San Elijo Hills Drainage Diversion Hydrogeologist Report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

San Elijo Hills Drainage Diversion Hydrogeologist Report

on

  • 326 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
326
Views on SlideShare
325
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

San Elijo Hills Drainage Diversion Hydrogeologist Report San Elijo Hills Drainage Diversion Hydrogeologist Report Document Transcript

  • Consultant ReportOn the Hydrologic Impacts of San Elijo Hills Development on Carr Property Prepared by: Soroosh Sorooshian, Ph.D. 33 Village Way, Irvine CA, 92603 August 5, 2009 Page 1
  • Consultant report related to the hydrologic impacts of San Elijo Hills development on Carr property prepared by: Soroosh Sorooshian, Ph.D., NAE 33 Village Way, Irvine CA, 92603 August 5, 2009I have had the opportunity to review a number of available reports which have beenprepared in relation to the hydrologic assessment of Carr property provided to me by Mr.Carr. This included the Hunsaker & Associates Rough Grading Drainage Study for SanElijo Hills of September 9, 2005; the Chang Consultants report of June 25, 2008; and thePIRO Engineering report of June 4, 2009. Furthermore, I paid a site visit to Carr property(accompanied by Mr. David Carr) on July 21st 2009, and inspected the site, took somephotos and made the necessary channel cross section measurements. Some of the otherrequired data and estimates of necessary parameters were obtained from the existingreports made available to me by Mr. Carr and from hydrologic handbooks.Some detailed analysis has been conducted by Chang and PIRO Engineering to evaluatethe hydrologic impact of San Elijo Hills development on Carr property. This includes thesubareas flow analysis, using the rational formula, by Chang. It is my conclusion thatmuch of Chang’s analysis while accurate is not relevant to the issue which is the keyfactor to this case. In my professional judgment the primary hydrologic concern to Carrproperty relates to a section of the relatively steep natural stream which passes throughthe upper left corner of the watershed and is marked as section X on the Google map(Fig. 1 below).Figure 1: Google Map of the Carr property with the red line showing the approximate boundary of theproperty; the light blue showing the natural stream channels and the yellow section marked as X showing thesegment of the stream channel passing trough Carr property which will be carrying the additional flow from theSan Elijo Hills Development phases III & V storm Drain Line labeled as “N”. Page 2
  • The segment of the natural stream marked as X in the above figure is approximately 120feet in length with the average slope of nearly 30%, which is relatively steep. It is myjudgment that the influence of any land use change above Carr property will have itsgreatest impact on segment X and the sediments transported to the pond. Therefore, theprimary questions I would pose are whether the resulting land use change due to SanElijo Hills Development phases III & V: 1. Has increased the magnitude of the 100 year flow (Q100) within the watershed passing through the section marked as X in Fig. 1. and, if so, then 2. Will the increase in Q100 cause an increase in the flow velocity, energy and erosion, and hence result in either deepening or widening of the stream segment in the Carr property marked as X? 3. Will the increase in erosion result in build up of additional sediments in the pond on Carr property?It is my conclusion that hydrologically speaking, the answers to all three questions aboveare YES. As for the first question (increase in post-development Q100), there is no disputeand all the studies confirm it. The calculated post-development Q100, post-development are veryclose to each other (52.4 cfs in Hunsaker analysis; 55.0 cfs in Chang analysis and PIROvalue is 53 cfs). Exception is in the magnitude of pre-development Q100. The mostnoticeable difference is in the estimate in Chang’s report (Q100, pre-development =11cfs), whilethe PIRO report calculated a value of (Q100, pre-development = 4 cfs). PIRO estimate is based onthe pre-development contribution of approximately 2.8 acres of drainage area above thepoint of entry to channel segment X (see Fig. 1) of Carr property. Based on myevaluation, it is my judgment that PIRO Engineering analysis is a more careful study inthis regard. Therefore, I have selected the estimates of (Q100, pre-development = 4 cfs and Q100,post-development =52.4 cfs) in my flow analysis for segment X on Carr property. The purposeof my analysis is to provide answer to questions 2 and 3 listed above. Page 3 View slide
  • Flow analysis for channel segment X in Figure 1The purpose of the flow analysis is to see by how much the flow velocity and depth ofwater increases in channel segment X, due to the increase in Q100 from pre- to post-development condition. Figure 2 shows two photos related to channel segment marked asX in Figure 1. Figure 2A Figure 2BFigure 2 represents photos of the stream channel marked X in Figure 1, in two locations. Fig. 2A shows thestream at the fence and entry point to Carr’s property and Fig. 2B shows the channel looking downstream andtowards the point of confluence. The red lines represent visualizations of the approximate channel cross sectionsand the blue arrow shows the direction of flow.Figure 2A shows the point of flow entry to Carr property and 2B is looking down slopetowards the point of exit from Carr property and towards the pond. The channel crosssectional profiles (in red) and direction of flow (in blue) are shown. This is a relativelysteep (approximately 30% slope) and very rugged channel with some natural vegetationprimarily on its banks.In the current state of engineering practice, the Manning equation is the primary modelused for open channel analysis which was also used in this study. The details of thecalculations are provided in Appendix 1.The relevant parameters related to this case are provided in the following table. Q100 Flow velocity Water Depth Width of Water Surface (V ft/sec) (Y ft) (T ft)Pre-Development 4.0 8.0 0.45 2.23Post-Development 52.4 15.0 1.17 5.90Percentage change 1200 88% 160% 165%(% increase) %Table 1: Calculation results for changes (increases) in flow velocity; water depth and width of watersurface from pre- to post-development Page 4 View slide
  • Based on the results shown above, it is clear that with the almost approximately13 foldincrease in the magnitude of Q100 in segment X the flow velocity increases by 80%,flow depth increases by nearly 160%, and the width of water surface will most likelyincrease by 165%. With the increase in these parameters and the resulting increase inflow energy, the potential for significant channel erosion, and hence loss of sediment willincrease. Given that channel segment X in Carr property is a natural steep stream, thereare two possible scenarios for erosion and sediment delivery: 1- If the bottom of the channel is of “native rock formation”, as suggested in the Chang report, then much of the flow energy will result in eroding the soil from the banks of the channel. This scenario assumes a uniform rock formation at the channel bottom. 2- If the bottom of the channel is a mix of native rocks and soil, then the erosion will take place from both the banks and the bottom of the channel.It is very clear that the latter scenario is the dominating factor. Therefore, the increase inQ100 will cause significant erosion from both the bottom and the banks. While asignificant amount the sediments will be carried towards the pond, some of it may alsoget deposited in the stream and in front of any obstacles (e.g., rocks and debris)temporarily.Experience and evidence from the June 2009 flooding due to fire hydrant break incidentIn June 2009, there was an incident on San Elijo Rd. and a fire hydrant near the firestation was knocked out, causing a minor flooding event lasting nearly 20 minutes.According to the information Mr. Carr has obtained, the flow rate for this “man-made”flood event was approximated Q = 9.8 cfs. The water, after discharging from the culvertabove Carr property, made its way down hill towards the pond and passed throughchannel segment X shown in Fig. 1. Figure 3A (taken January 2008) Figure 3B(taken June 2009)Figure 3 showing pictures of the same channel location in segment X. Picture 3A was taken in January 2008 andpicture 3B was taken on June 2009 and after the fire Hydrant incident. (Provided by Mr. Carr) Page 5
  • Comparing figures 3A&B clearly shows the impact of the relatively minor flood causedby the fire hydrant incident. As can be seen, the amount of sediment build up in front ofthe small boulder in the channel segment X of Carr property is relatively significant. Notethat this erosion is due to a flow of only twice the amount of pre-development (Q100, pre-development = 4 cfs) and smaller than Chang’s estimated (Q100, pre-development =11cfs). Thereshould be no doubt that in the event of any storm reaching and/or exceeding the post-development 100-year flow of nearly 52.4 cfs (13 fold increase), it will cause significanterosion along this channel and the transported sediment will eventfully reach and getdeposited in the pond, hence reducing the water holding capacity of the pond.In order to avoid any doubt about the adverse impacts of increased flow rate, two morepictures taken after the June 2009 fire hydrant incident along the stream channel in Carrproperty are included in Figure 4. The circled areas show clear evidence of erosion andsoil loss.Figure 4A Figure 4B (Provided by Mr. Carr)Figure 4A&B show the evidence of erosion impact due to June 2009 small flood event caused by thefire hydrant incident.Figure 5 shows a picture of the pond soon after the fire hydrant incident in June 2009.The muddy color of the water, in the right side of the picture, which is located in front ofCarr’s property, is further evidence of the impact of transported sediments into the pondand answer to question number 3 posed above.Figure 5 is a picture of the pond taken in June 2009 and soon after the fire hydrant break. The muddy color of water on theright side of the picture is evidence of sediment plum carried by the minor flood caused by the hydrant incident. (Provided byMr. Carr) Page 6
  • Summary and final ConclusionsBased on my review of the analysis conducted by Chang and PIRO consultants and myown analysis, I make the following conclusions: - The nearly 13 fold increase in the amount of Q100 due to San Elijo Hills development, will significantly increase the potential for erosion in the stream channel (marked X in figure 1) in Carr’s property. The potential for sediment load on the pond will also increase with increased flow and erosion. - My analysis also strongly supports the conclusions reached in the PIRO Engineering Report dated June 4th 2009. While the parameter values may be different (due to differences in a few of our assumptions), the overall conclusions that damage to the Carr property along the stream channel X will occur and additional sediments will get deposited in the pond, are in agreement. - Chang report makes several conclusions that either ignore the main problem and/or are not relevant to the key issues related to the Carr property. Quoting form Chang report; “A flow increase occurs within the hillside stream in the northwesterly portion of the Carr property. However, this increase can be conveyed in the stream…”. There is no dispute that the increase in flow will be conveyed by segment X. In fact one can argue that due to the nature of the topography of the banks of stream channel, much larger flows (perhaps as high as, or higher than Q1000 ) can be conveyed. However, the issue is not the conveyance of flow, but the damage it will do to Carr property. The Chang statement that the additional flow “…will not appreciably impact erosion or sediment delivery due to the underlying native rock formation…..”, is not correct. Again, quoting from Chang report, “ In fact, the San Elijo Hills development has created an overall reduction in sediment delivery to the Carr property and pond because the development has replaced many natural surfaces that could generate sediment with impervious surfaces an landscaping that resist erosion.”, this conclusion again misses the key issue - namely the impact of increased Q100 on the stream channel marked as X in figure 1. As shown above, contrary to Chang’s suggestion, both erosion and sediment transport to the pond will occur and increase as result of 13 fold increase in Q100. Page 7
  • Appendix 1: Flow analysis for stream channel section X (Figure 1) of Carr propertyWe use the most commonly used equation for analyzing open channels - the Manning equation.Manning equ. : TQ = A / n * R 2 / 3 * S 1/ 2 yGiven:-Triangular cross-section-Slope (S): approx. %29-Manning Coef (n): 0.035 (for Stony, Cobbles) SCase 1: Pre-development 1Q 100 =4 cfs=0.1133 cmsAssumption:For triangular cross-section:A = z * y2 z* yR= 2* 1+ z2T = 2* z * yTherefore:0.1133 = 2.5 * y 2 / 0.035 * (0.464 * y ) 2 / 3 * 0.291 / 2y = 0.136m = 0.448 ftV = Q / A = 0.1133 /( 2.5 * 0.136 2 ) = 2.45m / s = 8.04 ft / sT = 2 * z * y = 2 * 2.5 * 0.136 = 0.68m = 2.23 ftCase 2: Post-developmentQ 100 =52.4 cfs=1.484 cmsFrom Manning equ. :1.484 = 2.5 * y 2 / 0.035 * (0.464 * y ) 2 / 3 * 0.291 / 2y = 0.36m = 1.17 ftV = Q / A = 1.484 /(2.5 * 0.36 2 ) = 4.58m / s = 15.02 ft / sT = 2 * z * y = 2 * 2.5 * 0.36 = 1.8m = 5.9 ft Page 8