DOCSLIB.ORG

November 15, 2016 | Hazard Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
November 15, 2016 | Hazard Mitigation Plan Second Draft Plan November 15, 2016 | Hazard Mitigation Plan Credits Special Thanks Hazard Mitigation Planning Team: Agency Name Department Position City of Montebello Danilo Batson Public Works Director Matthew Feske, Chair Planning and Community Planning Manager Development Department Dan France Fire Department Interim Fire Chief Kurt Johnson Fire Department Fire Marshal Brad Keller Police Department Captain Ben Kim Planning and Community Director Development Department Rick Rojas Police Department Lieutenant David Sosnowski Recreation and Director Community Services California Consulting Allison Richards Business Development Senior Director Emergency Planning Carolyn J. Harshman Consultant President Consultants Acknowledgements City of Montebello Art Barajas, Mayor Vivian Romero, Mayor Pro Tem William M. Molinari, Council Member Vanessa Delgado, Council Member Jack Hadjinian, Council Member Point of Contact To request information or provide comments regarding this mitigation plan, please contact: Name & Position Title Matthew Feske, Planning Manager Email [email protected] 1600 W. Beverly Boulevard Mailing Address Montebello, CA 90640 Telephone Number (323) 887-1200 Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2016 Credits - 2 - Consulting Services Emergency Planning Consultants Project Manager: Carolyn J. Harshman, CEM, President Lead Research Assistant: Alex L. Fritzler HAZUS/GIS: Michael McDaniel 3665 Ethan Allen Avenue San Diego, California 92117 Phone: 858-483-4626 [email protected] www.carolynharshman.com Mapping The maps in this plan were provided by Emergency Planning Consultants, City of Montebello, County of Los Angeles, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and acquired from public Internet sources. Care was taken in the creation of the maps contained in this Plan, however they are provided "as is". The City of Montebello cannot accept any responsibility for any errors, omissions or positional accuracy, and therefore, there are no warranties that accompany these products (the maps). Although information from land surveys may have been used in the creation of these products, in no way does this product represent or constitute a land survey. Users are cautioned to field verify information on this product before making any decisions. Mandated Content In an effort to assist the readers and reviewers of this document, the jurisdiction has inserted “markers” emphasizing mandated content as identified in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law – 390). Following is a sample marker: *EXAMPLE* Q&A | ELEMENT A: PLANNING PROCESS | A1 Q A1: Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it was prepared and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(1)) A: Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2016 Credits - 3 - Table of Contents CREDITS............................................................................................................................... 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................... 4 PART I: PLANNING PROCESS .............................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5 PLANNING PROCESS.........................................................................................................14 PART II: RISK ASSESSMENT.............................................................................. 24 COMMUNITY PROFILE .......................................................................................................24 RISK ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................................................29 EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS ..................................................................................................39 Newport-Inglewood M7.1 Earthquake Scenario ...................................................47 San Andreas M8.0 Earthquake Scenario................................................................55 Whittier M6.8 Earthquake Scenario........................................................................63 Puente Hills M7.1 Earthquake Scenario .................................................................70 Sierra Madre M7.2 Earthquake Scenario ...............................................................77 WILDFIRE HAZARDS.........................................................................................................86 FLOOD HAZARDS...............................................................................................................90 Rio Hondo 100-Year Flood Scenario .......................................................................92 DAM FAILURE HAZARDS ..................................................................................................97 Whittier Narrows Dam Failure Scenario...............................................................100 DROUGHT HAZARDS.......................................................................................................105 PART III: MITIGATION STRATEGIES ........................................................... 107 MITIGATION STRATEGIES .............................................................................................107 Mitigation Actions Matrix ........................................................................................114 PLAN MAINTENANCE.......................................................................................................132 PART IV: APPENDIX............................................................................................ 138 GENERAL HAZARD OVERVIEWS ...................................................................................138 Earthquake Hazards ................................................................................................138 Wildfire Hazards.......................................................................................................142 Flood Hazards...........................................................................................................146 Dam Failure Hazards...............................................................................................150 Drought Hazards ......................................................................................................151 ATTACHMENTS.................................................................................................................157 FEMA Letter of Approval .........................................................................................157 City Council Staff Report ........................................................................................158 City Council Resolution ...........................................................................................159 Planning Team Sign-In Sheets ..............................................................................160 Web Postings and Notices ......................................................................................162 Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2016 Table of Contents - 4 - Part I: PLANNING PROCESS Introduction The Hazard Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan) was prepared in response to Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). DMA 2000 (also known as Public Law 106-390) requires state and local governments to prepare mitigation plans to document their mitigation planning process, and identify hazards, potential losses, mitigation needs, goals, and strategies. This type of planning supplements the City’s comprehensive land use planning and emergency management planning programs. This document is a federally mandated update to the City of Montebello 2004 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and ensures continuing eligibility for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding. DMA 2000 was designed to establish a national program for pre-disaster mitigation, streamline disaster relief at the federal and state levels, and control federal disaster assistance costs. Congress believed these requirements would produce the following benefits: Reduce loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and disaster costs. Prioritize hazard mitigation at the local level with increased emphasis on planning and public involvement, assessing risks, implementing loss reduction measures, and ensuring critical facilities/services survive a disaster. Promote education and economic incentives to form community-based partnerships and leverage non-federal resources to commit to and implement long-term hazard mitigation activities. The following FEMA definitions are used throughout this plan (Source: FEMA, 2002, Getting Started, Building Support for Mitigation Planning, FEMA 386-1): Hazard Mitigation – “Any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property from hazards”. Planning – “The act or process of making or carrying out plans; specifically, the establishment of goals, policies, and procedures for a social or economic unit.” Planning Approach The four-step planning approach outlined in the FEMA publication, Developing the Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementing Strategies (FEMA 386-3) was used to develop this plan: Develop mitigation goals and objectives - The risk assessment (hazard characteristics, inventory, and findings), along with municipal policy documents, were utilized to develop mitigation goals and objectives. Identify and prioritize mitigation actions - Based on
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report
    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles County
    Steelhead/rainbow trout resources of Los Angeles County Arroyo Sequit Arroyo Sequit consists of about 3.3 stream miles. The arroyo is formed by the confluence of the East and West forks, from where it flows south to enter the Pacific Ocean east of Sequit Point. As part of a survey of 32 southern coastal watersheds, Arroyo Sequit was surveyed in 1979. The O. mykiss sampled were between about two and 6.5 inches in length. The survey report states, “Historically, small steelhead runs have been reported in this area” (DFG 1980). It also recommends, “…future upstream water demands and construction should be reviewed to insure that riparian and aquatic habitats are maintained” (DFG 1980). Arroyo Sequit was surveyed in 1989-1990 as part of a study of six streams originating in the Santa Monta Mountains. The resulting report indicates the presence of steelhead and states, “Low streamflows are presently limiting fish habitat, particularly adult habitat, and potential fish passage problems exist…” (Keegan 1990a, p. 3-4). Staff from DFG surveyed Arroyo Sequit in 1993 and captured O. mykiss, taking scale and fin samples for analysis. The individuals ranged in length between about 7.7 and 11.6 inches (DFG 1993). As reported in a distribution study, a 15-17 inch trout was observed in March 2000 in Arroyo Sequit (Dagit 2005). Staff from NMFS surveyed Arroyo Sequit in 2002 as part of a study of steelhead distribution. An adult steelhead was observed during sampling (NMFS 2002a). Additional documentation of steelhead using the creek between 2000-2007 was provided by Dagit et al.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018
    City of Azusa Local Hazard Mitigation Plan October 2018 Executive Summary The City of Azusa prepared this Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to guide hazard mitigation planning to better protect the people and property of the City from the effects of natural disasters and hazard events. This plan demonstrates the community’s commitment to reducing risks from hazards and serves as a tool to help decision makers direct mitigation activities and resources. This plan was also developed in order for the City to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance, specifically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program. Each year in the United States, natural disasters take the lives of hundreds of people and injure thousands more. Nationwide, taxpayers pay billions of dollars annually to help communities, organizations, businesses, and individuals recover from disasters. These monies only partially reflect the true cost of disasters, because additional expenses to insurance companies and nongovernmental organizations are not reimbursed by tax dollars. Many natural disasters are predictable, and much of the damage caused by these events can be alleviated or even eliminated. The purpose of hazard mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to people and property from hazards LHMP Plan Development Process Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards that threaten communities are identified, likely impacts determined, mitigation goals set, and appropriate mitigation strategies determined, prioritized, and implemented. This plan documents the hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and strategies the City will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Element
    GENERALPLAN SAFETY ELEMENT Draft Plan January 15, 2017 Approved by Planning Commission March 7, 2017 Adopted by Montebello City Council March 8, 2017 CITY OF MONTEBELLO – GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT LOGO MONTEBELLO CITY COUNCIL VIVIAN ROMERO, MAYOR WILLIAM M. MOLINARU, MAYOR PRO TEM ART BARAJAS, COUNCILMEMBER VANESSAL DELGADO, COUNCILMEMBER JACK HADJINIAN, COUNCLMEMBER MONTEBELLO PLANNING COMMISSION DANIEL GONZALEZ, CHAIR KEVORK BAGOIAN, VICE CHAIR SONA MOORADIAN, COMMISSIONER BRISSA SOTELO, COMMISSIONER SERGIO ZAZUETA, COMMISSIONER CITY ADMINISTRATION FRANCESCA TUCKER-SCHUYLER, CITY MANAGER DANILO BATSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER CITY STAFF BEN KIM, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DAN FRANCES, FIRE CHIEF KEVIN MCCLURE, POLICE CHIEF DAVID SOSNOWSKI, DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES TOM BARRIO, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION STEVE KWON, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE KURT JOHNSON, FIRE MARSHALL CONSULTANTS CALIFORNIA CONSULTING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONSULTING City of Montebello | General Plan Safety Element | January 2017 - 2 - CITY OF MONTEBELLO – GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT LOGO THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY City of Montebello | General Plan Safety Element | January 2017 - 3 - CITY OF MONTEBELLO – GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT LOGO TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 6 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..................................................................................................... 6 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ATN]D Illill for the Regular Meeting of June 26, 2018 on Mating Epartment: Community Deve1opmv Department Head: City Manager: Icha Flat”
    Item No. 5 City ofSouth Gatt. CITY COUNCiL ATN]D IllILL For the Regular Meeting of June 26, 2018 On mating epartment: Community Deve1opmV Department Head: City Manager: ichaFlat” SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UPDATED LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN PURPOSE: Consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Following the conclusion of the public hearing, adopt Resolution adopting the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, describing the City’s efforts to prepare for and respond to emergencies. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact to the City. Failure to adopt the Resolution could affect the City’s eligibility for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster mitigation funding. ALIGNMENT WITH COUNCIL GOALS: The adoption of the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan supports the goal of protecting strong and sustainable neighborhoods. Some naturally occurring hazards may be unavoidable, but the potential impact on the City of South Gate can be reduced through advance planning and preparation. The updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan addresses geologic, seismic, flood, and fire hazards, as well as hazards created by human activity such as hazardous materials and incidents that call for emergency protection. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: The foregoing is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides that CEQA only applies to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where, as here, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
    [Show full text]
  • 11087020 San Gabriel River Above Whittier Narrows Dam, CA San Gabriel River Basin
    Water-Data Report 2013 11087020 San Gabriel River above Whittier Narrows Dam, CA San Gabriel River Basin LOCATION.--Lat 34°02′03″, long 118°02′14″ referenced to North American Datum of 1927, Los Angeles County, CA, Hydrologic Unit 18070106, in La Puente Grant, at Peck Road, 0.8 mi downstream from San Jose Flood Channel, 1.2 mi upstream from axis of Whittier Narrows Dam, and 1.8 mi south of El Monte. DRAINAGE AREA.--442 mi². SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--October 1955 to September 1957, October 1963 to current year. REVISED RECORDS.--WDR CA-86-1: Drainage area. GAGE.--Water-stage recorder and crest-stage gage. Elevation of gage is 220 ft above NGVD of 1929, from topographic map. COOPERATION.--Records of diversion to Rio Hondo provided by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. REMARKS.--Records fair except for estimated daily discharges, which are poor. Flow regulated by several reservoirs, combined capacity, 123,000 acre-ft. Many diversions upstream from station for irrigation, power development, and ground-water replenishment. Colorado River water released to the San Gabriel River at site 14.9 mi upstream from gage, at Metropolitan Water District aqueduct crossing on San Dimas Creek for ground-water replenishment. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works diverted 184 acre-ft from San Gabriel River below Santa Fe Dam to Rio Hondo during the current year. See schematic diagram of San Gabriel River and Los Angeles River Basins available from the California Water Science Center. EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD.--Maximum discharge, 46,600 ft³/s, Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • 1104 WNNCA Newsletter
    Whittier Narrows Nature Center Associates Newsletter of the Whittier Narrows Nature Center Associates April 2011 This month at the natural area . 4/2 - Bird walk, 9 a.m. Led by docent-naturalist Ed Barajas. 4/9 - Bird walk, 9 a.m. Led by docent-naturalist Ray Jillson. 4/16 - Bird walk, 9 a.m. Led by docent-naturalist Ed Barajas. 4/23 - Bird walk, 9 a.m. Led by docent-naturalist Ray Jillson. Photo by Jim Odling Traditional plant uses highlighted 4/23 - Cleanup, 9 a.m. Biologist and Gabrieleno Indian Matt Teutimez (above) deliv- Sponsored by WNNCA ered an engaging and informative presentation on traditional 4/30 - Annual volunteer Native American uses of local plants in the nature center library recognition brunch Feb. 26. Matt’s energetic style wowed the standing-room-only hosted by Nature Center crowd. It was a “smashing day” and an “excellent presentation,” Associates at Eaton said Nature Center Associates member Michael Barba. Canyon Nature Center, 9:30 – 11:30 a.m. Eagle projects spruce up natural 4/30 - Cleanup. Call for details. Led by Dept. of area for visitors, wild inhabitants Parks and Recreation. Two area Eagle Scout can- the nature center on March 19. didates recently demonstrated The original kiosk had been Save the date: that the spirit of service is alive knocked over in heavy winds 5/14 - Potluck picnic at and well in our youth, using March of last year. natural area. Hosted by their Eagle projects to improve Chen said the project, WNNCA. the Natural Area both for hu- which he began planning in man visitors and for an avian April 2010, involved a number All events are free and resident.
    [Show full text]
  • EARTHQUAKE RECORDINGS on and NEAR DAMS Paul Morrison, Richard Maley, Gerald Brady and Ronald Porcella USCOLD Committee on Earthq
    EARTHQUAKE RECORDINGS ON AND NEAR DAMS by Paul Morrison, Richard Maley, Gerald Brady and Ronald Porcella USCOLD Committee on Earthquakes Panel on Instrumental Recordings at Dams , } IV BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 11. Report No. 2 1 . SHEET 4'. Title and Subtitle 15. Report'"Uate"""" - - • Earthquake Recordings On Or Near Dams November 1977 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept. P. Morrison. R. Malev. G. Bradv. R. Porcella No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. United States Committee on Large Dams (USCOLD) California Institute of Technology 11. Conrract/Grant No. 1201 E. California Blvd. D::lC:;:\l1oY1ri fA Q11?t:; NSF ENV74-05163 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period National Science Foundation Covered Washington, D.C. 20550 14. 15. Supplemenrary Notes 16. Abstracts This report presents data on earthquake recordings made on or near dams. The serious consequences of failure makes it imperative that dams in seismic regions be designed to resist earthquake shaking safely and economically. To achieve this, designers of dams must be provided with information about those dams that have been subjected to strong ground shaking, with or without damage. The most valuable of such information is provided by seismic recordings made on or near dams during strong shaking, as these show the nature of the earthquake shaking. Unfortunately there exist relatively few such recordings because only few dams are instrumented for this purpose. This report provides a collection of seismic records, ranging from very strong shaking to moderate shaking, which whould be informative to engineers who design dams.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Assets Assessment Report
    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.15 WILDERNESS and RECREATION Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project
    3.15 WILDERNESS AND RECREATION Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project 3.15 Wilderness and Recreation 3.15.1 Introduction This section describes effects related to wilderness and recreation that would be caused by implementation of the TRTP. The following discussion addresses existing environmental conditions in the affected area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts for a range of Project alternatives, and recommends measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts anticipated from Project construction and operation. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to wilderness and recreation are described. In some cases, compliance with these existing laws and regulations would serve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might otherwise occur with the implementation of the Project. This discussion has been revised to focus on substantive information that has changed or been updated since the publication of the Draft EIR/EIS and relates to the federal decisions. This includes relevant information and analysis included in the Supplemental Draft EIS. For the most part, the information and analysis in this section relates to the alternatives that involve federal lands, which include the No Project/Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE’s Proposed Project (Alternative 2), Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). Within these alternatives, the segments traversing federal lands include Segments 6 and 11, which cross NFS lands, and Segments 7 and 8, which cross USACE lands. For all other alternatives and segments, the reader is referred to the information and analysis presented in the Final EIR (October 2009). While those elements of the Project located off federal lands have already been approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in CPUC Decision 09-12-044 (December 24, 2009), they will be considered by the federal decision makers as part of the whole of the Project.
    [Show full text]
  • General Plan
    ǀ DC&E Reader’s Guide to the General Plan ...................................................................... iii Industry—Business First ....................................................................................... ix 1.0 Land Use Element ..................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 Circulation Element .................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 Resource Management Element ............................................................... 3-1 4.0 Safety Element ........................................................................................... 4-1 Appendix: Buildout Methodology . La Canada Flintridge Glendale Duarte Glendale Sierra Monrovia Madre UV159 Pasadena ¨¦§210 Bradbury UV134 UV2 UV710 Azusa Glendora San Arcadia Claremont Marino Irwindale South UV30 UV66 UV210 Pasadena Temple San Upland San City Dimas UV110 Gabriel La Verne Covina Alhambra Baldwin Park El Monte 10 Montclair Los Rosemead ¨¦§ West Covina Pomona Angeles Monterey Montclair Park South El Monte Ontario UV60 La Puente Walnut Montebello UV60 Vernon UV71 Commerce Chino Pico Diamond Maywood Rivera Bar Huntington Park Bell City of Industry UV142 Bell Cudahy Gardens Whittier La Habra 605 Heights § Chino South ¨¦ Hills Gate Santa Fe 710 Downey Springs Lynwood ¨¦§ UV90 La Habra Brea §105 ¨¦ Norwalk La Mirada Paramount ¨¦§5 Compton 57 Yorba Bellflower Fullerton UV Linda Placentia UV91 Cerritos Corona Artesia UV91 Buena Lakewood UV90 Park La Palma Carson Hawaiian
    [Show full text]
  • Whittier Narrows Record of Decision
    SFUND RECORDS CTR 1851-04711 RECORD OP DECISION ^ "MONITORING ONLY" (NO ACTION) ALTERNATIVE SELECTION DECLARATION SITE NAME AND LOCATION Whittier Narrows Operable Unit San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site, Areas 1 through 4 Los Angeles County, California STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE This decision document represents the selection of the "Monitoring Only" Alternative for the Whittier Narrows Operable Unit in Los Angeles County, California, one of six operable units for the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site, Areas 1 through 4. This decision was made in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the Administrative Record File for this operable unit. The State of California concurs with this decision. DESCRIPTION OF THE "MONITORING ONLY" (NO ACTION) ALTERNATIVE The "Monitoring Only" Alternative selected for the Whittier Narrows Operable Unit will include the installation of up to nine additional multiport or cluster groundwater monitoring wells plus approximately eight single point wells. The installation of these additional wells will enhance the existing groundwater monitoring network at the operable unit. Sampling and analysis of groundwater from the new monitoring wells will be conducted quarterly for one year, then adjusted upon review of validated analytical results and seasonal fluctuations. The current sampling and analysis schedule will be followed for the existing groundwater monitoring network (and will also be adjusted pursuant to validated analytical results and seasonal fluctuations as necessary). In addition to the installation of new monitoring wells, well logging and depth- specific sampling will be performed at approximately ten production wells located within the Whittier Narrows area.
    [Show full text]