaho, R~'gho Cucamonga. Despite what all the displeasing things
that I have heard from Staff, the Planning Commission, even City Counsel
I did hear one thing that was pleasing, that was from the City Counsel, when
Loren Development submitted their plan, showed their plans to City Counsel,
many of the City Counsel people had instructed Loren Development to
provide more of a compatible home with the egisting homes up therein in
Haven View Estates. They wanted to see additional floor plans, more
elevations, Now., even as t recall Diane Williams mentioned, that after
looking at these homes, that these homes belong somewhere down in her pact
10
49
Set:-. by: !.OEB 5 L£E9 213 688 34E~ 0cj/16/98 12:39P~.t;)pd,~,~_#3d4;Pa~e 15/26
of the neighbor. Wherever that is, but they certainly don't belon8 up az Haven
View Estates with the existing custom homes. Then, of course, Loren
Development resubm~ts these plans and aRer looking at these plans they
basically told the City Counsel screw you. They said I don't care what you
have to say, ! am going to submit these plans the way I want to...(blank
space on tape) Screw the Counsel.
They have tried to pass off additional floor plans by putting in an optional
bonus roam where it is basically the same floor plan, but they've called that
a new flo~r plan. That is not a new floor plan, and 1 don't think tha! the City
Counsef interpreted what they, I don't think that anybody would interpret that
as a new floor plan That is opposed to what the City Counsel instructed
them to do. I cafft believe, obviously a few people at this stage, have been
duped to believing that those are drastically differently. They are not. I
cannot believe that the ?~anning Commission at this stage would buy it. II
just doesn't make sense to me It is very displeasing. 1 really can't believe,
1 can't wait to hear what City Counsel says when they see the exact same
thing, aside from a couple o£ little changes. Moving a garage from front
facing to the side is not changing the floor plan. Or putting two different
color, pu;ting two different grey roofs on a house does not drastically c.hange
the elevation. I would hope at this stage that you would tell Loren
Development, no you did not c~mply with what City Counsei has instructed
you to do
I do appreciate the opportunity to speak,
Malyn (sic) Sampson'
Good evening. My name is Malyn Sampson. I live at 4965 Calico Court,
Alta Lores, Haven View Estates I am an electrical contractor by trade. My
business is here in Rancho Cucamonga also We have been located here for
over eleven years, We specialize in residential wiring. [ want to reinforce
something that Mike said. t do oil the electrical bidding for our corporation.
I can do take offs on these if I can see a floor plan, which you do not have ]n
front of you, in less than four hours. This are tract homes. The floor plans
are ~t different. We don't even have floor plans for you gentlemen look at
up here, We have a lot of nice uncolored pictures that make them look rather
different, but they are not. They are basically the same plan that were all here
about a year ago Then we went to the City Counsel. The City Counsel
asked ~hem to come up with more varied floor plans. We don't have that. As
I say, we wire homes. That is our business. We wire over twelve hundred
homes a year, This is tract homes, no different than we saw a year ago, with
a gingerbread added. A lot of the, so called, higher options have been called
stac, dard, but [ can tell you gentlemen that I look at plans ovotyday of the
II
5O
Sent by: LOEB & LSEB 213 688 3463; 09/16/98 '2:39PM;,~,,Ij[iUL#364;Pa~:e
Bruce A~n !-hhn:
Chairman McNiel:
Bruce
w~ek that have thxee plans that you would swear are fifteen to twenty because
of optional air space rooms that can be added or deleted on plans, such as
bonus rooms and bailer pantries. They don't change the footprint, they don't
change the exterior, it's all inside. They talk about thein' wide range orsquote
therage. That is all done on the interior for the most pan. There are very few
changes that arTecl that outside elevations of these homes. ! can bring you
tons of plans and put them up here on the wall and you would swear you wexe
looking ax flRy different styled hom~s, and yet we would be dealing with four.
Four houses. They are built all over. We are doing tracts right here in
Cucamonga Ihat have come before this Commission and have been approved.
They are tract homes That is what the people have said they were, you have
approved there,. They are building them and we are wiring them, $o lets call
it what is rea[iy is, It is a tract house. We do no: have the variations that the
City Cou~,sel asked Loren Development to do,
My name is Bruce Ann Hahn and I live at 5087 Granada Court. 1 was at the
Grading Committee meeting, and [ guess one of the things we can do tonight
~s re.qne the Grading Plan, At the Grading Committee meeting there was not
a Cut and Fill Map and there is one here at the break that you took. There [s
one up there, and I was hoping ~hat I could put it on the overhead so I could
make some comments about it. Does the overhead work?
I don't 'know how well it is going to work Bruce Ann, The built-in system has
exploded on u~ some ttme ago, and we are ufin8 a portable system now that
doesn't really, really work good.
Tell her that it won'l come {brough.
It comes through wifi~ the Commissioners On their monitors.
(Appears to be away from the speaker,) O.K. That was when it was
subtitled to the Cily, or[ August It0~. The Grading Committee did not have
it, and this is something that the Grading Committee, in our estimation,
needed [o see. This is the cut and fill, and I am not real good at this. Let me
look at the this, The red is cut and the green if fill. As you look at this as it
goes down, there is a[! kinds of red here, and then we get into all of this is
green On the southerly border is the le~3t and that is all red because it ns cut,
and I guess they axe going to put it imo lh¢ green which is the fill. The whole
thing is cut and fill. The whole point of this is that in 1990, when the tentative
was done, the Negative Declaration said them was not going to be any
sign/ficant cut and fill, or there wouldn't be significant movement of the din
up their. The Negative Declaration was wrong. We really feel that the[,
needs to be an E. IR on this project. I think that what happened, and I
12
51
Sen': by: LOEB & L.OE:5 21:] 688 3469; 09/16/98:2:40~M;.,,~'IF,~x #36~;Pa.ce
mentioned it at t~ City Council moeting, what happened was Beverly Neitson
was the donner on this and if' you look at the rite th.t the Planning
Dc--'panment has. it h~s ~r~ct 12] ]2-2 ~hich w~s one hundred-fifty lo~. That
is crosse~ out and :hen ~rac~ 14~? 1 is put in. I think that Beverly looked at
som~ oft~s staff and shoju~t assumed tha~ this was p~ of the 12332-2 and
didn't r~lize lhat i~ wa~ a totally d[fferenl ~ra~t number ~d she mad~ some
a~umptions, Number oho w~ ~h~ op~ s~co issu, and how consistent this
pie¢~ of prope~y is wi~h the General Plan and the other thin~ is that t~s
moves a Io~ of di~ and ~ha~ is yew siSnifi~nt ~ far as floodin~ and dL our
o~h~r ~nsoms of ~f~y ~h~t we brought up. ~ at tho Gradin8 Committ~
me¢~mB w~ asked how muoh cubic yardas~ of di~ that was ~oinB to ~
move, and they didn't ~vo that i¢o~tion. TMI wa~ ~onditionod to bc for
you to~hl. Ho~'ever, can they make thdr d~isions on this stuff when lhey
don't hav~ lhe fi~ur~s that they' need? ~other zon~rn we hav~ is where is
all ~s din ~oinS? Is k $oi~ to be cu~ off h~r, and fill~d into th~ ho!~s, or is
~ 8oin~ to be ~ o~t of our d~clop~n[? How is it Boin8 to ~ ou~? Wc
are worr:~ed about ~h~ tra~.; on our slrcots a~ far as whcr~ all t~s i~ Boin$.
There w~s not an [mpo~ or e~pon plan that we saw at th, Omdin8
Committee meeting. We just feel that lher~ are a lot o~ holes that have
echoed, ~d we feel that they have o~urred since 1990 when the Negative
Decl~i~ wm done. Also when we c~c t~ou~ on the t~l~liv~ tract map
many y~rs ago, l know ihat Mr MeNial and Mr. Barker was there and ~'e
t~k~ ab~t, ~11 it was just the lots as th~ time, ~nd the d.sign of the homes
would co~ toter, ~nd now is the l,t~r time. ~o one of the conditions of the
approv~k the way i~ was conflitioncd, ~d there is r~ly no way to ~ndition
if the homm going to be r~ or ~t, or ifthey ar~ going to ~ custom or th~
are going to bc tr.ct. One of the things tMt you all came up with was tha~
there won't be ~ont-on garages b,caus, the res~ of the tr.ct didn't have tha~
tomy front, fronl faoing, str~ f~ing g~rng~s, !t w~s det=~incd tM~ thirty
per.at ~r~t fgdng g~rngcs ~ght be a way to kind of make lhe houses look
nice and that son of thing
This deneloper is ~rymg to circumvent that, When you look at all lhese
pictures, I don't fare illhere is a portico share (sic) or not. Thos~ garages are
facing tho street The garage elements are all in float of the houses. Some
or'them are turned so it is a port ~d that son of thing. The garages are facing
the street, You can see the garage doors on all these plans if you look
~round~ Also, when the City Counsel looked at this, they told the developer
~hat it wau!d be nice to have a workshop with the neighborhood before ~hfy
submined new plans, Well they haven't had a workshop. We have not had
a workshop. We have had a neighborhood m~ting so they could show us tke
same plans t~a! ~hey ~urned in a year ag, o. but we haven't had a workshop.
There has been non= And ju~ on~ more thing, th~ houses on ~,he cul-de-sacs
52
Sen: by: LOEB & LCE5 213 6S. 8 3463; 0~16,'98 ~2:41PM;J~l._#36z.:;Pa.ce !8;'26
M~nny B~iolla:
Bill Ar~get:
they have a single story plan. It is the same single story plan they have had
They have it plotted in same place they did last year. All on the fronts of[he
cul-de-sacs, so when you are d,a, ving down the street you are ~oing to see the
same single-story house, and I don't think that is right. Any'way, I just don't
warn you io rush into this a~d I ask you to maybe delay your decision because
I really think that it is important that you look st Ihe maps the attorneys have
mcn:io~ed, you know the General Plan Maps and that sort of thing, and you
don't ha~,e ~hose before you tonight and we can certainly provide those to
you T~nks for your consideration.
Hi My name :s Manny Badleila. I do not have thirty years experience. I am
not even ~hirty years old, but I could tell that these homes, as I walk by in
here, are basically ~he same. The only thing that I can see of difference is that
the car garage maybe split from one side to the other, the landscaping in the
shadir, g of the drawings, but most importantly the cosmetics like the co[or and
the style of[he homes Somethin~ like this, these houses are similar to the
o~es that Lewis are building in our neighbor cities like Fontan~, Rancho,
Rialto and Col[on My family and ! are ptan~ing to build three homes in
Haven View Estates ~nd they are an average of 6,000 square feet, and we
tried very hard not to make them look like Mr. Lewis' homes. I feel that my
family and the owners, and the future home owners of Rancho Cucamonga
are contributing to Rancho Cucamonga and not taking advantage of it. ! am
hoping you don't iet this happen rodney.
Good evening Mr Chairman and the members of[he Planning Commission
My ,name is Bill Angel l live at 12966 Arapaho Road in Rancho Cucamonga.
Iarn s~re that you are wondering why the residence, the Homeowners
Associations, the $roups of ,neighbors up there have spent so much time and
energy and effort to make l-raven View Esla:es one of the premiere
communities. 1 am sure tha~ all off you are familiar with this magazine, the
]~rd,~nd Empire Magi.zinc This is August '95 issue. Right in the middle of[he
magazine is ass article ~bout premiere communities in the entire Inland Empire
The fi~st cornmurdty is Rancho Cucamonga Haven View Estates. You guys,
:he Haven corridor, the development standards that we live by have made
Haven Avenue the pren~re location. It is the Wilshire Boulevard of Rancho
Cucamonga. You have the palm trees going up, ~he Haven corridor overlay,
whic,h severely restricts development along H~ven Avenue, At the very. top
of Haven Avenue, at the city limits you have Iqaven View Estates. It is a
custom tract. It was built in '84. I have been building up there since then.
I've processed more homes, single custom homes, through Design Review
than ~ny other builder, a~d we currently have five custom homes under
construction and they range in s'.ze from 4,300 square feet to 8,500 square
feet and they are all different hem.cs, and every horne that we have buil~ up
14
53
Se~: ~y: LOEB & [_CE9 213 6~8 3450~ 0~j16/98 ~2:41P~;,~[~,_.#3~;Pa~e *~i~6
there has boon different homes Ever). oily needs a custom, or cliffercnt
diverse, I guess social economic a~d standards for what is going to built in the
area Ha~'en View Estates has boca the premiere for Rancho Cu~mong~ for
custom d~vel~p~t. T~ pcoj~t is a tra~ development. There is a b[
differen~ between trzm and custom, I live in a tract, I don't live in Haven
View Estates. I have a couple hcmm up there for sale in $850,000 to
$1,000,000 range, and we are under co~tmction, ~ I say we ~e under
construction on five o[hess th~ ~c already sold ~d building for clients. Th~
have spent a lot or'time, money and ener~ pro~ssing ~heir homes ~hmugh
the Hillside Ord~nan~ ~nd through the City, and ~s ~r. Buel[~ knows ~ am
d~wn a~ lhe City ~li the time. W~ process many homes through Design
Rcvi~, and i don'~ se~ the ~y~c of care ~hat h~s been t~ken on my projects,
on my client's ~ojects, b~ng sppli~ th~ same as in ~his instance. I think that
it is impo~am for you as t'ne ~la~n~ Co~ssion~ for you to recognize that
even just as ~h~rc is divc~i~ in office buildings along Hawn Avenue, ~ the
t~es of restaurants ~d the ~es of'~chit~lure ~ the Burset ~ng you were
~al~n8 a~ut earlier, desisn considerations ~re c~remcly impo~nt. I think
tt~at lhe ~acc of Rancho Cueamerica, our custom home ~rea, that same care
and consideration should be taken on this project. Compatibility with the
nei~borhood, it is a custom ~ract, There is a hundred and fifty more vacam
lots there, znd when the papers and the maginos ~e writing aboul the
pre~cre co~u~ ~d sa~nS that Haven View Estat~ is touted as ~ncho
Cucanon~'s pl~ce ~o ~ ~n R~cho Cummon~ in f~t, we were listed ahead
of Claremont and Upl~d., o~r Haven View Estates was listed first. I think
that ins dev~ep~ ~s capitali~n8 on ~hat, His proj~t is named the Heights of
Haven View Estates. It ~s the most northern co--unity in the city, ~nd
~hink tha~ if an ex~utivc is comin~ to town and that one of these nice
rises we're building with the cxpanaon of the ~i~n te~inal and [h=
activities that ~hat is 8oin8 to 8~erate snd th~ ~e lookin8 for a custom or
place to live ~hat is premise, that the Planning Commission hzs a duty to
make sure that this p',an is compatible. It is not as though this project is ~oin~
nex~ door m our project. This tract is within the Haven View Estates,
are using the szm~ ~ies and the same streets. ! think thst it is going to
ve~ difficult for us to convin~ ~ecutives to move in when there zr~ forty
tra~ homes fi~t within their co~uni~'. [ happ~ to sit on a similar board,
bu~ on a much smaller ~]e in Haven ~ew Estate, Rancho Cucsmon~a Fiv~
Homeo~ers ~soci~lio~ [ am the Cha~ of the ~chitecturg
so I have to do a miniature version of wh~t you guys do on behalf' of the
neighborhood. We t~ke ~ch submittal ~d we look at them ~d wc mak~
cha~es ~nd we have hom~wners spend money to make chang~ on things
that wc think arc goths m be a~c~tcctural plc~in~ and compatible with
neiFhborhocd. This proj~t ailhoush ~thin our 8~tes, is not having to ~o
through ~hzt. in fact, the only time we saw these houses, well we saw them
54
by: LOEB & LOE9 213 688 3463~ 03/16/98 !2:42PM;,l¢,~.r_jl,&_~3~4;Pa~e 20/26
last year but, the most recent was last week, well last Tuesday I guess it was,
when they had their neighborhood meeting. There was no homeowner input.
They basically said that this is what we are going to be processing through the
City, the Planning Commission, Grading Committee, Design Review next
week, and thai was sort of the end of it.
1 think that when people are looking for a neighborhood to build a big cus:om
home, in fact, we just had a subrmttal :he other day, a builder submitted a plan
for a 10,000 square foot home on two lots in Haven View Estates. I am
currently in construction of 8,500 square fool home in Haven View Estates.
Those kind of people are not going t.o buy lots in Haven View Estates and
build that type of home if'you allow a forty lot tract to go in there. They are
going to go to Claremont. They are going to go to Upland They will flnd
some place else :o 8o
There is no more vacant land at the top of Haven Avenue. This is the last
This is it. This is northern edge of the city. The best views. A gated
community, and t think that it would be a big mistake if you approve this
project.
[ just wanted to point out real quickly, the similarities between the last
submittal and this submitlaI. I would like to show this on the overhead.
This is the '98 submittal, I would like to show you, this is Plan 4, basically the
same home flipped back and forth, some with rock, some with brick, some
with an arch, some without an arch. It is like the tract that I live in. I live in
Plan 3 in Rose!and off of Etiwarda Avenue. They built four models. You
could go in and select options, you could add a bonus room, I took the bonus
room My neighbor has a Plan 3 Two doors down, across the street, is
another Plan 3. There aJe seventy houses in the tract. They built four houses
None of the houses look the same because they are painted different colors,
some have siding, some have brick, some have arched windows, and some
have square windews, but we ha~/e all seen tracts and we have driven down
the streets of'tracts and you can tell a Plan 3 from a Plan 2, and you can tell
a Plan :2 from a Plan 4 Realtors list them when they are doing their listing
agreements, :his is Plan I Deer Creek, this is Plan 2 Deer Creek. In Haven
View Estates we don't have that Every home is different. Every home goes
through a separate Design Revi~0v, and every home is scrutinized individually
Not in bulk like this one. So if you take the time to scrutinize these plans, you
will see that there is repetition. There is eight of the this floor plan, with four
of them being identical Maybe the color of the roof tile will be different, tbr
example this one with '~he shutters, this plan here and this plan here with the
same house flipped over lhis is the same house. These are different
16
55
Ser~z t~y: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 09/16/98 ~2:43PM;,J~jjr._.~ffs_#364;Pa.ce 21/26
Chairman MeNinit
$ohn ~day:
addresses. As you can see here this is 4951 Lone Acres, this is 500t
Paddock, but there will be no difference, if you take and you can go through
each floor plan the same way, and that is where I live. [ live in a tract. There
is no difference be:ween this tract and the Iract [ live in. The General Plan
requires that you make a finding lhat this neighborhood or this development
is compatible wilh the surrounding neighborhood. Being a custom home
builder, I am here to tell you that this tract is not compatible wilh ou~
neighborhood In, long term planning, I know that you would like to see
development and I would too, and the economy is picking, like I said, I am
under constructing on five of these big homes right now. We have lots in
escrow. I think now that the economy has recovered that we will see more
oft,he custom homes going in, and I think that it would be a big mistake if you
guys approve this tract in our only premiere community
There are only twelve more lots left in the other gored community, K~ng
Rancho Estates up at the top of Carnelian. There are a hundred and twenty
or so more lots in Haven View Estates. [, myself and my partners happen to
own eight ofthe,v,, ar, d we would like to build more custom homes, we would
like to sell more custom homes, and have a place for that segment of'the
economy. I think that's really important,
1 really al:preciale your time One more quick point I would like to make, as
you may or may not remember, [ designed and built Hermosa Storage Center
and I am is partner in ~hat, we went through the Design Review process,
Believe or not lhere are many storage conventions and I go to them every
year I have a colored postcard ofmy project that I take wi~h me and other
many storage builders and owners look at that and say "That's a mini-
storage? .... Wow". I know tha~ you guys approved it before. We tried to
make it as architecturally pleasing as possible, and I get all kinds of great
comments and people say, well I say that is the kind of city that I live in. The
kind of city that has strict architectural standards and a Planning Commission
and Staff that tak~ the time to review each project before it is approved. I
know th~ Rancho Cucamonga has received all kinds of' design awards and so
forth, and 1 think that needs to be applied ~o the residential segment too. I
think that custom homes are important to the community, for the city overall,
There is no better premiere location then ~hat at the top of Haven Avenue,
Thank you,
Does anybody else care to speak to this issue?
I would like to respond primarily to the request for a continuance. We have
done everything the City asked for in meeting the needs of the home owners
17
56
by; LOEB & LCEB 2t3 (~88 3460; 09/16/98 '~2:43PM;~#38/;Pa~:e 22/26
Chairman McNiel:
Mr. Alday'
in publicizing this project and familiarizing them with the project. This request
for a continuance is jus~ or~,e more delay tactic. At almost every juncture of
this, the Planning Commission last year, :he City Council last year, almost
e,,ery single court case, "P!ease give us a continuance, please give us a
continuance, please continue." Repeatedly, they just keep asking for a
continuance, they just keep asking for a continuance. That's all this is: one
more attempt to delay this. This project has been listed on the public log at
the counter since ,~une 2. Various people have seen that, come to us, calted,
came into our office, looked at our plans. Beyond your Code requirements
for Design Review, your staff sent letters to everybody who llv~s, who owns
a home out there, askir. g, offering them information about it. They asked
They had their attorney write a letter asking the city to inform them and give
them ten days notice of any meeting. They got that ten day notice and now
they are not happy with i: In ex;ess of the City's Code requirements the site
was posted. In excess of'the City's Code requirements we
wroJe letters to every two hunaltec1 and three lot owners out there and invited
them to our neighborhood meeting and many of them showed up. Please, this
is nol their Application, if'tb, ey are dissatisfied with it, they could have gotten
information about it before They are just dreaming up reasons to get th~s
project delay~ Please don't continue. I am very tempted to go through ',he
list of comments that were made by everybody, and our attorneys are sitting
here and they are just chomping at the bit to com~ up here and rebut all these
things, but I'm, except to say that I resent that Mr. Montgomery, the firs~
contractor t~t stood up who is Bill Angel's employee or partner, said thal we
were telling the Planning Commission, Staff', and th~ City Council "Screw
you" I resent that. We have done what the City Council and Commission
have asked. Bruce Arm Hahn, she endorsed this project. She knew, she saw
our Cut and Fill maps eigt:t years ago. They were par: of the Application
She wrote a letter to this Planning Commission endorsing this p:oject
knowing fail well everything abou~ it.
I.r there are any questions your Commission have of me or of our attorneys~
please ask Again. I am not going to go down the list of everything that was
said. $o many things were said that are totally untrue and I don't think. well
1 hope the Planning Commission didn'~ buy any o£ it.
Any questions?
Mr. Alday, you take ~s time to rebut anytiring that you need to. If you don't
wisE, that is perfectly atright as well.
OK, Thank you.
15
57
Sell-. by: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3469; 09/16/98 !2:44PM;,~#36,4;Pa~ce 23/26
Chairman McNiei-
Mr. Alday'
Chairman McNiel:
City Council:
Chairman McNieh
Speaker Unknown:
Chairman McNie[:
Speaker Unknown:
Chairman McNiel:
Speaker Unknown:
Chairman McNiel:
Any questions Mr AJday?
No
This public hearin,~ is :losed.
O.K. With that, our function here is to address the issues for which have been
brought and the issues lhat been in front of us. With respect to the Design
Review on a lot to lot basis. Any comments? Anybody care to take on part
of this?
O.K. It was the recommendation of City Council or the request of City
Council when this was kicked back to us, that certain requirements be met by
the developer It would seem to be in the Design Review process, they have
met the requirements requested by City Council. Council ifI may ask, the law
requires us, the Land Use Law requires us to act certain ways under c~rtain
circumstances, if ! understand this.correctly, given the information before us
based on what we are reviewing, we act on Ihat strictly and strictly alone. Is
!ha! correct'~
Yes That's correct. You have a Resolution before you. The stall'
recommended approval, You would be a~ing on the Application before you,
The Design Development Review ofthis project, and you determine if you can
make the findings, the proposed findings here of approval and adopt the
Resolution or not.
Alright. Well given that, it would be my recommendation that this be
approved and sent on to City Council
We actually have two Resolutions ,as.re you talking about the first, second or
both?
Excuse me I have but one Resol,~tion that I can find.
Resolution page 1-58 and Resolution page 1-64.
see OK yes Alnght.
The first has to do with the Design Review and the second...
The environmental impact The Environmental Review.
There are a whole ton ofissues and more information, but very candidly I am
back to where I was to begin with. Those designs were made, what six years
t9
58
by: LOEB & LOEB 213 68t:~ 3460; 09/16/98 '~2:45P[q;,,~#36z.¢Pac:!e 24/26
ago, seven years ago~ Thai decision was made and we were limited the last
time we met. My understanding from this attorney compared to the last
attorney, we are still limited [o talk about that particular limits Code.
Regardless of how much interest, or interesting side issues there happen to be
and peripheral issues there are. So i would recommend that it is going to go
to City Council no matter how much we tinker anyway. That happens to be
a statement in the sky, This very minute we go ahead and make that
recommendation and recommend it the City Council and let it play,
Speaker Unknown:
Speaker Unknown:
Speaker Unknown:
Mr. Macins:
Mr Barker:
Chairman McNiei:
Group:
Chairman McNiel:
Just for clarification, the action does not recommend going, sending it forward
to the City Council.
We if we approve it knowing it is going to ~d it,
That is probably r~ght
I would concur with That. This process obviously n~eds to play itself out. i
have not been convinc~l :hal any impact thresholds have changed. I am
compelled to respond to Mr Rubens' statement that he took out of context
I requested a Design Review for the previous project because I was not
involved in that, and l requested that we review the situation before we make
a decision on that~ I h~ve been involved in this, maybe three or four time.*,
now, and I was involved in.improx4ng the Design Review that was rejected by
City Council. I here not changed my mind. I have not seen anything that
caused me to ~ant to reject this or delay this any further. I would move that
we adopt the Resolutions as the), stand I~fore us.
Second,
I've got the motion from Mr, Macins and the second from Mr. Barker, We're
not electronically plugged, Is that correct9 All in favor say I.
[. Opposed'? Carries through (9)
2O
59
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
P O 8OK ~4~209
SACrAmENTO, CA 94244,;~90
August 26, [998
Andrew K. Hartzell
Hewitt & McGuire, LLP
199900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050
Irvine, California 92612
Re: Lauren Development - City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Hartzel!:
The Departmenl of Fish and Game's General Counsel, Limn Masouredis, ha~ referred
your August 4, t998 lettin to me for a response.
As you may know, on Iuly 29, L998, Ms. Melissa Hathaway McI~ith wrote to the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) requesting that DFG writ~ a letter to the City of Rancho
Cucamonga apprising it of the newel for Lauren l~velopment to obtain a strvambed alteration
agreement in connection with the proposed project and ixs failure, so far, to do so. I told Ms..
McKei~ that DFG was unwilling to write such a le~r, but that DFG's position as to the need
for the agreement had not changed.
As I told both you and Ms. McKeith, DF-G does not intend to imer~ itself into the
existing or f~mre litigation regarding the project. It does, however, intend to s~ that the laws
that it administers are fi.dly and fairly enforc~t. I also hope it has become clear to both you
and Ms. McKeith that I do not intend to take any action in tl~ matter without giving both of
you an opportunity to pr~mnt your positions. I do not intoxl to change this course of conduct
in connection with tl~ project.
F~I flee to contact me at (916) 654-3821 if you have comments or questions.
Sincerely,
COPY A. ~ALCCU.~
ANN S. lvLM.~OL~
Dq~t7 C-e~raJ Counsel
ASM/rlth
Froclosure
cc: Cuzl Tauther, Rcgioml Mareget
Melissa Hatlmway McKcith J
6O
LOEB ,_~ L,SEB 21{: 68a~460~ 89/16/gB 3:SgPb'~J~r-~l~ ,;~524~Page 2/6
P~e3
1ST STORY of Rocus printed in FULL format.
Ccpyrigh: ~997 Times Mirror Company
Los J~ageles Ti~es
· ~.arck 9, 1~97, Sunday~ 0r~n~e Cou~:y Zdition
S~ION: Part A~ Pa~e ]; ~etro Desk
HEADLiNe: DETAILS SC--%.RCE ON $50-MILLI~] O,C. LEG~ ~
BYLi~M: SHELBY G~, TI~S ST~F ~.ITER
DATELI~: Sk~A ~
BODY:
I~'s the final piece of OranGe County's ba~%kru~tcy puzzle, $50 million in
taxpayer money tkat was set aside ~o pay for lawsuits aqa~nst ~he Wall Stree~
fliT is the comity blames for its December %99~ financial collapse
If the mul[i~illion-dolla= damage suits are successful, scores of cities,
sch¢ol ~istricts a~ld other 9overi~lraent agencies could recoup the remainder of 5he
losses they suifered 26 months ago, when the county-run inuest~ent pool lost $
~.6~ billion on risky Wall S:ree= securities.
Despite thl~ high stakes, however, che litigation el=oft ls being waged with
little or no scrutiny from the public whose mo~.ey is being spent
The more illart 200 plaintiffs in The lawsuits have given one
Californla Treasurer Tham, as W. Hayes, total control over h~w zhe
spent, and how the case~ are handled.
And Hayes, who even r~s the power ~o settle t:he cases without approvai ~rom
a~.yone, ~n~ answering questions about spendzn~,
C:~ing public records laws, The Times souMh~ znformation from ~ayes about the
money paid thus far to the la~, ~irms h~ndling the l~tigation, a~d whether any
c~s~-control guidelines, like those adopted kS~ the county, were bein~ followed.
Similar requests were sent to county officials fret. time ~o time durzn: the
lS-month ~a.qkruptcy, ~d coun:¥ off]~cials routinely pro~uce~ copies of %hg ~e~al
bills they had, received, includin~ those related to the !i~i~ation~
Hayes elected not to respond to ~he latest re,Jest himself, and instead
forwarded ~t to Bruce ~e~net~, the coun~y's lead bank,-up~c5- a~torney whose law
finn continues to submit the l&on's share o~ the leFa! bills.
Bennett said his f{m's fees had =otaJ. ed $ 3. 5 million ~rom June tk. rough
November last year, but declined to itemize ~he charges or e~lain Hayes'
61
5e'}t by: LOEB & LCE5 212 68¢~3460; 09/!6:98 3:29Pl¢;jetr-dx #524;Pa?e 3/6
Los Ang~l~s Tire,a, M~¢h 9, 1997
P~g~ 4
FOCUS
reveal th0 count¥'s litigation strateFY to its adversaries, and thus jeopardize
Anyway, ~ennet= added, "we ~c not agree tP~ %he info,marion you have
requested falls within the California Public Records Act."
This tight-lipped approach troubles some attorneys, community activists and
legal s~)erts, ~ho said a lack of publ:c oversight makes it difZicul% if not
impossible to detect overly geoerous ~ayments uo attorneys, or flaws in the
legal st:~ate.qy.
"We are talking abouu public ~in~ucin~ here, nou national security,, said Ron
Ru~, ~U ]~;ir~e bankruptcy attorney. "The whole problem wi~h litigation like this
is conducting a case while still ccmplyi;:g with a sense o~ the public'~ right ~o
kr~ow."
"Unle~;s you have ongoing scrutiny, you can see that everyone in the process
accommoch~=es each other, and the tax~ayer~ get sold dow~ the river,', added Bruce
Whitaker, a leader of =he Comm. iu=ees of correspondence, a ci:i=en watchdog group
that came, together in uhe wake o~ the co~ntyts bankruptcy. "People need tc be
whitaker, Rue and others agree tha~ Hayes' legal s:rate_a~. should not be aired
p~blicly. But they question whether all liti~a%ion activities should remain
secret~
"I'm usry skeptical of any lawyer paid with public funds saying his bill~ are
mot covered by the public records ac~,, said J=~es L. Markman, the city attorney
for 3uena Park and ~rea. ~'If - were a city's attorney, and I didn't want the
~ubl~c ro see my b£11s, I'd ~e lookin~ f~r new clients.',
M~rk~an, however, is one of yet7 few government officials uo express concerns
abouu arrangement.
Mayiy elected leaders hail Hayes' powerful role as the only realistic way to
handle such complex lawsui=s involvin~ ~ many public agencies.
Hayes. a respected p~blic finam. cs e~ert who helped manage the county's
fiscal affairs ~n =he week~ fo!iow~n~ the 1994 bankruptcy filing, was chosen
a~inister the liti~atlc.n f~nd because local cities didn'~ trust cuunty
goue~.en~ =o handle the cases.
There 'were also fears that having so m~ny agencies ~nvolved could turn uhe
1i~igati~n into a political foo~ball.
The solution was to appoint Mayes as the litigation czar.
"There was no effort to shield the l~ti~ation process from =he public,,,
Be~eut ~id. "But there needed to be a decision-making process that is
e~ficient ~nd coherent. Ti~e w~11 tell ~f we are ~uccessful.,
After battling over the bankruptcy for n~arly two years, ~everal city
officials said =hey were eager =o hand off responsibility for =he lawsuits
62
LOEB & LCEa 213 ,~:,;893,~60; 09/16/9B 3:10Pl¢~,.,%~r-4x ~524;Page 4/6
Los Angel~s Times, B.{arel~ 9, 1 ~7
Pag~ $
FOCUS
"We b~sically sig~qed-off on ~h~s and hope they are successful,, said
Claremont F~ayor Alg~rd Leila, a critic of co%u~.tM ~overra~ent's handling of the
b~47krupt~y. "I don't see our role as bein~ n~re than that.,~
But some critics said they are alarmed that officials aren't doing more to
oversee t:heir litigation dollars~
"Thez~, seems no be an out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality here,,, whitake,-
said. "They seem to feel the ~ankruptcy is now water under t~e bridge.,,
~ita~:er said city ccu.~c$~s ~nd school boards should demand detailed
breakdo~,~s of legal costs to make sure attorneys are not being overpaid.
"Tom Mayas has a lot of integrity. But with this amount ~f money, there has
to be Du~iic acco~u~taDiiity,,, he added~
The $ 50-million litigation fund was created as part of the coun~y'S
bank~u~t¢~ recover5/ plea%. 77ae money ceure from ~he $ 800 ~illion ~be county
borrowed on Wall Street last J~e with the sale of its bankruptcy remsvery.
bonds,
If the $ 50 million is exhausted, the plat. allows fo:' so~e proceeds from case
sett!emen~s ~nd judgments to replenish ~he f',,:.D.d, Any money not ~sed for
litigation would ~o back to the ~OvelT.~nent agencies.
The County aJ~d its pool investors are suzng Merrill Lynch & Co. and six ot~er
~sna~c~al services fiz~s~ includin~ Morgan Stanley, S~andard & Poor,s bond
ratin~ agency, the Bi~ Six accountin~ fizz1 Of KP~ Peat Marwick, the county~s
auditor, and the S~udent Loan Marketing Assn., which issue~ some of the most
r~sky securities that found their ~ay :nzo the count¥,$ portfolio.
Merrill Lynch is considered the prime target, County attorneys &ccuBe the
wal~ Street giant of coa~ing former Co~ty ~reasur~r Rober~ L. Citron into
buyin~ securities that were ill-suited for an investment pool serving public
a~encies, az~d k~%owin~ly extend~n~ Citron credzt that far exceeded timi~s ~osed
by the st.ate Constitution. officfals are seekin~ a; ~east $ 2 billi~ in d~a~es
fr~ ;he ~rokerage house~
Merril! L.v-nch and the other defend~nts nave denied any wrongdoing. "Merrill
Lynch ~iews Robert Citro~ as ~eAng in charge of 0r&n~e County's inveetmen~
decisions at all times,~, said spokes~a~ Timothy Gilles.
Eera~i~n, Mercer and Bennett, the law firm that handled Orange County's
emergence Zro~ bankruptcy, is spearheading the li=iBation effort.
The fi:~m has received $ 13 million so far from the county strictly
bankruptc~ work. The bills were reviewed by the 'If S. Bankruptcy Couru as we~l
as by ¢o~ty offlcials, who followed a detailed set o~ rules in determining
payment.
For ex~tmple, the cou4~ty usually pai~ the fees of just one a~torney when
several !~Ters from the same firm attended hearings or meetings. officials only
L IS N IS' LEX5 L !S NEXIS'
63
Sen-. by: LOEB & LOEB 213 6883480; 0g,,16/98 3:10Pl%~;Je{~4~ #524;Pac:~e 5/6
Los Angeles Times, March 9, 1997
Page 6
FOCL $
rates fo.~ photocop,lee ils ~o 20 cents per page) and faxes ($ 1 per
t ransmis~i~%) .
The county also required documen:agzon for all expenses, refused to pay
Secretarial overtime, wOrd-processing charges or surcharBms on items like onlime
docume~ searches.
But under the currenu arr~gememt.~ litigation bills dDn't need to be reviewed
by ~he c(~rt, a~d Hayes is under no obligation to follow the ¢ounty's payment
rules.
"So'me rules are ~he same, some =ule$ are dzfferen=. Both are achieving
s~me goa~." c~ keeping costs do~, ~ennett said. Hayes "has made i~ clear up
fron~ what ke will ar.d will not compensate, and what he will accept a~d won'-
accep%."
~ermet= declined =o be more Specific, however, sayin§ release of individual
bills would provide ~he county's !eqal c~2ponen~s with
"We don'~ prepa=~ a separate redact%d statemen~ for Mr. Hayes,,, ~er, net~ said.
"He ~e=s statements =hat are road maps to our t~inklng an~ what we are doing."
Christopher D. Cameron, a ba-~kruptcT. law expert a= Southwestern University
College of Law in Los ~n9eles, said greater p%ublic review zs poss~b!e without
compromis~n~ ~.he case.
Me said the ~kruDtcy Co'ur~ could have insisted on monthiy o=' quarterly
hearings in which lnvestors ~u%d the publlc could ask atto~eye c~e~ions abou%
the case.
"There should definitely be some kind of public airing,- he added "I~ would
give investors a ch~mce zo ask some hard q~eitions. They m~h= not get answers,
but at leas~ it would be a ~orun%_"
C&meron also e~q)ressed concer~ t]%at ~he Bankxup~cy Court is not reviewlug
individual attcrr. ey bills, which he said heightens the possibility that inflated
bills could go through
"With some iLawyers, there is a great temptation ~o run up bills when the
clien~ is the public sector,, he sa~d. Cour=~ "love to cu~ these fees."
Beranett said Mayes could choose to hold a fimal settlement hearing in
Sankrupt~y Court once the litigat/on is complete, ~iving pool investors and
others a ch~nce express their vie~oints_ But such a hearing is not
under the recovery plat., he said.
Despite concerns about a lack of public oversight, many of the government
officials who put ~ogether r-he $ 50-million fund expressed full faith in Ha~es
not only uo limit costs but to guide ~he cases tc successful conclusions.
"No one else comes close to understandin~ the intricacies of =he bankxup=cy,,'
said Irvine City Manager Paul Brady. "Of all the Deople we lc~ked at, he was the
one who h~d the respect . of all sides. Tom Ha~es was t~le person."
LEXIS.NEXIS'
LEXIS; NEXIS'
64
i:,,,r~; ~y: LOEB & LOEB 213 6883460; 09/16,'98 3:10Pi~.l;..,/et'"~ ¢f52~;Paae 6/6
Lo~ Angele~ Times, Mar~h 9, 1997
Pa.ge 7
?OCUS
In ~electin~ ~ayes, pool investors also established a $ubcc~m~,i~tee to oversee
his work. Ind:vldua~ s~bc~i~ee members have spoken zo Hayes about litigation
matters, but the panel has never formally met since its creation nine months
ago to give him direction or advice_
* TOUOM ~$SUE$: O.C. sup~z-visoxs tackle problems in the more infor~,al setting
of a regional. park. B1 "
GRAPHIC: PHO~: For~er California Treasurer Thomas W. Hayes oversee~ the
m&~l~on ~ou~¥ le~a= fund. PMOTO~RAP~ER: A~ZM2%iN-DER C~LL~ / L.A. ~imes
~.2~NGUAGE: Zng'12sh
LOAD-DAT~: January 29, 1998
LEXIS:NEXIS'
[E S:NEX5'
LEXIS" NEXIS'
65
!oRers.to nature
Escape teot~~ in the
Los Angele~ metropolitan
region and Implie, ntions
for sdsm~ risk
~ (~iB. l; ~, 10% ~ ~ ~rk
m pr~ of ~ ~a~ou ~ ~udc=
~o-~t~ ~~ (ob~q~ ~m~o=)
CO~b ~ ~r~ do n~ r~7'~
~ a~m~ by ro~om ~ by ~-sXlp,
a ~ ~ d~on of ~ ~o~-~o:~
mud m~ ~ ~on ~ q~
~ot ~". H~ ~ ~~ w~ of
~ M~ ~ ~ ~d 15-3.0~-t for ~e
mc~ for · ~ p~ ~ ~ 7~mm~
~ O~ ~ (S~)~.
w~~ ~y ~ ~e ~ ~ou ~ ~e
~ ~ ~m ~e 1966 ~ 19~ Up~d
66
SSP IS ~98 i3:58
%;:
115
~ Ag~a BJan~ ~ul~ zon~ OPF. ~rro Pfl~ ~e~:t T~
and MaK ~ke lb~m} dMgmm~ show e~ ~ in
67
!'
~,b 14:.39 rA): P0a 950 2640 [;A3IES & ~100RE '~011
letters to nature
~md~e 3B
N~on I~e~
Whi~er
*and
68
,.lb ~6,95 14;40 F.4.)2 9t~.~ 950 2643 ~A3]E:$ & ~IOF)RE ~012
5EV' ~L6 '99 13:59 FR DI;:~ES & ['~R;'-I. RX 21'3 4'89 4269 TO
letter& to nature
tt~ ~cl~c mt~ ~ di~ rate
V
69
P. ~E/OE,
II I I
Bvldem~ ~rom !he asymrnotJ~
of ~-~preadlng rJdgo8 that
the axial topogmphl~ high
is due to exte~ional Slresses
70
09,.1~5/~ 15;l~.q '~213 452 42.L? US AR~Y CESPLOC 1~0£:2
REPLY ~
AT'TE ~ rioN OF
DEPARTMENT Of THE ARMY
LOI/I ^N~LES D~$TRICT. 130~IPS Of E~'~INEERS
LOS ~GELE~, (:ALIF~nNIA 90D~3-23~
September 16, 1998
Office of the
District Ccmzsel
Malissa Hathaway McKeith
Loeb & Lo,b, LLP
10130 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, California .(K)017-2475
Dear Ms. McKeith:
This letter concerns your letter dated September 13, 1998 to Mr. Ken Mort'is and your
letter dated September 14, 1998 to Ms. Lisa Lugat regarding your F;'eedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 USC 552, copies enclosed. Your FOIA request was assigned number 98-133.
In your original FOIA request dated April 27, 1998 you requested copies of the final
permit, the environmental impact report, mitigation and monitoring plans and all other
documents concerning the Deer Creek Spreading Grounds izi Rancho C-'ucoanonga, Califorma,
copy cnclosed. Followhag your original request you requested copies of operating pertnits.
contracts between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Sail Bernardino County Flood
Control District by letter dated 1uly 16, 1998, copy enclosed. In your letter dated
September 13, i998 to Mr. Morris you stated that had also requested a copy of any operating
manuals. In your letter dated September 14, 1998 to M~. !,ugar you requested a cop3, of the
Record of Decision. '
All documents that were found concerning the Deer Creek Sprcadlng Grounds were
provided for )'our review in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Oftice.
It is our understranding that you have been provided copies of the Environmental Impact Repmt
and the mitigation and monitoring plan which was included in t,~te Environmental Impact
Repom~
The Deer Creek Debris Basin was a Federal project built by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Projects built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers do not require permits.
11aerefore, the linal permit you have requested does not exist.
The remaining documents that you have rcquested were not found. during our extensive
search of our Planning Division, Engineering Division atd Construction-Operations Division.
A copy of any operating permits, a contract or letter turning the project over to the
San Bernardino County and an operating manual were not found as a result of ore- search.
Also, the Record of Decision that you have recent2y requested was not found as the result of
our search.
7'!
09,16,'9~ 15;19 ~'213 452 1217 ['$ AR~¥ CESPLOC ~00~,
-2-
Although the operating manual you have requested wax not *bun~, the 201 agreement
states that the Local Spoasor is responsible for operation and maintenance of the project once
completed. This agreement was pa~t of the documents provided for your review. This
information is contain~xi in Design Memoraadum No. 1, R14, Section XXI, Operation and
Maintenance, Section XXIII, Local Cooperation, Appendix 3 - Re~olutions aad Design
Memorandum No. 2. Copies of these docuraents were I~rwardexi to your of/lee by facs~mi|e
oa Septtuber 15, I998. Wa have enclosed an additional copy of h5is information for you~ use.
Mr. David Lovell, Federal Projects Branch, San Bernardino County was contacted fc, r
copies of several documents you have reque~ed. Specifically, we asked Mr, Lovell for copies
of a letter turning over the p~:oject to the San Bernardino County, copies of any permits aad a
copy or' an Operation and Maintenance Manual. Mr. Lovell was unable to find copies of any
of these docume~xts.
Uxlder current Army policy, a "no record" f'mding is to be treated as an "adverse
determination" which can be appealed under 5 U.S.C. $c~-'tion 552(a)Co)(A)(I). This letter
constitutes formal notification that no records were located. However, you are advised of your
right to appeal this determinatioa through t~s Office to the Secretary of the Army (ATTN:
General Counsel). An appeal must be received within 60 days of the date of this l~tter. The
envelope eonta'miag the appeal should bear tl~e notation "Freedom of Information Act Appeal"
and be sent to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, ATTN: CESPI_,-OC,
P.O. Box 532711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325.
If you havc further questions, please feel fi'ee to call Lisa A. Lugar, Freedom of
Information Act. Officer, at (213) 452-3955.
Sincerely,
/
/
Stephen E. Ternreel
District Counsel
Enclosures
Copy Furnished:
Senator Barbara Boxer
CESPL-PD-R (1150) 08 August 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR CESPD-PD, ATTN: CESPLD-PD-R
SUBJECT: FOIA Request No~ 98-133 for Ctmamonga Creek Debris Basin,
California.
Rancho Cucamonga,
1. CESPL-PD-RL was tasked to provide environmental documents related to Cucamonga
Creek Debris Basin. CESPL-PD-RL has coordinated with CESPL-ED-H&H, CESPL-PD-WA,
CESPL-ED-M, CESPL-ED-DB and CESPL-ED-DG to obtain the following documents.
2. The CESPL-PD-RL could locate Design Memorandum prepared between 1973 and 1980.
The Environmental Impact Statement could not be located as a separate document. However,
information related to environmental analysis is included in the Design Memorandum. A list of
the documents are provided below.
a Hydrology Design Memorandum No. 1, Cucamonga Creek January-April 1973
(H&H Library')
General Design for Flood Cor~trol and Recreation, No. 2 Cucamonga Creek, June 1973
(H&H-Library) Section IX of this document provides an Environmental Analysis and
Section-X provides information related to Recreation.
c. Recreation Master Plan fbr Cucamonga Creek and Tributaries, April 1974.
d. General Design For Cucamonga Creek Volume No. I (Water Resources). Section IX and
X provides information on Environmental Analysis and Recreation respectively.
e. Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Project, Feature Design Memorandum No. 5, Relocation
and Alterations of Railroad Bridges, July 1976.
f Cucamonga Creek, Design Memorandun~ No 4, Airport Conduit, October 1977.
Deer Creek, Demens and Hillside debris Basin and Channels, June 1979, No. 6. Section
IX of this document provides Environmental Analysis, innpacts to the biological
resources and mitigation of wildlife losses;.
h., Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Project, Feature Design Memorandum No. 7, Draft
March 1980.
2. The Corps Of Engineers, Los Angeles District, could not locate copies of all requested
documents. CESPL-PD-RL is responsible to return the documents to the appropriate
Division/Branctn or Section. Therefore, please return all documents identified in
paragraph # 1 to the Environmental Design Section when completed. /~r, ,-
RUTH B. VILLALOBOS
Chief, Environmental Resourc ....
and that part immediately adjacent thereto in Riverside County, known as the Cucamong~
Creek Channel;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District, San Bernardino County, California, in regular session,
assembled this 3rd day of December , 19..~.3, that said Board assures the
Secretary of the Army that it will provide local cooperation for construction of said
plan of improvement as follows:
a. Provide, without cost to the United States, all lands, easements,
and rights-of-way necessary for the construction, maintenance, and operation
of the improvement.
b. Perform, without cost to the United States, all necessary construction,
modification, or relocation of highwayl;, (including roads, streets and bridges)
utilities, and irrigation mnd drainage facilities, require~ in connection with
the project.
c. Hold a~n~ save the United States free from damages due to the construction,
operation and maintenance of the project.
d. Maintain and operate all works after completion, including the removal
and disposal of debris (detritus) to maintain adequate storage capacities in
the debris basins, in accordance with the regulations to be prescribed by the
Secretary of the Army.
e. Prevent any encroachment that would reduce the flood-carrying capacities
of the channels or the debris-storage capacities of the debris basins.
f. Hold and save the United States free from all damages arising from wa%er
rights claims resulting from constructi~n, maintenance, and operation of the
project.
g. Deposit funds wi-i~ the United States to cover the cost of constructing
outlets from the proposed channels %o p~rmit the diversion of stream flows to
local interests' spreading grounds for parcolation into the underground basins.
h. Contribute funds to the United St~ates prior to construction of recreational
facilities to cover one-half the separa~le costs, including those for land, for
construction of recreation facilities al~'~Cucamong~-Cree/~.~may be agreed upon
in final plan between the federal governme~"-an~k-[he-~FIood Control District.
- 2 -
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
On motion of Super%isor Mayfield , duly seconded by Supervisor
Hansberger
, and carried unanimously, the following Resolution is
Adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED, this .,,,,3rd day of December , 1973 by the'Board of
Supervisors of the' San Bernandino County Flood Control District, State of California:
WHEREAS, the 1968 River and Harbor Act, Public Law 4831 90th Congress, Second
Session, approVed August 13, 1968, authorized construction of the Cucamonga Creek flood
control project substantially as set forth in House Document 323, 90th Congress, Second
Session. and
WHEREAS, protection against flood damage would be provided to property along
Cueamonga Creek from the canyon mouth do%m.tstreaa to Prado Reservoir and along West
Cucmmonga Creek, De~,nns Creek, and Deer Creek from their respective canyon mouths
do%matream to their respective confluences with Cucamonga Creek by debris basins a~d '
dhannel improvements authorized for construction by the United States; and
WHEREAS, Section 3 of Public Law 738, Seventy-fourth Congress, provides that no
money approiriated shall be expanded on the construction of any project until States,
political subdivisions thereof, or any other responsible local agencies have given
assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will assume certain
enumerated obligations; and
W}~REAS, California Statutes 1939, Chapter' 73, Page 1101, effective April 20, 1939,
(Act 6850, Section 2) authorizes the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to
cooperate with the United States in the construction of flood control projects; and
WHEREAS, by resolution dated September 20, 1965, the San Bernardino County Flood
Control District provided assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that
they would assume certain obligations required by law for those works of improvemeat
then contemplated for inclusion in the channel improvement project; and
WHERe%S, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District desires to reaffirm the
assistances provided in the rcsoiu~ton dated September 20, 1965, and to include el!
aspects of the project as nc~ plann,~d and m~et ~tl the rcquiremen[, of the federal
government for the authorized plan cf improvement lying within San Bernardino County
BE IT FURTIlER RESOLVED that this resolution be entered in the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors of San Bernard~o County Flood Control District and that the
Clerk of said Board be, and is hereby, directed to forward a certified copy of this
resolution to the District Engineer, U.S. Army l.;ngioeer District, Los Angeles,
Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 2711, Los Angeles, California, 90053.
Passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District on December 3 , 19 7--3.
State of California )
)
County of San Bernardino )
I, Leona Rapopor% , Secretary of the Board of Supervisors
of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, San Bernardino County, California,
hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true, and correct copy of the action taken
by the said Board of Supervisors, by unanimous vote of the members present, as the
same appears in the Official Minutes of said Board of its meeting of December 3,
, 1973
' Secretary o~ the Board of ~upervisors
of the San Bernardin() County Flood
Control District, County of San Bernardino,
State of California
?B
COI~TRACT NO. DAC{.!O9-74-C-0002
CONTRACT BET;.~EN
2]{E UYIITED STATES OF A/,~RICA
SAN BERNARDINO COUI~Y FLOOD COh"PROL DISTRICT
FOR
RECREATION DEVE LOi'I.~iUP
AT
CUC/~,!ONGA CREel
CUC;d40NGA CRF~EK, CALIH3PJ~IA
THIS CONTRACT entered into this day of , 1973
by and between the UI~ITED STATES OF A/.~RICA (hereinafter called the
"Government"), represented by the Contracting Officer executing this
contract and SAN BERNARDINO COUI~Y FLOOD COI. FFROL DISTRICT (hereinafter
called the "District"), WITI'~SSETH THAT: ._
¥~EREAS, construction of the Cucamonga Creek, California (hereinafter
called the "Project") was authorized by the Act of Congress Public
Law 90-~83, 9Oth Congress, 13 August 1968; and
WHEREAS, the' District is authorized to a.¢~minister project land and
water areas for recreational purposes, and o;mrate, maintain and replace
facilities provided for such purposes and is empowered to contract for such
purposes, an~ is empowered to contract in these respects; and
WHEREAS, the Government is authorized by Section 207 of the 1962 Flood
Control Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 460d. ) to make contracts with non-
Pederal bodies for development, management and administration of the recre-
ation resources of Federal water resources pro~ects;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
~RTICLE 1 - DEFINITION OF TF~I~4S. For the purpose of this contract certain
terms are defined as follows:
77
(a) Joint costs. The.total cost o? the ~ '=
p. oj..ct minus the sum of
the separable costs for all project purposes.
(b) First costs, used interchangeab!s, with the terms "capital costs"
and "project costs," is the initial capital cost of the project, including:
engineering, design, supervision, and administration; land acquisition;
construction; and interest durin~o construction.
(c) Separable costs as applied to any project purpose, means the
difference between the capital cost of the entire multi-purpose project
and the capital cost of the project with the purpose omitted.
ARTICLE 2 - LTU~S AND ~ACILITIES.
(a) The Government a~rees to design and construct the project to
provide for optimum enhancement of genera]. recreation consistent with
other authorized project purposes.
(b) Title to all lands and facilities soecifically acquired, developed
or constructed by or with Government assistance to enhance the recreation
potential of the project shall at all ti~s be in the District.
(c) The performance of any obligation or the ex!~.nditure of any funds
by the Government under this contract is contingent upon Congress msJ~ing
the necessary appropriations and funds being allocated and made available
for the work required hereunder.
ARTICLE 3 - CONSIDERATIOn,' A~,.rD PA!q.~. Each party hereto will pay or
contrib~te in kind fifty percent (50,J~) of the separable first costs of
recreation development. In addition, as between the parties hereto and
except as may be specified to the contrary in any separate contract
78
between the parties, the Governmc]'~t will pay one h~u~dr{~d !.wcrcent (1002)
of the joint costs of the nrojcct 1].o ..... ted to rccreat;~on
(a) Initial Dcvelocment. Fifty 'F. ercent (50',J) of the estimated
separable first costs of initial recreation development is estirm%ted to
be $284,000.00. Prior to the advcrtisement o~] the first construction contract
hereunder and again prior to the adwartisement of each subsequent construction
contract thereafter, the Gover~unent Contracting Officer shall calculate
the estimated expenditures which each party shall have made through the
end of such contract. If the tota[L estimated exy, cnditures by the
Government shall exceed those of the District, the District shall pay to the
Government such sum as will equalize the expcnditures of both parties, prior
to award of such contract. In computing expenditures, there shall be consi-
dered, in addition to cash e>:Fmnditures~ contributions in kind such as land
and facilities, at the fair ~.nrket value thereof at the time such land and
facilities are provided, which value shall not include enhancement due to
the Project. Upon completion of initial recreation development, an adjust-
ment will be made on the basis of actual costs incurred.
79
,J
It is understood and agreed that the Dist~'ict's ~l~.are ot the cost of each
construction contract shall be computed cm the b~zJs of actual costs to the
Government of the work incl,:tied in the Govc~rnmcnt construction contracts
~bove and on the basis of unit prices in each Government contract and final
quantities covering labor, materials, and equipment required for the work
under each Government construct:ion contract plus the amount of 10 percent to
cover Government's construction, engineering and overhead expense and not on
the basis of prior estimates.
(b) Future Development. Nei'ther party is obligated by this contract
to undertake any future development of the project, except to the extent this
contract may be so modified by future supp]emental agreement signed by the par-
ties and approved by the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative.
If at any time the District wishes to undertake further development of the
facilities hereunder, it may do so at its expense provided
2riot approval of the ContractS. rig Officer Js obtained, but the Gover~ent shall
mt be 'obligated to reimburse the District for any portion of such expense in
:he absence of a supplemental agreement hereto as aforesaid.
(c) Other Federal Funds. No repayment credit of any kind whatsoever
~tll be allowed the District for expenditures financed by, involving, or
:0nsisting of, either in wl~ole or in part, contributions or grants of assistance
~ceived from any Federal agency, in providing any lands or facilities for recre-
ation enhancement hereunder.
(d) Adjustments to Reflect Costs. The dollar amounts, set forth in this
zticle are based upon the Government 's be.st estimates, ~d are subject to
:djustments based on the costs actually incurred. Such estSmstes are not to be
0nst~ed as representations of the total financial responsibilities of each
f the parties.
4
.:_.
II
II
: ORIGINAL
p ~TO ~APH TAi~EN FEBRijARY 7, i970
S~NTA ANA RIVER BASIN: CALIFORNIA
;uCAMONGA CREEK
AERIAL MOSAIC
PHOTOGRAPH NO. 2
~0oo o iooo ZOOO
~ '[L - ARIVIY ENGINEER DISTRICT
~ S ~IGE[.ES, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
TO ACCOMPANY REPORT DATED'.
ORIGINal-
f~ . .x ' ~ ~'~' ~ ') '' '-, - (_ ~CAMONGA CREEK
..... :.' s ~., ~..~ .~ ,, ~ ;~.~,
-..,.,i ,.,.._..: AERIAL MOSAIC
~- .:..-;- ' ~}~ ,,*.~. .~. '--~ oo o ,ooo aooo
'- I~,: ~: ~t , -:'
i'~-,& -$~-'~ -~ >" ~'~ : ~' ~'~' '" ' c ARL~Y ENGINEER DISTRICT
I~S~ '~..~ '~ ~"' 'f~:" : " ~ ~ ~ 3ELES, CCRPS OF ENGINEERS
'-i~ .,~ ' "'' vie -,,~ i.~ Lc .
II ,:~,' ' :~' ' : ~ '' ~,. S'-~ I/ -~O ACCOMPANY REPORT DATED;
82
~ ENVIRONqMENTAL AND ECOLOCZC~ FF~TU~ES. Channel alinement uould ~ollow
~ existing stre~bed to minimize losse~ to native vegetation and wildlife
~ to effect a reasonable comprimise in te~s of economy and environmental
~pact. About ~9~ acres of land with minimum vegetal and wildlife habitat
ue will be permanently lost in the concrete channel sections. Th~s loss
tll be partly mitigated by plantings ~f native species having w~ldlffe value~
~36-acre
'~e~elt located between Foothill Boulevard and Base L~ne Road
~,~t~ wall ~t~i~g, ~andscaping, and semite fencing would be used
~inimize the visual impact of the channels as they ~ass through existing
rk~ and prpposed rest areas.
i. The concrete channels, with border fences and retangular sections,
11 present barriers to animal movements. Because deer,raccoon, coyotes, fox,
other mammals will be affected by the fencing, crossings would be provided
locations where animal movement has historically occurred. Field investigation
indicated that the Deer Creek area received most intense animal movement
that crossings should be placed in the mouth of Deer Canyon and near Wilson
~ue along the Deer Creek channel.
~e Deer Creek area above Baseline Road is the only area of the project
lUing a naturai environment. Because of channelization, urbanization will
encroach upon the wild life habitat of this area ~r Species
~-~ity will become limited to those tolerant of man's presence and activity.
I qldllfe habitat in the other parts cf the project area are alreadv tolerant
activity because of ~ t~urbanization and agricultural lan~se~,
5.~ MITIGATION. To mitigate wildlife and vegetal losses resulting from
,0~,-"~/ ~/~-..,~, .....
project construction and its indirect effects, the a~ ,,,~rh~ th~ ~'...
~lght-of-way upstream from the proposed debris basin would be preserved in
their natural states. In addition, the County of San Bernardino has given
~ assurances that about 1,000 acres of land, owned by the County Flood
C~ntrol District and north of Base Line Road, wou~ be maintained in an
~m~developed condition.
~,~ WATER QUALITY. The qualf~y of surface flows and ground water will
g~n~rally be enhanced by implementation of the project. The present threat
p~llution due to uncontrolled runoff flushing contaminants from ruptured
..... ~ facilities or feedlot daries w~11 be signlficantlv reduced Increased
i~'~0mic development on the flood plain should not result in any substantial
&.'..'~ because sanitary sewage facillties
.... i~ - , including sewage treatment
~.~.'~, will be required for municipal~ties and urban areas; this requirement
~ ~.i~ Wlth the Water Quality Control Plan (Interim) dated June ~973, ~ssued
t California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Re~ion.
6.02 FEDERAL AGENCIES
C)FflQINAL
QUAUTy
a. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. In a letter dated 13 June 1973,
this agency requested that lands near the upper Deer Creek area be preserved
in its natural character to protect the area from anticipated urban encroachment
after channel construction. ~ea/ ~ ~ ~'~,/~¢~a/~,~d~ ~ ~ ,/J~
~e ~e~el tor agricultura~ or open space~thr0ugh 1990. Further ~nvestigation
indicated that over half of these lands are o~ed by the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District. In a telephone conversation of 4 December 1973 the
Flood Control District agreed that these l~ds ~ould be included as a
project feature and maintained in a natural state.
b. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in
letter of 30 May 1973, concurred in the proposed recreation plan.
c. National Park Service. In a letter dated 19 July 1973, the National
Park Service made reference to a letter from the San Bernardino County
Fmseum which commented On the locations of existing historical and archeological
lites within the area. One site (SBCM-133) would cross the proposed Cucamonga
Creek channel alinement north of Foothill. Boulevard. Investigation and salvage
~erations at the site would be accomplished prior to channel construction.
6.03 STATE AGENCIES
~'~ ~ a. The Resources Agency of California. In a letter dated 27 June 1973,
~ ~ ency concurred in the proposed project plan and associated recreational
.... '>'7
85
6.04 LOCAL AGENCIES
ORIGINAL
a. San Bernardino Comnty Flood Control District. In a meeting of
23 August 1973, the district indicated a firm interest in the recreational
development plan. A resolution by the San Bernardino County Board of
Supervisors affirmed Flood Control District participat~r~ in the recreation
plan.
b. San Bernardino County Regional Parks. In a meeting of 19 August 1973,
the Regional Parks Department concurred in the proposed plan for recreation.
I
I
!
c. City of Upland. In a meeting of 5 August 1973, the City of Upland
concurred i~ a proposed plan for bicycle development along the West
Cucamonga Creek Channel.
d.. City of Ontario. In a meeting of 23 August 1973, the City of Ontario
concurred in the plan for recreation development on the Cucamonga Creek
project.
6.05 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. In a report dated 12 June 1972, a
~tizens advisory committee for the Cucamonga Creek project made recommendations
concerning recreational aspects of the project. The proposed recreation plan
tnCorporatel all recommendations.
86
,ORIGINAL
curve would be used. The channel flows along the simple curves
would produce negligible wave action.
b. P~ange of channel capacitieq and velociti,,~ :~rc listed
~ in the following table.
'!i~,,ir~~ of Channel
,,~
a. ![~[111ide
Q Range v P~an?(,
(c.f.s.) (f.p.s.)
From To From
2'0
13,500 45,000
4,000 [I,2OO 24.1
5,400 17,000 34.1
1 ,400 2,'{~() 24.
73.7
~(~. 7
73.5
51 .O
".~ :,~,i~ Invert 5',radJent. The ~nvert grades wer~
.
"&~ to minimize channel excavation, keel', the cianne],, ,,n~r'~nched
· '~nough to collect surface flows, and to maintain
:~,-~Crtt~cal flo~,. In certain reaches of channels, the ~;rados
.'~
· [e~trolled by the existing structures, such a~
' ~i~'"'~:~,~o remain or large utility lines that cannot be relocated
'"-~ ~nterruption ~n service The project fs situated over
'~[al f~, and the proposc. d channel grade varies from 0.128 to ,
87
ORIGINAL
euAcrry
Creek £rom u~na~ed canyons just west of Deer Ca.~Y-on.
~ .~!~.c{ The 20,2~D-acre /%tttu-e overflow a~-ea is traversed in a east-west
~ ~irection by U.S. Highway 66, Interstate liD, and State Highways 60 and 30.
~ese routes provide ready access to downtown Los Angeles on the west and
cities of San Bernardino and Riverside on the east. State Highway 83
access to Orange County on the south. Three major rail lines,
by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railway, the Southern Pacific
and the Union Pacific Railroad cross the overflow area in an
direction.
The Ontario International Airport complex, which includes electronic
aircraft industries and also associated facilities of the California
National Guard, extends across Cucamonga and West Cucamonga Creeks.
. presently expanding air service terminal facility is part of the
.~i~d Los Angeles-Ontario-Palmdale International Airport
complex which
?~ovide service to the Los Angeles Metropolitan area.
~.~.. San Antonio Community Hospital, the major- hospital in the west end
.~i~.Bernardino County, is in the West Cucamonga Creek overflow area.
--~ . Natural Resources. Elevations in the drainage area range from
<~ ,900 feet at Cucamonga Peak in the San Gabriel Mountains to 540
-/'~ Prado Reservoir. The basin is in an area of mountains, foothills,
,~_~UVial valleys. The drainage area is heavy brush, consisting mostly
~.~ and mountain mahogany interspersed with sage and grass. Scrub
-' '.~ sheltered areas and on the northern slopes of the canyons.
--m .~.?UPer part of the outwash area is vegetal cover, consisting
-~ '~%~iOf sagebrush and grasses. The natural vegetation of the valley
'~'?" replaced by orchards, vineyards, and truck and field crops.
88
9rest fires in the mountain area have denuded parts of the watershed and
.re added to the flood hazards in the valley area downstream from the canyons.
!.ll. The climate and temperatures vary greatly with elevation. Elevation
2,000 feet averages about 16 inches, and 5,000 about 30 inches of annual
thrall. In general, the winters are cool stud wet and summers are hot and
~. In the valley, they range from a little over lOO degrees Fahrenheit to
asion~l killing frosts.
~i2~The climate of the Cucamonga area is of the Mediterranean type,
~ng only the winter and summer, or wet and dry seasons. The wet season
ends from December through March, dry season extends from April through
~ber, and is characterized by long dry summers in which there may be
:ods of 125 days or more with no precipitation During the st~mner months,
~average maximum temperature is between 85 degrees and 1OO degrees
.'~eit.
[.~The ~rtnter months experience average minimum temperatures between 30
· es and ~0 degrees Fahrenheit and average maximum temperatures between
.~rees a~d 70 degrees Fahrenheit.
,_.~The Oucamonga Creek overflow area contains limited mineral deposit~
?ly S~d and gravel.
areas along Cucamonga Creek and its tributaries are important
requirements of the drainage area under ultimate development
by the present water supply augmented by water to be
?el~ductng a~eas in the southwestern Part off San Bernardino County.
-~..~-~lying basins are the prime sources of water supply for the areas
sUPPlY is supPlemented b~ Alta Loma, and adjacent areas. The water from the Colorado River. The
89
OF ;G NAL
i~orted from the Feather River under the California Water Plan.
~0~ Because the recommended plan provides for turn-outs and percolation
Basins, construction of the project will have no significant effect on the
~cal water supply.
~ Human Resources. Population projections presented in this report
~.~.~e based on California Department of Finance State '71 Series "D" pro-
.~.~,l~ections allocated to Regional Statisticad. Areas (RS^'si 28 and 45 by the
~0~thern California Association of Governments (SCAG). RS^ 28 is San
· ~..~rnardino County's West Valley Planning ^tea and RSA 45 is the Jurupa
~'.~ning Area of Riverside County. The total. area, hereafter referred to
the San Bernardino-Riverside Counties Study Area, ~see ~late E-2),
'~"~i~0mpasses approximately 197,5OO acres. Detailed population concerning
Cucamonga Creek and tributaries overflow area is not available;
~'~ver, data and trends for the San Bernardino-Riverside Counties Study
~a are available and are considered indicative of the overflow area.
~'~-' .~4.~ The major centers of population which effect the future growth
t~e San Bernardino-Riverside Counties Study Area are Los Angeles,
a~Jo~ning cities to the west, the San Bernardino-Riverside urban
~lex to the east~ and Orange County to the south.
· The Los Angeles metropolitan area has continually expanded out-
~'~i~Y, coalesclng with smaller neighboring communities to form an
.,.,..~v~
~ continuous urban area. During the 30-.vear period, from 1940
].Z~0, this growth restulted in the rapid development of San Fernando
"-~'.~.~ on the northwest, Orange County (including Anaheim, Santa Ana, and
'~ Grove) on the southeast, and to West Covina and Pomona on the east.
~'~.-[~hwestern and northern expansion is currently underway in the
9O
ARTICLE 4 - CONSTtlUCTI()N AI4D OPEP~tTIO:~ OF' ,%DI)ITIO~YAL FACILITIES. Certain
types of facilities ~aay be constructed 'by the District or third parties and
._ may be operated by the District or by third parties on a concession basis.
Any such construction and operation of these types of facilities shall be
compatible t~ith all project pt, rposes and shall be subject to the prior approval
of the Contracting Officer. ttowever the District; shall not receive credit fpr
costs of such facilities against amounts due and payable under Article 2, with
-- Goven~ment assistance for purpose of Article 2(c).
ARTICLE 5 - FEES AND CttAP, GES. The District may assess and collect fees for
entrance to developed recreation areas and for use of the project facilities
-~ and areas, in accordance with a fee scheduil. e mutually agreed to by the parties.
Not less often than every five years, the parties will revie~,~ such schedule and
'-- upon the request of either, renegotiate the schedule. The renegotiated fee
schedule '~:ball, upon written agreement thereto by the parties supersede prior
schedules ¥;ithout the necessity of modifying this contractual document.
~_ ARTICLE 6 - FEDERAL A~D STATE I~WS. ~
(a) In acting under its rights and obligations hereunder, the District
-- agrees to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations,
.... including but not limited to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C.
!76 a-a(7)); the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333);
~- !nd part 3 of Title 29, Code of Federal. Regulations.
(b) The District furnishes, as part of this contract, its assurance that
~- t will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Star. 241,
i 2 U.S.C. 2000d, at' seq) and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued
Ursuant thereto and published in Part 300 of Title 32, Coda of Federal
D E SI G ~
Please return tl'ds report to the Water Resources Library
File At: ~{3C.~IMC) bO ~,6, C ~J~- g~
c. Deer Creek. Coordination has been maintained with the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife concerning the recreational
development of open spaces near the mouth of Deer Canyon. In a letter
dated 13 June 1973, the Bureau expressed concern over the loss of these
lands to urban encroachment; the lands provide a substantial amount of
wildlife habitat. Because of this concern, the offroad recreational area
within the Deer Creek Basin, considered in the design memorandum, would
be eliminated in favor of preserving tl~e area in a natural state.
~ ,11.08 SCOPE. Construction of the Cucamomma Creek ~roJect would be
93
ORIGINAL
study area has had a highly-fluctuating growth
1990, the population of the study area is expected
for more than one-third of the total population
of San Bernardino County.
" I~ACTS. The proposed project would have several
~onmen;al i~q~acts. Erosion by high velocity flood discharge,
"'~11 as debris deposition in the alluvial valley, would
ificantly reduced due to debris from the slopes of
.... ~n C, abriel ~ountains being deposited in the debris basins
~t~d at the foot of the mountains. Collected runoff channeled
.~O p~r¢olation basins for recharge into the Cucamonga and
ground-water basins would increase the total annual
to 9,000 acre-feet (net increase of 500,acre-feet).
' .-~# would be 95 to 99 percent recharge of the total available
~off. The quality of surface flows and ground water would
' ~ enhanced by reducing flushing of surface contaminants in
.~.b~ and agricultural areas into local runoff. Some vegetation
· .i~i.;i~w~uld be permanently los~ in the concrete-channel sections.
~$~ lo~s would be mitigated by plantings of native species
. ~'~W~th w~ldlife value such as toyon, live oak, sycamore, sage,
· ~erberry and ceanothus. Wildlife would be temporarily disturbed;
~ loe~ea would probably not be detectable. Projected population
~o~h, with or without the project, is consistent with that
94
ORIGINAL
crest to 10 feet at the do~nstrea~ end. The spillway would be
designed to pass the maximum probable flood of 4,100 cubic feet per
second. The debris basin would have a capacity of about 40 acre-feet
of debris storage, with no reduction of flood peaks assumed. An intake
rover and an ungated 36-inch reinforced-concrete conduit would
serve as a pool drain. The basin area, including the embankment and
spillway, would be about 30 acres.
~Z11-10. HILLSIDE OUTLET CHANNEL. A rectangular
reinforced-concrete outlet channel would convey flows from the
Rillside debris basin eastward for about a mile to the Deer Creek
~hannel. The channel would have base widths ranging from 10 feet, to
16 feet, wall heights ranging from 5 to 11.5 feet, and a design
capacity of 1,400 cubic feet per second to 2,300 cubic feet per
~..11-11. WATER CONSERVATION FACILITIES. Water-conservation and
¥1ter-supply problems are important considerations in the
~u¢lmonga Creek drainage area. For any plan providing for flood
~tr01 improvements, it is the desire of local interests that
' totective measures be included to insure proper functioning of
7.1~tIting or proposed water wells, diversion structures, and
"~tI&ding grounds. On Cucamonga Creek, one 48-inch diameter encased
~t~forced
concrete pipe turnout would be provided from the basin,
.,~oush the embankment into the spreading grounds below. Four other
~i"t~¢tangular pilot channel type diversion structures through a gated
95
ORIGti iAL
chamber would divert flows into other spreading grounds located along
the channel downstream of the basin. Also on Deer Creek, a 48-inch
diameter encased reinforced concrete pipe turnout would be provided
from the basin, through the embankment into the spreading grounds
below. Five other rectangular pilot channel type of diversion structures
through a gated chamber would divert flows into other spreading grounds
along the channel downstream of the basin.
x11-12. BEAUTIFICATION HEASURES. Beautification measures
appropriate to the project and commensurate with the location and
axposure to the public view would be included in the project. Such
masures would salvage some of the natural esthetic characteristics
the arid region. A plan for beautification would include: tree
~d shrub plantings for screening, shade, and general environmental
~hancement; special treatment of channel fencing; and coordination
~th existing and proposed landscaping at highway crossings, parks,
~d schools. This program will be integrated and consistent with the
~¢reation program. Details of the beautification measures are given
section X.
96
13. RAINFALl- AND RUNOFF. The c]iraare of the Cucamonga
drainage area i,~ ~enerally temperate, with mean annual precipitation
from around 13 to 32 inches. The types of storms which can
the region are general winter storms, thunderstorms, and
,¢al cyclones. The most intense ~eneral winter storms have resulted
~O-day prec~pitation totals exceeding 50 inches, 3-day totals of
30 ]nche~, and 1-Ha.' amounts ~n exces.~ oF 2m inches in the
[eighty of the Cucamonga Creek drainage. Local thunderstorms in
?~rea have produced 1 hour rainfall intensit~es as high as 3.5 inches.
~R)Nt .~evere F, eneral %~nter storms tn )]ave affected the Cucamonga
dra~naEe were those of January 18-27,~1q6(), ~'hJch 9reduced
record peak runoff of 14~10¢) cubic fe~.t l~er second at the
~ng fitatJon, and February 27,-,M~rch,3,.1938, which produced a
peak of lot300 cubic feet per second. The mo~t intense
of record ~n the ~enera] vicinity of the CucamonRa Creep
~nclude the Garrett ldfner.~' storm of .qe]~tember,2q,~l(~46, in which
inches fell in 1 hour~ and the Sierra ,Hadre,-,Carter thunderstorm
~arch,3-4,,lq43, in which more than 3.4 ~nche~ ~ell Jn 3 hours and
innhes ~n 1 hour. The ~rn~Jcal cyclone of qeptembe. r~2/,-26,,1Q39,
~,lced ul~ to 10.5 inches ~n the hiEher mo,lnt~Jns around tim
C~eek drainage.
97
~nd the SE,1/4 of Section,15; the Cucamonga site is in the N,1/2 of
Section,29 and S,1/2 of Section,20 and the San Antonio Heights Diversion
System is approximately 2,000,feet north of the Cucamonga debris basin
and immediately west of the creek. The debris basin canyons and creeks
described above drain the southerly slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains
and then flow into the Prado Dam Reservoir near Corona, Santa Aria River
Basin, California. The stream gradients range from approximately 600,feet
per mile through the Deer Canyon and ttillside sites to 400,feet per
mile for Demens site and 300,feet per mile at Cucamonga site.
x13-03. GEOLOGY. The San Gabriel Mountains are composed of irregular
~sses and blocks of igneous and metamorphic rocks of Pre-Cambrian
to Cretaceous age and sedimentary rocks of Tertiary-Quaternary age.
~ese masses and blocks of rocks were uplifted during late Pliocene
and Pleistocene time. During the past 5,to,lO,mill~on years several
thousand feet of vertical displacement has resulted from the movement
~hat has occurred along north-dipping reverse or thrust fault systems.
In addition, the rocks comprising the separate blocks are broken by
~umerous minor faults and are extensively fractured. The Cucamonga fault
extends along the toe of the San Gabriel Mountains. The fault crosses
the alluvial cones of the several canyons, beginning from a cross fault
Just west of San Antonio Canyon and continuing eastward, as far as Lytle
C~eek. Movement along this fault has thrust older bedrock masses over
~he Younger alluvium of the Cucamonga Plain. The trace of the fault
~a Outlined by fault scarps in the alluvial cones and by truncated
r~es in the bedrock. The plane of the fault dips 40,degrees to
XIII-2
TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY OF TIlE SITES.
a. Deer Canyon. The debris basin would be near the mouth
of Deer Canyon on Deer Creek. The general area of the canyon selected
[0r site consideration lies on an alluvial cone between elevation,2650
and 2750,feet. The alluvial cone begins to widen out at this point
and the stream channel is approximately 1200,feet wide.
(1) The right abutment is composed of moderately soft to
~derately hard schist with an 8,to,10,foot cover of residual soil.
The rock in the few outcrops on this abutment is considerably fractured.
(2) The left abutment is composed of weathered, soft to
I~derately hard fractured schist with some zones of harder gneiss and
quartzite. There is little residual soil remaining on this abutment
[0r the slopes dip at angles of greater than 50,degrees.
(3) The canyon floor has a cover of Recent alluvium consisting
0[ gravelly sand with cobbles and boulders to 6,feet maximum diameter
¥1th little fine material or organic material. The depth of the alluvium
lI 97,feet at D.D.,6 where a few inches of metamorphic bedrock was
~lnetrated in the bottom of the hole.
(4) The Cucamonga Fault zone crosses the channel portion
the project area about 1/4,to,I/2,mile downstream or south of the
[l~sed dam site and extends in an east-west direction along the
XIII-6
99 ~
the mountain front is founded on older alluvium. Two small debris basins
are also proposed which are located near the mouth of the two canyons
i~nediately west of Cucamonga Creek. The one nearest the creek would
have abutments founded on older terrace alluvium. The one located in
the canyon next further west would have abutments founded on weathered
113-07.
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS.
a. Deer Canyon.
One NX,diamond drill hole, D.D.,2, was
drilled in the toe of the right abutment to a depth of 91.4,feet. This
hole is at elevation 2714.9,feet; the bearing of the hole is N,80,degrees,W
and it is inclined 44,degrees below the horizontal. The materials encountered
consist of residual soil, silty sand with gravel, cobbles and boulders
from depths of 0.0,to,8.8,feet. Metamorphic bedrock was encountered
from depths off 8.8,to,91.4,feet. The rock from 8.8,to,31.4,feet consists
0f hard gneiss whereas the rock from 31.4 to 91.4,feet consists of moderately
hard to soft brecciated and faulted gneiss and schist with some thin
Iones of clay gouge· Water pressure tests up to 20,psi indicate :hat
the rock from 8.8,to,49.5,feet xhas several short zones of high water
loss whereas the rock from 49.55,to,91.4,feet is a zone of low water
foes. Another NX,diamond drill core hole, D.D.,4, was drilled in the
toe of the left abutment to a depth of 81.5,feet This hole is at elevation
26&l.4,feet; the bearing of the hole is N80,degrees,E and it is inclined
4$,degrees below the horizontal. The materials encountered consist
.~.Of eetamorphic bedrock composed of schist, gneiss, and quartzite from
,
100
depths of 0.0,to,81.5,feet. The rock is generally faulted, intensely
fractured and highly weathered. There are many zones of friable material.
Water pressure tests up to 20,psi from 44.9,to,81.5,feet indicate that
this is a zone of low water loss. Three 4-inch diameter triocone drill
holes, D.D.,3,,5,and,6, were drilled in the canyon floor to depths
of 93.5,,99.3,and,101.5,feet, respectively. The hole elevations are
2,654.6,,2,675.3,and,2,641,6,feet, respectively. All three holes were
drilled vertically. Hole.3 was located near the center of the canyon
floor, hole,5 is approximately 500,feet west: of hole,3 and hole,6 is
approximately 300,feet east of hole,3. The materials encountered in
holes,3 and 5,consisted entirely of Recent alluvium,-,gravelly sand
with cobbles and boulders. The materials encountered in hole,6 consisted
of Recent alluvium from 0.0,to,97.0,feet and highly weathered and faultered
~tamorphic bedrock from 97.0,to,101.5,feet. Two 4-inch diameter core
h01es,D.D.,7 and D.D.,8,were drilled to supplement the sparse data
'~obtaine holes,2,and,4 because of the poor core recovery. Hole,D.D.,8
d in
located near hole,2 at the toe of the riL, ht abutment and D.D.,7
located approximately 100,feet upstream of hole,4. Hole,8 was drilled
~11~,~ttically to a demth of 68.8.feet. Elevation of the collar o
- - ~ - f the
is 706. -
,zeet. The materials encountered were similar to those
~'~'~¢~vered in hole,4, and xconsisted of schist and gneiss that has been
~'/~s and occasional rehealed fractures dipping from 60,degrees to
,~egrees from horizontal and a fault with gouge and slickensides
'/i,',/~?i~ 62'3't°,63.9~feet. The foliation of the schist and gneiss rock
XIII-10
ORIGINAL
dips from 60,degrees to vertical and is somewhat contorted. Hole,7 was
drilled to a depth of 87.5,feet from elevation of the collar of the
h01e at 2,655.2,feet and on a bearing of N.50,degrees,E inclined 20,degrees
below the horizontal. The materials encountered in drilling were soft
to hard schist and gneiss. Much of the core is brecciated and fragmental
due to breaks along old rehealed fractures. Zones of harder, more competent
rock occur between the zones of brecciation. Faults containing clay
gouge and slickenstdes were encountered at 6.1,14.4,and,37.5,feet.
frhe amount of core recovered increased from the 12,and,41,percent
[~0r the NX,holes to 96,and,98,percent for the 4-inch holes. The increase
~a the recovery was due to the larger core diameter.
~*~[~ b. Hillside. An NX,diamond drill core hole,,D.D.,1, was
~*~11ed in the toe of the right abutment to a depth of 57.9,feet. This
~; was drilled from elevation 2,222.7,feet on bearing of N,5,degrees,E
inclined 45,degrees below the horizontal. The materials encountered
of residual soil of silty sand and fragments of weathered
bedrock up to 6-inch maximum diameter, from depths of O.0,to,8.0,feet
~hic bedrock from depths of 8.0.to.57.9.feet. The bedrock
to moderately hard, weathered and highly broken. All of the
..... f'~ ~, ~o~ered consisted of rock fragments. Water oressure tests u
~ .i.~..~l! from 30.5,to,57.9,feet indicate that this is a zone of low
~' ~'~-/~ W&ter loss. Diamond core hole D.D. 9 was drilled for 4 inch
*'~ ....t~ toe of the abutment, approximately 60,feet upstream of hole,1
· ~.~.~ of 67.5,feet. This hole was drilled from elevation 2227.8.feet
XIII-~l
'~02
ARTICLE 4 - CONSTRUCT]ON A~{D Opj]R.,iTii_O.~ OF ADDITIONAL FACILITIES. Certain
types of facilities may be constructed by the Distr]ct or tl]ird ]0arties and
may be operated hy the J)istrict or by third parties on a concession basis.
Any sucl~ constructi. on and operation of these types of facilities shall be
compatible with all project pt, rposes and shall be subject to tbe prior approval
of the Contracting Officer. However, the District shall not receive credit f.or
costs of such facilities against amounts due and payable under Article 2, with
Gove~n~ment assistance for purpose of Article 2(c).
ARTICLE 5 - FEES AND C ~
_,IIA~,C~ES. The District may assess and collect fees for
entrance to developed recreation areas and for Use of the project facilities
and areas, in accordance with a f~.e schedule mutually agreed to by the parties.
Not less often titan every five years, the parties will review such schedule and
upon the request of either, renegotiat:e the schedule. The renegotiated fee
schedule shall, upon written agreement: thereto by the parties, supersede prior
schedules ¥.~thout the necessity of modifying this contractual document.
ARTICLE 6 - FEDERAL A~D STATE I~WS.
(a) In acting under its rights and obligations hereunder, the District
~grees to comply witIt all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations,
including but not limited to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C.
176 a-a(7)); the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333);
!nd part 3 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) The District furnishes, as part of this contract, its assurance that
t will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Star. 241,
2 U.S.C. 2000d, et' seq) and Department of Defense Directire 5500.11 issued
~rSuant thereto and published in Part 300 of Title 32, Coda of Federal
~03
!.eg~]ations. Tile D~str~ct agree~: also tha~' ~t ~i]] ..~btai~, s~ch assurances
from all its concessionaires.
(c) 7'l~e District fu~'nishes as part of this co~;~.racl- i~ ~ssurance
hat it will comply witt~ Sections 210 and 305 of the Unffor:~ Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law
1-646).
~TI~E 7 - OPE~TION ~D ~RINTEN~CE. The District shall be responsible for
~peration, maintenance and replacement without cost to the Govern~nt, of all
acilities developed to support project recreation opportunities. The District
~hall maintain all project lands, waters and facilities in a manner satis-
'~ctory to the Contracting Officer.
~RTICLE 8 - ~]LEASE OF C~IMS. The Government and its officers and ~ployees
~,all not be liable in any manner to the District' for or on account of damage
~used by the devqlopmcnt, operation, and maintenance of tl~c, recreation
facilities of the project. Tt~e District hereby releases the Government and'
:rees to hold it free and harmless and to indemnify it from all da~aages,
'~aims, or dem~ds that may result from development, operation and maintenance
~l the recreation areas and facilities.
.TICLE 9 - T~NSFER OR ASS~G~ENT. The District shall not l'ransf r o~
~ssign this contract nor any rights acquired thereunder, nor grant ~:,.y interest,
ivilege or license whatsoever in connection with this contract wJt[~o~t the
proval of the Secretary of the Amy or his authorized representatJv..~ except
as provided in Article 4 of this contract.
rlCLE 10- DEFA~T. In the event the District fails to meet any of its
~bligations ~der this agreerant, the Gove~ment may te~natc the whole or any
rt of this contract. The rights and remedies of the ~ver~ent provided in
6
'i04
this Article shall not he exclusive and are in addition to any other rights
and remedies provided by law or under this contract.
ARTICLE 11 - EXAHINATION OF RECORDS. The Government and t}~e District shall
maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs
and expenses incurred under this contract, to the extent and in such detail
as will properly reflect all net costs, direct and indirect, of labor,
materials, equipment, supplies, and servlces and other costs and expenses
of whatever nature involved therein. The Government and Dis~i-ict shall make
available at their offices at reasonable times the accounting records for
inspection and audit by an authorized representative of the p~rties to this
contract during the period this contrac~ is in effect.
ARTICLE ]2 - RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. The parties to this contract act in
an independent capacity in the performance of their respective functions
under this contract and neither party is to be considered the officer,
agent or employee of the other.
ARTICLE 13 - INSPECTION. The Government shall at all times have the right
to make inspections concerning the operation and maintenance of the lands
and facilities to be provided hereunder,
ARTICLE 14 -_O?'ICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT. No member of or delegate to the Con-
gress, or ResJ -.nt Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part
of this contr or to any benefit that may arise therefrom; but this pro-
vision shall ~,~ be construed to extend to this contract if made with a
corporation for its general benefit.
ARTICLE 15 - COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES. The District warrants that
no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or
secure this contract upon agreement or understanding;- for a commission,
105
percentat?,, b~'okcrage, ::~- cont.?,l;ent fc:,. excepting bona fide emp.l~_~y(.es
or bona fide cstabli.~hed comm.:]'c:ia] or ,~;e].ling agenc-/e~ mainI;aincd by the
District for the prupc~.~:,; of securing b~:,s:iness. For breach or violation
of this %,,nrrants., the. Government a}lall have the right. to annul this
contract ~Jthout liaJ)ility or in its discrc;tion to add to the contract
price or consideration, or otherx~ise recover, the full amount of such
commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee.
ARTICLE 16 - ENVIRONS. rENTAL QUALITY.
(a) In furtherance of the purpose and policy of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91--]90, 42 U.S.C 4321, 4331-4335)
and Executive Order 11514, entitled "Protection and Enhancement of Environ-
mental Quality"
, March 5, 1970 (3..~ Federal Register 4247, March 7, 1970)
the Government and the District rc:cognizc [-he importance of preservation
and enhancement of the qualit), of the enviromnent and the elimination of
environmental pollution. Actions hy either party will be after considera-
tion of all possible effects upon the project envJromaental resourcas and
will incorporate adequate and appropriate measures to insure that the quality of
the environment will not be degraded or ~nfavorably altered.
(b) During cous~:ructinn and operati~m undertaken by either party,
specific actions will be taken to control environmental pollution which could
result from th~tr activities and to comply with a. pplicable Federal, State and
local laws and regulations concerning env.~ronmental pollution. Particular
attention should be given to (1) reduction of air pollution by control of
burning, minimization cf dust, containment of chemical vapors, and control of
engine exhause gases and :'~moke from temporary heaters; (2) reduction of water
pollution by control of sanitary facilities, storage of fuels anc
8
~06
contaminants, and control of turbidity and siltation from ero.~Jon;
(3) minimization of noise levels; (4) on - and offsite disposal of waste
and spoil activities; and (5) prevention of landscape defacement and
damage.
ARTICLE 17 - VALUE OF LAND AND FACILITIE~i. If the parties hereto cannot
agree on the fair market value of any lands or facilities and cannot
otherwise resolve such differences, each party shall nature an appraiser' and
the two appraisers so named shall name a third appraiser, and the decision
of at least two oi such three appraisers as to the fair market value
shall be final and conclusive upon both parties.
ARTICLE 18- EFFECTIVE DATE. ~]~is contract shall take effect upon approval
by the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative.
107
~°
OR;GJNAL
RAINFALL AND RUNOFF.
The c]imate of the Cucamonga
~:t.,feek drainage area is Fenerally temperate, with mean annual precipitation
~_~a~ing from around 13 to 32 inche.g. The types of storms which can
-i.~f~.¢t the region are general winter storms, thundersto,s, and
~[topica cyclones. The ~ost intense e~neral winter sto~s have resulted
~0-day precipitation totals exceedinR 50 inches, 3-day totals of
..l'~01md 30 Jnchm~, and 1-Hay a~ounts 4n excess of 2a inches in the
~ictnity nf the Cucamonga Creel<: drainaRe. Local ttumdersto~s in
area have ~roduced 1 hour rainfall inten~itien as high an 3.5 inches.
mont ~evere general winter sto~s tc~ have affected the Cucamonga
:.....~ek drainage were those of lanuary 18'27,,1q6(~, which produced
recnrd peak runoff of 14,100 cubic fer. t per s~cond at the
/~gtng station, and February 27,-,March,3,.lq38, which produced a
(=~o[f peak of 10,3O0 cubic feet per secaed. The ~ost intense
~'~;~dersto~s of record Jn the ~enera~ vicinitw of the Cucamonga Creek
L~ {nclude the Garrett Winery sto~ of September,2q,,la46, in which
inches fell in 1 ho~r, and the Sierra Hadre,-,Carter th,ndersto~
7~.~[~arch,~-4,,1043, in which ~ore than 3.4 inches Fell Jn 3 hours and
inches Jn 1 hour. The ~rn~]cal cyclone of qeptn~ber,21,-26,,1Q39,
~]~qeed up tn 1fi.5 inches ~n the bigher too,retains around tl~e
~a C~eek drainage.
108
deposition slope projected upstream from the spillway crest would
be 0.5 of the natural slope. In order to reduce the frequency of
'"~ material brought ~n by smaller floods can be stored
maintenance,
~.,~in the basin provided 25,percent of the basin capacity ~s not
%~xcee de d.
b. Basin inlet structure. ~en necessary to prevent
~w.~xcessive streambed degradation upstrea~ from the excavated basin,
~+~e or more paved inlet chutes are provided at the upstream end of
~[~it. When the basins are located at or near the mouth of the canyon
~,'~d the large qu~tities of boulders or cobbles are pre~ent, the
~rol section of the inlet structuredesigned to pass a peak flow
~'~gu~ to twice the peak discharge of the standard project flood.
c. Spillway structure. T'he spillway structure would
<f~ desired to pass the peak of the maximum probable flood with a
~ni~m freeboard of ~ feet on the embankment. The spillway
~[~cture consists of ~ approach channel, crest section, chute
~'~d do~stream section to Join the project channel. The spillway
~i~ides the inlet structure for the do~stream channel and would
-~.~ a transition with a convergence ratio of 20:~ per wall throughout
f~ of 0,020 to ~nsu~e ~ con~ro~ nea~ the c~est such as ~n a broad
~;--.~ we~. ~e ~x~ poo~ ~e~e~ ~s de~e~ned by back ~a~e~
t he
109
ORIGINAL
I:~OR ~
x16-03. CHANNELS. Elements pertaining to channel design are discussed
in the following subparagraphs:
a. Alinement.
In general, the alinement of the proposed
channels would follow the existing rights-of-way, except certain
portions on Deer Creek (near street intersection of San Bernardino
R~ad and Turner Avenue) and Demens channel (from the debris
b~in spillway to the street intersection of Wilson Avenue
~d Ca~elian Avenue).
T~a pa~asa~Achannel following the existing right-of-way
~ine~nt for lower ~er Creek would not f~ction properly due to
imvert grade li~tations which would cause ~desirable fl~ condition.
erefore, the proposed ~er Creek aline~nt, by going through the
a~reet intersection of S~ Be~ardino Road and Tu~er Avenue, would
~rovide steady supercritical flow and the larger radius (R 2,340,ft.)
/"~'~ld reduce superelevation on the cu~e ~d ~ni~ze the street
~a~e r~ over the ch~nel. ~other lower ~er Creek alinement
~;.:"'~u4ted was to cu~e the channel southwesterly above 6th Street, and
· C:~asing the street intersections of 6th Street ~d Tu~er Avenue and
~'~ Be~ardino Road and ~chibald Avenue before joining Cucamonga Creek.
~. ....local interest opposed this proposal because of severance to property.
Sy~etrical spiral tr~sitions would be used upstream
='~ 4~stream of all cu~es with deflection angles of 6,degrees
"~'-.:.~eater ~d radii less th~ 10,000,fee:~ othe~ise a sidle
110
~ed in the 1970 emergency construction of the embankment at the
mmens site would be excavated and stockpiled for use in the permanent
_~nstruction unless subsequent studies indicate that the embankment
.~n be salvaged.
(4) Stability analysis for the drained condition
the drained condition with earthquake (seismic factor of 0.15sg,)
re presented below for each debris basin. The infinite slope
'%ethod was used for the downstream slopes and t'he circular arc
~thod was used for the upstream slope. No analysis for the rapid
Ir&wdown condition was made because the water surface would be
~'~bove the spillway crest for only a few hours and because drawdown
~low the spillway crest would be very slow.
"111
15:40 FAX ~0l) 950 2643 D~{UFS ~. ~i90~E ~001
DECLARATION OF ANDREW J. CAMPBELL, R.G:, C.H.G.
I, Andrew J. Campbell declare and state as follows:
I am a Project Hydrogeologist at Dames & Moore. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Geological Sciences from California Polytechnic University at Pomona. I am a Registered
Geologist and Certified Hydrogeologist by the State of California. A current copy of my
Curricultun Vitae is attached to this declaration (See Attachment 1). This declaration is
made in support of Ct~camongans United for Reasonable Expansion ("CURE") challenge to
· e Lauren Development residential projem. I ha~'e personally observed the levee and swales
bglow the Deer Creek Debris Basra. ! have also revJ. ewed City of Rancho Cucamonga
Grading Plans for Tract 14771 prepared by Morse Consulting Oroup, date stamped Feb. 25,
1992.
I have reviewed US Army Cowles of Engineering Featme Design Memorandum No. 6 listing
design features of ~e Deer Creek debris basin. This memoraudmn lists debris production at
this Location to be 310 acre-Iket from 1 major storm.
I have calculated tile volume of debris that could be held by rhe storm drain improvements
planned to mn along the nmthern boundary of Tract 14771 as approximately 78,660 cubic
feet or 1.8 acre-feet. I made this calculation using measurements made t¥om the above
mentioned Grading Plans. The planned trapezoid-shaped storm drain is shovm as
approximately 2,020 feet long, 3.3 feet deep, 6.0 feet wide at the bottom and 17.6 feet wide
at the top.
I have c'alculated the maximum volume of debris, which could be contained by the levee and
swales on T~act 14771, as approximately 12.54 m/Ilion cubic feet or 288 acre-feet. Tables
showing the deten-nmed results of my calculations are attached to tiffs declaration (See
Attachanent 2). The metl,.od I used to calculate this volume and my assmptions are
described in the following paragraphs.
In calc~Llatmg the maximran potential fill volrune which could occur on Tract 14771 as it
currently exists, I assumed debris wotdd originate upgracl/ent from and parallel the levee-
112
15:40 FAX 909 950 2643 l~.,~lE$ & }IOORF .~002
sw~e system dunng a failure of the Deer Creek debris basin and severe flood conditions.
Debris would fill the lows nortl'x of the levee and rise to the elevation at the northern
boundat)' of Tract 14771. As this elevation is higher than the levee, it earmot be
sustained across the entire property, by would slope towards the levee at fixe g-radiant of
the Deer Creek alluvial fan. I mensned the slope of the alluvial fan to be approximately
7 degrees from the United States Geological Survey Cucamonga Peak 7-1/2 minute
quaclJangl¢. The upper surface of a debris flow would thus be defined as that elevation
projectLag at a 7-degree slope up from the top of the diversion levee until the ele~'ation
reaches the elevation at ~e northern boondray of the tract. In my opinion, this is a
conservative estimate of maximum top of the debris fill as debris could conceivably pile
kipher tl~an this elevation and spill to the north,
I constructed north-south-trending ground surfhce elevation profiles from the northern
tract boundary southward to the northeast side of the diversion levee. Profiles were
consreacted along tl~e proposed subdivision streets, along the lot boundaries between each
street, and at the west and east boundary, of Tract 14771. I constructed a total of ten
profiles at a nearly urn form spacing averaging 220 t~et. I used the contours of existing
topography on the Grading Map of Tract 14771 to obtain the elevafiorls used in each
profile. 2~he ten ele'~ation profiles are attached to this declaration (See Attachraent 2). I
the~ construcl'ed the line representing the top of taximum potential ctebris fill w4,thin the
swales.
For each profile, I then calculated the cross sectional area between the debris fill line and
the ground surface line using a summation of trapezoidal area approximations. To obtain
the cross sectional area between the ground surface and the fill surface, I calculated the
area of individual trapezoidal shapes formed by extending vertical lines upwards from the
prowad suxhce at each contour elevataon to the fill line. 1 used ',he horizontal distance
between contour lines as the height of the trapezoid and the debris thickness at each
sucr, essive contour elevatio~ as the two trapezoid bases. The voltune of a trapezoid is the
average base length multiplied by the height. I then calculated the cross-sectional area of
each profile by samming the areas formed by the individual trapezoids.
Next, I calculated the volume of debris beBveen each profile using a similar trapezoidal
approximation. To obtain the volume of potential debris fill between each profile, I
calculated the volume of a trapezoidal prism defined between successive profiles. To
calculare the prism volume, I multiplied the distance between each profile by the average
cross sectional area of each east and west binding profile. I ~en calculated the total
113
,)9/16,98 15:41 F.kX 909 980 2643 r~.i)~E:S &..~100R[, ~003
volume of potential ct~bns fill o~.~ 'the Tract by ~umming the prism volm-nes contained
between each profile.
I have compared the three volumes calculated for 1) the planned storm ckain (1.8 acre-feet),
2) the maxi.mm poremial debris ~'olume containable on the Tract within the levee-swale
system (288 acre-feet), and 3) ~e clebds production from one major storm in Deer Creek
(310 acre.-feet). The volume of the platreed storm dram is insignificant compared to the
volume debl'is that could be generated fi'om a large storm event and ~!xe maximum volume
thai could be coatained by the current levee-swale system. The maxxurn debris ~olume that
could be contahaed by the current levee-swale system is nearly as large (93"./o) as the volume
of debris that could be generated by erie !a~ge s*.orm event.
I declare u~de~ penalty, ofl~erjury that the foregoing is ~mae and correct and that this dectaration is
executed on September 15, 1998, at R,x~acho Cucamonga, C all fenfla.
114
115
15:41 FA% 909 950 2~43 [A!q~$ & ~DORE ~005
ANDREW J. CAMPBELL, R.G.
Project Hydrogcologis~
Registration s
Registered Geologist #6110, S'~ate of CaLifornia
Carried Hydrogeologist ~,78, State of Califortda
Education
B.S., Geological Sciences, 1989 cure laude, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
M.S., in progress, Ca;ifcamia State University, Long Beach
Calfforrda Stilte University fretcreations] Program. 1987-118
University of Tuebingen, West Germany
Pro fe-,~$ionai
History
Dames & Moore
Project Hydrogeologist
Seasonal aquifer storage potential of Palart Valley ired Rice Valleys, Riverside County
CalJ.fomia. Available data and literature were evaluated for to develop conceptual
hydrogeologic models of the two valleys. These data were supplemen';e~I by water level,
water quality, 'and mfiltrat',;on data collected during field r¢con.~aissan~e, C~'oss sections were
coa.,~-ucted ~d numerical modeling was performed to evaluate location and feasibility of
recharge and extraction facilities. The ~torage potential o5 the groundsrarer ba,m storage was
eatculated using hy3aothetical seendried. The affects of cultural, biological, and land-use
constraints on a future project irapigmentation were also evaluate&
Seasonal Aquifer Storage Potential of Hayfield aald Chuckwalla Valleys, Riverside Corndry,
California, Available data mad literalare were evaluated to develop conceptual hydrogeologic
and numerical MODFLOW model of the groundwater basi~$ Existing data were
supplemented by water levels, water quality and infil~atio:x data collected dutir. g field
reconnaissance. Cross sections were constructed from available borehole iv. formation. Basin
modeling was use0 to predict aquifer storage volumes and facilihes location sites. The affects
of cultural, biological, agd land-use constraints on a future project implementation were also
evaluated. Targeted locations were then seiected for infiltration ra~ measurement aJ:d
recharge basin land requirements were es.'irrmtcd.
Evaluation of Groundwater Production Potential bet. oath ~e former Santa And Heights Water
Company, Existing piezometric, water quality, litelogic data were compiled and e.v~luated to
estimate al~propfiatg well locations a~.:! construction for futm'e p,'oduct/on wells m the area of the
former Santa And Heights Water Colrlpany. Cross $ec6ons were consreacted ab_owJ. ag aquit~r~
of ~arying quality and depths beneath the evaluated area Recommendatiom were provided to
locate and con~truct a large capacity production well.
Groundwater .Kesou."ces Asse~mer. t of various groundwater basins within the southern desert
of soud~em for a private eli*at. In ~elected b~ins, we!l canvassed were cox~ducted to identify
existing documented ned undocmented wells and to obtain groundwater quality sampig-'. 'and
data on depth to groundwater. Exploratory drilling w:s conducted and wells were in,tailed.
Pump tests were conducted m each of the wells to evaluate aquifer proper'tics and potential
yields of lXOduction wells illstailed in the are~ At fi~e ctmelusion of tile field and t~ting
programs, MODFLOW models were created to ev.,duate production well field impact and
volume of pt'educable t.~o'aadwater. 'Upda~ect gro,andwat~r resources evaluation raporB were
prepared
[19,'16/95 15:41 FA3~ 909 980 26-~3 DAMF$
ANDREW J. CAMPBELL, R.G., page 2
Orange County Water District
Project
Evaluated effectiveness of newly opexational groundwater recharge basins along Santiago
Creek, Orange County, California Drilled and oversaw conslructicn of deep, multi-point
monitoring wells; constructed hydrogeologic cross sections; analysis of piezometer elevations
and surface and groundwater chemistry; mad calculated groundwater tlow velocities, recharge
rates and volumes,
Orzn§e County Water Di~triet's Water .Rei~ources lnfo~ation Mann, mere ~stem
~velopmeah huplemenmfion, md ~alysis. ~S ~tab~ is a ~sit~ ~d analyses tool
coning ov~r well bo~ol~, com~on, and wa~r quali~ data ~ over 5,000 we~s_
~sponsibihae, incl~ed devdop~ poffioas of comput~ co~, ~ta field s~c~r~g, and da~
m~pulaOon b~e~ Oracle ~d AutoC~ so~. Project analyses us~g ~e ~
datable on num~ous well field emluafions.
Coueeptual Hydrogeologic Model Orange County Cnoundwater Basin. Conxtructed and
correlated multiple ~o$s-$e~tion$ fll/ough the Orange Cotmty Groundwamr Basin, each
representing up to 3,0130 feet i~ depth and 15 mi~e$ in lent~d~. Correlations made using multi-
depth piezometric data and water quality analyses, geophysical logs, a~d lithelogic logs.
Con~truction of struc.tur~ :outout maps ~'~-presentmg aquifer tops and bottoms for three-
dnnnensional computer modeling
Evaluation of the nature and occurrence of colored groundwater ~'ithm the Orange Coung/
Groundwater Basin. Evaluated well construction, piezometric, and water quality data from
production and monitonng wells to constutor geologic cross seetie,cs and maps to delrue the
three-dimensional occurrences of colored groundwater withLa the Orange Collar.,'
groundwater basra
Evaluated the geology and hydrogeology of consa'ucted wetlands within the Prude Dan
Reservoir, Riverside County to determine interactions between surface ~d L~oundwarer with
respect to qual(ty and are,,, of ri~ing grotmdwater. Contracted and supervised drilling ~ad
cons'a'uction of 15 monitoring wells. Analyzed wa~er chemistry and piezometric data.
Seawater Intmqon Monitoring, Los Alami~os Gap Seawater Intrusion Barrier, Los Angeles
County, California. Evaluated 'we[I data to m~v2tor the advancement of chlohde plumes and
p~ezometri;c heads ,along the barrier in multiple stratified aquifer zones; drilled, designed, and
morntoted construction of injection wells ~o protect threatened portions of barrier.
Seawater intrusion Monitoring, Santa Ann (Ta!bert) Gap Barrier Project, Orange CounD',
California. Evaluated newly cor:atvucted wells data to aquifers protected by the Talbert
Injection Barrier. Parlicipated in Talkerr Barrier rehabilitation includJ~g well lixer
installation and surface leakage gr'outmg.
Prepared atereal report of hydrogeologic cross sect/o~ near Orange County Water DislaSct's
.~mahcim recharge operations inclucLing the consu'uetion era structural contour map repr,~cntmg
the base of the produ¢iblc groundwater/n eastern Anaheim.
Performed duties of'the O[a~gc Cotmty Water District Santa Ann River Watermaster resultrag
in the Annual Report of the Santa A~a River Watermaster (1991-1996) being written and
filed with the Superior Court of Orange County.. Ta~ ieciuded collection ~nd analyses of
surface flow and quality dam of the Santa Pma River and jKs tr/butari¢s to determine base
flow, ~torm flow, ,red water qualiD, discharge requirements. Analyses were performed to
117
15:42 FAX 9~19 980 26-13 DAVIES & ~IOORE ~007
ANDREW J. CAMPBELL, R.G., page 3
determine whether OCWD received their court appointed allotment of surface water from
upstceam agencies.
EvaIuated conjunctivc use well applica~ons fbr Mesa Consolidated Wate~ Dis~ict a~d fl~e Cities
of Santa Ann and Anaheim. Autllor of 3-to 5-page reports sunmint/zing the anticipated geology
and gmundwatel' quality at' proposed groundwater production well sites.
Professional
Affiliations
South Coasl Geological Society
National Water Works Association
National Ground Water Association
Toastmasters batemotional
Hydrogeologic Repori~
Santiago Creek Recharge Project - Phase I Eydrogeologic Investigor/on, 1991, Orange CottoW Water
District
Prelimintu'y Hydrogeologic Configaration of the Amabehn-Forebay Aqmfexs, Orange County,
California. 1992 - OCWD Interar, J Report.
Nature and Occurrence of Colored Water within the Orange CormW Groundwater Ba~qin, I995.
Orange Cotmty Water District.
Hydrogeologic Evaluation of the Groundwater Production l°oteatial Beneath the Former Santa A~a
Heights Water Company, April 2~1, 1998, Prepared for Irvize Ranch Water Di~lrict.
Presentations
Natme and Occurrence of Grotmdwater, Corn Sirerigs Wash, Chuckwall:, Matmt,~tins, Riverside
Cou. aty, Cali.~ornia, 1997, San Bernardino Museum 1997 Desert Rese.~rch Symposmre, San
Bernardino, Abstract with Papers.
Design and Utikzafion &Deep Multi-Depth Monitonng WetIs, 1997, Naliona[ Water Well
Association 1997 Outdoor Action Conference, La~ Vegas, Nevada.
Site Charactersorion tbr New (h'omadwaler Productior, Wells, March 1998, Geophysical Logging
Seminar held by Barbour Well Surveying, Camonile, California.
118
ATTA CI-]TM~.~ 2
119
Attachment 2
Profile Namc
West Bounda~,
Lots 1-2 Boundary
Sundowncr Co a~'l
Lots 3-I0 Bo,mdary
Buckskin Court
Lots 12-19 Boundary
Lon~ Ac~¢s Cou~t
]_,eta 22-32 Boundary.
Paddeck
East Bounda~
Table
$urnmatioll Calculations of
P~teatial Debris Fill Volume
On Tract ]4771
Distance
Cros~
Sectional Axerage Between
Aroa (f¢ot:) Plofile$
0.0 oa
1,186.9 593.5
1,:69.2 1~328 I 1~.8
g,618.6 3,043.9 225.2
6,52S2 5,573,4 2a9,2
7,310.1 6,919~1 235 2
8,~7.6 8,093 8 212.8
6,759.5 7~818 5 228.4
12,255 7 12,134.6 224.4
To~qls
Oebris
Volume
221,52!
655,491
1,388,895
1,62'7,383
1,722,370
[,785,754
2,267,890
2,722,997
Volume
(acre-feet)
3
16
32
37
40
41
52
288
120
%Ve~t i]ounda~T
T!ble/,-2
Calcelaliuns oF
Protile Cross Section Fill
Aere~ Tract 14771
ITeLal
Ro
Conroar Profile Delta Fill
['"lJ t IElevatma
[nle~'~ Dis~m~ Dis~an~
Z2~4 0.0~ ~ 2,284 0.0
~250 30.0 3~.0 2,284 4.0
~275 56.0 26.0 2,2~ 9.0
~170 72.0 16.0 2,2~ 14.0
2,268 97.2 25.2 2,284 16 ·
L2681 102.0 4,8 2,284 16.0
2:2701 116.4 14.4} 2,282 i2.4
2,275 124.8 8A 2,281 6.4
2,280 136.0 11 2 2,780 0.O
Area
S~ndow'~cr Court
Contour Proli[e Della Fill
Fill Fieration
Inletval Distar~ DisConce
(fe~) (f~U (feet)
2.a~5 0.0 Z,ZT~
2,273 25.6 25 6 2,275 20
2,275 34.0 8A 2,275
2,277 40.0 6.0 !,275, 0 0
2,27? 4N.O ~ 0 2,225
2,275 68.0 20.0 2,275 0.0
~270 I 14.0 46.0 2,275 5.0
2,265 152.4 3a.~ 1,275 I~ .0
~260 182.0 29.6 2,275 15.0
2,255 1 ~.0 12.0 2,274 1
Z~55 210.0 16~ 2,~72
2,26C 216.8 6.8' 2271 10,9
2265 2Z4.8 8 .O '~ 2~70 4.9
2,269 232.4 7.6 2~69 0.0
C.0
Fro6te
60.0
169,0
184.0
378,0
76.8
204 5
7S .9
35.?
1:186,9
Profile Area
(Fcet:q
25.6
O0
115.0
288.0
:370.0
~02.3
63.4
18.7
1,469.~
- ...:. ,.,;.,..
O 100 200 3~ 400 ~ GO0 700
0 100 200 300 4~ 500 ~0 too
Distance
?.?,Z 1'6!.O T~.4
Z,L',I ItZ.4 10.4 2,27~ {7.~
~,76~ 118.0 ~ 6 2,275 {5.~ 396
Z,26i i2~.O 4.~, 2Z7~ 14.} ~7.l
2,255 1~.8 I O.O 2~75 ~ 0 l~ 0
2.1~ ]}10 lJ.~ 2~74 22 I
2,!50 2~.4 {O.{{ 2~73 22~8 2}3.7
2.2~0 216.4 {,0~ 2~72 21,9 17i.8
2,250 2~.4 {4.0
2, Z46 2fl. O 27.6
2.~6 275.6 17.6 2~65
22)0 2~ 9.2 2~63 I~.b 14L4
2~5 2~.0 9.~ ~ V 3 95.6
22~0 302.0 [0 2~6l
BU. '04~tfm Ca,~mrt
2~ 12.0 t2.O 2,273 3.0 II 0
2.26J 5s,2 43.1 2~73 10 237,6
2.2~0 92 0 36.~ 2,2T3 t3.0
2,]$7 1~.4 ]2.4 2~73 td.O
2255 1t~.6 5.l 2~73 t~.O
2)50 131o g 4 7,273 ~l.o 17) 2
2~46 191.6 J3.6 2,27{ 3~.3
9,~S0 203 2 t 1 6 }~2~ Eg.9 262 I
2~Jt 2~.0 2.8 2,2~ I{.~
2~50 2~.0 160 ~ iT,6 2gj.9
2~45 2~.0 42.0 2,262 I~.4
2~40 2~ 4 ]e.4 L2~ 19.9 3~.~
2538 30{4 !4.0 Z~57 190 466.5
2~]1 343 6 96 ~251 21.6
3~M ~60.0 2.0 2.25t 2~6
Z23i 36& ~ ~.l 2.2~ 11.5 17~_4
~255 393 (; Z9.2 2,~ 6 t !.0 430 q
Z.2~ 4u4.0 6_g 2,245 ~
6.5~N 2
J2-1q~ !~sda~~
Fi.[I
~ill Elev'~on
2;~a o.o 2,2ss o 0
2~SS 46,0 ~0 2,2~1 ~ fi 6q
2~50 9S.g, 52.~ 2,2~ 1.0 290.4
2,24S i~ & ~o 2.25~ t3.0
L235 2160 t6.~ 2.~8 23.0
2,2~1 ~40 18.0 2,2~8 26.8 448.0
2,230 ~6.8 ~2.8 2~56 2~.~ 339 1
2,221 276.0 ~9.2 2,2S3 256 756.6
2:227 282.0 60 2,232 24_9 1~1.5
2~0 295.6 13 6 ~25~3 )3 2 306 7
2~)1 3~.0 44 2,250 1&7 85.5
2,250 30~.6 S8 2,249 l&6 164 O
2,225 3400 3[.2 2,24~, 19.~
2,220 3K8.O' 4S0 2,~9 189 ~7. l
2,217 424.0 36_0 2~M 17.4 653.7
2,216 ~64A ~4 2)29 L3.5 624.9
2,220 484.0 19.6 22.27 7. t ~i.6
2,~5 490.0 6.0 2,226 J3 233
2;~6 402 g 2 ~ 2,226 0.0 I.~
Total
Area 7,3]0
~¢res
Coo~ Pro{de Delta " Fill
(F~t} (f~t) (fc~) fica) (;~}
~250 0_0 2,~ O 0
2.245 50.0 50.0 2250 50
2,2~ 884 58.4 2~50 [ O0
2,235 13~.0 4~ 6 2~
2.~O 164.U 320 2,250 20.0
2~6 211.2 47 2 2,250
2~5 7~.0 ~0.8 2,2~ 20.9
2~ 256.0 140 2,244 20.2
~20 ~8.0 12.0 ~,243 ~2.7
~210 328.0 38.0 2,~5 25.4
2,~ 344.0 t6.0 2,2t3
~.210 JS~O 6.0 Z2~3 2Z7
2,214 362.11 12.0 223l 17.2
2,210 420,0 5g.O 2~ 14.1
2~ 4540 34.0 2220 14.9
2200 498.O 44.0 2,214 14.5
2,t96 533.2 3~.2 2,2]0 14.2
~205 ~U.& 23 2,~
2,2~ 5672 6.4 2,2~ 0 0
Profile Area
(Feet~)
I25.0
560.O
1,03].6
687.5
2~8 0
257.7
525.5
957,7,
14t.2
2~9.2
906 $
492.5
646.7
504.6
264,2
12.5
$.7
-p
Cantoar ' ]~mfOc Dtl~. '
2.~0 It4 8 52.n
~ts i74.L ~.~
2,~ 2960 44
2,~ ~ZO ~6.o
~t~ 47,~.2 1,4 '
~[75 5~.0
2.t7s S4ZO
2,1~5 6~.i 36~
LI~O &36.6 35.2
~163 4~.0 ~.0
~tSt ~0: ~4.0
2,tdg Tl7~ It~
2.16~ 7~6e
2, lTe 734.0
2.]73 7]8.1
4.0 ~$.~
2.~ 9.0 J36.0{
2,~9 t4 o
2,735 13.9
2220 9.8
~216 15.9 iJt.2
2,~a ~6,U 6IO_l
~l~ 73 ~oi.~
2,t~z 7.3
~,lO2 li I 19.4
2.]$5 9.2 Ig5~7
2:Jg4 3.? ~ ~.7
2,230, 60
~30 5.0 l~S.o
~3o IO.O ~.o
~230 t5 0 3460
~.4
IS.]
let
2,}05 2~,4
2.199 23 6 t,~7
2,1~1 ~2 2 274.&
2,196 17,l l~.7
LI~ 14.9 J4~.6
~186 ]~.0 J~lO
~l~ 1~ ? '199.4
2,1M 200
2,176 t5.7 1~.2
2.]T~ 96 111,O
To, aT
2221 0.0 * ~21
2~20 4.0 4.0 2.2~I I 0 2.0
2~15 4gB 4a 0 2,~1 6,0 154.0
2210 860 3&O 2,221 [ 1.0 3~.0
Z205 1440 5gO 2.2211 16.0
2,~0 176.61 32.0 2~2~1~ ~1.0 592
2,198 196.~ ~.0 2,~i1 ~3.0 4400
2,198 228.0 32~1 2,221 ] 23.0 736 0,
~x95 2so.o 52.o 2,~2o 24.s
2 190 352.a 26.a 2~li 20.6
2,185 4~.0 4?2 ~,>05 19.8 954.0
~,l~ 432.0 17.6 2,201 169 333.8
2,180 ~8.8 36.8 2~ 196 16 4 611.9
2,178 504.4 35.6 2,192 14 0 540.5
2,1~5' 516.0 116 2,19t 156 171.5
2,172 548.4 32.4 ~187 14.6 4887
2,170 ~64.8 164 2,1~5 t46 2~9.2
2,166 5760 !! 2 7,183 177
2,166 6~0 100~ 2,178 II 6 126.7
2,165 630.0 8 0 2,t 77 I 1.6 925
1.165 6~0 100 2,[75 103 1096
2,1~ 6~ 0 540 ~.i69 g 7 514.7
~55 73fi8 36.g 2,1~ 92 329.6
2,150 76g 0 37 2 2.160 9.6 :t50.2
2.145 78&0 20.0 2.157 122 2181
2:143 802.0 14.~ 2,155 12.5 172.4
2,145 808.8 6.8 2.155 ~ 6 75 I
2.150 8160 7 2 2,154 t7
2,153 8220 6.0 2,153 O.0 11.2
Totat
~a 12285.7
90_9. 980 2613 [~A,~IE$ & .~100RE ~001
WOLFGANG H. ROTH
TITLE
EXPERTISE
EDUCATION/
ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
REGISTRATIONS
LANGUAGES
EXPERIENCE
WI~kI FIRM
Principal, Dames & Moore, Los Angeles
Tuxmeling
Foundation l~ngmeermg
Earthquake Engineering
Numexical Modeling
Oeot~chaicaI lastrumm~mtioa
i967, Diploma (]MS), Civil Eagiaeenvg, Tectmical University Graz, Austin.
1968-73, Scientific Assistant wi'.h ~ofessor C~istian Vedcr, T.C. Gin.
Austin.
1973, Doetin' of T~c~cal Scien~ (Ph.D.), T.U. Graz, Aus~a; ~esis:
Exper~atal Studies ~f~ost Heaves,
t973-73, Post Doctors;. Schot~ with Prof~ser K.L. Lee, UaiversiD, of
Calilbmia, Los Angeles.
1975-77. vis;itMg Associate Professor, Ca~olic Universi~ cf~o 5~ Janeiro,
Brazil. Geotee~micM
Member ASCE, A. mertcan Underglound-Coastmction A~sociatioa (AUA), Tmmel.hxg
A~sociafion of Canada (TAC), Earthquake Enghaeerir, g Research Institute lEEILl),
U S Committee on Large D-ams (USCOLD).
CivA Engineer (PE), Geetechnical Engineer [dE) California ~md Austr/a.
Erghsl~, German, Portuguese (working knowledge).
Pri.ccipal m Charge/Project Manager. since 1978.
Turinels:
LA Me~xo Redline, MO$-I, Segmeait 2, a~d Segment 3; ongoing since 1984; Chic
geol~clmical advksor to Construction Manager PDCD and later PD Oagoir, g
evaluation of ratreel-construction means and methods in wide wtriety of ground
conditions iacludkng $flt/sar.6stone, young and old alluvium, with and without
groundwater.
Techsterri supern'ision of up to 12 geoteeh engineers and g~ologists preparia
tunnet face sketches mound the clock
- Recommenadations for pre-tunnelmg chemical grouttrig
- Recommendations for post-tunneling compensation/compaction groutrag
Lr'aplementation of modified excavation techniques to improv~ face control
- 'Trainir, g sessions with tunnel insp,ctors and shield op~ratoxs
Tvronto subway: Member of Technical Review Board for Underground
Constr0ction, Rapid Transit Expansion Program, for Toronto Transit Commission
ongoing since 1994.
· Taipei subway tunnels: investigation of EPB-TBM failure, fra Thomas Howell
Group, international i~suranc, adjusters.
Pacoime Dam spillway tunnel: £¢asibilicy study, conceptual and final design of
tmxnel enlarg~mlealt in ltard rock, for Department of Public Works, Los Angeles
County.
126
,~,16, u.~ 14:;.~5 ES1 90~; 950 2643
Wolfgang H. Roth
Page 2
Empire Tunnel crossing Coos Ba>', Oregon: Feasibility study of sunken-tube
t~-mei concepts as alteruates to bay crossing by bridge, for Ore§on Deparmmnl
Tr~s~tion.
Vincen~ S~'eet Sto~ D~ ~unncl: g~c~ical inves[ig~tion~ reco~enda~o
of mnnel~g tecbmqucs~ md consulfin8 on ~ou~ng procedures dur~g ~el
cons~ucdon, for Deponent of Public Works, LA Coyly.
~ Me~o Red Line, MOS-I: V~ue engineering of three downtm~ smtmas an
3 mnncI sections: Reco~eadadons for t~el~g melons, rextool design
conswu~ioa de~il~ to reduce ~e costa of~e original d~si~.
LA M~o Red L~e: Membor of ~peciaI task force to evaluate fe~ibili~ of
cons~ing ~atioas by mining m~hods instead o~ cu~-~d-cover.
LA Metrorail: Dynamic analysis ~o i~vestiga[e eanhqu~e b~avior of
~e~fforced concrete ~nnel Hner.
N~ Ouffall Replacement Sewer (NG~): Invemgafioa of $3 million
condition claim related to EPB so~-~o~d m~eling ~der high go~dwa.ter,
Ciiy of Los ~g~les.
NORS: ~ves~a~on of $2 ~i~ ch~ged-coadifioo cintra related to ~o~d
due :o ch~ey~g in ~ dune s~d under Los ~geles ~ntcma:ioaal At~oa,
Ci5~ of Los ~geles.
Oce~s~e Minor ~am~e runnel: G,o~echnica~ ~vestig~on~ Cesiga
cons~cfioa maragemcat for drainage tun~el ~u~ I~ndslide debra.
East Vai:ey ~t~rceptcr Sewer (~VIS): Evaluation of ch~ged-conditioas
coas~on cla~ for runnelrag rs. trench~g, for Cit? of Los Angeles.
Stone C~y~a ReSel~Off Outl~ ~el: Evaluation of changed-conditions
cons~ctJon cla~ re'.a~ed m ~M ~ct~g h~ aoit gouna, ~br Los ~gelcs Dep~
of Wat~' ned Power.
Foundation Engm eering:
LA Metro Redline, MOS-I, Segment 2, ami Segmeal 3 for PDCD and later PD:
Chief g:otecl~fical advisor to CM on all aspects of station excavation support,
including in~erprelation of' gcorechnical monitonng.
· Several Hi-ris,s in LA m'ea: Consulting on dewatering, tic-back excavahcn sappot
and foundation design.
Channel Island Waterfrcn:: Desitin of remedial measures for pil:ing-related
bulldle~d failu.-es, I~r Boise Cascade
EPCOT Center, Orlando, FL: Analyses of field tests for monorail piers, bulkheads
gills on soft grinrod.
® Diatomitc Mine. Lornpoe, C,A: ~valuatioa ofquany stability ~x the wake ef recen
sur~-~ce faulting events.
* Liquefacnon studies for various indust'-ial, h~bor, commercial, alld oth,r facilities
Landslide Sradies:
Las Flores Canyon~ Malibu. CA: Landslide mitigation study incluring technical
public ~n¥olvement a~d financing asFects, for LA Count},.
Oceanside Manor, CA: L,'mdslide investigation, consulting on mitigaSen,
including legal d~fense aspects..
· Big R~,k M~sa, M~-lib~t, CA: r~vJ. ew of work by o~er$, consultLag on quezon
of future slide beF~avio~.
· Pacific Palisades, CA: L,'mdslide investigatio~ alld rr~itigation~ ~xper~ witross fo
public hearings, for Occidental Petrolretro Corporation.
· Edgewater Towers~ Pacific Palisades, CA: Inspection of potential slicle
2/4
127
Wolfgang H. Roth
Page 3
consulting on drainage systems.
· Bel Air Bay Club, Pacdic Palisades, CA: Review of work by others,
recommendations on instrumentation.
· Field recorma~ssaace of various !~dslid~ along P~, b~een Malibu ~d Sant
Moifi~ for ~e Nation~ Flood lns~ Pro,am of FE~; e~n co~t wigess
Earthquake ,adtalyses of'Dams and Embankments:
NSF research with Caltech: Development of earthquake stmu.~ator for centrifuge
shaking tests and numerical aaalysJs.of model embankments
· Pleasant Valley and South Haiwee Dams. LADWP: Nonlinear. effective-stress
analysis of earthquake-J. udueed deformations.
· Garvey Reservoir, MWD: Seismic stability of dams ant aaUlral slopes.
· Las Tor;olas Dam, Exxon Minera!s~ Chile: Nonlinear analysis of eachquake-
induced deformations.
Lake Sherwood Dam, Thousand Oaks, CA: 3-D analysis of concrete arch dam,
stabilily of rock abutments.
Lihk Gold Project, New GuLnea: 730-foot higll gold ore stockpile.
South Haiwee Dam, California: 80-feat high l~ydraulic
· Los Leones Dam, Chile: 620-foot high rolled earThfill dam.
North Halwee Darn, California: 40fleet high hydraulic fill dm-a.
· Tinomaha Dam, California: 40-foot high hydraulic flit dam.
Upper San Fernando Darn, D&M: 1971 San Fernando earthquake.
· Van Norman Dams, NSF: 1971 San Fernando and I994 Northridge case h~tor~e
of Upper and Lower San Fernando Dams and Los Angeles Dam.
Numerical/Physic'~J Modeling Studies:
· P;er J: Seismic deformation, soil-pile interaction, a~d liquefaction analysis.
· Berths 118, Port of Long Beach: Seismic deformation, soil pile interaction, and
liqu efacuon analysis.
· Slip 2~ Port of Long Beach: Seismic deformation, ,oil-pile interact/on, &rid
liquefaction analysis.
· Pier A, Port of Long Beach: Seismic deformalien, soil-pile interactJoy, and
liquefaction analysi~.
· Port of Long Beach, CA: Soil-su'ucrare interaction analysis, Pier G, for deepelfin
of existing wharf, field verification of predicted deformations.
· Dynamic analyses fra' hydraulic-fill relentloll dikes and pile-supported wharf
stmctule~
· VELACS Class A numerical predictions of NSF-sponsored cea~ifx~ge tests.
· Rankin N "A" offshore platform, Australia: Development o[ oonstitutive model fo
calcarenite, verification with field test results, design analyses.
· Kaiser Steel, offsk. ore-plafforrn as$embiy yard, LA Harbor: Settlemeres ~.nalysi
for 900-kip$-capaci~ cranes on structural ~l on soft foundation.
· Korean Institute uf Energy Resources: Numerical analys'~s of jointed-rock
foundation for nuclear reactor buildings.
· Proposed LNG plant, Point Coac, ep~ion, CA: Nar'aerical aaalyse~ and centrifuge
testaug, prediction of bedrock offsets and propagation in soils.
· LA Metro Red Line: Numerical ModeiMg ef deep based excavation in siltstone
following an incident of strut bucking.
· Texas Low Level Radioactive Wrote Disposal Facility, Texa~: Seismic soil-
structure hlteraction azmly~es o£ 40~foot deep disposa~. trenche~ fi~.led with two
3/4
Wolfgang H. Roth
Page 4
layers of reinforc¢¢ co.~crcte canisters and multi-',ayer engin¢crec~ cap,
Puente 14ills Landfill C~ffor~a: Defo~mion ~d s~b[~ analyses of up to 500
foot high slo~ in beddcd rock.
M~o K~d L~e, California: Seismic pc~b~ance of Cmal ~pmel liner wi~
wl~eut reinforcement.
Men'o ~ L~nc. C~ifomia: Sub~.dcmce and ~age to prelimk~,
at Holmrood ~d H~n
Me~ Red Line, C~lffomia: 100-feet deep excavation support system for
repai~ ~ha~ at HolI~o~.
NOP. S Tt~el, California: ModelLag ofEPB muckin~ system for Tunnel Bo~
Machine
P~uelm LNG Pr{ect, Poe~, R:co: Scism:c defonn~on ~d liquefac~on analyse
for LNG tank on stone co'~uma t~unda6on.
7rh~daO LNG Projea. TrYdad: T~,e-dependeat bem'hg-capaci~ md
~alysis ofLNG t~k nng fo~dat~ous found on ratch ~d clay soils.
MCON P-70[) Ngv~ A~ Station, Nogb Isl~,L Caiiforaia: Liquefaci~on
dym~ic yoil.pile-s~act~ ~t~r. cfion ~alysis
S).'LT,~ ~md ~taldi Powe: Slat[one, Van Nom~ ComFkx, C~'.lifemia: Seismic
soil-~lc~e ~te/amior malysis ofp~e fom~dat one ~d sup,r s~ctares d~:g
1'094 'No~idge em~uake.
USC Hospit~ C~b~Ja: Cbmpl'catcd exc,~cfion schemes suF~o.xed N/archore
sheetpales
Stain Te~mual, 51. Eusfia: 500-foot high rock-rabble slope.
Hebrew Union Cdbwal[, California. Back-~a[~sis of h[iure ~f nO-foot
cribwall 0u, to poor ~amage conditions.
Stone Poht, Califbmia: Analysis of creep-induced ~1opc defamation, ~d
stabi~'tioa menus'es a~t,g pa~-s¢cssed
Vitlage Estates. C~[ifomia: An~.¥~i~ of slope movements induced by
groinrag
Visi~g Pn~fzsaor ~d Coasukkqg Geoteclmical Eng~ecr. Catholic Univ~sity of ~o d
3[~JI~Mo~ Br~zfi, 1975-1977.
Field ms~mentatioa Ibr subway ccas~c~on in Kio de Janeko.
Tcs~ fills on so~ cia3,, ibr B~lJiu~ h~sti?ate of Road Rcsem-ch.
Fteld :est x~i~ stm'~e cai~s, ore loadag Ihcihee~ on so[~ clay.
I,'~t Doctoral Scgc. la' and Rese~h D~**!opment ingh~eer, wifl~ lale Professor Kennet
Lee, UCLA, 1973-1975.
Ins~cmtat:on ~d numerical ar~al,./s~s for a 190-foo1 b~ement wall.
Static and dynmic soil ~es~g Jot o~hore platforms mid dams.
Stanc mud dynmic ~mire element analyses ~or var[ou~ em~h d~n~.
Co~sul~nt and 5c:cnu/2c Assista~ Tec)',nical UmversiW, Graz, Aus~a, wi~ ProE Ch
Ved~r; aiso wi~ ICOd-Vi¢~a.
Field tests w~ stone columns ~d ve~cal ~*a21s for l~'ge ill:
Load tcsls on slun~y wall elem~mt~ to deterrent tip load and s~
Design m~d cons~cuoa supep~mion ofslu~ walls for Vk~a subway
ln~cs:igmSm m~d rnit;ga~on of n~etous l~d~)~i~s in S~ia, Aus~ia.
PrMc- wm~g corcept for st'abilmhon Leaoing Tower of Pi~a, Italy.
Design of ~ost laborator/~md exper~e,tal sladics oa ~ost heave.
4/¸4
129
~9,16,'9b 14:36 FA)i 9t19 95t~ 26t3 I)*.)IES & ~I00RE ~]00§
Wolfgang H. Roth
Page 5
PUBLICAn[IONS
Numerous papers, il~cluding topics on seismic stability of each structuxcs, practical
appl~ce~ions of numerical mocl~liag m geote.cbazical engi.ueering, physicaI model resthug
and ~bandation design aspects.
130
1.4:36 F.~.);. 9o9 980 26.1,3 [~A~fES & )[00RE ~00~1
ANDREW J. CAMPBELL, R.G.
Tillc
Project HycLrogeologist
Registrations Registered Geologist #6110. State of Calitorr2a
Certified Hydrogeologist ~478, State of Calitbtaia
Education
B.S., Geological Scicmcea, 19119 cure taud~, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
M.S. in progress, California State University, Long Br~ch
California Slate University International Program, 1987-88
University of Taebiagen, West Germany
Professional
History
Dames & Moore
Project Hydrogeologist
Seasonal aquifer storage potcmtial of Paten Valle3, and Rice Valleys, Riverside Coua.ty
California. Available data and literalroe were evaluated for to develop conceptual
hydrogeologic models of the two valleys. These data were supplemented by water level.
water quality, and infiltration data collected d~2ng field recomtaissance, Cross sections were
constructed and numerical modeling was perr~,rmed to evaluate location and feasibility of
recl~mcge and ex~acfion facilities. The storage potemi~ of the ~ouadwater basin storage was
zalculated usir, g hypothetical scenarios. The alleels of cultural, biological, and lana-us-~
eonstra~t~ on a gutare project imp;ememarioa were also evah:at~d,
Seasonal Aquifer Storage Potential of Haylleld and Chucks'alia Valleys, Riverside County,
Cali£omia, Available data and literature were evaluated ~o dewlop conc~tua~ by.geologic
~d numenc~ MODFLOW model of ~e grouchier b~s Existing data were
suppl~mer. ted by wamr levels, water qu~i~/ ~d ~fi!~on data collected d~g field
re~nnaisa~, Cross s~ctions were cons~ted ~om available borehole info.aliGn.
mo~l~g was used to predict ~ffer slor~e vo;omes and facilities loomion sites. The affec~
of cuE~al, biological, ~d l~d-use cons~am~ on a ~re project implemmtation were also
evaluated. T~geted loomions wm'e then selected for infil~afion rate meas~ement
rech~ge bashi l~d t'~uk~enr~ were emmated
Evaluation of Oroundwatcr Production Potential b~meath ~e former Santa .area Heights Water
Company, l~xj~ting piezomeWic. water qualily, [ithologic data were compiled and evaluated to
eslamate appropriate well locations ~d construction for future pro4uction we!Is in the area of the
former Santa Ann Heights Water Coml:~my. Cross sections were constructed ~howmg aquifers
of varying quaLily and d~p~s beneath the evaluated area. Kecommendations wcwe provided to
locate and construct a large capac'.ty production well
Groundwater Kesourees Assessment of v~ious groundwater basins witEin the sou~em dose~
of sou~ for a private client. ~ selected b~Bs, wall canvasse~ were conducted to iden~
e~s-~g docmxmnted and undocmented wells ~d to obm~ ~ouadwater qualiW samples ~d
data on d~fl~ to ~o~dwatcr. ExploratoD' ~il~g was conducted and woes were installed.
Pump tests w~e coaduc~d ~ e~h of ~e wells to evalua~ aquifer propeffies ~d potential
yields of prodnoVon wells ~stalted ~ fl~e m'em. At ~e conclusion of ~e ficl~ ~d ~st~g
propros, MODFLOW models were created to evatuatc pr~uction we~ field ~pact md
volume of producible ~otmdwat~. U~amd gro~dwater reinurns ev~uatiou reports were
prepared.
131
ANDREW J. CAMPBELL, R.G., page 2
Orauge County Water District
Project Hyd rogeologist
Evaluated effectiveness of ~.ewly operational groundwater recharge basins alon~ Santiago
Creek, OralIda Coul~ty, 'Califolllia. Drilled and oversaw eonslrtlctioa of deep, multi-point
monitoring wells; COrk~tZllcted hydro§eoiogic cross section; analysis of piecemeter elevations
· nds 'Is'face slid groundwa~r chemistry; and e~teulated grotl~dwater flow velocities, recharge
Orange County Water District's t~aler Resources' ln. tbrm. afton Management System
development. implementaLien, and ann!yah. ~'/~ database ~s a deposi:ory and analyses toot
containing over well borehole, coa.~ffuction, and w~er quality data flora over 5,000 wells.
Responsibilities included developing portions of computer code, data field structuring, and dat~.
,'laanipulat'ion b¢'~,~,een Oracle aJad .AutoCAD so.'~,v-ar¢. Project analyses using the W~MS
database on numerous well field eval'.latiolls
Coocep:ua Hydrogeologic Mo~e[ Orange County Omuodwater Basin Constructed and
correlated multiple cross-sections tkrough the Oralida Count3, Groundwater Ba.sm. each
~eprese~nting up to ~,000 feet in depth ~ 15 miles iq length. Correlations made ~Lr.g muir,-
depth piecerecline data and water qu~lity analyses, geophysical logs. and !iUlologic logs~
Construction of structural como,- mops ;¢proacnting aquifer tops and bottoms t~r ~ree-
dimensional computer modeling
Evaluation of the r. ature and occurrence of colored groundwater within the Orange Ceu~ .t-y
Ground~'atrr Basin. Evaluated well construction, piezometric, and wa~.er quality data ~om
produetior. and monitoring wells to coi~truct geologic cross sections and maps to define the
fi',ree-dimer, siona! occurrencc~ of' colored groundwater within the Orallg¢
groundwaler basin
Evaluated the geology and hydrogeoiogy of constructed wetlands wi~ai~ ~e PraOo Dam
Reservoir, Riverside Cottory to deteemine i~teracfiot~s between surface and groundwater wi~h
respect to quality emd areas of rish:g groundwater, Coara~¢ted and supervised drilting and
construction cf 15 monitoring wells. Analyzed water chemistry a.ad piezomelric data-.
Seawater in~usion Monitoring, Los Alumarcs Gap Seawater mmuion Barrier, Los Angeles
County, C'alii;0mia. Evaluated well Cam to monitor the adv~cemem of chloride plumes and
piezome~ric beads along the barrier in multiple stratLfie<t aquifer zones; drilled, designed, aud
monitored construction of inJection wells to protect r2areateaed portions of barrier.
Seawater Intrusion Moaitori.ng:, Santa Ann (Tall>e/t) Gap Barrier Project, Orange Count>,
Califomia. l~valuated newl)' constructed welis data to aquifers protected by tl'.e Talbert
Injection Barrier. Participated in Talbert Burner rehabfiitation including well liner
installation and surface leakage grouttog.
Prepared in;emal report of' hyc[rogeologi¢ rs'ess sections neac Orange County_ Wate~ District::s
An~l~eim recharge operations including the eon~tmction of a ~tructur~l contour map representing
the base of the producible groundwater in eastern Anaheim.
Performed duBes of the Orange County Water District Santa Ann River Watermusic: resulting
in the Annual Report of the Santa 3ms Ri~er Watermaster (1991-1996) being written an~
flied wiLa the Superior Cotul of Orange County, Tasks included collection and analyses of
s,,,--face flow and qualiw data of the Sa:ata Pma River mad its tributaries to determine base
flow, storm flow, and water quality discharge requirements. Amalyses were performed to
132
14:37 FAX 909 ~$0 2643
ANDREW J. CAMPBELL, R.G,; page 3
determine whether OCWD re 'c~ived their court appointed allotment of surface water from
upstl'eam agencies.
Evaluate! con]unctive use wee al~plications for Mesa Consolidated Water District and the Cities
of $fmta Aria and Anahehn. AuGor of 3-to 5-page reports summari;~lg the anticipated geolo~
and goandwater quality a~ proposed groundwater productioa well sites,
Professional
Afliliations
South Coast Geological Society
National Water Works Asso¢iatioa
Natioaal Ground Water Association
Toasunas~ers I~temational
Hydrogeologic Repor~
SamSago Ca eek Recharge P, oject -Phase I Hydrogeologic Investigation, 1991, Orange County Wa:er
District
Prel~,inary Hydrogeologic Config~a:ion of the Anakeim-Forebay Aquifers, Or,'mge Count,
California, 1992 - OCWD Internal Report
Na.'ur¢ and Occurrence of Colored Water within the Orange County Grcundwater Basin, 1995,
Orange C~m~y Water District
Hyclrogeotogic gva2uanon of the Groundwater Production Potential Beneath th= Former Santa Aria
Heights Water Company, April 28, 1998, Prepared for lrviae Ranch Water District.
Presentatioas
Nature al~d Occurr~ace of Grotmdwater, Corn Springs W~h, Chuckwalla Moumak~s, Riverside
Co,~ty, California, 1997, San Bernardino Museum 1997 Desert Research Symposium, San
Bernardino, Abstract wi~ Papers.
Design anO Utillzatioa of Deep Multi-Depth Monitoring Wells, 1997, National Water Well
Association 1997 Ou~oor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada
Site Character/zatioa for Ne~ Groundwater Prodaction Wells, Match 1998, Geophysical Logging
Se.,mi~m- held by Batbout Wet1 Surveying~ Camarillo, Califbmia.
133
Sent by: LOEB & LOEB 21;3 c588 3460; 09/16/88 6:11PM;)e[F~_#477;Page ;!/3
LOEB ,',L EB LLP
1 000 WILSHIR£ BOUU~VARD
Suite 1BD0
TELEPHONE: 213-688-3400
F,~CS~ ~': 213-688-3460
10154 0037
T~. 212-4,37 4(~!o
FAx 212.407"4990
?AX:615749-~3~
011-396-6D,~ 8466
011 39R- 87~-~.23
Direct Dial No,
213-688-3622
e-mai I: BDVE [RIN(~lecb.com
Septcunbcr 16, 1998
BY HAND DEI.IVERY
The Honorable City Council
City of Kancho Cucamonga
10:500 East Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Administrative Record in Support of Cucamongans United
For Reasonable Expansion August** 22. 1998 ~ppeal
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expression hereby submit the
enclosed documonts in support of this appeal. It also incorporates by reference as set
forth fully all documents submitted in connection with the 1997 proceedings by any
party thereto before the City Council with regard to Lauren Development's Design
Review and Cristiano Partners Final Map. We further incorporate by reference all
pleadings submitted to the Superior Court thr the State of California and the United
States District Court in connection with Haven View Es .ta.tcs Homeowner_s _Association,
et al. v. City of Rancho Cucamonaa, ct al., SBSC Case No. RCV-31906; Cristiano
Partners I v. Rancho Cucamonga V-Haven V!ew Estates., et al., SBSC Case No. RCV-
33905; Cristiano Partners I v. William Angel~ ctal., SBSC Case No. RCV-33906.
Finally, we incorporate by reference as set forth fully all documents
requested in Thomas Bradford's Public Records Act Request dated September 10, 1998,
which the City staff was requested ~o bring m the City Council hearing this evening.
Sent U¥: LOEB & LOEB 213 688 3460; 09/16/98 6:11PM;J~.~j~j~L#477;Page 3/3
The Honorable City Council
September 16, ! 998
Page 2
Arrangements will be made immediately for a bonded copy service to copy those
documents upon being made availabla.
Very truly yours,
'-'-- Brant H. Dveirin "'-J
of Loeb & Loeb LLP
BHD:Itl
P 16312408
MCM25463.L02
Enclosures
Thurnl~ Lee Hester, Jr.
1353 Dorch~ter Drive
Norman, OK 73069
All Administrative, Judicial and
Legislative Offices with Authority
Over Lauren Devetopment's
Rancho Cucamonga Project
14 September. 1998
To Whom it may concern;
As a lecturer m~d writer in the field of environmental ethics m~d as a citizen of the
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and leader of central Oklahoma Choctaws, I stand opposed
to the proposed Lauren Development's Rancho Cucamonga projocr
The area m question is a threatened habitat which, though small in ~rea, nevertheless
constitutes a significant portion of the remaining Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
habitat. At this point any further loss is significant We ca,mot allow remaining
instances of this habitat to be destroyed jusl because some small remainder is left.
Natural disasters or ~mforeseen circumstances could destroy or cause an overwhelming
need to use other portions of this habitat m the future. We should not allow the
development of this area at this time when we do not know the potential threats ~hat the
few remaining instances of this habitat may face in the
As a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, a sometime agent of that ration and a
,Board Member of the' OK Cboetaw Tribal Alliance I am well aware of the long chain of
treaties between my government and the government of the United States. Amon~ other
things, these treaties guarantee a r~gh~ to hum in lands that include those tlu'eatened by
this project The Chcctaws, Chickasaws, Kiowas, Osages, Wichitas and many others
have such a r:ght and Iheir legal interest m maintaining this habitat for wildlife must be
consiclered.
As a researcher in the area of traditional medicines, I know that many of today's "medical
miracles" are actually the result of mooleto use of traditional Native American herbal
remedies. Plants are a vital part of the modem pharamcopoeia. Every habitat has uniqae
plm~ts whose uses may no~ yet be understood by the dominant society. At the very least,
local ~k, rt4ve..needsto be ea.~v~.~s¢,a eone~a,mg the plants in the area and time must be
gsven for research imo their uses.
Braides the pessible medical uses, traditional medicines represent an important part of
the culture of Native American tribes. The Federal Government of the U.S. has
attempted to destroy this culture in the past, but now recognizes that its past actions were
wrong and that it now has a duty to protect these cultures. Thought must be given to how
much this development will affect local Indian tribes' attempts to regain theL,' knowledge
of traditional medicines. A fairly large population of Choctaws five withi~x a short drive
134
Of t~le affected area and its maintenance rrmy materially affect their abili~ to reslorn and
maintain their culture. This matter is of such importance, that my work on it has been
recogmzed by the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. - - -,
kt addition to traditional medicines, u'~litional religions must be considered as well. The
Federal Government of the United States, recognizes the right of Indian people to practice
their traditional religion.. Local ~ populatio~l~ must bell~o~sulted concerning the
possible sacral nature of mis particular ar~a. Even if the ar~ff'~' not specificall:,. a holy
one, il is home to ¢ooper's hawks, red-tailed hawks and most importantly golden eagles.
These birds are saerrci to Indians of many tribes. They are just now beginning to make a
comeback from threatened extinction, largely from c'hemica} (pesticide) pollution. We
must not allow habitat loss to replace this former killer. Though all people should be
concerned with th~s problem, its affect on traditional religious practices and culture give
added tmpetus to this concern and may raise it to the status of a legal concern under
various acts guaranteeing Indian religious fi~edom
In sum, there are many reasons ~br caution in developing this area. Some of them,
particularly those relative to Native American. populations are outlined above. At the
very least, a serious far-reaching study should be undertaken on the proposed
development before any consideration is given to going ahead. Arguably, even withore
s:gnificant study, this area should be protected from development.
~el~eet~ullv,
Attachment: Letter of recommendation from
The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
135
by: LOEB & LOEB 212 GB834~0; 09/11/98 5:35AM;.Je~ #245;Pa;e 8/!3
Henry Bunerfield, intoprater.
TREATY WITH THE EASTER~ BAND SHOSHONi AND BANNOCK { l$6g, July
15 Sea:,, 673.
RatiCed FeB. 26, { 86~.
Proclaimed Feb. 2A, 1869_
Articles of a trca~ made and concluded at Fort Bridge, Uta~ Terntory. on the t~h'd day of Jt;ly, in the yea:
of our Lor3 one [housed eight hurtcited and sixth.right, by and between th~ undcrsign~ commissioners on
the pa~t of the United States. a.qcl Lqe undersigned chiefs and head-men of a~d representing the Sr~oshonee
(eastern band) and Ba..mack tribes of Indians, the)' bektg duly authorized to act in the premises:
ARTICLE i. From ~is day fot~vatd rgace }:st"ween :he part{es to this u-eary s~11 forever continue. The
Govgrnment of the United Sia~es desires {~:ace, and ~ts honor ~s hereby pledged to ~<eep it. The [ndian~
desire peace. axed they 'acreby pledge lheLr boa. or to maintain ..
If bad men among :he whites, or amor~g other people subject :o the authority of the U~itcd Sta~'~s, shall
commit ~ny wrong upon the person or proper'o' o£thc Indians, the Unitee States will, upon proof made to
the agent ~nd forwe. fdhd to :he Comm~ione.- of'Indian Affairs, at Washington Cir~', proceed =t once to
cause the of'Yender :o be a~es:ed and punished according to the laws of the United Status, a~d also
imburse the iajureO person for the loss sust~b~ed.
if b~'J met, among the In~an.s shall commit a w:ong or depredation upon the person or proDe,my of any oar,
white, black, or Indian. ~ubject to the au:hori~ of the United States, and a: peace therewith, the Indians
harem named solemnly agree that tl~y ,*'iiL on proof made to their agent and notice ~y h~m, deliver up the
wrong-doer to the tin:ted S~ates, :o be ~ried and pu,'~ished according to ~ laws; and in case :.h~y wilt~;lly
refuse so to do, :he p~,rson injured shall be re-imbursed for his loss from :he annuities or other moneys due
or to becom~ d~ :o li~.¢m under this or other mealies made with the United Scales. And :he President,
advi~ittg ~ ith .the Commissioner of indian Aff'[irs, shall prescribe such rules and regulations for
asce.'tainir. g d:~mages under :he provisic~ns of:h~s article ~ in his judgment may be prop~r~
But no such da,,uag¢s sha}l b: adjusted and paid until thoroughly ex,?,mined and pa~cd upon by
Commissioner cf [ndia~) Afters, and no o~ s~ainin~ loss while violating or ~aust of~i~ vicla;ing
p~visions of ibis tr~a~ or ~e lays of {he Un~d S~cs, shall ~ reimbur~d
ARTICLE 3. It is a~d ~a~ w~nev~ th~ ~nacks desire a rese~ation to b~ set ~a~ for ~e~r use, or
whenever the ~siden~ of the Umt~d States shah deem it advisable for them to b~ r~ ~pon ~ res~ahon.
he shall cause a suita~]~ one to ~ ~l~t~ for ~cm ~ th~ present coun:~, w~ch shall embra:e
reportable potions of the "Po. Neu~' ~d "~s ~airie" ~un~s, and t~t, when this re~vatior. is
declared, ~e United Smt~ ~ill sec~e to ~e Ba~n~ :he m~e rights and priv',leg¢s ~ercin, ~d m~e ~he
s~e md :ge expendentes L~re~ for their benefit. except ~e aggncy-hous~ ~ad r~idence of agent, in
pro~nion [o their numb~s, m herein provid~ f~ ~e Shoshonee ~ese~a:ion, ~e United Sea;es fu.Eer
a~'ees th:: ~qe follow:ns [10211 discice of count, m wit: Commencing at th~ mouth of O~'l Creek ~d
~nniug gut~ ~ou~ to ~e c~est of the divide ~e~ :he Sweel-wa:er ~d ~po Agie RJver~, thence
the cre~t of said divide &nd ~: s~i~ of ~'~d ~v~ Moun~ns m the iongi~dc of No~ Fork of Wind
R~ver; ~.enc~ d~c no~ to mouth of cid Noah York ~nd up its channei to a ~[ ~en~ m~ks above
mouth; ~encc in a s~ai~[ ~ine [o head-wagrs of Ow} Creek md along middle of channel of O~1 Creek
plug of b~ginning, s~1t ~ ~d C~ s~e is ~ apag for th~ abmoiu: and undisturbed use ~ cccup~tior. of
· e Sho~onee ladies hereta u~, a~ for such other friendly tribes or lndividu~ h~dlal~s as from t:me
:o time the)' may be will,nS, with ~c con. at of~e Unit~ Su~s, :o ~drnll amongst ~m; ~d me United
S~tes co~ $olemn:y agrees [b~ ao p~sons except :hose h~re~n ~ignal~d and ~uthorized so [o do, ~d
exert ~ office, agent, and employes of~qe Oovemmem a~ may be authori~d :o enter upon Indian
rese~a:ions in di~harge of d~ies enjome~ by la~, shall ever ~ perined to pass ova. s~tle upon, or
resi~ in ~e ~nilo~), ~scri~d it, this a~icle for the use of ~d lnd~s. ~nd b~ncefo~h :h~y will a~ do
hereby ~i~qui~ all title, claims, or righ~ in and to ~y ~.ion o~' the g~im~ of the United gtate~, ~cep[
such ag is :mb~ced %~{~in the lam~t~ aforesaid
136
by: LOEB & L3, EB 21'3 68834~0; 0g:11/98 5:36Au;.Jei~g #245;P~ce 9:13
^RTJCLE 3, The United Sates agrees, a~ its own prol~r exl:~mse, to con~ct a~ a
Shoshon~ ~e~at}o~ ~ w~u~,ou~ or sWrc-r~m 5or ~c use of[he ~cn= in storm~ ~ belonging m ~hc
Indians, ~ ~st not exuding ~o ~ou~d 4oh~s; ~ ~cy bulldog for the residence of[he z~.t, to
cos~ not cxce~in~ t~c thought; a r~id~e fo~ ~e physician. ~o cos~ no~ more th~ ~o th~nd
doilam; and five ~r bui!~n~, for a ca~nter, ~er, biacksmit~ mi'.l~r, and ongineer, ~ch
~xc~ing two [hound ~11~s; ~lso a ~o~l-ho~e or minion building ~, ~on ~ a suction[ n~mb,r
chi~rcn ~ ~ reduced by ~e agent to an~nd ~hcol, whid~ sh~l not co~ exceeding ~cn~-fivc h~dred
doll~.
The United States agrees further to cause Io be erected on said Sheshence reservation, near the other
buildlass her.-in authorized, a good steam circular-saw mill, s'ith a grist-mill and shingle-machine artached,
the same to cost not more tit. an e:ght thousand dollars.
ARTICLE 4 The indians betcan ~,.a.med agree, when the agency house ar:d other txiildings sha~l be
constructed or, their reser,'a:ions named, th~ will make said reset/orions :he~r permanent .nome, a~d
will make no pe.'manem s~temun~ elsewhere: but they shall ~ase the right to hunt on ~he ~no¢¢~pie4 lands
of[be United Stat~s so Ion8 as ga.,n: may be fos. nd thereor`, a~d so long as I:~ac(= subsists among the
~nd indians on me bo~ders of the hun£:ng districts.
ARTICLE 5. The United S',ates agrees that t~ ~¢nt for said Indians shall it~ the future ~ake hLs home
r3e agency but. iCing on the Sheshence restfro:ion, b,t shall direct and supervise affairs on the B~-hack
reservation; and shall keep an of Fce el:am at all limes for [he purpose of prompt and diligent inquiE, into
such manors of complaint by and against [he it.d/ads as may be pr:sente~ for :nvestigatio:~ undo: t~
provisions of'their trealy stihlorions. as also for r2~e faithful dLscharge of oth~r d~ties en.'omed ~ In,, In
~[t cases of'depr~ctatim~ on petsor. or property he shall ca.use the evidenc~ to be taken in writin_~ and
t~rward~6 together with his find~g, to the Commissioner of Indian AffaJrs~ whose decision shatl be
binding or, ti~e panics ~o this trea~
ARTICLE 6. If'any in&vid~;a', belonging to ~id tribes of in~ti~ns, or lega]¥ incorported with them, being
the tread era family, shall d~ire to commence farming. hc shalt haw the priv:iege to select, in ttte prmenc¢
~d ~s'ith dl= assistance o£ tlc. e agent then ~n cha~g¢, a tract of ia~d within ~e reservation of his tribe, r, ut
exceeding :l'.ree hundied [1022] and tv,:nty act'es in e~cten:, which :tact so selected, certified. ar.d rcco:ci~
in [he "land-buok." as herein directed. sha:~ crate to be held in common, bul the same may be occupiect and
held in the exclusive possession of :tit p,-rscn selectnag it, and of'his faxnily. so long as he or'~hey may
cont~nu~ Io cultivate it
A~y person over eighteen years of age, not being the head of a family, ma~ m hke manner sclcc! and caus~
to be certified tc him or her. far purpos:s of cultivation, a quantity of land .,,.at exceeding e~ghty ~cres :n
extent, an~, thereupon be entitled :o the exclusive possession of[he same as above described. For c~ch :race
of land so select~ a :~rc:ficate, containing a d~scnption thereof. and the name o£ t~e person so]teeing it,
with a cemfiea:e indorsed '.her~o~ chat :he same has been recorded, shall be delivered to the party ~t~:led
'.o ~t by t,hc agent, atto: che same ~.all have been recorded by him in a boo'.< to be kept in his office subject
t~ inspection. whieJa said book shah be known as t~.e "Shoshone (eat:era band) and Banna¢~ land-book.~
The Presieent may al any time order a sttrve~ of these reservations, and w?~n so surveyed Congress ~all
provide f~ protecting the rights cf :he :ndi~ s~lers in ~hese ~mprovemcnts, and may fix ~e characer of
the Ude hel~ ~ etch. Th~ L'niled Sta~s may ~s such laws on the subjc~ ofa]i~ation and dcs;er~l of
prop~ as ~tween :adiu~s. ~ on a~l subj~ com~ec~d wi~ the gov~rnme~ of the Indians on said
~sema:ions. ~4 the m~m~l ~li:~ thiner, as may ~ thought proof.
ARTICLE 7. In orcier to in~ure the c~v lizadon of the tribes entering into this c~ary, the ~.ecess~ty of
edu~tior, ,s admnted, especially of such o£ them a--. are or may bc sealed on said ~gricultural reservations,
and they deerefore pledge therose]we to compel lh¢ir children, male and f~malc, I~twcen the ages oF~ix
and sixteen y~ars, [o atsen¢ school; and it is hereby made the dut~ of the agent for said incha.as to see that
this stipulation is strictly complied wi~; and the United Stat~s agrees [hal for every Ihitty children betwe'd.
said ages who can be indcceci or compell~ 1o attend see'.eel, a house shall be provided and a teacher
com~ter, t :;o teach the ekmenta~? branches ot"~l EngJish e:tucat~on shall be furnished, who wilt r~id-"
137
5eq; by: LOEB & LOEB 213 68834~0; 0~11/98 5:36AU;,~-,t~i~ #245;Pa~e '3/13
amonff said lndi~m,s a~d feitnfu~!y discharge his or her dudes as a t~cher. The provisions of this article
condnuc for twen~j years.
ARTICLE 8. When the h~d ofa {~.mily or lodge shall have selected lands and received his certificme as
above directed. and t~ agent shall I~e satesfleet mat he intends in good faith to commence cultivating the
soil {or a t~ving. he shall be emitled to receive seeds and agricultura; implements for the firs! year, in value
one hundred dollars, and for each suc~eding year he shall continue to farm,, for a period of thre. years
more, ne shall I~ entid~d to receive seeds and implements as aforesaid in value twen~'-five dollars per
aFlnum.
And it is t"u~hcr stipula~.d taat such i~rsons as commence farming shall r~cci¥c instructions from the
fanta ~ercin ~ovided for, ~d when~,er more ~an one hundred ~r~ns on ci~cr r~n;aion shall enter
c~ the cubSration o~e ~il, a s~ond bl~ksm~ shall ~ provided, wi~ such iron, a~c!. ~d other
material ~ may ~ r~uired,
AR~CLE 9. In I~u of all sums of mone~~ or ~er ~uities provided so ~ paid to the In~ians ~erein
~e~ under ~y and all treaties here~ofor~ made wi~ ~em. ~e U~i~d S~es a~es to deliver al the
agent'-house on ~e ~ation hereto provi~d for, ~ ~e first day of ~m~r of each ye~, for thi~,
years, the following articles, D wet:
For each malt ptrson over fourteen years of age. a suit of good substantial woolien closhing, consisting of
coal hat, pantaloons, :'lannel shirt. and a pair of woolien socks; for each female over twelve years of age, a
flannel skirt, or :he goods n,c 'u..,.sar~. to .'n~e it. a p~ir [1023] of wooteen hose, twelve yards of calico; and
twelve yards of cotto~ :tomestics.
For the boys ,m~ girls under the ~e~ named, such flannel anti cotton goods as may ~ needed to maXe each
a suit as at0resa:.d. t~ether with a pair of woolien hose for
And in order that the Comrr,~ssioner of Inchon Affairs may be able to estimate pro.fly for the articles
k~rein named, it shall be me duty of the agent each year to fo~rd to him u fhll ~d exact census of~c
Indians, on which the estimate ~om y~r re year ~ ~ ba~d. ~0 in a~irion ~o ~e clo~ing herein n~m~,
me sum of ~n dollars shall ~ annually app~opT:ated for each Indian to=ming m~d ~en~ ~o]l~ for each
Indian engage~ ~n agr.cu:tmc. for a per:od of lea y:~s. ~ ~ ~sed by the ~cret~' of ~he I~erior
purchase ef ~uctt ~ic!es as ~om time to :ime the condition and necessities of~ indians may kd~cate
bc proof. And if at auy nine within the ten ye~s it ~hah ap~u thai the amount of money needed for
d~ing under this ankle czn be appropriated ~o ~tmr a~s for ~hc mbcs h~m named, Congress may by
law ch~ge the appropda~ to oth~ pu~o~s; but in no event shall ~e ~o~m
with~a~n or discontinued for ~e period named. And :he President shall annually detail al~ officer of the
A~y to b~ pr~tnl ~ a~s: ~e ~ehve~ of all ~,c 8~ds her~in n~ed to the l~ians. and he shah inspeel
and report on the q~titv ant q~lity of ~e g~s and ~be manner of their celivc~.
ARTICLE 10 The United States hereday ag~"ecs to furnish annually to the Indians the physi=iad~, teachers,
carpcruet, mS!let, engir. eer, Farmer, and blac~srmth, as herein contemplated, and that such splaropriations
shall be m~de from time to tune. on ~e estimates of the Secretary of the Interior, as ~ill be su ffici~nt to
employ su:h person~
ARTICLE I 1. No treaty for the cess/on of any portion of the reservations h~rein de. scrii~d which may be
~eld m common shall be ofany force or validity as against the said Indians, unless executed ~nd signed by
at ieasta majori~ of ell ~e adult male Indiams occupying or in~erest~d in the same; and no ccssio~ by ~h¢
tribe shall bc traderstood or construe:! in such manner as to deprive without ,Sis consent, any individual
member of the c. ibe of his r.ght m any tra~t of land selected by him, as provided in Article 6 or.is treaty.
ARTICLE 12. It is agr~d thai t,~ ~um of fivc l~undted dollars annually, for three yeats from the da~c ~hcn
mey commence to cultivate a farm, shall be ,=xpert. deal in pr~sent~ to the ten persons of saicl tribe who, in the
judgment of the agent, m~y grow the most valuable crops for the rc~peclive year.
ARTICLE 13. It is further agreed the! .total such ~ime a, the agenc.v-building,s are estaolished on the
Shoshon~e r~rt'a~ion, [heir agent shall reside at Fort Bridger. U. T., and their annuities shall be deliveruc
to th*m at the same place in June of each year.
138
Ser~= by: LOEB & LOEB 213 6883460; 09/11198 5:37AU;,,,/ef,~x #245;P,~ce '1/13
N. G, TayLor,
W. T. She4'm~, Lieumnant-Gen,ral,
Win. S. H~rLey,
Jo,~n B, ~nbom.
S. F. Ta~an.
C. C, Augur, Brevet Major-Gene~l, U, S. ~y, Commissioners,
Al~ed H. Te~, Bri~dier-Ge~ml ~ Brev~ M~or-Gene~l, U. S Army
A S. H. White, Sccrc',~:y, []024]
Shoshor~es:
Wash-a-kie, hts x mark.
Wau-ny-pitz, his x mark
Toup-se-po-wo~ his x m~k.
N~r-kog h~s x n~.
T~she-y~ his x murk.
B~eel, his x mark.
Pan4~sh~-ga, ~.is n m~k.
Ninny-Bi~c, his x m~
Barmacks:
Taggee, h is x mark.
Tay-to-ba~ h~s x mark
We-ra:-zg.won-a-gen, his x mark
Coo-sha-gan, his; x ma:k
Pan-~ook-a-mots~, his x mark,
A-wi~e-¢!Sc, his x mark.
Witnesses:
Hem? A. MotTow, Lieutenant-Colonel T~irry-s:x~ infantry ired Steve: Colonel U.S. Army, Commanding
Fort Bridget,
Luther Manpa, Uniled Slates Indian agent.
W. A. Car~r
J. Van Allen Carter, interpr:ter,
TKEATY WITH THE SHOSHONI-GOSHIP { 1g63, Oct 12}
13 Star., 68 I
Ratified Mar. 7, 1864
Proclaimed Jan. I 7, I
Treaty of peace and fiicndst~ip made at Tuilla Valley, in the Territo,,)' of Utah. this twelfth day of Oc~ber,
A.D. one thousand c~gh~ hunched and sixty-three. between the United Ststcs o£ America, rc~'o.~nt~d by
the undersigned eommissto~rs, and the Sl~oshonee-Goship bands of Indians, represented by theU' chiefs,
principal men, and waxriots, as follows:
ARTICLE I. Peace and f~iendship is hereby established and shall be hcrcafrgr maintained betw~n the
Sheshence-Gossip bands of Indians and the citizens r~n¢ Governmeal of the United Stales; and the said
139
Sen: t~y: LOEB & LOEB 213 6883460; 09/tl/98 5:37AU;.,/ef~lx #245;Payee ~2/13
band~ stipulate and ag]'~e d~t hosti}i~ie~ and all depr~t)ons u~n ~e eminent tra~, ~e m~il 3nd
~l~aph ~incs, ~d upon ~ cit~ of~e Uni~d ~tes, wi~in ~e~ count~, s~all ce~.
ARTICLE 2. It ~ fu¢~ stipulated by ~id bands that ~e ~vernl routes o~vel ~to~h ~elr coun~
now or hercaRet used by white men shall ~ f~ver ~oe ~ unobs~cted by ~em, for ~c uso of the
Governmere of~e United Sates, ~d of all emi~u ~d ~avellen wi~in it t;n~ J~ authori~ ~
proem:ion, ~t ~oie~:ion or inju~ ~ ~em. And if ~pr~dations ~e at ~y time commi~d by ~d
men of~ek ~n or o~er uibes wi~m ~e~ ~n~, ~e offende~ shall b: ~mmed~a:ely ~en ~d
dcliv~d up to ~e proof officen oft~ United ~s, to ~ puni~d ~ their offen~ may d:~rve; ~d
~e safe~ =~1~ ~Hem p~g ~ac~b]y over either of~d routes i~ ~.~ gu~teed by s~id bands.
Mili:a.~. posts may be est~lflished b)' the President of the United States along said routes, or elsewhere in
· eir count; ned s~-ho~ may be erec~d ~nd o~upied a: such p~ints as may be ne~ss~ for d~
comfort and co~veni~ce of ~avel[~s or tbr ~e u~ of ~e mail or telegraph co.ariSes,
ARTICLE 3. ~e ~[eg~h and o~rI~d stage lin~ ~ving ~en established ~d o~ by combines
under ~t aa~oti~ of~, Una~ Sl~s ~r~gh ~e co~ ~cupied by said ~n~ it is e~pressiy agreed
· a~ ~t s~me may ~ ~m~ued wigout hin~, ~ol~ation, or mju~ ~om the ~le of said
~d ~a: t~k ~e~', and ~e 1,2v~ and ~o~ of~ng~ in ~e smge~, and of~e employes of the
respective complex, sMIl ~ pr~e~ ~> th~.
And furlher. it being under~tood Ihat provision has been made by the Go~'ernment of the United Slams for
the construction era railwa? from fl'.e plains west to the Pacific Oce.~n, :t ~ stipulated by 'said bands that r/~e
sa~J railway or its branches may be located. constructed, and operated, and without molestation from them,
·rough ar, y portion ortho country claimeel or occupied by them, [860]
ARTICLE 4. It is further agreed by the parties hereto that the country of the Goship tribe rna~ be exp;orcd
~d prospecteel for gold an~- st[yet, or other ~inerals and metals; and when mines ~rc :iscov~rec they m~y
be worked, and ,,ninh~g ar, d agricaltutal se~lements formed and ranches establisl',ed wherever th-"2, may be
requixed. Mills may be ere~--~:l and timber taken for their use. a~ also for building and other purposes, in
a~y part of said country,
ARTICLE 5. It is undcrstooo that the bound~i¢s of the country claimed und o:cupied b)' me GoshiF tribe,
m defined ~d described by said b~ds, ~ ~ follows: On the north by the middle of Lne Great ~sen; on
~e west by St~ Valley; on :he sou~ b), Tooedoe or G~en Mountains; ~d on the east by Ore~t Salt
L~e. Tu~lta, and Ru~ Vatkys,
ARTICLE ~. ~e s~d ~ds agree that ~ene~er ~h~ Presi~nt of
mere to ~bandon the ~am~ng life whic~ ~ey now ~ead, md b~ome sealed as heramen or
he ~ hobby authon~ to m~e ~ch rese~ations for ~eir u~ as he may &era nece~, anti th~ do ~lso
~ee Io ~ove their c~mps m such resemat5ons as he may ~ndica~e, and to rosS& ~d remain thereon
ARTICLE 7. The United States bein:o aware of the inconvenience resulting w the Indians. in conaequence
of the driving away a,~d destruction of game along the routes travelled by white men, and by ,.he !brmation
of agricultural and mimng s~tUemeats, are w'.lling to fairly compensate them for tt~e sin'no. There£ore, and
in consideration oft.he preceellng stipulat/o:ts, and of their faithful observance by said bands, the Llmted
States promise and agree to pa) to the said Oosh~p tribe. oreo the ~aid bands, parties hereto, ~t the opt:on of
the !'q'esideat of'the United States, annually, for :he term oft~enty years. the sero o£~n¢ thousand dollars.
m such articles, including canle for herding or other purposes, a~ the President shall :k:cm suitable for their
wanes ~d condition either as hunters or herdsmen. And the said band~, [or themselves and for their
kereb~, acknowl~ge ~e reception of the said stipulated annuities ~ a full compensation aa~d eo. uivaleat for
the loss of gan~ and ~e ri~rs and privileges hereby conceded; and also one thousand dollars in provisions
and foods ~t and before the signing of ~h~s treaty.
ARTICLE 8. Notking hereto contained sha',l be construed or taken to adznit any other or grealcr title or
interest in r&c lands embraced within the tcmtorues d~scri~)ed in said treaw. in said tribes or bands of InCa. ns
than existed ~n L~em upon ~e acouisition of said terntones from Mexico 0y the laws thereof.
James Duane Dory, commiss:oner. Brigadier-General U.S. Volunteers, Comm~.nding Disc'ice of Utah.
140
Sen-. by: LOEB & L,';EB 213 6883460; 09/11 /98 5:38AM;.Jei~!x #245;Pa~e ~3,,13
P. Edw, Connor,
Tabby, his x raatk.
Ariaselm, ais x mark.
Tintsa-pa-gin, his x mark.
Harray-nuo, his x mark.
141
Ser:~ by: LOEB & LCEB 213 6883450; 08, I~/98 5:34Al,,1;.,/ef,r-ax #245;Pac. e c/t3
James Duane Dory, C~vcrnor and acsmg superinshore of India~ aft~sirs i~ Utah Ten, tory.
P. £dw. Connor, Brigadier-General U. S. Volunteers, commanding District of Utah.
PoKesclio, his x mark,~ief.
-.oomontso, his x mark, chief.
Sanpitz, his x mark, chief.
Tosowitr., his x mark, chief
Yahaowa)', his x mark, chief:
Weorahsoop, his x mexk, c~ief
Pahragoorsahd, his x mark, chief.
Tahkwetoonah, his x mark,
Orrinshoe, (John Poka:ello's br~xher) his x rna~k,
Wi~esses
Rob~. Pollock, colonel Third Infantry,
C. V, M. G, L~wis, caplain Third lnfa~ltry, C. ¥.
S. E Jocelyn, first lieatcnam Third l~fzn~,
C. V. Jos A. ~, lndi~ b~te~rete~.
Jo~ B~d, jr,, his x m~k, s~cial ~ter~t~r.
TREATY WITR THE WESTERN SHOSHONI { 11163, Oct. l}
18 Star., 61];9.
Ratified June 26, 1866.
Proclaimed Oct. 2], 1869
TreaD' of Peace and I-Yiendship made a: Ruby Valley, m rite of Territo~ of N~ada, this first day of
October, A, D. one :hot:sanci eight hungeel and sixty-three, between the Unilcd Stales of America,
repr¢sent~'a by ~e undersigned commissioners, and the Western Bands oflh¢ Sheshence Nation of
represente I by ~eir Chiefs a~d ?riacipal Men and Warners, a.s fo~lo~vs:
ARTICLE I. Peace and friendship shall be hereafter-established and maintained ~etween the
Bands o£~he Sheshence nation and she p~ople a~d Government of the United SUstes; and the sai~
stipulate a~ad ~gree lha! headIriSes and all depredations upon the emigrans trains, :he mail and telegraph
tines, ~ upon ~ ci~ze~s of t~ Unked San:es wi~hi.n ~h~ir ¢ourm~, sha:l cease.
ARTICL~ 2. T~a¢ s~veral ro~tes ~f travel ~roul:h the Sheshe.co country, no'* or hereafter usee by white
men, shall be forever fi:ee, and unobstructed by lhe said bands, for the u~ of the government of the United
S~a~es, ~ct of all emigrants and u'avel!e~s under its nuthorny and prmecti~, wigout moleststier, or b~ury
from them. And it' deprecations are at any time commitcod b~ bad men of their ~ation, the offenders shall
be irameal!ale!i)~ taken an~ delivere~ up so the proper officers of the Umte~ S~ates, ~o be punished as their
offences shall deserve; and the saL~y of nil ~av¢liers passing peaceably over either of said routes is hereb)
guaramie~ by s~id ba~ds.
Mili:ary po~ts may be esmi~lished by the ~es~ent oflhe Urnted Sla~es along said routes or elsewhere
their count; a~d s~ation houses rna~ ~¢ erected and occupied at such poir~s as may be necessary for :h~
comfort and conyenSeco of travellers or for mail or telegraph companies, 1852]
ARTICLE 3. T~e telegraph ~ad overland stage lines having been establisheel ~nd operoted by companies
under the authoH~ of the United 5:ate~ ttu-ough a pan of the Sheshence country, i~ is expressly agreed
the same may be consinuea wi~om hindrance, molesuslio~, or injury from me ~eople of'sakl bands. and
tha~ their property and t~¢ lives and property of passengers in she stages and o~the empio)'es of the
respective companies, shall b~ prot¢~ed by them. And further, il being understood that provision I~$ been
made by the go~emmem of the United Stales for ~e construction of a railwa~ from ~e plains wes! ~o the
Paci~e ocean. !t is stipulate~ b:,' t~e said ba~ds that the said railwa~ o: ~ts branches m~y be
142
Sen: by: LOEB & LOEB 213 6883460; 0g,'11/98 5:35AU;def'~x #245;PaBe 7~13
construened, and operated, and wghout molestation from them, Lhro~gh any portion of cou0try c!aimed or
occupied by
ARTICLE 4. it is fin thor agre~l by the parties hereto, that the Sheshence country' ma~ be explored and
prospered for gem and silver, or other m~erals; and whe~ mines are discovered, they may be workec, and
mining and agricultural settlements formed. and ranches established whenever the), may be required. Mills
may be erected and timber taken for their use, a.s also for buildLag and other purposes in any part of the
country claimed by .~ud bands
ARTICLE 5. It is understood that the boundaries of i've counn?' claimed and occupied by said bands are
ate fined and cicscribed by them as follows:
Or, !he north by Wong-goga-da Mot. ntam$ and Shoahonee River Vellcy; on the wes~ by S~-non<o-~ah
Mounmin~ or Smith Cre~k Mournams; on the ~uth by Wi-co-~h and th~ Colorado Dcscn; ~ th~ ~ast by
P~ho-n~ Vatl~y ot St~pt~ Val~y and G~at Salt L~e Valley.
ARTICLE 6, Th~ ~d ~da ague ~at whcn~u~t ~ ~si~nt of th~ L'nited Sta~ shall d~ ~t ~p~dient
for ~m ~ ~b~d~ th~ ro~in8 life, which, ~ey now lead, and b~me herdsmen or a~eulraraSsts. h~ ~s
hereby ~or~cd ~o m~e su~ r~se~aa~s for the~ ~ as he may deem ncc~ within ~e county
a~e described; and ~ey do a~, hereby a~ to remove ~elr c~ps :o suc~ r~s~rvations ~ h~ may
i~i~, ~ad to reside ~ ~main ~m.
ARTICLE 7. The United States, b~ing aware of t.~ in~nventence resu2L'~g to the Indians in co~cqa~ce
of C~ ~iving away ~d de~ction of g~ al~g the routes ~velled by whi~ men, and by ~e tb~ation
of agricu~l a~ mining g~;omen~. a~ willing ~o fa~ly compensate them for ~e ~e; ~erefor:, and in
consMeration of the preening stipu~hons, and of their fai~l obg~ancc ~' th~ ~id b~ds, the United
S~ prom~e ~d agree to pay to ~c sa~ bands or,he Shoshonee nation panics ~reto. anr. ually for
~e~ ot ~w~b' yell ~ s~ of five ~ous~d dollars in such a~icl~s, including cable for ~erd~tg
pu~oses. as ~e, ~es~ent of~e United Stges shall deem suithie l~ their wan~ a~ condi:ion, either as
hunters or herd~en. And the said b~s he~by ~eo~ledge th~ re.priori of~e sa~d sliputated
as a full comp~fion ~d eqaiv~len~ ~br ~e loss of game ~d :he ngh~ and privil~ge~ hereby contend
ARI'ICLE g. The said bands hereby acknowledge the! mey have received from sa:d com:mssioners
p~o,is:ons ancl clo~Eir. g ameer. ring to five tF~ousana dollars ~ presents at ~e conclusion of this treaty.
Done at Ruby Valley the day and year at'rove wriaea.
Jmes W. Nye.
James Duane Dory.,
To-meaL, his x m~uk
Mo-ho-a.
Kirk-we~cgwa. his x mark.
To-nag, his ~; maxk.
To-so-wee-so-op, his x mark.
Sow-er-e-~, his x mark.
Witnesses:
Po-or,..go-sah, his x mark.
Par-a-woa~-ze, ;~is x marlo
On-ha-diet. his x mark
Ko-ro-kout-ze. his x mark.
Pon-ge-mah, his x
Buck, his x mark.
J. B. MOo~¢, lieutenant-colonel Third Infantry Califomm Volunteers,
Jacot~ T. Lockhalt, Indian agent Nevada Ternto~
143
LOEB & L=EB 213 688G4~0; 0g/11/98 5:3aA~;.~.~. #245;P~e 5/13
James Duane Dory,
].,uther Mann, jr,, ¢oe~missior~rs.
Wsshak~, his x marL.
W~.api~z, his x m~k
Toopsapowct, his x
Njnabi~ee, his ~
Nark~w~, his x
Tab~nsh~, his x m~.
T~ahp, h~s x
W~yukee, his x
his x
In t~e presen~ of
Jack Robertson, interpreter. Sameel Dean
TREATY WITH THE SHOSHONINORTHWESTF-RN BANDS { 1863, July 30}
',3 Star,, 663,
Ratified M~, 7. 1864
Proclaimed Jan, 1~', 186.
Articles o: agreement made a~ 13ex Elder. kr, Uta~ Territory, this thirtieth day of July. A.D. onc thous~t~.cl
eight bur, tired and sixty-three, by and between the United $tases of Amerir. a, r~pr~semed by Brigadier-
General P Edward Connor, commanding the military district of Utah, and James ]Duane Dory,
commissioner, and the non,~west~rn hands of~e Sheshence Indians; represented by their ch,~fs and
waniota
ARTICLE 1, It is agreed :hat fdcndIy and amicable relations shall be rc-¢sI~blished between the bar. ds of
the Shosh~r, ee N~-tior,, part.es berate, ~.d ~c United S~s, ~d it is dec~rcd ~a: a firm and pe~mal
p~ sha,l be ~ncef~h mamatried b~ce~ the ~id b~ds and t~ United Sm~es.
ARTICLE 2. ~e ~e~ty c~cit~ded ~ Fo~ Bridget on ~e 2nd d~y of Juiy, 1863, be~ the United ~tes
md the S~oshon~ N~tion. being mad and folly ime~re~ed ~d ~xpluinc~ ~o the said chiefs and warners.
~ey ~ hereby give ~htir &11 and free assera m sU of~e provisions of ~i~ tr~, and th~ s~ne are hereby
a~pted as a pan of~is ~r~ment, an~ ~he same shall ~ binding u~n the p~ies
ARTICLE ~ In co~ideration of the stipulations m the pr~cedir. g articles, the United States agrte :o
increase ~e a.nr. uSb' t,) :he Shosh~ee NI~ five thousand dollars, ~o be ~aid s,n the manner preyideal in
said in:at)And :h~ said northwestern bands hcreb) aclc,~wledge to have recesv~d of the Unitcct Sm~es, a~
the signb~; of t_h¢_~ ~.~,4~L.~s, provistom ar~ goa~ to the arnourn of two thousand dollars, to relieve th:ir
immediate necessities, the said bands hay:rig been n:duced b~ the w~r ~o ~ state of'utter ~st~tution.
ARTICLE 4, The country claimed by Pokatello for himself and his people, is bounded on the west by Ra.q
River and on :he east by the Por~¢neuf Mountains
ARTICLE 5, Noth:ng herein contamed ~all be consn'ued or taken to adl~1il r. l12~, o[h~eT or g,~a:¢t title or
:atezest m the lands embraoed within :he territorsos described in saia treaty :n sa~d tribes or bands oIr Indiacs
t~an existed in them upon the acquisition of said territorsos from Mexico by :he la~x's thereof. [85 I]
Done at Box Elder, ~is thirtieth do) of July, A D 1~63~
144
Ser~; by: LOEB & LSEB 2!3 6883459; 09/11,'98 5:33AM;~ #245;Pac+ 4/13
TREATY WITH THE EASTERN $HOSHONI I Ig~3, July 2}
18 Slat., 655.
Ratified Mar. 7, 1864.
Proclaimed June 7. 1869
Ar~ides of Agreement made at Forx Bridget, m Uu~h Territory, this s~coad day of July, A. D on~ e~o~nd
eigh~ hundred a~d sixw-three: by ~d ~e~ me Unit~ Stat~s of Am~r~, reprL~ent~d by ~
Commi~ione~, ~d the 5hoshon~ n~ion of India~ represented by its ~iefs ~ Priacipa', Men And
Warners of the Ess~m ~ds, ~ follows:
ARTICLE l. Friendly and ~nically relations are hereby re-es~bh~hcd bel~.cen the bands of the
Shosho~ nati~, parti~s hereto, '~d ~he United Sm~; ~d i:: is d~l~ that a fi~ ~d ~emal peace
· alt ~ ~c~fonh m~m:a'~ned ~e~, dn Shahonce n~ion ~d the Urnted ~stes
ARTICLE 2. The se~mi routes of ~vel torough ~e Shoshonee count', now ~ h~ea~er used by waite
men, shall ~ ~fl r~ain f~e~er free ~ ~t~ f~ $e u~ of~e governmere of~e Uniled Sm~es. ~d of air
emi~ts ~d ~velle~ uedcr its autho~ ~d P]'o~ct~, without molesriot. or inju~ ¢rom any of~e
~ie of lEe said natbn And if d~datmas should at ~y time be comm~ed by bad men oftheir nation,
the offenders shall ~ smmeaiamly s~izea ~d de tisered up ~o the pr~r o~rs of ~he United S~a~es, to be
pums~d as ~eir off, aces ~n~ dese~e; ~ad the ~fe~~ of aft travellers passing ~a~ably over said rou~e~ is
hereb~ guam~eed by ~id ~ation~ Mili~ agri~a~ senlaments ~d railimp' posm may be esSliana b~
~e President of~e United S~es a:ong ~i~ rout~; f~s may be mamtain~ over [849] th~ dyers
wherever ~hey may be required; ~d hours er~t~ ~d seRleme~ts formed at suca ~ints as may b~
necess~ for ~e comf~ and con v~i~ce or.yellers.
ARTICLE 3. The tclcgrapk. a~.d overland sr.e~e lines hav~g been established emd operat:~ torough a pa~
ot't~ Shoshonee cou~'~, i~ is expossly agreed ~ha[ the s~me may be contir. ued withou~ hindrance,
molestation, or i~ju~ ~om the ~ople of s~m nahon; ~d ~at ~eir prope~. and the lives of pas~ngers
zhe stages, ~ ofth~ employes o~e respective companies, shall be protoctod by thgm,
Ar.d ~er, ~t ~ing ~nder~oo~ ~al ~mv[s~on has bo~ made by ~o Gov~en~ af~e Unile~ Si~les for
· e cons~mion ofa rm~way from ~e plains west ~o ~e ~cifiz o~an, it is sfi~ula~d by said r. adon
s~ld millay, Or ils br~ches. may be Io;at~C, c~s~cmd. ~d operated. wi~ou! mole~adon from
~rough ~'7 portion oF~e countw cta~m~d by ~hem
ARTICLE 4. It is understood :he boundaries of the Shoshonee couotry, as defined and described by said
nation, is as follows: On the noah, ':)y t~e mountains on the north side of the v~.lley of Sheshvnee or Sn~c
Riv~; on ~e ~ast. by the Wind River m~n~ins, ~nahpah rwer, ~e nom~ fork of Plane or Noo-chim
ag~, ~d ~c n~ Park or Bu~o Hour; aa~ on ~ ~u~, by Y~p~ river and ~he Uim~h mountains.
The western horneD' ~s ~ undefined. ~erc being no Shos~onees from ~at dis~ict
~ ~n~ now ~esent claim ~a~ meir own c~m~' is bounded on the w~ by ~It t~e.
AR'I1CLE 5. The United S,.a:es being aw~e of the inconvenience resulting, 1o me lnd'e, ns in consequence
of th~ driving a~eay and destruction of game ~1o~g the rout~ travelled b:~ wni~s, and by the formati~ of
agricultural ~md mining sett'.¢ments, are wil ling to fairly compensate ~hem for the same; therefore. and in
consideration of the precedir;g stip~t~xions, ~he L:mted States promise and agree' ~o pay :o t~e bands of the
Shoshone¢ r. aticr~, parties hereto, annually for ~he ~erm of twenty :,,ears, the sum of t~.m thousand dollars. in
such it.nicie. s as the President of the United S~ates ma.~ deem suitable to their wirers ~nd condition, either a~
hun~,"s or herdsmen. Aa~ th~ said bands of the Shosbonee nation hereby acknowtedge the reception oft he
said stip,ala~ed annuities. ~_s ~ full compensation a~d ¢quivalem for the lo~ o.%ame, ~md the rights ae.d
prwileges hgrcby contend
ARTICLE 6. The said ba~,ds hereby acknowl:~¢gc tF. at they h~ve r~ceive4 fro~ said Commissioners
provisions ~qd clo~ing ~.our. fi~ to six ~housand doll~s. as presents, al the conclusio~l or.is ~eab'.
ARTICLE 7. Noth~g herein contained shall ~ consl~ed or ~en to admit ~y other or grater dtl~ or
in.rest in ~e l~s embraced within ~e tam.ties ~scn~d m saia Trea~ with said ~ib~s or bands of
Indians ~ existed tn ~em upon the ~qutsili~ of said ~mtories from M~xico by ~e laws ~=r~f. [850]
145
LOS ANGELF-_q COUNTY FLOOD CCNTi~OL DISTRICT'
MEMORANDUM
Bydz'~u3.~c Z)Xvio~ton
~¢c~,nda'tdou
of ~ e~t.d'~ d~ lUup
The desiln debrb eoue 02ole of SO pez cent ef the aaturt~ ~aaTm fXovl~ue
veal derXNmd ~nint ktRoz~d. h~. ~~ ~; ~ ~o~md. eb~~
60 per cut ~ ,~e ~~m fB;~.
RoyroT. debrAs tanas fm Tmzued vatefihads do not tend to ~om at sAoes
EXHIBIT
146
13, 197~
~d ~0 p~ cur c~e ,l~e red~c~m
~ sb~ ~ ~e acCa~td t~Ae, ~eept (or Upper
~s~d, ~hree b~ v~4 ha~ bern "f~Xed" ~
gout slope of 30 pt~ etnt o£ ua~zLT~ ~.l &l$~ld, &~l buLl~ v~Gd hrre
bco~eude4 Destin OebT~l S~o~e bdu~ou Factor
147
~'d ~OZ, G-~8~-~OD e~u~[e~ dSS:~O 8~ 9T das
"'' ~3, 1979
GaaeraA ~.~al --'"
148
~f
149
15:58 FAX 909 980 2643 D,AME$ & MO(~R£ ~001~017
ATTAINT 1
150
C. B. CROUSE, p~ge 2
Seismological and grouna-mo:ion studies for two LAC hospital sites in southern.
California. Studies Lacludcd evaluations of the regional seastoic recurrence r,tes based
on historical seismicit)' and geologic data from active faults and appticabilily of
pubbshed ground-motion attenuation equations.
Seismic hazard evaluations for the San Fr~cisco, Saa lose, Los Angeles, Fullerton, aud
Saa Diego campus sit~s of ae Cahfomia St~ 'Um~rsiW system. Ev~uafious mclud~
· c d~t~:matio~ of ea~qa~e glound motio~ for ~c ~ ~e setsrot: evaluation
c~pus p~king
Pedormed ~;smic h~z~rd ¢valumions and development of seismic desi~ spectra for the
t-15 Corndot cxp,msion prej¢ct in Salt Lake Valley. Utah for the U:fi.h D~partment of
Transportatio~
Seismic hazard analysis of the historic KLag Street Station. Seaale, Washington site.
Studies hicluded the clev¢lopment of a probatilistic h~rd ~alys~ model that included
local ~d r~gion~l seismic so~ceh ~d the calc~ation of ~ound motions co~es~nding
m 72-ye~ ~d ~75--~~ avenge rein peh~s. ~e resul~ were used to esrabli~ ~es~
spe~ for ~e seismic eva~ahon of
Soil-foundation i~teracuon study for Washington Dc?artment of Transportation
(~'SDOT). Study included evaluation of methods ~o estimate foundation s~:%ess and
damping ~nd p,,-eparatioll of Manual of Practice for WSDOT Bhdge Desig~ Office.
Setantic h~tzard evatuat:on~ of VA hocpit~ siles ~a Spokane, Washington and Honolulu,
Hawaii Studies ~c~ded development of seismic sour~ models, aa~uation equanons,
~d probabihsfic seismic h~ malyses to emmare ~e 475-y,~ and 95C-y~ response
spe~a. ~e a~ropriate A~,x value for ~e VA H-08-S s~m was ~-co~mended
b~ed on the sitc-sp~if.c results.
Seismic hazard analysis for manufacturing facdities in Hillsbono, Oregon. Smo¥
tnchtded ch~~on of ~ po~atlal regional seismic som~es ~d h~ard ~alysis to
estimale p~bable ~ound motior. s a~oci~d with three average r~m p~ods. The
potential for ~ound hilton du~ ~o liquefaction, l~dslidc, ~d Multing was
evaluated.
Seismic l',,~ard assessment for publicI7 ownext buildings in Portinn. d, Oregon Study
Lacluded posralafion of fl~ree scen~io e~qu~es and estimation of coaespon~g
ground motions ~d ~und failure potential ~ 45 building sit~s. KesulB were used m
risk ~sessmcnt of~c buiid:ngs.
Member of FERC Review Board for Seattle Water D,partment's (SWD) Soufla Fork Tolt
tLive: Project Reviewed studies of proposc~ seismic upgrade prepared by SWD's
consul:ant; partncipated m meetings with consultant, SWD, and FERC stn.ff; at;d, assisted
m l:a'epar~tion of Review Board
DAMES & MOORE
151
T~tle
Ezpertise
Acafiel~c
Background
Registration
Experience
C. B. CROUSE, Ph.D., P.E.
Prlncipal ~g~ne~r
Probabilistic dud Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analyses
Development of Seismic Design Criteria
Ground-Motion Analyses
Site-Response and Soil-Liquefaction Studies
Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction lnvestigat~on.~
Ph.D., (1973), and M.S., (1969), Civil Engineering, California Institute of Tecimology,
Pasadena, California
B,S., (196g), Engineering, Case Institute of Techrtology, Cleveland, Okio
Civ~.l Engineering: Califomr& 1971, Registration No. C29085
Dr. Crouse has 23 years of pmfess:ional expenence in earthquake engineering and
engineering seismolog3. He has been resl~onsible for managing ~nd performing teclmical
projects involving: deterl~ination of seismic design criteria and seismic desi._~ of st~ctures,
seismic safer) surveys for exis~ng strucvaxes, d)Tlamic analysis of soil-structure incexaction,
seismic response of founda~on soils. vibrution testing of structures it, the field, seismic
hazard a~lalysis, probability stodies of environmental loads, studies of soil liquefaction, and
centri£age modeling of soibscructure systems. PrOjOCLS i~cluded hospitals, DOE facilities,
nu¢lea.r axld conventional power plants, off-short structuxes, LNG and w.ter-storag~ tanks,
rr, uiti-story buildings, cidres and reservoirs, bridges, electrical transmission facilities,
p~pr. llnes. arid the supcrconotlctRlg soper collider.
Dames & Moore. Inc. (1958 -- present)
Performs lXobabilistic an0 determ~istic seismic hazard malyses, grounci-motion, site-
response and soil-l:quefacuon studies, and seismic soil-structure interaction ~nve~tigafions.
Project Manager/Principal Investigator
Sei.~-mic haz~trd a~alysis and development of seismic design parameters for re."rofit of
building in Newport Beach, California. Studies included evaluation of geology, tectonics
and seismimty, and the computatioo of response spectra and time histories for use in ~¢
structural dy~araic analysis.
Seismic hazard e,'a;mtiou of N. Ha~wce and S. Haiwee Dams for Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power~ Studies included a~ eva£uation of regional a~d local
faults, estimation of m~amum earthquakes, and :omputation of response sgecU'a and
time histories. Results were presented ~o California Diviaioa of Safety of Dams.
Review of buildings aIl~cxed by 1994 Ncn'thricige earthquake for Massachusetts Mutual
Keal -Estate Investment. Several :iltup buildings and oue concrete ~','tme and shearwall
structure were respected following the eerrhquake. The damage was documented ;red
assesseS. Repairs were recommended tbr t~'o tiltups that were moderately damaged,
O04~reports\crouse'~ doc
DAMES & MOORE
152
December 14, 1997
Mr. David Freeman
DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
ill North Hope
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Freeman:
Please give thorough consideration to the homeowners and the
environmentalists who are objecting to Lauren Development's request
to grade on your property in Rancho Cucamonga.
There are very serious safety concerns which have not been evaluated
and which will not be evaluated because they were not raised in 1990.
The planning department in Rancho Cucamonga did such an inadequate
initial evaluation that the environmental "checklist" said there were
absolutely no environmental effects inspire of the fact that the
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat was, even then, classified
as very endangered; it was a FEMA A O flood plain; there are three
federally recognized blueline streams running through the property; and
the general plan had the area as "open space". No evaluation of the
dangers posed by this project has ever been made, nor are they likely
to ever be evaluated.
When ! raised questions about removing the levee, our city planner told
me that the Army Corp of Engineers had approved it. The Army Corp
said that they had not evaluated the safety of removing the levee.
(See Attached Letter.) Our experts have told us that this is a
dangerous situation and I request that Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power not make it worse by allowing grading on their
property. Sincerely yours,
c.c.. Ann Fisher, Edward Schiotman,
George Garikian, & Los Angeles City Council
'153
September 9, 1998
Mayor Alexander
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga City Hall
Rancho Cucamonga,, California
Dear Mayor Alexander::
Lauren Development wishes to grade and to develop in Rancho Cucamonga. 'This property is
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, classified as Ca-l, meaning that it is globally imperiled. The
:dynamic" nature of alluvial systems and its soil deposits is due to both periodic flooding and
debris flow and,the episodic nature of activity on the earthquake fault.
Geologists say that this traverse range is one of only two places in the world where this kind of
geologically dynamic activity occurs. The Teutonic plate activity causes the mountains to actually
"grow" several feet taller each year and literally fractures the mountain to pieces, and these
sediments (debris) then come down the mountains in intense perlo~lic rain storms creating the
alluvial fans.. Additionally this rain water resurfaces at the faults creating seeps or bogs or
springs. All of these factors in a~ddition to our Mediterranean climate results in the incredibly
unique and diverse assemblage of animals and plants found in the Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub. The unique geological factors mean this habitat can not be replicated anywhere else.
Additionally these geologic factors can create real dangers to anyone living on the fans'.
Why allow the destructic~n of this properly without any study of the potential impacts .when it is
not necessary? PLEASE DO NO'I' ALLOW THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS
ENDANGERED HABITAT!
Sincerely yours,
154
Dear Mr. David Ereoman:
For your agency to allow Lauren Devolopment to grade on your prope could
further lncr~ue t~ risk rty
. both to the horn#owners ~ Hav~n View and to the
· omeowners tn the Rancho Cucan~onga V dev~l~ment. ! eer~lnly hope that the
. .-,,~r~mg, peopte z~ OOt~ komeown,r's ~o~iation~ will
~,nget~s DelmrOnent of Water and Power as responsible. -
PLR4~E DO NOT LET LAUREN DEVELOPMENT GRADE ON YOUR
PROPERS!
Yours 2~dy, ~ ? /?
c.c.. Mr. F. dward $cMotman
Los A~g~les City Council
Ms. Ann Fisher
Mr. C~or~e Gartktan
155
December 4, 1997
Mr. David Freeman
General Manager
City of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER
111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Freeman,
wner whose Rancho Cucamonga home is located near ?e _levee a_
I am a borneo ..... t ur ;t}lsslon fo
which L,u ,n Dev opme,, won= ,o gr, d,. W'" bad
an a 'oditJonal part of the levee which most of ~ Ix)meowners ~e~, w,, ,,,=,,- - _
situation even worse. They have other alternatives to this grading end the local
city council even already has appoved one of them. I would like to ask you not to
allow them to grade on your property.
Naturally the developer wants the fastest, cheapest method of developing the
property. However, evaluations indicate it would be much less safe in a debris
flow. Because flood control and water storage/recharge are so closely tied, I am
sure you knew how much havoc results from · fire--almost any rain causes them
to fill. We just had three debris basins fill and flood in San Bernadino-this on 4
"little ' storm that had not even been forecast and. when there was no ground
saturation. Our situation here would be much worse.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter.
· inceroly yours,
c.c./ Ms. Ann Fisher
City Council Of Los Angeles
Mr. George Garikian
156
December 9, 1997
Mr. David Freeman
General Matlager
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER
City of Los Angeles
Ill North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California
Power's easement in Rancho Cucamon~a I~ Lauren D~. 27se twmeowur~ wno
live beneath the levee have very serious wncenu regan~g our sqfety in case of flooring
or debrir fiow. Lauren D~elopme~'s ~ to do gradi~l a~l fdl on your property
increases that concern.
In Or~ber, lamren D~velopment had another plan approved by our local City Council that
B(/fore the Los AngeJes D~emf of
does not require any grading on your property. . .. _. _
Water and Power makes a doterruination on this ma~er, , woad_ ..rge .t~._ever~o. n~., _as_~_e_~,_
..... e *&. Hnhli~v you ~ b~ acouirin~ £or fiood damages to additional homer zo me soum
· ,,,o~oo - .... ;., ..... ., ~- . --- ___ .......... · .L-. ~. - fa/dy
and we~t. Many of these i,,m,~ ,m ,, the tSO0,000 to ~,o~o. .o~n, .,~. le o,,. ~ _.._.._.,_~ ~
serious burden to undertake, e~pecial/y when the devdoln~r nat anomer approvea elmon.
I would urge that the City of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power not
grant permission to Lauren for grading. Pl,.e~...~ be arrured that ~f you allow ._l_~,ren ~
grade and there is flood damage to these additional homes the homeowners will hold the
Sincerely yours,
/
The Brad, ford Family
c.c. The Los Angeles City Council Ms. Ann iresher
Mr. Edward $cldotman
Mr. George Gadldan
157
September 9, 1998
Mayor William Alexander
10500 Civic Center
City Council
Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia
Dear Mayor Alexander:
The Lauren Development Project property in Rancho CucamonSa is the ve~j rare
Rivemidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. This type of coastal sage is designated as
gobally imperiled. Many of us are concerned that the City may be considering ~iving
Lauren Development permission to destroy this endangered Rivemidian Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub with no studies verifying the impact of doing so.
In addition to the destruction of this valuable vegetation, many species of low
mobility such as the lizard and burrowing mammal might be eliminated outri~t by
~rading on the site. There are sandy washes areas wfiich were created adjacent to
the many streams and where "sheet" flood flow crosses the powerline road. These
areas harbor a large "reptile" population including the red rattlesnake, whiptails,
collard lizards, coastal horned lizards, and pocket mice.
Lauren Development has the option to prove that they are right and that there is no
"significant impact" to their destruction of this property by allowing the appropriate
wildlife agencies to conduct studies and comment on the impact of their plans.
Please do not allow them to destroy this valuable habitat before they do so.
Sincerely yours,
158
September 9, 1998
Mayor William Alexander
10500 Civic Center
City Council
Rancho CucamonSa, California
Dear Mayor Alexander:
The Lauren Development Project property in Rancho Cucamonga is the very rare
Rivemidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. This type of coastal sa~e is designated as
gobally imperiled. Many of us are concerned that the City may be considering 8lying
Lauren Development permission to destroy this endanSered Riversidian Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub with no studies verifying the impact of doing so.
In addition to the destruction of this valuable vegetation, many species of low
mobility such as the lizard and burrowing mammal might be eliminated outright by
grading on the site. There are sandy washes areas which were created adjacent to
the many streams and where "sheet" flood flow crosses the powerline road. These
areas harbor a large "reptile" population including the red rattlesnake, whiptails,
collard lizards, coastal horned lizards, and pocket mice.
Lauren Development has the option to prove that they are right and that there is no
"significant impact" to their destruction of this property by allowing the appropriate
wildlife agencies to conduct studies and comment on the impact of their plans.
Please do not allow them to destroy this valuable habitat before they do so.
Sincerely yours,
September 9, 1998
Mrs, Diane Williams
10500 Civic Center
City Council
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mrs. Williams:
The Lauren Development Project property in Rancho CucamonSa is the very rare
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sa~e Scrub. This type of coastal sase is desiSnated as
gobally imperiled. Many of us are concerned that the City may be considering 8jvinE,
Lauren Development permission to destroy this endangered Riversidian Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub with no studies verifying the impact of doing so.
In addition to the destruction of this valuable vegetation, many species of low
mobility such as the lizard and burrowing mammal mi~t be eliminated outriS)ht by
Eading on the site. There are sandy washes areas which were created adjacent to
the many streams and where "sheet" flood flow crosses the powerline road. These
areas harbor a large "reptile" population including the red rattlesnake, whiptails,
collard lizards, coastal horned lizards, as well as the kangaroo rats and pocket mice.
Lauren Development has the option to prove that they are ri~t and that there is no
"significant impact" to their destruction of this property by allowing the appropriate
wildlife agencies to conduct studies and comment on the impact of their plans.
Please do not allow them to destroy this valuable habitat before they do so.
Sincerely yours,
September 9, 1998
Mr. Jim Curatelo
10500 Civic Center
City Council
Rancho Cucamonga,
California
Dear Mr. Curatelo:
The Lauren Development Project property in Rancho Cucamonga is the very rare
Rivemidian Alluvial Fan Sa~e Scrub. This type of coastal sage is designated as
gobally imperiled. Many of us are concerned that the City may be considering 8jving
Lauren Development permission to destroy this endangered Rivemidian Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub with no studies verifying the impact of doing so.
In addition to the destruction of this valuable vegetation, many species of low
mobility such as the lizard and burrowing mammal might be eliminated outright by
grading on the site. There are sandy washes areas which were created adjacent to
the many streams and where "sheet" flood flow crosses the powerline road. These
areas harbor a large "reptile" population including the red rattlesnake, whiptails,
collard lizards, coastal horned lizards, as well as the kangaroo rats. and pocket mice.
Lauren Development has the option to prove that they are right and that there is no
"significant impact" to their destruction of this property by allowing the appropriate
wildlife agencies to conduct studies and comment on the impact of their plans.
Please do not allow them to destroy this valuable habitat before they do so.
.}
Sincerely yours,
161
September 9, 1998
Mr. Paul Biane
10500 Civic Center
City Council
Rancho Cucamonga,
California
Dear Mr. Biane:
The Lauren Development Project property in Rancho Cucamonga is the very rare
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. This type of coastal sage is designated as
gobally imperiled. Many of us are concerned that the City may be considering giving
Lauren Development permission to destroy this endangered Riversidian Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub with no studies verifying the impact of doing so.
In addition to the destruction of this valuable vegetation, many species of low
mobility such as the lizard and burrowing mammal might be eliminated outright by
grading on the site. There are sandy washes areas which were created adjacent to
the many streams and where "sheet" flood flow crosses the powerline road. These
areas harbor a large "reptile" population including the red rattlesnake, whiptails,
collard lizards, coastal horned lizards, as well as the kangaroo rats and pocket mice.
Lauren Development has the option to prove that they are right and that there is no
"significant impact" to their destruction of this property by allowing the appropriate
wildlife agencies to conduct studies and comment on the impact of their plans.
Please do not allow them to destroy this valuable habitat before they do so.
Sincerely yours,
162
September 9, 1998
Mr. Robert Dutton
10500 Civic Cente
City Council
Rancho Cucamonga,
California
Dear Mr. Dutton:
The Lauren Development Project property in Rancho Cucamonga is the very rare
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. This type of coastal sage is designated as
gobally imperiled. Many of us are concerned that the City may be considering giving
Lauren Development permission to destroy this endangered Riversidian Alluvial Fan
Sa~e Scrub with no studies verifyinl~ the impact of doinl[ so.
In addition to the destruction of this valuable vegetation, many species of low
mobility such as the lizard and burrowing mammal might be eliminated outright by
grading on the site. There are sandy washes areas which were created adjacent to
the many streams and where "sheet" flood flow crosses the powerline road. These
areas harbor a large "reptile" population inclucling the red rattlesnake, whiptails,
collard lizards, coastal horned lizards, as well as the kangaroo rats and pocket mice.
Lauren Development has the option to prove that they are right and that there is no
"significant impact" to their destruction of this property by allowing the appropriate
wildlife agencies to conduct studies and comment on the impact of their plans.
Please do not allow them to destroy this valuable habitat before they do so.
Sincerely yours,
163
December 14, 1997
Mr. $. David Freeman
General Manger
L.A. DEPARTMENT OF WATI~R & POWER
111 North Hope
Los An~,eles, CalO~o~
Dear Mr. Freeman:
Re: Rancho Cucamonga's Lauren Development
Please do not allow the unwarranted gnading on your property here.
It is unwarranted to let Lauren Development grade because Lauren
Development already has approval for another option for their channel
If L.A. D£PARTMENT OF WATER & POWER lets Lauren grade on their property
the homeowners effected will hold the DEPARTMENT responsible for any
increase in risk. When Lauren Development h~ other options, I don't
understand how assuming this risk can be just~ed.
allow this grading.
c.c. Edward $chlotman
Ann Fisher
George ~
Los Angeles City Council
! ask that you not
Very Tndy Yours,
164
$~,ember 10,199S
Robert DutWn
City Council
Civic C~nter
Rancho Cucamonga
Dear Mr. Dutton:
I would ask tha~ the City of Rancho Cucamoo~t re~onsid~ its Negative Decleon on the Lauren Project.
While construction activities for th~ rechar~ area at the levee and the Texas fire of 1955 ( which extended
to Have~), apparently had impacted any Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub there at the time of the
Negative Declaration. Rive~ide, an Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is rejuvenated both by fire ~ by flood back
to a pioneer stage and any surveys by the City would have occurred just at~er these events.
In fact Imtial Study of August 8, 1990 (at number 4 ) found this project "would not change or reduce the
numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants and arereals" and that "no d~rioration or
removal of an existing wildlife habitat" would occur. The project site at the time of the Negative
Declaration was further de~ribed as "chaparral". The Negative Declaration makes findings of no
env/ronmental significance. Howev~, a biologist ~ experimce in RAFSS, Michad Brennan and tbe
California Department of Fish and Game C~DFG"), and the developer's own consultants all
agree that this property is now Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ("RAFSS").
This variety of Coastal Sage Scrub is ecologically invaluable and is classified by the California I)~l~atm~mt
of Fish and Game as 'GLOBALLY IMPERILED'. Given these changes and other qu~.s raised, please
require an environmental impact statement before allowing the project to move forward.
Si~rely yours, ~ ~
165
September 10, 1998
Paul Biane
City Council
Civic Center
Rancho Cueamonga
Dear Mr. Bianc:
I would ask that the City of Rancho Cucamonga reconsider its Negative Declaration on the Lauren Project.
While construction activities for the recharge area at the levee and the Texas fire of 1958 ( which extended
to Haven), apparently had impacted any Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub there at the time of the
Negative Declaration. Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is rejuvenated both by fire and by flood back
w a pioneer stage and any surveys by the City would have occurred just after these events.
In fact Initial Study of August 8, 1990 (at number 4 ) found this project "would not change or reduce the
numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants and animals" and that "no deterioration or
removal of an existing wildlife habitat" would occur. The project site at the time of the Negative
Declaration was further described as "chaparral". The Negative Declaration makes findings of no
environmental significance. However, a biologist with experience in RAFSS, Michael Brennan and the
California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG"), and the developer's own consultants all
agree that this property is now Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ("RAFSS").
This variety of Coastal Sage Scrub is ecologically invaluable and is classified by the California Department
of Fish and Game as 'GLOBALLY IMPERILED'. Given these changes and other questions raised, plea,~
require an environmental impact statement before allowing the pwjeet to move forward.
166
September 10, 1998
James Curatalo
City Council
Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga
Dear Mr. Curatalo:
I would ask that the City of Rancho Cucamonga recomider its Negative Declaration on the Lauren Project.
While construction activities for the recharge az~a at the levee and the Texas fire of 1988 ( which extended
to Haven), apparenfiy had impactcd any Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub there at the time of the
Negative Declaration. Riversidcan Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is rejuvenated both by fire and by flood back
to a pioneer stage and any surveys by the City would have occurred just after thcsc events.
In fact Initial Study of August 8, 1990 (at number 4 ) found this project "would not change or reduce the
numbcrs of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants and animals" and that "no dc~fio~on or
removal of an existing wildlife habitat" would occur. The project site at the time of the Negative
Declamation was further dcscribcd as "chaparral". The Negative Declaration makes finclings of no
enviwnmental significance. However, a biologist with experience/n KAFSS, Michael Brennan and the
California Dcpartment of Fish and Game ("CDFG"), and the developcr's own consultants all
agree that this propcrty is now Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ("RAFSS").
This variety of Coastal Sage Scrub is ecologically invaluable and is classified by the California Department
of Fish and Game as 'GLOBALLY IMPERILED'. Given these changes and other questions raised, please
require an environmental impact statement before allowing the project to move forward.
~~,mc~rely yours,
167
September 10, 1998
Diane Williams
City Cornrail
Civic C~ater
Rancho Cucamonga
Dear Ms, Williams:
I would ask that the City of Rancho Cucamonga reconsider its Negative Declaration on the Lauren Project.
While construction activities for tl~ recharge area at the levee and the Texas fire of!988 ( which extended
to Haven), apparently had impacted any Riv~rsidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub there at the time of the
Negative Declaration. Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is rejuvenated both by fire and by flood back
to a pioneer stage and any surveys by the City would have occurred just after these events.
In fact Initial Study of August $, 1990 (at number 4 ) found this project "would not change or reduce the
numbers of any umqu¢, rare, or endangered species of plants and animals" and that "no deterioration or
removal of an existing wildlife habitat" would occur. The project site at the time of the Negative
Declaration was further described as "chapanal". The Negative Declaration makes finclings of no
environmental significance. However, a biologist with experience in RAFSS, Michael Brennan and the
California DeparUnent of Fish and Gat~ ("CDFG"), and th~ developer's own consultants all
agree that this property is now Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ("RAFSS").
This variety of Coastal Sage Scrub is ecologically invaluable and is classified by the California Department
of Fish and Game as 'GLOBALLY IMPERILED'. Given these changes and other questions raised, pleas~
require an environmental impact statement before allowing the project to move forward.
168
September 10, 1998
William Alexander
City Council
Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga
Dear William Alexander:
I would ask that the City of Rancho Cucamonga reconsider its Negative Declaration on the Lauren Project.
While construction activities for the recharge area at the levee and the Texas fire of 1988 ( which extended
to Haven), apparently had impa~axl any Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub there at the time of the
Negative Declaration. Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is rejuvenated both by fire and by flood back
to a pioneer stage and any surv~js by the City would have occurred just after these events.
In fact Initial Study of August 8, 1990 (at number 4 ) found this project "would not change or reduce the
numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants and animals" and that "no deterioration or
removal of an existing wildlif~ habitat" would occur. The project site at the time of the Negative
Declaration was further described as "chaparral". The Negative Declaration makes findings of no
environmental sign/ficance. However, a biologist with experience ht RAFSS, Michael Brennan and the
Ca!iforma Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG"), and the developer's own consultants all
agree that this property is now Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ("RAFSS").
This variety of Coastal Sage Scrub is ecologically invaluable and is classified by the California Department
of Fish and Game as 'GLOBALLY IMPERILED'. Given these changes and other questions raised, please
require an environmental impact statement before allowing the project to move forward.
S~cerely Y°Urs, _1~
169
December 8, 1997
Mr. David Freeman
General Manger
City of Los Angeles
Department of Water
and Power
111 North Hope
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Freeman:
RE:
LAUREN PROJECT IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA
The Lauren Project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga presently
is asking that you reconsider giwLng them the right to grade on
your property. Not only have very serious safety issues been
raised regarding this property but it also threatens an extremely
rare habitat type--the Riversidia3% Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub.
There are so few acres of this habitat left in the world that
I would request that you not let the Lauren Project destroy,
unneccessarily ANY more. Lauren got an alternate plan approved
with no grading on your property. Please deny them permission to
grade on your Property.
Sincerely yours,
c.c. : Ann Fisher
George Garikian
Edward Schlotman
City Council of Los Angeles
170
497S OAnger Cour~
!aritho ~u~amongat ~al£fornAa
Los Angelo., CalAfornAa
Dear CouncAlmeuborealanter,
WhT A0 ~he Los &agelos Department of Water and Pacer conaAderAng lettAng
Lauren Development grade doun a aortAart of flood levee An hneho ~u~amoaga?
eradAng t. he L.&. Department of #afar and Power somAon of the leTee ~ouXd put
a number of addAtAonal hoooo at greater r~sk from floedAng, at mAriAmum SO to
1OO more homes. Paz~Aou~arAl7 ~haa La,~ea Development got engAnoerAag approval.
on another pin for grading u~tbout utt~ag the Department's p~oper~y ~uot An
th~e last October.
My home £0 one of thoee whAchMould b** put at add£tAona! task. What
Angeles Department of #afar and Pacer oaa ~ount on here As the
wall hold them ILable for any flood damage.
c.c. , Mr. DavAd Freeman Mo. Ann FAoher
Mr. Ooorge OarAkAan
Los angeles CAty Council
Mr. Edward Schlot~an
171
Deae~ber ~
Hr. S. David Freeman
General Hanager
Dep~rt~enC of Water & Power
City of Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
Before Los A~Jgelee Dep~r~aw~n£ of Water ~nd P~wer decides Co reconsider Lauren
Pevelopmen='s request =o ~1ow L~uren Co do grad~ on the Dep~rCwnC'8
p~pe~y ~ R~ho ~ong~, Z ~UelC ~ ~e Dep~nC serioully lilC~
=0 ~e ho~ner'J concede ~ou~ both the i~e=y/flood issues ~d =he
delC~c~ion of such a r~e h~it~t.
I would ~ik ~l~ ~ou noC all~ L~uren ~o grade, pa~i~l~rily noC when L~uren
already his ~pprov~l~ o~ other opcion~ whioh elevates ~e need to grade on
your proper:y.
Th~ you very ~ch for your ~e ~d your eon~ideraCion reg~d~g this
~041 C,lyp~o Court
R~cho Cuc~onga, Californi~
C.C. Los ~geles Cigy Council
H~. ~ Fi~er
Hr. Edward Schlo~
Hr. ~orge G~ri~n
172
Reign Smith
.3149~ SierraLinda
Yucaipa, CA. 92399
Mr. Dsvid Freeman
Department of Water and Power
111 North Hope Street
Dear Sir:
Lauren Development in Rancho Cucamonga
Please deny Lauren Development approval to grade on the Department's easement in the city of
Rancho Cucamonga. While there are several kinds of coastal sage scrub considered endangered,
losing the Ri~ersidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is very ~ as it combines riparian habitat
elements with the ~pecies diversity of desert, forest and coast ~'rubhmd ecosystems.
Riversidean ~ Fan Sage Scrub contains more than 170 of the more thn 220 California
species considered in ~e danger of extinction. The globsJ rank (G-rank) is a reflection of
the overall condition of an element throughout its global range. The G- 1 rank assigned to
Riversidean AHuvial Fan Sage Scrub by NDDB is defined "as less than 6 viable element
occurrences or less than 1000 individuals or lesa than 2000 acres." This just points out how
critical every sqLure yard ofren~ining Riversidean Alhxvial Fan Sage Scrub is. Please do not
approve this grading.
Sincerely yours,
e.G. Ms~ .Ann Ftsher Mr. Edward Schlotman
Mr. George ~
Los Angeles City Council
173
· 0978 Carriage D~ive
~ancho C~amonga, Cali£oz"nia
December 14, 1997
Mr. David Freeman
General Manager
Los Angeles De~rtment
of Water & Power
111 North
Los Angeles, California
Dear Sir:
I urge that the Los Angeles Depar*.~ent of Water and Power not
give Lauren Development permission to grade on its property
Rancho Cucamonga. Lauren Development has an alternate channel
plan which both the City Engineer, Riok James and the City
Council have said was approved in October of this year.
If the Department approves Lauren's grading and there is
subsequent flood damage, the homeowner's will hold the Department
responsible also as, with another plan already approved, there is
no reason for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to allow
such grading.
Thank you very much for your careful consideration of this
matter.
Sincerely yours,
Ann Fisher
George Garikian
Edward Schlotman
George Garikian
November 29, 1997
5083 Bramble Court
Rancho, Cucamonga, California
Mr. S. David Freeman
General Manger
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Freeman:
I am very concerned that Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power may again be considering letting Lauren Development grade
on DWP property. The existing swales reduce the speed of flow
flow and the DWP section of the levee is where flood flow would
be turned from almost due south to an essentially easterly
direction--this slows the speed down and redirect potential
floods from our homes.
If the Department of Water and Power consents to Lauren's request
to use its easment to grade and fill, they are also accepting
responsiblity for any flood damages which arise out of it. As
one of the expert consulants said--it is not a question of
whether the debris basin will fail, it is only a question of WHEN
it fails. Please don't give Lauren Development permission for
grading,
Sincerely yours,
c.c.: Los Angeles City Council Ms. Ann Fisher
Mr. George Garikian
Mr. Edward Schlotman
175
December 22, 1997
5$85 Latch Avenue
l~ialto, CA. 92377
Mr. David Freeman
General Manager
LOS ANGELF~ DEPARTMENT OF
WATER & POWER
111 North Hope Street
Lo~ Angeles, California 90012
Dear Mr. Freeman:
1 am writing to ask that the Los Angeles Delmrteraent of Water and Power deny Lauren
Development permission to grade on the Deparm~ent's easement in Rancho Cucamonga. The
whole area in question is the very rare Riversidian Alluvial Fan ~age Scrub, which The
California Department of Fish and Game lists as G-I, meaning that it is gobally threatened with
extinction.
The Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub on your property here is very valuable Smature" stage
of sage scrub with mountain mahogany trees scattered throughout. Additionally, there are
stands of wild !iliacs and much of the white sage that is of a sacred and cermonial value to
almost every North American Indian tribe.
Please preserve this land!
Very Truly Yours,
c.c. Ms. Ann Fisher
Mr. Edward Schlotman
Mr. George Garikian
Los Angeles City Council
176
~!~embor 6,
1998
Mr. James Curatale
City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council
Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Curatale:
I would like to request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga deny Lauren Development permition to
continue developing properly at issue in Rancho Cucamonga, until there has been some reasonable
evaluation of the project and it effects on the surrounding area.
For instance last year at the Planning Commission Hearing, the Developer had stated that there were no
streams on the property which conflicted with what at least a half dozen local people who testified to the
City Council and Planning Commission had said. Rancho Cucamonga has few such areas with streams so
that an approval for the Developer's plan without determining if these streams do exist and then including
them in the development plan just doesn't make any sense. All the other developers in the City above
Hillside Avenue have had to do that.
I am very concerned that, in order to avoid dealing with an impatient or underfinanced developer, the
City may be considering ignoring its own laws and ordinances. Once these streams are gone, there's no
replacing them. Areas like Beryl kept them as part of the development and not only do they add beauy
and value to the homes but they are the sort of thing which helps to keep our City the most attractive and
highest caliber city in the area.
Please do not allow this development to go forward until we've honestly figured out what's going on with
the project and if there are streams and rare habitat. Thank you in advance for your condderation
regarding this project.
Sincerely yours,
177'
178
September 6, 1998
Mayor W~lliam Alexander
City of Rancho Cucamonga C'~ Council
Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mayor Alexander:
I would like to request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga deny Lauren Development permission to
continue developing property at issue in Rancho Cucamonga, until there has been some reasonable
evaluation of the project and it effects on the surrounding area.
For instance last year at the Planning Commission Hearing, the Developer had stated that there were no
streams on the properly which conflicted w~th what at least a half dozen local people who testified fo the
City Council and Planning Commission had said. Rancho Cucamonga has few such areas with streams so
that an approval for the Developer's plan without determining if these streams do exist and then including
them in the development plan just doesn't make any sense. AJJ the other developers in the City above
Hillside Avenue have had to do that.
I am very concerned that, in order to avoid dealing with an impatient or underfinanced developer, the
City may be considering ignoring its own laws and ordinances. Once these streams are gone, there's no
replacing them. Areas like Beryl kept them as part of the development and nat only do they add beau,/
and value to the homes but they are the sort of thing which he~p$ to keep our C'~y the most attractive and
highest caliber city in the area.
Please do not allow this development to go forward untll we've honestly figured out what's going on with
the project and if there are stream, and rare habitat. Thank you in advance for your consideration
regarding this project.
Sincerely yours,
179
September 6,
Mayor William Alexander
City of Rancho Cucamonga City Coundl
Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mayor Alexander:
I would like to request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga deny Lauren Development permission to
continue developing property at issue in Rancho' Cucamonga, until there has been some reasonable
evaluation of the project and it effects on the surrounding area.
For instance last year at the Planning Commission Hearing, the Developer had stated that there were no
streams on the property which conflicted with what at least a half dozen local people who testified to the
City Council and Planning Commission had said. Rancho Cucamonga has few such areas with streams ~o
that an approval for the Developer's plan without determining if these dreams do exist and then indudlng
them in the development plan just doesn't make any sense. All the other developers in the City above
Hillside Avenue have had to do that.
I am very concerned that, in order to avoid dealing with an impatient or underfinanced developer, the
City may be considering ignoring its own laws and ordinances. Once these streams are gone, there's no
replacing them. Areas like Beryl kept them as part of the development and not only do they add beauy
and value to the homes but they are the sort of thing which helps to keep our City the most attradive and
highest caliber city in the area.
Please do not allow this development to go forward until we've honestly figured out what's going on with
the project and if there are streams and rare habitat. Thank you in advance for your consideration
regarding this project.
Sincerely yours,
180
September 60 1998
Mrs. Diane Williams
City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council
Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mrs. Williams
I would like to request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga deny Lauren Development permission to
continue developing properly at issue in Rancho Cucamonga, until there has been some reasonable
evaluation of the projeLl and it effects on the surrounding area.
F:or instance last year at the Planning Commission Hearing, the Developer had stated that there were no
streams on the property which conflicted with what at least a half dozen local people who testified to the
City Council and Planning Commission had ~aid. Rancho Cucamonga has few such areas with streams so
that an approval for the Developer's plan without determining if these streams do exist and then including
them in the development plan just doesn't make any sense. All the other developers in the City above
Hillside Avenue have had to do that.
I am very concerned that, in order to avoid dealing with an impatient or underfinanced developer, the
City may be considering ignoring its own laws and ordinances. Once these streams are gone, there's no
replacing them. Areas like Beryl kept them as part of the development and not only do they add beauy
and value to the homes but they are the sort of thing which helps to keep our City the most attractive and
highest caliber city in the area.
Please do not allow this development to go forward until we've honestly figured out what's going on with
the project and if there are streams and rare habitat. Tlnank you in advance for your consideration
regarding this projeLl.
Sincerely yours,
181
September 6, 1998
Mr. Paul Biane
City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council
Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Biane:
I would like to request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga deny Lauren Development permission to
continue developing property at issue in Rancho Cucamonga, until there has been some reasonable
evaluation of the project and it effects on the surrounding area.
For instance last year at the Planning Commission Hearing, the Developer had staled that there were no
streams on the property which conflicted with what at least a half dozen local people who testified to the
City Council and Planning Commission had said. Rancho Cucamonga has few such areas with streams so
that an approval for the Developer's plan without determining if these streams do exist and then including
them in the development plan just doesn't make any sense. All the other developers in the City above
Hillside Avenue have had to do that.
I am very concerned that, in order to avoid dealing with an impatient or underflnanced developer, the
City may be considering ignoring its own laws and ordinances. Once these streams are gone, there's no
replacing them. Area~ like Beryl kept them as part of the development and not only do they add beauy
and value to the homes but they are the sort of thing which helps to keep our Ci~ the most attractive and
highest caliber city in the area.
Please do not allow this development to go forward until we've honestly figured out what's going on with
the project and if there are streams and rare habitat. Thank you in advance for your consideration
regarding this project.
Sincerely yours,
182
December 11, 1997
The Honorable Ruth Galanter
Los Angeles City Council
Los Angeles City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California
Dear Ms. Galanter:
RE: LAUREN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
On behalf of Cucamongan's United for Reasonable Expansion
("Cure") we want to express our appreciation for the previous
consideration extended by the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power in denying Lauren Development permission to grade on the
Department's property in Rancho Cucamonga. However, Lauren
Development is again asking for the Department's permission to
grade and do to "cut and fill" on the Department's property.
we would like to join in the Sierra Club's recent request that
such valuable habitat not be destroyed unnecessarily. Lauren
Development has another approved channel option which does not
require destruction of so much of this unique habitat of
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). The Riversidean
Allluvial Fan Sage Scrub is the most threatened of the Coastal
Sage Scrub subassociations and is classified by California Fish
and Game as S.l.1. and G-l, indicating that it is gobally
threatened.
The Department's property at issue here is a particularily
valuable RAFSS area as two unique features concentrate even more
varied plant and animal species. First, the powerline road is
the only viable wildlife corridor across the 12' high concrete
and fenced Deer Creek Channel. In fact, the sandy washes created
by spread flow over powerline property are the area where red
diamond back rattlesnakes, orange whiptails, and the San Diego
horned lizards are most commonly seen. The second factor making
the Department's property exceptionally valuable as habitat area
is the water resurfacing at this strand of the Cucamonga Fault,
creating areas of rare ephemeral "wet meadow" or "vernal pools".
These "wet" areas additionally result in more concentration and
variety of both plant and animal species.
183
As the developer had argued that the habitat is completely
degraded, we are enclosing a current California Department of
Fish and Game Biodiversity map for this area, pictures of the
actual area and representative RAFSS plants. Given both the
habitat and the very serious safety concerns raised by the Lauren
Development Project, we urge that the Department not give Lauren
permission to grade.
If you have any further questions, please call me at (909 980-
7202.
Sincerely yours,
Kathy Wyant for Cure
C.C. :
C.C.:
Mr. Edward Schlotman
Ms. Ann Fisher
(less enclosures)
Mr. David Freeman
Mr. George Garikian
184
185
We euppont m~mber~ of the ~ierra C/u~, Cucamongane United for
E~a~onabl~ Expaneion, ~e ~pieit of th~ ~agc Council, ~ ~abHelino I~iane,
~ancho Cucamonga V, and ~e Havenvi~ Hom~own~ A~sociation ~o ~ve
~ppoe~d ~ ~uren ~j~ctand a~k that etudiee be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the ~afety of the project.
habi~t ie tie~d by California ~ieh and Game ae G-l, ~1obally-lmp~rilcd . Th~
California ~epa~nt of Fish and ~ame hae r~u~d euch etudiee and
mitigation m~aeur~e. ~th I~ee ~an $,000 acr~e of Ei~eeid~n Alluvial Fan
than ~e ratnfores~ ~r the e~dwoode. Expe~ hav~ fndica~ that thi~
186
~-~-~o u#:~ Pn&o$~ron-- Ai~mark 818+334.8057 P.01
I,. t . /, /-/
187
W~ eu/pFo~ m~m~r~ of ~..,~ ~ierra Club, ~ucamon~ane Un/t~f for
~o~bl~ Ex~neion, ~ ~ir~ of ~ ~ag~ Council, Th~ ~b~lino Ind~,
~ncho Cu~n~a V, and ~ Havenvicw ~m~wn~ Agioclarion who ~v=
oppoe~d ~ Laugh ~mj~ct and a~k tha~ ~tudi~ b~ conducted r~ardin~
the impact on the environment and the eafety of the pro~ect. Thi~
habile le Iie~d ~ Cal~omla Fish and Gam~ a~ G-l, Globali~!mperiled . Th~
Callrolla Depa~me~ of Fish and Game ha9 re~u~d euch eCudiee and
mttiga~on meaeuree. With ieee ~an 5,000 acree of Riv~id~n Alluvial Fan
5age Scrub ee~ma~d ~ re~in in the world thi~ habi~t i~ more thrashed
than the rainforeete or ~ redwoode. Expe~ hav~ indica~d t~t thi9 p~ject
i~ dangoroue and that it ~xpoeee famili~e ~ ~ ~ek of flooding and debde ~ow.
188
189
~nao~cron-- ~rtn~K 818~334~8057 P.05
We euppor~ rrmmt~r~ of ~he Sierra Club, Cu~mon~ne Un[~ for
E~eo~bte Expaneion, the S~Ht of ~e 9a~e Council, The Ga~rlellno
~n~ho Cooamora ~ and the Haven~ Hom~ownem Aea~la~o~ ~o hav~
optred ~e Lauren Fmj~ana a~k that erudite b~ conduct~
th~ impact on the ~nvironment and the e~ety of th~ project.
habi~t i~ li~d ~ ~lifomla ~i~h and Gam~ a~ ~-1, Globail~lmpeHl~d .
~11fo~la P~pa~ of Ft~h and Gam~ ha~ r~qu~d euch ~dt~e and
mltlg~ion m~eue~. ~ leer ~an 5,~0 acre~ of Riw~idean Alluvial Fan
5age 5c~b eett~ ~ remain in the wod~ thie habl~t ~ more
than the ~info~e~ or ~e red,ode. Ex~ ~ve i~lca~d that thte p~je~
ie dangerour an~ that it exp~ee families ~ th~ riek of flooding and d~rie flow.
190
We euppo~ merehere o~ ~..h~ Sierra Club. Cu~a~n~ne Un~ ~r
~ncho Cu~mon~ ~, and ~e Haven~ Homeo~em ~eoo~on ~o hav~
o~oe~ ~ ~uren P~j~c~and aek gha: eCudi~ ~ conduc~ r~ardin9
=h~ [m~a~ on ~h~ ~nHronmen~ and =h~ early of
ha~i~= te iie~ ~ Califo~ Pieh and Gam~
m~ga~on m~euree. Wi~ i~e ~an ~,000 acree ~ Eivemid~n A!I~I Fan
than ~ rainfor~ or ~ r~od~, E~e~
~ ~ngerou~ and that it expo~e~ fa~I!ie~ ~ th~ riek of~oodtng and d~brl~ ~ow.
191
We eupport mem~ene of the 5ie~a Club, Cucamongane United ~r
R~eo~Me Expanelon, ~e 5~i~ of ~e 5age Council, ~ Ga~ino
~ncho Cu~mon~ V, and ~e Havenvl~ Hominem A~~on ~o have
oppoe~ ~ ~uren P~jgctand a~k that erudite be conduc~ r~garding
the impa~ on the environment and the early of the proje~.
~1Ifo~ Oepa~nt of Fie~ a~ ~am~ ha~ ~qu~ eu~h ~dt~e and
m~on m~euree. ~ I~e ~an 5,~0 acree ~ Rivemid~n Afiuv~l Fan
than ~ rain~r~ or ~ ~d~. ~~ hav~ indi~ ~at
192
~n~ho Cu~mo~ V, and ~e Haven~ ~meo~m ~eeo~on ~o have
oppoe~ ~ ~uren P~jgcta~ aek that etudiee be conduc~ r~oarding
the i~a~ on the en~nm~nt an~ the ~af~ of the proj~. ~
habi~t t~ lie~d by ~lifo~ia Fieh a~ Gam~ a~ G-I, Globall~lmp~ril~ . ~e
~11fo~ Oepa~ent ~ Fieh a~ ~ame ~e requ~ eu~h e~di~ and
ml~a~on m~eur~. ~ i~e ~an $,000 acree ~ ElyemCon ~11uvial Fan
~age ~c~b e~~d ~ ~tn tn ~ ~Hd ~te ~bi~ le mo~ ~r~ned
than ~ rain~~ or ~ md~e. ~~ ~v~ indi~ ~at ~ie ~j~
~ dang~roue and t~t ~ ~~ famil[~ ~ ~ H~k of ~dtng and debri9 ~ow.
193
We eup?o~t member~ of the Sierra Club, Cucamongans United for
I~eaeonab!# Expansion, the Spirit of the 5age Council, The Gabrielinc Indians,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Havenview Homeowner~ Aseociation ~ho have:
oppoee~l the Lauren ProJect and ask that ~tudies be conducted regarding,.
the impact on the environment and the safety of the project. Thle
habitat is listed by California Fish and Game as G-I, Gioball~lmpeHled . The
California l~epartment of Fieh and Game hae requeet~d such etudiee and
mitigation meaeuree. With leer than 5,000 acre~ of River~idean Alluvial Fan
5age ~crub e~t/mated to remain in the world thie habitat is more threatened
than the rainfore~t~ or the redwoods. Expert~ have indicate~ that t~ie project
ie dangercue and that it expoeee familiee to the risk of flooding and debris flow.
194
We ~upport member~ of the Sierra Club, Cucamongane United for
Reasonable Expansion, the 5pirit of the 5age Council, The Gabrielino Indian~,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Havenview Homeowner~ A~ociation who have
opposed the Lauren Project and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safety of the project. Thi~
habitat i~ !i~ted by California Fish and Game a~ G-I, Globally-Imperiled. The
California Department of Fieh and Game hae requested ~uch ~tudiee and
mitigation mea~ure~. With le~ than 5,000 acree of River~idean Alluvial Fan
Sage ~crub e~timated to remain in the world thi~ habitat i~ more threatened
than the rainfore~t~ or the redwoode. Expert~ have indicated that thi~ project
is dangerous and that it ex?o~e~ familie~ to the ri~k of flooding and debri~ flow.
195
We ~u??ort member~ of the Sierra Club, Cucamongan~ United for
Reasonable Expansion, the Spirit of the Sage Council, The Gabrielino Indian~,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Havenview Homeowner~ Az~ociation who have
opposed the Lauren Project and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safety of the project. Thiz
habitat i~ li~ted by California ?i~h and Game a~ G-l, GloballyHmperiled . The
California Department of Fish and Game ha~ requested ~uch ztudie~ and
mitigation mea~ure~. With ie~s than 5,000 acre~ of River~idean Alluvial/=an
Sage Scrub estimated to remain in the world thi~ habitat i~ more threatened
than the rainforests or the redwoods. Expert~ have indicated that thi~ project
is dangerous and that it exposes families to the risk of flooding and debris flow.
196
We ~u?port member~ of the Sierra Club, ¢ucamongans Unit~,d for
l~ea~onable Ex?an~ion, the S?irit of the SaOe Councllo The Gabrielino Indianm,
Rancho Cucamonga Y, and the Havenview Homeowner~ A~sociation who have
opposed the Lauren Project and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safety of the project. Thi~
habitat is listed by California Fish and Game a~ G-l, Globally-imperiled. The
California Department of ?ish and Game has requested ~uch studies and
mitigation measures. With less than 5,000 acre~ of River~idean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub e~timated to remain in the world thi~ habitat i~ more threatened
than the rainforests or the redwoods. Experto have indicated that thi~ project
i~ dangerous and that tt expo~e~ familie~ to the ri~k of flooding and debri~ flow.
197
We support member~ of the Sierra Club, Cucamongan~ United for
Reasonable Expanmion, the Spirit of the Sage Council, The Gabrielino Indians,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Havenview Homeowner~ Ammociation who have
opposed the Lauren Project and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safety of the project. This
habitat is listed by California Fish and Game as G-I, Giobally-lm?eriled . The
California Department of Fish and Game has requested such studies and
mitigation measures. With less than 5,000 acres of River~idean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub estimated to remain in the world this habitat is more threatened
than the rainforest~ or the redwoods. Expert~ have indicated that this project
is dangerous and thai; it expo~e~ families to the risk of flooding and debris flow.
We ~u?port member~ of the Sierra Club, Cucamongan~ United for
Rea~onabl~ Expansion, the Spirit of the Sage Council, The Gabrielino Indian~,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Havenview Homeowner~ A~ociation who have
opposed the Lauren Project and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safety of the project. Thi~
habitat i~ li~ted by California Fish and Game a~ G-I, Globally-lm?eriled . The
California Department of Fish and Game ha~ requested such ~tudies and
mitigation measures. With te~ than ROO0 acres of River~idean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub e~timated to remain in the world this habitat i~ more threatened
than the rainforests or the redwoods. Expert>a have indicated that thi~ project
i~ dangerous and that it exposes families to the ri~k of flooding and debr/s flow.
,/
199
op~e~ ~e ~uren PmJ~and a~k that et,,dt~ b~ cond,~ r~aardin,.
~l~ornla Dep~~ of Fish a~ ~ame ha~ r~uee~ eu~h e~di~
m~on m~gur~. ~ ie~ ~an ~,000 acree of ~vemid~n AI!u~l Fan
~agt ~arub ~~ ~ ~i~ in ~ ~Hd ~!~ h~bl~ i~ more
m aange~ue and ~a= ~ ~e~ fami!l~ ~ ~e riek of ~oodln~ a~ debrie ~ow.
2OO
!e~., W= ~upport: merebern of= r. ho 9i=rm Club. Cuc~mongans United for · onabl= Ex?an~ion. the 9pirit of f;~h~ ~.~ Coun¢;ii. Tho t~.~bri~lino Indiane.
R.~nc~ho Cuc. amor~ ¥. and th= Havenvi~w Hom~owner~ A~og;i~l;don who
the ~mpa~ on th~ ~n~ironm~nt ~nd th~ ~af~y of th~ p~~. ~i~
habi~t i~ !1~ ~ ~lifomia Fish and ~am~
~lifomta D~pa~~ of Fish and Gam~ ~ r~u~ ~uch ~di~ and
m~g~on m~ur~6. ~th I~ ~n ~,000 ~cr~6 of
~ ~erub ~~ ~ ~tn in ~ ~dd ~!~ h~bt~t i~ mor~ ~r~n~
~ ~ngcrou6 and ~t it ~~ famiti~
201
We ~upport member~ of the Sierra Club, Cucamongan~ United for
Reasonable Expansion, the Spirit of the Sage Council, The Gabrielino Indiana,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Havenview Homeowner~ A~ociation who have
o??o~ed the Lauren Project and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safety of the project. Thi~
habitat i~ li~ted by California Fish and Game ae G-I, Globa!ly-lm?erited . The
California Department of Fish and Game ha~ requested ~uch etudie~ and
mitigation measures. With le~s than 6,000 acres of River~idean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub e~t/mated to remain in the world this habitat i~ more threatened
than the rainfore~t~ or the redwoods. Experte have indicated that this project
i~ dangerous and that it exposes familie~ to the risk of flooding and debri~ flow.
202
e ,'xpaneton, the 5tNnC of ~ ~a~ ~unaii, ~e Gabd~ino Indent,
~naho ~mo~a V, a~ ~e Hav~n~ ~mto~o~ Ae~ala~on ~o have
op~ ~e ~ur~n PmJe~and agk that otudi~ be ~ndu~ r~ardin~
the tmpa~ on ~he ~nvironm~nt ~nd the ~f~y ~ th~ p~
habi~t i~ I1~ ~ ~l~mia Fieh and ~ame ae G-l,
~i~ornia Dep~e~ ~ Fish and G~m~ h ..........
m~g~on m~ur~. ~h !~ ~an 5,000 acrts ~ Riv~id~n A/iuv~/ F~n
~ag~ .?aru~ ~~ ~ ~in in ~c ~Hd ~!e habit l, mo~
~ ,~ ~poeee ~mtu~ ~ ~e riek of flooding and d~brls
203
204
205
We ~up?ort member~ of the Sierra Club, Cucamongans United for'
Reasonable Expansion, the Spirit of the Sage Council, The Gabrielino indian~,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Havenview Homeowner~ Association who hava'
o??o~od the Lauren Project and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safety of the pro~ect. Thi~
habitat io lieted by California Fioh and Game ao G-I, Giobally-lm?eriled . The
California Department of Fioh and Game hao requeoted ouch studleo and
mitfgation meaoure~. With leoo than 5,000 acreo of Riveroidean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub eotimated to remain in the world thlo habitat is more threatened
than the rainfore~t~ or the redwoodo. Ex?erte have indicated that thi~ project
ie dangerouo and that it expo~eo faintlice to the riok of flooding and debr/o flow.
/)Ed"
2O6
We support member~ of the Sierra Club, Cucamongans United for
Reasonable Expansion, the Spirit of the Sage Council, The Gabrielino Indians,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Havenview Homeowner~ Association who have
opposed the Lauren Project and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safety of the project. This
habitat is listed by California Fish and Game as G-l, Globally-Imperiled. The
California Department of ?ish and Game has requested euch studies and
mitigation measures. With less than 5,000 acres of River~idean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub estimated to remain in the world this habitat is more threatened
than the rainforest~ or the redwoods. Ex?ert~ have indicated that this project
is dangerous and that it exposes familiee to the risk of flooding and debris ftow.
207
we cuppore meml~em of ~e ~ierra Out,, Cuc~mongan~ Un~ for
Ke~na~le Expaneion, ~ ~plri~ of ~e 5a~ ~un~il, ~e ~abH~lino Indlane,
~ncho Cu~mon~a V, a~d Ch~ Hav~nvi~w Hom~e~ Ae9o~on who haw
oppoe~ ~e ~uren ~mJ~and a~k ~hat ~tudie~ be condu~
the impa~ on the environment and the ~af~y of th~ pr~iect.
habi~t ie i1~ ~ ~llfomia Fish and Game ae G-l, Gioball~imp~N~ed . The
Cai~ornla D~pa~e~t of Fish and Gam~ ha~ r~u~e~d euch e~di~ and
m~a~on m~gur=e. With I=ge ~an ~,000 aceee ~ Riv=mid~n Afiuvial Fan
~a~ 5~rub ee~~d ~ r~main in ~g ~Hd ~i~ habi~C t9 mor~ ~r~ned
~n ~e rainfor~e~ or ~e r~wo~e. Expe~ have in~ca~ ~at ~i~ ~Je~
i~ ~ng~roue and ~at it ~po~oe famiti~ ~ ~h~ riok of ~oodtng and d~brle flow.
C
208
We eu??ort membere of the Sierra Club, Cucamongane United for
Reaeonabl# Expaneion, the Spirit of th/~ 5age Council, The Gabrielino tndiane,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Have~nv~"ew Homeowner~ A~ociation who have
o?po~ed the Lauren ProJect and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safety of the project. Thi~
habitat i~ lieted by California Fish and Game a~ G-l, Globally-imperiled. The
California Department of Fish and Game hae requested ~uch ~tudie~ and
mitigation measures. With les~ than 5,000 acres of Riveraidean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub e~timated to remain in the world this habitat ie more threatened
than the rainfore~te or the redwoods. Ex?erte have indicated that thie project
is dangerous and that it exposes families to the risk of flooding and debris flow.
209
W~ ~upport member~ of th~ ~i~rra Club, Cucamongan~ United for
Reaeonable Expansion, the Spirit of the Sage Council, The Gabrielino Indians,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Havenview Homeowner~ Asoociation who have
opposed the Lauren ProJect and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safetyof the ?roject. This
habitat i~ Ii~ted by California Fish and Game a~ G-l, Globally-Imperiled. The
California Department of Fish and Game has requested such studies and
mitigation measures. 14Pr~h less than 5,000 acre~ of River~idean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub e~timated to remain in the world thi~ habitat i~ more threatened
than the rainfore~t~ or the redwoods. Expert~ have indica~ that thi~ project
i~ dangerous and that it exposes familie~ to the ri~k of flooding and debr/~ flow.
210
We eu??ort merebern of the 5Ien,'a Club, Cuc. amongan~ Unica for
R~a~n~te Expan~ion, ~ 5~ri~ of ~h~ ~a~ ~un~il, ~e ~rl~ino Indiane,,
Rancho Cu=amo~a V, a~ ~g Havenview Hominem Ae~o~ia~on ~o have,
op~e~ ~ ~ u~n Fmj~and a~k tha~ etudi~ b~ condu~ r~ardin~
the impa~ on the environment and the saf~y of the p~j~. ~t~
habit ie Ii~ ~ ~1Ifom~a Fish and Game ae G-l, 61obail~lm~lM. ~
Cal~ornla Oepa~ent of Fiah and Game hae r~uee~ euch e~di~ a~
m~ga~on m~ur~e. ~th !eee than ~,000 acree of Rivemid~n Alluvial Fan
5ag~ 5erub ~~ ~ remain in ~ ~d ~I~ habi~t i~ more ~r~ned
than ~ rainfor~e~ or ~ r~woode. ~pe~ have in~ca~ ~at ~1~ pmje~
i~ dangerou~ and ~at it ~po~ee famiti~ ~ ~ riek of ~oodlng and d~brte ~ow.
211
We su??ort members of the Sierra Club, Cucamongans United for
Reasonable Ex?ansion, the Spirit of the Sage Council, The Gabrielino Indians,
Rancho Cucamonga V, and the Havenview Homeowner~ A~sociation who have
opposed the Lauren Project and ask that studies be conducted regarding
the impact on the environment and the safety of the project. This
habitat is listed by California Fish and Game as G-I, Globa!ly-lm?eriled . The
California Department of Fish and Game has requested such studies and
mitigation measures. With less than 5,000 acres of Riversidean Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub estimated to remain in the wor/d this habitat is more threatened
than the rainforests or the redwoods. Expert~ have indicated that this project
is dangerous and that it exposes families to the risk of flooding and debris flow.
212
I¢ 14/e rUFFOre memJ~em ~ the 5~n~ Club, Cu~mo~ane Un~
aa~na~le ExFaneion, ~= ~FiHc of ~ 5a~ ~un=il, ~e Ga~H~i~ Ind~f°7
Rancho Cu~mo ~ . he,
....... ~a a~ ~e Havenwew Hom~e~ Ae~o~ia~on ~o hav~
Glo~all~lmpedlcd . Th¢~
~lifo~ia Depa~=n~ of Fieh anE Gam~ hae r~uee~ eu~h e~di~ and
m~on m~eur~e. With I~e ~han 5,000 acree of
~n ~e ~i.~r~e~ or ~h~ redwoode. Expe~ have in~~ tha=
~ danqeroue and ~aC i~ ~ee famili~ ~ ~e rick of flooding and debrle flow.
213
~on~l~ Exp~n~ion, ~ 9pfrit of ~ ~= ~un=ii, ~= ~abH=lino Indi~ne,
~n~ho Cu~mo~ Y, ~nd ~e H~v~nview Hom~o~o~ A~o~i~on who hav~
oppo~ ~ ~ur~. P~J~nd ~ek ~h~ ~udi~o bo condu~ ro~rding
~ d~ngvrouz ~nd ~A~ i~ ~poz~ ~miil~ ~ ~ ri~ o~ flooding ~.d d~bri~ flow.
214
April 26, 1998
4993 Ginger
AltaLama, CA.
Mr. bavid Freeman
bepartment of Water & Power
1:1! North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California 900!2
bear Sir:
Re: Lauren bevelopment in Pancho ¢ucamonge
Please accept these petitions as a reflection of the concerns of some of
the hundreds who oppose this project and the grading of the globally
imperiled Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub on the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power property. We oil ask that the
bepartment of Water and Power not permit this unnecessary
destruction of such rare and valuable habitat. The specific area at
issue has additional value as a wildlife corridor, in fact it is the only
real corridor across the alluvial fan. While many of the mammals can
cross above the fenced channels and fenced debris basin, some of the
species most at risk {threatened, endangered, or candidate (7) listed}
cannot. Please preserve the integrity of both the corridor and this
endangered habitat.
Sincerely yours,
c.c.: Ann Fisher, George Garikian, Edward 5chlotman, & L.A. City Council
2~5
SAVE IHE SAGE
SAVE ?~¥E ~It OE
216
,SAVE THE ~A(gE
217
SAVE 'FblE SAllE
219
9
10
1
12
13
1
15
16.
1'7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 ~
The Undersigned Oppose the Lauren
Development Project
29 ~_ : .
32
.34
R7
-,,~
39
4O
41
42
43
.~9
61
62
220
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14~
1,5_
~7//~
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
'-- 32
The Undersigned Oppose the Lauren
Development Project
.r-,9
6O
62
221
The Undersigned Oppose the Lauren
Development Project
25 .~7
26
27 59
28 60
29
30 62
31 6R
32 64
222
The Undersigned Oppose the Lauren
Development Project
J
223
September 10, 1998
9918 Baytree Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Alexander::
The property in Rancho Cucamonga where Lauren Development has requested
permission to begin grading also functions as an important wildlife corridor. The
Council should consider this in addition to the value of this rare habitat in reaching any
decision. As well as providing a link which keeps these threatened and endangered
species from becoming isolated, the property in question is the globally imperiled
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub.
Mountain lions hunt deer on this property and there several candidates for listing such
as the Bell Sage Sparrow and Rufus Crowned Sparrow who nest on the property and
several rare lizards forage and/or live on this property. Please do not permit Lauren
Development to do any grading until such time as the project's impacts have been
formally subjected to a real evaluation.
Yours truly,
224
September 10, 1998
9918 Baytree Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Curatalo:
The property in Rancho Cucamonga where Lauren Development has requested
permission to begin grading also functions as an important wildlife corridor. The
Council should consider this in addition to the value of this rare habitat in reaching any
decision. As well as providing a link which keeps these threatened and endangered
species from becoming isolated, the property in question is the globally imperiled
Rivemidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub.
Mountain lions hunt deer on this property and there several candidates for listing such
as the Bell Sage Sparrow and Rufus Crowned Sparrow who nest on the property and
several rare lizards forage and/or live on this property. Please do not permit Lauren
Development to do any grading until such time as the project's impacts have been
formally subjected to a real evaluation.
Yours truly,
225
September 10, 1998
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Dutton:
The property in Rancho Cucamonga where Lauren Development has requested
permission to begin grading also functions as an important wildlife corridor. The
Council should consider this in addition to the value of this rare habitat in reaching any
decision. As well as providing a link which keeps these threatened and endangered
species from becoming isolated, the property in question is the globally imperiled
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub.
Mountain lions hunt deer on this property and there several candidates for listing such
as the Bell Sage Sparrow and Rufus Crowned Sparrow who nest on the property and
several rare lizards forage and/or live on this property. Please do not permit Lauren
Development to do any grading until such time as the project's impacts have been
formally subjected to a real evaluation.
Yours truly,
226
September 10, 1998
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mrs. Williams:
The property in Rancho Cucamonga where Lauren Development has requested
permission to begin grading also functions as an important wildlife corridor, The
Council should consider this in addition to the value of this rare habitat in reaching any
decision. As well as providing a link which keeps these threatened and endangered
species from becoming isolated, the property in question is the globally imperiled
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub.
Mountain lions hunt deer on this property and there several candidates for listing such
as the Bell Sage Sparrow and Rufus Crowned Sparrow who nest on the property and
several rare lizards forage and/or live on this property. Please do not permit Lauren
Development to do any grading until such time as the project's impacts have been
formally subjected to a real evaluation.
Yours truly,
227
September 10, 1998
9918 Baytree Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Biane:
The property in Rancho Cucamonga where Lauren Development has requested
permission to begin grading also functions as an important wildlife corridor. The
Council should consider this in addition to the value of this rare habitat in reaching any
decision. As well as providing a link which keeps these threatened and endangered
species from becoming isolated, the property in question is the globally imperiled
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub.
Mountain lions hunt deer on this property and there several candidates for listing such
as the Bell Sage Sparrow and Rufus Crowned Sparrow who nest on the property and
several rare lizards forage and/or live on this property. Please do not permit Lauren
Development to do any grading until such time as the project's impacts have been
formally subjected to a real evaluation.
Yours truly,
228
September 12, 1998
5088 Calypso Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
City Council
10500 Civic Center
Rancho cucamonga, California
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Council members,
Please do not let Lauren Development grade on the levee. We are very upset
about the 13ossiblity that the City would consider letting Lauren grade without
having Lauren consider other options either which would not destory the habitat or
change the levee and swales system on the property or which would find a design
which was safer and more compatible with the natural landscape.
You should really consider why homeowners would be getting recommendations
on consultants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We are not a
bunch of homeowners who are worried about our view of the mountains being
spoiled--the 40' levee is certainly higher than Lauren's homes would be. If we
were really only worried about Lauren's effect on our property values, we certainly
would have been fighting the 30 + even 'less expensive" homes being built just 70
feet away from us.
What happens instead is that every time any staff or agency has made a decision
Lauren Development doesn't like they have their lawyers there, threatening to sue
until they get their way. You have a moral as well as legal obligation to protect
your citizens from potentially dangerous situations. That is why every time the
City makes a development decision they have to also find that the development is
safe.
I hope in making your decision you look at the facts and for the sake of the
families living here, please make your decision based on the qualifications and
conclusions of those consultants with expertise on the problem.
Very Truly Yours,
229
September 7, 1998
10808 Foothill
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Mr. Bob Dutton
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Dutton:
Lauren Development Project
Lauren Development is again requesting permission to grade on property which is
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). The developer's own consultant
described the area as "mature" RAFSS. RAFSS has become so endangered that ANY
loss of it is significant. While California Department of Fish and Game gives different
acreage amounts depending on how it was surveyed there is no question that the area
is globally imperiled and very little of it remains. {If there is a general survey then the
752 acres of the Etiwanda Preserve are listed as 752 acres of RAFSS while a specific
survey reveals that less than 354 acres of this 752 acres are actually RAFSS.}
There is no question that Lauren Development's acreage has more value than most
other remaining RAFSS, both because it has more water because of the streams and
winter springs (seeps) but because it is open space adjacent to the only area of
RAFSS set aside for conservation. The Day and Deer Fans have the "purest" sage
fields remaining.
Environmental Perspectives has described "mature" Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub as "the highest quality habitat for plants and wildlife, and contains the greatest
diversity of plants and animal species. RAFSS is an especially bird rich, habitat with
both migratory and resident "sensitive, threatened, or endangered species".
Please do not allow Lauren Development to grade on this property without an actual
evaluation of the consequences to this globally imperiled habitat..
S~11y°urs'
230
September 7, 1998
10808 Foothill
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Mr. Jim Curatelo
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Jim Curateio:
Lauren Development Project
Lauren Development is again requesting permission to grade on property which is
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). The developer's own consultant
described the area as "mature" RAFSS. RAFSS has become so endangered that ANY
loss of it is significant. While California Department of Fish and Game gives different
acreage amounts depending on how it was surveyed there is no question that the area
is globally imperiled and very little of it remains. {If there is a general survey then the
752 acres of the Etiwanda Preserve are listed as 752 acres of RAFSS while a specific
survey reveals that less than 354 acres of this 752 acres are actually RAFSS.}
There is no question that Lauren Development's acreage has more value than most
other remaining RAFSS, both because it has more water because of the streams and
winter springs (seeps) but because it is open space adjacent to the only area of
RAFSS set aside for conservation. The Day and Deer Fans have the "purest" sage
fields remaining.
Environmental Perspectives has described "mature" Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub as "the highest quality habitat for plants and wildlife, and contains the greatest
diversity of plants and animal species. RAFSS is an especially bird rich, habitat with
both migratory and resident "sensitive, threatened, or endangered species".
Please do not allow Lauren Development to grade on this property without an actual
evaluation of the consequences to this globally imperiled habitat..
231
September 7, 1998
10808 Foothill
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Mayor Bill Alexander
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mayor Bill Alexander::
Lauren Development Project
Lauren Development is again requesting permission to grade on property which is
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). The developer's own consultant
described the area as "mature" RAFSS. RAFSS has become so endangered that ANY
loss of it is significant. While California Department of Fish and Game gives different
acreage amounts depending on how it was surveyed there is no question that the area
is globally imperiled and very little of it remains. {If there is a general survey then the
752 acres of the Eftwanda Preserve are listed as 752 acres of RAFSS while a specific
survey reveals that less than 354 acres of this 752 acres are actually RAFSS.}
There is no question that Lauren Development's acreage has more value than most
other remaining RAFSS, both because it has more water because of the streams and
winter springs (seeps) but because it is open space adjacent to the only area of
RAFSS set aside for conservation. The Day and Deer Fans have the "purest" sage
fields remaining.
Environmental Perspectives has described "mature" Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub as "the highest quality habitat for plants and wildlife, and contains the greatest
diversity of plants and animal species. RAFSS is an especially bird rich, habitat with
both migratory and resident "sensitive, threatened, or endangered species".
Please do not allow Lauren Development to grade on this property without an actual
evaluation of the consequences to this globally imperiled habitat..
Sincerely yours,
232
September 7, 1998
Mrs. Diane Williams
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mrs. Williams:
Lauren Development Project
Lauren Development is again requesting permission to grade on property which is
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). The developer's own consultant
described the area as "mature" RAFSS. RAFSS has become so endangered that ANY
loss of it is significant. While California Department of Fish and Game gives different
acreage amounts depending on how it was surveyed there is no question that the area
is globally imperiled and very little of it remains. {If there is a general survey then the
752 acres of the Etiwanda Preserve are listed as 752 acres of RAFSS while a specific
survey reveals that less than 354 acres of this 752 acres are actually RAFSS.}
There is no question that Lauren Development's acreage has more value than most
other remaining RAFSS, both because it has more water because of the streams and
winter springs (seeps) but because it is open space adjacent to the only area of
RAFSS set aside for conservation. The Day and Deer Fans have the "purest" sage
fields remaining.
Environmental Perspectives has described "mature" Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub as "the highest quality habitat for plants and wildlife, and contains the greatest
diversity of plants and animal species. RAFSS is an especially bird rich, habitat with
both migratory and resident "sensitive, threatened, or endangered species".
Please do not allow Lauren Development to grade on this property without an actual
evaluation of the consequences to this globally imperiled habitat..
Sincerely yours,
233
September 7, 1998
10808 Foothill
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Mr. Paul Biane
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Paul Biane:
Lauren Development Project
Lauren Development is again requesting permission to grade on property which is
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). The developer's own consultant
described the area as "mature' RAFSS. RAFSS has become so endangered that ANY
loss of it is significant. While California Department of Fish and Game gives different
acreage amounts depending on how it was surveyed there is no question that the area
is globally imperiled and very little of it remains. {if there is a general survey then the
752 acres of the Etiwanda Preserve are listed as 752 acres of RAFSS while a specific
survey reveals that less than 354 acres of this 752 acres are actually RAFSS.}
There is no question that Lauren Development's acreage has more value than most
other remaining RAFSS, both because it has more water because of the streams and
winter springs (seeps) but because it is open space adjacent to the only area of
RAFSS set aside for conservation. The Day and Deer Fans have the "purest" sage
fields remaining.
Environmental Perspectives has described "mature" Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub as "the highest quality habitat for plants and wildlife, and contains the greatest
diversity of plants and animal species. RAFSS is an especially bird rich, habitat with
both migratory and resident "sensitive, threatened, or endangered species".
Please do not allow Lauren Development to grade on this property without an actual
evaluation of the consequences to this globally imperiled habitat..
234
235
236
23?
238
239
240
December' 22, 1997
SSSS Latch Avenue
Rialto, CA. 92377
Mr. David Freeram
General Manager
LOS ANGF-I-~q DEFARTMENT OF
WATER & POWER
111 North Hope Street
Los AJ~geles, California 90012
Dear Mr. Freeman:
1 am writing to ask tlmt the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power deny Lauren
Development permission to grade on the Department's easement in Rancho Cucamor~n. The
whole area in question is the very rare Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, which The
California Department of Fish and Game lists as G-l, meaning that it is gobally threatened with
extinction.
The Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub on your property here is very valuable "mature" stage
of sage scrub with mountain mahogany trees scattered throughout. Additionally, there are
stands of wild !iliacs and much of the white sage that is of a sacred and cermonial value to
almost every North American Indian tribe.
Please preserve this landl
Very Truly Yours,
c.c. Ms. Ann Fisher Mr. Edward Schiotman
Mr. George Garikian
Los Angeles City Council
241
9674 N. Hampton Drive
Alta Lama, CA. 9t737
Mr. David Freeman
Department of Water and Power
111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, C~lifornia
Dear Mr. Freeman:
For a project proposed in Rancho ¢ucamonga Lauren Development has asked to
g~de on Department of Water and Power property. However, that developer
has another approved proposal which does not require grading or other use of the
Department's proper~y.
Please deny this request. The Department's property in question is the "globally-
imperiled' Riversideon Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. This Riversideon Alluvial Fan
Scrub habitat is itself endangered and it supports many threatened or endangere~l
species, Please preserve it by not allowing Lauren Development to grade..
Sincerely yours,
Ann Fisher
¢,eorge ~rikian
Edward Schlotman
Los Angeles City Council
242
14131 Exeter Court
Fontaria, California 92336
December 22,/$97
The Honorable Ruth Galanter
Los Angeles City Council
200 South Main Street
Los Angeles, California
Dear Ms. Galanter:
/ am contacting you in regard to the Lauren Development Project in Rancho
Cucamonga. Lauren Development wants to grade on the property of the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power here even though our city approved
another option which does not reclu/re destroying the habitat on your property.
This property is a heavily traveled wild/fie corridor. ~qs I am sure you know these
corridors need some buffer around them so' that all the species can travel them.
Additionally, while casual observers might dismiss this valuable habitat as just dry
brush there/s an incredible variety of plants you would not usually expect to see in
sage scrub, including spring wildflowers. 77~e areas where water resurfaces up
from the ground means that some wildflowers you would expect to find only at
higher elevations and in the late spring have winter blooms here.
P/ease do not let Lauren Development destroy this valuable habitat-- THEY CAN
BUILD THEIR OTHER OPT/ON AND LEAVE THE CORRIDOR ALONE.
C.C.;
Sincerely yours,
Ms. Ann Fisher, Mr. David Freeman,
Mr. George Garikian, Mr. Edward Sch/otman
The Los Angela City Counc#
243
Sierra Club
San Gorgonlo Chapter
Sewin& Riverside and San BernaMine Countics
Tabquitz Group · Los Serranos Group
San Bernardino Mtns. Group · Mojave Group
568 N. Mountain View Ave., Suite 130
San Bernardino, CA 92~01
(714) 381.5015
The Honorable Ruth Galanter
Chairwoman, Commerce, Encrg~y and Natural Resources
Los Angeles City Council
200 North Spring StreeL Room 237
Los Angeles, Ca 90012
FAX 213-237-0549
PH 213-485-3357
Re: Department of Water and Power Easement Negotiations ~th Lauren Development
Dear Ms. Galanter:
I am writing on beltaft of the Sierra Club in connection with a proposed developrnent in Rancho
Cucamonga.
The Sierra Club would like to thank the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for its
responsiveness to the previous requests to protect this valuable habitat area by not allowing Lauren
Dcvclopment to i~tdc on the Department's property. The Department's decision to break off ncgotiaUons
last August with Lauren Development means that we will he able to save the rare habitat on the
Department's easement.
The type of habitat is called the Rivcrsidian Alluvial Fan Sase Scrub. It is an extremely threatened habitat
type and it is also tmbitat which supports many threatened or endangcred plants and animal species such
as the loggerhead strike, the Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, the sage sparrow, the red
diamond-bacla~ rattlesnake, and the San Diego horned lizard. The powerline area itself bss mote varied
and concentrated populations of habitat because the powerline road provides the only viable corridor
across the flood control channels for many of these threatened species and their food sources. Riversidian
Alluvial Fan Sago Scrub is listed by the Depanmcnt of Fish and Game as G*I, globally thre~ened.
In addition to all the habitat issues, we understand that serious safe~.' concerns have also been raised about
the cleveloper's project due to flooding and debris flow from thc mountains. One of the teasons that the
developer wants tO ~___'~_- on DWP's easement is to build some proposed substitute flood infrastructure.
When the De~t terminated nes~iations Last August because of environmental concerns, the
d~,eloper got an atterrmtive plan approved for this infrastructure without having to grade on the
easement. Nevertheless, he is now trying to convince the DWP to reopen negotiations because he can
build at l~ss cost ff he uses pan of the easement.
We urge that lhe Los Angeles Depanmenl of Water and Power not reconsider allowing Lauren
Development to gngle on its ~ent, particularly not when Lauren Development has another appro~'ed
plan which does not require 1his additional habitat destruction.
Thank you %~y much for your consideration of these issues. We would be happy Io speak with you or
your staff or provide pictures of this lovely habitat if you would like.
Sincerely Yours,
Louise M. French, Conservation Chair
Los Serranos Group, San GorEohio Chapter, Sierra Club
1690 N. Second Avenue
Uplan~ Calfforma 91784
5 I~w.~mber 1997
cc: David Fr~man
Department of Water and Power
245
December 23, 1997
6776 Etiwanda Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91739
Ms. Ruth Galanter
Los Angeles City Council
200 South Main Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Dear Councilwoman Galanter:
Please do not allow grading of the valuable habitat at your powerlines in Rancho
Cucamonga. There are species that are on the list of rare or threatened birds. This
kind of sage is also habitat for the endangered California gnatcatcher.
Lauren Development has received approval for another project plan where they do not
have to grade on your property. Please do not agree to the destruction of this gobally
threatened habitat. It is too important to lose any of it.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. David Freeman
Ms. Ann Fisher
Mr. George Garikian
Mr. Edwanl Schlotman
24.6
Nove~er 27, 1997
Mr. David Freeman
General Manager
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California
Dear Sir:
I am very upset that ~he Department of Water and Power
is considering letting Lauren Development grade on the D~P pro-
perty at the levee. When the Rancho Cucamonga City Council
approved an alternate plan for Lauren Develop~ent's Flood Control
Channel on October 15, 1997~ we thought it was very settled that
our homes would not be put at this additional risk.
If my home is flooded, I will hold the City of Los
Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
responsible. I can't understand why L.A.D.W.P. would put us at
such increased risk from flooding and debris flo~ just so Lauren
Development can save money by building the cheapest of their
channel options.
Sincerely yours,
Vicki Ellis
5069 Bramble Court
Rancho Cucamonga, California
c.c. Ms. Ann Fisher
Mr. George Garikian
Mr. Edward Schlotman
City Council
December 14, 1997
Mr. David Freeman
Los Angeles City
Department of Water
and Power
III North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Freeman:
Any necessity for Lauren Development to request that the Los Angeles
Department of Water end Power allow them to grade on the Department's
property in Rancho Cucamonga was eliminated when the City of Rancho
Cucamonga appoved an alternate channel plan in October 1997.
Please do not place additional homeowners at risk by allowing Lauren
Development to exercise the cheapest of their options. The homeowners
here feel that for the Department to allow Lauren Development to use this
cheap option and grade on Department property could place us at even
greater risk. ~._~; --'. . /:~,/~ /
,,. ,"11,//~I~.., ' '" '
c.c. The Los Angeles City Council Mr, George Gariklan
Mr. Edward Schlotman
Ms. Ann Fisher
24,8
December 20, 1997
5079 Granada Court
Rancho Cucamonga, California
The Honorable Councilwomnn Gatnnter
City Council of the City of Los Angeles
200 South Main Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Dear Ms. Ruth Galanter:
Lauren Development
In order to utilize the least expensive way of building their "replacement" flood
channel Lauren Development is coming back to the Department asking for use of
the Department's property for grading. Certainly for Lauren, grading on the
Department's property may be considerably less costly. However, it is could
prove quite costly both to the homeowners in Haven View and to Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power.
An approved, nlternate plan does not require grading on the Department's
property and does not potentially involve 1he Department in all the !itigntion
which could nrise from any flooding. Please consider safety of the homeowners in
Hnven View in addition to the fact that the Depnrtment's own best interests may
not be served by involvement in this situation and do not nllow grading on
Department of Water and Power property,
Very truly, you~
The
c.c.: Mr. David Freeman Los Angeles City Council
Ms. Ann Fisher
Mr. George Garikian
Mr. Edward Schiotman
249
5074 Equine Place
Alta Loma, California
December 14, 1997
Mr. David Freeman
General Manager
Department of Water & Power
111 North Hope
Los Angeles, CA. 90012
Dear Mr. Freeman:
Concerns have been raised by Lauren Development wanting to grade
on your property in Rancho Cucamonga. When Lauren got their
approwal for a channel which did not involve grading on your
easement, the residents here had believed we would not be
subJectea to the additional flood risks the project poses.
If your section of the levee remains intact, the homes to the
southwest are not placed at this additional risk. PLEASE DO NOT
ALLOW THIS GRADING.
Sincerely yours,
c.c.:
Ann Fisher
George Garikian
Edward Schlotman
Los Angeles City Council
250
May 21, 1998
Mr. Ken Cox
10686 Banana Avenue
Fontann, CA. 92335
Mr. David Freeman
Department of Water and Power
111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Freeman:
Please do not permit Lauren Development to grade on the Los Angeles'
Department of Water and Power utility easement in Rancho Cucamonga. This
utility easement is the sole wildlife corridor allowing animal species to cross the
alluvial fans. In Rancho Cucamonga the Day and Deer Creek alluvial fans are
blocked by deep concrete flood control channels which are fenced off. The only
access across these channels is the utility easement bridges. This means that
wildlife has become concentrated in the easement area, especially near these
channel bridges.
The Deparunent should be aware that Lauren Development has another plan for
development which does not require grading of this easement/corridor. The
easement area itself is a rare form of coastal scrub, Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub, which is considered endangered itself and some of the less "mobile"
reptiles and small mammals which would be at the most risk from this grading
are on state and federal "rare, sensitive, or threatened" candidate lists. Please
consider how unnecessary this destruction is and do not allow the grading.
Sincerely yours,
c.c.: Ann Fisher, George Garikian, Edward Schlotman, Los Angeles City Council
254
4999 N. Ginger Court
;tlta Loma, CA. 91737
Mr. David Freeman
Department of Water
& Power
Los Angeles City
111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA. 90012
Dear Mr. Freeman:
Rancho Cucamonga-Lauren Project
Many residents of this area are very concerned with the safety
issues raised by the Lauren Project. Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power's property is where Lauren wishes to grade the
levee and swale sytem. We had been very relieved by your
assurances in December that you would not allow grading as long
as we had safety concerns.
Inspire of Lauren's statements to various agencies about there
being "no stream"; we all see the amount of water there is, even
in moderate storms. FEMA had rated the levee and swale system as
being capable of holding back a ,,hundred-year flood". Those of
us who live up here and who are familiar with the debris basin
and surrounding area, know it is only a question of W}{EN we have
flooding, not IF, should the levee go.
Lauren has another approved Channel plan which does not require
grading on your property. Apparently, it would also be more
expensive for Lauren because, if they can not grade on your
property, they would have to haul more of the excess debris from
the levee off site instead of dumping it at the property edge.
We ask that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power not
take on the liablity involved in taking responsiblity for making
a dangerous situation even worse--Do Not Let Lauren Grade on Your
Property.
Very truly yours,
c.c.: Ms. Ann Fisher Mr. George Garikian
Mr. Edward Schlotman
The Los Angeles City Council
252
December 9, 1997
4947 Calico Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Mr. David Freeman
L.A. DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER
111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Freeman:
I am writing to urge that the Department give careful
consideration to the homeowners in Rancho Cucamonga who have
expressed concerns abo~t Lauren D~9=lopment plans to grade on
your easement here in Rancho Cucamonga.
Particularly when Lauren Development has other options than to
grade on your property, a~y further destruction of habitat and
possible reduction in safety to the homeowners seems unwarranted.
Please do not allow Lauren Development to grade on your property.
Sincerely yours,
c.c.: Ann Fisher
George Garikian
Edward ~ch~otman
The City Council
253
November 30, 1997
4925 Calico Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Mr. S. David Freeman
General Manager
Los Angeles Water & Power
111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California
Dear Mr. Freeman:
Lauren Development is now requesting that Los Angeles Water and
Power grant permission to grade on their property. Not only
would allowing this grading destory valuable habitat but it may
significantly increase the dangers this Project poses to all the
homeowners here.
Whatever assurance the developer gives, be sure that I and the
other homeowners in this association will hold Los Angeles Water
and Power responsible in the event of any flooding. At present
no agency has or wants responsiblity for this flood control
channel; the Department of Water and Power will simply be "on
the hook" for all damages to the Haven View Homeowners as our
damages will all have orginated from your actions. You can also
expect suits from the neighboring homeowners association against
both you and Lauren.
I would ask that Los Angeles Power and Water not allow this
grading.
C*C~
Sincerely yours,
Ms. Ann Fisher
Mr. George Garikian, Esq.
Mr. Edward Schlotman, Esq.
254
4903 Cactus Court
Rancho Uucamonga, CA.
December 1, 1997
Mr. David Freeman
General Manger
Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power
111 Noeth Hope
Los Angeles, California 90012
Dear Mr. David Freeman:
Before the Los Angeles Deparonent of Water and Power decides to consider
giving Lauren Developement the right to grade the levee and to do "cut and
fill" all along their property from Haven Avenue to Deer Creek Channel, I
hope the Water and Power Department gives serious consideration to the
issues belng raised both by the environmentalists and by two downgradient
homeowners associations.
Lauren Developement also proposed other options for their project which
did not require grading on the Water and Power Department's property.
One of these other proposals has already recleved approval from the clty's
Engineering Department and from the City Council.
c. c.: Ann Fisher
Sinpere~ly yours,
LOs Angeles City Council
Edward Schlotman
George Garikian
255
Mr. David Iresman
Los Angeles Depax~uent of Water and Power
XXX Worth lope ftreet
Los Angeles, California
Before Los Angeles chooses to allow Lauren developBent to
exercise its cheapest flood oontro~ option, X hope
consideration ie given to the danger Los Angeles DepazUent
Water and ~oveF ie ohoos~ng to place ~e in. IXoase Fold
expert teetheaT and gave cons~deFatLon to the quali£Aoationo
of the experts themselves. Xt is one ~hing to have testbony
~ro, .cms one rEHA and other agencies use For ~Xood pXaAm
mapping and quite another to have testimony tree someone whose
erpeFAenoe As in turbo and ~utters and soil.
Xn this instance you are · property owner who is being asked by a
private developer for use of your land. The developer has
another approved development plan which does not require the use
or your land. Xf you ohosee to allow ham ~o grade ~he levee we
will hold you responsible For any danages which arise.
Yours,
city Council
Ms. Ann Fisher
Mr. George Garikian
Mr. Edward Schlotman
256
September 13. 1998
City C~uacil
City Hall
10SO0 Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear City Cou-cil Member,
It is ver~ hard to see what justification the Planning Commission and the City
of Rancho Cuc~nga could have for putting both the City's taxpayers at risk
for that kind of liability for flooding and the homeowners at risk for debris
flow.
The only people who will have liability in this situation will be ~auren
Development who has made sure to protect themselves £nside their nice little
shielded l~mitod liability corporation and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The
City's taxpayers,not that corporation, are likely to be paying for Lauren's
being allowed to proceed based on a Negative Declaration full of errors.
Es~0cially when there is option available for the City Council to require that
Lauren do an 4mpact study and correct the mistakes in the negative
declaration, homeowners in this area do not understand how you can consider
taking that big a chance with our homos and families.
Sincerely yourst
257
September 12, 1998
City Councilmember
10500 Inland Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Sirs:
Lauren Development Project in Rancho Cucamonga
Again I ask that the City of Rancho Cucamonga not give Lauren
Development permission to grade on its property in Rancho
Cucamonga. Lauren Development has no real assets to cover any
potential diasters and as Mr. Allday very pointedly said at the
Planning Commission Hearing, Lauren is a "limited liability
Corporation". If the City Council votes to allow Lauren
Development to go forward The City Council would really be
accepting that the City is liable for any damages.
Should the City approve Lauren's grading and there is subsequent
flood damage, the homeowner's in this area will hold the City
responsible also, as particularly, when we have tried so hard to
get safety studies and were so worried as to be willing to
purchase the property, it will be clear that the damage was
forseeable and could have been prevented. There is no reason for
Lauren not to do the safety studies as it would be less time
consuming and less expensive than all the litigation.
Please do not permit for the grading of the levee and swale
system on their property, until an formal impact report has been
done. Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
258
September 10, 1998
Mr. William Alexander
City Hall
10500 Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Dear Sir:
The importance of conserving this area for future generations must be taken into consideration
in evaluating the impacts of the Lauren Development project. California is considered one of
the world's "HOT" spots along with the Himalayas, the Rain Forests areas, and
Madagascar. California is recognized by botanists as a "separate evolution center containing
more than a fourth of all the plant species found in the United States and Canada combined.
Half (2,140+) of these species are found nowhere else in the world." While there are several
kinds of coastal sage scrub which are considered endangered, losing the Riversidean Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub is very critical as it combines riparian habitat elements (both from actual
flooding on the alluvial fans and from water resurfacing at the earthquake faults) with the
diversity of desert, forest and coastal sage scrub ecosystems and species.
A group, The Spirit of the Sage, which has helped lead the fight for the preservation of the
coastal scrubland in this area, estimated that Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub contains
more than 170 of the more than 220 California species considered in immediate danger of
extinction. The global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall condition of an element
thoughout its global range. The G-1 rank assigned to Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub by
NDDB is defined "as less than 6 viable element occurrences or less than 1000 individuals or
less than 2000 acres."
California Fish and Game classified Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub as S-1 and G-1,
"globally imperiled" in 1985. Since then a significant amount of additional acreage has been
lost to development,. Actually the only large area of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub set
aside for preservation is approximately 3/4 of mile away from this project. The acreage of the
Lauren Project is more valuable as it is open. space contiguous to this preserve and is a wildlife
corridor.
Please require that actual studies of impacts be considered before the final decision to allow
Lauren Development to continue with their project. Thank you in advance for giving serious
consideration to these questions.
Sincerely yours
259
September 10, 1998
Mrs. Diane Williams
City Hall
10500 Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Dear Madam:
The importance of conserving this area for future generations must be taken into consideration
in evaluating the impacts of the Lauren Development project. California is considered one of
the world's "HOT" spots along with the Himalayas, the Rain Forests areas, and
Madagascar. California is recognized by botanists as a "separate evolution center containing
more than a fourth of all the plant species found in the United States and Canada combined.
Half (2,140+) of these species are found nowhere else in the world." While there are several
kinds of coastal sage scrub which are considered endangered, losing the Riversidean Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub is very critical as it combines riparian habitat elements (both from actual
flooding on the alluvial fans and from water resurfacing at the earthquake faults) with the
diversity of desert, forest and coastal sage scrub ecosystems and species.
A group, The Spirit of the Sage, which has helped lead the fight for the preservation of the
coastal scrubland in this area, estimated that Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub contains
more than 170 of the more than 220 California species considered in immediate danger of
extinction. The global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall condition of an element
thoughout its global range. The G-1 rank assigned to Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub by
NDDB is defined "as less than 6 viable element occurrences or less than 1000 individuals or
less than 2000 acres."
California Fish and Game classified Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub as S-1 and G-1,
"globally imperiled" in 1985. Since then a significant amount of additional acreage has been
lost to development,. Actually the only large area of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub set
aside for preservation is approximately 3/4 of mile away from this project. The acreage of the
Lauren Project is more valuable as it is open space contiguous to this preserve and is a wildlife
corridor.
Please require that actual studies of impacts be considered before the final decision to allow
Lauren Development to continue with their project. Thank you in advance for giving serious
consideration to these questions.
Sincerely yours
260
September 10, 1998
Mr. Jim Curatalo
City Hall
10500 Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Dear Sir:
The importance of conserving this area for future generations must be taken into consideration
in evaluating the impacts of the Lauren Development project. California is considered one of
the world's "HOT" spots along with the Himalayas, the Rain Forests areas, and
Madagascar. California is recognized by botanists as a "separate evolution center containing
more than a fourth of all the plant species found in the United States and Canada combined.
Half (2,140+) of these species are found nowhere else in the world." While there are several
kinds of coastal sage scrub which are considered endangered, losing the Riversidean Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub is very critical as it combines riparian habitat elements (both from actual
flooding on the alluvial fans and from water resurfacing at the earthquake faults) with the
diversity of desert, forest and coastal sage scrub ecosystems and species.
A group, The Spirit of the Sage, which has helped lead the fight for the preservation of the
coastal scrubland in this area, estimated that Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub contains
more than 170 of the more than 220 California species considered in immediate danger of
extinction. The global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall condition of an element
thoughout its global range. The G-1 rank assigned to Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub by
NDDB is defined "as less than 6 viable element occurrences or less than 1000 individuals or
less than 2000 acres."
California Fish and Game classified Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub as S-1 and G-1,
"globally imperiled" in 1985. Since then a significant amount of additional acreage has been
lost to development,. Actually the only large area of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub set
aside for preservation is approximately 3/4 of mile away from this project. The acreage of the
Lauren Project is more valuable as it is open space contiguous to this preserve and is a wildlife
corridor.
Please require that actual studies of impacts be considered before the final decision to allow
Lauren Development to continue with their project. Thank you in advance for giving serious
consideration to these questions.
Sincerely yours
261
September 10, 1998
Mr. Paul Biane
City Hall
10500 Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Dear Sir:
The importance of conserving this area for future generations must be taken into consideration
in evaluating the impacts of the Lauren Development project. California is considered one of
the world's "HOT" spots along with the Himalayas, the Rain Forests areas, and
Madagascar. California is recognized by botanists as a "separate evolution center containing
more than a fourth of all the plant species found in the United States and Canada combined.
Half (2,140+) of these species are found nowhere else in the world." While there are several
kinds of coastal sage scrub which are considered endangered, losing the Riversidean Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub is very critical as it combines riparian habitat elements (both from actual
flooding on the alluvial fans and from water resurfacing at the earthquake faults) with the
diversity of desert, forest and coastal sage scrub ecosystems and species.
A group, The Spirit of the Sage, which has helped lead the fight for the preservation of the
coastal scrubland in this area, estimated that Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub contains
more than 170 of the more than 220 California species considered in immediate danger of
extinction. The global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall condition of an element
thoughout its global range. The G-1 rank assigned to Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub by
NDDB is defined "as less than 6 viable element occurrences or less than 1000 individuals or
less than 2000 acres."
California Fish and Game classified Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub as S-1 and G-I,
"globally imperiled" in 1985. Since then a significant amount of additional acreage has been
lost to development,. Actually the only large area of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub set
aside for preservation is approximately 3/4 of mile away from this project. The acreage of the
Lauren Project is more valuable as it is open space contiguous to this preserve and is a wildlife
corridor.
Please require that actual studies of impacts be considered before the final decision to allow
Lauren Development to continue with their project. Thank you in advance for giving serious
consideration to these questions.
Sincerely yours
~
262
September 10, 1998
Mr. Robert Dutton
City Hall
10500 Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Dear Sir:
The importance of conserving this area fbr future generations must be taken into consideration
in evaluating the impacts of the Lauren Development project. California is considered one of
the world's "HOT" spots along with the Himalayas, the Rain Forests areas, and
Madagascar. California is recognized by botanists as a "separate evolution center containing
more than a fourth of all the plant species found in the United States and Canada combined.
Half (2,140+) of these species are found nowhere else in the world." While there are several
kinds of coastal sage scrub which are considered endangered, losing the Riversidean Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub is very critical as it combines riparian habitat elements (both from actual
flooding on the alluvial fans and from water resurfacing at the earthquake faults) with the
diversity of desert, forest and coastal sage scrub ecosystems and species.
A group, The Spirit of the Sage, which has helped lead the fight for the preservation of the
coastal scrubland in this area, estimated that Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub contains
more than 170 of the more than 220 California species considered in immediate danger of
extinction. The global rank (G-rank) is a reflection of the overall condition of an element
thoughout its global range. The G-1 rank assigned to Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub by
NDDB is defined "as less than 6 viable element occurrences or less than 1000 individuals or
less than 2000 acres."
California Fish and Game classified Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub as S-1 and G-I,
"globally imperiled" in 1985. Since then a significant amount of additional acreage has been
lost to development,. Actually the only large area of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub set
aside for preservation is approximately 3/4 of mile away from this project. The acreage of the
Lauren Project is more valuable as it is open space contiguous to this preserve and is a wildlife
corridor.
Please require that actual studies of impacts be considered before the final decision to allow
Lauren Development to continue with their project. Thank you in advance for giving serious
consideration to these questions.
Sincerely yours
26:3
September 12, 1998
City Council
Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730
Dear Councilperson:
Rancho Cucamonga-Lauren Project
Many residents of this area are very concerned with the safety
issues raised by the Lauren Project. Where Lauren wishes to
grade is the flood control levee and swale sytem. We had been
very relieved by your vote last year that did not allow grading,
as we had safety concerns. Faced with doing an EIS or fighting a
lawsuit we thought that Lauren would do the EIS as it would have
been less expensive. We can not imagine why they did not do the
study unless they themselves already know the conclusion would be
that it is too dangerous without expensive mitigation.
Inspite of Lauren's statements to various agencies about there
being "no stream"; we all see the amount of water there is, even
in moderate storms. FEMA ihad rated the levee and swale system as
being capable of holding back a "hundred-year flood". Those of
us who live up here and who are familiar with the debris basin
and surrounding area, know it is only a question of WHEN we have
flooding, not IF, should the levee go.
The residents are so worried that they were willing to buy the
property. Any thing which does not require grading down the levee
on the property. We ask that the City not take on the liablity
involved in taking responsiblity for making a dangerous situation
even worse--Do Not Let Lauren Grade Until an Impact Study has
been done.
Very truly yours,
264
September 5, 1998
Mrs. Williams
10500 Civic Center Drive --.
Rancho Cucamonga,, California
Dear Mrs Williams.
Rancho Cucamonga's Lauren Development
There has been a project proposed in Rancho Cucamonga where the developer, Lauren, has asked
to grade a habitat that the Department of Fish and Game has requested they not grade without
further study and mitigation.. I am told that the developer is now trying to get the City's approval
to go forward without complying with Fish and Games request..
Particularly where this Habitat of' such concern to Fish and Game among others, I ask that the
City of Rancho Cueamonga deny this request until such time as the developer choses to comply..
Perhaps, the City is unaware that the property in question is the "globally-imperiled" Riversidean
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. The Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat is itsall endangered
and it contains many threatened or endangered species, Please preserve it.
Sincerely yours,
2,',65
September 5, 1998
Councilman Biane
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Biane:
Rancho Cucamonga~s Lauren Development
There has been a project proposed in Rancho Cucamonga where the developer, Lauren, has asked
to grade a habitat that the Department of Fish and Game has requested they not grade without
further study and mitigation.. I am told that the developer is now trying to get the City's approval
to go forward without complying with Fish and Games request..
Particularly where this Habitat of such concern to Fish and Game among others, I ask that the
City of Rancho Cucamonga deny this request until such time as the developer choses to comply..
Perhaps, the City is unaware that the property in question is the "globally-imperiled" Riversidean
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. The Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat is itself endangered
and it contains many threatened or endangered species, Please preserve it.
Sincerely yours~
266
September 5, 1998
Councilman Dutton
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Dutton '
Rancho Cucamonga's Lauren Development
There has been a project proposed in Rancho Cucamonga where the developer, Lauren, has asked
to grade a habitat that the Department of Fish and Game has requested they not grade without
further study and mitigation.. I am told that the developer is now trying to get the City's approval
to go forward without complying with Fish and Games request..
Particularly where this Habitat of such concern to Fish and Game among others, I ask that the
City of Rancho Cucamonga deny this request until such time as the developer choses to comply..
Perhaps, the City is unaware that the property in question is the "globally-imperiled" Riversidean
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. The Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat is itself endangered
and it contains many threatened or endangered species, Please preserve it.
Sincerely yours,
267
September 5, 1998
Councilman Curatalo
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Curatalo:
Rancho Cucamonga's Lauren Development
There has been a project proposed in Rancho Cucamonga where the developer, Lauren, has asked
to grade a habitat that the Department of Fish and Game has requested they not grade without
further study and mitigation.. I am told that the developer is now trying to get the City's approval
to go forward without complying with Fish and Games request..
Particularly where this Habitat of such concern to Fish and Game among others, I ask that the
City of Rancho Cucamonga deny this request until such time as the developer choses to comply..
Perhaps, the City is unaware that the property in question is the "globally-imperiled" Riversidean
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. The Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat is itself endangered
and it contains many threatened or endangered species, Please preserve it.
Sincerely yours,
· .. __
268
September 5, 1998
Mayor Alexander
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mayor Alexander ·
Rancho Cucamonga's Lauren Development
There has been a project proposed in Rancho Cucamonga where the developer, Lauren, has asked
to grade a habitat that the Department of Fish and Game has requested they not grade without
further study and mitigation.. I am told that the developer is now trying to get the City's approval
to go forward without complying with Fish and Games request.~
Particularly where this Habitat of such concern to Fish and Game among others, I ask that the
City of Rancho Cucamonga deny this request until such time as the developer choses to comply..
Perhaps, the City is unaware that the property in question is the "globally-imperiled" Riversidean
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. The Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat is itself endangered
and it contains many threatened or endangered species, Please preserve it.
Sincerely yours,
269
September 8, 1998
Mr. Robert Dutton
City of Rancho Cucamonga
CITY COUNCIL
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Dutton:
I am writing~ to the City Council to voice my concern about allowing Lauren
Development to begin grading in the absence of any real examination regarding
the consequences of developing this property. The Lauren Project has submitted
no proposals to mitigate the effects of grading this property. Regardless of
whether the specific or general survey acreage figure is utilized, this habitat is
disappearing incredibly quickly. Particularly when this habitat type has been
designated as "Globally Imperiled", none of it should be destroyed unnecessarily.
This kind of habitat is disappearing at a faster rate than the rain forests. Please
give careful consideration to this matter. I sincerely hope that the City of Rancho.
Cucamonga'does not authorize Lauren Development's destruction of this
incredibly rare and valuable habitat without any examination of whether the
negative effects of doing so could be lessened. '
Very truly yours,
270
September 8, 1998
Mr. Paul'Biane
City of Rancho Cucamonga
CITY COUNCIL
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Paul Biane:
I am writing to the City Council to voice my concern about allowing Lauren
Development to begin grading in the absence of any real examination regarding
the consequences of developing this property. The Lauren Project has submitted
no proposals to mitigate the effects of grading this property. Regardless of
whether the specific or general survey acreage figure is utilized, this habitat is
disappearing incredibly quickly. Particularly when this habitat type has been
designated as "Globally Imperiled", none of it should be destroyed unnecessarily.
This kind of habitat is disappearing at a faster rate than the rain forests. Please
give careful consideration to this matter. I sincerely hope that the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does not authorize i,auren Development's destruction of this
incredibly rare and valuable habitat without any examination of whether the
negative effects of doing so could be lessened.
Very truly yours,
271
September 8, 1998
Mr. Jim Curatelo
City of Rancho Cucamonga
CITY COUNCIL
Rancho Cucamonga, California
~Dear Mr. Jim Curatelo:
I am writing to the City Council to voice my concern about allowing Lauren
Development to begin grading in the absence of any real examination regarding
the consequences of developing this property. The Lauren Project has submitted
no proposals to mitigate the effects of grading this property. Regardless of
whether the specific or general survey acreage figure is utilized, this habitat is
disappearing incredibly quickly. Particularly when this habitat type has been
designated as "Globally Imperiled"., none of it should be destroyed unnecessarily.
This kind of habitat is disappearing at a faster rate than the 'rain forests. Please
give careful consideration to this matter. I sincerely hope that the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does not authorize Lauren Development's destruction of this
incredibly rare and valuable habitat without any examination of whether the
negative effects of doing so could be lessened.
Very truly yours,
272
September 8, 1998
Mrs. Diane Williams
City of Rancho Cucamonga
CITY COUNCIL
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mrs. Williams:
I am writing to the City Council to voice my concern about allowing Lauren
Development to begin grading in the absence of any real examination regarding
the consequences ,of developing this property,. The Lauren Project has submitted
no proposals to mitigate the effects of grading this property. Regardless of
whether the specific or general survey acreage figure is utilized, this habitat: is
disappearing incredibly quickly. Particularly when this habitat type has been
designated as "Globally Imperiled", none of it should be destroyed unnecessarily.
This kind of habitat is disappearing at a faster rate than the rain forests. Please
give careful consideration to this matter. I sincerely hope that the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does .not authorize Lauren Development's destruction of this
incredibly rare and valuable habitat without any examination of whether the
negative effects of doing so could be lessened.
Very truly yours,
273
September 8, 1998
Mayor Alexander
City of Rancho Cucamonga
CITY COUNCIL
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mayor Alexander:
I am writifig to the City Council to voice my concern abofit allowing Lauren
Development to begin grading in the absence of any real examination regarding
the consequences of developing this property. The Lauren Project has submitted
no proposals to mitigate the effects of grading this property. Regardless of
whether the specific or general survey acreage figure is utilized, this habitat is
disappearing incredibly quickly. Particularly when this habitat type has been
designated .as "Globally. Imperiled", none of it should be destroyed unnecessarily.
This kind of habitat is disappearing at a faster rate than the rain forests. Please
give careful consideration to this matter. I sincerely hope that the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does not authorize Lauren Development's destruction of this
incredibly rare and valuable habitat without any examination of whether the
negative effects of doing so could be less~ned.
Very truly yours,
274
September 8, 1998
Mayor Alexander
City of Rancho Cucamonga
CITY COUNCIL
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mayor Alexander:
I am writing to the City Council to voice my concern about allowing Lauren
Development to begin grading in the absence of any real examination regarding
the consequences of developing this property. The Lauren Project has submitted
no proposals to mitigate the effects of grading this property. Regardless of
whether the specific or general survey acreage figure is utilized, this habitat is
disappearing incredibly quickly. Particularly when this habitat type has been
designated as "Globally Imperiled", none of it should be destroyed unnecessarily.
This kind of habitat is disappearing at a faster rate than the rain forests. Please
give careful consideration to this matter. I sincerely hope that the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does not authorize Lauren Development's destruction of this
incredibly rare and valuable habitat without any examination of whether the
negative effects of doing so could be lessened.
Very truly yours,
275
September 7, 1998
Mr. Robert Dutton
10500 Civic Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga,, California
Dear Mr: Dutton:
Lauren Development in Rancho Cucamonga
The Lauren Development Project area contains Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. Some of the
greatest species diversity is found in the mature stands of RAFSS which have arboreal vegetation
and include well developed understory with chamise, ceanothos, and cercorarpus elements like
that found on this property. In fact, the understory on this property is so well- developed that it
is so difficult to traverse as to mean that identification of all species on property is very difficult.
However, the following are some of just the birds which have been observed from the utility road:
cooper's hawk, black chinned humming bird, black phoebe, western flycatcher, warbling vireo,
yellow-rumped warbler, Phalaeonoptilus, Costa' s hummingbird, Bewick's wren, Bell's sage
sparrow, wrentit, red-tailed hawk, Golden Eagle, California quail, greater roadrunner, loggerhead[
shrike, Say's phoebe, Rufus crowned sparrow, white-crowned sparrow, horned lark, lesser
nighthawk, and the mastif bat. Several of these birds are California "Species of Concern" and are:
candidates for federal Listings.
The Riversidian Alluvial iFan Sage Scrub on this property has become so rare that any destruction
of it matters. Please do not let Lauren Development grade! Lauren has insisted there are no
environmental impacts. If that is true, then doing an Environmental Impact Report updating
things would not hurt them at all and would be faster and cheaper for Lauren Development than
the lawsuits..
Very truly yours
/
276
September 7, 1998
Mr, Paul Biane
10500 Civic Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga,, California
Dear Mr: Biane:
Lauren Development in Rancho Cucamonga
The Lauren Development Project area contains Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. Some of the
greatest species diversity is found in the mature stands of RAFSS which have arboreal vegetation
and include well developed understory with chamise, ceanothos, and cercorarpus elements like
that found on this property. In fact, the understory on this property is so well- developed that it
is so difficult to traverse as to mean that identification of all species on property is very difficult.
However, the following are some of just the birds which have been observed from the utility road:
cooper's hawk, black chinned humming bird, black phoebe, western flycatcher, warbling vireo,
yellow-rumped warbler, Phalaeonoptilus, Costa's hummingbird, Bewick's wren, Bell's sage
sparrow, wrentit, red-tailed hawk, Golden Eagle, California quail, greater roadrunner, loggerhead
shrike, Say's phoebe, Rufus crowned sparrow, white-crowned sparrow, horned lark, lesser
nighthawk, and the mastif bat. Several of these birds are California "Species of Concern" and are
candidates for federal Listings
The Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub on this property has become so rare that any destruction
of it matters. Please do not let Lauren Development grade! Lauren has insisted there are no
environmental impacts. If that is true, then doing an Environmental Impact Report updating
things would not hurt them at all and would be faster and cheaper for Lauren Development than
the lawsuits..
Very truly yours
277'
September 7, 1998
Mr, James Curatelo
10500 Civic Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga,, California
Dear Mr: Curatelo:
Lauren Development in Rancho Cucamonga
The Lauren Development Project area contains Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. Some of the
greatest species diversity is found in the mature stands of RAFSS which have arboreal vegetation
and include well developed understory. with chamise, ceanothos, and cercorarpus elements like
that found on this property. In fact, the understory on this property is so well- developed that it
is so difficult to traverse as to mean that identification of all species on property is very difficult.
However, the following are some of just the birds which have been observed from the utility road:
cooper's hawk, black chinned humming bird, black phoebe, western flycatcher, warbling vireo,
yellow-rumped warbler, Phalaeonoptilus, Costa's hummingbird, Bewick's wren, Bell's sage
sparrow, wrentit, red-tailed hawk, Golden Eagle, California quail, greater roadrunner, loggerhead
shrike, Say's phoebe, Rufus crowned sparrow, white-crowned sparrow, horned lark, lesser
nighthawk, and the mastif bat. Several of these birds are California "Species of Concern" and are
candidates for federal Listings.
The Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub on this property has become so rare that any destruction
of it matters. Please do not let Lauren Development grade! Lauren has insisted there are no
environmental impacts. If that is true, then doing an Environmental Impact Report updating
things would not hurt thern at all and would be faster and cheaper for Lauren Development than
the lawsuits..
Very truly yours /
278
September 7, 1998
Mrs, Diane Williams
10500 Civic Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga,, California
Dear Mrs. Williams:
I,auren Development in Rancho Cucamonga
The Lauren Development Project area contains Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. Some of the
greatest species diversity is found in the mature stands of RAFSS which have arboreal vegetation
and include well developed understory with chamise, ceanothos, and cercorarpus elements like
that found on this property In fact, the understory on this property is so well- developed that it
is so difficult to traverse as to mean that identification of all species on property is very difficult.
However, the following are some of just the birds which have been observed from the utility road:
cooper's hawk, black chinned humming bird, black phoebe, western flycatcher, warbling vireo,
yellow-rumped warbler, Phalaeonoptilus, Costa' s hummingbird, Bewick's wren, Bell' s sage
sparrow, wrentit, red-tailed hawk, Golden Eagle, California quail, greater roadrunner, loggerhead
shrike, Say's phoebe, Rufus crowned sparrow, white-crowned sparrow, horned lark, lesser
nighthawk, and the mastif bat. Several of these birds are California "Species of Concern" and are
candidates for federal Listings.
The Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub on this property has become so rare that any destruction
of it matters. Please do not let Lauren Development grade! Lauren has insisted there are no
environmental impacts. If that is true, then doing an Environmental Impact Report updating
things would not hurt them at all and would be faster and cheaper for Lauren Development than
the lawsuits..
Very truly yours
27c0
September 7, 1998
Mayor Alexander
10500 Civic Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga,, California
Dear Mayor Alexander:
Lauren Development in Rancho Cucamonga
The Lauren Development Project area contains Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. Some of the
greatest species diversity is found in the mature stands of RAFSS which have arboreal vegetation
and include well developed understory, with chamise, ceanothos, and cercorarpus elements like
that found on this property. In fact, the understory on this property is so well- developed that it
is so difficult to traverse as to mean that identification of all species on property is very difficult.
However, the following are some of just the birds which have been observed from the utility road:
cooper's hawk, black chinned humming bird, black phoebe, western flycatcher, warbling vireo,
yellow-rumped warbler, Phalaeonoptilus, Costa's hummingbird, Bewick's wren, Bell's sage
sparrow, wrentit, red-tailed hawk, Golden iEagle, California quail, greater roadrunner, loggerhead
shrike, Say's phoebe, Rufus crowned sparrow, white-crowned sparrow, horned lark, lesser
nighthawk, and the mastif bat. Several of these birds are California "Species of Concern" and are
candidates for federal Listings.
The Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub on this property has become so rare that any destruction
of it matters. Please do not let Lauren Development: grade! Lauren has insisted there are no
environmental impacts. If that is true, then doing an Environmental Impact Report updating
things would not hurt them at all and would be faster and cheaper for Lauren Development than
the lawsuits..
Very truly yours
/
2,80
/o~oo ~ ~
282
~o~oo ~ ~
283
284
285
Honorable Counc£1 Member
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA
Rancho ¢ucamong·. Californ£a
Rancho ¢ucamonga's Lauren Project
Homeowners in this area are vez7 concerned over the recone~der&tion regard~g
Lauren development grading dow~ the reta£u£ng levee just ~ero ~t cu~os ma,~
a~ where ~t could se~o to ~al ~l~d water and debris do~ on our h~os.
We had believed that ~o C~t7 ~c~l ~uld take our conce~s vo~ sor~ousl~
and tell the Lauren developers that an enviromn~al ~pact statement should
be dons or the c~ty was no~ going to give th~pe~ss~on ~o grade on ~e
Such very sor£oug concerns have boon raised by the most cred4hle of
one the D~rector of the Southern California Earthquake Center and another, one
the world's foremost exports on debris basins who had l£ter·lly written that
section of Aruy Corp hnual. It makes no sense to the homeowners here th&t the
City Mould time ·fear the viol·to its own laws to sesamedate ·n out-of-down
developer and his limited liablity corporation. ALL THE HOMEOWNERS ASKED FOR
WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMP&~T REPORT BECAUSE THE NEGATIVE
MANY ERRORS.
Me know those errors occurred because the developer gave the Planning
Department the wrong parcel number-so let's admit · mistake w&a made
and see what can be done to correct it. You can require the £mpmct report,
is the best way to get at the truth of the matter,and ~11 that money Ks not
wasted on lawyers. Think ~ou for your t£uo.
,. Sincero~! yours
/ / It ' %'u?;~b~D~
2:87
September 14, 1998
10817 Carriage Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Councilmember:
Last October the evening news forecast "cloudy to partly cloudy
skies". The next morning the same television channel featured
cars floating. Three debris basins in San Bernadino had filled
and failed. People there were lucky. It was a short little rain
and the flood flow came through lower elevation foothills. The
damage figure has grown to around $3,000,000.
Those Rancho Cucamonga residents effected by Lauren Development
are unlikely to be as lucky. The elevation of Cucamonga Peak is
about 9,000' high and that creates a much more dangerous
situation. We know debris basins fail, in spite of all assurances
to the contrary.
I ask that you not allow Lauren Development to grade down the
levee on their property here in Rancho Cucamonga.
Very truly yours,
288
September 12, 1998
City Councilmember
10500 Inland Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Sirs:
Lauren Development Project in Rancho Cucamonga
Again I ask that the City of Rancho Cucamonga not give Lauren
Development permission to grade on its property in Rancho
Cucamonga. Lauren Development has no real assets to cover any
potential diasters and as Mr. Allday very pointedly said at the
Planning Commission Hearing, Lauren is a "limited liability
Corporation". If the City Council votes to allow Lauren
Development to go forward The City Council would really be
accepting that the City is liable for any damages.
Should the City approve Lauren's grading and there is subsequent
flood damage, the homeowner's in this area will hold the City
responsible also, as particularly, when we have tried so hard to
get safety studies and were so worried as to be willing to
purchase the property, it will be clear that the damage was
forseeable and could have been prevented. There is no reason for'
Lauren not to do the safety studies as it would be less time
consuming and less expensive than all the litigation.
Please do not permit for the grading of the levee and swale
system on their property, until an formal impact report has been
done. Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
Sincerely yours,
289
September 9, 1998
Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mrs. Williams:
Lauren Development wants approvals to grade on the Heights Proiect in Rancho
Cucamonga. This specific properly is Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, which is
designated as G-l, reflecting its status as a globally imperiled habitat. The very unique
and diverse collection of species supported by the Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is
due to the soil structure and climate variations which combine elements not only of the
coastal scrublands, but of the desert and forest as well.
Please do not authorize this destruction of such an endangered and valuable habitat
until there has been a study and mitigation of its impacts.
Very truly yours,
2go
September 9, 1998
Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Dutton:
Lauren Development wants approvals to grade on the Heights Project in Rancho
Cucamonga. This specific property is Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, which is
designated as G-l, refleding its status as a globally imperiled habitat. The very unique
and diverse coiledion of species supported by the Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is
due to the soil structure and climate variations which combine elements not only of the
coastal scrublands, but of the desert and forest as well.
Please do not authorize this destruction of such an endangered and valuable habitat
until there has been a study and mitigation of its impacts.
Very truly yours,
291
September 9, 1998
Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Biane:
Lauren Development wants approvals to grade on the Heights Project in Rancho
Cucamonga. This specific property is Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, which is
designated as G-l, reflecting its status as a globally imperiled habitat. The very unique
and diverse collection of species supported by the Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is
due to the soil structure and climate variations which combine elements not only of the
coastal scrublands, but of the desert and forest as well.
Please do not authorize this destruction of such an endangered and valuable habitat
until there has been a study and mitigation of its impacts.
Very truly yours,
292
September 9, 1998
Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Curatalo:
Lauren Development wants approvals to grade on the Heights Projed in Rancho
Cucamonga. This specific property is Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, which is
designated as G-l, reflecting its status as a globally imperiled habitat. The very unique
and diverse collection of species supported by the Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is
due to the soil structure and climate variations which combine elements not only of the
coastal scrublands, but of the desert and forest as well.
Please do not authorize this destruction of such an endangered and valuable habitat
until there has been a study and mitigation of its impacts.
Very truly yours,
293
September 9, 1998
Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Alexander:
Lauren Development wants approvals to grade on the Heights Proied in Rancho
Cucamonga. This specific property is Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, which is
designated as G-l, refieding its status as a globally imperiled habitat. The very unique
and diverse collection of species supported by the Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is
due to the soil strudure and climate variations which combine elements not only of the
coastal scrublands, but of the desert and forest as well.
Please do not authorize this destrudion of such an endangered and valuable habitat
until there has been a study and mitigation of its impads.
Very truly yours,
L- ~'~'"~. ' '"
294
September 15, 1998
Mr. Bill Alexander
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear Mr. Alexander:
The homeowners in the area are very concerned that you are reconsidering
allowing Lauren Development to proceed with their project without an
impacts statement. This project involves grading on Levee. Residents here
are very concerned with the increased dangers from fire and flooding,
resulting from your allowing Lauren this grading of the levee and swale
system on the property.
We request that the CITY OF RANCHO CUCMONGA stand by its residents
and not place us at additional risk. Do not allow Lauren to grade on this
property.
Yours truly,
c.c.: Council Members
295
Sept. 14, 1998
Our City Council Members
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center
Rancho Cucarnonga, California
Dear Council Members:
LAUREN DEVELOPMENT
The City's reconsideration of Lauren Development's plans to do grading and fill on
this property increases the safety concerns homeowners in this area have
regarding this project.
Before the City of Rancho Cucamonga makes a determination on this matter, I
would urge that consideration be given to the liablity you may be acquiring for
flood damages not only for Lauren but for the additional homes to the south and
west. Some of these homes are in the ¢500,000 to ~1,000,000 range and that is a
fairly serious burden to undertake, especially given that the experts who raised
questions regarding the safety aspects are so well respected in their fields.
I would urge that the City of Rancho Cucamonga not grant permission to Lauren
for grading of the levee until an impact statement has addressed some of these
very serious concerns.
Sincerely yours,
296
September 15, 1998
Mayor Alexander
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho cucamonga, California
Dear Honorable Mayor:
Given the circumstances, I am writing to request that the City very carefully evaluate all
the factors which could cause flooding before mala'ng a decision on whether or not you are
going to allow Lauren Development to grade away the east/west levee section in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. Please remember that no agency has taken responsiblity for this
channel.
This levee is a major levee and has protected this area from flooding many times in the
past. If the City allows grading on this levee property the City may be assuming
responsiblity for subsquent damages attributed to that grading. Please do not allow Lauren
Development to grade. Particularily when the City Council can require such studies before
approval of the project, such as anothe better channel option.
One can hardly argue that City of Rancho Cucamonga taxpayers should be forced to
accept Lauren's risk, when no impact study has been done. The only thing that makes any
sense to us is if Lauren already knows their project is so dangerous that an impact study
would keep them from building.
Yours Truly,
297
September 12, 1998
the City council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear City council:
Lauren Development in Rancho Cucamonga
Before the City council decides to reconsider allowing Lauren Development to
grade the levee on their property in Rancho Cucamonga, we ask that the City
review the homeowner's concerns about both the safety/flood issues and the
destruction of one of world's most gobally imperiled habitats.
We would request that the City not allow Lauren to grade. Since October, 1997
when the three debris basin failed just east of us we expected that the city would
take our concerns more seriously since everyone of those basins was supposed to
be good for a 100 year flood and all three failed in such a little storm that not a
single weather forecaster had predicted rain.
At least that it was such a little rain meant no one died--are you sure this city will
be so very, very lucky! Wouldn't you like to be sure about this decision ?
Requiring an impact statement would eliminate most of the questions. Particularily
given the circumstances, please consider if the City and the taxpayers in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga really want involvement in this situation.
Thank you very much for your time and your consideration regarding this matter.
298
September 12, 1998
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Dear CITY COUNCIL:
LAUREN DEVELOPMENT
The entire drainage area for the Deer Creek Debris Basin is classified as having a
very steep slope of up to 50% and this steepness can create very high flood flow
velocity problems, resulting in flood flow and debris overtopping the basin wall
Lauren wants to grade the levee section at the critical point where it turns the water
eastward. As a Haven View homeowner I want to be sure that Rancho
Cucamonga's City Council has read the declarations of the experts and realizes the
problems inherent in removing the levee, as well as responsiblity for any subsequent
damage..
299
DECLARATION OF WOLFGANG ROTH
Ph.D., R.E., G,E.
1, Wolf?~ng H. Roth, declare and stare ils follows:
I tm a Vice Presid~t m;d Principal Engineer a: Dames & Moore. I have a Master d,gree in
Civi~ £ngmeeriny (1967) and a Doctors degree in 3oii mech~mics 11973), both fi'om the
U'ni~'ersity of Oraz, Austria. I am a Registered Geetechnical Engineer in Cali£omia. I iomcd
Dames & Moore it, 1'978, tbliowmg 2 years of soil mocharoes reseateli m UCL,-( a.q a
Postdoctoral Fcllo~' and 2 years of teaching foundation engineering at tl:e Cathoiic
L!ni~'crsit> of Rio de Jane;re. Brazil. A curre, n; copy of my CumeuluJr; Virae ~s auachect to
this d',:claration (See AreChinon; 1 ). Tiffs declaration is made in support of the Cucamongans
IJ,~ited for Rcason,~bie Expansion ("CURE") challenge to the Lauren Developmen1
re, stdential pr~ect.
I have reviewed a map ~f the p/armed Lauren Development. and Sheets 3 of 5 mid ~ of 5 of
the Stom~ Drain lmprevcm~:nt Plan for Trace No. 14771 (P1,'m) containing a longitudinal
proill,, a plan viev~, an~ two typical cross sections of a proposed drainage cham~eI along the
northern t~'act bouiidary. Both Plan ~i,,eets are suimpc-,d and signed by Stanley C. IVlorse. P.E..
dated 10/7/97. The profile and cross sections on these shcct~ depict two alternative vemiov~
,'Jr tl~e drainage channel .superimposed one on the other. I ',mder~tm~d that the lin~
highlighted ~51h a yellow marker consr. itute the latest version c5 tt~e channel altenlatives
The proposed d~iiiage cbamiel slopes £rom west to east curling diagonally across several
south-cast slcpng gullies and ridges made u? vt' coarse alluvi-a.l-fan ~oils. 5';he cross soslion
the ear[ier-versioa c~rinel wi~s m~ inverted trapeze&i, and its 2ongltudinal profile w-as
relarivc!y sh:~Iiow. T~,e charmel s invert cut iib,~ut 8 tc I0 lket helots' the highest ridges to be
[~av~r~:.-a. ! llndcrs:ar, d '2ta'. where the chamlcl cut across ridges its nordiem ~ll was to
transition into acm .qope laid back at azi angle significantly tlaucr '~'mm, the existing slope of
ridges. I .;llnher understone that this aiternativc was eventually abandoned because die
land :usemerit required to accorrm]odate these slope cuts coul,~ not be .secured.
The latest version of dic channel alternatives (kigh. iighted m yeliow) has a rectanguiar cross
sectton, and its profile is significantly fleeper thin thai of the earlier trapezoidal ~'ersion
described a~v¢. The new ctlarmel invert is as much aS 20 feet bclo',~ ~he highest ridges. In
order re avc. id has,'ing to lay back the exi~ing slope, retaining walls are now supporting
vetlion! cuts at the locations where the channel n'averses across the ridges. Thus, vertical
re'~aining wal!s k~ave been proposed to support up 1o approximately 20-foot high cuts -at the
toe of0~e ¢Xisling 2 (t, ori~ontall to I {w--~rtmal) slope.
Based on in]: enginering judge'mont, it is my optmen that these retaining walls carmel be
constructed saitl). as mey are shown on Plan Shem 3 of 5. Safe construction would
n~cessilate a temporary backcu! or pertain'lent tiebacks. both of which would oneromich far
access the true! boundary. deep into *he normorn adjacenl property, where, land ~,llsements
could not be secured Furtl~,ermorc, the type o5' cantilever rclaining wall sho~m on the Plan
wo. uld tTansfer extremely high lateral forces to the side walls of die rectangular channel via
300
the narrow, 6-Ibot wide backf'fil between the charmel wall and the telmining wall. Even
without taking into account seismic loading. such a retaining wall would have to be
supported by massb, e. multi-level post-tensioned tietrack anchors :n order to avoid damngiag
tile drainage channel and/or inducing slope instability. No tieback anchors have been shown
on the drawings.
6. The proposed new rectangular channel whh vertical retaining wells is a sigraficant change in
design over ',he previous trapezoidal channel with slope lay-backs
It is my opinion tlmt a detailed design analysis of an appropriate U'pe of rottuning structure
would have to be carried out to evaluate fi~e technical feasibility cf constructing the proposed
cha,-.nel ~5theut endangering the health and safety of the ~ublic Existing detailed design
anaysis ef the ~revious +a:a~)czoida2 cham~el ahernauYe would be of no significance wit!:
regm-d to the new proposed rectanguiar cba."mel with retaining walls
Given the setstaLc conditions at this sac, it would be extremely difficult and costix, to design
a rcctangular charmel with retaining walls a: the location shown on the drawing without
encroaching on the adjacent ?rope~y to the no~q where land easements could not be secured.
9, In m~ opinion, it is not Irx)ssible t6 adequately review the proposed rectangular channel
ahcmat:ve uv. ti[ a compietc, new. detailed analys:s has been properly prepared.
In order to perform a rchable evaluation of the static and seismic stabilia: of the proposed
drainage channel and retaining wa~.ls, it would be nccessm'y to perform the following tasks:
a. Detinition o/the design e,'n-lhquake based on local and regional to, etonic data.
Surface geologic mapping and subsurface ,nvestigauon including geophys~cai testing
and soil sampling I0r laboratot5 testing.
c Laboratory testing of soil ~roperties (': e. shear s~,rcngtn, defcmmtion modulus)
a. Static and dynamic soJl-s,tr~c~ure mtcrac. Jon ana~/'s¢s mcorporating both the drainage
c~annel and the rctaimng walls.
1 declare under penalty oi' perjury ',ha~ the foregoing is true and correct and flint this declaration is
executed on September 15, 1998, at los Angeles Caliqornia~,,,~< '
· WolI~ang H. Roth. Ph.D.,
2
TOTAL
DECL,adlATION OF C.B.CROUSE
I, C.B. Crous¢. declar~ and sure as follows:
I am a Vice President and Pdncipa! Engineer at Dames & Moore. I have M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in Civil Engineering fxom the Calitbmia Insumte of Teclmology. I am a registered
Civil Engineer in Calitbmia. I joined Dames & Moore m 1988, follo~Sng 14 years of
ea..,"thq~e engineering consulting at the ~ Tecl-mclogy Corporation m Long Beach,
California My CV is presented as Attachmere I. This declaration is made in support of r. he
Cucamongar~ United for Reasonable Expansion O'CLrRE") challenge to the Lauren
Development residential projeet.
I ~ve reviewed the 1996 joint Califorma Department of ConservationfC;.S. Geological Sur,'ey
publication, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard ^sscssmcnt for the State of Califom/a (DMO Open
File Report 96-08, USGS Open-File t~ort 96-706). This report presents estimates of
maximum earthquake magnitude (Mm~t) for active faults in California. For the Cucamonga
Ihult, which passes tl:u'ough the site, M~, = 7.0 ts listed a: r.he bottom of P~e A-3 in Appendix
A of this report.
I have computed median and median-plus-cne-standard-derivafion (~-I sigma) values of peak
ground acceleration (PGA) at the site from a Magnitude 7.C earthquake on the Cucaraonga
fault. I used four published ataenua;.ion equations. each derived primarily from ground motions
recorded during California earthquakes. The results are tabulated as follows:
Equation
Boore el al (1995)
-Abrahamran & Silva (199'7)
· Campbell (l 997)
I Sadigh er al (1997)
Median
0.71 g
0.66 g
O.gO g
0.75 g
sigma
t.!9g
.02 g
1.19g
1.12g
The POA values m the above table are considerably greater than the 0.2 g value referenced as
the seismic force to be used in the design of the Intake Towers for the empty reservoir
condition as stated on page VII-2 of the U.S. Arm)' Corps of Eatgineers report: Cucamonga
Creek Fleed Control Project~ Feature Design Memorandum No. 6, De.~er Creek, Demens and
HiLlside Debris B~ins and C.haxmels. dated June 1979.
I declaxe under penalty of perju:y that the fbregoing is true and correct and that fids declaration
is executed on September 16, i998, at Seattle. Wasl-angton.
C.B. Crouse, Ph.D., P.E
302
C. B. CROUSE, page
Mcmber of Tcctmical Adv,qory Board for Seatfie Watcr Department's South Fork Toll
River Project.. Reviewed scl.wn_ic hazard analyses pertbrined by SWD's consultant;
participated in meetings with con~u.mtant and SWD staff; and, assisted in pmpatatiol) of
boal'd'~ report to SWD
Seismic hazard analys~s for Trans Mo,,~tair. Oil P~zline Company Studies iraladed
probabilistic ~urd determmis~c esttma~es of grotrod motlot ~u~d developm~n! of seisrmc
dcsigu Far'ama~q's for provoked oil pipeline facihiy ia uorthw¢stcrn Washragion.
Seismic I~az~.rd analyse.,. ot the ~'¢slem Washington Universal3' campus. Studies Lackuded
prohabfiimc :red deterministic es'.imales of g~o'aad motion, develop~em of seismic
desi~ criteria for soft and firm soil, and evaluations of liquefaction ired slope stability.
Ground-motio~ lrtelluatiou mv~s~gadon of subduo,oh-zone ear, qumes ~ ~e Pacific
No~hwc~ for ~he U.5. Oeotegic~ Su~ey ~d Ele~c Po~'cr Res~h l~titute.
~v~Ogmion ~clu~d development of ~en~tmn ~u~o~s appllcabl~ 1o ~bduction-
zone ~hqu~es ~ ~e region
Cca~ifuge studies of soil liq:,efac~on and s~l: r~sponse for the U.S. Geological Smv:y
and Nuclear Regulatc.-y Commission. Studies ~ncltld~l dynamic tests of saturated sand
tn tee Cfdtech c~n~if~ge and anelytical modeling of the r~cordcd data.
Evaluation o1' ~c site response for the Nuclear Re~'ulatory Cormnission, National Science
Foundation, an~ Caiifom~a Div~sioa of Mines and Geology. Evaluation includes
calculat)on of ar~-~unplificatmn factors ~nd silo-dependent spectra from earthquake
Illorions rocorned oa differopt loc:M geologies.
Seatalc hazard study for Cardinal Glennan Hospital St. Loai~. Conducted probabilistic
~etsmic hazard evaluation ~o estimate earthquake ground mo~ions with 10 p~rcent
probabLliry in 50 and 100 )'ears Results were used it, seismic minerability. studies of~e
hO~p~ta.
Structura[ cvaluauon for St. CaVrmi Hospital, Seattle, Washington. Perlonged seismic
e~,aiumnon of fi~e existing $~xuctar¢s for Swedish Hospital followillg their putchine ot tile
facihty
Seismic design study for BE&C Engineers. Stud> mctuded seismic hazard analysis,
developmere of se~.~mic desks criteria, and applicmt~oa of criteria to design of Boeing's
e,~ential and critical buildings
Sezsmic h~.ard ~umt~ses o: 14 cxistmg or propose~ offshore platform sites in Cal~
Newfoundt~d, Irmi~d, Columbia, ~doaesi~ Persi~ Gull Bbck Se~ Aus~ii~
PhUippines, ~d N~w Z~t~d Analyses acluded evalua~on of g~logic md t~toaic
da~, bifocal ~cismici~. ~d recorded gro~d motions ~ere appropfi~e, w~r-
color ~a!y~s ~'~c pe~o~ed to estate ~e venizal seafloor mo0ons. SLE ~d
DL~ d~ spec~ ~d~or dine h~tories we~ es~ma:~ as~ probabi~tic ~d
dete~m~ti~ nle~ods ~ese design p~ete~ w~e rcco~end~ for ~ m s~c~i
stability or design evalaa~om
OO~'eport~\crouSel doc
MOORE
303
C. B. CROUSE, p~e a
Professional
Hist00'
Citizeusaip
Proi¢s.onal
Affihatinn~
Earth '[e¢lanolo~' Corp. (1974-1988)
Performed a¢;.smic h,,:,a*c analysc.s ired develop~;l se~smi; design critexm for nuclear
power pla.'m, offshore profloras, ~ s~:bstatioas, pip~zhn¢s, and buildrags m Nmxh
Arn~ric.~. Centra~ Atllerica, Europe, Afi'~a. Asia au~ Australm. Conducted ~peru~¢nxal
and ana~c, al :nvesuga:ion~ of sojl.sw.lcture inter~ctior. for buildings, bridges. power
pim~ts, machine foundations, offshore platforms. and .-.resformer fotmdatior~.
Performed indusu-y ~d {overm~eut-sponsored researca on earthquake ground motion,
so[ liqucfactio~ and soil-structure mtcra~on.
United States
~merican Soc2e~ of C~vit E~gmee~s - Member
Membe~ gad Pa~: Cha:nu~ ofTCLEE Oas and Liquid Fuels Life frae Committee
Member ofTCLEE Se~si~ic Risk C~mla,.irtee
Member ofTCLEE Ir~nspormnou Comnlitt~e
~u'r. hqu~e Engmeermg Resc~ch Institute - Member
Former Member of Board of Directors
Member of Strong Mo..on lnsL'urtleutatnon Committee
Seismological Soc{e,.y of Ame,-ica - Member
Former AssO:ia:~ Editor
Srrucn..ral Eagm,ers Association of Wastungto~ - Member
Structural £~gineers As.~ociatic~ of Califorr-ia - Fermer Memoer
Former Me:r. ber or- Scismolcgy Committee
U.S. Transportation Research Bo~d
Member of D)r. am'fic 'res~mg mad Analysis of Bridges Conm:iuee
U.S. National Kesearch Cz)uncil
Former Member of Coa:ll~rttee on E~,thquake Eugineenng
Member of Cemmittee on S¢i,'nee of Earthq;:akes
.NaUonai Science Foundation
Former Member ot'BC$ AdvisoU Com.miaee
Past Member of Panel 1o ewluate National C,,ntur for Earthquake £t~gineeriag Research
Building Seismic Safety Council
Participant in workshop :o develop pia. a for devclopu{g na:ional standards for lifdia¢s
Pa."ti~ipa~I in workshop on develoFmem of gromad-motion maps for national build. il~
codes
Mtanber of Seismic Design Pro:edu~s Group Committee to prepare 1997 and 2000
grom;d-monon maps
DAMES & MOORE
304
C. B. CROUSE, p~e .~
Publicationa
Member of TS-3 Commilt¢~ to prepare geotecl:mlcal section of 1997 NrEHP,.P $eiwa)c
arovi~iona
Me.,-abcr of Provisions Update Comm i~cz for 2000 N~HRP seLsmic provisions
Intematiotlal Smadard Orsanizatioa
Mealb¢r of Seiami¢ Loa~mg Respoa~ Pallel for Fxxcd Offshore Platforra.~
American Nuclear Soc)ety
Member of ANS Working Group 2.~7 on E~aluaticn Criteria for N~ra! Phenomena
H~r~ at Nuc~e~ M~e~ ~ti~ Sites
Members of ANS WoWing Grip 229 og ~o~ihstic .~alysis ofNa~l PheBomena
H~s for Nucl:~ Ma~nai~ Fac:hti¢s.
Eguchh tL. and CB. C:ou;e (Edltors). 1986 LL~,lme Seismic P,.Jsk .a-q~.iv~iq - Cuse
Studies America $oc~er~ of Civd Engineers. N.Y., N.Y., 138p.
Guidelines for Seismic D~si£n of Oi! and G~ Pipeline Systems, :984. ASCE
Tec..h~)¢al Council on Lifeli~¢ gartr, quake EngineerLag, aumored by GLFL - TCLEE
Corernitre Member~
Kefereed Pacers
Crous¢. C.B aria J.W. Mc,3utre, 1996. Site responsr studies for pu .rpose of revL~mg
NE~<.P se~srmc ~rovisiora: Earthquake Spectra, Vol 12, No. 3. August.
Ufouse, C.B., S.L. Kxailaer. R. Mitc.~aelL andB. Ruskinand, 1903 Dynam:c t¢sB of a
pipe pile i~ ~atarated peat: J Geotech. Div, ASCE, Vol 119, No. I0, October.
C:ousc, C.B, 1991. Ground-morion menuorion eq'~atao.as mr earthquakes on the
Cosradio subducuen zone: Earthq[ake, Spe:tra, Vol. 7, No. 2, Ma.~.
RiI~, ~V..I.W.F .Miller,, C.B Crouse, £.L. Holbrook~ .and B. Hushmortal, i990.
Analysis axed Testing of ~¢ FBA- i I For:¢ Acc¢lerometer' Earthquake Spectra, Vol
6, No. ~;. November.
Crouse, C.B,, B. Hu~lm~and. J.E Luco, and H.L Wong, 1990. Foundatioc
imFedanc¢ ~qmc~ons: th~ry ~,~ ~-xpertmee:: 1. cO,otech. Div., ASCE, Vol. 116,
No 3. Ma~cr~
Vyas, Y.K.. C.B Crou_~. aacl B.A Schell. 1990. Regional desiga ground motion
¢rncrt~ for ~e soulera B~ring Sea Off, here M~chanic$ and Arctic Engineering,
Vol. 112, No. 1, February
Croua¢, C.B.. and B. Husttraa:~d, lg~g9. Soil-structure interaction at CDMG ~d
USC;,S accelero~;rapb shations: Ball Seisin. So¢. Am, Vol. 79, No. 1, February.
DAM~S & N!OORC.
305
C. B. CROUSE, p~¢ 6
Cm'~e, C.B., Y.K Vyas, lad BA. S¢~ell, 198g. Ground motions from subCucfion-
zone ~arthqu.,~lces' Ball. Seisin. Soc Am., Vol. 78, No. I, Fcbrun~3,.
Hushman& B., R.¥. Scott. md C.B, Crouse, 1988. Cenmfage liquefaction tests in a
I~mLr, ar box: Geote¢lm~que. VoL 38. No. 2. Jane 1988
Crous¢. C.B., E. Hushman& and G.R. Mart:n, ]~87. D,vnamtc soil-structure'
in:~ract~o.a of a ~ingle-sp~r. bridge: Eal%quake Eng. and Structure Dyn., Vol.
No 6. August.
Crouse, C.B., and L Chearlg, 1987 D,v:aami¢ testing and aaalysis of pile-group
Ibundav, ons: ?roce~ding~ Symposium on Dynaraic Response cf Pile Foundations
Experiment, Observation md Aaalys~s, ASCE, April.
Croms¢, C.B, G.C. Liang, anc~ G,R. Martin, 1985. Experimental foundanon
,mped~ce baa~ons: l~ G~otech D~v, ASCE, Vol. 111. No. 6, June.
Creme. C.B., O.C_ _rang, nnd G.R M~rtia, 1984. Experimental study of soil-
structure interaction a~ an accel~rograph station: Bull. S~i~m. Sec. Am., \'o-' 74,
No. $, October.
Crouse, CB., ~.d T. Maruschka, 19:g3. Accelerograph pen-offset ~d dzgitizatiou
noise associated with Japanese accelerog'mms' Bull. Seisin. Sec. A,m., Vol. 33,
No. 4.
Crous',, C.B., 1978. Predict:on o! 5'e¢-fi'~ld ea.,-thquak¢ ground morions: ASCE
Spcctal,'5' Conference on Earthquake En§i.ueering and Soil Dynamics Vol. 1, June.
Crease, C.B., 1976 H. onzon:~l ~oumC motion in Los Angeles duriag tlae San
Femur:do ¢i;r. hqu~k¢ E,xrthq. Eng. and S~act. Dya.. VoL 4, No ~. Aprd-Ju~c.
Crousc. C.B., and P C J¢;,,nmg~, 0'75 Soil-su, acture m,~ractioa during '.he San
Fernando earthquake BuI! Seisin. S.oz Am. Vol. 65, No '., Fei~rua:7.
ProceeAin~s
Crouse, C.B., C.V. Nelson, J.W. McOmre. and J. Bischoff, 1907 Seismic hazard
analysis for tae 1-15 cornder cxpamion project: Proc~',,dings of-32"~ Symposium on
Engineering Geology and Oeoteclmical Engineering, Boise', ID. March.
Crease, C.B., 1996. Seismic exposure ~md site mspor~¢ chazactensric$ ['or of~¢shore
platterm design; ProceedLugs Offshore Technology CentSfence, Paper OTC 8105,
Hous:cn, TX, May
Crouse. C.B. a~d S.D. Werner, 1995 Estimation of modal damlime :[or bridges:
Proceedales of 4th U.S. Conference- or. Lifeline Earthquake El~gineermg, San
Fraa~cisco, CA, AugusL
O04~re~O~s\crousel Oct
306
C.B. CROUSE,~e?
Werner, S.D., C,B. Crome, L Ka~a~gio~is, and J/. Beck, 1994. Use of st'ong
motion m~ord~ for model evaluation a~d seJslrllc ~11alyqi~ of a bridge s~ucrurc:
Proceedings of 5~ U.S National Conference on E~thqualie Eo',~,ineering, Chicago,
IL, !uly
Crouse. C.B. an.4 J.I,V. McGuire, 19o4. Sir~ response studies for gutpose of rev:sing
NE~ seismic ~ov~io~: Proccc~gs S~P 94 Semm~ on Seismologmal md
E~e~Ing lmph~ans of Rcc~n~ S~oug-Mo~ Da~ Cmifomia D~ws:on of
Mm~s ~d Oeolo~, May.
Crouse. C.B, 199a. E~mmatio= of ea."thquakc grollad motions in tahc Pacif~
Nerthwcsl: Proceedings o~' Se~iular on New F~velcpimel:t~ in F..arthquak¢ Ground
Motion, £stima~,on arid hnplk~ions for Enlpnccnag Design ~acticc, ATC-3$-I,
Applied Technolo~ Council.
Crouse, C.B., 1993. De~rmmation of .~isl~i¢ desig'n pm~,_merers: Proceedings
Pacific Northwest Pegicad Seminar 0r. Scksmic Engineering Issues, £arthquake
Engineering Research L'tstimte, August.
Crouse, CB.. ~nci '!" Pn~, ~993, Dy'nam~c foil-foundation interaction at the
Meloland Road Overc'ro~mg: Proceeduags of ASCE Strucrur~ Congress '93',
Sn'm:~uJa2 Engineering :n Natural Hazards Mitigation. Vel. 1, April.
Crou~e, C.B, i992, Eg-imation of ~ound mo¢.on for design or .'ea.~sessment of
offshore platforms: Proceedings ~f International Workshop vn 5e3mic Design and
Reas~ssmcnt of Offshore Stwacturc~, California insnru~e of Tecar. o[ogy, Decern. bgr.
Hush. real:d. B., R.F. >cort. and C B Crouse, 1992 In-place catiorafion of USGS
pore procure ~ans~uce:s at Wildlife Liquefaction ~ite, California, USA:
Proceedings Tenth World Conl'.renee on Earthquaqe Engi.nee,~rg, Vol. 3, MaOrid.
Spare, .~uly
Crom¢. C.B., T. Pnce and R Mitchell, 1992. Evaluation ofme'.hods to est,,nate pile
fountarran sthffn~se, for ~nages: Proceed~gs $th U.S.-Japan Bridge Engineering
Workshop, Chicago, ,'L, May.
Dolan. D.K.. C.B. Crouse. aac 3.M. Quilt~r. 1992. Seismic r~assessment of Matt/A:
1%occedings Offshore T~chnology Conference, Houston. TX, OTC 6934, M~.~.
Crou, e. CB., and J. Quilter, 1991. Seismic hazard analy~es ~d development of
:tes~gn spectra for Main ^ pht:orm: Proceedings of Pacffi¢ Conference on
E,~rlhquake EngmccrLag, Auckland, Ne~ Zealand, November
Hushmand, B., R.F. Scotl. ~u~ CB. Cma~e, 1991. In st.m calibration of USGS
p~ezOmeter installations: Recent .a, dv~nc~., ill Geolechnical In~trtilllellta~iola,
Proceedings of A. SCE Conventron. Orlando. I:L, Octobe,.
00/\r~po~s\crous8 ~
DAVIES & MOORIt
307
C. B. CROUS~ pa~e s
C,rou~e, C.B., alld 13. H..q,.m~lcl, [ 990. Soil-structure ~[¢ractioi) and non~o~
respons= at ~e Differenual ~y a~elero~aph ~tton: ~o~mgs of 4~ U.S.
N~ion~l Cc~eren~ on E~u~e ~gm~ng, P~ Sprigs, CA, May
Gates~ WE, G.C. Hart, and C.B Crouse, 199C. Vib.~for. sruclie5 of an exxstmg
building for b~e isolation retrofit: Proceedings of 4th U.S Nauonal Conference- on
Earthqu~e Engieee~ing, Palm Springs, CA, May.
Hushmortal, B., C:.B. Crouse, K.J Robertson, mad D.G~ Anderson, 1990 Seismic
moni~onng ~d evalu~uon of a solid w~te landfill: Pm~mgs of ~ U_S.
Conference on ~hq~c Eng~e~g, P~ S~ng~, CA, May.
l-lushmand, B., tlld C.B Cro~e, i990. Soil-structure interaction at Tarzn.na
accelerogTapn statioii: Proc~dings of [990 .q'~
. A. u,, Structures Congress, ]~alnmore,
IriS, May.
Werner, S.D., Et.M Doug,.as. ~d C.B. Crouse, 1989. System idenrificauon of
Meloland Road overt:tossing, Proceeciags of 1989 ASCE Structures Con~ess, San
FraJlci$co, CA, M~y.
Douglas, BM, C.B. C~'ouse, a~d S.D. Werner, 1988. Dynamic testing ~d seismic
response evaluation cf ~e Meloland Roac ~ercress~g: Pzoce~'ding~ of 4~ U.S. -
Jap~ Wcrkshop on Bri~e E~eenng. Pcffo~ce. S~en~henmg ~d
~ovztion. S~ D~ego. CA,
Hushround. B. C.B Crouse, ~d G,R.~ Martit, 1.988. Dwaamic CenTrifuge tes~n[ of
a ~dge-soi', moJ~l: Precedings of ~tcmation~ Confer:me oa Oeotechn;ca'.
Cenm~ge Modeling, P~:s, France. April.
Crouse. C.B.. and B. Ht. samanO, 1987. Esnmafion of bridge ftmndat~on stillnesses
from forced vibration da~: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference cm Soii
Dynamics ,'me Ea,'xhquake t?'.ngmee~*mg, Prince:on Universits'. Princeton, N.~.. June
Huskshand, B., C.13. (;rouse, G R Mm-tm. ~nd K.F. Scott, t987 Site response and
liquefaction studies Luvolvmg the c~almt'age: Precedings of 3rd ~.tomalional
Conference on Soft Dynamics and Earthqutke Engineering, lhinceton UniYetHty
?rLuceton, NJ . Jume.
Mamn, GR., I.P. Lain. and C B. Crousc, 193'. Seismic retrcfit for geot,clmical
components of L'a,'~portanon systems: ProceedLugs of Wo~k.~hop on Development
of an Artion Plan for Abatement of Sei;mic Hazards to Lifelines, Denv~, CO.
Foe, $., and C.B. Crouse, [ 986. E~atuation of sex~mic~ly and earthauake toadLug at
Hibernia: Proceednags Offshore M~nc Geote, chnical Conf., St. Johns,
N¢,~foundland. Canada. June
Crouse, C.B., et al., 1985. Dynamic response of bridge-abu~,en, t-~aekffil systems:
Proceedings Joint U.S - New Z~alaad Work~hop on Sei~mic Rcsiqlallce of Highway
Bndg*s, Applied Technology Council. ATC-I 2- l, S~rt Diego, CA, May
O0,:\;eports'.c'euge 1
DAMES & MOORE
308
C. B. CROUSE, p~e 9
Crous~? CB., G.C. L)ang, and G.P~ Mm-tia, 1984.' AmpiLflcafion of cart~quake
motions re~rce~ ~ ~ acee~ero~h s~om P~mgs Ei~ World Conferea~
~ E~qu~e ~g~.~r~, Vol. ~, S~ Franc~, CA. Juiy.
Crouse, C.B., 19S4. Dcrea'minauon of s¢ismac d~ign parameters: Evaiuat,on of
Sc~lc H~ds ~r E~.~ake Rcs~t ~s,~: E~q. E~F K:s. Inst.
Pu~iicat~on No. 84-06.
Cro,ase, C.B, 1983. Soil-stnlcture intersctmn eff~c~s at accelerograoh staffotis:
Proceedings of Workshop on Site-$pec,fic Effects of $oii mad Rock on Ground
Motim:s and the lmpiicm-io,ts for Eartbcluake R¢sismm Design, U.S. Geologtcal
Survey Open File R:l~or~ 83-8a5.
Crouse. CAB., ]983 DaZ2 processing: Proceedings of ~e Qolden Armtversary
Workshop On Strong MoLoa Seumomer~, Univ. of So. Ca:if.. Dept. of C~vil Eng.
March
C:ouse, C.B., 1982. Catalog of g, orldw~de ac~elerogram dam for seismic a~al),sis'
Proceedings of Coaferenc~ oa Seismic l~sk of 14eavy lrdus:ria! Facilities. Lawrence
Livennor~ Nafiona2 Laboram .ry.
Cmuse, C.B, and BE 'tamer, I98C. Processa~g and analysis of Japanese
~cceleeograms &act comparisons w;r.h U.S. S~'ong motion data: Proceedings Scveath
Wcrld Conference on Earthquake -Er.~ineering, Vol. 2, lsmnb,'-l, Tu,4cey, September.
Crouse. C.B. 1979. Prob~bdgy of e~hCuake ground mot.on in San Diego: 1979
Nation~ Geol. Soc A~. Fie!d Trip Guidebook, S~n Diego, CA
~q',caton, ~.., A. Vmsh, CB Crousc, ~md R. Guz'man, 1979. Pr~bi[~tic eva]ua~on
of ~ SSE desi~ sp~ for ~ nucle~ power ply. t: a c~e s~dy: P~ceedmgs of
Fi~b Intern~i~al Conference or S~RT, Vol. K, B~rlm, Geoart>', August.
Crouse, CB. ~,d 13.E Turner. 197g. Analysis of ground ,notion sp¢ct:a:
Proc~¢dh~gs of S~cond lnternationm Conferenc~ on Microzon~tioa, Vol, II. Saa
Fr~¢is;o, CA. November
Crouse C.B., R Guzma~ and C Espana, 1977, Probabiliaic cva~,uatiot: of
liquefaction a~d a~plicatiou to a site neaz a subduct'ion ~ne: Proceedings of Si,-rth
World Conference on F2~thquake Engineering. Vol 4, New Delhi, India, Jaguar)'
Guzrnan. R., C.B. Crous¢, aaC P.C }ennmgs, t975. Del~rminatior. of deslg.
¢urthquake~ for 11uclear power piaalts: Proceedings of 21st CollferenC¢ of '22e
Institute of Eavironmentml Studies, Anaheim, CA, Apri;.
Ma_gamn¢s
Maxtin, GR., I.P. La~; and C.B Crouse, 1987 Qaake-resistant tr~msport: C:vii
Engi~nng, ASC£, May.
DAMES & MOO~
309
Vii - STRUCTURAL DESIGN
7-01. GENERAL. The structural elements of the flood control portion of
the plan would be designed in accordance with applicable provisions of
the following references:
Re ferenc e
EM 1'110-1-2101
EM 1110-2-2902
EM 1110-2-2502
EM 1110-2-2400
?ate
1 November 1963
3 March 1969
29 May 1961
2 November 1964
Title
Working stresses for
structural design.
Design of miscellaneous
structures - conduits,
culverts, and pipes.
Retaining walls.
Spillways and outlet
works.
Standards of the American Association of State Highway and Tansportation
Officials.
Applicable E.T.L.'s, ER's and UBC 1976.
7-02. UNIT STRESSES. The pertinent information on unit stresses usedl
in the design of the proposed improvements is as follows:
Concrete:
DESIGN STRESSES
Ultimate compressire strength (fc')
Flexure (fc)
Bearing (fc)
Modulus of elasticity (go)
Shear (v)
Reinforcing Steel, Intermediate Grade:
3000 psi
1050 psi
750 psi
3,165,000 psi
60 psi
Tension
Modulus of elasticity (Es)
Ratio Es/Ec
20,000 psi
29,000,000 psi
9.2
Weights and properties
Concrete weight
Water weight
150 P.C.F.
62.5 P.C.F.
VII-1
310
~-~' SPILLWAY APPROACH W~LLS. The ~alls upstream from the axis of the
embankment Would be divided into three sections ("A","B", and "C") of
more or less equ~l lengths, depending on the amount of fill behind the
wall.
a, The "A" section at the entrance to the spillway would be
designed for five conditions of loading. Condition i, saturated
backfill and an e~pty channel, with a 33 percent increase in allowable
stresses (rapid drawdown). Condition II, drained backfill, an empty
channel a~d normal stresses. Condition III, drained backfill plus
equipment sureharEe load with an empty channel. An allowable concrete
a~d steel stress of 25 percent above normall would be used for this
condition. Condition IV, channel full with backfill counteracting the
hydrostatic force. Whether the earth pressure is active or passive, or
some deeree between, would be determined from the soil data. Condition
V loading assu~es a free standing wall with a seismic force of 0.2 g
applied in either direction. An increase in stresses of 33 percent
would be allowed for this condition.
as section
b. The design of section "B" and "C" would be the same
"A", except that Condition V would be omitted. Minimum channel face
vertical reinforcing would consist of No. ~ bars spaced at 2'-0" o.c.,
the earth face of the wall, or
or 10 percent of the vertical steel in
steel as required by Condition IV or V, whichever is greater.
y CHUTE WALLS. The walls downstream from the axis ~f the
one of saturation, therefore,
7-04. SPILLWA ....... ~ tO be outside the .z. ~ Th loading conditions
emban~ent are as~.~-~-,_~=~ would be conslmereu.
would be as given in paragraph 7-03, however, only
only drained earth
walls used Concrete anchors would be
~r chute ~ ~ would be ' . .~ ..... at a maximum
~' ~^-s II, III, ana x-..~. ~.vert of each sp~j --nvided with
provided acr~s~ ~--vals. A subdrain sy%~, anchors.
~nacing of 60-~oo~_ &u~-~_.,diately upstream
~ansverse pipes placea
7-05. INTAKE TOWERS. The towers would be designed for the following
loading conditions:
i - Reservoir empty, with a seismic force of 0.2 g applied in either
direction. The resultant would fall within the middle half of the
base. A 33 percent increase in allowable stresses for steel and
concrete would be used.
II - Reservoir full of water and silt, and water level inside tower
at the invert of conduit outlet. Buoyancy o~' the tower would be
checked.
7-06. CONDUITS. The conduit for each debris basin would be an encased
RCP, designed for condition I loading (i.e., when the debris basin is
emptY) a~d Condition II loading (i.e., when the debris basin is full).
The loading would be as folloWS: (y) the vertical pressure equals 1.5
~!I-2
311
times the height of the fill times the unit weight of the embankment,
and (2) the horizontal pressure equals 0.5 times the height of the fill
times the unit weight of the embankment. The loading assumptions for
the design of the conduit under Condition II loading would take into
consideration the water pressure over the conduit on the upstream side
of the embankment.
7-07. DIVERSION AND DRAINAGE PIPES. All circular pipes would be
reinforced-concrete pipe laid in a standard trench. The design loads
would be determined £n accordance with EM 1110-2-2902. The pipe would
be designed for appropriate earth. fill, plus highway loading equivalent
to HS 20-44 design loading, to protect against damage from construct:ion
equipment.
7-08. RECTANGULAR CHANNEL, DIVERSION STRUCTURES AND ACCESS RAMPS. The
walls would be designed as "L" walls. They would be designed for two
conditions of loading: Condition I (channel empty) and Condition II
(channel full). '
a. For Condition I loading, earth pressure on the back of the w~11
would be determined in accordance with criteria contained in Civil Works
Engineer Letter 6a-?, 22 April 1964, subject: "Construction Stresses in
Retaining Walls." The lateral earth pressure would be computed for a
condition of drained backfill. The magnitude of combined earth pressure
and equipment surcharge load<ng would be a minimum of 200 pounds per
square foot applied at the center of pressure. The allowable unit
design stresses for tn~s condition of loading would be increased 25
percent. Friction, with a coefficient equal to the tangent of the angle
of internal friction of the backfill, would be assumed to act on the
back of the w~!ls. Stra].ght-iine distribution of soil pressure would be
assumed in the design of the wall base.
b. For Condition II loading, the hydrostatic pressure of 62.5
pounds per cubic foot on the channel face of the wall would be balanced
by the passive lateral earth pressure acting on the back of the w~ll.
Vertical reinforcing steel in the channel face of the wall would consist
of either reinforcing bars 1/2-inch in diameter and spaced on 2-foot
centers or reinforcing bars comprising 10 percent of the vertical steel
in the back of the wall, whichever gives the greater area of steel.
Design analysis would include seismic forces (Earthquake Zone 4) 2n
accordance with EM 1110-2-2502 and ER 1110-2-1806.
7-09. CONFLUENCES. All confluences would be designed for theJ. r
respective differential heads of water pressure against the common walls
between the two ehanneis.
7-10. JUNCTION STRUCTURES. The junction structures would be designed
as reinforced concrete box sections to carry any vertical earth loads,
lateral earth pressures, hydrostat~.c pressures, foundation pressures and
live load. The lateral active pressure on the side of the box would be
VII-3 312
determined by the Rankine Theory. The friction of earth backfill on the
wall would be neglected, and a straight line distribution for foundation
pressure would be used. The live load would be distributed in
accordance with AASHTO Standard Specifications for HS-20-4~ design
loading. Allowable stresses would be according to EM 11t0-2-2902. The
junction structures would be designed using standard methods for rigid
frame analysis.
7-11. SIDE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES. Various sizes of RCP drainage pipes
would be provided to connect existing facilities of steel, vitrified
clay, corrugated metal and concrete drainage pipes into proposed channel
i~provemen~s. Automatic drainage gates would be provided wherever
required. Side overflow ahannel structures would be provided for larger
drainage inlets.
~ · bridges would be designed by local
.. ,a~uw~y BRIDGES. H~ghwa~ ...... a~rds of the American
7-1~ · n~-~ . ~ a~plicaD~e ~ ~
· rests in accorO~c~ ~_ ~ ...... ~o~ nn Officials.
lnte . - .... i-nwa~ ano lr~n=~u~=~i~
Association of stale n ~ 3
7-13- GROUND WATER. Uplift would not '~e considered in the design.
Subdrainage systems would be provided where required tc relieve any
hydrostatic pressures that may occur.
313
SAN
SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN
BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE
CALIFORNIA
COUNTIES
CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECT
FEATURE DESIGN HEMORANDUM NO. 6
....... -~ EBRI,S,,, [IASINS AND CHANNELS
A Rt~Y
.NGELES
ENGINEER DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NE 1979
314