HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 2022-0003; CARLSBAD BY THE SEA SUMMERHOUSE; UPDATED INFILTRATION STUDY - AUGUST 9, 2023; 2023-08-09
4010 Morena Boulevard, Suite 108 • San Diego, CA 92117 • (858) 521-1190 • (858) 521-1199 fax • terrapac.net
Mr. Diego Lastres August 9, 2023
Cunningham File No. 22-041
1030 G Street
San Diego, California 92101
Subject: Updated Infiltration Study
Carlsbad by the Sea Summer House
Ocean and Beech Street
Carlsbad, California
Reference: 1) “Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Memory Care and
Independent Living Facility, Ocean Street, APNs 203-144-0400, 0500,
0600, 0700 and 0800, Carlsbad, California,” prepared by TerraPacific
Consultants, Inc., dated February 25, 2022.
2) “Preliminary Grading Plans for Front Porch Memory Care &
Independent Living, 2710-2740 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California,”
prepared by BWE, dated February 6, 2023.
Dear Mr. Lastres:
As requested, TerraPacific Consultants, Inc. (TCI) has prepared the following updated
report presenting the findings and recommendations from the recent infiltration study
conducted on-site. This updated report includes the items from the January 2023 City of
Carlsbad Stormwater BMP Design Manual and Worksheet D.1-1. Site infiltration testing
was conducted on February 2, 2023.
The testing was conducted at two locations designated, Test Pits PT-1 and PT-2, in
accordance with the City of Carlsbad Worksheet D.1-1. In addition, six exploratory
borings, B-1 through B-6, were excavated as a part of the referenced geotechnical
investigation. The excavation/test locations are presented on the Geotechnical Plan,
Figure 1 in Appendix A, and the percolation test pit logs and boring logs are presented in
Appendix B.
The testing followed the open-pit method and was conducted at depths of 2.5 feet below
ground surface. Percolation rates were converted to infiltration rates using the Porchet
Method, and a 2x factor of safety was applied and indicated the following results:
Carlsbad by the Sea • Ocean Street, Carlsbad, CA • File No. 22-041 • August 9, 2023
- 2 -
Percolation
Test No.
Percolation Test Result -
Inches Per Hour
Infiltration Result -
Inches Per Hour
Estimated Reliable
Infiltration Rate –
Inches Per Hour
PT-1 3.1 1.91 0.95
PT-2 3.4 1.74 0.87
The testing and evaluation indicate that the site is suitable for partial infiltration and is
considered an unrestricted site based on the guidelines set by the Carlsbad BMP Design
Manual. The proposed residential use will likely not cause adverse impacts to
groundwater quality if proposed bio-swales are properly designed. A review of the site
utilizing the Geotracker website indicates the site is not within a Department of Water
Resources groundwater basin and is not within 1,000 feet of any active cleanup program
sites. A LUST cleanup site located at 2855 Carlsbad Boulevard (Case #T0607302017) is
located approximately 400 feet south of the subject. The cleanup was completed and the
case was closed.
The web soil survey USDA website indicates that the site is located within a soil unit
designated Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes, map symbol Mlc. The soil
unit is not categorized as a hydric soil and is within Hydrologic Soil Group B.
The project civil engineer should evaluate the feasibility of using infiltration on-site and
any necessary additional factor of safety to be applied to the estimated reliable infiltration
rate provided above. As is always the case, the addition of on-site infiltration systems
may have a negative impact on surrounding proposed or existing structures or
improvements due to the increased soil saturation and potential runoff levels. It is
recommended that if infiltration is to be used, the system be placed along the
topographically low points on the lot, and a minimum of 10 feet away from and down
gradient from any structures and/or drain systems for structures. If permeable areas (i.e.
permeable pavers) are proposed within the 10-foot setback then an impermeable HDPE
type liner and underdrain should be provided to satisfy the 10-foot setback.
The gently sloping terrain and homogeneous near-surface soil types, as identified during
our subsurface investigation, indicate that the anticipated flow path of infiltrated water
would primarily occur in a downward direction. Soil piping, daylight water seepage,
ground settlement, or slope instabilities are not expected to occur as a result of the
proposed partial infiltration. However, as indicated above, the potential for infiltrated
II
Carlsbad by the Sea • Ocean Street, Carlsbad, CA • File No. 22-041 • August 9, 2023
- 3 -
water and resultant saturated soils and perched groundwater conditions impacting
flatwork or pavement sections, utility trench bedding, any subsurface drain systems, or
other improvements cannot be completely ruled out, as such the locations of these items
in relation to the proposed infiltration areas should be properly evaluated during project
design.
The measured site-specific percolation rates for the site indicated rates ranging from 1.7-
inch per hour to 1.9-inch per hour. These rates are consistent with published rates for
sandy type soils, as indicated in USDA, 2008. The percolation rates were converted to
infiltration rates using the Porchet method, and a x2 factor of safety was applied to
determine the estimated reliable infiltration rates of 0.87-inch per hour to 0.95-inch per
hour. The lower of the two rates should be utilized. This low infiltration is also considered
the maximum allowable rate that would not significantly increase the potential for
damage to existing or proposed structures; however, this potential cannot be completely
ruled out. The City of Carlsbad Worksheet D.1-1 is provided in Appendix C.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you should have any questions
or comments regarding this report or our findings, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
TerraPacific Consultants, Inc.
Cristopher C. O’Hern, CEG 2397
Senior Engineering Geologist
23Cristopher D1H-er11
APPENDIX A
Figure
•
APPENDIX B
Subsurface Logs
•
Drilling Company:
DESCRIPTION & REMARKSLithologyDe
p
t
h
(f
t
)
Project No:
Project Name:
Location:
Sample Method:
Date:
Logged By:
Instrumentation:
Driller:
22-041
Ocean Street Memory Care
Beech Ave and Ocean Street
Modified California Sampler
2-17-22
O. Brambila
None installed
Native Drilling
F.S.Elevation:
Steve
Drill Rig Type:
Hammer Wt. & Drop:
L.A.R. Solid Flight
140 lbs. for 30"
(%
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(p
c
f
)
(6
"
,
1
2
"
,
1
8
"
)
Co
u
n
t
s
Bl
o
w
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Subsurface Boring Log
B-1Boring No:
US
C
S
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Total Depth:15.0'Boring
Page 1 of 1
B-1Water:No
Caving:No
Hole Diameter:5"
@2.0', Slightly moist, medium dense
FILL: From 0.0', Silty sand, light orange brown, moist, loose
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (QOP6-7): From 4.0', Silty sandstone, light orange brown, slightly moist, dense, slight porosity
From 9.0', Sandstone, orange brown, slightly moist, dense, friable, medium grained, poorly graded
Ring
Ring
Ring
6/7/13
6/14/24
10/12/20
108.6
111.8
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2.0
5.4
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Drilling Company:
DESCRIPTION & REMARKSLithologyDe
p
t
h
(f
t
)
Project No:
Project Name:
Location:
Sample Method:
Date:
Logged By:
Instrumentation:
Driller:
22-041
Ocean Street Memory Care
Beech Ave and Ocean Street
Modified California Sampler
2-17-22
O. Brambila
None installed
Native
FSElevation:
Steve
Drill Rig Type:
Hammer Wt. & Drop:
L.A.R. Flight Auger
140 lbs. for 30"
(%
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(p
c
f
)
(6
"
,
1
2
"
,
1
8
"
)
Co
u
n
t
s
Bl
o
w
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Subsurface Boring Log
B-2Boring No:
US
C
S
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Total Depth:11.5'Boring
Page 1 of 1
B-2Water:No
Caving:No
Hole Diameter:5"
FILL: From 0.0', Silty sand, orange brown, moist to slightly moist, loose
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (QOP6-7): From 2.5', Silty sandstone, light red brown, slightly moist, dense, slightly weathered
From 6.0', Sandstone, red brown, slightly moist, dense, fine to medium dense, trace of clay
From 8.0', Silty sandstone, light red brown, slightly moist, dense, friable
Ring
Ring
Ring
5/14/23
17/17/18
11/12/15
--
--
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
--
--
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Drilling Company:
DESCRIPTION & REMARKSLithologyDe
p
t
h
(f
t
)
Project No:
Project Name:
Location:
Sample Method:
Date:
Logged By:
Instrumentation:
Driller:
22-041
Ocean Street Memory Care
Beech Ave and Ocean Street
Modified California Sampler
2-17-22
O. Brambila
None installed
Native
FSElevation:
Steve
Drill Rig Type:
Hammer Wt. & Drop:
L.A.R. Solid Flight Auger
140 lbs. for 30"
(%
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(p
c
f
)
(6
"
,
1
2
"
,
1
8
"
)
Co
u
n
t
s
Bl
o
w
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Subsurface Boring Log
B-3Boring No:
US
C
S
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Total Depth:21.5'Boring
Page 1 of 1
B-3Water:No
Caving:No
Hole Diameter:5"
FILL: From 0.0', Silty sand, orange brown to red brown, moist to slightly moist, loose
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (QOP6-7): From 2.5', Silty sandstone, red brown, slightly moist, medium dense to dense, slightly weathered, slight porosity
From 9.0', Sandstone, light orange brown, slightly moist, dense, fine to medium grained, friable
From 16.0', Sandstone, light tan brown, slightly moist, dense, friable, medium grained
Bulk
Ring
Ring
Ring
--
22/26/29
12/14/17
9/10/13
--
--
--
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
--
--
--
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Drilling Company:
DESCRIPTION & REMARKSLithologyDe
p
t
h
(f
t
)
Project No:
Project Name:
Location:
Sample Method:
Date:
Logged By:
Instrumentation:
Driller:
22-041
Ocean Street Memory Care
Beech Ave and Ocean Street
Modified California Sampler
2-17-22
O. Brambila
None installed
Native
FSElevation:
Steve
Drill Rig Type:
Hammer Wt. & Drop:
L.A.R. Solid Flight Auger
140 lbs. for 30"
(%
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(p
c
f
)
(6
"
,
1
2
"
,
1
8
"
)
Co
u
n
t
s
Bl
o
w
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Subsurface Boring Log
B-4Boring No:
US
C
S
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Total Depth:11.5'Boring
Page 1 of 1
B-4Water:No
Caving:No
Hole Diameter:5"
FILL: From 0.0', Silty sand, light orange brown to red brown, moist, loose
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (QOP6-7): From 3.0', Silty sandstone, orange brown, slightly moist, medium dense, slightly weathered, friable
From 9.0', Silty sandstone, red brown, slightly moist, dense, friable
Ring
Ring
14/15/17
18/22/30
--
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
--
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Drilling Company:
DESCRIPTION & REMARKSLithologyDe
p
t
h
(f
t
)
Project No:
Project Name:
Location:
Sample Method:
Date:
Logged By:
Instrumentation:
Driller:
22-041
Ocean Street Memory Care
Beech Ave and Ocean Street
Modified California Sampler
2-17-22
O. Brambila
None installed
Native
FSElevation:
Steve
Drill Rig Type:
Hammer Wt. & Drop:
L.A.R. Solid Flight Auger
140 lbs. for 30"
(%
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(p
c
f
)
(6
"
,
1
2
"
,
1
8
"
)
Co
u
n
t
s
Bl
o
w
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Subsurface Boring Log
B-5Boring No:
US
C
S
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Total Depth:9.0 Boring
Page 1 of 1
B-5Water:No
Caving:No
Hole Diameter:5"
FILL: From 0.0', Silty sand, light orange brown, moist, loose
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (QOP6-7): From 2.5', Silty sandstone, orange brown, slightly moist, dense, slightly weathered Ring
SPT
6/9/13
8/8/10
--
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
--
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Drilling Company:
DESCRIPTION & REMARKSLithologyDe
p
t
h
(f
t
)
Project No:
Project Name:
Location:
Sample Method:
Date:
Logged By:
Instrumentation:
Driller:
22-041
Ocean Street Memory Care
Beech Ave and Ocean Street
Modified California Sampler
2-17-22
O. Brambila
None installed
Native
FSElevation:
Steve
Drill Rig Type:
Hammer Wt. & Drop:
L.A.R. Solid Flight Auger
140 lbs. for 30"
(%
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(p
c
f
)
(6
"
,
1
2
"
,
1
8
"
)
Co
u
n
t
s
Bl
o
w
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Subsurface Boring Log
B-6Boring No:
US
C
S
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Total Depth:36.5'Boring
Page 1 of 1
B-6Water:No
Caving:No
Hole Diameter:5"
@30.0', Some boulders
@32.0', Groundwater
FILL: From 0.0', Silty sand, light orange brown, moist, loose
OLD PARALIC DEPOSIT (QOP6-7): From 2.0', Silty sandstone, red brown, slightly moist, medium dense, slightly weathered
From 8.0', Sandstone, orange brown, slightly moist, dense, friable
From 12.0', Silty sandstone, orange brown, slightly moist, dense, fine to medium grained, trace of clay
From 16.0', Sandstone, pale brown, slightly moist, dense, poorly graded, friable
From 26.0', Sandstone, pale brown, moist, dense, gravel and cobbles
From 33.0', Sandstone, light gray to pale brown, wet, dense
Ring
Ring
9/13/17
7/18/34
--
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
--
--
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
~ :r. :r. :r. ~
;r. ~ ;r. :!: ~ -
:T. :r. :r:. -:T. :r. :r:. -:T. :r. :r:.
:T. :r. :r:. -:T. :r. :r:. -:T. ':r.' :r: • --. .. -. .
---
I, .:T. •I,• -:T. :r. :r:
:T. ;-r: :r: : -
:T. :r. :r: --. .. -. .
---------------------
DESCRIPTION & REMARKSLithology
De
p
t
h
Project No:
Project Name:
Location:
Sample Method:
Date:
Logged By:
Instrumentation:
22-041
Ocean Street Memory Care
Beech and Ocean Street
N/A
2-2-23
C. O'Hern
None installed
Elevation:Pad Hammer Wt. & Drop:
Excavation Method:
Excavator:
Excavating Company:
N/A
Hand labor
Andy
W.A. Kifer
(%
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(p
c
f
)
Co
u
n
t
s
Bl
o
w
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Percolation Test No: PT-1
(f
t
)
US
C
S
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Percolation Testing Log
Total Depth:
Page 1 of 1
2.5'
Water:No
Caving:No PT-1
Perc. Test
Hole Diamater:24"
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FILL: From 0.0', Silty sand, orange brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense
NATIVE (Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6): From 2.1', Silty sandstone, pale orange brown, slightly moist, medium dense
Simple Open Pit Test 24" diameter x 2.5' deep, 6" Water addedTime (t) / Total Depth (dt) / Water Depth (Do, Df) / Drop (Delta H)
12:00 pm Fill to 6"12:54 pm 6.0" drop, refill to 6"1:54 pm 4.3" drop, refill to 6"2:54 pm 3.1" drop, refill to 6" -- Final Reading
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)-It = DeltaH*60*r/DeltaH(r+2Havg)r=(A/pi)0.5^ 24 x 24/3.14 = 13.5"It = (3.1")(60 min/hr) (13.5")/(60 min)(23.9")It=1.74"/hr
....... ... ... ... . ;r, ;r, ;r, . ... ... ... . ;r, ;r, ;r, . ... ... ... . ;r, ;r, ;r, . ... ... ... . ;r, ;r, ;r, . ... ... ... .
;r, ;r, ;r, . ... ... ... .
;r, ;r, ;r, . ... ... ... .
;r, ;r, ;r, . ... ... ... . ;r, ;r, ;r, . ... ... ... .
DESCRIPTION & REMARKSLithology
De
p
t
h
Project No:
Project Name:
Location:
Sample Method:
Date:
Logged By:
Instrumentation:
22-041
Ocean Street Memory Care
Beech and Ocean Street
N/A
2-2-23
C. O'Hern
None installed
Elevation:Pad Hammer Wt. & Drop:
Excavation Method:
Excavator:
Excavating Company:
N/A
Hand labor
Andy
W.A. Kifer
(%
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(p
c
f
)
Co
u
n
t
s
Bl
o
w
Ty
p
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
Percolation Test No: PT-2
(f
t
)
US
C
S
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Percolation Testing Log
Total Depth:
Page 1 of 1
2.5'
Water:No
Caving:No PT-2
Perc. Test
Hole Diamater:24"
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FILL: From 0.0', Silty sand, medium orange brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense
NATIVE (Old Paralic Deposits, Unit 6): From 2.2', silty sandstone, pale orange brown, slightly moist, medium dense
Simple Open Pit Test 24" diameter x 2.5' deep, 6" Water addedTime (t) / Total Depth (dt) / Water Depth (Do, Df) / Drop (Delta H)
12:05 pm Fill to 6"1:00 pm6.0" drop, refill to 6"2:00 pm4.8" drop, refill to 6"3:00 pm3.4" drop -- Final Reading
Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method)-It = DeltaH*60*r/DeltaH(r+2Havg)r=(A/pi)0.5^ (25 x 22)/3.14 = 13.2"It = (3.4")(60 min/hr) (13.2")/(60 min)(23.7")It=1.91"/hr
......... ............ ;r, : ;r, : ;r, . ............ ;r, : ;r, : ;r, . ............
;r, : ;r, : ;r, . ............
;r, : ;r, : ;r, . ............
;r, : ;r, : ;r, . ............
;r, : ;r, : ;r, . ............
;r, : ;r, : ;r, . ............ ;r, : ;r, : ;r, . ............ ;r, : ;r, : ;r, . ............ . . . . . .......
APPENDIX C
City of Carlsbad – BMP Design Manual
Worksheet D.1-1, January 2023
•
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-1 Jan. 2023
Appendix D Geotechnical Engineer
Analysis
Analysis of Infiltration Restrictions
This section is only applicable if the analysis of infiltration restrictions is performed by a
licensed engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering. The SWQMP Preparer and
Geotechnical Engineer must work collaboratively to identify any infiltration restrictions identified in
Table D.1-1 below. Upon completion of this section, the Geotechnical Engineer must characterize
each DMA as Restricted or Unrestricted for infiltration and provide adequate support/discussion in
the geotechnical report. A DMA is considered restricted when one or more restrictions exist which
cannot be reasonably resolved through site design changes.
Table D.1-1: Considerations for Geotechnical Analysis of Infiltration Restrictions
Restriction Element
Is Element
Applicable?
(Yes/No)
Mandatory
Considerations
BMP is within 100’ of Contaminated Soils
BMP is within 100’ of Industrial Activities Lacking Source Control
BMP is within 100’ of Well/Groundwater Basin
BMP is within 50’ of Septic Tanks/Leach Fields
BMP is within 10’ of Structures/Tanks/Walls
BMP is within 10’ of Sewer Utilities
BMP is within 10’ of Groundwater Table
BMP is within Hydric Soils
BMP is within Highly Liquefiable Soils and has Connectivity to Structures
BMP is within 1.5 Times the Height of Adjacent Steep Slopes (≥25%)
County Staff has Assigned “Restricted” Infiltration Category
Optional
Considerations
BMP is within Predominantly Type D Soil
BMP is within 10’ of Property Line
BMP is within Fill Depths of ≥5’ (Existing or Proposed)
BMP is within 10’ of Underground Utilities
BMP is within 250’ of Ephemeral Stream
Other (Provide detailed geotechnical support)
Result
Based on examination of the best available information,
I have not identified any restrictions above.
Unrestricted
Based on examination of the best available information,
I have identified one or more restrictions above.
Restricted
Table D.1-1 is divided into Mandatory Considerations and Optional Considerations. Mandatory
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
22-041 Ocean Street Memory Care
D.1
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-2 Jan. 2023
Considerations include elements that may pose a significant risk to human health and safety and must
always be evaluated. Optional Considerations include elements that are not necessarily associated with
human health and safety, so analysis is not mandated through this guidance document. All elements
presented in this table are subject to the discretion of the Geotechnical Engineer if adequate
supporting information is provided.
Applicants must evaluate infiltration restrictions through use of the best available data. A list of
resources available for evaluation is provided in Section B.2
Determination of Design Infiltration Rates
This section is only applicable if the determination of design infiltration rates is performed
by a licensed engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering. The guidance in this section
identifies methods for identifying observed infiltration rates, corrected infiltration rates, safety factors,
and design infiltration rates for use in structural BMP design. Upon completion of this section, the
Geotechnical Engineer must recommend a design infiltration rate for each DMA and provide
adequate support/discussion in the geotechnical report.
Table D.2-1: Elements for Determination of Design Infiltration Rates
Item Value Unit
Initial Infiltration Rate
Identify per Section D.2.1 in/hr
Corrected Infiltration Rate
Identify per Section D.2.2 in/hr
Safety Factor
Identify per Section D.2.3 unitless
Design Infiltration Rate
Corrected Infiltration Rate ÷ Safety Factor in/hr
2.00
3.18
1.74
0.87
D.2
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-3 Jan. 2023
Initial Infiltration Rate
For purposes of this manual, the initial infiltration rate is the infiltration rate that has been identified
based on the initial testing methods. Some of the acceptable methods for determining initial infiltration
rates are presented in Table D.2-2 below, though other testing methods may be acceptable as evaluated
by the geotechnical engineer. This table identifies what methods require application of correction
factors, safety factors, and what BMPs types are ultimately acceptable for each testing method. The
geotechnical engineer should use professional discretion when selecting a testing method as it may
ultimately impact the types of BMPs that are permitted.
Table D.2-2: Acceptable Initial Infiltration Rate Methods
Category Test Correction Factor Safety
Factor
Suitable for
Following
BMPs
Desktop
Methods*
NRCS Soil Survey
Maps
Not
Applicable
Not
Applicable
BMPs with
Underdrains
Correlation
Methods
Grain Size Analysis
Not
Applicable
Required
(See Section D.2.3)
BMPs with
Underdrains
Cone Penetrometer
Testing
Laboratory
Permeability Tests
Percolation
Tests
Simple Open Pit Test
Required
(See Section D.2.2)
Required
(See Section D.2.3) Any BMP Type
Open Pit Falling Head
Test
Well Permeameter
Method
Borehole Percolation
Tests
Infiltration
Tests
Double Ring
Infiltrometer Test
Not
Applicable
Required
(See Section D.2.3) Any BMP Type
Single Ring
Infiltrometer Test
Large-scale Pilot
Infiltration Test
Smaller-scale Pilot
Infiltration Test
D.2.1
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-4 Jan. 2023
*Desktop methods may be performed without a geotechnical engineer. Refer to Basic Infiltration
Analysis guidance in Section B.2.3 for more information.
NRCS Soil Survey Maps: NRCS Soil Survey maps can be used to establish approximate infiltration
rates for use in BMP design. Under this method, default design infiltration rates may be applied based
on the predominant NRCS soil type present within a proposed BMP location. Default design
infiltration rates (in/hr) for each NRCS soil type are: A=0.300, B=0.200, C=0.100, D=0.025,
Restricted=0.000. Use of these default design infiltration rates does not require application of any
correction factors or safety factors.
Grain Size Analysis Testing: Hydraulic conductivity can be estimated indirectly from correlations
with soil grain-size distributions. While this method is approximate, correlations have been relatively
well established for some soil conditions. One of the most commonly used correlations between grain
size parameters and hydraulic conductivity is the Hazen (1892, 1911) empirical formula (Philips and
Kitch, 2011), but a variety of others have been developed. Correlations must be developed based on
testing of site-specific soils. For purposes of this manual, saturated hydraulic conductivity and
infiltration rate can be assumed to be equal.
Cone Penetrometer Testing: Hydraulic conductivity can be estimated indirectly from cone
penetrometer testing (CPT). A cone penetrometer test involves advancing a small probe into the soil
and measuring the relative resistance encountered by the probe as it is advanced. The signal returned
from this test can be interpreted to yield estimated soil types and the location of key transitions
between soil layers. If this method is used, correlations must be developed based on testing of site-
specific soils. For purposes of this manual, saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate can
be assumed to be equal.
Laboratory Permeability Testing: Laboratory testing can be performed to help evaluate the
infiltration rates. The laboratory tests should be in accordance with ASTM or other approved
procedures (e.g. ASTM D 5084 or D 5856). Several tests may be required from samples at different
elevations to help evaluate the permeability characteristics of the soil strata.
Simple Open Pit Test: The Simple Open Pit Test is a falling head test in which a hole at least two
feet in diameter is filled with water to a level of 6” above the bottom. Water level is checked and
recorded regularly until either an hour has passed or the entire volume has infiltrated. The test is
repeated two more times in succession and the rate at which the water level falls in the third test is
used as the infiltration rate. This test identifies a percolation rate that should be converted to an
infiltration rate using the Porchet method.
Open Pit Falling Head Test: This test is similar to the Simple Open Pit Test, but covers a larger
footprint, includes more specific instructions, returns more precise measurements, and generally
should be overseen by a geotechnical professional. Nonetheless, it remains a relatively simple test.
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-5 Jan. 2023
To perform this test, a hole is excavated at least 2 feet wide by 4 feet long (larger is preferred) and to
a depth of at least 12 inches. The bottom of the hole should be approximately at the depth of the
proposed infiltrating surface of the BMP. The hole is pre-soaked by filling it with water at least a foot
above the soil to be tested and leaving it at least 4 hours (or overnight if clays are present). After pre-
soaking, the hole is refilled to a depth of 12 inches and allow it to drain for one hour (2 hours for
slower soils), measuring the rate at which the water level drops. The test is then repeated until
successive trials yield a result with less than 10 percent change.
Well Permeameter Method (USBR 7300-89): Well permeameter methods were originally
developed for purposes of assessing aquifer permeability and associated yield of drinking water wells.
This family of tests is most applicable in situations in which infiltration facilities will be placed
substantially below existing grade, which limits the use of surface testing methods.
In general, this test involves drilling a 6 inch to 8 inch test well to the depth of interest and maintaining
a constant head until a constant flow rate has been achieved. Water level is maintained with down-
hole floats. A smaller diameter boring may be adequate, however this then requires a different
correction factor to account for the increased variability expected. The Porchet method or the
nomographs provided in the USBR Drainage Manual (United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, 1993) are used to convert the measured rate of percolation to an estimate of
vertical hydraulic conductivity.
While these tests have applicability in screening level analysis, considerable uncertainty is introduced
in the step of converting direct percolation measurements to estimates of vertical infiltration.
Additionally, this testing method is prone to yielding erroneous results cases where the vertical horizon
of the test intersects with minor lenses of sandy soils that allow water to dissipate laterally at a much
greater rate than would be expected in a full-scale facility. To improve the interpretation of this test
method, a continuous bore log should be inspected to determine whether thin lenses of material may
be biasing results at the strata where testing is conducted. Consult USBR procedure 7300-89 for more
details.
Source: (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1990, 1993)
Borehole Percolation Tests: Borehole percolation tests were originally developed as empirical tests
to estimate the capacity of onsite sewage disposal systems (septic system leach fields), but have more
recently been adopted into use for evaluating storm water infiltration. Similar to the well permeameter
method, borehole percolation methods primarily measure lateral infiltration into the walls of the
boring and are designed for situations in which infiltration facilities will be placed well below current
grade. The percolation rate obtained in this test should be converted to an infiltration rate using a
technique such as the Porchet method.
This test is generally implemented similarly to the USBR Well Permeameter Method. Per the Riverside
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-6 Jan. 2023
County Borehole Percolation method, a hole is bored to a depth at least 5 times the borehole radius.
The hole is presoaked for 24 hours (or at least 2 hours if sandy soils with no clay). The hole is filled
to approximately the anticipated top of the proposed infiltration basin. Rates of fall are measured for
six hours, refilling each half hour (or 10 minutes for sand). Tests are generally repeated until consistent
results are obtained.
The same limitations described for the well permeameter method apply to borehole percolation tests,
and their applicability is generally limited to initial screening. To improve the interpretation of this test
method, a continuous soil core can be extracted from the hole and below the test depth, following
testing, to determine whether thin lenses of material may be biasing results at the strata where testing
is conducted.
Sources: Riverside County Percolation Test (2011), California Test 750 (Caltrans, 1986), San
Bernardino County Percolation Test (1992); USEPA Falling Head Test (USEPA, 1980).
In comparison to a double-ring infiltrometer, this test has the advantage of measuring infiltration over
a larger area and better resembles the dimensionality of a typical small scale BMP. This test identifies
a percolation rate that should be converted to an infiltration rate using the Porchet method. However,
if this method is used to identify rates for a drywell BMP, the correction factor can be omitted at the
discretion of the geotechnical engineer.
Double Ring Infiltrometer Test (ASTM 3385): The Double Ring Infiltrometer was originally
developed to estimate the saturated hydraulic conductivity of low permeability materials, such as clay
liners for ponds, but has seen significant use in storm water applications. The most recent revision of
this method from 2009 is known as ASTM 3385-09. The testing apparatus is designed with concentric
rings that form an inner ring and an annulus between the inner and outer rings. Infiltration from the
annulus between the two rings is intended to saturate the soil outside of the inner ring such that
infiltration from the inner ring is restricted primarily to the vertical direction.
To conduct this test, both the center ring and annulus between the rings are filled with water. There
is no pre-wetting of the soil in this test. However, a constant head of 1 to 6 inches is maintained for 6
hours, or until a constant flow rate is established. Both the inner flow rate and annular flow rate are
recorded, but if they are different, the inner flow rate should be used. There are a variety of approaches
that are used to maintain a constant head on the system, including use of a Mariotte tube, constant
level float valves, or manual observation and filling. This test must be conducted at the elevation of
the proposed infiltrating surface; therefore application of this test is limited in cases where the
infiltration surface is a significant distance below existing grade at the time of testing.
This test is generally considered to provide a direct estimate of vertical infiltration rate for the specific
point tested and is highly replicable. However, given the small diameter of the inner ring (standard
diameter is 12 inches, but it can be larger), this test only measures infiltration rate in a small area.
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-7 Jan. 2023
Additionally, given the small quantity of water used in this test compared to larger scale tests, this test
may be biased high in cases where the long term infiltration rate is governed by groundwater mounding
and the rate at which mounding dissipates (i.e., the capacity of the infiltration receptor). Finally, the
added effort and cost of isolating vertical infiltration rate may not necessarily be warranted considering
that BMPs typically have a lateral component of infiltration as well. Therefore, while this method has
the advantages of being technical rigorous and well standardized, it should not necessarily be assumed
to be the most representative test for estimating full-scale infiltration rates. Source: American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International (2009).
Single Ring Infiltrometer Test: The single ring infiltrometer test is not a standardized ASTM test,
however it is a relatively well-controlled test and shares many similarities with the ASTM standard
double ring infiltrometer test (ASTM 3385-09). This test is a constant head test using a large ring
(preferably greater than 40 inches in diameter) usually driven 12 inches into the soil. Water is ponded
above the surface. The rate of water addition is recorded and infiltration rate is determined after the
flow rate has stabilized. Water can be added either manually or automatically.
The single ring used in this test tends to be larger than the inner ring used in the double ring test.
Driving the ring into the ground limits lateral infiltration; however some lateral infiltration is generally
considered to occur. Experience in Riverside County (CA) has shown that this test gives results that
are close to full-scale infiltration facilities. The primary advantages of this test are that it is relatively
simple to conduct and has a larger footprint (compared to the double-ring method) and restricts
horizontal infiltration and is more standardized (compared to open pit methods). However, it is still a
relatively small scale test and can only be reasonably conducted near the existing ground surface.
Large Scale Pilot Infiltration Test: As its name implies, this test is closer in scale to a full-scale
infiltration facility. This test was developed by Washington State Department of Ecology specifically
for storm water applications.
To perform this test, a test pit is excavated with a horizontal surface area of roughly 100 square feet
to a depth that allows 3 to 4 feet of ponding above the expected bottom of the infiltration facility.
Water is continually pumped into the system to maintain a constant water level (between 3 and 4 feet
about the bottom of the pit, but not more than the estimated water depth in the proposed facility) and
the flow rate is recorded. The test is continued until the flow rate stabilizes. Infiltration rate is
calculated by dividing the flow rate by the surface area of the pit.
This test has the advantage of being more resistant to bias from localized soil variability and being
more similar to the dimensionality and scale of full scale BMPs. It is also more likely to detect long
term decline in infiltration rates associated with groundwater mounding. As such, it remains the
preferred test for establishing design infiltration rates in Western Washington (Washington State
Department of Ecology, 2012). In a comparative evaluation of test methods, this method was found
to provide a more reliable estimate of full-scale infiltration rate than double ring infiltrometer and
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-8 Jan. 2023
borehole percolation tests (Philips and Kitch 2011).
The difficulty encountered in this method is that it requires a larger area be excavated than the other
methods, and this in turn requires larger equipment for excavation and a greater supply of water.
However, this method should be strongly considered when less information is known about spatial
variability of soils and/or a higher degree of certainty in estimated infiltration rates is desired.
Smaller-Scale Pilot Infiltration Test: The smaller-scale PIT is conducted similarly to the large-scale
PIT but involves a smaller excavation, ranging from 20 to 32 square feet instead of 100 square feet
for the large-scale PIT, with similar depths. The primary advantage of this test compared to the full-
scale PIT is that it requires less excavation volume and less water. It may be more suitable for small-
scale distributed infiltration controls where the need to conduct a greater number of tests outweighs
the accuracy that must be obtained in each test, and where groundwater mounding is not as likely to
be an issue.
Corrected Infiltration Rate
For purposes of this manual, the corrected infiltration rate is the initial infiltration rate as modified by
appropriate correction factors needed to convert from percolation to infiltration or to correct for
effects of water temperature. The sections below present discussion on correction factors that should
be considered by the Geotechnical Engineer.
D.2.2.1 Percolation Rate Correction Factor
A common misunderstanding is that the “percolation rate” obtained from a percolation test is
equivalent to the “infiltration rate” obtained from tests such as a single or double ring infiltrometer
test which is equivalent to the “saturated hydraulic conductivity”. In fact, these terms have different
meanings. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is an intrinsic property of a specific soil sample under a
given density. It is a coefficient in Darcy’s equation (Darcy 1856) that characterizes the flux of water
that will occur under a given gradient. The measurement of saturated hydraulic conductivity in a
laboratory test is typically referred to as “permeability”, which is a function of the density, structure,
stratification, fines, and discontinuities of a given sample under given controlled conditions. In
contrast, infiltration is the downward entry of water into the soil. The velocity at which water enters
the soil is infiltration rate. Infiltration rate is typically expressed in inches per hour. For the purposes
of this manual, saturated hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate can be assumed to be equal.
Similarly, to permeability, infiltration rate can be limited by a number of factors including the layering
of soil, density, discontinuities, and initial moisture content. These factors control how quickly water
can move through a soil. However, infiltration rate can also be influenced by mounding of
groundwater, and the rate at which water dissipates horizontally below a BMP – both of which
describe the “capacity” of the “infiltration receptor” to accept this water over an extended period. For
this reason, an infiltration test should ideally be conducted for a relatively long duration resembling a
series of storm events so that the capacity of the infiltration receptor is evaluated as well as the rate at
D.2.2
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-9 Jan. 2023
which water can enter the system. Infiltration rates are generally tested with larger diameter holes, pits,
or apparatuses intended to enforce a primarily vertical direction of flux.
In contrast, percolation is tested with small diameter holes, and it is mostly a lateral phenomenon. The
direct measurement yielded by a percolation test tends to overestimate the infiltration rate, except
perhaps in cases in which a BMP has similar dimensionality to the borehole, such as a dry well.
Adjustment of percolation rates may be made to an infiltration rate using a technique such as the
Porchet Method. For drywell BMPs this adjustment may be determined per other methods, (i.e. USBR
7300-89), or may be omitted entirely at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer.
Percolation Rate Conversion Example
Problem:
Apply the Porchet Method (Inverse Borehole Method) to determine the corrected infiltration rate from the
following inputs:
• Total depth of test hole, DT = 60 inches
• Initial depth to water, DO = 12.25 inches
• Final depth to water, Df = 13.75 inches
• Test hole radius, r = 4 inches
• Time interval, Δt = 10 minutes
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-10 Jan. 2023
Solution:
1. Solve for the height of water at the beginning of the selected time interval, HO:
HO = DT - DO = 60 - 12.25 = 47.75 inches
2. Solve for the height of water at the end of the selected time interval, Hf:
Hf = DT - Df = 60 -13.75 = 46.25 inches
3. Solve for the change in height of water over the selected time interval, ΔH:
ΔH = HO - Hf = 47.75 - 46.25 = 1.50 inches
4. Calculate the average head over the selected time interval, Havg:
Havg = (Ho + Hf)/2 = (47.75 + 46.25)/2 = 47.00 inches
5. Calculate the tested infiltration rate, It, using the following equation:
It= (ΔH*60*r) /(Δt*(r+2Havg))
It = (1.50 in * 60 min/hr * 4 in) / (10 min * (4 inch + (2 * 47 in))) = 0.37 in/hr
D.2.2.2 Temperature Correction Factor
The rate of infiltration through soil is affected by the viscosity of water, which in turn is affected by
the temperature of water. As such, infiltration rate is strongly dependent on the temperature of the
infiltrating water (Cedergren, 1997). For example, Emerson (2008) found that wintertime infiltration
rates below a BMP in Pennsylvania were approximately half their peak summertime rates. As such, it
is important to consider the effects of temperature when planning tests and interpreting results.
If possible, testing should be conducted at a temperature that approximates the typical runoff
temperatures for the site during the times when rainfall occurs. If this is not possible, then the results
of infiltration tests should be adjusted to account for the difference between the temperature at the
time of testing and the typical temperature of runoff when rainfall occurs. The measured infiltration
can be adjusted by the ratio of the viscosity at the test temperature versus the typical temperature
when rainfall occurs (Cedergren, 1997), per the following formula:
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-11 Jan. 2023
×=
Typical
TestTestTypicalKKµ
µ
Where:
KTypical = the typical infiltration rate expected at typical temperatures when rainfall occurs
KTest = the infiltration rate measured or estimated under the conditions of the test
µTypical = the viscosity of water at the typical temperature expected when rainfall occurs
µTest = the viscosity of water at the temperature at which the test was conducted
Safety Factors
A safety factor between 2.0 and 9.0 must be applied to the infiltration rates determined above1.
Application of a safety factor reduces initial or corrected infiltration rates in order to account for
various considerations that can impact infiltration rates measured rates over time. In order to minimize
safety factor impacts, applicants should consider performing rigorous site investigation, incorporating
pretreatment and resiliency into the site design, and taking steps to reduce incidental compaction
within BMP footprints.
If the proposed BMP utilizes an underdrain, a default safety factor of 2.0 may be applied or a more
detailed safety factor may be determined per Table D.2-3. If the proposed BMP does not utilize an
underdrain, then the safety factor must be determined through completion of Table D.2-3.
1 Use of default design infiltration rates based on NRCS soil type does not require application of safety factor.
D.2.3
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-12 Jan. 2023
Table D.2-3: Determination of Safety Factor
Consideration Assigned
Weight (w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product (p)
p = w x v
Suitability
Assessment
(A)
Infiltration Testing Method 0.25
Refer to
Table D.2-4
Soil Texture Class 0.25
Soil Variability 0.25
Depth to Groundwater/Obstruction 0.25
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = Σp
Design
(B)
Pretreatment 0.50
Refer to
Table D.2-4
Resiliency 0.25
Compaction 0.25
Design Safety Factor, SB = Σp
Safety Factor, S = SA x SB
(Must be always greater than or equal to 2)
The geotechnical engineer should reference Table D.2-4 below in order to determine appropriate
factor values for use in the table above. The values in the table below are subjective in nature and
the geotechnical engineer may use professional discretion in how the points are assigned.
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
2.00
2.00
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-13 Jan. 2023
Table D.2-4: Guidance for Determining Individual Factor Values
Consideration High Concern
(3 points)
Medium Concern
(2 points)
Low Concern
(1 point)
Infiltration
Testing
Method
Any At least 2 tests of any kind
within 50’ of BMP.
At least 4 tests within BMP
footprint, OR Large/Small
Scale Pilot Infiltration Testing
over at least 5% of BMP
footprint.
Soil Texture
Class
Unknown, Silty,
or Clayey Loamy Granular/Slightly Loamy
Soil
Variability
Unknown or
High Moderately Homogeneous Significantly Homogeneous
Depth to
Groundwater/
Obstruction
<5’ below BMP 5-15’ below BMP >15’ below BMP
Pretreatment None/Minimal
Provides good pretreatment
OR does not receive significant
runoff from unpaved areas
Provides excellent pretreatment
OR only receives runoff from
rooftops and road surfaces.
Resiliency None/Minimal
Includes underdrain/backup
drainage that ensures ponding
draws down in <96 hours
Includes underdrain/backup
drainage AND supports easy
restoration of impacted
infiltration rates.
Compaction Moderate
Likelihood Low Likelihood Very Low Likelihood
Appendix D: Geotechnical Engineer Analysis
D-14 Jan. 2023
Geotechnical Reporting Requirements
This section is only applicable if a licensed engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering
has performed the determination of infiltration restrictions and/or design infiltration rates.
The geotechnical report must document the following items in the geotechnical report.
• Date of site analysis
• Scope and results of testing
• Public health and safety requirements that affect infiltration locations
o Must address Mandatory Considerations presented in Appendix D.1
• Conclusions
o Characterize DMAs as Restricted or Unrestricted for Infiltration
o Identify Design Infiltration Rates for DMAs
• Correspondence between City Staff and Geotechnical Engineer (if applicable)
o Development status of site prior to the project application (i.e. new development with
raw ungraded land, or redevelopment with existing graded conditions)
o The history of design discussions for the site proposed project
o Site design alternatives considered to achieve infiltration or partial infiltration on site
o Physical impairments and public safety concerns (i.e. fire road egress, sewer lines, etc)
o The extent low impact development BMP requirements were included in the project
design
It is ultimately the responsibility of the SWQMP Preparer (not the geotechnical engineer) to
interpret the conclusions made in the geotechnical report and ensure they are appropriately
supported/reflected in associated SWQMP submittal materials such as checklists, narratives,
calculations, exhibits, and supplemental reports.
D.3