Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 16-04; VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CAMPUS; PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP); 2020-08-14CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP) STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP) FOR PHASE 5- VIASAT BRESSI RANCH CAMPUS CD 2019-0021 I MS 16-04 GR 2020-0005 / DWG 497-4D ENGINEER OF WORK: T RCE 68075 EXP: 06-30-21 PASCO LARtT SUITER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A OFESSIo SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 W. N c' RCE 68075 EXP. 06-30-21 civil OF C EcEyyr!) 2US i82223 LAND EEv, #ENT ENGNEENING PREPARED FOR: VIASAT, INC. 6155 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CA 92009 760-476-2200 PREPARED BY: PASCO LARET S73WTER' L I & ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING + LAND PLANNING + LAND SURVEYING 535 N. HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 858-259-8212 DATE: August 14, 2020 Rev: 3 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION PROJECT VICINITY MAP STORM WATER STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRE SITE INFORMATION SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPs ATTACHMENT 1— Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs AttachmentIa ......................................................................................................... DMA Exhibit Attachment lb ............... Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment I c..................................................................Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Attachment Id .............................................. Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Attachment I e...................................Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations ATTACHMENT 2 - Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a..............................................................Hydromodification Management Exhibit Attachment 2b.........................................Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2c.......................................Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels Attachment 2d................................................................................Flow Control Facility Design ATTACHMENT 3 - Structural BMP Maintenance Plan Attachment 3a......Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions and BMP Fact Sheets Attachment 3b .............................................................................. Draft Maintenance Agreement ATTACHMENT 4— City of Carlsbad Standard Single Sheet BMP Exhibits Attachment 4a.................................................................Single Sheet BMP Exhibit VIA SA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 2 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 CERTIFICATION PAGE Project Name: ViaSat Bressi Ranch Campus —Phase 5 Project ID: MS 16-04/ GR2020-0005 I DWG. 497-413 I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the requirements of the BMP Design Manual, which is based on the requirements of SDRWQCB Order No. R9-2013-0001 (MS4 Permit) or the current Order. I have read and understand that the City Engineer has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this SWQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable source control and site design BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this SWQMP by the City Engineer is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design. Gregory W. Lang, P.E. RCE 68075 Exp: 06-30-21 Date Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 VIASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 3 I ECT WE TA (OF I MARCOS STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN WMi1*OP1i WINf1Y MAP NOT TO SCALE Figure 1—Vicinity Map VIA SAT BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 4 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 SITE INFORMATION CHECKLIST Project SummaInformation Project Name Phase 5 - ViaSat Bressi Ranch Campus Project ID MS 16-04 I GR20200005 I DWG. 497-4D Project Address SE Corner of El Camino Real and Gateway Rd Carlsbad, CA 92009 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 213-260-12 Hydrologic Unit: Carlsbad Hydrologic Area: San Marcos Hydrologic Sub-Area Name: Batiquitos Project Watershed (Hydrologic Unit) Hydrologic Sub-Area #: 904.51 Watershed: San Marcos Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Subwatershed: San Marcos Creek Parcel Area (1 Total Parcel) 7.02 Acres (305,814 Square Feet) Existing Impervious Area (subset of Parcel Area) 0.03 Acres (1,348 Square Feet) Area to be disturbed by the project (Project Area) 7.02 Acres (305,899 Square Feet) Project Proposed Impervious Area (subset of Project Area) 4.02 Acres (175,165 Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area (including D.G., De Minimis, and Self-Mitigating 2.97 Acres (129,386 Square Feet) Areas) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project. This may be less than the Parcel Area. I VIASA TBRESSI RANCH-PHASE 5 I STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 Description of Existing Site Condition and Drainage Patterns Current Status of the Site (select all that apply): LI Existing development II Previously graded but not built out LI Agricultural or other non-impervious use LI Vacant, undeveloped/natural Description /Additional Information: The site has been mass graded under Drawing #497-4A, including onsite desilting basins, in preparation for a phased buildout of the site. The site is stabilized with hyrdroseed and/or vegetative cover throughout. (See further discussion below on site topography and drainage). Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply): LI Vegetative Cover J1 Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas LI Impervious Areas Description /Additional Information: The project site has been recently mass graded in preparation for phased buildout of the site with land cover consisting primarily of hydroseed from stabilization measures following mass grading or staging area for construction of Viasat campus. The site is bordered by trees and ground cover, mostly within the street right-of-way maintained by the City of Carlsbad. Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply): LI NRCS Type A LI NRCS Type B LI NRCS Type C EI NRCS Type D (Per Soil Hydrologic Groups Map - County of San Diego Hydrology Manual) Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW)-. El GW Depth <5 feet LI5 feet <GW Depth < 10 feet LI 10 feet < GW Depth <20 feet ll GW Depth > 20 feet VIA SA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply): U Watercourses Li Seeps U Springs LI Wetlands IJ None Description I Additional Information: N/A VIA SATBRESSI RANCH-PHASE 5 7 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 Description of Existing Site Topography and Drainage [How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer (1) whether existing drainage conveyance is natural or urban; (2) describe existing constructed storm water conveyance systems, if applicable; and (3) is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? if so, describe]: A portion of the site storm drain infrastructure in the existing condition has been installed under the rough grading permit (DWG 497-4A) for the site, along with the public storm drain connections located in the adjacent public rights-of-way along Town Garden Road. Storm drain laterals were installed during the previous mass-grading operation to serve the temporary desilting basins located on site. Most of the laterals will be demolished with new private storm drain installed in accordance with the project's Phase 5 development, described in this report. Presently, site runoff flows to temporary desilting basins located strategically throughout the site, generally coinciding with the planned, phased buildout of the site. The site generally drains to the south and to the west toward the public storm drain infrastructure located in Alicante Road and Town Garden Road. Runoff from the project site enters the public storm drain system through the existing storm drain laterals, and flows to two storm drain outfalls south of the project in an unnamed canyon. The westerly outfall discharges to the south of Town Garden Road through a concrete energy dissipater and over a rip rap apron in the canyon. The easterly outfall discharges into a detention basin through a concrete energy dissipater and rip rap apron. The flow continues to the south after the existing detention basin through another concrete energy dissipater and rip rap apron. The two flows confluence at this down gradient point and continue to flow to the south in swales to the vicinity of Alga Norte Community Park. The runoff then crosses under Poinsettia Lane, flows across the La Costa Resort golf course, crosses under Alga Road, continues to flow through the La Costa Resort golf course and enters San Marcos Creek near the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. Near this intersection, San Marcos Creek drains to the west and discharges into Batiquitos Lagoon and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. For additional information regarding the existing storm drain infrastructure within Alicante Road and Town Garden Road, refer to Drainage Report for the Bressi Ranch Mass Grading & Backbone Improvements by Project Design Consultants, dated February 2003 and Addendum to Drainage Report for Bressi Ranch Mass Grading by Project Design Consultants, dated October 2004 on file with the City of Carlsbad under CT 00-06, DWG 400-8A, 400-8C and 400- 8D. VIA SATBRESSI RANCH-PHASE 5 I STORM WA TER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 Description of Proposed Site Development and Drainage Patterns Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities: This 7.02 acre project site comprises Phase 5 construction of the overall site proposed under the tentative map MS 16-04, and mass-graded under City of Carlsbad Drawing 497-4A. Construction will include two (2) office buildings and one (1) parking structure, along with site improvements consisting of landscape, recreation areas, driveways, and truck delivery area. The project site is bordered on the north by Gateway, to the east by Alicante Road, to the south by Town Garden Road, and on the west by Phase I of this project up to Gateway Road. The immediate surrounding area is comprised primarily of industrial and commercial uses as well as some single family residential as part of the Bressi Ranch master plan. Interstate 5 is approximately 3.5 miles to the west of the project site along Palomar Airport Road. The project site is currently located in the zone designated as P-M, planned industrial. List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features): The impervious features of the proposed project will include the construction of two (2) new office buildings and one (1) new parking structure, driveways to the parking structure, sidewalks surrounding the proposed buildings, and roofs covering the patio/seating areas between buildings. List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas): Phase 5 will include DMA 5A through 5E. Pervious features of the site include a biofiltration basin and underground storage vault for pollutant control/hydromodification, landscape areas between proposed buildings and on perimeter slopes, decomposed granite paths, grass pave areas, and a putting green. Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? Yes 0 N Description / Additional Information: The project will include precise grading for placement of new buildings on site along with associated landscape, emergency access and underground utilities throughout. I I I VIASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 I I I I I I 1 I STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)? EYes 0 N Description /Additional Information: Along with the addition of new buildings onsite, associated storm water conveyance will be installed onsite through use of underground piping, underground storm water storage, and above ground water quality infrastructure as required by the City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region, dated February 2016. For additional information regarding the storm drain design, refer to the Drainage Study for Phase 5 - ViaSat Bressi Ranch Campus by PLSA Engineering, dated February 2020, under separate cover. Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply): FI On-site storm drain inlets ll Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps ll Interior parking garages IJ Need for future indoor & structural pest control ll Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use o Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features O Food service O Refuse areas O Industrial processes O Outdoor storage of equipment or materials O Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning O Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance O Fuel Dispensing Areas EI Loading Docks 19 Fire Sprinkler Test Water Il Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water El Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots VIASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 10 I A UGUST 2020 I STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 11 I Identification of Receiving Water Pollutants of Concern Describe path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable): The westerly outfall discharges through a concrete energy dissipater and over a rip rap apron. The easterly outfall discharges into a detention basin through a concrete energy dissipater and rip rap apron. The flow continues to the south after an existing detention basin through another concrete energy dissipater and rip rap apron. The two flows confluence at this down gradient point and continue to flow to the south in swales to the vicinity of Alga Norte Community Park. The runoff then crosses under Poinsettia Lane, flows across the La Costa Resort golf course, crosses under Alga Road, continues to flow through the La Costa Resort golf course and enters San Marcos Creek near the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. Near this intersection, San Marcos Creek drains to the west and discharges into Batiquitos Lagoon and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs for the impaired water bodies: 303(d) Impaired Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s) TMDLs DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) TMDL Required Phosphorous TMDL Required San Marcos Creek Sediment Toxicity TMDL Required Selenium TMDL Required Identification of Project Site Pollutants Identify pollutants anticipated from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6): Also a Receiving Not Applicable to Anticipated from the Water Pollutant of Pollutant the Project Site Project Site Concern Sediment X X Nutrients X X Heavy Metals X X Organic Compounds X Trash & Debris X Oxygen Demanding Substances Oil & Grease X Bacteria & Viruses X Pesticides X X VIASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 I I I I I I Fi I I I I 1 I I I LI STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AUG UST 2020 Hydromodificatuon Management Requirements Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? 9 Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. E No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank are concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. 11 No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides. Description / Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above): VIA SAT BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 12 I STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 I Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas* - *This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? Il Yes (See discussion below) No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed? 06.2. I Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite El 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite lCritical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 2B of the SWQMP. Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit. Discussion /Additional Information: An initial rough grading of the site was completed in 2004 with compacted fill placed throughout the entire site, and the area stabilized with non-irrigated hydroseed ground cover, negating analysis of the site as a Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area, where the site was once bisected by a well vegetated canyon feature. The rough graded cut and fill material placed onsite are compacted and any runoff is being collected in onsite desilting basins for settlement of any significant sediment loads that could potentially leave the site. Because of this previous grading work, and the information used in determination of the Critical Coarse Sediment Yield that appears to take into account the pre-2003 (start of rough grading) condition of the site, compared to the current condition, the critical coarse sediment yield areas appearing in the WMAA maps are in error and the previous grading has changed the condition such that no critical coarse sediment is produced at this location. In addition, as requested by the City of Carlsbad, a study of the on-site Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLU) was performed and a resulting exhibit highlighting where the known GLU's was provided in Attachment 2B. This exhibit is conceptual as the area being highlighted is part of a rough graded (not natural) slope that would consist of fill and not beneficial sediment. The identified GLU consists of CSI-Agricultural/Grass 4 where there are slopes greater than 40%. The GLU chart (Table H.I-3) from the City of Carlsbad can also be found within Attachment 2B. GLUs within Phase 5 consist entirely of graded pads or "developed" land cover category. Because none of the land cover in Table 6-1 of the BMP Design Manual are listed as developed, no measures for protection of CCSYA is necessary. VIASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 13 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I STORM WA TER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff* *This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit. Runoff from the project site does not discharge to an un-lined channel onsite, rather discharging to the City of Carlsbad storm drain system at a point of compliance at the project boundary (as directed by Section 6.3.1 of the HMP Design Manual). Therefore, the POC for flow control analysis will be analyzed at the point of discharge from the site, a 60" RCP storm drain, as shown on the exhibit in Appendix 2A. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) i Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1 Q2 Eli Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2 Fl Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2 If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer: Hydromodification Screening for Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2, dated April 6, 2012, by Chang Consultants (See Attachment 2c) Discussion /Additional Information: (optional) A geomorphic channel assessment analysis was performed for the receiving water body downstream of the project site. The report titled Hydromodification Screening for Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2, dated April 6, 2012, by Chang Consultants is included in Attachment 2c. A channel screening analysis was performed based on a "hydromodification screening tool" procedure developed by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). The SCCWRP results were compared with the critical shear stress calculator results from the County of San Diego BMP Sizing Calculator to establish the appropriate susceptibility to erosion. The project runoff will discharge into a natural canyon south of the site at an easterly and westerly point of compliance.. Each POC contains RCP discharging through D-41 concrete energy dissipaters. The assessment was made for the natural canyon from the POCs to Alga Norte Community Park, which is just under 0.5 miles south of the site (domain of analysis). The results of the SCCWRP channel screening tools indicate a low threshold for vertical and lateral susceptibilities. The HMP requires that these results be compared with the critical stress calculator results incorporated in the County of San Diego's BMP Sizing Calculator. The BMP Sizing Calculator critical stress results are included in Appendix B of the Hydromodification Screening for Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2. Based on these values, the critical stress results returned a low threshold. Therefore, the SCCWRP analyses and critical stress calculator demonstrate that the project can be designed assuming a low susceptibility, i.e.,0.5Q2. VL4SA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 14 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 Other Site Requirements and Constraints When applicable, list other site requirements or constraints that will influence storm water management design, such as zoning requirements including setbacks and open space, or City codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements. Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed. VIA SATBRESSI RANCH-PHASE 5 15 (City of Carlsbad STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENT CHECKLIST E-36 Development Services Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-2750 www.carlsbadca.gov Project Information Project Name: ViaSat Bressi Ranch - Phase 5 Project ID: MS 16-04 / GR2020-0005 DWG No. or Building Permit No.: 497-4D Source Control BMPs All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.1 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.1 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion/justification is not required. "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas). Discussion/justification may be provided. Source Control Requirement Applied? SC-I Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 l!I Yes 0 No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SC-1 not implemented: SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage !J Yes 0 No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SC-2 not implemented: SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall Run-On Runoff, and Wind XYes 0 No 0 N/A Dispersal Discussion/justification if SC-3 not implemented: E-36 Page 1 of 4 Revised 09/16 Source Control Requirement (continued) - Applied? SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal lii Yes 0 No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SC-4 not implemented: SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal l!l Yes 0 No El N/A Discussion/justification if SC-5 not implemented: SC-6 Additional BMPs based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants must answer for each source listed below and identify additional BMPs. (See Table in Appendix E.1 of BMP Manual for guidance). lii On-site storm drain inlets M Yes 0 No El N/A ll Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps Ll Yes 0 No El N/A !l Interior parking garages ll Yes 0 No El N/A Ill Need for future indoor & structural pest control II Yes 0 No El N/A E1 Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use Ill Yes 0 No El N/A El Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features El Yes El No !l N/A El Food service El Yes 0 No ll N/A El Refuse areas El Yes El No I1 N/A o Industrial processes El Yes El No II N/A El Outdoor storage of equipment or materials D Yes El No lI N/A El Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning 0 Yes 0 No j l! N/A El Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance 0 Yes El No I 111 N/A El Fuel Dispensing Areas 0 Yes El No ll N/A ] Loading Docks hI Yes El No El N/A h Fire Sprinkler Test Water hI Yes 0 No El N/A hI Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water III Yes 0 No 0 N/A * Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots h Yes El No 0 N/A For "Yes" answers, identify the additional BMP per Appendix El. Provide justification for "No' answers. Storm Drain Inlets: *Mark all inlets with the words, "No Dumping! Flows to Ocean!' Floor Drains and Elevator Shaft Sump Pumps: *Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps will be plumbed to sanitary sewer. Interior Parking Garages *parking garage floor drains will be plumbed to sanitary sewer. See attached sheet for continuation of "Yes" answers E-36 Page 2 of 4 Revised 09/16 L I I 1 I I Li I 1 I I I LI 1 I I U Site Design BMPs All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the BMP Design Manual (Volume 5 of City Engineering Standards) for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist. Answer each category below pursuant to the following. "Yes" means the project will implement the site design BMPs as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E.2 thru E.6 of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion /justification is not required. 'No" means the BMPs is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion/justification must be provided. Please add attachments if more space is needed. "N/A" means the BMPs is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMPs (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve). Discussion/justification may be provided. Site Design Requirement Applied? SD-I Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features Q Yes LI No I Il N/A Discussion/justification if SD-1 not implemented: No existing natural drainage pathways exist onsite. SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation 0 Yes I 0 No !I N/A Discussion/justification if SD-2 not implemented: The site was previously rough graded and existing vegetation removed from the site. The site contains stabilizing ground cover which will be disturbed for precise grading of the site. SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area lI Yes 0 No I LI N/A Discussion/justification if SD-3 not implemented: SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction I Iii Yes 0 No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-4 not implemented: SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion I 9 Yes 0 No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-5 not implemented: E-36 Page 3 of 4 Revised 09/16 Site Design Requirement (continued) Applied? SD-6 Runoff Collection lii Yes 0 No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-6 not implemented: SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species I l!l Yes 0 No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-7 not implemented: SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation I 0 Yes It No 0 N/A Discussion/justification if SD-8 not implemented: Harvesting precipitation and using precipitation is not planned for the project. water runoff, as required. See completed Form 1-7 in Attachment ic. Proper BMP implementation will treat storm I 1 I I I I I [I I I Li I 1 I 1 I I I I E-36 Page 4 of 4 Revised 09/16 Standard Project Requirement Checklist E-36 Continuation of SC-6: Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use: For Landscape/Outdoor pesticide use, final landscape plans will: Preserve existing drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and ground cover to the maximum extent possible. Design landscaping to minimize irrigation and runoff, to promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution. Specify plants that are tolerant of periodic saturated soil conditions where landscape areas are used to retain or detain storm water. Use of pest resistant plants adjacent to hardscape. select plants appropriate to site soils, slopes, climate, sun, wind, rain, land use, air movement, ecological consistency, and plant interactions. Loading Docks: Upon delivery or pick-up, loaded/unloaded items will be moved indoors as soon as possible. Fire Sprinkler Test Water: Fire sprinkler test water will be drained to flor drains within the building that are connected to the building sanitary sewer. Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water: Boiler drain lines will be connected to the sanitary sewer system. (Drainage to the storm drain system is not allowed) Condensate drain lines will not discharge to the storm drain system. Condensate lines may discharge to landscaped areas if the flow does not create runoff, otherwise connect to the sanitary sewer system. Rooftop mounted equipment with the potential to produce pollutants shall be roofed and/or have secondary containment. Drainage sumps will use a sediment sump to reduce the quantity of sediment in pumped water. Roofing, gutters, and trim will not be left unprotected or made of bare metal that could leach into runoff. Plazas, Sidewalks, and Parking Lots: Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris from pressure washing shall be collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser shall be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer and not discharged to a storm drain. STORM WA TER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 SUMMARY OF PDP STRUCTURAL BMPS POP Structural BMPs All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s). PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the City at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the City must confirm the maintenance (see Section 7 of the BMP Design Manual). Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information must describe how the steps for selecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs presented in Section 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of BMPs selected). For projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated together or separate. For the purpose of this SWQMP, the proposed site condition has been divided into five (5) Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) draining to one (1) underground detention vault and one (1) biofiltration basin and one (1) self-mitigating DMA, with two (2) de-minimis areas. The DMAs have been delineated based on on-site drainage patterns and BMP locations. The types of structural BMPs chosen for the project were based on the flow chart presented in Figures 5-1 and 5-2 of the City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual (February 2016). Using Form 1-7 (Worksheet B.3-1) to gauge the feasibility of implementing capture and use techniques for the project site, it was determined that harvest and use BMPs are considered infeasible. A feasibility study was conducted for full or partial infiltration for the project's structural BMPs. The negative impacts associated with retention were identified and substantiated through the completion of Form 1-8. Based on site geologic conditions and permeable surface material, full or partial infiltration of storm water is considered infeasible. Please refer to Attachment id. The self-mitigating DMA meets the following requirements from Section 5.2.1 of the BMP Manual: The vegetation in the landscaped area will be non-native/non-invasive drought tolerant species that does not require regular application of fertilizers and pesticides. The soils will be amended and aerated to promote water retention characteristics equivalent to undisturbed native topsoil. The incidental impervious area is less than 5% of self-mitigating area. 4)The self-mitigating DMA is hydraulically separate from the other DMAs. (Continued on next page) I VIA SA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 17 I I Li I I I I Ll I I I P n I I I I I STORM WA TER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 (Continued from previous page) PoC-1 The project proposes one biofiltration area (BMP-2) located at the southern end of the site. It has been sized to provide pollutant control for both DMA 5A and DMA 513, and has been sized to provide flow control for DMA 5B. A cistern (BMP-1) located upstream of the biofilter will provide storage and flow control for DMA 5A to meet HMP requirements. The type of underground detention vault is a StormTrap SingleTrap. The required treatment volume, or DCV, will be drained to the downstream biofiltration basin (BMP-2) through a 3"-dia flow control orifice located at the invert of the vault. An 8-foot long partition weir will be constructed within the vault with the top of the weir set 4 feet above the invert of the vault, such that peak flows can be safely discharged to the storm drain system. The height of the partition weir was set to convey the DCV, or volume of storm water runoff from the 85th percentile storm event, to the downstream biofiltration basin. The total vault volume is 8,279 cubic feet with a total depth of 5.67 feet. This corresponds to a vault bottom surface area of 1,460 square feet. The DCV for DMA 5A is 5,512 cubic feet. Therefore, the DCV depth within the vault is the DCV divided by the vault surface area (5,512 . 1,440 = 3.78 ft). In order to ensure that the full DCV is routed to the downstream biofiltration basin, the height of the partition weir was set at 4 feet. This corresponds to 5,783 cubic feet of stored water to be discharged to the downstream biofiltration basin BMP-2 for water quality treatment. The biofiltration basin BMP-2 is located downstream of the cistern for DMA 5A and is sized to meet pollutant control requirements for both DMA 5A and DMA SB and hydromodification flow control requirements for DMA 5B only. The biofiltration area will have an impermeable liner and surface waters will discharge via underdrain or overflow riser to the downstream conveyance system. The biofiltration system is designed to allow ponding to occur, with a total surface depth of 18 inches. The biofiltration basin consists of a 3-inch layer of mulch, an 18-inch layer of amended soil (a highly sandy, organic rich composite with an infiltration capacity of at least 5 inches/hr) and a 15-inch reservoir layer of gravel. An underdrain pipe with a 4"-dia flow-control orifice will be located 3 inches above the bottom of the gravel layer and will discharge filtered runoff to the receiving storm drain system. A riser structure with an emergency overflow weir will be located 12 inches above the basin bottom, which will act as a spillway so peak flows can be safely discharged to the receiving storm drain system. The bottom of the basin will be lined with an impermeable liner to prevent storm water infiltration. The biofiltration area will be landscaped with a combination of ground cover and shrubs selected by the project's landscape architect. Per the City of Carlsbad's permission, the downstream biofiltration basin has been sized using Appendix B.4.3 of the County of San Diego BMP Design Manual (Jan 2019). Compliance with stormwater pollutant control requirements are demonstrated through Steps I through 4. See Supporting Calculations for BMPs Downstream of a Storage Unit in Attachment le. According to the calculations, the proposed BMP can accommodate flows from the storage unit. Since the downstream biofiltration BMP is less than 3% of the effective tributary area, County automated pollutant control worksheets were filled out in order to demonstrate that the proposed biofiltration basin meets minimum retention requirements and maintenance requirements. See Attachment le for County automated worksheets. VIASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 18 19 I STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 (Continued from previous page) Since BMP-2 is responsible for pollutant control requirements for both DMA-5A and DMA-5B, the total tributary area used in the County automated worksheets is the sum of DMA-5A and DMA-5B. The minimum retention requirements and maintenance requirements were calculated based on the total tributary area and DCV for DMA 5A and DMA 5B. The underground cistern and biofiltration area were designed to provide hydromodification flow control by modeling the facilities using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) version 5.1. The SWMM models were prepared for the pre- and post-development conditions for the site in order to determine if the proposed HMP facilities are sufficient to meet current HMP requirements for the Q2 to Qio return periods. Based on the selected BMP outlet configuration and stage-storage and stage-discharge relationships, flow duration curves were generated to analyze the differences between pre-developed and post- project peak flow frequencies and durations at POC-1. Since a geomorphic channel assessment analysis has been performed for the receiving water body and the receiving water body is determined to have a low susceptibility to erosion, the 0.5Q2 low-flow threshold was used. As the flow duration curve (FDC) comparison demonstrates, the proposed flow control facilities mitigate post-project peak flow frequencies and durations at or below 110% of the pre- developed condition; therefore, the additional storm water generated by the site development will be detained and released at a rate that will not exceed the pre-developed peak flow frequencies and durations for the geomorphically significant range of flows. The SWMM output report for POC-1 is included in Attachment 2d. The site has been designed to minimize directly connected impervious areas by incorporating landscape planters and grasspave areas throughout the site. Stormwater is collected from the proposed parking structure, building roof areas, and hardscape areas through roof drains or inlets and discharges to the proposed biofiltration area via storm drains. Due to the location of BMP-2 at the southern end of the site, DMA 5A will be detained in an underground cistern to meet HMP requirements before discharging to the biofiltration area. A CDS unit is located immediately upstream of the cistern to provide pretreatment before the underground detention. Rip rap energy dissipaters are proposed where concentrated flow enters the biofiltration basin via pipe outfalls to minimize erosion. Two de-minimis areas are located on the perimeter of the site: DMA-5D consists of an area that is part of existing ViaSat Phase 3. The improvements are upgrades to the existing landscape area. This area is hydraulically disconnected from the rest of the Phase 5 improvements and drains to the existing drainage and treatment system that is part of ViaSat Phase 3. De-minimis area DMA-5E consists of the bottom portion of the driveway connecting Town Garden Rd to the parking garage. Because the grading needs to tie into the existing road elevations, we are unable to capture this small 0.005 acre portion to pipe into the biofilter with adequate cover on the storm drain pipe. The grade at the RIW line is approximately 289.75' FS and the elevation at the bottom of the biofiltration area is 289.50' FG. These de-minimis areas meet the criteria as they are each less than or equal to 250 SF, and make up 0.14% of the total added/replaced impervious area. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Li I I STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 Structural BMP Summary Information Structural BMP ID No.: BMP-1 (DMA 5A) (Storm Trap Vault) DWG 497-4D_ Sheet No. 22-25 Type of structural BMP: 11 Retention by harvest and use (HU-I) 11 Retention by infiltration basin (INF-l) L Retention by bioretention (INF-2) Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) E Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) X Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management (BMP-1) Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: Eli Pollutant control only X Hydromodification control only LI Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control LI Pre-treatm ent/fo re bay for another structural BMP LI Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Underground cistern for hydromodification control of DMA 5A only, located upstream of biofiltration area. VIASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 20 I STORM WATER QUALITY MA NAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 I Structural BMP Summary Information Structural BMP ID No.: BMP-2 (DMA 5A & 5B) (Biofiltration Basin) DWG 497-4D_ Sheet No. 21 Type of structural BMP: 11 Retention by harvest and use (HU-1) El Retention by infiltration basin (lNF-1) El Retention by bioretention (lNF-2) ii Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) X Biofiltration (BF-1) (BMP-2) Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) fl Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management El Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: 11 Pollutant control only U Hydromodification control only X Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control U Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP El Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): Biofiltration area is providing pollutant control for both DMA 5A & 5B. The biofiltration area has been designed to also provide hydromodification flow control for DMA 5B only. I I Li I I I VIA SA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 21 I I [I Ij I I I I I I I STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A UGUST 2020 Structural BMP Summary Information Structural BMP ID No.: BMP-3 (DMA 5A) (CDS Unit) DWG 497-4D_ Sheet No. 25 Type of structural BMP: LI Retention by harvest and use (HU-l) Li Retention by infiltration basin (INF-l) LI Retention by bioretention (INF-2) LI Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3) LI Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) LI Biofiltration (BF-1) (BMP-2) LI Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below) X Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Li Other (describe in discussion section below) Purpose: LI Pollutant control only LI Hydromodification control only LI Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control X Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP LI Other (describe in discussion section below) Discussion (as needed): The CDS unit provides pretreatment for the underground cistern (BMP-1). VIASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 22 ATTACHMENT I BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment la DMA Exhibit (Required) FI Included See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of this Attachment cover sheet. (24"x36" Exhibit typically required) Attachment lb Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing FI Included as Attachment lb DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA separate from DMA Exhibit Area, and DMA Type (Required)* *Provide table in this Attachment OR on DMA Exhibit in Attachment la Attachment 1 Form 1-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility FJ Included Screening Checklist (Required unless 0 Not included because the entire the entire project will use infiltration project will use infiltration BMPs BMPs) Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-7. Attachment 1 Form 1-8, Categorization of Infiltration lI Included Feasibility Condition (Required unless u Not included because the entire the project will use harvest and use project will use harvest and use BMPs) BMPs Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP Design Manual to complete Form 1-8. Attachment le Pollutant Control BMP Design FI Included Worksheets I Calculations (Required) Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP Design Manual for structural pollutant control BMP design guidelines VJASA T BRESSJ RANCH -PHASE 5 Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit: The DMA Exhibit must identify: lI Underlying hydrologic soil group I Ll Approximate depth to groundwater fI Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) EEl Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) EEl Existing topography and impervious areas EEl Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite EEl Proposed grading tEl Proposed impervious features tEl Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness lEt Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, DMA ID numbers, and DMA areas (square footage or acreage), and DMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) EEl Structural BMPs (identify location and type of BMP) LI LI [1 I I I I I I I VIASA T BRESSJ RANCH -PHASE 5 I I F I PAuIJ LARtISUJ iLK & ASSOCIATES DMA DCV Summary Viasat Bressi Ranch Campus August 2020 Dcsy;e Captsu e Vu/sane, DCV - 3630s C Ad A A Where: C = Runoff factor (unitless) d = 85th percentile, 24-hr Storm event rainfall depth (inches), refer to Appendix B.1.3 of the BMP DM A= Tributary area draining to the BMP (acres) ECxAx Runoff Factor, C = Where: ZAx Cx = Runoff factor for area X Ax = Tributary area X (acres) ViaSat Bressi Ranch - Phase 5 Calc By: KG 8/13/2020 DCV Surface Runoff Factors Surface Runoff Factor Impervious Area Pervious Area/Landscape 0.10 Decomposed Granite 0.30 Per Table B.1-1 of the BMP Design Manual Proposed Biofiltration BMP Section Section Thickness (in) Porosity Volume/sf Ponding 12 1 1.0 1.0 Engineered Soil 18 1 0.2 0.3 Gravel 12 1 0.4 0.4 Total Volume/SF 1.7 DCV K1FCalculation Biofiltration1siT: I Proposed Runoff Factor, C Worksheet B.5-1: Proposed Surface Proposed DMA BMP Type Areas (so Areas (ac) d (Per DCV Surface DCV (Per App. Simple Sizing Method Area of Bioflltration Vault Volume Runoff Factors) B.1 BMP DM) Methodology for Biofiltration BMPs BMP )BMP-2) )BMP-1) )A*C*0.03) Impervious Pervious D.G. Total Impervious Pervious D.G. Total (in) (no unit) (cf) )sfi (sf) cf Cistern upstream of BMP-2 sized for Cistern (BMP-1) for HMP using SWMM; 5A HMP to Biofilter 108,318 79,711 4,866 192,895 2.49 1.83 0.11 4.43 0.62 0.554 5,524 Req. WQ BMP Area N/A 6570 )BMP-2) for per Appendix B.4.3, Pollutant Control 2019 County BMP 4208 DM Biofilter sized for Biofilter )BMP-2) HMP using SWMM, SB for HMP and 67,945 41,597 0 109,542 1.56 0.95 0.00 2.51 0.62 0.596 3,374 Req. WQ BMP Area 1959 N/A Pollutant Control by Worksheet B. 5- _______________________ SC Self-Mitigating 0 3,062 0 3,062 0.00 1 0.07 0.00 1 0.07 0.62 -- -- N/A N/A N/A N/A SD De-Minimis 0 0 150 iSO 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.62 -- -- N/A N/A N/A N/A SE I De-Minimis 1 250 0 0 250 0.01 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.01 0.62 -- -- 176,513 124,370 5,016 305,899 4.05 2.86 0.12 7.02 8,898 Copy into Page of SWQMP: Total Disturbed Area: 7.02 305,899 Proposed Impervious Area: 4.02 175,165 Proposed Pervious Area: 2.97 129,386 Replared lmpenhinuc Area fl 03 1348 Harvest and Use Feasibffitv (Form I- Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season? lET Toilet and urinal flushing lET Landscape irrigation El Other: If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2. Toilet and urinal flushing total 36-hour demand = 6,783 gallons Landscape irrigation demand per 36-hour period = 4,542 gallons* *Assuming Moderate Plant Water Use per Table B.3-3 of the BMP Design Manual Total wet season 36-hour demand = 11,325 gallons = 1,514 cubic feet Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1. DCV = 9.045 (cubic feet) 0.25DCV 2.261 (cubic feet) 3a. Is the 36 hour demand greater 3b. Is the 36 hour demand greater 3c. Is the 36 hour demand than or equal to the DCV? than 0.25DCV but less than the less than 0.25DCV? DYes / No full DCV? EYes _ El Yes / ENo Harvest and use appears to be Harvest and use may be feasible. Harvest and use is feasible. Conduct more detailed Conduct more detailed evaluation considered to be infeasible. evaluation and sizing calculations and sizing calculations to determine to confirm that DCV can be used feasibility. Harvest and use may only at an adequate rate to meet be able to be used for a portion of the drawdown criteria, site, or (optionally) the storage may need to be upsized to meet long term capture targets while draining in I longer than 36 hours. Is harvest and use feasible based on further evaluation? o Yes, refer to Appendix E to select and size harvest and use BMPs. lET No, select alternate BMPs Project will not to use harvest and use BMPs for capturing the full DCV. Project will implement other LID strategies such as minimizing impervious area and impervious area dispersion to promote infiltration and decrease runoff rates and volumes. Infiltration Feasibili GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL a ENVIRONMENTAL a /Ac MATE R I AL S Project No. G1928-52-01 December 29, 2016 Revised February 13, 2017 ViaSat 6155 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California 92009 Attention: Mr. Ryan Hatch Subject: STORM WATER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS VIASAT - BRESSI RANCH CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA References: 1. Geotechnical Investigation, ViaSat, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, revised July 5, 2016 (Project No. G1928-52-01). 2. Precise Grading Plans for. ViaSat Bressi Ranch Campus, Buildings 12, 13, Café, Conference & Garage P1, prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, not dated (Project No. MS 16-04). Dear Mr. Hatch: In accordance with the request of Mr. Dan Loss with Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates, we prepared this updated report to include field in-situ infiltration testing for use in storm water management for the subject project. The scope of this letter includes preparing this report and completing Worksheet 1-8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property consists of a previously sheet-graded pad located south of Gateway Road, west of Aliante Road, north of Town Garden Road and east of El Camino Real in the Bressi Ranch area of Carlsbad, California. The subject lots are Lots 2 through 9 of the Bressi Ranch Corporate Center. The property is currently vacant with landscaping around the perimeter of the property and is accessed from an opening in the landscape area at the southwest portion of the property from Town Garden Road. The property slopes gently to existing desilting basins with elevations ranging from approximately 290 feet to 320 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The previous mass grading of the site included removal of undocumented fill, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, landslide deposits, and weathered formational material, prior to placing new fill. Canyon subdrain systems were installed in the previous drainages. Stability fill keys were constructed for the slopes located to the south. Fills of up to approximately 90 feet were placed, and cuts of up to approximately 15 feet were made during the mass grading operations. 6960 Flanders Drive 0 San Diego, California 92121-2974 0 Telephone 858.558.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159 We understand the proposed development includes the construction of 6 commercial buildings (Buildings 12 through 17), a café, conference room and 3 parking structures (P1 through P3) with accommodating underground utilities, landscape and improvements. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND We understand storm water management devices are being proposed in accordance with the current Storm Water Standards (SWS). If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties and improvements may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result of water infiltration. Hydrologic Soil Group The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States. The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table 1 presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, B/D, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. In addition, the USDA website also provides an estimated saturated hydraulic conductivity for the existing soil. TABLE I HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS Soil Group Soil Group Definition Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These A consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of B moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils C having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These D consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Project No. G1928-52-01 - 2 - December 29, 2016 Revised February 13, 2017 The property is underlain by man-made previously placed fill and should be classified as Soil Group D. Table 2 presents the information from the USDA website for the subject property. TABLE 2 USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY - HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP Map Unit Approximate Hydrologic kSAT of Most Map Unit Name Symbol Percentage Soil Group Limiting Layer of Property (inches/hour) Altamont clay, AtC 28.5 D 0.06 to 0.20 5 to 9_ percent _slopes Altamont clay, AtE 18.3 D 0.06 to 0.20 15 to 30_ percent _slopes Altamont clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes, eroded AtE2 40.9 D 0.06 to 0.20 Gaviota fme sandy loam, AsE 1.8 D 1.98 to 5.95 9 to 30_ percent _slopes Las fibres loamy fine sand, LeC 10.4 D 0.0 to 0.06 2 to 9_ percent _slopes STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONCLUSIONS The Geologic Map, Figure 2 of the referenced report, depicts the existing property, the approximate lateral limits of the geologic units and the locations of the field excavations. Soil Types Previously Placed Fill (Qpt) - Previously placed fill exists on a majority of the property. Testing and observation services performed by others indicate the fill has been compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. The fill varies in soil type, density and some areas possess relatively high fines content (silt and clay). The fill was placed in a previous canyon drainage and a previous landslide removal located to the south. Water that is allowed to migrate within the fill soil cannot be controlled due to lateral migration potential, would destabilize support for the existing improvements, and would shrink and swell. Therefore, full and partial infiltration should be considered infeasible within the compacted fill. Mitigation measures include installing liners to prevent infiltration into the undocumented fill and extending infiltration devices into the underlying formational materials. However,, due to the previous lanlslide and the clayey nature of the soil, infiltration should not be allowed. Santiago Formation (Ts) - The existing fill on the property is underlain by the Santiago Formation and the formation is exposed at grade along the northern edge of the site. Based on the boring logs, Pro ect No. G 1928-52-01 - 3 - December 29, 2016 Revised February 13, 2017 laboratory tests and our observations, the Santiago Formation consists primarily of interbedded, yellowish to grayish brown, dense to very dense silty sandstone and hard claystone and siltstone. Several cemented zones exist within the sandstone portion of the formation that prevent vertical water infiltration. The Santiago Formation possesses a greater propensity for lateral water migration over vertical water migration due to the presence of the naturally cemented zones and layering during the deposition processes. The infiltration rates within the formational materials are very low due to the cemented and fine-grained nature. Therefore, full infiltration is considered infeasible within the Santiago Formation. The formation also possesses a "high" expansion potential (expansion index of 90 to 130) and is prone to landsliding. Therefore, partial infiltration is not considered feasible for the property. If infiltration were to occur, additional pressures would be applied to planned retaining walls and loss of subgrade support would occur due to expansion and saturation. Proposed Compacted Fill (Qcf) - Compacted fill will be placed on the property during site development. The compacted fill will be comprised of on-site materials that will consist of sandy silt and silty sand. The fill will be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. In our experience, compacted fill using the on-site materials does not possess infiltration rates appropriate with infiltration. Compacted fill will possess swelling (expansion) potential. The SWS discusses compacted fill as follows: For engineered fills, infiltration rates may still be quite uncertain due to layering and heterogeneities introduced as part of construction that cannot be precisely controlled. Where possible, infiltration BMPs on fill material should be designed such that their infiltrating surface extends into native soils. Because of the uncertainty of fill parameters as well as potential compaction of the native soils, an infiltration BMP may not be feasible. Therefore, full and partial infiltration should be considered infeasible. The planned infiltration devices will be extended into the underlying Torrey Sandstone. Liners on the sidewalls of the planned basin should be installed to help mitigate the potential for lateral water migration and to help prevent destabilization of the planned compacted fill. Groundwater Elevations We did not encounter groundwater during the drilling operation of the property. We expect groundwater is in excess of 250 feet below existing grade. Therefore, infiltration due to groundwater elevations would be considered feasible. Project No. 01928-52-01 -4- December 29, 2016 Revised February 13, 2017 New or Existing Utilities Utilities are located adjacent to the property on the eastern property boundaries within the existing streets. Therefore, full and partial infiltration near these utilities should be considered infeasible within these areas. Otherwise, infiltration due to utility concerns would be feasible. The planned infiltration basin is setback from the existing utilities and liners should be installed where fill materials exist to prevent lateral water migration. Soil or Groundwater Contamination We are unaware of contaminated soil or groundwater on the property and groundwater exists deeper than 250 feet from existing grade. Therefore, full and partial infiltration associated with this risk would be considered feasible. Slopes and Other Geologic Hazards As previously stated, the property is underlain by previously placed fill and the Santiago Formation. A landslide was removed during the previous grading operations and was replaced by properly compacted fill. Water that were to infiltrate the soil would saturate the adjacent slope to the south and cause slope instability. The existing fill was not designed for the purpose of infiltration and water would reduce the factor of safety on the adjacent slope. Therefore, infiltration should be considered infeasible form a geotechnical engineering standpoint. Infiltration Rates Due to the fine grained nature of the fill and formational materials, the cemented nature of the formational materials, and the in-place density of the existing materials, the infiltration rates are very low. Based on the site conditions, infiltration is not considered feasible for the storm water management devices and the planned devices should be properly lined as recommended in our referenced report. Storm Water Management Devices A vertical cutoff wall or liner should be incorporated into the design and construction of the planned basin. The liner should extend at least 6 inches above the planned high water line and extend to the formational materials (below the soil filtration media). The cut off wall or liner should be impermeable (e.g. High-density polyethylene, HDPE, with a thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC) to prevent lateral water migration. Penetration of the cutoff walls or liners should be properly sealed. The devices should also be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Overflow protection devices should also be incorporated into the design and construction of the storm water management device. Project No. G1928-52-01 -5- December 29, 2016 Revised February 13, 2017 Storm Water Standard Worksheets The SWS requests the geotechnical engineer complete the Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Worksheet 1-8) worksheet information to help evaluate the potential for infiltration on the property. The attached Worksheet 1-8 presents the completed information for the submittal process. The regional storm water standards also have a worksheet (Worksheet Form 1-9) that helps the project civil engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. Table 3 describes the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the factor of safety determination. TABLE 3 SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY SAFETY FACTORS Consideration High Medium Low Concern —3 Points Concern - 2 Points Concern - I Point Use of soil survey maps or Use of well permeameter simple texture analysis to or borehole methods with accompanying Direct measurement with estimate short-term continuous boring log. localized (i.e. small- infiltration rates. Use of Direct measurement of scale) infiltration testing Assessment Methods well permeameter or infiltration area with methods at relatively high borehole methods without localized infiltration resolution or use of accompanying continuous measurement methods extensive test pit boring log. Relatively (e.g., Infiltrometer). infiltration measurement sparse testing with direct Moderate spatial methods. infiltration methods resolution Predominant Silty and clayey soils Loamy soils Granular to slightly Soil Texture with significant fines loamy soils Highly variable soils Soil boring/test pits Soil boring/test pits Site Soil Variability indicated from site indicate moderately indicate relatively assessment or unknown homogenous soils homogenous soils variability Depth to Groundwater/ <5 feet below 5-15 feet below >15 feet below Impervious Layer facility bottom facility bottom facility bottom Based on our geotechnical investigation and the previous table, Table 4 presents the estimated factor values for the evaluation of the factor of safety. This table only presents the suitability assessment safety factor (Part A) of the worksheet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the safety factor for design (Part B) and use the combined safety factor for the design infiltration rate. Project No. Gl928-52-Ol -6- December 29, 2016 Revised February 13, 2017 TABLE 4 FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET D.5-1 DESIGN VALUES' Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned Weight (w) Factor Value (v) Product (p = w x v) Assessment Methods 0.25 3 0.75 Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 3 0.75 Site Soil Variability 0.25 2 0.50 Depth to Groundwater/Impervious Layer 0.25 1 0.25 Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p 2.25 The project civil engineer should complete Worksheet D.5-1 using the data on this table. Additional information is required to evaluate the design factor of safety. If you have any questions regarding this response, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED ,ESS, /Shawn Foy (0 0 No 2714 GE 2714 SFW:ejc OF C Enclosure: Worksheet 1-8 (e-mail) Addressee (e-mail) Pasco Laret Suiter & Associates Attention: Mr. Dan Loss * Project No. G1928-52-01 - 7 - December 29, 2016 Revised February 13, 2017 Part 1- Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response 1 to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive X evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Existing geologic hazards exist on the property including the presence on previously compacted fill, expansive soil and previous landslides as discussed in Criteria 2. Therefore, infiltration is considered infeasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, 2 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot x be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Previously placed fill and the Santiago Formation underlie the property. Compacted fill is also planned for the property. Water that would be allowed to infiltrate would migrate laterally outside of the property limits to the existing right-of-ways and toward the existing slopes (located to south). The water would also cause seepage forces resulting in surficial slope instability and erosion. The slope to the south consists of a compacted fill buttress associated with a previous landslide removal. Based on the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, infiltration is not feasible due to the dense to very dense and cemented nature of the underlying materials, relatively low infiltration rates and the presence of compacted fill and a previous landslide removal. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. I I 11 I I I I I n I I I P I L I Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot X be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Based on the geotechnical report, groundwater exists greater than 250 feet below existing grade. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of studyi'data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of x contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: We do not expect infiltration will cause water balance issues such as seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. Part 1 The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration Result* Not Full If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extentbut Infiltration would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. Part 2— Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any 5 appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening x Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Existing geologic hazards exist on the property including the presence on previously compacted fill, expansive soil and previous landslides as discussed in Criteria 6. Therefore, infiltration is considered infeasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope 6 stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: Previously placed fill and the Santiago Formation underlie the property. Compacted fill is also planned for the property. Water that would be allowed to infiltrate would migrate laterally outside of the property limits to the existing right-of-ways and toward the existing slopes (located to south). The water would also cause seepage forces resulting in surficial slope instability and erosion. The slope to the south consists of a compacted fill buttress associated with a previous landslide removal. Based on the comprehensive geotechnical evaluation, infiltration is not feasible due to the dense to very dense and cemented nature of the underlying materials, relatively low infiltration rates and the presence of compacted fill and a previous landslide removal. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. H I I I I I I I I I LI I I 1 I I [1 I Worksheet C.4-1 Page 4of Critena Screening Question Yes No Can Infiltration in any appreciale quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other X fa:tors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based or a comprehensive evaluation of :he factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: Based on the gotechnical report, groundwater exists greater than 250 feet below existing grade Summanze findngs of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative cliscussicn of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to miigate low infiltration rates. Can infiltration be allowed withoit violating downstream 8 waler rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be x based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presentedin Appendix C.3. Provide basis: We did no: provde a study regarding water rights. However, these rights are not typical in the Saa Diego County area. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps. data sources, etc. Pro.'ide narrative discussion f sniilv/data source annlicabtlitv and why it w-Ai not feasible to miticate low infiltration rats. If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. Part 2 Result* esu No lnfitration If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. I *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings. I I I I I I [ I I I I I I I I I El I USDA United States Department of Agriculture N RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for I San Diego County Area, California • I I I I I I I • I • I I May 6,2016 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http:// offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www. nrcs. usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 I for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. L I I I I I I I I F7 L I L 3 1 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 HowSoil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap..................................................................................................................7 SoilMap................................................................................................................8 Legend.................................................................................................................. g MapUnit Legend ................................................................................................ 10 MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................10 San Diego County Area, California.................................................................12 AtC—Altamont clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes..................................................12 AtE—Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes..............................................13 AtE2—Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded...............................14 GaE—Gaviota fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes..............................15 HrC—Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes.............................................16 LeC—Las Flores loamy fine sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes............................17 References............................................................................................................20 4 I I I How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5 I I I I I 7 I H I I I I I I I I Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil- landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. I I I Soil Ma I The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. I L I I I I u I U I I I I 475570 475520 8 475600 33°742N 3721'N 475600 8 I Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map I 475120 4'5 200 475280 475360 475440 33°742N Q iv.-- I If 711 X1 t I I I'JT I -- ; . I I -4 - $ '' I 9 I 33 721'N •-- 475120 475200 475280 475360 475440 8 MapScae: 1:3,200ifpdntedonAporlmit(85"x 11)sheet. Meters N 0 45 90 180 270 feet J\ 0 150 300 600 900 Map pro'ection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tea: UTM Zone uN WGS84 8 Area of Interest (AOl) Area of Interest (AOl) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons . Soil Map Unit Lines • Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features (,) Blowout Borrow Pit X Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot O Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water O Perennial Water Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot IP4. Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip egf Sodic Spot Spoil Area i Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other .- Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation j-.i-* Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 17, 2015 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 3, 2014—Nov 22, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend San Diego County Area, California (CA638) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOl Percent of AOl AtC Altamont clay, 5 to 9 percent 6.5 27.0% slopes AtE Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent 4.2 17.6% slopes AtE2 Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent 9.4 39.4% slopes, eroded GaE Gaviota fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 0.4 1.8% percent slopes HrC Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent 0.0 0.0% slopes LeC Las Flores loamy fine sand, 2 to 3.4 14.2% 9 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 23.9 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially 10 Custom Soil Resource Report where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. I I I 11 I I I 'I U I I I •i I I fl I Custom Soil Resource Report San Diego County Area, California AtC—Altamont clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hb7y Elevation: 200 to 3,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 25 inches Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 63 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 to 310 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Altamont and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Altamont Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Calcareous shale Typical profile HI - 0 to 28 inches: clay H2 - 28 to 36 inches: clay, clay loam H2 - 28 to 36 inches: weathered bedrock H3 - 36 to 40 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock - Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Minor Components Diablo Percent of map unit: 5 percent 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Las flores Percent of map unit: 5 percent AtE—Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hb8l Elevation: 200 to 3,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 25 inches Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 63 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 to 310 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Altamont and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Altamont Setting Landform: H lllslopes Land form position (two-dimensional): Backslope Land form position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Calcareous shale Typical profile HI - 0 to 28 inches: clay H2 - 28 to 36 inches: clay, clay loam H2 - 28 to 36 inches: weathered bedrock H3-36 to 40 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified 13 I I I I I I I I 1 I I LT1 I i I I Custom Soil Resource Report Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: 0 Ecological site: CLAYEY (1975) (RO1 9XD001 CA) Minor Components Diablo Percent of map unit: 5 percent Linne Percent of map unit: 5 percent Las flores Percent of map unit: 5 percent AtE2—Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hb82 Elevation: 200 to 3,250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 25 inches Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 63 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 to 310 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Altamont and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Altamont Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Calcareous shale Typical profile HI - 0 to 20 inches: clay H2 - 20 to 25 inches: clay, clay loam H2 - 20 to 25 inches: weathered bedrock H3-25to 29 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 24 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Very high 14 15 I Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 10 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: CLAYEY (1975) (RO1 9XD00I CA) Minor Components Linne Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backsiope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex GaE—Gaviota fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hbc6 Elevation: 100 to 4,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 61 degrees F Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Gaviota and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Gaviota Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from calcareous sandstone Typical profile HI - 0 to 16 inches: fine sandy loam [1 L I I I I I LI I 1 I I I i I I Custom Soil Resource Report H2 - 16 to 20 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope: 9 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 inlhr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: SHALLOW LOAMY (1975) (RO19XD060CA) Minor Components Linne Percent of map unit: 10 percent Diablo Percent of map unit: 3 percent Huerhuero Percent of map unit: 2 percent HrC—Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hbcm Elevation: 1,100 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 20 inches Mean annual air temperature: 57 degrees F Frost-free period: 260 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Huerhuero and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Huerhuero Setting Landform: Marine terraces Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Parent material: Calcareous alluvium derived from sedimentary rock 1L Custom Soil Resource Report Typical profile HI - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 55 inches: clay loam, clay H2 - 12 to 55 inches: stratified sand to sandy loam H3 - 55 to 72 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 25.0 Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: CLAYPAN (1975) (RO19XD061 CA) Minor Components Las flores Percent of map unit: 5 percent Stockpen Percent of map unit: 5 percent Olivenhain Percent of map unit: 3 percent Unnamed, ponded Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions LeC—Las Flores loamy fine sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes I Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hbd8 Elevation: 700 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 inches Mean annual air temperature: 61 degrees F Frost-free period: 300 to 340 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance I 17 1 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Composition Las fibres and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Las Flores Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from siliceous calcareous sandstone Typical profile HI - 0 to 20 inches: loamy fine sand H2 - 20 to 30 inches: sandy clay, clay H2 - 20 to 30 inches: sandy clay, clay H3 7 30 to 40 inches: loamy coarse sand H3 - 30 to 40 inches: weathered bedrock H4-40to 48 inches: H5-48to 52 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 9 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 30.0 Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: CLAYPAN (1975) (RO19XD06I CA) Minor Components Huerhuero Percent of map unit: 5 percent Linne Percent of map unit: 5 percent Diablo Percent of map unit: 3 percent Unnamed, ponded Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions 18 Custom Soil Resource Report I I I I I I I I I I I 1 19 1 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/soi ls/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2 053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www. nrcs. usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/7c1d=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal.Inrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdbl 043084 20 Custom Soil Resource Report I United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. U 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http:IIwww. nrcs. usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:I/ www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl42p2_052290.pdf I I I I 1 I I I LI 1 I 21 1 BMP Deshn Worksh mw PAbu LARkT SUlItH & ASSOCIATES CIVIL F'IAINESAINA LAIN PLANNIFIC LAND S PYANINS DMA DCV Summary Viasat Bressi Ranch Campus August 2020 Design Capture Volume, DCV = 3630 x X d A Where: C = Runoff factor (unitless) d = 85th percentile, 24-hr storm event rainfall depth (inches), refer to Appendix B. 1.3 of the BMP DM A = Tributary area draining to the BMP (acres) ECxAx Runoff Factor, C = Where: ZAx Cx = Runoff factorfor area Ax = Tributary area X (acres) ViaSat Bresxi Ranch - Phase 5 Calc By: KG 8/13/2020 DCV Surface Runoff Factors Surface Runoff Factor Impervious Area Pervious Area/Landscape 0.9 0.10 Decomposed Granite 0.30 Per Table B.1-1 of the BMP Design Manual Proposed Biofiltration BMP Section Section Thickness (in) Porosity Volume/sf Pending 12 1.0 1.0 Engineered Soil 18 0.2 0.3 Gravel 12 0.4 0.4 Total Volume/SF 1.7 Runoff Factor, C IN. alnhIi - iH.J.wlriili: Worksheet B.5-1: Proposed Surface . Proposed DMA BMP Type Areas (so Areas (ac) d (Per DCV Surface DCV (Per App. Simple Sizing Method Area of Biofiltration Vault Volume Runoff Factors) 8.1 BMP GM) Methodology for Biofiltration BMPs BMP (BMP-2( (BMP-1( (A*C*0.03( Impervious Pervious D.G. Total Impervious Pervious D.G. Total (In) (no unit) (cf) (sf) (sf( cf Cistern upstream Cistern (BMP-1) for of BMP-2 sized for HMP to Biofilter HMP using SWMM; 5A (BMP-2( for 108,318 79,711 4,866 192,895 2.49 1.83 0.11 4.43 0.62 0.554 5,524 Req. WO BMP Area N/A 6570 Pollutant Control perAppendix 8.4.3, 2019 County BMP 4208 GM Biofliter sized for Biofllter (BMP-2( HMP using SWMM, 5B for HMP and 67,945 41,597 0 109,542 1.56 0.95 0.00 2.51 0.62 0.596 3,374 Req. WO BMP Area 1959 N/A Pollutant Control by Worksheet B.5- _______ 1 SC Self-Mitigating 0 3,062 0 3,062 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.62 -- -- N/A N/A N/A N/A SD De-Minimis 0 0 150 150 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 - -- N/A N/A N/A N/A SE De-Minimis 250 1 0 1 0 1 250 1 0.01 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.01 0.62 -- -- 176,513 124,370 5,016 305,899 4.05 2.86 0.12 7.02 8,898 Copy into Page of SWQMP: Total Disturbed Area: 7.02' 305,899.j Proposed Impervious Area: 4.02 175,165 Proposed Pervious Area: 2.97 129,386 Replaced Impervious Area: 0.03 1348 DMA 5B Worksheet B.5-1: Simple Sizing Method for Biofiltration BMPs 1 1 Remaining DCV after implementing retention BMPs I 3,374 1 cu-ft Partial Retention 2 Infiltration rate from Worksheet D.5-1 if partial infiltration is feasible 0.00 in/hr 3 Allowable drawdown time for aggregate storage below the underdrain 36 hours 4 Depth of runoff that can be infiltrated [Line 2 x Line 3] 0.00 inches 5 Aggregate pore space 0.40 in/in 6 Required depth of gravel below the underdrain [Line 4 / Line 5] 0.00 inches 7 Assumed surface area of the biofiltration BMP 4208 sq-ft 8 Media retained pore storage 0.2 in/in 9 Volume retained pore storage 1262.40 cu-ft 10 DCV that requires biofiltration [Line 1 - Line 91 2112.0 cu-ft BMP Parameters 11 Surface Ponding [6 inch minimum, 12 inch maximum] 12 inches 12 Media Thickness [18 n Mm], also add mulch layer thicknes to this line 18 inches 13 Aggregate Storage above underdrain inver (12 inches typical) - Use 0 inches 12 inches 14 Freely drained pore storage 0.4 in/in 15 Media filtration rate to be used for sizing (5 in/hr. with no outlet control; if 8 in/hr Baseline Calculations 16 Allowable Routing Time for sizing 6 hours 17 Depth filtered during storm [Line 15 x Line 16] 47 inches 18 Depth of Detention Storage 24.00 inches 19 Total Depth Treated [Line 17 + Line 181 71.40 inches Option 1 - Biofilter 1.5 times the DCV _______ 20 Required biofiltered volume [1.5 x Line 10] 3168 cu-ft- 21 Required Footprint [L ne 20 / Line 19] x 12 1 532.4 sq-ft Option 2 - Store 0.75 of remaining DCV in pores and poding _______ 22 Required Storage (su rface + pores) Volume [0.75 x Line 10] 1584 cu-ft 23 1 Required Footprint [Line 22 / Line 18] x 12 792 sq-ft Footprint of the BMP 24 Area draining to the BMP 109,542 sq-ft 25 Adjusted _Runoff _Factor for drainage _area 0.60 26 BMP Footprint Sizing :actor (Default 0.03 or an alternative minimum 0.03 27 Minimum BMP Footprint [Line 24 x Line 25 x Line 26] 1959 sq-ft 28 lFootprint of the BMP = Maximum (Minimum(Line 21, Line 23), Line 27) 1 1959 1 sq-ft Check for Volume Reduction [Not applicable for No Infiltration Condition] 29 Calculate the fraction of DCV retained in the BMP [Line 9 / Line 1] 0.374 unitic 30 Minimum required fraction DCV for infiltration 0.375 u4tIc5 of retained partial conditions 3.1 Is the Retained DCV ~ 0.375? If the is increase footprint NA answer no the sizing Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods B.4.2.2 Planning Level Irrigation Demands To simplify the planning process, the method described above has been used to develop daily average wet season demands for a one-acre irrigated area based on the plant/landscape type. These demand estimates can be used to calculate the drawdown of harvest and use systems for the purpose of LID BMP sizing calculations. Table B.4-4: Planning Level Irrigation Demand by Plant Factor and Landscape Type Flydrozone - Low Plant Water Use 390 Hydrozonc - Moderate Plant Water Use 1,470 I lydrozone - High Plant Water Use 2,640 Special Landscape Area 2,640 B.4.3 BMPs Downstream of a Storage Unit Incorporation of upstream storage units (cisterns, vaults, etc) into a project's design can regulate flows to downstream biofiltration BMPs and potentially optimize the required BMP footprints. Use of this approach is not supported by County automated worksheets, but compliance with stormwater pollutant control requirements can be demonstrated through the following steps. Step 1) Determine the flow rate from the upstream storage unit Use the orifice equation to determine outflow from the storage unit when it is filled to the depth associated with the DCV. Step 2) Demonstrate that the proposed BMP can accommodate flows from the storage unit a Multiply the BMP surface area (ft2) by the filtration rate of the biofiltration soil media (in/hr) and divide by 43,200 to convert the units into CFS. For proprietary BMPs, this rate should correspond with the rates from certified testing the manufacturer has performed. Step 3) Demonstrate that the proposed BMP biofilters 92% of the annual runoff volume If continuous simulation modeling has been performed, provide output reports from SWMM or SDHM modeling. if continuous simulation modeling has not been performed, reference the percent capture nomographs in Figure B.3-1 to determine the percentage of annual runoff that is biofiltered. To use the nomographs, applicants must represent the BMP storage capacity as a fraction of the DCV along the x-axis, trace a line vertically to the colored www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater B-41 Effective January 1, 2019 Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods line representing the drawdown time of the system, and then determine the percentage of annual runoff biofiltered by tracing horizontally to the y-axis. Step 4)11 the downstream biofiltration BMP is <3% of the effective tributary area, provide information supporting use of compact biofiltration as generally outlined below. a Retention Requirements: Demonstrate that minimum retention requirements from Section B.2 are satisfied. Maintenance Requirements: Demonstrate that the BMP design is expected to last 10 years before major maintenance is anticipated per Appendix B.4.1. Proprietary Requirements (if applicable): Provide proprietary information demonstrating that the device meets biofiltration criteria outlined in Appendices F.1- F.2. B.4.4 Onsite Alternative Compliance If desired, a PDP applicant may generate stormwater pollutant control and/or hydromodification flow control benefits by managing stormwater flows from "excess areas" that are conveyed to the site. Management of flows from these excess areas may be used to offset flows from "required areas" that lack management. Required areas are the areas of a project for which the Permit mandates pollutant control and/or 1-IMP flow control requirements. Excess areas are the areas of a project for which the Permit does not mandate pollutant control and/or HMP flow control requirements. Areas of offsite run-on to the PDP site may always be considered excess areas. Additionally, for redevelopment projects falling under the 50% redevelopment threshold, onsite areas that are not being redeveloped may also be considered excess areas. Compliance with stormwater pollutant control requirements using this onsite alternative compliance approach can be demonstrated as outlined below. Step 1) Determine the untreated DCV from the required area Step 2) Determine the treated DCV from the excess area If required areas and excess areas contain different land uses, a land use factor must be applied to account for variations in pollutant concentrations. In most cases, this factor results in a lower treatment volume being credited. Refer to the Water Quality Equivalency (WQE) document for guidance on determining a land use factor and note that the WQE terms "ACP tributary" and "reference tributary" correlate with "excess areas" and "required areas" respectively. Step 3) Demonstrate compliance Show that the treated DCV from the excess area is greater than or equal to the untreated DCV from the required area (Step 2 ? Step 1). www.sandiegocounty.gov/stormwater B-42 Effective January 1, 2019 Supporting Caics. For BMPs Downstream of Storage Unit 2019 County BMP Design Manual, Appendix B.4.3 Viasat Bressi Ranch Campus Biofiltration BMP-2 Surface Area: 4,208 SF Cistern BMP-1 Surface Area: 1,460 SF DCV for DMA-5A: 5,524 CF Step 11 Determine the flow rate from the upstream storage unit o Use the orifice equation to determine outflow from the storage unit when it is filled to the depth associated with the DCV. Depth of storage unit when filled to depth associated w/ DCV d= DCV/Cistern Surface Area d= 5,512/1,460 d= 3.78 ft (mm. depth need to treat the DCV) d = 4.00 ft I(depth provided in the vault) Outflow from storage unit when filled to depth = 4 feet °orifice 0.47 cfs Step 2) Demonstrate that the proposed BMP can accommodate flows from the storage unit c. Multiply the BI\IP surface area (ft) by the filtration, rate of the biotiltration soil media (in/hr) and divide bT 43,200 to convert the units into CFS. For proprietary BMPs, this rate should correspond with the rates from certified testing the manufacturer has performed. (BMP Surface area * Filtration rate of biofiltration soil) / 43,200 = cfs 0= (4,208 SF * 5 in/hr)/43200 Qasin 0.49 cfs Q.tasin > Qoritice I yes Step 3) Demonstrate that the proposed BMP biotllters 92% of the annual runoff volume a If continuous simulation modeling has been petformed, provide output reports from SWAM or SDHM modeling- 0 If continuous simulation modeling has not been performed, reference the percent capture nomographs in Figure B.3-1 to determine the percentage of annual runoff that is biofiltered. To use the nomographs, applicants must represent the BMP storage capacity as a fraction of the DCV along the x-axis, trace a line vertically to the colored line Lepresenting the drawdown time of the system, and then determine the percentage of annual runoff bio filtered by tracing hothoutallv to the v-axis. See Figure 8.3-1 Drawdown time of vault = 36 hrs Fraction of DCV required = Step 4 If the downstream. bioaltration BMP is <3% of the effective tributary area, provide information supporting use of compact bioflitradon as generally outlined below. Retention Requirements: Dcmontrte that minimum retention requirements from Section 8.2 are satisfied. Maintenance Rcquircrncne: I)cmcnsrratc that the I3MP design is cxpccrcd to last 10 years before major maintenance is anticipated per Appendix 8.4.1. Proprietary Requirements (if applicable): Provide proprietary information demonstrating that the device meets bioliltratiori criteria outlined in Appendices F.1- F-2- See Worksheet B.2 for Retention Requirements See Worksheet B.3 for BMP Performance See Worksheet B.4 for Reduced Size BMP Maintenance 8) Appendix B: Storm Water Pollutant Control Hydrologic Calculations and Sizing Methods 0 0.2 0.4 0,6 0.8 L 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 raction of Design Capture Volume Figure B.3-1: Perceni Capture Nomograph Part 6) l)c:crmuie the cff-cacy of the retention pr(:cesses provided by the BMP. This value rcpres2nts the portior of the pollutant control pc formancc s :andard that is satisfied through re :enti r1 processes of the BMP and is calculated as follows. D R - 80% \\T-ere: 1:1C lfficacy of retention processes (decimal) IY.\vcragc Annual Percent Capture ((Yo) Part 7) l)ctcrrninc the total volume rctaincd bN, the proposed BMP. VRBMP = DCV x ER \\T-ere: \1R1;\II': 'total volume retained by BMP (ft') lx:v: Design capture volume (ft) I FSficacv of retention processes (decimal) www. andiegocounty.gov/stormwater B-26 Effective January 1, 2019 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Drawdown Time 6 HoL r —*-12 Hcur —fr-24 Hcur —0-36 Hcur —0-48 Hcur —-72 Hcur —'-'--95 Hcur 120 p- our Automated Worksheet B.1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V2.0) Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 5A+5B 7 77sq-ft unitless 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.62 inches 3 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C0.90) 176,263 s. a 4 Senii-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) 4,866 sq-ft : 5 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C0.10) 121,308 sq-ft 6 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) sq-ft 7 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14) sq-ft 8 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C0.23) sq-ft 9 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C0.30) sq-ft 10 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? No No No No No No No No No No yes/no 11 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.90) 0 sq-ft 12 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.30) sq-ft 13 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) t sq-ft 14 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.10) sq-ft I - 15 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.14) sq-ft 16 , • 17 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.23) sq-ft Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci0.30) sq-ft 18 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A # 19 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter I ft 20 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E 21 Average Rain Barrel Size gal 22 Total Tributary Area 302,437 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft s . . 23 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless a 24 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless (Os 25 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless 26 Initial Design Capture Volume 8,907 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 27 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 28 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft - I 29 -, 30 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ratio Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio 31 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.57 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless 32 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 8,907 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet - - ;• - 33 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet • 34 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 35 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless - 36 Final Effective Tributary Area 1721389 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 sq-ft 37 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 38 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 8,907 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet No Warning Messages I L I I Automated Worksheet B.2: Retention Requirements (V2.0) Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 5A+5B - - - - ___ - - - - unitless - 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth 0.62 - - - - - - - - - inches 3 Predominant NRCS Soil Type Within BMP Location D unitless 4 Is proposed BMP location Restricted or Unrestricted for Infiltration Activities? Restricted unitless 5 Nature of Restriction Fill Depths unitless 6 Do Minimum Retention Requirements Apply to this Project? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no 7 Are Habitable Structures Greater than 9 Stones Proposed? No yes/no -. 8 Has Geotechiucal Engineer Performed an Infiltration Analysis? No yes/no 9 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer in/hr - 10 Design Infiltration Rate Used To Determine Retention Requirements 0.000 - - - - - - - - - in/hr 11 Percent of Average Annual Runoff that Must be Retained within DMA 1.5% - - - - - - - - - percentage 12 Fraction of DCV Requiring Retention 0.01 - - - - - - - - - ratio 13 Required Retention Volume 89 - - - - - - - - - cubic-feet No Warning Messages Automated Worksheet B.3: BMP Performance (V2.0 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 5A+5B ' - - - - - - - - - sq-ft 2 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended 0.000 - - - - - - - - - in/hr 3 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 8,907 - - - - - - - - - cubic-feet 4 Is BMP Vegetated or Unvegetated? Vegetated unitless 5 Is BMP Impermeably Lined or Unlined? Lined unitless 6 Does BMP Have an Underdrain? Underdrain unitless 7 Does BMP Utilize Standard or Specialized Media? Standard unitless 8 Provided Surface Area 4,208 sq-ft 9 Provided Surface Ponding Depth 12 inches 10 Provided Soil Media Thickness 18 inches 11 Provided Gravel Thickness (Total Thickness) 12 inches 12 Underdrain Offset 3 inches 13 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest) 4.00 inches 14 Specialized Soil Media Filtration Rate in/hr Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Retention unitless 16 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Biofiltration unitless 17 Specialized Gravel Media Pore Space unitless 18 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 19 Ponding Pore Space Available for Retention 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 unitless 20 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless 21 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Above Underdrain) 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 i 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Below Underdrain) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless . 22 23 • Effective Retention Depth 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 24 Fraction of DC\T Retained (Independent of Drawdown Time) 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 25 Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown Timel 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 26 Efficacy of Retention Processes 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio Volume Retained by BMP (Considering Drawdown Time) 861 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 28 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 8,046 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 29 Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 0.7378 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 cfs 30 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice 7.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 31 Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr 32 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizing 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr 33 Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Storm 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 34 Ponding Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unidess 35 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless . 36 Gravel Pore Space Available for Biofiltration (Above Underdrain) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless I • J 37 Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 19.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 38 Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 39 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 40 Total Depth Biofiltered 49.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches 41 Option 1 - Biofilter 1.50 DC\7: Target Volume 12,069 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 42 Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 12,069 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 43 Option 2 - Store 0.75 DC\T: Target Volume 6,035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 44 Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 6,035 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 45 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 46 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements? Yes - - - - - - - - - yes/no 47 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied (BMP Efficacy Factor) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio 48 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet Attention! - BMPs sued at <3% of the effective tributary areas must be accompanied by Reduced Size BMP Maintenance calculations (see last tab). I I Automated Worksheet B.4: Reduced Size BMP Maintenance Interval (V2.0 I • Al Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 5A+5B - - - - - - - - - unitless 2 Final Effective Tributary Area 172,389 - - - - - - - - - sq-ft 3 Provided BMP Surface Area 4,208 - - - - - - - - - sq-ft 4 Average Annual Precipitation 10.3 inches 5 Load to Clog (default =2.0) 2.0 lb/sq-ft 6 TSS Pretreatment Efficacy 0.00 . yes/no 7 Percentage "Commercial" 75% percentage . 8 Percentage "Education" O% i percentage -; 9 Percentage "Industrial" O% . percentage ' 10 Percentage "Low Traffic Areas" O% percentage ______ • 11 Percentage "Multi-Family Residential" 0% percentage 12 Percentage "Roof Areas" 25% percentage 13 Percentage "Single Family Residential?! O% percentage 14 Percentage "Transportation" O% percentage 15 Percentage "Vacant/Open Space!? 0% percentage H 16 Percentage "Steep Hillslopes" 0% percentage 17 Total Percentage of Above Land Uses 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% percentage 18 Average TSS Concentration for Tributary After Pretreatment 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mg/L 19 Average Annual Runoff Volume 147,967 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet 20 Average Annual TSS Load 739 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lb/yr - 21 Available Sediment Storage within BMP 8,416 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lb 22 Anticipated Major Maintenance Frequency 11.4 - - - - - - - - - years No Warning Messages I I Supporting Caics. for County of San Diego Automated Worksheet B.4 2019 County BMP Design Manual, Appendix BA Viasat Bressi Ranch Campus Roof E5 Area: 33,826 sf Roof E6 Area: 41,227 sf Parking Structure P3 Area: 57,773 sf Total Roof Area (E5 + E6): 75,053 sf Total DMA 5A + DMA 5B Area: 302,437 sf % Roof: 24.8% % Commerial: 75.2% San Diego Hydrology Model 3.1 User Manual - April 2017 Step 5. Calculate lower and upper HMP thresholds based on USGS regional equations (optional). This step is done outside of SDHM. The user has the option of changing the lower and upper thresholds based on the following USGS regional regression equations: Q2 = 3.60*(A"0.672)*(P"0.753) Q10 = 6.56*(A"0.783)*(P1.07) Where A = drainage area (sq. miles) P = mean annual precipitation (inches) Note: These external calculations should be included with the SDHM 3.1 information submitted to the reviewer. Mean annual precipitation values for the standard 18 San Diego County rain gages are shown in the table below. Rain Gage Mean Annual Rainfall (in) Bonita 8.9 Borrego 3.2 CCDA Lindbergh 9.9 Encinitas 10.3. Escondido 13.9 Fallbrook 15.3 Fashion Valley 10.4 Flinn Springs 13.2 Kearny Mesa 11.1 Lake Cuyamaca 30.9 Lake Henshaw 22.4 Lake Wohiford 17.0 Lower Otay 10.5 Oceanside 11.8 Poway 12.2 Ramona 14.4 San Onofre 11.6 San Vicente 12.7 Santee 13.1 For this example using the Fashion Valley rainfall and a project DMA of 11 acres: A= 11 ac=0.0171875 square miles P = 10.4 inches 20 _____ 99eeAffln Led v1abarRauffT.auge g Encinitas Distance = 578 Miles .. Encinitas Gauge Distance Oceanside Distance = 781 Miles . Oceanside Gauge Distance - Project Site Rain Gauge 174 w 7i CIA * : * - * fri - - - I 4 d 9 4 *91 ; - - - - - -. ' - z 41 4 5114 / 14 - - odification ATTACHMENT 2 BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES Attachment Contents Checklist Sequence Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management 191 Included Exhibit (Required) Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse 19 Exhibit showing project drainage Sediment Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit boundaries marked on WMAA is required, additional analyses are Critical Coarse Sediment Yield optional) Area Map (Required) See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Optional analyses for Critical Coarse Manual. Sediment Yield Area Determination 6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units Onsite 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment E 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving 11 Not performed Channels (Optional) E1 Included See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design Manual. Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design and ll Included Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations (Required) See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the BMP Design Manual VIA SA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit: The Hydromodification Management Exhibit must identify: 9 Underlying hydrologic soil group II Approximate depth to groundwater tEl Existing natural hydrologic features (watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) lEt Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected (if present) tEl Existing topography tEl Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite lEt Proposed grading lEt Proposed impervious features lEt Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness lEt Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management lEt Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) lEt Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail) VJASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 Potential Critical Course Yield Areas STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN MAY 2020 Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas* *This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries? FI Yes (See discussion below) LI No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed? 06.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite LI 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment LI 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite E No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? El No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite lCriticaI coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 2B of the SWQMP. El Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit. Discussion / Additional Information: An initial rough grading of the site was completed in 2004 with compacted fill placed throughout the entire site, and the area stabilized with non-irrigated hydroseed ground cover, negating analysis of the site as a Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Area, where the site was once bisected by a well vegetated canyon feature. The rough graded cut and fill material placed onsite are compacted and any runoff is being collected in onsite desilting basins for settlement of any significant sediment loads that could potentially leave the site. Because of this previous grading work, and the information used in determination of the Critical Coarse Sediment Yield that appears to take into account the pre-2003 (start of rough grading) condition of the site, compared to the current condition, the critical coarse sediment yield areas appearing in the WMAA maps are in error and the previous grading has changed the condition such that no critical coarse sediment is produced at this location. In addition, as requested by the City of Carlsbad, a study of the on-site Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLU) was performed and a resulting exhibit highlighting where the known GLU's was provided in Attachment 2B. This exhibit is conceptual as the area being highlighted is part of a rough graded (not natural) slope that would consist of fill and not beneficial sediment. The identified GLU consists of CSI-Agricultural/Grass 4 where there are slopes greater than 40%. The GLU chart (Table H.1-3) from the City of Carlsbad can also be found within Attachment 2B. GLUs within Phase 5 consist entirely of graded pads or "developed" land cover category. Because none of the land cover in Table 6-1 of the BMP Design Manual are listed as developed, no measures for protection of CCSYA is necessary. VIA SA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 13 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN MAY 2020 - Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff* *This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit. Runoff from the project site does not discharge to an un-lined channel onsite, rather discharging to the City of Carlsbad storm drain system at a point of compliance at the project boundary (as directed by Section 6.3.1 of the HMP Design Manual). Therefore, the POC for flow control analysis will be analyzed at the point of discharge from the site, a 60" RCP storm drain, as shown on the exhibit in Appendix 2A. Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? fl No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) 11 Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1 Q2 11 Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2 tI Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2 If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer: Hydromodification Screening for Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2, dated April 6, 2012, by Chang Consultants (See Attachment 2c) Discussion /Additional Information: (optional) A geomorphic channel assessment analysis was performed for the receiving water body downstream of the project site. The report titled Hydromodification Screening for Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2, dated April 6, 2012, by Chang Consultants is included in Attachment 2c. A channel screening analysis was performed based on a "hydromodification screening tool" procedure developed by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). The SCCWRP results were compared with the critical shear stress calculator results from the County of San Diego BMP Sizing Calculator to establish the appropriate susceptibility to erosion. The project runoff will discharge into a natural canyon south of the site at an easterly and westerly point of compliance. Each POC contains RCP discharging through D-41 concrete energy dissipaters. The assessment was made for the natural canyon from the POCs to Alga Norte Community Park, which is just under 0.5 miles south of the site (domain of analysis). The results of the SCCWRP channel screening tools indicate a low threshold for vertical and lateral susceptibilities. The HMP requires that these results be compared with the critical stress calculator results incorporated in the County of San Diego's BMP Sizing Calculator. The BMP Sizing Calculator critical stress results are included in Appendix B of the Hydromodification Screening for Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2. Based on these values, the critical stress results returned a low threshold. Therefore, the SCCWRP analyses and critical stress calculator demonstrate that the project can be designed assuming a low susceptibility, i.e.,0.5Q2. VIA SAT BRESSI RANCH-PHASE 5 14 I , •;ák ts 41 L IA 2 !* $ $ i Af LAI pP pro lie ri • V I Al .. ' .1_I IVIVVV\) 6U!ddeVsj eev PI!A uwip GSJ800 IBO!T!JO Ie!TUOd I8UO16G Io SISAleuv eeiy iuewe6eue )@UsJE)IeAA J91eAA U3 109fOJd :90Jn0 ;j eeiv PI!A TUeW!P8S' G9J803 ~Tio Ieo!Jo_I!1UGT0d= 1 AIJAO SlED PiA juawipaS asinoD IPJ3 1equal sndwe q3ueJ !ssaJ ;ese! O Appendix H: Guidance for Investigation Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Table H.1-3: Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas CB-Agricultural/Grass-3 Coarse Bedrock Agricultural/Grass 20%-40% CB-Agricultural/Grass-4 Coarse Bedrock Agricultural/Grass >40% CB-Forest-2 Coarse Bedrock Forest 10 -20% CB-Forest-3 Coarse Bedrock Forest 20%-40% CB-Forest-4 Coarse Bedrock Forest >40% CB-Scrub/Shrub-4 Coarse Bedrock Scrub/Shrub >40% CB-Unknown-4 Coarse Bedrock Unknown >40% CSI-Agricultural/Grass-2 Coarse Sedimentary Impermeable Agricultural/Grass 10 -20% CSI-Agricultural/Grass-3 Coarse Sedimentary Impermeable Agricultural/Grass 20%-40% CSI-Agricultural/Grass-4 Coarse Sedimentary Impermeable Agricultural/Grass >40% CSP-Agricultural/Grass-4 Coarse Sedimentary Permeable Agricultural/Grass >40% CSP-Forest-3 Coarse Sedimentary Permeable Forest 20%-40% CSP-Forest-4 Coarse Sedimentary Permeable Forest >40% CSP-Scrub/Shrub-4 Coarse Sedimentary Permeable Scrub/Shrub >40% H-17 February 2016 Appendix H: Guidance for Investigation Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Scenario 1: PDP is subject to and in compliance with RPO requirements (without utilization of RPO exemptions 86.604(e)(2)(cc) or 86.604(e)(3) that result in impacts to more than 15% of the project-scale CCSYAs). Applicant demonstrates avoidance of onsite critical coarse sediment by simply complying with existing RPO encroachment allowances. Scenario 2: PDP is entirely exempt/not subject to RPO requirements without utilization of exemptions 86.604(e)(2)(cc) or 86.604(e) (3). Applicant has no obligation to identify and/or avoid onsite critical coarse sediment. Scenario 3: PDP utilizes exemption(s) via RPO Section 86.604(e)(2)(cc) or 86.604(e)(3) and mpacts more than 15% of the project-scale CCSYAs. Applicant is not permitted to use the RPO Method to demonstrate avoidance of critical coarse sediment. Applicant must instead demonstrate no net impact through utilization of Appendix H.4 of this guidance. Avoidance of Upstream CCSYAs All Scenarios: Upstream CCSYAs must be bypassed per criteria presented in Section H.3 of this guidance. H.2.1.2 WMAA Mapping Method If the applicant has identified onsite CCSYAs using the WMAA Mapping Method, encroachments of up to 5% into the onsite CCSYAs may be permitted. H-6 February 26, 2016 morphic Assessment of Receiving Chann HYDROMODIFICATION SCREENING FOR BRESSI RANCH PLANNING AREA 2 April 6, 2012 ESS / 5 (( No. 46548 Exp. 6/30/13 Jj ccr/ ~Vmll-~~ ~-'p Wayne W. Chang, kg ',PE 46548 chang(RMDEM Civil Engineering o Hydrology Hydraulics o Sedimentation P.O. Box 9496 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 (858) 692-0760 -TABLE OF CONTENTS - Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 Domainof Analysis ......................................................................................................................3 InitialDesktop Analysis ................................................................................................................ 5 FieldScreening .............................................................................................................................6 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................10 Figures......................................................................................................................................... 11 NormalDepth Analysis...............................................................................................................22 APPENDICES SCCWRP Initial Desktop Analysis SCCWRP Field Screening Data MAP POCKET Study Area Exhibit As-Built Reference Drawings Bressi Ranch Drainage Map INTRODUCTION The City of Carlsbad's January 14, 2011, Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP) outlines low flow thresholds for hydromodification analyses. The thresholds are based on a percentage of the pre-project 2-year flow (Q2), i.e., 0.1Q2 (low), 0.3Q2 (medium), or 0.5Q2 (high). A threshold of 0.1Q2 represents a downstream receiving conveyance system with a high susceptibility to erosion. This is the default value used for hydromodification analyses and will result in the most conservative (greatest) on-site facility sizing. A threshold of 0.3Q2 or 0.5Q2 represents downstream receiving conveyance systems with a medium or low susceptibility to erosion, respectively. In order to qualify for a medium or low susceptibility threshold, a project must perform a channel screening analysis based on a "hydromodification screening tool" procedure developed by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). The SCCWRP results are compared with the critical shear stress calculator results from the County of San Diego's BMP Sizing Calculator to establish the appropriate susceptibility threshold of low, medium, or high. CITY OF OCEANSIDE NOT TO SCALE ,- PECT&TE CITY OF VISTA CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF ENCINITAS warry &L4P NOT TO SCALE This report provides hydromodification screening analyses for the Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2 project being designed by Fuscoe Engineering, which is located between El Camino Real, Gateway Road, Alicante Road, and Town Garden Road in the city of Carlsbad (see the Vicinity Map above and the Study Area Exhibit in the map pocket). The site is within Planning Area 2/Lot 2 of the overall Bressi Ranch project (CT 00-06). The site covers 23.1 acres and has been mass-graded with gently sloping pads in accordance with Drawing No. 400-8A (all referenced drawings are in the map pocket). The site is currently undeveloped except for a series of temporary desilting basins around the southerly and easterly site perimeters. There is no significant off-site runoff onto the site. Surface runoff on the mass-graded site generally flows in a southerly direction. The runoff is ultimately collected by one of two storm drain systems that convey runoff southerly away from the site. The westerly system (sheets 4 and 5 of Drawing No. 400-8C) is located near the southwest corner of the site, crosses Town Garden Road, and discharges through a 42-inch RCP with D-41 energy dissipater into a natural canyon immediately south of the site. This is the westerly point of compliance for hydromodification. The outflow from this energy dissipater enters Reach 1 (see the Study Area Exhibit in the Map Pocket). Hydromodification screening analyses require the overall study area to be subdivided into reaches (this is described in more detail in the next section). Reach 1 is a natural drainage course that flows in a southerly direction for over 440 feet to the easterly point of compliance, which is described next. The easterly storm drain system (sheets 15 and 16 of Drawing No. 400-8C) is near the southeast corner of the site, continues south over 700 feet within Alicante Road, and discharges through a 60-inch RCP with D-41 energy dissipater to a regional detention basin west of Alicante Road. The detention basin then discharges west into the aforementioned natural canyon through parallel 24- and 30-inch RCP's connected to a D-41 energy dissipater. This is the easterly point of compliance for hydromodification. The easterly point of compliance is at the downstream end of Reach 1 and the upstream end of Reach 2 (see the Study Area Exhibit). Runoff in the natural canyon flows overland in a southerly direction towards Alga Norte Community Park. The upper 1,088 feet of the natural canyon is within Reach 2, while the lower 763 feet is within Reach 3. The existing earthen berm that crosses the natural canyon is the boundary between Reach 2 and 3. The canyon runoff is ultimately collected by a 72-inch RCP at the north end of the park (sheets 20 and 21 of Drawing No. 419-2B), which corresponds to the south end of Reach 3. This storm drain conveys the runoff over 1,500 feet south to a discharge point beyond Poinsettia Lane. The SCCWRP screening tool requires both office and field work to establish the vertical and lateral susceptibility of a downstream receiving channel to erosion. The vertical and lateral assessments are performed independently of each other although the lateral results can be affected by the vertical rating. A screening analysis was performed to assess the low flow threshold for the easterly and westerly points of compliance. The initial step in performing the SCCWRP screening analysis is to establish the domain of analysis and the study reaches within the domain. This is followed by office and field components of the screening tool along with the associated analyses and results. The following sections cover these procedures in sequence. I I 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I El I DOMAIN OF ANALYSIS SCCWRP defines an upstream and downstream domain of analysis, which establish the study limits. The County of San Diego's HMP specifies the downstream domain of analysis based on the SCCWRP criteria. The HMP indicates that the downstream domain is the first point where one of these is reached: at least one reach downstream of the first grade control point tidal backwater/lentic waterbody equal order tributary accumulation of 50 percent drainage area for stream systems or 100 percent drainage area for urban conveyance systems (storm drains, hardened channels, etc.) The upstream limit is defined as: proceed upstream for 20 channel top widths or to the first grade control point, whichever comes first. Identify hard points that can check headward migration and evidence of active headcutting. SCCWRP defines the maximum spatial unit, or reach (a reach is circa 20 channel widths), for assigning a susceptibility rating within the domain of analysis to be 200 meters (656 feet). If the domain of analysis is greater than 200 meters, the study area should be subdivided into smaller reaches of less than 200 meters for analysis. Most of the units in the HMP's SCCWRP analysis are metric. Metric units are used in this report only where given so in the HMP. Otherwise English units are used. Downstream Domain ofAnalysis The downstream domain of analysis for the study area has been determined by assessing and comparing the four bullet items above. The project runoff will discharge into the natural canyon at the easterly and westerly points of compliance (POC). The downstream domain of analysis will be below these POCs. Per the first bullet item, the first permanent grade control below the discharge location is at 72- inch RCP at the north end of Alga Norte Community Park. Since the storm drain containing this RCP continues for over a thousand feet south, one reach (656 feet) downstream of the grade control will be within a non-erodible pipe. Therefore, the downstream domain of analysis based on the first bullet item will be the grade control created by the 72-inch RCP entrance. The second bullet item is the tidal backwater or lentic (still) waterbody location. The nearest tidal backwater or lentic waterbody is Batiquitos Lagoon, which is over 2 miles south of the POCs. The final two bullet items are related to the tributary drainage area. According to Project Design Consultants' February 2003, Drainage Report, Bressi Ranch Mass Grading & Backbone Improvements, the areas tributary to the easterly and westerly POCs are 149.1 and 23.1 acres, respectively (the proposed project will generally maintain these drainage areas). The equal order tributary is the point below the easterly and westerly POC' s with the same drainage area as the POCs. For the easterly POC, the equal order tributary will be beyond Alga Norte Community Park. For the westerly POC, the equal order tributary will be within the natural canyon. Since the natural canyon is not a stream system or urban conveyance system, the fourth bullet point does not apply. Based on the above information, the 72-inch RCP was selected as the downstream domain of analysis point for both POCs. The downstream domain of analysis for the westerly POC could have been selected as the point in the natural canyon with a tributary area of 23.1 acres, but since the easterly POC analysis point is at the 72-inch RCP, this was chosen for the westerly POC as well. Per the first bullet item, the downstream domain of analysis begins one reach below the 72- inch RCP grade control. As discussed above, a reach is not to exceed 200 meters (656 feet). Since the storm drain system containing this RCP continues for over a thousand feet, one reach downstream of the grade control will be within a non-erodible pipe. Therefore, the downstream domain of analysis based on the first bullet item will be the grade control created at the 72-inch RCP entrance. Upstream Domain ofAnalysis The area upstream of the RCP outlet of each POC is an existing graded 2:1 fill slope with landscaping. The only storm runoff on the slope is from direct precipitation. Consequently, the slope is not anticipated to erode (erosion was not observed during a recent site visit) and the upstream domain of analysis for both POCs will be at each RCP outlet, i.e., the 42-inch RCP outlet and its D-41 establishes the upstream domain of analysis for the westerly POC, and the 24/30-inch RCP outlets and their D-41 establish the upstream domain of analysis for the easterly POC. Study Reaches within Domain ofAnalysis The entire domain of analysis extends from each of the POCs to the 72-inch RCP at the north end of Alga Norte Community Park. The total domain of analysis covers approximately 2,300 feet. The domain of analysis was subdivided into three study reaches with similar characteristics (see the Study Area Exhibit). Reach 1 (upper reach) extends from the westerly POC to the easterly POC. Reach 2 (middle reach) continues from the easterly POC downstream to a large existing berm crossing the lower third of the natural canyon. The berm is earthen and the center portion was breached sometime in the past. The canyon runoff currently flows through the breach. Reach 3 (lower reach) extends from the earthen berm to the 72-inch RCP. Each reach is longer than the 656 feet maximum reach length specified by SCCWRP. Review of topographic mapping, aerial photographs, and field conditions reveals that the physical (channel geometry and longitudinal slope), vegetative, hydraulic, and soil conditions within each reach are relatively uniform. Subdividing the reaches into smaller subreaches of less than 656 feet will not yield significantly varying results within a reach. Although the screening tool was applied across the entire length of each of the three reaches, the results will be similar for shorter subreaches within each reach. 4 INITIAL DESKTOP ANALYSIS After the domain of analysis is established, SCCWRP requires an "initial desktop analysis" that involves office work. The initial desktop analysis establishes the watershed area, mean annual precipitation, valley slope, and valley width. These terms are defined in Form 1, which is included in Appendix A. SCCWRP recommends the use of National Elevation Data (NED) to determine the watershed area, valley slope, and valley width. The NED data is similar to USGS mapping, so it is not very detailed. For this report, 2-foot contour interval mapping from the City of Carlsbad's GIS department was used to establish the valley slope and valley width in the natural canyon because they are more accurate than NED. The Study Area Exhibit contains this mapping combined with PDC's drainage map. The watershed area tributary to the reaches was established from PDC's February 2003 drainage report and the City's 2-foot contour interval topographic mapping (see the Study Area Exhibit). PDC's drainage report indicates that the tributary area at the downstream end of Reach 1 is 186 acres. An additional 21.48 acres is tributary to Reach 2. This was delineated from the City's topographic mapping and a site visit. The topographic mapping does not reflect the existing El Camino Real Corporate Center southeast of the intersection of El Camino Real and Town Garden Road, so this area was confirmed from as-built plans and a site visit. Finally, an additional 10.20 acres is tributary to Reach 3 based on the topographic mapping. Based on this information, the drainage areas at the downstream end of Reaches 1, 2, and 3 are 186, 207, and 218 acres (0.29, 0.32, and 0.34 square miles), respectively. The mean annual precipitation was obtained from the County of San Diego's BMP Sizing Calculator and is 13.3 inches (see Appendix A). The valley slope of Reaches 1, 2, and 3 was determined from the City's 2-foot contour interval topographic mapping. The valley slope is the longitudinal slope of the channel bed along the flow line, so it is determined by dividing the elevation difference within a reach by the flow path. The valley width is the bottom width of the creek channel. The average valley width within each reach was estimated from the topographic mapping, field observations, and review of aerial photographs. The valley slope and valley width at each reach are summarized in Table 1. FR-each I Valley Slope, rn/rn Valley Width, rn F 1 F 0.0360 8 F 2-1 0.0313 12 F 3 I 0.0160-1 15 Table 1. Summary of Valley Slope and Valley Width These values were input to a spreadsheet to calculate the simulated peak flow, screening index, and valley width index outlined in Form 1. The input data and results are tabulated in Appendix A. This completes the initial desktop analysis. I I FIELD SCREENING After the initial desktop analysis is done, a field assessment must be performed. The field assessment is used to establish a natural channel's vertical and lateral susceptibility to erosion. SCCWRP states that although they are admittedly linked, vertical and lateral susceptibility are assessed separately for several reasons. First, vertical and lateral responses are primarily controlled by different types of resistance, which, when assessed separately, may improve ease of use and lead to increased repeatability compared to an integrated, cross-dimensional assessment. Second, the mechanistic differences between vertical and lateral responses point to different modeling tools and potentially different management strategies. Having separate screening ratings may better direct users and managers to the most appropriate tools for subsequent analyses. The field screening tool uses combinations of decision trees and checklists. Decision trees are typically used when a question can be answered fairly definitively and/or quantitatively (e.g., d50 < 16 mm). Checklists are used where answers are relatively qualitative (e.g., the condition of a grade control). Low, medium, high, and very high ratings are applied separately to the vertical and lateral analyses. When the vertical and lateral analyses return divergent values, the most conservative value shall be selected as the flow threshold for the hydromodification analyses. Visual observation reveals that each study reach contains a densely vegetated canyon (see the figures following the report text). The vegetative density extends relatively uniformly across the canyon bottom and sides. Due to the vegetative cover, D-41 concrete energy dissipaters at each POC, and relatively small canyon flows (the SCCWRP 10-year flow from Form 1 in Appendix A is at most 52 cubic feet per second), the vertical and lateral stability was anticipated to have a limited susceptibility to erosion. Vertical Stability The purpose of the vertical stability decision tree (Figure 6-4 in the County of San Diego HMP) is to assess the state of the channel bed with a particular focus on the risk of incision (i.e., down cutting). The decision tree is included in Figure 18. The first step is to assess the channel bed resistance. There are three categories defined as follows: Labile Bed - sand-dominated bed, little resistant substrate. Transitional/Intermediate Bed - bed typically characterized by gravel/small cobble, Intermediate level of resistance of the substrate and uncertain potential for armoring. Threshold Bed (Coarse/Armored Bed) - armored with large cobbles or larger bed material or highly-resistant bed substrate (i.e., bedrock). Channel bed resistance is a function of the bed material and vegetation. The figures show photographs of the channel in the study reaches. The vegetative cover along and adjacent to the flowline of each reach was so dense that they were either difficult to access or not possible to access at all unless the vegetation was trimmed. A gravelometer is included in some photographs 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to show the dense vegetative cover on portions of the ground surface. Each square on the gravelometer indicates grain size in millimeters (the gravelometer squares range from 2 to 180 millimeters). The figures show dense vegetation throughout Reaches 1 through 3. The vegetation consists of a variety of mature grasses, shrubs, and trees. Vegetation prevents bed incision because its root structure binds soil and because the aboveground vegetative growth will reduce flow velocities. Table 5-13 from the County of San Diego's Drainage Design Manual outlines maximum permissible velocities for various channel linings (Table 5-13 is included in Appendix B). Maximum permissible velocity is defined in the manual as the velocity below which a channel section will remain stable, i.e., not erode. Table 5-13 indicates that a fully-lined channel with unreinforced vegetation has a maximum permissible velocity of 5 feet per second (fps). Due to the dense cover and mature vegetation, the permissible velocity when erosion can begin is likely greater than 5 fps in most of the natural canyon areas. Table 5-13 indicates that 5 fps is equivalent to an unvegetated channel containing cobbles (grain size from 64 to 256 mm) and shingles (rounded cobbles). In comparison, coarse gravel (19 to 75 mm) has a maximum permissible velocity of 4 fps. Based on this information, the uniformly vegetated natural canyon has an equivalent grain size of at least 64 mm. Vegetation in a watercourse can be dynamic, i.e., the vegetation size and density can change over time. An increase in vegetation will further reduce the potential for vertical incision, while a decrease can allow greater incision. A primary cause for a reduction in vegetation is removal due to hydraulic forces and shear stress during periods of high flow. Since the natural canyon is not subject to high flow (SCCWRP-defined 10-year flow rate is at most 52 cfs), the flow volumes and velocities will have minimal impact on the vegetative condition in the reaches. A normal depth analysis was performed, which determined that the flow velocity under 52 cfs is 2 fps (the analysis is attached after the figures). Furthermore, a sign posted in Alga Norte Community Park indicates that the natural canyon is a preserve, so vegetation should not be subject to human removal. Based on the photographs and site investigation, the bed resistance is within the transitional/intermediate bed category. Dr. Eric Stein from SCCWRP, who co-authored the Hydrcmodfication Screening Tool in the Final Hydromodfication Management Plan (HMP), indicated that a transitional/intermediate bed requires the most rigorous analysis steps and will generate appropriate results for the size range. Transitional/intermediate beds cover a wide susceptibility/potential response range and need to be assessed in greater detail to develop a weight of evidence for the appropriate screening rating. The three primary risk factors used to assess vertical susceptibility for channels with transitional/intermediate bed materials are: Armoring potential - three states (Checklist 1), this checklist determines the amount of gravel and cobbles within a natural channel. Gravel and cobbles resist erosion and armor a channel. Therefore, an increase in the amount and density of gravel and cobbles indicates less potential for erosion. Grade control - three states (Checklist 2), this checklist determines if there are manmade or natural grade control features in a natural channel. A grade control will prevent a 7 channel from degrading and eroding by maintaining the channel bed at a fixed elevation. The spacing of grade controls is considered because more closely-spaced grade controls are more effective at preventing erosion. 3. Proximity to regionally-calibrated incision/braiding threshold (Mobility Index Threshold - Probability Diagram), this diagram determines the potential for channel bed incision. The potential increases as the flow rate and channel slope increase. The potential also increases with smaller bed material. The flow rate, channel slope, and average grain size are considered in the diagram. These three risk factors are assessed using checklists and a diagram (see Appendix B), and the results of each are combined to provide a final vertical susceptibility rating for the intermediate/transitional bed-material group. Each checklist and diagram contains a Category A, B, or C rating. Category A is the most resistant to vertical changes while Category C is the most susceptible. Checklist 1 determines armoring potential of the channel bed. The channel bed along each of the three reaches is within category B, which represents intermediate bed material within unknown armoring potential due to a surface veneer and dense vegetation. The soil was probed and penetration was relatively difficult through the underlying layer. Due to the dense vegetative growth, the armoring potential could have been rated higher, but Category B was conservatively (i.e., more potential for channel incision) chosen. Checklist 2 determines grade control characteristics of the channel bed. SCCWRP states that grade controls can be natural. Examples are vegetation or confluences with a larger waterbody. As indicated above and verified with photographs, each reach contains dense vegetation (see the figures). The plant roots and fallen tree trunks serve as a natural grade control. The spacing of these is much closer than the 50 meters identified in the checklist. Further evidence of the effectiveness of the natural grade controls is the absence of headcutting and mass wasting (large vertical erosion of a channel bank). Based on this information, each reach is within Category A on Checklist 2. The Mobility Index Threshold is a probability diagram that depicts the risk of incising or braiding based on the potential stream power of the valley relative to the median particle diameter. The threshold is based on regional data from Dr. Howard Chang of Chang Consultants and others. The probability diagram is based on d50 as well as the Screening Index determined in the initial desktop analysis (see Appendix A). d50 is derived from field conditions. As discussed above, the equivalent grain size for the densely vegetated canyon in the field is at least 64 mm. The Mobility Index Threshold diagram shows that the 50 percent probability of incising or braiding for a d50 of 64 mm has an index of 0.101 (in red rectangle on diagram). The Screening Index for each reach calculated in Appendix A varies from 0.0 194 to 0.0408. Since the Screening Index values for each reach is less than the 50 percent value, each reach falls well within Category A. The overall vertical rating is determined from the Checklist 1, Checklist 2, and Mobility Index Threshold results. The scoring is based on the following values: 8 LI I I I Li I I I Li I j I I r I Li I I I Category A = 3, Category B = 6, Category C = 9 The vertical rating score is based on these values and the equation: Vertical Rating = [(armoring x grade control) 112 x screening index score] 112 = [(6 x 3)1/2 X 31 1/2 =3.6 Since the vertical rating is less than 4.5, each reach has a low threshold for vertical susceptibility. Lateral Stability The purpose of the lateral decision tree (Figure 6-5 from County of San Diego HMP included in Figure 19) is to assess the state of the channel banks with a focus on the risk of widening. Channels can widen from either bank failure or through fluvial processes such as chute cutoffs, avulsions, and braiding. Widening through fluvial avulsions/active braiding is a relatively straightforward observation. If braiding is not already occurring, the next logical step is to assess the condition of the banks. Banks fail through a variety of mechanisms; however, one of the most important distinctions is whether they fail in mass (as many particles) or by fluvial detachment of individual particles. Although much research is dedicated to the combined effects of weakening, fluvial erosion, and mass failure, SCCWRP found it valuable to segregate bank types based on the inference of the dominant failure mechanism (as the management approach may vary based on the dominant failure mechanism). A decision tree (Form 4 in Appendix B) is used in conducting the lateral susceptibility assessment. Definitions and photographic examples are also provided below for terms used in the lateral susceptibility assessment. The first step in the decision tree is to determine if lateral adjustments are occurring. The adjustments can take the form of extensive mass wasting (greater than 50 percent of the banks are exhibiting planar, slab, or rotational failures and/or scalloping, undermining, and/or tension cracks). The adjustments can also involve extensive fluvial erosion (significant and frequent bank cuts on over 50 percent of the banks). Neither mass wasting nor extensive fluvial erosion was evident within any of the reaches during a field investigation. The banks are intact in the photographs included in the figures. Due to the dense vegetation in both areas, photographs representative of the banks were difficult to take. Nonetheless, the dense vegetation supports the absence of large lateral adjustments. The next step in the Form 4 decision tree is to assess the consolidation of the bank material. The banks were moderate to well-consolidated. This determination was made because the banks were difficult to penetrate with a probe. In addition, the banks showed limited evidence of crumbling and were composed of tightly-packed particles (see figures). Form 6 (see Appendix B) is used to assess the probability of mass wasting. Form 6 identifies a 10, 50, and 90 percent probability based on the bank angle and bank height. The topographic mapping indicates that the maximum natural bank angle is 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or 26.6 degrees in any of the reaches. Form 6 shows that the probably of mass wasting and bank failure has less than 10 percent risk for a 26.6 degree bank angle or less regardless of the bank height. 9 [1 I The final two steps in the Form 4 decision tree are based on the braiding risk determined from the vertical rating as well as the Valley Width Index (VWI) calculated in Appendix A. If the vertical rating is high, the braiding risk is considered to be greater than 50 percent. Excessive braiding can lead to lateral bank failure. For the Reaches 1, 2, and 3, the vertical rating is low, so the braiding risk is less than 50 percent. Furthermore, a VWI greater than 2 represents channels unconfined by bedrock or hilislope and, hence, subject to lateral migration. The VWI calculations in the spreadsheet in Appendix A show that the VWI for each reach is less than 2. From the above steps, the lateral susceptibility rating is low (red circles are included on the Form 4: Lateral Susceptibility Field Sheet decision tree in Appendix B showing the decision path). CONCLUSION The SCCWRP channel screening tools were used to assess the downstream channel susceptibility for the Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2 project. The project runoff will discharge into a natural canyon south of the site at an easterly and westerly point of compliance. Each POC contains RCP discharging through D-41 concrete energy dissipaters. The assessment was made for the natural canyon from the POCs to Alga Norte Community Park, which is just under 0.5 miles south of the site (domain of analysis). The assessment was performed based on office analyses and field work. The results indicate a low threshold for vertical and lateral susceptibilities. The HMP requires that these results be compared with the critical stress calculator results incorporated in the County of San Diego's BMP Sizing Calculator. The BMP Sizing Calculator critical stress results are included in Appendix B for Reach 1, 2, and 3. Based on these values, the critical stress results returned a low threshold. Therefore, the SCCWRP analyses and critical stress calculator demonstrate that the project can be designed assuming a low susceptibility, i.e., 0.5Q2- The SCCWRP results are consistent with the physical condition of the natural canyon within the domain of analysis, which is densely vegetated environmental preserve. None of the three study reaches nor D-41 outlets exhibit signs of extensive, ongoing erosion. I I I 1 10 I n H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I P!'!'..;••..! l&Ir P & Figure 1. Looking Upstream Towards Reach 3 h-uiii Alga None Community unu Park, I I I I I I I L I I I I I r I. iurt.. 2. uLing EasterlN ToNN ardsMiddle of Reach Figure 3. Looking Southerly Down Reach 3 Towards Alga Norte Community Park - -- , IIN:t*: _ 10 f ' - I, ,V F rile I :- :i• _______________ 4 P3 qVI. M All Figure 4. 72-Inch RCP at North End of Alga Norte Community Park (Downstream Study Limit) 12 Figure 5. Looking Downstream Towards Reach 3 from Earthen Berm I I I I Li I I I I I Ii I I I I I I 40, " •* At 'T V V i Figure 6. Looking Upstream Towards Reach 2 from Earthen Berm I 13 ______ WYAW !frf kil '• Fiumv -joking Easterly Towards Middle of Reach 2 In Oct )! • te -- - uhzk .. , XJ 4 p IL .X't - £ Figure 8. Looking Downstream Towards Reach 2 from Regional Detention Basin 1 I I I I I I .(1:'fr COAL A Figure 9. D-4I Fnerg Dissipater at Easterly Point of Compliance SE:*P' .,' .. 4 / - Figure 10. Looking Upstream Towards Reach I from Easterly Point of Compliance 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 11. Looking Westerly Towards Middle of Ri ; :9 I * o tiiiuc r i I i r "s LILII Figure 13. Looking Downstream Towards Rack I from Westerly Point of Compliance , A010, ZK " 1 k ! -. / -. I Figure 14. D-41 Energy Dissipater at Westerly Point of oniplianee 17 I I I I U 1 I I I I I I I I I I I fir - i •. qI t•' $ . .. . . . . .. r, I tc ui er .,. ,..0 ... 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I A W4 \ Figure 17. Gravelometer on Vegetative Cover in Reach 1 & 2 Interface I I I I I I 1 I CHANNEL BED RESISTANCE I Figure 6-2 LABILE BED $ancI-dornsned d< 16 mm % surface sand ' 25% LoosIy-pded INTERMEDIATE BED M eraty-lo loosy- packed cobble I gravel Hardpan of uncertain depth, exilard Aroetililty COARSE/ARMORED BED dso > 12B m.1 Boulder / large cobble tightly-packed <5% sand Continuous bedrock GortnuouB concrete EXAMINE RISK FACTORS LOW grade con OI arrnoing potential proimy to incision Oved Id go to bed eodibty Gob re checklists and incision Figure 64-5 diagram check list Fill out SCCWRPsccav'g coterla lo determine if the receiving channel has a HIGH. MEDIUM, or LOW susceptibility HIGH I IMEDIUMI I LOW Go to Figure 6-5 Figure 6-4. SCCWRP Vertical Susceptibility Figure 18. SCCWRP Vertical Channel Susceptibility Matrix 20 HIGH Go to Figure 6-5 6-4 LcLUS1A3LC1 -Futywmfed I bedrock link 1hza*cr in 'o.1 c'd*y YES No &4dence of dwiff ornn Iri ARE LATERAL ASS, WASTING OR .FUW e11r. dW Y65 EXTENSIVE L.NbIL - cac4k thIld w-1 J 00CLARRINIM ER$LON QJ1 curorroiwrio Nn.orftI -only hI,dk I I MED I IVW1I vHIGH M2 YES ALL 9ANK 1ERAjfr ModcIy Cr CONSOLIDATED Poorty or uricuiaIIió u1CLLRjING 13E"J 6iwk FiIil 1 I09hEJ rtI I,d urimmoldakid urwn,Ithtd 64 irn A4D 'lW 9 2 AND VWI 2 bark I I .1 .1. Qur65- \ r9gum - on .4 . OtiliUioi risk it bfca.fllIyco braiding _____ .1 '-I ____ ________ LOW T L ______ ' I MO Hi Bmwifig IGl HIGH MEl) HIGH 3KiI 5I'ç rsk.5Q WI2I VW2 VWl2 VW12 rl*O% -4-4-4-4 ---..-è-.---- -4 ---..---ê- Fur LaerI Chind SuscepbiIiy Figure 19. SCCWRP Lateral Channel Susceptibility Matrix 21 Worksheet for Channel Reach - Normal Depth Project Description- Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient 0.100 Channel Slope 0.01600 ftJft Left Side Slope 3.50 ft/ft (H:V) Right Side Slope 3.50 ft/ft (H:V) Bottom Width 15.00 ft LDischar9 IKE Results - - Normal Depth 1.34 ft Flow Area 26.48 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 24.78 ft Hydraulic Radius 1.07 ft Top Width 24.41 ft Critical Depth 0.68 ft Critical Slope 0.17508 ft/ft jVelocity E9 1Z Velocity Head 0.06 ft Specific Energy 1.40 ft Froude Number 0.33 Flow Type Subcritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ftls Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/5 Normal Depth 1.34 ft Critical Depth 0.68 ft Channel Slope 0.01600 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods V8i (SELECTseries 1) [08.11.01.03] 4/6/2012 8:17:13 PM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 APPENDIX A SCCWRP INITIAL DESKTOP ANALYSIS I FORM 1: INITIAL DESKTOP ANALYSIS Complete all shaded sections. IF required at multiple locations, circle one of the following site types: Applicant Site I Upstream Extent I Downstream Extent Location: Latitude: 33.1262 Longitude: 117.2641 I Description (river name, crossing streets, etc.): Natural canyon south of project, west of Alicante Road, and north of Alga Norte Community Park I GIS Parameters: The International System of Units (SI) is used throughout the assessment as the field standard and for consistency with the broader scientific community. However, as the singular exception, US Customary units are used for contributing drainage area (A) and mean annual precipitation (P) to apply regional flow equations after the USGS. See SCCWRP Technical Report 607 for example measurements and "Screening Tool Data Entry. xIs" for automated calculations. Form I Table 1. Initial desktop analysis in GIS. Symbol Variable Description and Source Value I A Area Contributing drainage area to screening location via published - . (mi) Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUGs) and/or :5 30 m National Elevation Data . (NED), USGS seamless server 0 2 P Mean annual Area-weighted annual precipitation via USGS delineated polygons using CL C precipitation records from 1900 to 1960 (which was more significant in hydrologic See attached (in) models than polygons delineated from shorter record lengths) Form I table S Valley slope Valley slope at site via NED, measured over a relatively homogenous on next page (m/m) valley segment as dictated by hillslope configuration, tributary for calculated confluences, etc., over a distance of up to -500 m or 10% of the main- values for each f - channel length from site to drainage divide - rrsk I1 - ______ ---. ---------____ - - - - --- - ----- -- a Fn Wv Valley width Valley bottom width at site between natural valley walls as dictated by (rn) clear breaks in hillslope on NED raster, irrespective of potential 05 armoring from floodplain encroachment, levees, etc. (imprecise measurements have negligible effect on rating in wide valleys where VWI is >> 2, as defined in lateral decision tree) Form I Tabl e 2. Simplif ied peak flo w, screening index, and valley width index. Values for this table should be calculated in the sequence shown in this table, using values from Form I Table 1. Symbol Dependent Variable Equation Required Units Value Q10 10-yr peak flow (ft3/s) Q10 = 18.2 * A 0.87 * 0.77 A (mi2) P (in) Qio 10-yr peak flow (m3/s) Q10 = 0.0283 * INDEX 10-yr screening index (m15/s05) INDEX = S*Qio 0.5 Wref Reference width (m) Wref = 6.99 * Qio 0.438 VWI Valley width index (m/m) VWI = WvlWref (Sheet 1 of 1) 1 B-3 1 Q10 (ft 3/s) See attached Form I table on next page for calculated values for each reach. W, (rn) Wref (m) I I I I SCCWRP FORM 1 ANALYSES Reach Upper (Reach 1) Middle (Reach 2) Lower (Reach 3) Area Mean Annual Precip. Valley Slope Valley Width 10-Year Flow 10-Year Flow A, sq. mi. P. inches Sv, rn/rn WV, m Qlocfs, cfs Q10, cms 0.29 13.3 0.0360 8 46 1.3 0.32 13.3 0.0313 12 50 1.4 0.34 13.3 0.0160 15 52 1.5 Reach Upper (Reach 1) Middle (Reach 2) Lower (Reach 3) 10-Year Screening Index INDEX 0.0408 0.0373 0.0194 Reference Width Wref, m 7.81 8.14 8.30 Valley Width Index VWI, rn/rn 1.02 1.47 1.81 Note: The areas were obtained from the watershed delineations shown on the Study Area Exhibit. The mean annual precipitation was obtained from the County of San Diego's BMP Calculator (see Appendix A). The valley slope was determined from the elevations and flow lengths from the Study Area Exhibit. The valley width was estimated from the topographic mapping on the Study Area Exhibit and a site investigation. The 10-year flow, screening index, reference width, and valley width index are calculated from the equations on Form 1 (see Appendix A). Result View Define Drainage Basins Basin: Bressi Ranch Drainage Area Project: Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2 liTh E •i 4V [] Basin [j !U ia!Nil -1 Manage Your Basins Create a new Basin by clicking the New button and scroll down to view entry. Alternatively, select an existing Basin from table and view properties below. Click Edit button to change Basin properties then press Save to commit changes. I w11I• ir ui Name Bressi Ranch Drainage Area Description Bre55 Ranch PA Point of Compliance Design Goal: [Tt lótràTiiTiiTIJ Project Basin Area (ac): I?'° Rainfall Basin: Mean Annual Precipition (in): 113:3 MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION FROM COUNTY BMP CALCULATOR — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — APPENDIX B SCCWRP FIELD SCREENING DATA El Chapter 5 Open Channels I I Table 5-13 Maximum Permissible Velocities for Lined and Unlined Channels Material or Lining Maximum Permissible Average Velocity* (ft/sec) Natural and Improved Unlined Channels FineSand, Colloidal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------1.50 SandyLoam, Noncolloidal ---------- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- 1.75 SiltLoam, Noncolloidal----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2.00 Alluvial Silts, Noncolloidal -------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------- 2.00 OrdinaryFirm Loam --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 2.50 VolcanicAsh -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2.50 StillClay, Very Colloidal ...... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 3.75 Alluvial Silts, Collodal .................................................................................................................3.75 ShalesAnd Hardpans --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ------------------------------------ 6.00 FineGravel -------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2.50 Graded Loam To Cobbles When Noncolloidal ...........................................................................3.75 GidLied Silts To Cobbles Wlieii Colloidal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4.00 Coarse Gravel, Noncolloidal .......................................................................................................4.00 obbiesAwiShing1es SandySilt ...................................................................................................................................2.00 SiltyClay --------------------------------------------- ... ----------------------------------------------- .--------------------------- .--------- 2.50 Clay---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .---------------------------------------------------------- 6.00 PoorSedimentary Rock ..............................................................................................................10.0 Eu1lyUne Channel s __ ReinforcedTurf ..........................................................................................................................10.0 LooseRiprap ................................................................................................................per Table 5-2 GroutedRiprap ...........................................................................................................................25.0 Gabions.......................................................................................................................................15.0 SoilCement ................................................................................................................................150 Concrete.....................................................................................................................................35.0 Maximum permissible velocity listed here is basic guideline; higher design velocities may be used, provided appropriate technical documentatior from manufacturer Li I San Diego County Drainage Design Manual Page 5-43 July 2005 1 I I I I I I I I I I Form 3 Support Materials Form 3 Checklists I and 2, along with information recording in Form 3 Table I, are intended to support the decisions pathways illustrated in Form 3 Overall Vertial Rating for Intermediate/Transitional Bed. Form 3 Checklist 1: Armoring Potential A A mix of coarse gravels and cobbles that are tightly packed with <5% surface malerial of diameter <2 mm X B Intermediate to A and C or hardpan of unknown resistance, spatial extent (longitudinal and depth), or unknown armoring potenlial cue to surface veneer covering gravel or coarser layer encountered with probe C Gravels/cobbles that are loosely packed or >250/c urace material of diameter <2 mm Form 3 Figure 2. Armoring potential photographic supplement for assessing intermediate beds (16 < d50 < 128 mm) to be used in conjunction with Form 3 Checklist 1. I (Sheet 2 of 4) I I B-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 Form 3 Checklist 2: Grade Control X A Grade control is present with spacing <50 m or 2IS m No evidence of failure/ineffectiveness, e.g., no headcuthng (>30 cm), no active mass wasting (analyst cannot say grade control sufficient if mass- wasting checklist indicates presence of bank failure), no exposed bridge pilings, no culverts/structures undermined Hard points in serviceable condition at decadal time scale, e.g., no apparent undermining, flanking, failing grout If geologic grade control, rock should be resistant igneous and/or metamorphic; For sedimentary/hardpan to be classified as grade control', it should be of demonstrable strength as indicated by field testing such as hammer test/borings and/or inspected by appropriate stakeholder o B Intermediate to A and C - artificial or geologic grade control present but spaced 2/Sv m to 4/Sv m or potential evidence of failure or hardpan of uncertain resistance El C Grade control absent, spaced >100 m or >4/Sw m, or clear evidence of ineffectiveness Form 3 Figure 3. Grade-control (condition) photographic supplement for assessing intermediate beds (16 < d50 < 128 mm) to be used in conjunction with Form 3 Checklist 2. (Sheet 3 of 4) Note: the equivalent d50 ii each reach taking dense vegetation into account is 64 mm. The Screening Index Values from the spreadsheet in Appendix A (0.0194 to 13.0408) for each reach are less than the 50% Risk values for 64 mm (0101), so the risk of incising is less than 50%. Regionally-Calil rated Screening Index Threshold for Incising/Braiding For transitional bed channels (d50 between 16 and 128 mm) or labile beds (channel not incised past critical bank height), use Form 3 Figure 3 to determine Screening Index Score and complete Form 3 Table 1. I i LI) CD 128 C. 145 I 0.1 00.01 * 80 C.114 0l 0.001 g 48 C.087 I 0.1 1 10 100 32 C.070 • d 0 (mm) 16 C.049 • Stable Braided - Incising 10% risk 50% risk 90% risk 8 C.031 I P 5 4 C.026 2 C:022 1 0.018 I J. 0.5 0.015 I Form 3 Figure 4. Probabilily of incising/braiding based on logistic regression of Screening Index and d5o to be used in conjunction with Form 3 Table 1. I Form 3 Table 1. Values for Screening Index Threshold (probabilily of incising/braiding) to be used in conjunction with Form . Figure 4 (above) to complete Form 3 Overall Vertical Rating for Intermediate/Transitional Bed (below).. Screening Index Score: A = <50% probability of incision I for current Q10, valley slope, and d50; B = Hardpan/d50 indeterminate; and C = >50% probability of incising/braiding for current Q, valley slope, and d50. I 1.5 0.5 ioO5 (m Screening Index Store From Form 2 From Form 1 d50 (mm) S *Q 0.5 10 (m 151s°5 Sv*Q ) 50% risk of incising/braiding (A, B, C) from table in Form 3 Figure 3 above I Overall Vertical Rating for Intermediate/Transitional Bed Calculate the overall Vertical Rating for Transitional Bed channels using the formula below. Numeric values for responses to Form 3 Checklists and Table I as follows: A = 3, B = 6, C = 9. Vertical Rating = ((__1111 grade control) screening index scare) Vertical Susceptibility based on Vertical Rating: <4.5 = LOW; 4.5 to 7 = MEDIUM; and >7 = HIGH. I (Sheet 4 of 4) I I H I I FORM 4: LATERAL SUSCEPTIBILTY FIELD SHEET Circle appropriate nodes/pathway for proposed site I OR use sequence of questions provided in Form 5. I (Sheet 1 of 1) AIM FORM 6: PROBABILITY OF MASS WASTING BANK FAILURE If mass wasting is not currently extensive and the banks are moderately- to well-consolidated, measure bank height and angle at several locations (i.e., at least three locations that cEptJre the range of conditiDns present in the study reach) to estimate representative values for the reach. Lse Form 6 Figure I below to determine if risk of bank failure is >10% and complete Form 6 Table 1. Support your results with photographs that include a protractor/rod/tape/person for scale. Bank Angle Bank Height Corresponding Bank Height for Bank Failure Risk (degreesi (m) 10% Risk of Mass Wasting (m) (<10% Risk) (from Field) (from Feld) (from Form 6 Figure 1 below) (>10% Risk) Left Bank Right Bank I I El I I I I I I I I Form 6 Figure 1. Probability Mass Wasting diagram, Bank Angle:Height/% Risk table, and Band Height:Angle schematic. Probability is less than 10% for the existing bank angles (2:1 = 26.6 degrees) in Reach 1, 2, and 3. 1 (Sheet I of 1) I B - 12 I I I Know - Windows 06N. 0 brwrscald.com ': - - is Favorite: a-' uKric OCt snow ARC ARC Mapping San Diego uKnoe 0 - 'i Page Safety Tools ,rown,,D Caidwell Map Details Manage Basins Result View HMP Define Drainage Basins :1 Basin 2 - Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2 Li T-71 POC _J: Manage Map Layers Manage Your Point of Compliance (POC) - Rain ..i Mean Annual Ra-nall Analyze the receiving water at the Point of Compliance' by completing this form Click Edit and enter the appropriate fields, then Channel SuscepUbdity. 11.0W Rain Bavno Si IIPO click the Update button to calculate the critical flow and low-flow threshold condition. Finally, click Save to commit the changes Low Flow Threshold: Ii2 Wt1iTW0• ''1 Select a Tool Toolkit Hydrol.lod Tools - Tool: Basin Manager - Channel Assessed: Yes - Vertical Susceptibility Low (Vertical) Watershed Area (ad: 186.00 Lateral Susceptibility: Low (Lateral) Matenai: Vegetation - - Roughness: 10.100 Channel Top Width (ft): 25.0 Channel Bottom Width (B): 1100 at Channel Height (fit) 150 Channel Slope: - - - -- - - -- Trusted sites )Protected Mode Off - -;ij 4,1001 CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ Manage Your Point of Compliance (POC) Analyze the receiving water at the Point of Compliance by completing this form Click Edit and enter the appropriate fields, then Channel Susceptibility: LOW click the Update button to calculate the critical flow and low-flow threshold condition Finally, click Save to commit the changes low Flow Threshold: 0502 -ulLa- W •jjfl_ Channel Assessed: Yes Vertical Susceptibility Low (Vertical) Watershed Area (ac): 20900 Lateral Suscepthdity Low (Lateral) Manage Map Layers -- PS an "-.,dl Pa—MI Rain Basins ij Sell vpn Select a Toot Toolkit: IlydroMod Tools Toot: Basin Manager - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wnr4niMn d iittp r..'- brwncald.com i'. 'tnnir .UpC.L asp E-' Favorites a uKno. ;1c OCB is now ARC ARC Mapping San Diego uKnc' — Ps'r Sfnt. Tcok ocation Mp Details Manage Beams Result View - Sa,, ('legs Csunt HMF Define Drainage Basins Basin 4 Project Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2 ___!1r7A_fr J 1 Material: Vegetation Roughness: 3o.ioo Channel Top Width (II): [40.0 -- Channel Bottom Width (ft): Channel Height (fit): I° - - Channel Slope: J'i - - We flC i Q Internet I Protected Mode Off CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH 2 uKnow - Windows Internet brwncald.corr Favorites - uKnow OCR t5 no ARC ARC Mapping Sari Diego ogr • I - 4 :ItSITATA isf1r IL 1 0E U&LiiJj*L[ PIIIH1UiiLJFU I iLIii OOtOfl - -- Map Details Manage Basins Result View . ................... £r tq rt.- HMP Define Drainage Basins Basin - Combined UG Storage Bressi Ranch Planning Area 2 Areas [ P01 Manage Map Layers Manage Your Point of Compliance (POC) : Moan Annual tariau Analyze the receiving water at the Point of Compliance by completing this form Click Edit and enter the appropriate fields, then __________________ Channel Suscepthihty IL OW R—. Baon. dickthe Update button to calculate the critical flow and low-flow __________________ ZJ Sol Tipo threshold condition Finally, dick Save to commit the changes Low Flow Threshold: 10502 unm Select a Tool rootkit: HydroMad Tools - Took Basin Manager • Channel Assessed: Yes • Vertical Suscepthihty Low (Vertical) - Watershed Area (ac): 219.00 Lateral SusceptthqNty Low (Lateral) Material: Vegetation Roughness: lo.ioo Channel Top Width (ft): 50.0 • Channel Bottom Width (fit): [5.0 . . Channel Height (ft): F5O .: Channel Slope: 16 Trusted sites I Protected Mode Off - 100% CRITICAL STRESS CALCULATOR RESULTS FOR REACH 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / \ (80521 ) /f 4r 12 11IJ//iidfll( *J DRAINAGE AREA TO HERE IS 186 AC PER PDC STUDY EL. 134.1' ( ' GRAPHIC SCALE ( 0 300 I I I NOTE: 1 INCH = 300 FEET TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING SHOWN HEREON IS FROM CARLSBAD GIS DEPT. AND FROM PDC'S FEBRUARY 2003 BRESSI RANCH DRAINAGE REPORT (SEE INCLUDED PDC WORK MAP). STUDY AREA EXHIBIT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 77 SCALE. BRESSI RANCH I 1001.1 J AES RATOWAL MEO0 NODE NUMBER MAS2, GRADING DRAINAGE MAP () SUB-BASIN ACREAGE UL TIMA TE CONDITiONS a a.. SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY EXHIBIT 'C' INI71AL AREA BO(ANDARY SHEET 2 OF 3 ect Mn Ctan MASS GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS: BRESSI RANCH f IS Fr - . J Hai low SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY FOP0G7A LINT 9401* ON INESE PLANS WAS CJENERAIW 917 POTYJGNUIML7NI MET1IWS FRIll NFVPAMI1ON GATHERED ON. MAY It. 7998 SAN-LO AERIAL SURIOYS TOPOGRAPHY &'40I6I4 NORECHI CC6IYTRWS ID NAITGINAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS. r;l4pj;Tir' CARI 73840 0140. NO. 318-5 AND 374-3 CARL SHAD 0740. Na 386-H LI TI/ERIE STREET 0740. NO. 400-Hf 4140 400-V PTINSETTIA LANE DIG. NC 397-23 & 397-240 7N0U5 16745 840(8147)5 IMPROLEMENTS DIG NO. 400-88 BESIOTNITAL 84018CR! IMPROICVON IS 0740. NO. 400-8 EL CAIAWO 80.41 DIG NO 400-80 N NOT 10 SCALE W•1l t).0I5.0.1_. A REC35TED 07741 ENGINEER OR DC STATE OR CAL1FORMA PRLMELPAILY DOING BUSINESS IN lIFE FIELD or APPliED 5157. MECHANICS 14892577' EERIlY THAT A SAMPliNG ,o*v STUDY OR lIFE SAL CCwOITICWS PFlEAW# 741111W THIS 971' WAS Ii Y IFE DI? i/AVID? MY DIRECTION &T$IEE.N THE DATES OF -_bR1 OD_ v - _ 49, 7140 (2) CIRIPLETE cors or lIFE 51515 RLRANT CSIIREW IRON' 11115 SIWL WIN MT ULL P404 IILNY HAS 81854 SURICT'JD 17) T,I9T TIC 010 ENGIJAEJLR, - A4U- 1). IYL , YAWAM 04510 015CR -, R.CL NO: 45283 ' P DATE J7- IJTE7I'SE fERRÁ liON DATE 09/50/08 PARCEL 57' or 8CR/AVANT ADJUSTMENT 543. DOWUENT NO 1999-0085733 FILE 49 TILE CYIlCE or SAN DECO COUNTY RECORDER. 153, iT. 1999. Si'-EET ff4DEX SHEET I .............................11115 94010 4(00 MAP AND NOTES 94057 L ..... ........ & DETAILS SIREIS 3-31......................MASS ORADTNG PLANS StAXIS 35............_ .....STREET CROSS SECTIONS 9(115 J3,,..............,. EROSION CONTR DETAILS SHEllS 34-62 j&"AS BUI1-7-CONSTRUC11ON 0*18 RI.! I I PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL MICHAEL J. HC41MLJ1R. 618674146 DIRECTOR Icouciioi DATE TO RECOMMENDED BY Q) 15/21051 11218.435.49./4$ (JJA34-\t55k4._DATE Ak I_ AS- BUILT I_I (SIGNED) AS BuILr R. DATE ________ 01. P PROJECTDESIGN CONSLLTATS I Pw..ii • 86fI74i. • 940RMWJW • JUl liS,S.viMI, S.i516o,CA 92111 7719-235IN7I VAX 61X.274O3.4I 4'. . 48, 43. 50, 55, 53, 488, 53 '.0,1.2. 44/_1j4ø__ I I oiJg7L0CTIoT/ GHAW176 TO SII(05r 2{iF. I It#FL,4c# REVISION DESRIP1ON 010 APPROVAL CITY OF CARLSBö1ISHE!SSI 1 EET EHGINEERING 0AR11,4D4T j 2 j MASS GRADING AND EROSION GON1ROL PLANS FOR: BRES' RANCH CT 00-06 NOTE SNEET - - APPROVIIl LLOYD B. HU88S4 - . - 1PROJECT NO. I DRAVLNG NO. I CT 00-176 II 400-8A 1111 IVPBO1CMENT 44CI01( SNAIL CONSIST OR DR C(YvISIRUCIIGV OR ALL 0175 4110 17155 RIAL GRADING. DRAINAGE FACILiTIES, 0109CR CDIAIRCI. FACILITIES AND FREPARA lION OR AS-MT PlANS AS-BUILT 617CI000C MAPS 4610 REPORTS, ALL AS 9107(14 Cl? REGI$RED ON 1(115 SETOR PLANS AND THE 017' STA/,OA405 ERE0.'MCAflCRS. R!WIREMENIS. RESOLUTIONS AND CR01/lANCES altO ON flCSE PLANS. (HE I14PRO1CM9NT (40)98 94AU. BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE 414TH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS CURRENT AT THE TIME OF CONSTUUC1JCHA, AS DIRECTED BY TILE CITY ENGINEER. I. CARLSBAD M1.H8OPAL CODE 2 CITY OR CARLSBAD STANDARDS .3 17115 SET OF BEANS 4 F7ESOLUTIA'JS NO, 5207, 5205 5203. 5204. 5205, 5206, 5207, 5208 & 5705 0MW MAY .17, 2002. S THE STANDARD SPECIF7CA ITCHES FOR PUBLIC 40040$ CONSTRUCTION (GILEEN 800*) 1)4! SOILS ((PORT 111157) SUFPLEVENTAL OROTEOF/IICAL INVESTIGATION 10(7 MASS ORADINS 89899 404*0(4, CARLSBAD, CA' PREPARED BY WLSITEW AND ASSOCIATES 04150 UARLII 14, 2007. DR SAN DIEGO AREA REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS AND AS MAYBE NOTIFIED BY THE 077' OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS, DOCUMENT NO. 769332. 8 IDINRONMENTAL APPROVAL DOCUMENTS 04101) 12115/98, LEN ITEM SS'M9OL PROJECT BOUNDARY ------- ------------- - -- - PLANMING AREA BOUNDARY ------------------------ ------ - EXISOI'/G DERIIOIIR -------------- ------------ --------.. 114457127) CCIVTDIJR ----- - ------------ - ------ 2.3O- FEWSIIED SPOT O.EV ----------- air SLOPE ----------- ------ SI FILL SLOPE DATLODIIT LINE ---- --------------------"---------- - - DANJCI,'T 10 NAWRAL------------------------------- -*.---1II--_ 27 65 lOW. CIEBETAIGA BASIN --------------- STANDARD DRAIIONI3 05-3' ----------- - 37,440 LF 81.4010 SWALE --- ----- -------- DETAIL 94757 33------- 2070 IF CONG BROW DITCH 0-75 1117(8--------- iiii 4? EA SETT1IME?AT MI3(WITSILINO STATh'JNS ----PER SOILS REPORT ------ PROJECT LOCATiON 17715 INFORMATION (MST AMERICAN 11751) SEE 94801 32 -----' () NO7E' At STANDARD DNA 14KG NUMBERS BiTER TO SAN DIEGO AREA REGIONAL STANDARD DRAM/OS 1)175 PRO.ECFIS LOCATED IlIliRN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER(S) 194015$ OIKERBRE W01C4 lEE: 21j.530-17 & 273-030-18 • CITY OF CARLSBAD SI.IPPWAtNTAL STANDARD DNA F6NC - TEMPORARY DEBLTATICHA BASIN IlIC CALIFEINTOA COMMA FE INDEX OR TIlTS PROLCY IS 1 0(171(1 AND CAPACITY TABLE. 199IK6252 (LAMBERT COMMA MS 346-1696) NAME: WINAR 8*2957 NULlS/RE UC ADDRESS 57807 FLEET STREET 57.71! 320 CARLSBAD, CA. 92068 PlI15( (760) 978-7765 OWNERS CERTYRCATE I (ii!) MERESr ff) THAT A REGISTERED 5005174098310 LW GEOLOGIST HAS BEEN AN 981 98 RETAINED TO SE ONER-ALL 0*40110 ACTIVITY 450 ADVISE OR 1)11 0011PAC71O'A AND it__ pt4q it 0L 032205 0221 02244 080204 017405 P82505 SECTION 4216/4217 or THE GONERNIIThT COOE REQUIRES A DIG ALERT RENIIFICA 770R NUMBER OF '59)57) HERON! A PERMIT TO £YCAVA ir 14*5 98 VALID. FOR 77)14? AG ALERT LO. NIJMHEIL GFU UOLIIGITrAJNO SERVICE ALERt TIlL 09ff 1-900-422 4W 1740) WQWLWC OATS BERORt YOU DIE EARTHWORK FRL 55811000 Cy. OUT, 5725000Cr. R01E7XAL_2.770.000 CY WPONT/t94ORli OCT. BEW..HMAP OR%4#' 1*455 GIl çCI4CEIEINAS7j4NDAFID 9471Cr OR EL CAWJFO BElL OC4IJ0(I ONINTT -D,-!20 9(NAR1( DeSIGII4j1(.W_NO. R7800 28889t4 010411CR iL407M., 041799: 4E13 YE: 29 1 • 4-4Qf4O'5d9 07/07/270.7 0550.0 AM -Sr - 'DECLARATiON OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER or WORK FOR 1)415 PROJECT. THAI I KANE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OR THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE AND THAT THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT INIK CURRENT STANDARDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT 1741 CHECK CA PROJECT DRAIIINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DOES NOT 171771 NE ME. AS ENGINEER OF I4VRI(, OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN. FIRM: PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS oftssl ADDRESS:707U STREET, _SUITE 800 M. 011 STATE., SAN DIEGO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE: (679)235-6477 Exp. 07-15-03 GREGORY M. SHIELDS \\.. CivIl. R.C.E. NO. 42957 REGISTRATION EXPIRATION DATE: 07/75/03 DATE: III I : I '. SEE T3 sow DRAW, /on NO I I . • ..'./ I I I a SDUE A3S MAX I I 1 I iL SDGE D3TX' Ile I H .. I 11 4 a.SyA,5.1rL rikli- Ca / .'. / I . I: •/ I I II I 14 H PLAIVNING AREA 43 I I I I" 1 J I EAIT _. 0' " / F flNAL U4P - - / i i i I 1 4 . •1 . / R.201I l I.IgIjr.o, 1' L-49&40 IIJ it ! I - c I /f !ANJSWAL(\ 17 e1i ( : \... 5O L.4NOSCAPE .\ I I ___-___\ \ .... i LA009W7 i 1•' zrfl.4A-A. • i.-. 1 (1 .-A MA-m r1wAr FUR S?1 A0O?i1S . I i 'I . .-4P P FEll WV GAAD SID S US. W AN. PLEASE SEE CfFY OF 91T. 32 1 1 C*An LM DW No 58" Q-2015 eft I II t' : A moo, C" VNE ! #" ()CAUWM _-- I OA*Y n 9MLL C41IALV HAND ex -Z-FtET . 3 - . — . . . . .. - Or IlL NAIIX?AL GAS IR4 R2O4OO AWAM . NO POI A1W £IRNT .91W A1ZOED lIII 2-l!Zt /1. . I.' - - F FEll ./'• I - - lIE NAItR GAS IRA4 FVJIt • a I +. - .. - - MAP I I 1*00 - - .. .-- . .........-I I 1 Sl4AAI4OfIJEl .5. . - YRDO I ... MfVAObEliOET PER Oft.ar / . CARLSSW DOM NO.4I / I / R 1-147.00 ./N. .-. / •__I / // l iii 4 I -4 II I / / I — 12 \ PLANNING -- N. I ATIANCE / I sw SHEET f5 t ______ I D a ADO A5S LM SVAL - — — N t — 0w nzv. p- t0II PAD (00 — - i' CITY OF C -73 ARLSBAD I w 9 ooiiff. omii 62 I ESS a/v 4S-JILT MASS GRACING PLANS FOR: AS 8uIL RANW I POJBCID1C(VLZ4NL 1* HO 42TI — — - — — CA AO C41FA 0 20 40 80 0 ' W'J PLQsSV • • • 1Ir ' (. 03-31-04 - - __________________________ — 701 SnDiWN CA 92101 1' . C4v4 RCE DATE CRAP/I/CAL SCALE . -CAI,%F CT SPECTOR DATE — -- REVISION DESCRP1ON or"pRoY1 WV APPROVAL IRVWD B- NONE T\gI22*4\MASS.CTts_g.-oct\2244-ORLO944.0 I1/23/2013 083108 4$ PST I 4 4 I I 4N 2 .2 I i I 1 4 .. .4 I.. . / 'I' . I / •. 1 / •. / J I N ' I t' - -A1Y FAII W SARI fo I PLANNING -AREA :" t -I. •-\/,/';/ ..•H LOT 3 --.1 Pat -- - i—svT J2 - - - - rr - - -- - / - PE OTT CAAO sia 05-3 - - - I - - - - A05 AREA-IS AC --- -.- 1,3.- - - -. - - - hr.rpni.,. w,t, SVE. / / I - - --- —1 91T. 32 samaw =140 Am WE Me .pip 01012 Na - AIL ai 400- - / ,_7W4LE 1 . - .. - -. 2 . . -'-. . - 4 ¶ . --_- / _J. TWEA-4 0 .- - . 5f ••• . . . .. . ..- 350 _.__ . . __ — I - I R..400\ - - - -w • - I .-&' 1 - a4 ROAO L..3167 23*-8564 LT R-2000 - 0 7901 U #501 00 LT - - .--. - ' > - - TWE A-4 •. -. •. -. . •- - - -. - ..- -: - . - -. • -. . . . . - -° - • / flW A 5 CO RN S L-24544 ---.-----.- - . - -. . • . .. . . - - . - Ui . . - 1 - - . . - - N893025W .. - - - - - - . - I .. ..• - -. , - - - - . I I - --- / I '1 I .. - 4RLA0 0B IQ 400-s - -.-.. S S - ---------- 44 17 - _5___ •__ --_ W-4 AD)N F -- PLANNING AREA 8 F 1 C I *I 1 il . \C - LOT8 . •... F S. - -/ -_----------- — -- .. ... . .-:: -......•.••..• --:.- ....... .• - (TWAi) ., .11 II • I -- - - _I•••- - -- .. /45736 I 4 - •- I 4_ - - - - .5-.-- __________ - .-- :1 .. - .. .--_. - .- -........ . •-. -, - -. - -. ../ -- I II f . . -.. . . - -_ I AR PLANN/NA it ex --4 - - - smr. 32 Jolf FL iiii Ara 400-4D _-- - - I MY OF CARLSBAD 1 N - ___- .45-aUU-T - - 10 DNRPIG Dm2WP41 [jj I — — — — I - AS BuILr 619-235-& 1 FAX 619-23443" EXP. GRAPHICAL SCALE DAX I C Icr R9tD By. • • - DAIE 7N4flA r I I)IW RY,_II pQ41ry I I . '-' orm I I A RtS4ON DEScRON A - og Cf ãa-oJ 1 8A' !I/Pfl/Pflfll flT.P9,7 4 pj - 4N. 224400 - -Fl I 1:J I . I 'FA . . I AVED \PLANNJNAREA 3 \ I LOT 3 _1- -'I' --:-•--- '.- --- ---- -----. -- / " .' / PE7 arr CA4D -- / /' /• / . .....\ T----— . .. — -- --- I - - -- - - —t- - — - DESMIS WU)W (0Y)-4X Cr Syr. m _\ - .• - . .. . -. . . . . , - I DETAIL ON 8* 32 \ - - - S7IV AM CDC P ONC I 4- . . . / 7••-: (flC4L) -- . - . . .. . .- .. (flj) •. ,- - / ( :- -- — / Ti 10 inct I _c_- -- - - -- ------=-- _-_ --- -s-- — - _ -=--- ------- = -- - . - 0A7E'WAY ROAD L:3767 LT -'000 5#0 ipo - - 501 ô *-8q,677 Ca - -- - .Rw -• . .. .— .- 1 •.•• 1! •;•CIMOM ' - ---- . -- ..!-Y. - ' , -.t" : . ..• '. S.-'-- - CA TOY MWV VMW ' I - C4RLAD 0 NO 400-0 I .- - . . . . . .• - .. . II 334.0 Ft . -- - - --- — -- - -' & / / R€FER •m -- -, DV I , .••..- .,- ....-• .. .. - J . . . r fr9RADINPN - --- -, -- - AREA 6- c — --: -1I-. •" ., ' 1\ T \C LOT 8 •..•--••.- . ---- - (flI9C4L) -- - - - .--• I •........ •. . I. / • . • -- I U- . - - -••-. - - :•. -- -----4 __• • -. - ,. •• - ,ry2sr.- JJ I - . • . — — - - ••-• - .-• •-I-. ••••. - - .-•- • • . / • •. . • .•• •-,- / • •-• I . I I . ----.. ..—.-. -. - - - — — - - .- - — I - - ;'.- - /43736 -i:• NO? TJ5 . - _. PLAAWINAR ..: £': •1 -- -:---. i = / ----- . .. - -- •, .-..-•'_•/.. ---.--- II.11 I - - -.--• - . • -.. --............. #a' OIL II ,- LI1II I I - *xxir si.w oøs -- -, • . • - /.........- - ar a' oo_ __ - 3 or 0t7—.1i II I I I - —.---- / 1/ // 1- - I - — -- eol - - - - - A 39EET16 EA = ' ar OF CARLSBAD /A AMM.PA-1 LOPERED PAD GRADES I _ s-cr 10 io o*in 62 "AS BuILr _________ II ASS*DCPIJ34S FM SM39 AWN PomcrDHC4iiLmR1s ((( - C4RL,i4 CALFUMA o 20 4004 IL 80 1 6011 • • £ç. 03-I-04 -'- — -il F19 "MEM -r - U13s4IFA36239 92101 q&jk EXP. •• DATE t'?AP1-?/CAL SCALE amn •• •, 'f€ DAN BY: __,J PROECT NO. j DA/G No. ) — — — — — CI4KD 8Y CT 00-06 400-8A II C A1t 4C116 a' REMSON DES RIP11O1 onp CITY pcov* IRVO B __________ 2 'I/PII/?fl//I tR/ NM -s - /N 22 FA It 4 - I - - 'N 'N, " I •.' CAMMIt N, S7IOX•AND W3MANS M ,vo v &xn a aEb4 O IA7ftY F L411 I \ N N I 's I - DOW 10 I RN I I 11ONA-A I'. II '. - I •-/ , _—Y. "-PLANMNG AREA -• LOT2 77 TME mm r i! 85. t 14 j. OT coommulliv 1 \\ \ / •\ I L I ISA / mi p MOV 11PAINAMIS iL , - •1'. -. -- ij i iii ---- I I I I 1'lt I I l !:10 11$1 III I1 JIII1 I t Ii 11 I I I I I 1 I I I I I .1 t i ary _ - 1 \ 1 Oi_ \ \\ \ APP -- /7€5V / t"- DEEM UDb.g44CT VOR \ \•••• 'j IT iX-TAi _95i 3- RFRAP 10 rr ' ID ,TOW7' RpAD I/ / 828J 973W j ' - j - / - . - - - - / - - r / 7 N89488t i 2J It ---/ 4 1 / ( / ///; I \\ \ 1\ \ I - -..-•.o .j//i/ /_•. .4. .fji' CLASS W? FAB t142 -- •-,'" t-n4cxy4;-.l7/8Av IP2M 4 - \ N I I ...._ • . _, — _________________________ I I i ______________ SHEET CITY OFCARLSBAD ll I SSi0 - - __________________________ _L.... - - pi M3 FM I . AS BuILr ORESY RANCH CARLSB 1 . PRaJEcrDIcfrJCor&jLmNm (( 42951 AO CALFtA I0 20 40 80 120 aøwm&.'---- - .a RCE DATE JLT :— - 619-235-6471 FAX 61%LU-8349 IN 2244O0 n '.?24-QD)6.d.o 01/08/2003 011942 Pm PST I . - - --- -- - 4 - t I I I l E IT 15 ; IL At 2I f"1 i i '\ 8 \\. \ \t\ • It EIFAOKII OF9PA PER 4? PROPosto DDOAW It EN cc IOU jr T4 7VII $ if / ' If VIC 'w PACE 1 i f PROrVCL4DS7DOS-.1 P I I DftA#IA(E ARIA-U AC C I 11 I I F)VAL I I T k aors Iif7 V' S.' j j Si , I / I i ç if 5. S * if if Ji r, '..'. / / ) / / '1 \ •N..____J if PROJECT VOLNIVARY LOW JFA lit It ='1Lyoa== OR afVA WIN Em OF PPECT Rf OCAVAMP SMALL tdJ flk.LYNARO DIC NI 2-lifT r -•'i . S if OF ?Pt NA7l.ifAL GAS 1Rm9ASSif FPWL I rim if NO PO A7if tQCC4T 9MIL ALLOD WII* 2-lifT DUOif PER 0 7 I S MY po -__ - I Al ________ iI CITY OF CARLSBAD 0* FF"20 ENGINEERIN(I DEPARTMENT 62 I I. ss,o :: AS-BUILT ----+ MASS AflIO PLANS eCz b if %CflONA-A AS BUILT` PkoJPc.rDPSICPiCoNsvLVW1S W 42951 7. 61"54471 FAX 619-2)4-03@9 CIVIL RCE *Z;_ EXPkil-I GRAPHICAL SCALE mI 01, IN- BY. OWN "Y" PROJECT NO. CHKD DATE WATIAL ALI DATE irrnAL IRVWD sy7VJ L CT 00-06 1 4W-8A INSPECTOR WON REVISION DESCRIPTION 7h-L'I. &L* II IV,% I ;k I" OTAM APPROVA4 CITY APPROVAL C4AD. CA1fCMA 1. T/Y,\44'MSS-GPD\,.,s.g,th.g\2244'GRtif200tQ Oif/G8/003 ifI PM PST &t I244.UO I I I I I . 022103.J - STORM DRAIN DATA NO, 07,64-A OF 860 AOIUS(ft 4-160741(6) REMARKS N$7172 44W 440,00 42 R (l35oo)1 2 N2404'578 ----- 28,94 35' RON (4350-0) 3 45'VO'OO 110.00 ----- 86.39 36 RON (7350-0) 1 4- N2020'03T ------ 94549 36 RIP (1350-0) 669 1)4 58'W 20,091 30 RIP (4350-0) 4- 66904'58'W ----- 30.00 30 RIP (1390-0) 4 7 66904'58'W ----- 72.00 30' RIP (4350-0)1! 7 8 62055'021E ----- 10,00 18' RON (1350-0) N20.502T ---- - 44.00 78' RON (4350-0) 1 I NZO1)5'Oi'S 6664 24 RIP (1350-0) 1 1 443048' 30500 22099 24 RIP (7350-0) t I 151415t {1ft ff PER Dal t II 16 1 so 28 LOO ttU1 H 41 4 1 :H t1 P't 1+ 1tJ41 . 4 6 f I •N- i?r 4-t AJ 4- 1''± T 4- ' _8P 26is1 .®1LlL k .c t 4 .i.4 - - I.. .' .j 2682 12- PW WFR 259J8 4 _____ . 4 I I . .T--._. ..24- + + I -*--- --4 "Ti- ----i _,....... -"'' I - t '1' .. - No400- ' 269.7Z PER - 1 + 4 : ®. u '-:44 '•® 4- " 1 CD 4 + 48 R(-1I.00LF . 4- . -.._, . 4- " 4' 4 •' . . . . . . -44* 2 1 4- JLi1I_i1 tll: ___ IT 2T. W* 111TJ't . ., 260 -\ \ 26 -' -------22O---- l 'tl'l ' .. .4 °' 4-, ..•39'R._054J • 44 . .,,4, .+•.4 4---., .4 '4 ' l F - 4-. _--.4-. .4 .4 .4 - .4 4 - -• - - L. •.4=.4.4.4+4•.4 .4 '.4 + Q4çf,, - - 4 412 PROFILE ST0 'DRAIN '4-" '' 4 .1. .4 . . 4- . I ,6 '' 4' .'44' .4' .4 .,.4 -.4' 4 -V.-9.,, .....i .4•.4 Fl 'STA.8+100 •' -I I- .4 LCA4L NLWIZ I..40 9t44Tl4 4- 4- I '4 T + - 1 + I PROFILEI 'Si OHM V4J'4 . 1' PROFILE. STORM DRAIN ST 5+2006 STORM DRAW Ic NET. STA +9500 4- 4- PROFIL 1 STORM DRAIN 4- srA 8+10 oo I r2 l - 4-SRI 44 4 4L0. 120'B I 4 V • SCAL0. '4r'2. 4.46 4-664- 4 4 - SC.4L6. H0SZ I 40 4-661. 4 - 4 , - 9416I NO44Z 1-40' WRI I,-4, - #'/CAU44ON 6400 7+00 8+00 7400 8400 9+00 10400 0094-764014-P 10 71(60 4-€707'Y . 0(PTNA50LOCIIICAV(FE)251141030' rAS .4 I WAIENTIGHT "IS - I - - PLANNING - .,'I -- \ # ADO). 00 ADO). COMER 04-ER RORFOFONC 616(64-6054(2.07 AREA 2 - .4. - - - " . J7 ..44 ' -, - -COMER 04-SR RE.WFORONC s,m MD (2.0) 1 .4 11 14'LONG Y 16' WOE CURB OA.ET STA 00 PLANNING LOT 2 7 -- ,. - . -j- 8" SENER PER , • AREA N 8 - - / 5 7760K 3,'4' 4-07 4/2' RAg LOT I S''' ' / ' - 8W N0. - - / PER 080,I009 ITA V<' SDG & E NOTE - "- ' • -4- -- • / \\ -' I. 94-C OXCA VA 70'? 544-ALL CAR711ELY HANOI 040 497694 2-FlU '.-+ • 1 • - - i. 4-' • OPEN SPACE OF INS NATURAL GAS IRORSMISS1(W 4-8.40 - - T 17 2. 60 P086)? OF(RAIEV EQC8P8IUIT 94-ALL 81 ALLO8!I) 4944149 2-1(61 OF ANY POFfl76l OF 7)11,447)1647, GAS 56404-4-- ' .- - .4 ' • 4-611. 1"BARN PER DWC - - - 28R94' DWM Ha 400-8 NO. 400-6.4 'C) - 'a0,ANChM PER SDP505-9 \ I TON RIP-RAP .54' ir 8611 o86R FLIER \ . OISSPAT PLAN: TOWN GARDEN ROAD- - EOUAL \ \ - -- ) T-/ 0-41 scALrr.ao - - TO - -" 0 20 40 80 120 BENCH MARK _____________ OESONIPIIOA4-: 164S6 04-94 94 CC.'ACRSlE II A STANDARD SUR4-6Y 86,L 094- - ON IIIYIJRF 04- &6W72R04,6 4-00477095 COUNTY OF SIN 00 6681284-IRK 074-A1l094- 84800 21W+C PkQ,ECFDESIGN CONSULTANTS ftAHWG • • • Pi 704918.8.7.4.86. S...01.n.CA 72101 WIO.2354111 FAX 649234.0349 ___________________________ 9,01FESSIO, Il tOo. 42951 IWjl o. tIp. 07-15-03 * * civm WF Co. .844 04W 49.8701101 I I 0.6VA 4-4065- 374.40744-64. DAIWA 14.0,1.6. 29 Pb no. n.. I3 • • - - fl40(9YI4096CBY _____ - "FABRIC MARAR 7005 • 4_ ,, / 0094-044071 (NSRGY I 6076. Fd? MASS QWW SEE 0040 Na 535 4-OF MPPO4-65821T 494N6 04440 NO 400-8 PRIVATE CONTRACT ______ A5 BUILT' 4.4 .46 .11.07 RC6.4__. EXP _91_r DATE L,9I1E WED BY: 40.0 _______ nOI CITY OF CARLSBAD _ENNEERING DEPAR1N4ENT I_27I I PLANS FOR THE IMPROWNIENT OF: aESS1 RANCH RESDBYTZAL I I. TOWN GARDBV ROAD STG*A 0R41'l IAPPROtD,U.OYDB.I1UBBS oP DR49ES12-3.-05 104-494 BY, 24K0 BY:1 9694-V BY: j [ PROJECT NO. 11 CT 00-06 _____________________ 400-8C -WA-TIE INITIAL 07 DATE ORA%'ONG NO. DICINM I INITIAL DAlE INIllAL 01)66 APPR0V 011 6PPROVAL ) 071 003 # 4007. 1005,0 005,0 IlEANDYDNE sra R40V (is) 8wALrHsBevE1.a,ro90p.$6 BENCH MARK - SER3771O'4: -BRASS-DOW I1 CCWCREIE $6 A STAM)AR0 S1$6IPY $67.1 DV 91 0EN1ERL# El. 04.14640 REAL 407 LOlA ll COUNTY SAN lCO 00ROIIARK SIATIO'A NO R1 28898800 EM VA 11001. 31:40714.3.1. 0AI1.AN NOvO PRIVATE CONTRACT i AS BUILT' _________________________ DATE E4'tlE/ _6_ pcLgi _ _ ci_- ______ DATE -7 I I [ECT I_5 _I_ENGINCERSAG DEPARIMENT [ CITY OF CARLSBAD 27 1 up000iT OF- MEW RAN CH RESVENnAL TOWN Q4J ROAD STOW 8. HUBBS.fr £76005 I2 o QLR PER0-E) LLOYD 1/0/04 AW ADDED LAMRALS 1-3/ 109.04 BY RVV+DBY: _BY: _CT00-06 PRO.4.CT NO. i _________ DRAYONG No. 1 __400-8C a' oao DATE IINI'flM. )fGwm OTHER REMSION D 889400 OTY APPROVAl. i) &N4O3640W - 3.25 18 PER (:350) I 4007. COlOR OOER RE50TRC1NE 5lE RE0 (1.5) W 8 G1NS 8000110 TONE 090 $ STORM DRAIN DATA NO. 1 011 TO OR $640 4(4.15(11 W1G111(f1* PLIIARPS 1I N20550tE ----- 9.184 1 3680P (1350) :0Iazass'or.. 3+9.00 l21.11. I io lea' (:350) (I>( 53 ___________ ($I 2620LW _!P _.2. (:350) C) I N1771I6W -- 41200 30 R. ER (1350) I ®I N*72IJPW - 30RER (1350)1 -35.00 4.3.25 :8* PER (:350) () N4lE047'w 400 1$ ( 4'6942' 0000 7576 004 NCR (1550-0) ( 0'57'25 379 5.33 50-V NCR (1350)0 I I - - - - - I - I - I - I •II I - - I (:itt_t flt iff T[ Ur LIF H, *J: th f tt tH - +iTtl- ¶ t 1fr91 I 1 ~10ThTh4 1\ L + 211 If Jrfft.4 IF OUT 239.67 T4+LIL it 1Iikir. t RCP St. 41 LF 0 18M I 4 C t J0R-'4000 rO2ZOS2'\\II - * - * 1 + .4 - V NCL $ 4- * 4 .. '--b -- I t - '- -- - - ' -t fTO-3?.8cf3 - 2J0*S \\NI ---t -r 4 V * , $ 4 .1 2WT70I9 *tCZlT22944 4 ,28o_t0. -;7o10 59 0,0 I ii i I I 554 J_.Lt_I8 ..!5LF02s.J I J I +Lf 7 t If it! ': f -----° 27 270- (+ $9! S s.y cc.B itEr • STA --V PRORLE STORM DRAIN STA.._12+49 - PROL ......... .... . ( . 4th S..2 H r.4' T . ... 1--40' I . - . . E- .TOwNa 4RD_ROAD . 4 ..,, i .r *. 4jjf'' I I •- ,,-.-. . ..V 4 +.. '---' .____i._.._ .: ________ io+oo n+oo 12+00 13+00 14+00 V - ___V -TIo- I. BPEROWO. HO 40084 PLANNING AREA LOT 2 13934.33 7&42 CDV ANERW? - I - - - 77J 4. flTTJ I 8 OW WIR \ 000 NO. 400-8 ,50ALP ?JZV 4O , PER 000 90. 400-8 - ,.. ./ %. PLANNING NOIO AREA 2. FCR MASS GRALING SU OW. NO. 400-84 LOT 2 V MR W.POOHO$ENT PLANS SEE 0140 90 400-8 OPEN SPACE LOT 17 .0 SEllER PER -...._ 0140 NO 400-8 PLAN: TOWN GARDEN ROAD SCALE* 7 = rESSI z.-. I PRQIECTDEIGN C&MITAMS V I I(-I II1 701001., .5,10 $6. S.oD=,.CA 02011 No. 42851 .jj 0 20 40 80 / 0 019.2)5.6411 FAX 610.231.0340 E.P. 07-15-03 c or IF *1 5041L -W IØ I: \107 \E/44 \M+.(.1fl) \)rOrm UrIS, \0e510011.OJ 770 TS-2U1A,.(Jwg liif(9/IWJ 10.-JO; 19 AM PSI 032205 071003 -I I I 032205 071603 I I TTr1t.41 It 'f t •: T-1 ll~ 14 4 fl F.+i --.w AOCANIr Wfl I I + - - I t * 1 1 t + t- -- -- --•- 4 -H . 8 PC W1R 301.58 pspr. HIM joaso I 4- -4----' + t h /:1t 47 T; Hkf 4ftPER07WJNaf84 °040O8t*f1.' 1-Tj 4 -1- 4-t :__ 11E ! LtXLEr cm SrA 102+9; 4 4 ___ 1 ________ 1 f + -4 {-j7- * _- - -/ - --,.- - -i. - + ------------- -i--- - t -i -'--1-- -240- - . - -I-- . . . . - g_ _ >_ g_ • Ir RCP ail NN I + I EXISTING G?WAV-++ 4 + FVW FINISH WAVE 4w RCP- () I " PROP STORM DRAIN Si A 108+00 - 0 cfw7vuw OF 5.0 *60711 I -40 8RT I 4 t? '_ 41__ - CtAB MET 8 • T 108+0000 Ct.* NET • STA =+0a00 1 4 + SCAM I 20 *6 6 V PMW 1-20 4 V 103+00 104+00 ios+oo . IuIl0 tt+oo +oo -* °MO.-'- - •..f F /-/-I PRØ)9LE:A4iCANTEROAD - 7 IsALHz1'-6o:r.)'-4 CM50*6R0(A40 108+00 109+00 fl0400 SEE SlEET6 THICK By 24'LONG &Y I Li . : ' rowNGAR0ENA \Z A0AL068' * I 1 77cacJ/4 11/2' 1+. 5905. EJ4LRCYOOSWATOR PER APWA 575.386-, CLEAMOUT 7+29.81 SEE S~ffl` 26 PER CA9L 2505.5.0*65. - - * ANCHORS PER _ I 106+00 107+00 SA .ws-9 7 \ 1597235.88 IPAThWC PER -J/ IS 00T 235.55 P69 *60 400-84 ZtTLV 9 Q OPEN SPA CE \ 5CM L7 ,/L,1/r ROAD LOT 17 ,- c'oo8 SI , 8*64-5.05.711*6 36.jL 7 Lt_RQA2 -i r -_+..--- Ill '7 00 - zQw STORM DRAIN DATA *65. 0(27A (57065. ALSUS(II W6GI)II RDIA06S *685.020616 - 29.81 60' 60' RC (:350-0)+ irn 2 425844' 1TI2 60' R (1350-0)t 11/ 401956 720.00 --- 60' R(2000-Q)t • N105754'F 13271 60' RCP (7350-0It 26.0;. 60' RCP (7350-P)t Ifi 93559' 28200 47.42 60' RCP (1350-0)tI! 60' RCP 03 olt(A - IVII4235'W 192.90 0 799056' 37.500 ----- i7 &0 R(i0-D)tN I N077821 60S(5'f2QOO-O)jp NO5V649t --- 4775 60 RCP I H02t03'43'E 92.90 24' RCP(I350-0) 15711 81.100 27.71 24 RIP (7350-0) Qjb ,+039754'r 55.27 24' RCP (,350-0)t 35.7228' 45.00 24 RCP Wt N351434'W --- 5381 24 RIP (2000-p)t *655,97616 84.30 30 RP (7350-0) to,7409*45*59 = .10' RIP (7350-0) AI N85.45.59E 6200 30' RIP' (7350-0) I-lI 085.46 59E .10' (5OP 1404 P4879l 716 ----- 5.25 '8' RIP (:320-0) *68759171, - 37.25 18' RIP (1350-0) H88 7'42T _±I?_ 78' RIP (7350-0) M887 42 30.21 I8 RCP(,.350-0) I I I I-L' JPER OII000 400-8 E1, n75.cvsuo*5 SEE OIL 94523 .j.- +-.- 1. I -; .--.- - I I I 1015*76.71 pcc I- J°A0- CT Lu f ... - cc - I0#10 8, Pw sw PER ______ OWU Na 400--8 TT FOR FROFLES ._tc Q 5..0 - PLANNING 705+4384 -. 27.50 RE-' - 13*65 C.4lGI4 845W o,I 2505. AREA 10 TIME 4-4' CD ANCHORS CR LOT 10 SAM S-9 &RALWICPOYO 1L nPsrCATCH - - 069 *60 400-84 -. - BASiN ow s 40' BENCH MARK r - 480 OUR. RI IEARI 00l 15496 PER 0715. NO. 405-8.4 - z_ 0 20 40 80 120 05SIPIPI1IPS 06ASS 006 IN GIR01t IN A STANDARD 264YOU 04 OF 01. 5.4*4960 RCA!. 505.4004: C7z#01ff OF SAN MW WOWARK 059(5541707 NO. RIM 288489(5. £LEVA000* 3II.407M5.L. DA *6.5.6.0.29 I \Eoj+\2244MAfS-GRD\Slorm I3rwn\Res.deqit4ol\Res-5015.dwg 03/79/2003 04.07.14 P54 P57 PLAN: ALICAN7E ROAD PRuEcrDEsiai' COTAwIs ftAWWW • 80IMMOMML • • 701 II 0*257.5.io *50, 5, Q.o. CA *2101 13 N. 42951 619-237*6471 FAX 679-234-0346 690*570. LL 41957 040 07_l5.67 S#6CV 96 or IN ADDI. COVER OVER REWORCM STEEL RE01). (Z5) I-I I I NOTE. FOR ""S 04 ____44 I I_FOR OPPONMENTPLANS SEE 01715.*60.400-8 PRIVATE CON_ AC1 'AS BUILT' ____________________ 1-11-607 0*115 RCE4'lf _EXP.3' r B-S _ I_I SHEET I[ 15 Ii crrr OFCARLSBADJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT [!!} rA.S FUN THE PMPROVE14T OF. ESS4NCHPESVBflAL ALICANTE ROAD STOW 4t1 LILO.SL_L NGNM APPROVED: LLOYD B. HUBBS#P' CYPIRCS 12-31-05 07*64 BY:.0I 5.74+50 BY PROJECT NO. I cr co-os J _ ORAV4NG NO. Lwo-8c *638 J 4-8P06 ____ DATE INITIAL. RE\+ISION DESCRIPTION 2244.051 1 ft tft 4*4fft 1L41 kk HH + + t t—T. 4 ±'4 __ L 1-4 iILLLIiJ_LJ..LIi]ILl11 ___ : _JHi LL HI't'ij I \Tfji, ;+"i --tt--1 tJ1HLVH1 lHfl' I4ftfh14: tt 4tr —4. 44A 1If tuttt1 1 •4- 44 4.4---! -i 4 t t • + . t—.-f-t ,-- .- ., ..+ . 4 .-1 . _..L - • \. - - a---. 1 4Rtgn 296.10 -_+ i-n--. Jr •..+--- .-+--.---+-4 -- .. L1 •j. •'-'L •_iI_ . 1 1i.—----;L B()77V1C I 1'I t!1 4 f I I S ROAD PR + —r--- •4--- i- • i.9ASW 29Z; PO I -•' t- 41! /14 t-t -'•i . .i-.f . :-- NO.400 t LL -I- -e- 4 1 - + 4 + 1 + 4 - ----- — j 4 + M 240--- . .------.. . — .--- ,. ,. ----24) . -I-I- 4 . 19O .• Ifl(A . 4 I.. I ,. 4.4 •4 - , I ' • 44 1 . -l-14 l4i'--t. .9_IO4•OO n 70 r-air fps CIA SEEP PER _____ ----280-- — 25 O.C.CO ANCHORS PER NC. - •180- - •_.• •4 ••. •. ,. . ._... 4 _....4 .9. -4 ..4... . 4.•L + S-9 - 4- .-- P RL&STORMDRAII. •.•44' RE CE 1, I, I V28s' . I AIJCANTE ROAD STA. 1029744 4 OPEN I - - •- •- - .- - - • -- - H09119-40'IERI.9-4 .- ---------STORM - FOR S Oft DRAW PLAN WW WE 94EFT I 1220— 0 11 - - - ; '- 91 IWA1ERfl4T 4 - - •4___4_j -. Ile I art 4.- 9 f I - . I: I e:'cR09s ____________ - ______ ____________ —. . . I - - : - 1 . - : • •. - . * . OPEN SPACE .. . I - p - 1 . I - . . .• .•. • SEEPLANSHEETO.I5 114 TON CLASS RIPRAP / 35 ac cc I wftsL7rR YAB.W i&n . - ANØCPS PEP - - - - - -_.)-i - - - - - - . . 700X(APPROIWF.WJAL) - - E)OST. / . SR9) 5-9 • - . OR 6 I944Q( 3/4 -1 7/2 BASE - - 0 UN7 / • . . . • • - / - - I U5MT OF STORM DRAIN DATA NO DaTA OF 8kAOFlS(II4LtJ46m(ft RYAL4RKS ( 1171 YZ55E ---- 704.00 30 1175' (4150-0) t I N712255S ----- 704.00 24 1175' (7350-0) ti Ii 032205 011003 PER APWA !V. J84-1 - LIEPT &F-RAP 2,0 i-__*_• ...-- * - PROFILE: STOW ALICANTE ROAD DRAIN - STA 105+50 - DOCK S/4707 BASE • • . - SCAM' NWBZ FOR SIOI4M ORAIV FU19 SNI 1=4 -. NEW ZE 55ET 15 - I Is • . . • . . • - FOR PLAN I'lEW SEE SHEET 15 16 PU PSI v - .-. ,•_ •OR 6- TWCK MX (APPROWD EWNEEP4MFJ4TAL I U6775 -- -- - -• • I I . - IPRORLE STORM DRAIN, •'f AL CAN ROAD-•S405+60 ass — - - - 4W HGWZ 7=40 ISRT.1=4 . FABrOC M91A#7 F 5775W OSIRJ PLAN NEW WILEY 75 - . lOSS (APO4SS tOnAL) 0 6. 774EP 3/4-7 nir SASE • - . • o 20 40 80 120 P PRLO)ECTDESIGN CONSULTANTS lOP II 556. S KO. S Dio. CA 92101 No, 42951 PU7Ie • &ftW4TM • • 6194)54A71 TAX 649-294-0449 J_.k 1V-O) Li ws n - - k .—•:--- EPALONC P671 - - . - \ \ D9$ NO. 400-8A OOVN6 400-BA PLAN: OPEN SPACE 1 STORM DRAIN BuILr - - SCALE I4O ______________________1-II•J OATS RcE44&9c' XpI'r 4I — — PRIVATE CONTRACT --- I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT I [I liii I:[I]::EIi CITY OF CARLSBAD — — — — JI'I.NS t is I4PRODENT OF: ill RANCH REfl4L I ii — — ALJCAN7E ROAD STOPM 4t4 — i APPROVED: LLOYD B. IftJB85 r CW9OtS 42-34-05 — 71 — — BY:DJ —PROJECT NO. ORA50NC NO. 75IKD BY: •i__I I OTY APPROVAL RV'M) BY: cr 00-06 400-8C I I REV1ON DESCRIPTION - 9 () i06-6GS (oat) (i) I06-66S (oss) I9OZ6 Y7 •ViSI 31100 SXVO YIP1004flV3 9U 9l4I3MflS ONY1 ONY 0t1833N1N3 11M3 0N1 ONflI33NION3 0U39 3 U 01rt..... .0.101t9& tttt*9£ 0 'V q\84 01 ti"ll T .... 0 1061, p 11CK I— a.. o.mlvlloJL.08 I00IO3 oJ - bThflflld 1 flVflhlM AS V1d NIV1Ci I1OJ.S 19AOUd4V S.a.10310d0 U3NION3 L.IA18SKV1 qoobddw 0). IIWS I05M 010088) J11V)I*I505 580r. 018 V)J)VIJLNO) 1)9I)0 58Vd £SAISV LON 1,n9SV 6I .133HS 339 1/I .0-08 •.. 31YS Hd& -- 011 05 09 0 05 08 M P1 5 P05Y 5310 00- 391 (O0.liSW5-Z 10.1 &$Rli0)T,0a. 8010 05095 V 3J77V90,80 J10TO 109 0910 00605 awwo 109 J0N.S 090 QSMS 80111010080 00 39934909 10044 09-0 956405 YV 10 o..a.o s1 i w a, 0,-0OSOZIIY'4 80 9109460,364934900 400 .9 t.oaav jjvo IC7 01-0 00605 ThIIØMO 031088 OW 77890909 jzr,--.;;— -r— I-O07 8009 80 090145 11$ OW .78940)88 394.1 08860 J5 ® 0394009 056405 0477 2134040) 090 006405 602810540.454040 .188.101 6) 59-0 osam 087095 3949 © t 03 o 0-0 05005 3104 - 10909395 49060 896015 40440.40 28381 4,60) 5/64 008 S05080 2134010) .*i'.95 0 109 560010 3430040) .54'34 40 600 580000 3134090) .'595 0.0 05605 0 3601 00580 80)93 o 9-0 00605 (300700) 3 3944 10580 4019) 0 94) I l9Ai 40580 60193 D 84-0 5-0 056405 (.00.9 oo-x) (0344.00,0)j 39.81 9.40,0 10183 o 10 asam I 3101 100000183 — 4._I 4t ,900 05 34 000 fl7I083II 'T0X 'WI aaai F-ga ao O 9 -6Tt' I T 1 3BWflN ONIMVUO 30WflN 9 u3ewnN VNJ I I I II 1 SSE4W RVC owoisvi W ID VC NLPLA5W ID TAKE i - - - - WA r4kr ms PLACED PARALLEL 10 P90141 CRACE ANIEV INE WAVES ARE JX OR 4100pr -4 .3 COV1( SI44IL SE —1230 4401 A R1 17355 SECTION 0-8 I CIPOSOD CORNERS SMALL QM91(PCO J/4 S *I1LPPLE P(5 DCILL Of 2(1.4 AST.4C( Of DA MIN A r IC;M-595 SErup a,ISOf 01A4TZR Of COB ARE WALL I5CK13tSS OQEA FEB 1941.31 J USE C ALFERSAIE aCME-C aavA flON 12E o, GRATE MODIFIED WING TYPE HEADWALL WITH CHAINLINK FENCE NIS __ ORAWINO NUMBER ORANG NUMBER I ORAWNG NUMBER _____ _______ ORAiMNG NUMBER _ 419-28 AS-BUILT NOTE FtA;wo;;Dv.L ! OZD 0 dpVIhoI?l 0 ?2-"2. R E BERG ENGINEERING INC NG fl6CAURNA OAKS ORW( RP RAP C*I?Cr IN-SWA MR SQRS01 0- 10 cameffrE Luc $wso 0-83 \ sr ALAN / \ ,, 18 \ 1WADWALL MID 494mC0 .W WA IL 50950 0.44 MW&r RMXR POT SE-2 E I I I I I ITrR.Pj. ZOLWIUN FRENCII DRAIN .1 /' \ \ i i.. \ )• / \ \\ \•_ - — -. ' 07)~) NX PLAN - r!riii fljL;T/ [ \ _— --- -, - - / 40 20 0 40 80 120 GRAPH:C SCALE I. 40-0 STORM DRAIN PLAN 89: WILLIAM C PWMWLV L Flow Control BMP Drawdown Calcutatio SWMM Model Schematics for ViaSat Bressi Ranch - Phase 5 PRE-PROJECT MODEL POST-PROJECT MODEL Ce U '/LT I otrrLErsTRLJcTuRE oc oc 2394 Viasat Phase 5 7/16/2020 PRE-PROJECT DMA Area (sf) Area (ac) Width (Area/Flow Length) (ft) % Slope Impervious Area (ac) % Impervious WIC'. Soils % '0' Soils Weighted Suction Head (in): Weighted Conductivity (in/hr): Weighted Initial Deficit: N-pery Total Inflow 5A 192,895 4.42826 3858 1 13.9% 0.031 0.7% 1 0% 100% 9.000 0.025 0.300 0.032 SB 111,748 2.56538 2235 1 13.9% 0 1 0% 1 0% 1 100% 9.000 0.025 0.300 1 0.032 u oLd,; W4,0143 V.VV 0.013987 POST-PROJECT DMA Area (sf) Area (ac) Width (Area/Flow Length) (ft) % Slope Impervious Area (ac) % Impervious % "C" Soils % 'D' Soils Weighted Suction Head (in): Weighted Conductivity (in/hr): Weighted Initial Deficit: N-pery Total Inflow SA 192,895 4.42826 3858 1.0% 2.49 56.2% 0% 100% 9.000 0.025 0.300 0.08 SB 107,540 2.46878 2151 1.0% 1.57 63.4% 0% 100% 9.000 0.025 0.300 0.08 VLT-1 0 0.00000 0 1 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0% 100% 9.000 0.025 0.300 0.08 BMP 2 1 4,208 0.09660 421 0.0% 0.00 0.0% 0% 100% 9.000 0.025 0.300 0.08 J.aI. atrt,UtJ q.0 0.013987 Conductivity: J Suction Head: Initial Deficit C:j 0.1 in/hr j C: I 6 in C: 0.311 D: 0.025 in/hr J D: 9 in D:1 0.30 SWMM INPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 VIASAT PHASE 5 [TITLE] ;Project Title/Notes VIASAT 2394 Pre-Project Condition POC-1 [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW UNITS CFS INFILTRATION GREEN AMPT FLOW ROUTING KINWAVE LINK OFFSETS DEPTH WIN SLOPE 0 ALLOW PONDING NO SKIP STEADY STATE NO START DATE 08/28/1951 START TIME 05:00:00 REPORT _START_DATE 08/28/1951 REPORT _START_TIME 05:00:00 END DATE 05/23/2008 END TIME 23:00:00 SWEEP START 01/01 SWEEP END 12/31 DRY DAYS 0 REPORT STEP 01:00:00 WET STEP 00:15:00 DRY STEP 04:00:00 ROUTING STEP 0:01:00 RULE—STEP 00:00:00 INERTIAL DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL FLOW LIMITED BOTH FORCE MAIN EQUATION H-W VARIABLE STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING STEP 0 MIN SURFAREA. 12.557 MAX TRIALS 8 HEAD TOLERANCE 0.005 SYS FLOW TOL 5 LAT FLOW TOL 5 MINIMUM STEP 0.5 THREADS 1 [EVAPORATION) ;;Data Source Parameters MONTHLY .06 .08 .11 DRY—ONLY NO 15 .17 .19 .19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06 SWMM INPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 VIASAT PHASE 5 [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF Source Oceanside INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TINESERIES Oceanside [SUBCATCHMENTS] ;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Impery Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack DMA-5A Oceanside POC-1 4.42826 0 3820 13.9 0 DMA-5B Oceanside POC-1 2.56538 0.7 2180 13.9 0 [SUBAREAS] ;;Subcatchment N-Impery N-Pery S-Impery S-Pery PctZero RouteTo PctRouted DNA-5A 0.012 0.032 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET DMA-5B 0.012 0.032 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET [INFILTRATION] ;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IMD DMA-5A 9 0.025 .30 DMA-5B 9 .025 0.30 [LID CONTROLS] ;;Name Type/Layer Parameters BMP-1 BC BSIP-1 SURFACE 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 BMP-1 SOIL 18 0.4 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5 BMP-1 STORAGE 12 0.67 0 0 BNP-1 DRAIN 5.24 0.5 0 6 0 0 BMP-2 BC BMP-2 SURFACE 12 0.0 0 0 5 BNP-2 SOIL 18 0.4 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5 BMP-2 STORAGE 12 0.67 0 0 BMP-2 DRAIN 3.1453 0.5 0 6 0 0 BMP-4 BC BNP-4 SURFACE 12 0.0 0 0 5 BMP-4 SOIL 18 0.4 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5 BNP-4 STORAGE 12 0.67 0 0 BMP-4 DRAIN 2.9111 0.5 0 6 0 0 BMP-5 BC BMP-5 SURFACE 12 0.0 0 0 5 BNP-5 SOIL 18 0.4 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5 SWMM INPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 VIASAT PHASE 5 BMP-5 STORAGE 12 0.67 0 0 BMP-5 DRAIN 11.1728 0.5 0 6 0 0 [LID USAGE] ;;Subcatchment LID Process Number Area Width InitSat Fromlmp ToPery RptFile DrainTo FromPery [OUT FALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;Basin 1 POC-i 0 FREE NO [CURVES] ;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value OUTLETSTRUCTURE Rating 0.000 0.000 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 0.500 0.191 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1.000 0.297 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1.500 0.374 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 2.000 0.438 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 2.500 0.494 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 3.000 0.543 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 3.500 0.589 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 4.000 0.631 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 4.500 8.170 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 5.000 8.720 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 5.500 9.119 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 5.667 9.243 VAULT Storage 0 1500 VAULT 5.67 1500 [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value Oceanside FILE "J:\Active Jobs\2394 VIASAT\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP - PHS\SWMM\Rain Data\oceanside.txt" [REPORT] Reporting Options SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] SWMM INPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 [MAP] DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000 Units None COORDINATES I ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord POC-1 1000.000 2500.000 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord [Polygons] ;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord DMA-5A -604.143 5926.352 DMA-5B 1121.979 5995.397 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord Oceanside -252.404 8509.615 VIASAT PHASE 5 SWMM INPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 VIASAT PHASE 5 [TITLE] Project Title/Notes VIASAT 2394 Post-Project Condition [OPTIONS] ;;Option Value FLOW UNITS CFS INFILTRATION GREEN ANPT FLOW ROUTING KINWAVE LINK OFFSETS DEPTH WIN SLOPE 0 ALLOW PONDING NO SKIP—STEADY—STATE NO START DATE 08/28/1951 START TIME 05:00:00 REPORT_START_DATE 08/28/1951 REPORT START_TIME 05:00:00 END DATE 05/23/2008 END TIME 23:00:00 SWEEP START 01/01 SWEEP END 12/31 DRY DAYS 0 REPORT STEP 01:00:00 WET STEP 00:15:00 DRY STEP 04:00:00 ROUTING STEP 0:01:00 RULE—STEP 00:00:00 INERTIAL DAMPING PARTIAL NORMAL FLOW LIMITED BOTH FORCE MAIN EQUATION H-W VARIABLE STEP 0.75 LENGTHENING_STEP 0 WIN SURFAREA 12.557 MAX TRIALS 8 HEAD TOLERANCE 0.005 SYS FLOW TOL 5 LAT FLOW TOL 5 MINIMUM STEP 0.5 THREADS 1 [EVAPORATION] ;;Data Source Parameters MONTHLY .06 .08 .11 .15 .17 .19 DRY—ONLY NO 19 .18 .15 .11 .08 .06 SWMM INPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 VIASAT PHASE 5 [RAINGAGES] ;;Name Format Interval SCF Source Oceanside INTENSITY 1:00 1.0 TIMESERIES Oceanside [SUBCATCHMENTS] - ;;Name Rain Gage Outlet Area %Impery Width %Slope CurbLen SnowPack DMA-5A Oceanside VLT 4.42826 56.2 3820 1 0 DMA-5B Oceanside SMP-2 2.46878 63.4 2096 1 0 BNP-2 Oceanside POC-1 0.0966 0 421 0.0 0 [SUBAREAS] ;;Subcatchment N-Impery N-Pery S-Impery S-Pery PctZero RouteTo PctRouted DMA-5A 0.012 0.08 0.05 0.1 25 PERVIOUS 36 DMA-5B 0.012 0.08 0.05 0.1 25 OUTLET BMP-2 .012 0.08 0.05 .1 25 OUTLET [INFILTRATION] ;;Subcatchment Suction Ksat IND DMA-5A 9 0.025 .30 DMA-5B 9 0.025 0.030 BMP-2 9 0.025 0.30 LID CONTROLS ;;Name Type/Layer Parameters BNP-2 BC BMP-2 SURFACE 12 0.0 0 0 5 BMP-2 SOIL 18 0.4 0.2 0.1 5 5 1.5 BMP-2 STORAGE 12 0.67 0 0 BMP-2 DRAIN 1.2453 0.5 0 6 0 0 [LID USAGE) ;;Subcatchment LID Process Number Area Width InitSat Fromlmp ToPery RptFile DrainTo FromPery BMP-2 BMP-2 1 4208 0 0 100 0 * * 0 [OUT FALLS] ;;Name Elevation Type Stage Data Gated Route To ;Basin 1 SWMM INPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 VIASAT PHASE 5 POC-1 0 FREE NO [STORAGE] ;;Name EThv. Mxflpth InitDepth Shape Curve Namc/flaram3 N/A Fevdp Psi Esat IND VLT 0 5.67 0 TABULAR VAULT 0 0 [OUTLETS] ;;Name From Node To Node Offset Type QTabie/Qcoeff Qexpon Gated OUTLETSTRUCTURE VLT POC-1 0 TABULAR/DEPTH OUTLETSTRUCTURE NO [CURVES] ;;Name Type X-Value Y-Value OUTLETSTRUCTURE Rating 0.000 0.000 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 0.250 0.118 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 0.500 0.167 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 0.750 0.205 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1.000 0.236 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1.250 0.264 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1.500 0.289 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 1.750 0.313 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 2.000 0.334 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 2.250 0.355 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 2.500 0.374 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 2.750 0.392 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 3.000 0.409 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 3.250 0.426 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 3.500 0.442 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 3.750 0.458 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 4.000 0.473 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 4.250 3.817 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 4.500 9.920 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 4.750 17.818 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 5.000 27.169 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 5.250 37.772 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 5.500 49.495 OUTLETSTRUCTURE 5.667 57.885 VAULT Storage 0 1346 VAULT 5.67 1346 [TIMESERIES] ;;Name Date Time Value SWMM INPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 Oceanside FILE "J:\Active Jobs\2394 VIASAT\CIVIL\REPORTS\SWQMP - PH5\SWMM\Rain Data\oceanside.txt" [REPORT] Reporting OpLiiis SUBCATCHMENTS ALL NODES ALL LINKS ALL [TAGS] [MAP] DIMENSIONS 0.000 0.000 10000.000 10000.000 Units None [COORDINATES] ;;Node X-Coord Y-Coord POC-1 1000.000 2500.000 VLT 420.992 4994.233 [VERTICES] ;;Link X-Coord Y-Coord [Polygons] ;;Subcatchment X-Coord Y-Coord DMA-5A 167.243 6009.227 DMA-5B 1851.211 5732.411 BMP-2 1539.792 4521.338 [SYMBOLS] ;;Gage X-Coord Y-Coord Oceanside -252.404 8509.615 VIASAT PHASE 5 SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 VIASAT PHASE 5 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) -------------------------------------------------------------- VIASAT 2394 Pre-Project Condition POC-1 ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ** ** * ** * *** **** * Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ RDII ................... Snowmelt ............... Groundwater ............ Flow Routing ........... Water Quality .......... Infiltration Method ...... Starting Date ............ Ending Date .............. Antecedent Dry Days ...... Report Time Step ......... Wet Time Step ............ Dry Time Step ............ C FS YES NO NO NO NO NO GREEN ANPT 08/28/1951 05:00:00 05/23/2008 23:00:00 0.0 01:00:00 00:15:00 04:00:00 ** ** **** ** * ** ** * * ** * ** *** * Runoff Quantity Continuity ** *** ** * ** ***** * * ** * **** ** Total Precipitation ...... Evaporation Loss ......... Infiltration Loss ........ Surface Runoff ........... Final Storage ............ Continuity Error (%) Volume acre-feet 393.445 13.710 293.680 96.992 0.001 -2.780 Depth inches 675.090 23.524 503.910 166.423 0.001 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 106 gal * * ***** * *** **** * * ** * ** ** ** SWMM OUTPUT REPORT PRE-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 Dry Weather Inflow 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow 96.992 31.606 Groundwater Inflow 0.000 0.000 RDTI Inflow ..............0.000 0.000 ExLernal Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Outflow 96.992 31.606 Flooding Loss 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume . . . 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) 0.000 VIASAT PHASE 5 ** ** * ** * ** * **** * * *** **** * ** Subcatchment Runoff Summary ** *** ** *** * **** * * ** *** *** ** Total Total Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Impery Pery Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 106 gal CFS DMA-5A 675.09 0.00 23.35 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 505.20 0.00 165.32 165.32 19.88 4.98 0.245 DMA-5B 675.09 0.00 23.83 501.68 4.18 164.15 168.33 11.73 2.88 0.249 Analysis begun on: Thu Jul 16 11:14:27 2020 Analysis ended on: Thu Jul 16 11:15:01 2020 Total elapsed time: 00:00:34 SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 VIASAT PHASE 5 EPA STORM MATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.013) -------------------------------------------------------------- VIASAr 2394 Post-Project Condition ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* * * *** ** * *** ** *** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ RDII ................... Snowmelt ............... Groundwater ............ Flow Routing ........... Ponding Allowed ........ Water Quality .......... Infiltration Method ...... Flow Routing Method ...... Starting Date ............ Ending Date .............. Antecedent Dry Days ...... Report Time Step ......... Wet Time Step ............ Dry Time Step ............. Routing Time Step ........ CFS YES NO NO NO YES NO NO GREEN AMPT KINWAVE 08/28/1951 05:00:00 05/23/2008 23:00:00 0.0 01:00:00 00:15:00 04:00:00 60.00 sec ** *** ** * ** * ** **** *** **** * * Runoff Quantity Continuity ** *** ** * ** * **** ** ** *** ** * * Initial LID Storage ...... Total Precipitation ...... Evaporation Loss ......... Infiltration Loss ........ Surface Runoff ........... LID Drainage ............. Final Storage ............ Continuity Error (%) ..... Volume Depth acre-feet inches 0.014 0.025 393.445 675.090 47.350 81.246 124.802 214.141 134.511 230.799 93.103 159.751 0.034 0.058 -1.612 SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 106 g1 * * ** * ** * ** * **** * *** *** ** ** Dry Weather Inflow 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow 227.613 74.171 Groundwater Inflow 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow ..............0.000 0.000 External Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Outflow 227.527 74.143 Flooding Loss 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss 0.000 0.000 Exfiltrat.ion Loss 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume . . . 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume 0.001 0.000 Continuity Error (%) 0.037 VIASAT PHASE 5 * ***** ***** * * ** * ** ** * * ** ** * * Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************* * All links are stable. * * ** * ** * *** ** *** * ** * ** *** Routing Time Step Summary ** ***** * ** ***** ** ** * ** ** * Minimum Time Step : 60.00 sec Average Time Step : 60.00 sec Maximum Time Step 60.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step 1.00 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 ** ** * ** * ***** **** *** ** **** * Subcatchment Runoff Summary ** ** *** * ** ***** ** ***** *** * * Total Total Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Impery Pery Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in in in 106 gal CFS DMA-5A 675.09 0.00 66.95 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 258.97 329.75 149.20 360.24 43.32 5.19 0.534 DMA-5B 675.09 0.00 76.51 142.12 371.80 95.57 467.37 31.33 2.94 0.692 BMP-2 675.09 11944.41 857.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 11761.20 30.85 3.01 0.932 SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 VIASAT PHASE 5 ** ** * ** * ** * ** ** * * ** * ** * LID Perfnrmance Summary * ****** *** * **** * * ***** * Total Evap -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Infil Surface Drain Initial Final Continuity Inflow Loss Loss Outflow Outflow Storage Storage Error Subcatchment LID Control in in in in in in in BMP-2 BMP-2 12619.50 857.82 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.00 195.58 11565.76 1.80 2.43 -0.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A Node Depth Summary ** *** ** * *** ** ** * * * Average --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet POC-1 OUTFALL 0.00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 VLT STORAGE 0.01 4.31 4.31 18857 11:33 4.31 ** *** ** * ** * ** ** * * ** Node Inflow Summary Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CFS days hr:min 106 gal 106 gal Percent POC-1 OUTFALL 3.01 8.19 18857 12:01 30.8 74.1 0.000 VLT STORAGE 5.19 5.19 18857 12:01 43.3 43.3 0.064 * * *** ** * *** ** ** * * ** * * Node Flooding Summary ** *** *** *** ** *** * ** * * No nodes were flooded. ********************** SWMM OUTPUT REPORT POST-PROJECT CONDITION POC-1 VIASAT PHASE 5 Storage Volume Summary ***** ** * ** ***** * * ** * ** Average Avg Evap -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exf il Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS VLT 0.019 0 0 0 5.798 76 18857 11:32 5.20 * *** * ** * ** * **** * * ** * *** Outfall Loading Summary ** ** * *** *** ** **** ** * ** * ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 106 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- POC-1 3.49 0.16 8.19 74.138 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 3.49 0.16 8.19 74.138 ******************** Link Flow Summary ** ** * *** ***** ** * * *** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max! Max! IFlowl Occurrence IVeloci Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTLETSTRUCTURE DUMMY 5.20 18857 11:33 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ***** ** * ** * **** * * ** * ** *** No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Thu Jul 16 11:41:29 2020 Analysis ended on: Thu Jul 16 11:42:11 2020 Total elapsed time: 00:00:42 Pre-project Flow Frequency -Long-term Simulation VIA SAT 2394J Statistics -Node POC-1 Total Inflow Event Event Exedance Return n,th,,. aI Rank - Start Date (hours) (CFS) (percent) (years) - 1 4/14/2003 7 7.86 0.27 58 - 2 1/4/1978 3 7.355 0.55 29 - 3 10/1/1983 3 7.051 0.82 19.33 4 1/15/1979 2 6.608 1.1 14.5 5 1/4/1995 6 6.365 1.37 11.6 6 9/23/1986 1 6.153 1.64 9.67 7 2/25/2003 5 5.327 1.92 8.29 8 2/3/1958 31 5.189 2.19 7.25 9 2/24/1969 45 5.088 2.47 6.44 10 1/13/1993 10 4.815 2.74 5.8 11 10/29/2000 2 4.797 3.01 5.27 12 10/27/2004 7 4.794 3.29 4.83 13 2/18/2005 18 4.71 3.56 4.46 14 2/20/1980 13 4.642 3.84 4.14 15 3/17/1982 17 4.624 4.11 3.87 16 1/16/1952 8 4.571 4.38 3.63 17 2/28/1978 16 4.534 4.66 3.41 18 4/1/1958 9 4.529 4.93 3.22 19 3/2/1980 14 4.113 5.21 3.05 20 2/27/1983 4 3.976 5.48 2.9 21 2/10/1978 4 3.956 5.75 2.76 22 11/22/1965 25 3.955 6.03 2.64 23 12/29/1991 10 3.955 6.3 2.52 24 2/3/1998 6 3.936 6.58 2.42 25 1/27/2008 21 3.918 6.85 2.32 26 12/19/1970 17 3.895 7.12 2.23 27 1/29/1983 4 3.834 7.4 2.15 28 2/16/1980 3 3.831 7.67 2.07 29 2/22/1998 _1_ 3.749 7.95 2 30 2/18/1993 - - 3.744 8.22 1.93 31 11/15/1952 _1_ 3.738 8.49 1.87 32 11/11/1985 _3 - 3.716 8.77 1.81 33 10/20/2004 _6 - 3.688 9.04 1.76 34 12/1/1961 20 3.542 9.32 1.71 35 2/16/1998 28 3.537 9.59 1.66 36 2/3/1994 12 3.5 9.86 1.61 37 1/15/1993 76 3.456 10.14 1.57 38 3/11/1995 22 3.322 10.41 1.53 39 2/27/1991 41 3.313 10.68 1.49 40 1/16/1978 5 3.24 10.96 1.45 41 1/5/2008 44 3.213 11.23 1.41 42 3/17/1963 3 3.173 11.51 1.38 43 2/14/1986 7 3.161 11.78 1.35 44 1/28/1980 26 3.132 12.05 1.32 45 2/14/1998 6 3.115 12.33 1.29 46 12/22/1982 1 3.096 12.6 1.26 47 2/12/1992 14 3.095 12.88 1.23 48 3/15/1986 22 3.092 13.15 1.21 49 4/28/2005 1 3.032 13.42 1.18 50 3/19/1981 2 2.96 13.7 1.16 51 2/22/2008 7 2.933 13.97 1.14 52 1/16/1972 3 2.927 14.25 1.12 53 4/27/1960 3 2.873 14.52 1.09 54 2/8/1993 10 2.869 14.79 1.07 55 1 2/6/1969 7 2.838 15.07 1.05 56 1 1/30/2007 1 2,805 15.34 1.04 57 12/24/1983 17 2.784 15.62 1.02 58 2/11/2003 27 2.761 15.89 1 59 1/26/2001 9 2.663 16.16 0.98 60 12/31/2004 2 2.658 16.44 0.97 61 8/17/1977 2 2.652 16.71 0.95 62 1/1.1/2005 9 2.613 16.99 0.94 63 2/21/2005 50 2.592 17.26 0.92 64 12/29/1977 21 2.587 17.53 0.91 65 3/1/1983L_65 2.577 17.81 0.89 1/10/1980 38 2.554 18.08 0.88 i 66 67 3/25/1991 48 2.543 18.36 0.87 68 3/1S/2003 27 2.542 18.63 0.85 10-year Q: 6.189 c 5-yearQ:_4.795 _cfs 2-year Q: 3.749 cis Lower Flaw ThreshoIdIso%ii 0.542 (Pre): cis 69 1/14/1978 14 2.516 18.9 0.84 70 2/17/1980 43 2.501 19.18 0.83 71 12/24/1988 3 2.496 19.45 0.82 72 11/8/2002 1 2.493 19.73 0.81 73 11/7/1979 1 2.472 20 0.79 74 1/9/1980 14 2.471 20.27 0.78 75 12/18/1967 18 2.446 20.55 0.77 76 9/18/1963 4 2.445 20.82 0.76 77 1/12/1997 16 2.444 21.1 0.75 78 2/19/1958 3 2.438 21.37 0.74 79 12/24/1971 16 2.437 21.64 0.73 80 9/5/1978 2 2.422 21.92 0.73 81 1/27/1983 _6 - 2.417 22.19 0.72 82 1/12/1960 _6 - 2.416 22.47 0.71 83 3/15/1952 _9 - 2.406 22.74 0.7 84 2/15/1992 4 - 2.357 23.01 0.69 85 1/5/1979 7 - 2.354 23.29 0.68 86 2/13/2001 76 2.354 23.56 0.67 87 11/24/1983 _2 - 2.348 23.84 0.67 88 1/9/2005 18 2.329 24.11 0.66 89 1/10/1995 44 2.296 24.38 0.65 90 2/19/1993 _2 - 2.286 24.66 0.64 91 1/20/1962 6 - 2.28 24.93 0.64 92 12/25/1968 _1 - 2.274 25.21 0.63 93 12/10/1965 _4 - 2.264 25.48 0.62 94 1/26/1999 _1 - 2.256 25.75 0.62 95 3/8/1968 _6 - 2.254 26.03 0.61 96 11/25/1988 3 2.244 26.3 0.6 97 10/14/2006 1 2.231 26.58 0.6 98 2/22/2004 21 2.176 26.85 0.59 99 11/30/1967 1 2.149 27.12 0.59 100 2/11/1959 19 2.127 27.4 0.58 101 11/22/1973 2 2.117 27.67 0.57 102 2/17/1990 4 2.097 27.95 0.57 103 1 3/19/1991 3 2.084 28.22 0.56 Post-project (Mitigated) Flow Frequency -Long-term Simulation [VIASAT 23i1 Statistics -Node POC-1 Total Inflow Event Event Exceedance Return Duration Peak Frequency Period Rank q-fl* lrrn\ 1.... ..... --------I 1 1 4/14/2003 39 6.161 0.1 58 2 9/29/1983 52 7.342 0.2 29 3 1/3/1978 74 7.055 0.3 19.33 4 1/14/1979 34 6.695 0.4 14.5 5 1/3/1995 47 6.623 0.5 11.6 6 9/23/1986 36 5.458 0.6 9.67 7 2/25/2003 69 4.25 0.7 8.29 8 1 10/27/2004 35 4.11 0.8 7.25 9 1 2/23/1969 56 3,704 0.9 6.44 10 1 2/3/1958 38 3.631 1 5.8 11 1 2/27/1978 143 3.602 1.1 5.27 12 10/29/2000 28 3.4 1.2 4.83 13 1/27/1980 69 3.378 1.31 4.46 14 2/18/2005 32 3.364 1.41 4.14 15 2/13/1980 191 3.343 1.51 3.87 16 1/16/1952 55 3.342 1.61 3.63 17 1/12/1993 151 3.285 1.71 3.41 18 3/17/1982 45 3,216 1.81 3.22 19 3/2/1980 23 3.184 1.91 3.05 20 4/1/1958 76 3.296 2.01 2.9 21 8/16/1977 35 3.059 2.11 2.76 22 11/11/1985 30 3.018 2.21 2.64 23 12/16/1970 75 2.99 2.31 2.52 24 2/22/2008 14 2.945 2.41 2.42 25 2/5/1978 211 2.937 2.51. 2.32 26 11114/1952 46 2.891 2.61 2.23 27 11/22/1965 31 2.888 2.71 2.15 28 12/29/1991 17 2.884 2.81 2.07 29 2/3/1998 39 2.882 2.91 2 30 2/26/1983 165 2.795 3.01 1.93 31 2/18/1993 52 2.765 3.11 1.87 32 1/28/1983 15 2.734 3.21 1.81 33 2/22/1998 68 2.714 3.31 1.76 34 2/14/1986 1 15 2.865 1 3.41 1.71 35 1/26/2008 53 2.596 3.51 1.66 36 3/16/1963 17 2.594 3.61 1.61 37 2/16/1998 41 2.564 3.71 1.57 38 1/16/1978 16 2.531 3.82 1.53 39 1/16/1972 16 2.439 3.92 1.49 40 1/5/2008 55 2.424 4.02 1.45 41 1 12/1/1961 34 2.355 4.12 1.41 42 1 10/17/2004 89 2.344 4.22 1.38 43 1 2/14/1998 22 2.272 4.32 1.35 44 1 2/7/1993 38 2.253 4.42 1.32 45 1 3/15/1986 31 2.248 4.52 1.29 46 1 4/27/1960 14 2.244 4.62 1.26 47 1 3/19/1981 10 2.206 4.72 1.23 48 1/14/1978 22 2.182 4.82 1.21 49 1/5/1979 33 2.179 4.92 1.18 50 1/20/1962 60 2.092 5.02 1.16 Si 9/17/1963 48 2.061 5.12 1.14 52 12/24/1988 11 2.053 5.22 1.12 53 3/7/1968 22 2.041 5.32 1.09 54 1/7/2005 118 2.015 5.42 1.07 55 1 12/24/1983 75 1.976 5.52 1.05 56 1 1/12/1997 38 1 1.961 5.62 1.04 57 1 11/25/1988 11 1 1.959 5.72 1.02 58 1 2/21/2005 57 1 1.959 5.82 1 59 2/19/1958 14 1 1.953 5.92 0.98 60 1/9/1980 88 1.937 6.02 0.97 61 12/24/1971 42 1.903 6.12 0.95 62 2/27/1991 47 1.901 6.22 0.94 63 12/28/2004 54 1.86 6.33 0.92 64 11/17/1986 21 1.854 6.43 0.91 65 3/11/1995 29 1.79 6.53 0,89 66 3/24/1994 25 1.765 6.63 0.88 67 2/1/1960 14 1.758 6.73 0.87 68 11/30/2007 22 1.748 6.83 0.85 10-year Q: 5.657 c5 5-year Q:_3.478 _c5 2-year Q: 2.882 c5 Lower Flow 1hreshoIdI_50%ii 0.5xQ2 (Post Mit)I_1.441 IcS Peak Flow Frequency Summary Return Period Pre-project Qpeak (cfs) Post-project - Mitigated Q (cfs) LF = 0.5xQ2 1.875 1.441 2-year 3.749 2.882 5-year 4.795 3.478 10-year 6.189 5.657 J:\Active Jobs\2394 VIASAT\CIVI L\REPORTS\S WQM P - PH5\SWMM\2394 Ph5SWM M_PostProcessingPOC4.xlsx Low-flow lhreshold:II 50% ii 0.5xQ2 (Pre): 1.875 cfs Q10 (Pre): 6.189 cfs Ordinate It. DO Incremental Q(Pre): 0.04315 cfs Total Hourly Data: II 497370 llhours The proposed BMP:I PASSED I Interval Pre-project Flow Pre-project Hours Pre-project% Time Exceeding Post-project Hours Post-project% Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail 0 1.875 155 3.326-04 83 1.67E-04 50% Pass 1 1.918 154 3.10E-04 80 1.616-04 52% Pass 2 1 1.961 144 2.90E-04 74 1.49E-04 51% Pass 3 2.004 136 2.73E-04 68 1.37E-04 50% Pass 4 2.047 131 2.63E-04 66 1.33E-04 50% Pass 5 2.090 130 2.61E-04 63 1.27E-04 48% Pass 6 2.133 127 2.55E-04 60 1.21E-04 47% Pass 7 2.177 123 2.47E-04 59 1.19E-04 48% Pass 8 1 2.220 122 2.45E-04 56 1.13E-04 46% Pass 9 2.263 118 2.37E-04 53 1.076-04 45% Pass 10 2.306 111 2.236-04 51 1.03E-04 46% Pass 11 2.349 107 2.15E-04 50 1.01E-04 47% Pass 12 2.392 103 2.07E-04 49 9.85€-05 48% Pass 13 2.435 97 1.95E-04 46 9.256-05 47% Pass 14 1 2.479 89 1.79E-04 45 9.05E-05 51% Pass 15 2.522 82 1.65E-04 44 8.85E-05 54% Pass 16 2.565 77 1.55E-04 42 8.44E-05 55% Pass 17 2.608 73 1.47E-04 40 8.04E-05 55% Pass 18 2.651 72 1.45E-04 39 7.84€-05 54% Pass 19 2.694 68 1.376-04 38 7.646-05 56% Pass 20 2.737 68 1.37E-04 36 7.24E-05 53% Pass 21 2.781 66 1.33E-04 35 7.04E-05 53% Pass 22 2.824 64 1.296-04 34 6.84E-05 53% Pass 23 2.867 62 1.25E-04 34 6.84E-05 55% Pass 24 2.910 60 1.21E-04 30 6.03E-05 50% Pass 25 2.953 56 1.13E-04 28 5.63€-05 50% Pass 26 2.996 54 1.09E-04 27 5.43E-05 50% Pass 27 1 3.039 53 1.07E-04 26 5.23€-05 49% Pass 28 3.083 52 1.05E-04 24 4.83E-05 46% Pass 29 3.126 48 9.65E-05 23 4.62E-05 48% Pass 30 3.169 46 9.25€-05 23 4.62E-05 50% Pass 31 3.212 45 9.05€-05 21 4.22E-05 47% Pass 32 3.255 43 8.65E-05 19 3.82E-05 44% Pass 33 3.298 43 8.65E-05 18 3.62E-05 42% Pass 34 3.342 41 8.24€-05 18 3.62E-05 441YG Pass 35 3.385 41 8.24E-05 14 2.81E-05 34% Pass 36 3.428 41 8.246-05 13 2.61E-05 32% Pass 37 3.471 40 8.04E-05 13 2.61E-05 33% Pass 38 3.514 39 7.84E-05 13 2.61E-05 33% Pass 39 3.557 37 7.44€-05 13 2.61E-05 35% Pass 40 1 3.600 37 7.44E-05 13 2.61€-05 35% Pass 41 3.644 37 7.44E-05 11 2.21€-05 30% Pass 42 3.687 37 7.44E-05 11 2.21E-05 30% Pass 43 3.730 35 7.04E-05 10 2.01E-05 29% Pass 44 3.773 32 6.43E-05 10 2.01E-05 31% Pass 45 3.816 32 6.43E-05 10 2.01E-05 31% Pass 46 1 3.859 30 6.03E-05 10 2.01E-05 33% Pass 47 3.902 29 5.836-05 10 2.01€-05 34% Pass 48 3.946 27 5.43€-05 10 2.01€-05 37% Pass 49 3.989 22 4.42E-05 10 2.01E-05 45% Pass Interval Pre-project Flow (cfs} Pre-project Hours Pre-project% Time Exceeding Pat-project Hours Post-project% Time Exceeding Percentage Pass/Fail 50 4.032 22 4.42E-05 10 2.01E-05 45% Pass 51 4.075 22 4.42E-05 10 2.01E-05 45% Pass 52 1 4.118 21 4.22E-05 9 1.81E-05 43% Pass 53 4.161 21 4.22E-05 9 1.81E-05 43% Pass 54 4.204 21 4.22E-05 9 1.81E-05 43% Pass 55 4.248 21 4.22E-05 9 1.81E-05 43% Pass 56 4.291 21 4.22E-05 8 1.61E-05 38% Pass 57 4.334 21 4.22E-05 8 1.61E-05 38% Pass 58 4.377 21 4.22E-05 8 1.61E-05 38% Pass 59 4.420 21 4.22E-05 8 1.61E-05 38% Pass 60 4.463 20 4.02E-05 8 1.61E-05 40% Pass 61 4.506 20 4.02E-05 8 1.61E-05 40% Pass 62 4.550 18 3.62E-05 8 1.61E-05 44% Pass 63 4.593 16 3.22E-05 8 1.61E-05 50% Pass 64 4.636 15 3.02E-05 7 1.41E-05 47% Pass 65 4.679 13 2.61E-05 7 1.41E-05 54% Pass 66 4.722 12 2.41E-05 7 1.41E-05 58% Pass 67 4.765 12 2.41E-05 7 1.41E-05 58% Pass 68 4.809 10 2.01E-05 7 1.41E-05 70% Pass 69 4.852 9 1.81E-05 7 1.41E-05 78% Pass 70 4.895 9 1.81E-05 7 1.41E-05 78% Pass 71 4.938 9 1.81E-05 6 1.21E-05 67% Pass 72 4.981 9 1.81E-05 6 1.21E-05 67% Pass 73 5.024 9 1.81E-05 6 1.21E-05 67% Pass 74 5.067 9 1.81E-05 6 1.21E-05 67% Pass 75 5.111 8 1.61E-05 6 1.21E-05 75% Pass 76 5.154 8 1.61E-05 6 1.21E-05 75% Pass 77 5.197 7 1.41E-05 6 1.21E-05 86% Pass 78 5.240 7 1.41E-05 6 1.21E-05 86% Pass 79 5.283 7 1.41E-05 6 1.21E-05 86% Pass 80 5.326 7 1.41E-05 6 1.21E-05 86% Pass 81 5.369 6 1.21E-05 6 1.21E-05 100% Pass 82 5.413 6 1.21E-05 6 1.21E-05 100% Pass 83 5.456 6 1.21E-05 6 1.21E-05 100% Pass 84 5.499 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 85 5.542 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 86 5.585 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 87 5.628 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 88 5.671 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 89 1 5.715 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 90 5.758 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 91 5.801 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 92 5.844 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 93 5.887 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 94 5.930 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 95 5.974 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 96 6.017 6 1.21E-05 S 1.01E-05 83% Pass 97 6.060 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 98 6.103 1 6 1.21E-05 5 1.01E-05 83% Pass 99 6.146 1 6 1.21E-05 S 1.01E-05 83% Pass 100 6.189 1 5 1.01E-05 5 1.01E-05 100% Pass Flow Duration Curve [Pre vs. Post (Mitigated)] 7.000 6.000 5.000 - - - H— - - - - - U 4.000 -- - - - LL —D— Pre-projectQ —a— Post-project (Mitigated) Q 3.000 -- I - - - 2.000 1.000 --- I - - nnnn 5.01-OG 5.01 05 SOF O % Time Exceeding SWMM Model Flow Coefficient Calculation VLT-1 PARAMETER ABBREV. Bio-Retention Cell LID BMP Pondirig Depth Bioretention Soil Layer Gravel Layer PD S G 48 0 0 in in in TOTAL 4.0 ft 48 in Orifice Coefficient cg 0.6 Low Flow Orifice Diameter D 3 in Drain exponent n 0.5 -- Flow Rate (volumetric) 0 0.465 cfs Ponding Depth Surface Area APD 1346 ft' As, AG 1346 ft 2 Bioretention Surface Area As, AG 0.0309 ac Porosity of Bioretention Soil n 1.00 1 - Flow Rate (per unit area) q 14.933 in/hr Effective Ponding Depth PDeff FZ. 4 QpTj1n Flow Coefficient C 1898 Outlet Structure for Discharge of VLT-1 Discharge vs. Elevation Table Lower orifice Emergency Weir No. of orif: 1 Invert: 4.00 ft Dia: 3 B: 8.0 ft Invert: 0 ft C: 3.33 Cg-low: 0.60 *Note: h = head above the invert of the lowest surface discharge opening. H (ft) Qoririce-low (cfs) Qemerg (cfs) Otot (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.118 0.000 0.118 0.500 1 0.167 0.000 0.167 0.750 0.205 0.000 0.205 1.000 0.236 0.000 0.236 1.250 0.264 0.000 0.264 1.500 0.289 0.000 0.289 1.750 0.313 0.000 0.313 - 2.000 0.334 0.000 0.334 2.250 0.355 0.000 0.355 2.500 0.374 0.000 0.374 2.750 0.392 0.000 0.392 3.000 0.409 0.000 0.409 3.250 0.426 0.000 0.426 3.500 0.442 0.000 0.442 3.750 1 0.458 0.000 0.458 4.000 0.473 0.000 0.473 4.250 0.487 3.330 3.817 4.500 0.501 9.419 9.920 4.750 0.515 17.303 17.818 5.000 0.529 26.640 27.169 5.250 0.542 37.231 37.772 5.500 0.554 48.941 49.495 5.667 0.563 57.322 57.885 Note: Weir equation, Q=cL(h)312 Orifice equation, Q=C0A(2gh)112 Slot orifice acts as a weir when h* < hi.; slot orifice acts as an orifice when h* ~t h510 SWMM Model Flow Coefficient Calculation BMP-2 PARAMETER ABBREV. Bio-Retention Cell LID BMP Ponding Depth Bioretention Soil Layer Gravel Layer PD 5 G 12 18 12 in in in TOTAL 3.5 ft 42 in Orifice Coefficient Cg 0.6 -- Low Flow Orifice Diameter D 4 ]in Drain exponent n 0.5 -- Flow Rate (volumetric) Q 0.767 cfs Ponding Depth Surface Area APD 4208 ft 2 As, AG ft' 4208 Bioretention Surface Area As, AG 0.0966 ac Porosity of Bioretention Soil n 1.00 1 - Flow Rate (per unit area) q 7.876 in/hr Effective Ponding Depth PDeff 11QO0 in Flow Coefficient C 1.2453 -- Vault Drawdown Calculation Project Name VIASAT PHS Project No 2394 Date 4/14/2020 Ivault Drawdown 7.1 hrs I Note: Drawdown time is calculated assuming an initial water surface depth equal to the invert of the lowest surface discharge opening in the vault outlet structure. Underdrain Orifice Diameter: in C: 0.6 Surface Depth (ft) Volume (cf) Qoriece (cfs) AT (hr) Total Time (hr) 4 5840.00 0.468 0.000 0.0 3 4380.00 0.403 0.931 0.9 2 2920.00 0.327 1.110 2.0 1 1460.00 0.226 1.466 3.5 0 0.00 0.000 1 3.586 1 7.1 hyarologic oII (roup—an uiego uounty irea, uIiTornia 475000 475100 4753 475300 475403 7E03 47) 47703 33 749"N 1 33 749 N 'Mar _74TIWAMT-120-1- .4 t , - •- - _ I / I r/ \/ 1 .4 / 331 N 33716 4751EO 475100 475200 4750 7? 1) 4755490 47.9) 475703 5: MapScs: 1:4,940ifpint&tonApoitiait(8.5x11)she. elem N ) 103 271) 27 A 200 400 120) Map projedion: Web Mertatijr Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: LJTM Zone uN WG584 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/27/2018 21111111111111__ Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of interest (AOl) c The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at Area of Interest (AOl) CID 1:24,000. Soils D Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Rating Polygons A 13 Not rated or not available Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil i..iri Water Features line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Streams and Canals contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed B scale. Transportation ED BID +44 Rails Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map LJ Interstate Highways measurements. Li US Ruutas $ource of Map: Natural Rocourcoc Conservation Service U D Web Soil Survey URL: Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) U Not rated or not available Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Soil Rating Lines Background projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts A Aerial Photography distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more ~ ND accurate calculations of distance or area are required. , B This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as , BID of the version date(s) listed below. C Soil Survey Area: San Diego County Area, California ,- Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 13, 2017 — C/D Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales D 1:50,000 or larger. - Not rated or not available Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Nov 3, 2014—Nov Soil Rating Points 22, 2014 • A The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background • ND imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor • o shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. • BID USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/27/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOl Percent of AOl AtC Altamont clay, 5 to 9 D 26.1 25.6% percent slopes AtE Altamont clay, 15 to 30 C 20.9 20.5% percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 20 AtE2 Altamont clay, 15 to 30 D 21.4 21.0% percent slopes, eroded GaE Gaviota fine sandy D 2.1 2.1% loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes HrC Huerhuero loam, 2 to D 1.7 1.7% percent slopes LeC Las Flores loamy fine D 24.6 24.2% sand, 2 to percent slopes LvF3 Loamy alluvial land- Huerhuero complex, 9 D 4.9 4.9% to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded [Totals for Area of Interest 101.7 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey - 2/27/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—San Diego County Area, California Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (AID, BID, and CID). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/27/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 Appendix G: Guidance for Continuous Simu1at:ot and Hydroinodification Management Sizing Factors - U - WflVRMRDtO _r LOSAGELES -- - -- - - - RftRSIM ( 17 18 SANFIA Am RIVEF SIDE 2 ORANGE 16 -- - - - 32 SAN DIEGO IMP E R I A L 16 1_.8 - - -FAN OTCO - 1 Figure G.1-2: California Irrigation Management Information System "Reference Evapotranspiration Zotes" (--5 February 2016 I I H I H BMW Maintenance Thresholds and BMP Fact Sheets ATTACHMENT 3 Structural BMP Maintenance Information OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE FOR STRUCTURAL BMPs The operations and maintenance of the treatment control BMPs will be the responsibility of the owner. The current contact information for the responsible party is: ViaSat, Inc. 6155 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760)-476-2200 A training program will be administered and implemented by ViaSat, Inc. and shall occur at a minimum of once annually. The training program shall consist of, at a minimum: the disbursement of the brochures and flyers included in this SWQMP and a copy of the maintenance plan to all operation and maintenance staff associated with the project. A training log shall be filled out at each training session and kept for a minimum of five (5) years. ViaSat, Inc. will complete and maintain operation and maintenance forms to adequately document all maintenance performed on the project's treatment control BMPs. These records should be kept on file for a minimum of five (5) years and shall be made accessible to the City of Carlsbad, the State Water Resources Control Board or any other authority regulating storm water discharges for inspection upon request at any time. All waste generated from the ViaSat Bressi Ranch Campus project site is ultimately the responsibility of ViaSat, Inc. Disposal of sediment, debris, and trash will comply with applicable local, county, state, and federal waste control programs. Suspected hazardous waste will be analyzed to determine proper disposal methods. The following Operation and Maintenance Plan has been developed for each type of pollutant control BMP used on this project. These are minimum requirements only. Their frequency and/or scope may be increased, if necessary, to meet and/or maintain the level of storm water quality treatment required of this project. All costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the pollutant control BMPs will be funded by ViaSat, Inc. in perpetuity or until the project is sold to another entity where the responsibility would transfer with the sale of the property or an individual parcel. The project's owner, ViaSat, Inc., will enter into a Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement as required by the City of Carlsbad, which will be executed prior to grading permit issuance. The proposed flow control orifices will all be accessible for maintenance in the event of clogging within the underground detention vault and the biofiltration basins. The StormTrap underground detention tank will have manhole access to the vault segment where the 4.5" orifice is located. The biofihration basin overflow structure will be a 3'x3' concrete brooks box which will have an VJASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 orifice restrictor plate within the structure. The restrictor plate shall be removable in the event that the perforated subdrain for the biofiltration basin gets clogged. For the proposed Parking Garage P-3, interior drains for the structure that are not exposed to rainwater must pass through an oil/sand separator prior to being discharged to the proposed biofiltration basin. Interior floors for the parking garage are to be periodically washed and then vacuumed and hauled offsite instead of within the proposed biofiltration basin. Discharging to non-storm water basins is illegal. VIA SA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 Biofiltration System Inspection Activities Recommended Frequency Inspect biofiltration system - Before/after rainy season - Bi-weekly during the rainy season - After a rainfall event of 0.5" or more Inspect soil and repair eroded areas Monthly Inspect for erosion or damage to vegetation, preferably at the end of the wet season to schedule dry season maintenance and before major wet season runoff Prior to rainy season to be sure the areas are ready for the wet season. However, additional inspection & every other month after periods of heavy runoff is recommended. Inspect to ensure grasses, ground covers, vegetation is well established. If not, either prepare soil and reseed or replant with appropriate alternative species. Every other month Install erosion control blankets if necessary. Check for debris and litter, areas of sediment accumulation Every other month Inspect health of trees and shrubs and vegetation Every other month Inspect system cleanouts and outfall structures Every other month Inspect for standing water and vectors Every other month Biofiltration System Maintenance Activities Recommended Frequency Remove litter and debris in conjunction with regularly scheduled landscape maintenance As part of routine, regular landscape maintenance Irrigate biofiltration area(s) during dry season (April through October) and as necessary to maintain vegetation during the rainy season. Physically remove weeds Remove sediment Apply mulch to areas devoid of mulch, especially prior to the wet season Replace damaged or diseased trees and shrubs Mow turf areas, if any Repair erosion at inflow points Unclog under drain system Remove and replace dead and diseased vegetation Replace tree stakes and wires, if any Mulch should be replaced every 2 to 3 years or when bare spots appear Every 2-3 years, or as needed Rototill or cultivate the surface if the system does not draw down in 48 hours As needed VIASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE Storm Trap Storm Water Vault Recommended Frequency Refer to manufacturer's specifications with Attachment 3A Refer to manufacturer's specifications with Attachment 3A Contech CBS Unit Recommended Frequency Refer to manufacturer's specifications with Attachment 3A Refer to manufacturer's specifications with Attachment 3A VIASA T BRESSI RANCH -PHASE 5 I TREATMENT CONTROL BMP VERIFICATION FORM Pursuant to CMC 1512100 GENERAL INFORMATION Owner Name jOwner Address City and Zip Contact Name Contact Phone New Contact New Phone BMP INFORMATION BMP Type I BMP ID# I I Priority I [BMP Description Manufacturer jBMP Location BMP BMP Approval Date Last Inspection Date Maintenance Frequency I Comments BMP VERIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE jOZO I— z >-Z Oz BMP ACTIVITY - COMMENTS HastheBMPbeeninstalled? HastheBMPbeenremoved? IstheBMPoperatingproperly? HastheBMPbeenreplaced?If sowhen? IsBMPcoveredunderamaintenanceagreement? IstheBMPonaregularmaintenanceschedule? HastheBMPbeeninspectedduringthelastyear? $ HastrashorotherdebrisaccumulatedinoraroundBMP? HastheBMPbeenmaintainedorcleanedduringthelastyear? Aredischargepointsfreeoflitteranddebris? HasitrainedsincethelasttimetheBMPwasmaintained? LI Leaking Vehicles LI Trash and Debris u Erosion/Sediments What are the sources of pollution that could impact the BMP? LI Over Irrigation LI Improvement Projects (paint, concrete wash, landscaping, etc.) 11 Pet/Animal Waste 11 Lawn clippings and yard waste [I Other Certification Statement certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system to assure that the responsible party gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or person who managed the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the J "I information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate and complete, I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information including the possibility of fines and other enforcement actions." RINT NAME: SIGNATURE DATE Please return the completed and signed form to the City of Carlsbad CMI - Storm Water Compliance 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-2780 or FAX 760-438-7178 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets I E.12 BF-1 Biofiltration Location: 43t1 Street and Logan Avenue, San Diego, California Description MS4 Permit Category Biofiltration Manual Category I Biofiltration Applicable Performance I Standard Pollutant Control Flow Control Primary Benefits I Treatment Volume Reduction (Incidental) Peak Flow Attenuation (Optional) Biofiltration (Bioretention with underdrain) facilities are vegetated surface water systems that filter water through vegetation, and soil or engineered media prior to discharge via underdrain or overflow to the downstream conveyance system. Bioretention with underdrain facilities are commonly incorporated into the site within parking lot landscaping, along roadsides, and in open spaces. Because these types of facilities have limited or no infiltration, they are typically designed to provide enough hydraulic head to move flows through the underdrain connection to the storm drain system. Treatment is achieved through filtration, sedimentation, sorption, biochemical processes and plant uptake. Typical bioretention with underdrain components include: Inflow distribution mechanisms (e.g, perimeter flow spreader or filter strips) Energy dissipation mechanism for concentrated inflows (e.g., splash blocks or riprap) Shallow surface ponding for captured flows Side slope and basin bottom vegetation selected based on expected climate and ponding depth Non-floating mulch layer (Optional) Media layer (planting mix or engineered media) capable of supporting vegetation growth Filter course layer consisting of aggregate to prevent the migration of fines into uncompacted native soils or the aggregate storage layer Aggregate storage layer with underdrain(s) Impermeable liner or uncompacted native soils at the bottom of the facility E-66 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Overflow structure A A' CURB C 2" MIN. CURB CUT VEGETATED SIDE SLOPE PLAN NOT TO SCALE 4-6' DROP FROM CURB CUT TO APRON F APRON FOR ENERGY DISSIPATION -6" MIN. TO 12" MAX. \ SURFACE PONDING CLEANOUT -, MEDIA SURFACE AREA r2" MIN. FREEBOARD 3" WELL-AGED, SHREDDED / HARDWOOD MULCH / (OPTIONAL) MAINTENANCE / / ACCESS / / (AS NEEDED) EXCAVATED SLOPE (SHOWN AT 1 H: 1 V) • MN. 18' MEDIA WITH MIN. 5 IN/HR - N. FILTRATION RATE SATJRATED STORAGE (OPTIONAL) FILTER COURSE AGGREGATE STORAGE LAYER IMPERMEABLE LINER (OP1]ONAL) MIN. 3" AGGREGATE BELOW UNDERDRAIN MIN. 6" DIAMETER UNDERDRAIN EXISTING UNCOMPACTED SOILS SECTION A-A' NOT TO SCALE Typical plan and Section view of a Biofiltration BMP E-67 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets F - - - - - - - - - - Design Adaptations for Project Goals Biofiltration Treatment BMP for storm water pollutant control. The system is lined or un-lined to provide incidental infiltration, and an underdrain is provided at the bottom to carry away filtered runoff. This configuration is considered to provide biofiltration treatment via flow through the media layer. Storage provided above the underdrain within surface ponding, media, and aggregate storage is considered included in the biofiltration treatment volume. Saturated storage within the aggregate storage layer can be added to this design by raising the underdrain above the bottom of the aggregate storage layer or via an internal weir structure designed to maintain a specific water level elevation. Integrated storm water flow control and pollutant control configuration. The system can be designed to provide flow rate and duration control by primarily providing increased surface ponding and/or having a deeper aggregate storage layer above the underdrain. This will allow for significant detention storage, which can be controlled via inclusion of an outlet structure at the downstream end of the underdrain. Design Criteria and Considerations Bioretention with underdrain must meet the following design criteria. Deviations from the below criteria may be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer if it is determined to be appropriate: Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Placement observes geotechnical recommendations regarding potential hazards El (e.g., slope stability, landslides, liquefaction Must not negatively impact existing site zones) and setbacks (e.g., slopes, foundations, geotechnical concerns. utilities). Lining prevents storm water from An impermeable liner or other hydraulic impacting groundwater and/or sensitive restriction layer is included if site constraints environmental or geotechnical features. indicate that infiltration or lateral flows should Incidental infiltration, when allowable, not be allowed, can aid in pollutant removal and groundwater recharge. Bigger BMPs require additional design features for proper performance. Contributing tributary area greater than 5 Contributing tributary area shall be 5 acres acres may be allowed at the discretion of El ( I acre preferred). the City Engineer if the following conditions are met: 1) incorporate design features (e.g. flow spreaders) to minimizing short circuiting of flows in I I I I I j I I a 1 E-68 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale the BMP and 2) incorporate additional design features requested by the City Engineer for proper performance of the regional BMP. Finish grade of the facility is 2%. Flatter surfaces reduce erosion and channelization within the facility. Surface Pon ding Surface ponding limited to 24 hours for plant health. Surface ponding drawdown Ah Surface ponding is limited to a 24-hour time greater than 24-hours but less than D drawdown time. 96 hours may be allowed at the discretion of the City Engineer if certified by a landscape architect or agronomist. Surface ponding capacity lowers subsurface storage requirements. Deep surface ponding raises safety concerns. Surface ponding depth greater than 12 inches (for additional pollutant control or surface outlet structures or flow- control orifices) may be allowed at the [] Surface ponding depth is ? 6 and 12 inches. discretion of the City Engineer if the following conditions are met: 1) surface ponding depth drawdown time is less than 24 hours; and 2) safety issues and fencing requirements are considered (typically ponding greater than 18" will require a fence and/or flatter side slopes) and 3) potential for elevated clogging risk is considered. A minimum of 2 inches of freeboard is Freeboard provides room for head over El provided, overflow structures and minimizes risk of uncontrolled surface discharge. Sde slopes are stabilized with vegetation and Gentler side slopes are safer, less prone El are = 3H:IV or shallower, to erosion, able to establish vegetation more quickly and easier to maintain. Vegetation E-69 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Plantings are suitable for the climate and Plants suited to the climate and ponding LI expected ponding depth. A plant list to aid in depth are more likely to survive. selection can be found in Appendix E.20. An irrigation system with a connection to Seasonal irrigation might be needed to LI water supply should be provided as needed. keep plants healthy. Mulch (Optional) Mulch will suppress weeds and maintain A minimum of 3 inches of well-aged, shredded moisture for plant growth. Aging mulch [J hardwood mulch that has been stockpiled or kills pathogens and weed seeds and stored for at least 12 months is provided, allows the beneficial microbes to multiply. Media Layer A filtration rate of at least 5 inches per Media maintains a minimum filtration rate of 5 hour allows soil to drain between events. in/hr over lifetime of facility. An initial The initial rate should be higher than filtration rate of 8 to 12 in/hr is recommended long term target rate to account for to allow for clogging over time; the initial clogging over time. However an filtration rate should not exceed 12 inches per excessively high initial rate can have a hour. negative impact on treatment performance, therefore an upper limit is needed. Media is a minimum 18 inches deep, meeting either of these two media specifications: City of San Diego Storm Water Standards A deep media layer provides additional Appendix F (February 2016, unless superseded filtration and supports plants with deeper by more recent edition) or County of San roots. Diego Low Impact Development Handbook: Appendix G -Bioretention Soil Specification Standard specifications shall be followed. U Gune 2014, unless superseded by more recent edition). Alternatively, for proprietary designs and For non-standard or proprietary designs, custom media mixes not meeting the media compliance with F.1 ensures that specifications contained in the 2016 City of adequate treatment performance will be San Diego Storm Water Standards or County provided. LID Manual, the media meets the pollutant treatment performance criteria in Section F.1. E-70 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Greater surface area to tributary area ratios: a) maximizes volume retention as required by the MS4 Permit and b) decrease loading rates per square foot and therefore increase longevity. Media surface area is 3% of contributing area Adjusted runoff factor is to account for LI times adjusted runoff factor or greater. site design BMPs implemented upstream of the BMP (such as rain barrels, impervious area dispersion, etc.). Refer to Appendix B.2 guidance. Use Worksheet B.5-1 Line 26 to estimate the minimum surface area required per this criteria. Potential for pollutant export is partly a Where receiving waters are impaired or have a function of media composition; media LI TMDL for nutrients, the system is designed design must minimize potential for with nutrient sensitive media design (see fact export of nutrients, particularly where sheet BF-2). receiving waters are impaired for nutrients. Filter Course Layer A filter course is used to prevent migration of Migration of media can cause clogging of [J fines through layers of the facility. Filter fabric the aggregate storage layer void spaces or is not used. subgrade. Filter fabric is more likely to clog. Washing aggregate will help eliminate LI Filter course is washed and free of fines, fines that could clog the facility and impede infiltration. Gradation relationship between layers Filter course calculations assessing suitability can evaluate factors (e.g., bridging, [] fcr particle migration prevention have been permeability, and uniformity) to completed. determine if particle sizing is appropriate or if an intermediate layer is needed. Aggregate Storage Layer Class 2 Permeable per Caltrans specification Washing aggregate will help eliminate El 68-1.025 is recommended for the storage layer. fines that could clog the aggregate Washed, open- graded crushed rock may be storage layer void spaces or subgrade. used, however a 4-6 inch washed pea gravel E-71 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale filter course layer at the top of the crushed rock is required. The depth of aggregate provided (12-inch Proper storage layer configuration and typical) and storage layer configuration is El underdra in placement will minimize adequate for providing conveyance for facility drawdown time. underdrain flows to the outlet structure. Inflow, Underdrain, and Outflow Structures Inflow, underdrains and outflow structures are Maintenance will prevent clogging and El accessible for inspection and maintenance, ensure proper operation of the flow control structures. Inflow velocities are limited to 3 ft/s or less or High inflow velocities can cause erosion, use energy dissipation methods. (e.g., riprap, scour and/or channeling. level spreader) for concentrated inflows, Curb cut inlets are at least 12 inches wide, have Inlets must not restrict flow and apron a 4-6 inch reveal (drop) and an apron and prevents blockage from vegetation as it energy dissipation as needed. grows in. Energy dissipation prevents erosion. A minimal separation from subgrade or Underdrain outlet elevation should be a the liner lessens the risk of fines entering minimum of 3 inches above the bottom the underdrain and can improve elevation of the aggregate storage layer. hydraulic performance by allowing perforations to remain unblocked. F-1 Minimum underdrain diameter is 6 inches. Smaller diameter underdrains are prone to clogging. Underdrains are made of slotted, PVC pipe Slotted underdrains provide greater conforming to ASTM D 3034 or equivalent or intake capacity, clog resistant drainage, corrugated, HDPE pipe conforming to and reduced entrance velocity into the AASHTO 252M or equivalent, pipe, thereby reducing the chances of solids migration. An underdrain cleanout with a minimum 6- [1 inch diameter and lockable cap is placed every Properly spaced cleanouts will facilitate 250 to 300 feet as required based on underdrain maintenance. underdrain length. Overflow is safely conveyed to a downstream Planning for overflow lessens the risk of Ll storm drain system or discharge point Sire property damage due to flooding. overflow structure to pass 100-year peak flow E-72 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale for on-line infiltration basins and water quality peak flow for off-line basins. 1nceptual Design and Sizing Approach for Storm Water Pollutant Control Only -- - To design bioretention with underdrain for storm water pollutant control only (no flow control required), the following steps should be taken: Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement requirements, contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended media surface area tributary ratio. Calculate the DCV per Appendix B based on expected site design runoff for tributary areas. Use the sizing worksheet presented in Appendix B.5 to size biofiltration BMPs. cptuiiäsign and Sizing Approach when Storm Water Flow Control is Applicable Control of flow rates and/or durations will typically require significant surface ponding and/or aggregate storage volumes, and therefore the following steps should be taken prior to determination of storm water pollutant control design. Pre-development and allowable post-project flow rates and durations should be determined as discussed in Chapter 6 of the manual. Verify that siting and design criteria have been met, including placement requirements, contributing tributary area, maximum side and finish grade slopes, and the recommended media surface area tributary ratio. Iteratively determine the facility footprint area, surface ponding and/or aggregate storage layer depth required to provide detention storage to reduce flow rates and durations to allowable limits. Flow rates and durations can be controlled from detention storage by altering outlet structure orifice size(s) and/or water control levels. Multi-level orifices can be used within an outlet structure to control the full range of flows. If bioretention with underdrain cannot fully provide the flow rate and duration control required by this manual, an upstream or downstream structure with significant storage volume such as an underground vault can be used to provide remaining controls. After bioretention with underdrain has been designed to meet flow control requirements, calculations must be completed to verify if storm water pollutant control requirements to treat the DCV have been met. E-73 February 2016 L Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets E.13 BF-2 Nutrient Sensitive Media Design Some studies of bioretention with underdrains have observed export of nutrients, particularly - inorganic nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite) and dissolved phosphorus. This has been observed to be a short-lived phenomenon in some studies or a long term issue in some studies. The composition of the soil media, including the chemistry of individual elements is believed to be an important factor in the potential for nutrient export. Organic amendments, often compost, have been identified as the most likely source of nutrient export. The quality and stability of organic amendments can vary widely. I The biofiltration media specifications contained in the County of San Diego Low Impact Development Handbook: Appendix G -Bioretention Soil Specification (June 2014, unless superseded I by more recent edition) and the City of San Diego Low Impact Development Design Manual (page B-18) (July 2011, unless superseded by more recent edition) were developed with consideration of the potential for nutrient export. These specifications include criteria for individual component characteristics and quality in order to control the overall quality of the blended mixes. As of the publication of this manual, the June 2014 County of San Diego specifications provide more detail regarding mix design and quality control. The City and County specifications noted above were developed for general purposes to meet permeability and treatment goals. In cases where the BMP discharges to receiving waters with nutrient I impairments or nutrient TMDLs, the biofiltration media should be designed with the specific goal of minimizing the potential for export of nutrients from the media. Therefore, in addition to adhering to the City or County media specifications, the following guidelines should be followed: I 1. Select plant palette to minimize plant nutrient needs A landscape architect or agronomist should be consulted to select a plant palette that minimizes nutrient needs. Utilizing plants with low nutrient needs results in less need to enrich the biofiltration soil mix. If nutrient quantity is then tailored to plants with lower nutrient needs, these plants will generally have less competition from weeds, which typically need higher nutrient content. The following practices are recommended to minimize nutrient needs of the plant palette: Utilize native, drought-tolerant plants and grasses where possible. Native plants generally have a broader tolerance for nutrient content, and can be longer lived in leaner/lower nutrient soils. Start plants from smaller starts or seed. Younger plants are generally more tolerant of I lower nutrient levels and tend to help develop soil structure as they grow. Given the lower cost of smaller plants, the project should be able to accept a plant mortality rate that is somewhat higher than starting from larger plants and providing high organic content. I 2. Minimize excess nutrients in media mix Once the low-nutrient plant palette is established (item 1), the landscape architect and/or agronomist should be consulted to assist in the design of a biofiltration media to balance the interests of plant E-74 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets establishment, water retention capacity (irrigation demand), and the potential for nutrient export. The following guidelines should be followed: The mix should not exceed the nutrient needs of plants. In conventional landscape design, the nutrient needs of plants are often exceeded intentionally in order to provide a factor of safety for plant survival. This practice must be avoided in biofiltration media as excess nutrients will increase the chance of export. The mix designer should keep in mind that nutrients can be added later (through mulching, tilling of amendments into the surface), but it is not possible to remove nutrients, once added. The actual nutrient content and organic content of the selected organic amendment source should be determined when specifying mix proportions. Nutrient content (i.e., C:N ratio; plant extractable nutrients) and organic content (i.e, % organic material) are relatively inexpensive to measure via standard agronomic methods and can provide important information about mix design. If mix design relies on approximate assumption about nutrient/ organic content and this is not confirmed with testing (or the results of prior representative testing), it is possible that the mix could contain much more nutrient than intended. Nutrients are better retained in soils with higher cation exchange capacity. Cation exchange capacity can be increased through selection of organic material with naturally high cation exchange capacity, such as peat or coconut coir pith, and/or selection of inorganic material with high cation exchange capacity such as some sands or engineered minerals (e.g., low P-index sands, zeolites, rhyolites, etc). Including higher cation exchange capacity materials would tend to reduce the net export of nutrients. Natural silty materials also provide cation exchange capacity; however potential impacts to permeability need to be considered. Focus on soil structure as well as nutrient content. Soil str.icture is loosely defined as the ability of the soil to conduct and store water and nutrients as well as the degree of aeration of the soil. Soil structure can be more important than nutrient content in plant survival and biologic health of the system. If a good soil structure can be created with very low amounts of organic amendment, plants survivability should still be provided. While soil structure generally develops with time, biofiltration media can be designed to promote earlier development of soil structure. Soil structure is enhanced by the use of amendments with high humus content (as found in well-aged organic material). In addition, soil structure can be enhanced through the use of organic material with a distribution of particle sires (i.e., a more heterogeneous mix). Consider alternatives to compost. Compost, by nature, is a material that is continually evolving and decaying. It can be challenging to determine whether tests previously done on a given compost stock are still representative. It can also be challenging to determine how the properties of the compost will change once placed in the media bed. More stable materials such as aged coco colt pith, peat, biochar, shredded bark, and/or other amendments should be considered. 1 With these considerations, it is anticipated that less than 10 percent organic amendment by volume E-75 February 2016 I Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets could be used, while still balancing plant survivability and water retention. If compost is used, designers should strongly consider utilizing less than 10 percent by volume. 3. Design with partial retention and/or internal water storage An internal water storage zone, as described in Fact Sheet PR-1 is believed to improve retention of nutrients. For lined systems, an internal water storage zone worked by providing a zone that fluctuates between aerobic and anaerobic conditions, resulting in nitrification/denitrification. In soils that will allow infiltration, a partial retention design (PR-1) allows significant volume reduction and can also promote nitrification/denitrification. Acknowled-ment: This fact sheet has been adted from the Orange County Technical Guidance Document (May 2011). It was originally developed based on input from: Deborah Deets. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Drew Ready. Center for Watershed Health, Rick Fisher, ASLA. City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering. Dr. Gam Wallace. Wallace Laboratories, Glen Dake. GDML. and Jason Schmidt. Tree People. The guidance provided herein does not reflect the individual opinions of any individual listed above and should not be cited or otherwise attributed to those listed. 1 I I I I I I 1 I E-76 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets E.14 BF-3 Proprietary Biofiltration Systems The purpose of this fact sheet is to help explain the potential role of proprietary lEiMPs in mee1ng biofiltration requirements, when full retention of the DCV is not feasible. The fact sheet does not describe design criteria like the other fact sheets in this appendix because this information varies by BMP product model. Criteria for Use of a Proprietary BMP as a Bio filtration BMP A proprietary BMP may be acceptable as a biofiItration BMP" under the following conditions: The BMP meets the minimum design criteria listed in Appendix F, including the pollurant treatment performance standard in Appendix F.1; The BMP is designed and maintained in a manner consistent with its performance certfications (See explanation in Appendix F.2); and The BMP is acceptable at the discretion of the City Engineer. In determining the I acceptability of a BMP, the City Engineer should consider, as applicable, (a) the data submitted; (b) representativeness of the data submitted; (c) consistency of the BMP performance claims with pollutant control objectives; certainty of the BMP performance I claims; (d) for projects within the public right of way and/or public projects: maintenance requirements, cost of maintenance activities, relevant previous city experience with operation I and maintenance of the BMP type, ability to continue to operate the system irl event that the vending company is no longer operating as a business; and (e) other relevant factors. Guidance for Sizing a Proprietary BMP as a Bio filtration BMP Proprietary biofiltration BMPs must meet the same sizing guidance as non-proprietary BMPs. Sizing I is typically based on capturing and treating 1.50 times the DCV not reliably retained. Guidance for sizing biofiltration BMPs to comply w:th requirements of this manual is provided in Appendix F.2. I I I 1 I E-77 February 2016 I U I n U I I I CNTECH® ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS I I I CDS Guide Operation, Design, Performance and Maintenance I U £r ION no PATENT NO. 5.788848 r. .wkd Ej I Using patented continuous deflective separation technology, the CDS system scree-is, separates and traps debris, sediment, and oil and grease from stormwater runoff. The indirect screening capability of the system allows for 100% emova1 of floatables and neutrally bucyant material without b inding. Flow and screening controls physically separate captured solids, and minirrize the re-suspension and release of previously trapped pollutants. Inline units can treat up to 6 cfs, and interna ly bypass flows in excess of 50 cfs (1416 [is). Available precast or :ast-in- place, offline urits can treat flows from 1 to 300 cfs (28 3 to 8495 Us). The pcllutant removal capacity of the CDS system has been proven in lab and field testing. Operation Overview Stormwater enters the diversion chamber where the diversion weir guides the flow into the unit's separation chamber and pollutants are removed from the flow. All flows up to the system's treatment design capacity enter the separation chamber and are treated Swirl concentra:ion and screen deflection force floatables and solids to the center of the separation chamber where 1 CO% of floataoles and neutrally buoyant debris larger than the szreen apertures are trapped. Stormwater then moves through the separation screen, under the oil baffle and exits the system. The senaration screer remains clog fee due tc continuous deflection. During the flow events exceeding the treatment design capac ty, the diversion wei bypasses excessive flows around :he separation chamber, so captured pollutants are retained in the sepe ration cylinder. GRATE INLET CLEAN OUT CAST IRON HOOT FOR (REQUIRED) .--.- _- CURB INLET OPENING) DEFLEICN PAN, 3SIDED .- (GRATE INLET DESIGN) -11110111 11 WEIR - -ONE BAN-I SIDE) SEPARAT ON CYLINDER INLET FLUME INLET _j MULTIPLI I PIPES POSSIBLE1 OUTL-7 OIL BAFFEE TREATMENT SCREEN SEPAFATION SLAB -., ., SUMP STORAGE 1 12 There are three primary methods of sizing a CDS system. The Water Quality Flow Rate Method determines which model size provides the desired removal efficienc al a given flow rate for a defined particle size. The Rational Rairfall Method' or the and Probabilistic Method is used when a specific removal effi:iency of the net annual sediment load is required. Typically in the Unites States, CDS systems are designed to achieve an 80% annual solids load recucion based on lab generated performance curves for a gradation with an average particle size (d50) of 125 microns (pm). For some regulatory environments, CDS systems can also be ces gned to achieve an 80% annual solids load reduction based on an average particle size (d50) of 75 microns (pm) or 50 mcrens (pm). Water Quality Flow Rate Method In some cases, regulations require tha: a specific treatment rate, often referred to as :he water quality design flow (WQQ, be treated. This WQQ represents the peat flow rate from ei:her an event with a specific recurrence interval, e.g. the six-month storm, or a water qLlality depth, e.g. 112-inch (13 mm) of rainfall. The CDS is designed to treat all flows up to the WQQ. A: influent rates higher than the WQQ, the diversion weir will direct most flow exceeding the WQQ around the separation chamber. This allows removal efficiency to remain re atively constant in the separation chamber and eliminates the r sk of washout during bypass flows regard ess of influent floN rates. Treatment flow rates are defined as the rate at which the CDS will remove a specific gradation of secirrent at a specific removal efficiency. Therefore the treatment flow rate is variable, based on the gradation and removal efficien:y specified by the design engineer. Rational Rainfall Method" Differences in local climate, topography and scale make every site hydraulically unique. It is important to take these factors into consideration when estimating the long-term performarce of any stormwater treatment system. The Rational Rainfall Method combines site-specific information with labera:ory generated performance data, and local historical precipitation recods to estimate removal ehciencies as accurately as possible. Short duration rain gauge records fro -n across the United States and Canada were analyzed to determ ne the percent of :he total annual rainfall that e11 at a range of intensities. US stations' depths were totaled every 15 minutes. o hourly, and recorded in 0.01 -inch increments. Depths were re-:orded hourly with 1-mm resolution at Canadian stations. One trend was consistent at all sites; the vast majority of precipitation fell at low inteisities and high intensity storms contributed re atively little to tie total annual depth. These intensities, along with the total drainage area and runoff coefficient for each specific site, are translated into flow rates using the Rational Rainfall Method. Siice most sites are elatively small and highly impervious, the Raticnal Rainfall Method is appropriate. Based on the runoff flov rates calculated for each intensity, operating ates within a procosed CDS system are I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I CDS® Design Basics determined. Performance efficiency curve determined from full scale laboratory tests on defined sediment PSDs is applied to calculate solids removal efficiency. The relative removal efficiency at each operating rate is added to produce a net annual pollutant removal efficiency estimate. Probabilistic Rational Method The Probabilistic Rational Method is a sizing program Contech developed to estimate a net annual sediment load reduction for a particular CDS model based on site size, site runoff coefficient, regional rainfall intensity distribution, and anticipated pollutant characteristics. The Probabilistic Method is an extension of the Rational Method used to estimate peak discharge rates generated by storm events of varying statistical return frequencies (e.g. 2-year storm event). Under the Rational Method, an adjustment factor is used to adjust the runoff coefficient estimated for the 10-year event, correlating a known hydrologic parameter with the target storm event. The rainfall intensities vary depending on the return frequency of the storm event under consideration. In general, these two frequency dependent parameters (rainfall intensity and runoff coefficient) increase as the return frequency increases while the drainage area remains constant. These intensities, along with the total drainage area and runoff coefficient for each specific site, are translated into flow rates using the Rational Method. Since most sites are relatively small and highly impervious, the Rational Method is appropriate. Based on the runoff flow rates calculated for each intensity, operating rates within a proposed CDS are determined. Performance efficiency curve on defined sediment PSDs is applied to calculate solids removal efficiency. The relative removal efficiency at each operating rate is added to produce a net annual pollutant removal efficiency estimate. Treatment Flow Rate The inlet throat area is sized to ensure that the WOO passes through the separation chamber at a water surface elevation equal to the crest of the diversion weir. The diversion weir bypasses excessive flows around the separation chamber, thus preventing re-suspension or re-entrainment of previously captured particles. Hydraulic Capacity The hydraulic capacity of a CDS system is determined by the length and height of the diversion weir and by the maximum allowable head in the system. Typical configurations allow hydraulic capacities of up to ten times the treatment flow rate. The crest of the diversion weir may be lowered and the inlet throat may be widened to increase the capacity of the system at a given water surface elevation. The unit is designed to meet project specific hydraulic requirements. Performance Full-Scale Laboratory Test Results A full-scale CDS system (Model CDS2020-513) was tested at the facility of University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. This CDS unit was evaluated under controlled laboratory conditions of influent flow rate and addition of sediment. Two different gradations of silica sand material (UF Sediment I & OK-1 10) were used in the CDS performance evaluation. The particle size distributions (PSDs) of the test materials were analyzed using standard method "Gradation ASTM D-422 "Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils" by a certified laboratory. UF Sediment is a mixture of three different products produced I by the U.S. Silica Company: "Sil-Co-Sil 106", "#1 DRY" and "20/40 Oil Frac". Particle size distribution analysis shows that the UF Sediment has a very fine gradation (d50 = 20 to -':;O )um) covering a wide size range (Coefficient of Uniformity, C averaged at 10.6). in comparison with the hypothetical TSS gradation specified in the NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Envirormental Protection) and NJCAT (New Jersey Corporation for Advarced Technology) protocol for lab testing, the UF Sediment covers a similar range of particle size but with a finer d50 (d50 for NJDEP is approximately 50 pm) (NJDEP, 2003). The OK-1 10 silica sand is a commercial product of U.S. Silica Sand. The particle size distribution analysis of this material, also included in Figure 1, shows that 99.9% of the OK-1 10 sand is finer than 250 microns, with a mean particle size (d50) of 106 microns. The PSDs for the test material are shown in Figure 1. 100.0 - - 90.0 -.-- UF Sediment (Avg) :1 80.0 - 01<110(Avg) 70.0 NJCAT 60.0 50.0 40.0 1 / 1 10 100 1000 Particle Size (Pm) Figure 1 . Particle size distributions Tests were conducted to quantify the performance of a specific CDS unit (1.1 cfs (31.3-Us) design capacity) at various flow rates, ranging from 1% up to 125% of the treatment design capacity of the unit, using the 2400 micron screen. All tests were conducted with controlled influent concentrations of approximately 200 mg/L. Effluent samples were taken at equal time intervals across the entire duration of each test run. These samples were then processed with a Dekaport Cone sample sp1itte to obtain representative sub-samples for Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) testing using ASTM D3977-97 "Standard Test Methods for Determining Sediment Concentration in Water Samples", and particle size distribution analysis. Results and Modeling Based on the data from the University of Florida, a performance model was developed for the CDS system. A regression analysis was used to develop a fitting curve representative of the scattered data points at various design flow rates. This model, which demonstrated good agreement with the laboratory data, can then be used to predict CDS system performance with respect I I rT I H I I I 1 I 1 I I I to SSC removal or any particle size gradat cn, assuming te particles are inorganic sandy-silt. Figure 2 shows CDS preiictive 'performance for two typical particle size gadations (NJCai gradation and OK-1 10 sand as a function c-f operating rate. I 100.00 80.00 60.00 I 40.00 20.00 - - - - NJCAT I OK 110 0.00 0% 20% 40% 60% 800/1 100% 120% 140% % Design Flow sate I Figure 2. CDS stomwater treatment predictive performarce for various particle gradations as a function of operating rate. 1 Many regulatory urisdictiors set a performance standard for hydrodynamic cevices by stating that the devices shall be capable of achieving an 83% removal efficiency fcr particles havig a I mean particle size (d50) of 125 microns (e.g. Washingtor State Department of Ecology - WASDOE - 200E.). The mode can be used to calculate the expected performance of such a PSD (shown in Figure 3). The model indicates (:igure 4) that the CDS I system with 2400 micron screen achieves approximately 80% removal at the design (100C/0) flow rate, f this particles ze distribution (d50 = 125pm). I Particle Sze Distnbutior 103 .. •. I 90 70 I 50 40 30 .. 20 I 10 0 • i. a,e. I 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Sze (micro,) 1 Figure 3. WASDOE PD I CDS Wit Performance for Ecology PSD d=125 *m I 1 1 '4 100 80 60 LU 20 y= 19.145x±100.92 ..... -0.931 0 0% 23% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120°/i 140C/o % Design Flow Rate Figure 4. Modeled performance for WASDOE PS. Maintenance The CDS system should be inspected at regular intervals and maintained when necessary to ensure optimum performance. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more heavily on site activities than the size cf Vie unit. For example, unstable soils or heady winter sanding will cause the grit chamber to fill more quickly but regular sweeping of paved surfaces will slow accumulation. Inspection Inspection is the key to effective maintenance and is easi y performed. Pollutant transport and deposition may vary from year to year and regular inspections w 1 help ensure that the system is cleaned out at the appropriate time. At a minimum, inspections should be performed twice per year (e.g. spring and fall) however more frequent inspectiens may be necessary in climates where winter sanding operatiens may lead to rapid accumulations, or in equipment washdown areas. Installations should also be inspected more frequently where excessive amounts of trash are expected. The visual inspection should ascertain that the system components are in working order and that there are no blockages or obstructions in the inlet and separation screen. The inspection should also quantify the accumulation of hydrocarbons, trash, and sediment in :he system. Measuring pollutant accumulation can be done with a calibrated dipstick, tape measure or other measuring instrument. If absorbent material is used for enhanced removal of hydrocarbons, :he level of discoloration of the sorbent material should also be identified C JI7 during inspection. It is useful and often required as part of an operating permit to keep a record of each inspection. A simple form for doing so is provided. Access to the CDS unit is typically achieved through two manhole access covers. One opening allows for inspection and cleanout of the separation chamber (cylinder and screen) and isolated sump. The other allows for inspection and cleanout of sediment captured and retained outside the screen. For deep units, a single manhole access point would allows both sump cleanout and access outside the screen. The CDS system should be cleaned when the level of sediment has reached 75% of capacity in the isolated sump or when an appreciable level of hydrocarbons and trash has accumulated. If absorbent material is used, it should be replaced when significant discoloration has occurred. Performance will not be impacted until 100% of the sump capacity is exceeded however it is recommended that the system be cleaned prior to that for easier removal of sediment. The level of sediment is easily determined by measuring from finished grade down to the top of the sediment pile. To avoid underestimating the level of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be lowered to the top of the sediment pile carefully. Particles at the top of the pile typically offer less resistance to the end of the rod than consolidated particles toward the bottom of the pile. Once this measurement is recorded, it should be compared to the as-built drawing for the unit to determine weather the height of the sediment pile off the bottom of the sump floor exceeds 75% of the total height of isolated sump. Cleaning Cleaning of a CDS systems should be done during dry weather conditions when no flow is entering the system. The use of a vacuum truck is generally the most effective and convenient method of removing pollutants from the system. Simply remove the manhole covers and insert the vacuum hose into the sump. The system should be completely drained down and the sump fully evacuated of sediment. The area outside the screen should also be cleaned out if pollutant build-up exists in this area. In installations where the risk of petroleum spills is small, liquid contaminants may not accumulate as quickly as sediment. However, the system should be cleaned out immediately in the event of an oil or gasoline spill. Motor oil and other hydrocarbons that accumulate on a more routine basis should be removed when an appreciable layer has been captured. To remove these pollutants, it may be preferable to use absorbent pads sirce they are usually less expensive to dispose than the oil/water emulsion that may be created by vacuuming the oily layer. Trash and debris can be netted out to separate it from the other pollutants. The screen should be cleaned to ensure it is free of trash and debris. Manhole covers should be securely seated following cleaning activities to prevent leakage of runoff into the system from above and also to ensure that proper safety precautions have been followed. Confined space entry procedures need to be followed if physical access is required. Disposal of all material remcved from the CDS system should be done in accordance with local regulations. In many jurisdictions, disposal of the sediments may be handled in the same manner as the disposal of sediments removed from catch basins or deep sump manholes. Check your local regulations for specific requirements on disposal. I I Li I I I I I Li 1 I I U I 1 I I d 51 I CDS201 54 4 1.2 3.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 CDS201 5 5 1.5 3.0 0.9 1.3 1.0 CDS2020 5 1.5 3.5 1.1 1.3 1.0 ru1IIij. .0 CDS3020 6 1.8 4.0 1.2 2.1 1.6 CDS3030 6 1.8 4.6 1.4 2.1 1.6 CDS3035 6 1.8 5.0 1.5 2.1 1.6 CD54030 8 2.4 V 4.6 1.4 5.6 4.3 CDS4040 8 2.4 5.7 1.7 5.6 4.3 I CDS4045 8 2.4 6.2 1.9 5.6 4.3 Table 1: CDS Maintenance Indicators and Sediment Stoage Capacities 'Note: To avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the chamber,carefully lower the measuring device to the top of the sediment pile. Finer silty partic es at the top of the pile may be more difficult to feel with a measJring stick. These finer particles typically offer less resistance to the end of the rod than larger particles to'ard the bottom of the pile. JR ! _ _ 1 L 6 CDS Model: Location: Date Water depth to sediment' Floatable Layer Thickness2 Describe Maintenance Performed Maintenance Personnel Comments 1 The water depth to sediment is determined by taking two measurements with a stadia rod: one measurement fom the manhole openiry to the top of the sediment pile and the other from the manhole opening to the water surface. If the difference between these measurements s less than the values listed in table 1 the system should be cleaned out. Note: to avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the &amber, the measuring device must be carefully lowered to the top of the sediment pile. 2. For optimum performance, the system should be cleaned out when the floating hydrocarbon layer accumulates to an appreciable thickress. In the event of an oil spill, the system should be cleaned immediately. 7 I I I I I I I I I I Lr] I I Support Drawings and specifications are available at .ww.ContechES.com. Site-specific design support is avaiIbIe from our engineers. CNTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS 800-338-1122 www.ContechES.com 0 2014 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC Contech Engineered Solutions provides site so utions for :he cvii engineering industry. Contech's portfolio includes bridges drainage, saritary sewer, stormwater, earth stabilization and wastewater produc:s. For information on other Contech division offerings, visit www.ContechES.com or call 800.3381122 NOHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXPRESSED WAF.RANP OR AN IMPL ED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. SEETHE Contech STANDARD CONDIION Of SALES (VIEWABLE AT Www. :ontechES.co/cos FOR APPLICABLE WARRANTIES AND OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The product(s) described 'nay be protected by one or more ofte following US patelts 5,322,629; 5,624,576; 5707,527; 5,759,415; 5,788,848; 5,985157; 6,027,839; 5,350374; 6,406,218; 6,641,720; 6,511,S9S; 6,644,048; 6 991,1 14; 6,998038; 7,186,258; 7,296,692; 7,57,266, related foreign patents or other patents pending. ___ RECYCLED 1 cds manual 7/14 PDF W PAPER 3 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets E.7 HU-1 Cistern MS4 Permit Category Retention Manual Category Harvest and Use Applicable Performance Standards Pollutant Control Flow Control Primary Benefits Volume Reduction Peak Flow Attenuation Photo Credit: Water Enviro'iment Research Foundation: WERF. org Description Cisterns are containers that can capture rooftop runoff and store it for future use. With controlled timing and volume release, the captured rainwater can be used for irrigation or alternative grey water between storm events, thereby reducing runoff volumes and associated pollutants to downstream water bodies. Cisterns are larger systems (generally>100 gallons) that can be self-contained aboveground or below ground systems. Treatment can be achieved when cisterns are used as part of a treatment train along with other BMPs that use captured flows in applications that do not result in discharges into the storm drain system. Rooftops are the ideal tributary areas for cisterns. Typical cistern components include: Storage container, barrel or tank for .aolding captured flows Inlet and associated valves and piping Outlet and associated valves and pip:ng Overflow outlet E-31 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Optional pump Optional first flush diverters Optional roof, supports, foundation, level indicator, and other accessories GUTTER W/ LEAF GUARD OVERFLOW OUTLET CISTERN ACCESS TREATMENT IMP STERN NOTES: OW CONTROL 1. DESIGNER SHALL ACCOUNT FOR OUTLET ORIFICE 7ft I /I AND ACCOMODATE FOR POSSIBLE OVERFLOW. OVERFLOW OUTLET CAPACITY SHALL ECUAL OR EXCEED POTENTIAL RUNOFF VOLUME AND RATE. CISTERN DROVIDES FLOW CONTROL ONLY. USE IN COMBINATION WITH TREATMENT Ii IMP. I 4 PROVIDE ACCESS FOR CLEAN OUT OF OUTLET ORIFICE. SEE ENERGY DISSIPATION FLOW-THROUGH PLANTER OUTLET DETPJL "-OUTLET. 20 MIN DISCHARGE TO APPROVED (TO TREATMENT IMP) 5. PREVENT MOSQUITO BREEDING LOCATION (GUTTER, BY SEALING OR SCREENING ALL STORM DRAIN, ETC.) OPENINGS TO THE WATER SURFACE AND/OR ENSURE CISTERN COMPLETE DRAINAGE. Source: City of San Diego Storm Water Standards Design Adaptations for Project Goals - Site design BMP to reduce effective impervious area and DCV. Cisterns can be used as a site design feature to reduce the effective impervious area of the site by removing roof runoff from the site discharge. This can reduce the DCV and flow control requirements for the site. Harvest and use for storm water pollutant control. Typical uses for captured flows include irrigation, toilet flushing, cooling system makeup, and vehicle and equipment washing. Integrated storm water flow control and pollutant control configuration. Cisterns provide flow control in the form of volume reduction and/or peak flow attenuation and storm water treatment through elimination of discharges of pollutants. Additional flow control can be achieved by sizing the E-32 February 2016 I Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets cistern to include additional detention storage and/or real-time automated flow release controls. 16esign Criteria and Considerations - - - - - - - - -- I Cisterns must meet the following design criteria. Deviations from the below criteria may be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer if it is determined to be appropriate: Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Draining the cistern makes the storage volume available to capture the next storm. I Cisterns are sized to detain the full DCV of The applicant has an option to use a contributing area and empty within 36 hours. different drawdown time up to 96 hours if the volume of the facility is adjusted using the percent capture method in Appendix B.4.2. Cisterns are fitted with a flow control device Flow control provides flow attenuation LI such as an orifice or a valve to limit outflow in benefits and limits cistern discharge to accordance with drawdown time requirements. downstream facilities during storm events. Cisterns are designed to drain completely, Complete drainage and restricted entry E]leaving no standing water, and all entry points prevents mosquito habitat. are fitted with traps or screens, or sealed. Leaf guards and/or screens are provided to prevent debris from accumulating in the Leaves and organic debris can clog the outlet of the cistern. cistern. Access is provided for maintenance and the Properly functioning outlets are needed cistern outlets are accessible and designed to to maintain proper flow control in allow easy cleaning. accordance with drawdown time requirements. Cisterns must be designed and sited such that Safe overflow conveyance prevents El overflow will be conveyed safely overland to flooding and damage of property. the storm drain system or discharge point. Conceptual Design and Sizing Approach for Site Design and Storm Water Pollutant Control Calculate the DCV for site design per Appendix B. Determine the locations on the site where cisterns can be located to capture and detain the DCV from roof areas without subsequent discharge to the storm drain system. Cisterns are best located in close proximity to building and other roofed structures to minimize piping. E-33 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Cisterns can also be used as par: of a treatment train upstream by increasing pollutant control through delayed runoff to infiltration BMPs such as bioretention without underdrain faciliies. Use the sizing worksheet Form 1-7 in Appendix I to determine if full or partial capture of the DCV is achievable. The remaining DCV to be treated should be calculated for use in sizing downstream BMP(s). Conceptual Design and Sizing Approach when Storm Water Flow Control is Applicable Control of flow rates and/or duration will typically require significant cistern volumes, and there:-ore the following steps should be taken prior to determination of site design and storm water pollutant control. Pre-development and allowable post-project flow rates and durations should be determined as discussed in Chapter 6 of the manual. Verify that cistern siting and design criteria have been met. Design for flow control can be achieved using various design configurations, shapes, and quantities of cisterns. Iteratively determine the cistern storage volume required to provide detention storage to reduce flow rates and durations to allowable limits. Flow rates and durations can be controlled from detention storage by altering outlet structure orifice size(s) and/or water control valve operation. Verify that the cistern is drawdown within 36 hours. The drawdown time :an be estimated by dividing the storage volume by the rate of use of harvested water. If the cistern cannot fully provide the flow rate and duration control required by this manual, a downstream stricture with additional storage volume or infiltration capacity such as a biofiltration can be used to provide remaining flow control. I I I I I I 1 E-34 February 2016 I I I I I I I I I I I I r Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets E.3 SD-5 Disperse Runoff from Impervious Area MS4 Permit Category Site Design Manual Category Site Design Applicable Performance Criteria Site Design Primary Benefits Volume Reduction Peak Flow Attenuation Photo Credit: Orange County Technical Guidance Document Description Dispersing runoff from impervious area (dispersion) refers to the practice of effectively disconnecting impervious areas from directly draining to the storm drain system by routing runoff from impervious areas such as rooftoçs (through downspout disconnection), walkways, and driveways onto the surface of adjacent pervious areas. The intent is to slow runoff discharges, and reduce volumes. Dispersion with partial or full rnfiltration results in significant volume reduction by means of infiltration and evapotranspiration. Typical dispersion components include: An impervious surface from which runoff flows will be routed with minimal piping to limit concentrated inflows Splash blocks, flow spreaders, or other means of dispersing concentrated flows and providing energy dissipation as needed Dedicated pervious area, typically vegetated, with in-situ soil infiltration capacity for partial or full infiltration Optional soil amendments to improve vegetation support, maintain infiltration rates and enhance treatment of routed flows Overflow route for excess flows to be conveyed from dispersion area to the storm drain system or discharge point E-21 February 2016 Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets OVERFLOW STRUCTURE CURB ,- FLOW SPREADER ,f (AS NEEDED) 4. t _f'F"""\ 'V 'V 4. * * 4. * 'V * 8' 4' 4' 4' 4" 4" 4. * 4" 4' 4' 4' 4' 4" * 4' OVERFLOW * ROUTE 'V5% MAX. SLOPE FLOW IMPERVIOUS AREA DENSE AND ROBUST PLAN VEGETATION NOT TO SCALE FLOW SPREADER IMPERVIOUS (AS NEEDED) NOTCH (TYP.) OVERFLOW ROUTE SOIL WITH LONG-TERM INFILTRATION CAPACITY CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING ROBUST VEGETATION SECTION A-A' NOT TO SCALE Typical plan and section view of a Dispersing Runoff from Impervious Area BMP E-22 February 2016 I Design Adaptations for Project Goals Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets I Site design BMP to reduce impervious area and DCV. Dispersing runoff from impervious area primarily functions as a site design BMP for reducing the effective imperviousness of a site by providing partial or full infiltration of the flows that are routed to pervious dispersion areas and otherwise slowing down excess flows that eventually reach the storm drain system. This can significantly reduce the DCV for the site. 'Design Criteria and Considerations Dispersion must meet the following design criteria. Deviations from the below criteria may be approved at the discretion of the City Engineer if it is determined to be appropriate: Siting and Design Intent/Rationale Soil must have long-term infiltration capacity for partial or full infiltration and Dispersion is over areas with soil types capable be able to support vegetation to provide of supporting or being amended (e.g., with runoff treatment. Amendments to Eli sand or compost) to support vegetation. Media improve plant growth must not have amendments must be tested to verify that they negative impact on water quality. are not a source of pollutants. For more details on Amended Soil, refer to Appendix E in County of San Diego BMP Design Manual. Dispersion has vegetated sheet flow over a Full or partial infiltration requires relatively large distance (minimum 10 feet or relatively large areas to be effective maximum extent practicable) from inflow to depending on the permeability of the overflow route. underlying soils. Flat slopes facilitate sheet flows and Pervious areas should be flat (with less than minimize velocities, thereby improving 5% slopes) and vegetated, treatment and reducing the likelihood of erosion. Inflow velocities Inflow velocities are limited to 3 ft/s or less or High inflow velocities can cause erosion, [J use energy dissipation methods (e.g., riprap, scour and/or channeling. level spreader) for concentrated inflows. Dedication Dispersion areas must be owned by the project Dedicated dispersion areas prevent U owner and be dedicated for the purposes of future conversion to alternate uses and dispersion to the exclusion of other future uses E-23 February 2016 I 111 I Appendix E: BMP Design Fact Sheets Siting and Design Intent/Rationale that might reduce the effectiveness of the facilitate continued full and partial dispersion area. infiltration benefits. Vegetation Dispersion typically requires dense and robust vegetation for proper function. Drought Fj tolerant species should be selected to minimize Vegetation improves resistance to irrigation needs. A plant list to aid in selection erosion and aids in runoff treatment. can be found in Appendix E.20. Conceptuai Design and Sizing Approach for Site Design Determine the areas where dispersion can be used in the site design to reduce the DCV for pollutant control sizing. Calculate the DCV for storm water pollutant control per Appendix B.2, taking into account reduced runoff from dispersion. Determine if a DMA is considered "Self-retaining" if the impervious to pervious ratio is: 2:1 when the pervious area is composed of Hydrologic Soil Group A 1:1 when the pervious area is composed of Hydrologic Soil Group B E-24 February 2016 Cocu.t. Modsis. Stoo.,,at., M.o.flmemt Sl.t.m I StormTrap Maintenance Manual I Introduction Regular inspections are recommended to ensure that the system is functioning as designed. Please call your Authorized StormTrap Representative if you have questions in regards to the inspection and maintenance of the StormTrap system. Prior to entry into any underground storm sewer or underground detention systems, appropriate OSHA and local safety regulations and guidelines should be followed. Inspection Schedules for Municipalities StormTrap Stormwater Management Systems are recommended for inspection whenever the upstream and downstream catch basins and stormwater pipes of the stormwater collection system are inspected or maintained. This will economize the cost of the inspection if it is done at the same time the Municipal crews are visiting the area. Inspection Schedules for Private Development StormTrap Stormwater Management Systems, for a private development, are recommended for inspection after each major storm water event. At a minimum, until a cleaning schedule can be established, an annual inspection is recommended. If inspected on an annual basis, the inspection should be conducted before the stormwater season begins to be sure that everything is functioning properly for the upcoming storm season. Inspection Process Inspections should be done such that at least 2-3 days has lapsed since the most recent rain event to allow for draining. Visually inspect the system at all manhole locations. Utilizing a sediment pole, measure and document the amount of silt at each manhole location. Inspect each pipe opening to ensure that the silt level or any foreign objects are not blocking the pipes. Be sure to inspect the outlet pipe(s) because this is typically the smallest pipe in the system. It is common that most of the larger materials will be collected upstream of the system in catch basins, and it is therefore important at time of inspections to check these structures for large trash or blockages. Remove any blockages if you can during the inspection process only if you can do so safely from the top of the system without entering into the system. Do not go into the system under any circumstances without proper ventilation equipment and training. Pass any information requiring action onto the appropriate maintenance personnel if you cannot remove the blockages from above during the inspection process. Be sure to describe the location of each manhole and the type of material that needs to be removed. The sediment level of the system should also be measured and recorded during the inspection process. Recording the sediment level at each manhole is very important in order get a history of sediment that can be graphed over time (i.e. years) in order to estimate when the system will I I I I I I n Li I I I I I I need to be maintained next. It is also important to keep these records to verify that the inspection process was actually performed if anyone asks for your records in the future. The sediment level in the underground detention system can be determined from the outside of the system by opening up all the manholes and using a sediment pole to measure the amount of sediment at each location. Force the stick to the bottom of the system and then remove it and measure the amount of sediment at that location. Again, do not go into the system under arty circumstances without proper ventilation equipment and training. When to Clean the System Any blockages should be safely removed as soon as practical so that the Stormwater detention system will fill and drain properly before the next stormwater event. The Dry Detention System should be completely cleaned whenever the sediment occupies more than 10% to 15% of the originally designed system's volume. The Wet Deteition System should be cleaned when the sediment occupies more than 30% or 1/3rd of the originally designed system's volume. NOTE: Check with your municipality in regards to cleaning criteria, as the allowable sediment before cleaning may be more or less then described above. How to Clean the StormTrap The system should be completely cleaned back to 100% of the originaly designed storage volume whenever the above sediment levels have been reached. Be sure to wait at least 3 days after a stormwater event to be sure that the system is completely drained (if it is a Dry Detention System), and all of the sediments have settled to the bottom of the system (if it is a Wet Detention System). Do not enter the System unless you are properly trained, equipped, and qualified to enter a confined space as identified by local occupational safety and health regulations. There are many maintenance companies that are in business to help you clean your underground stormwater detention systems and water quality units. Please call your StormTrap representative for referrals in your area. A. Dry Detention System Cleaning Maintenance is typically performed using a vacuum truck. Sediment should be flushed towards a vacuum hose for thorough removal. For a Dry Detention System, remove the manhole cover at the top of the system and lower a vacuum hose into one of the rows of the StormTrap system. Open up the manhole at the opposite end of the StormTrap and use sewer jetting equipment to force water in the same row from one end of the StormTrap row to the opposite side. The rows of the StormTrap are completely open in one contiguous channel from one end to the other for easy cleaning. Place the vacuum hose and the sewer jetting equipment in the nex row and repeat the process until all of the rows have been cleaned. When finished, replace all covers that were removed and dispose of the collected material properly. B. Wet Detention System Cleaning If the system was designed to maintain a permanent pool of water, floatables and any oil should be removed in a separate procedure prior to the removal of all sediment. The floatable trash is removed first by using a bucket strainer to capture and remove any floating debris. The floatable oils are then removed off the top of the water by using the vacuum truck to suck off any floatable fluids and liquids. The next step is to use the vacuum truck to gently remove the clarified water above the sediment layer. The final step is to clean the sediment for each row as described above in the paragraph "A. Dry Detention System Cleaning". For smaller systems, the vacuum truck can remove all of the sediment in the basin without using the sewer jetting equipment because of the smaller space. 8. Proof of these inspections is the responsibility of the property owner. All inspection reports and data should be kept on site or at a location where they will be accessible for years in the future. Some municipalities require these inspection and cleaning reports to be forwarded to the proper governmental permitting agency on an annual basis. Refer to your local and national regulations for any additional maintenance requirements and schedules not contained herein. Inspections should be a part of your standard operating procedure. SAMPLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE LOG CONTRACTOR TO GROUT TO FINISHED GRADE RIM ICI P\I qlA qn, ELEVATION VIEW TOP OF SYSTEM ELEV. 313.76' STORMGATE WEIR ELEV. 300.35' STRUCTURE INVERT I I ')OP rp. OUTSIDE BOTTOM ELEV. 297.85' 0 0 K z 0 I Li o E 06 CO (9 Z L'i 0 Uo E ag - "II,'A isa W o DATE 1SCALE 05/15/20 1/4" = 1-0" DESIGNED: DRAWN. RWR RWR CHECKED: APPROVED LOW FLOW OUTLET INLET 2 ' 1-0" OFFSET c STORMGATE (ASSEMBLY FLOW xi 5 1-0" OFFSET (FLOW INLET 1 HIGH FLOW OUTLET 300 FRAME AND CO Iii STEPS WEIR WALL PLAN VIEW SECTION A—A MATERIAL LIST (PROVIDED BY CONTECH) SITE DESIGN DATA COUNT DESCRIPTION INSTALLED BY 1 STORMGATE WEIR ASSEMBLY CONTECH 14 STEPS, P1OCTS, LANE LADDER, OR EQUIV. CONTECH 1 SEALANT FOR JOINTS CONTRACTOR 1 30"0x4" FRAME & COVER, EJ#41600484, OR EQUIV. CONTRACTOR GENERAL NOTES CONTECH TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. FOR FABRICATION DRAWINGS WITH DETAILED STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC REPRESENTATIVE. www.ContechES.com BYPASS STRUCTURE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL DESIGN DATA AND INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING. CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM STRUCTURE MEETS REQIJIRFMFNTS OF PROJECT. STRUCTURE SHALL MEET AASHTO HS-20 LOAD RATING, ASSUMING EARTH COVER OF 0'- 5', AND GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AT, OR BELOW, THE OUTLET PIPE INVERT ELEVATION. ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CONFIRM ACTUAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION. CASTINGS SHALL MEET AASHTO M306 LOAD RATING AND BE CAST WITH THE CONTECH LOGO. BYPASS STRUCTURE SHALL BE PRECAST CONCRETE CONFORMING TO ASTM C-478 AND AASHTO LOAD FACTOR DESIGN METHOD. ENGINEER OF RECORD RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING ELEVATION OF ADJUSTABLE WEIR PANEL AND PRECAST WALL ACCORDING TO PRODUCTS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE PROJECT. INSTALLATION NOTES ANY SUB-BASE, BACKFILL DEPTH, AND/OR ANTI-FLOTATION PROVISIONS ARE SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER OF RECORD. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT WITH SUFFICIENT LIFTING AND REACH CAPACITY TO LIFT AND SET THE STORMFILTER STRUCTURE (LIFTING CLUTCHES PROVIDED). CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL JOINT SEALANT BETWEEN ALL STRUCTURE SECTIONS AND ASSEMBLE STRUCTURE. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE, INSTALL, AND GROUT INLET AND OUTLET PIPE(S). CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL GRADE RINGS/RISERS OR BLOCK REQUIRED BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE BASE OF THE MANHOLE FRAMES. STRUCTURE WEIGHT APPROXIMATE HEAVIEST PICK = 8500 LBS. OF 6 PIECES MAX FOOTPRINT = 06' WATER QUALITY FLOW RATE 0.278 CFS PEAK FLOW RATE 14.56 CFS RETURN PERIOD OF PEAK FLOW TBD PROJECT No.: I SEQUENCI 5850 647397 20 CONTECH PROPOSAL LAYOUT 1DRAWING 5850 / PRECS SHEET 4A I 1 OF CARLSBAD, CA CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL REV DATE: ISSUED FOR: DWN 8/5/2020 APPROVAL RJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 8 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: NTS SHEET TITLE: COVER SHEET U I U I H SHEET INDEX PAGE DESCRIPTION 0.0 COVER SHEET 1.0 SINGLETRAP DESIGN CRITERIA 2.0 SINGLETRAP SYSTEM LAYOUT 2.1 SINGLETRAP FOUNDATION LAYOUT 3.0 SINGLETRAP INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS 3.1 SINGLETRAP INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS 4.0 SINGLETRAP BACKFILL SPECIFICATIONS 5.0 RECOMMENDED PIPE / ACCESS OPENING SPECIFICATIONS €0 SINGLETRAP MODULE TYPES 7.0 OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL 1 7.1 OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL 2 STORMTRAP CONTACT INFORMATION STORM TRAP SUPPLIER: STORMTRAP CONTACT NAME: CHARLIE CARTER CELL PHONE: 760-212-5628 SALES EMAIL: CCARTER@STORMTRAP.COM MODULAR CONCRETE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STORMTRAP BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT YOU AGREE WITH THE PIPE INVERT ELEVATIONS, ACCESS OPENING SIZES AND LOCATIONS, PIPE MATERIAL, PIPE DIAMETERS, AND PIPE LOCATIONS OF THE DRAWINGS DATED 8/5/2020 IN ADDITION YOU AGREE WITH THE GENERAL LAYOUT OF THE BASIN AND BASIN HEIGHT, MIN AND MAX COVER OVERTOP THE SYSTEM, DELIVERY NOTES AND ALL SPECIFIC DESIGN ELEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN. THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STORMTRAP. GENERAL CONTRACTOR: DATE: APPROVED: APPROVED WITH CHANGES: fl REJECTED: CIVIL ENGINEER: DATE: APPROVED: fl APPROVED WITH CHANGES: J REJECTED: El INSTALLING CONTRACTOR: DATE: _J_J APPROVED: 0 APPROVED WITH CHANGES: REJECTED: PATENTS LISTED AT HTTP://STORMTP.AP.COM/PATENT] 1287 WINDHAM PARKWAY ROMEOVILLE, IL 60446 P:815-941-4549 / F:331-318-5347 ENGINEER INFORMATION: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 NORTH COAST HWY SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 858-259-8212 PROJECT INFORMATION: VIASAT PHASE 5 VIASAT PHASE 5 CARLSBAD, CA Iv 11.11.11 STRUCTURAL DESIGN LOADING CRITERIA LIVE LOADING: AASHTO HS-20 HIGHWAY LOADING GROUND WATER TABLE: BELOW INVERT OF SYSTEM SOIL BEARING PRESSURE: 3500 PSF SOIL DENSITY: 120 PCF EQUIVALENT UNSATURATED LATERAL ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE: 35 PSF / FT. EQUIVALENT SATURATED N/A LATERAL ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE: APPLICABLE CODES: AASHTO ACI-3 18 BACKFILL TYPE: 3.,STONE AGGREGATE STORMTRAP SYSTEM INFORMATION WATER STORAGE REQ'D: 5,451.33 CUBIC FEET © 3.78 HWL ELEV WATER STORAGE PROV: 5,782.74 CUBIC FEET © 4.00 HWL ELEV UNIT HEADROOM: 5' - 8" SINGLETRAP UNIT QUANTITY: 15 TOTAL PIECES SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN CRITERIA STORMTRAP UNITS SHALL BE MANUFACTURED AND INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SHOP DRAWINGS APPROVED BY THE INSTALLING CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEER OF RECORD. THE SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL INDICATE SIZE AND LOCATION OF ROOF OPENINGS AND INLET! OUTLET PIPE TYPES, SIZES, INVERT ELEVATIONS AND SIZE OF OPENINGS. COVER RANGE: MIN. 10.42 MAX. 11.60 CONSULT STORMTRAP FOR ADDITIONAL COVER OPTIONS. ALL DIMENSIONS AND SOIL CONDITIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GROUNDWATER AND SOIL BEARING CAPACITY ARE REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY OTHERS PRIOR TO STORMTRAP INSTALLATION. FOR STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS THE GROUND WATER TABLE IS ASSUMED TO BE BELOW INVERT OF SYSTEM IF WATER TABLE IS DIFFERENT THAN ASSUMED, CONTACT STORMTRAP. SYSTEM DESIGN INTENT IS TO CONTAIN WATER AND / OR PREVENT GROUNDWATER MIGRATION INTO THE SYSTEM AND WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO LEAKAGE TESTING. A THIRD PARTY WATER PROOFING SOLUTION IS REQUIRED FOR SEALING OF SYSTEM / MODULE JOINTS AND SEAMS. SOLUTION TO BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUPPLIER'S PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS. PATENTS LISTED AT [HTTP://STORMTRAP.COM/PATENT] 1287 WINDHAM PARKWAY ROMEOVILLE, IL 60446 P:815-941-4549 / F:331-318-5347 ENGINEER INFORMATION: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 NORTH COAST HWY SO LANA BEACH, CA. 92075 858-259-8212 PROJECT INFORMATION: VIASAT PHASE 5 CARLSBAD, CA CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL I' J_ ALLOWABLE MAX GRADE = 315.02 ALLOWABLE MIN GRADE = 313.84 11.60' TOS = 303.42 6" - -INSIDE HEIGHT = 302.92 --HWL = 301.25 5' - 8' SINGLETRAP SYSTEM INVERT = 297.25 SEE SHEET 2.1 FOR DETAILS REV DATE: ISSUED FOR: *~ 8/5/2020 APPROVAL RJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 8 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: P NTS SHEET TITLE: SINGLETRAP DESIGN CRITERIA SHEET NUMBER: -u SEE SHEET 4.0 FOR BACKFILL SPECIFICATIONS 10 .42' ii - H I - H- 1-0" MIN. OVERHANG REINFORCED CONCRETE FOUNDATION FOR STORMTRAP SYSTEM (SEE SHEET 2.1 FOR DETAILS) t: Ujt1Yllr 5' - 8" SINGLETRAP BILL OF MATERIALS IY. UNIT TYPE L?ISLRIPIION WEIGHT L I 5' - 8" SINGLETRAP 15900 II 5' - 8' SINGLETRAP 18762 5 III 5' - 8" SINGLETRAP 16254 L IV 5' - 8" SINGLETRAP 17685 L PANEL 8' THICK PANELS VARIES JOINTWRAP 150' PER ROLL I 16 JOINTTAPE 14.5' PER ROLL LOADING DISCLAIMER: STORMTRAP IS NOT DESIGNED TO ACCEPT ANY ADDITIONAL LOADINGS FROM NEARBY STRUCTURES NEXT TO OR OVER THE TOP OF STORMTRAP. IF ADDITIONAL LOADING CONSIDERATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF STORMTRAP, PLEASE CONTACT STORMTRAP IMMEDIATELY. A l4"0 OPENING FOR 12" HDPE INVERT=301 .86 2' fln NOTES: DIMENSIONING OF STORMTRAP SYSTEM SHOWN BELOW ALLOW FOR A 3/4" GAP BETWEEN EACH MODULE. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED IN I HE 1-IELL) BY 0 HERS. SEE SHEET 3.0 FOR INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS. SP - INDICATES A MODULE WITH MODIFICATIONS. 1 5. P - INDICATES A MODULE WITH A PANEL ATTACHMENT. M 6. CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY/ACCURACY TO FINAL ENGINEER OF RECORD PLAN SET. T 7. IF A WATERTIGHT SOLUTION IS REQUIRED FOR THIS OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE, IT WILL BE THE NJ RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRECASTER TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL A WATERTIGHT APPLICATION TO ALL I N INTERIOR COLD JOINTS WITHIN THE STRUCTURE PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO JOB SITE. FOR ALL EXTERIOR COLD JOINTS, INCLUDING JOINT BETWEEN TOP AND BASE MODULES, BETWEEN TOP AND BASE OF ADJOINING SYMONS WALLS, AND JOINTS BETWEEN MODULE AND ADJACENT END PANELS, IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSTALLING CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL THE WATERTIGHT i APPLICATION PER THE EOR'S SPECIFICATION. CONTACT STORMTRAP FOR A LIST OF APPROVED APPLICATORS. PATENTS LISTED AT [HTrPI/STORMTRAP.COM/PATEN11 1287 WINDHAM PARKWAY ROMEOVILLE, IL 60446 P:815-941-4549 / F:331-318-5347 ENGINEER INFORMATION: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 NORTH COAST HWY SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 858-259-8212 PROJECT INFORMATION: VIASAT PHASE 5 2 3 4 5 SPIV PANEL Al SPIV PANEL A5 CARLSBAD, CA I I -8" IVP HI III III IVP 3'-O" 8'-81 lIP I I SHIP I 21' - -12 85 6'-1O" - SPIll SPIV O SpIvp ____________ IVP C2 HI C4 C 5 OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE 1 OUTLET CONTROL (SEE SHEET 7.0) ) (SEE SHEET 7.1) " A " 17'-9 14'-6 / 100 OPENING FOR 120 OPENING FOR 30"0 OPENING FOR 6' PVC 8" HDPE 24" HOPE INVERT=302.00 INVERT=297.25 IN VERT= 297. 25 CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL REV. DATE: ISSUED FOR: EN 8/5/2020 APPROVAL RJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 8 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: NTS SHEET TITLE: SINGLETRAP SYSTEM LAYOUT 30"0 OPENING FOR 24" HDPE IN VERT=299 .25 -240 ACCESS OPENING W/STEPS TYP STRUCTURE 2 2m SHEET l a. ..a . . 4 4 4 . .. -. . - .. -. 4 4 . • . . . 4 - - - - 4 4 0 .4 4 4 A. 4 •. . 44 . ... 4 4 .0.4 4.. 4 . . 4 4 4 . : 4 4 4 4 4. 4 4 4 4 4 .. 4 44 .4 0 . 0 44 ...4 i ... 5.. 4 . . 4 ..... . •0 0• 0 40 0 4 • .4 % .......• 0 : 4 ... 0• 4.4 ••. S •4. ... 4 .. 4.4.. ... •4 • 0 . 4 ......•.. 0 4. ••.0•• '. 4• ... 0•• it * 4 . 4 . . 0 . 040 4 . 0• 00 . ..... 04 . .• 4 A.'.4 O 04 0 .4 0 0 0. : 040 0 4 . 0 00 04 . 44 004 4• .. 0 . 0 0 4 0 04 4 0 0 0 0 . 4 . 0• •0. 0 4 • 0 4 0 4 4 4 4 44 4 44 4 4 44 O 00 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 4 0 4 0 O 0 0 0 0 O• 4. 0 4 00 .44 4 ••• 0 . . 0 0. 0 4 ............0 0 • 4 040 . 4 4 4 44 4 O0 0 . 0 4 0 4 4 0 0 00 0 . 0 44 4 44 0 . . .4 .0 0 4 o 4 0 0 4 . 0 4 •. 4 0 40 4 . 000 0 .... A. 4 0 0 0 . .. . 4 0 40 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 4 . •. 0 4 4 .. .4 ..0 0 4 .O •. 44 0 44. 4 • 4 44 4 4 0 4 0 0 4 4 O 4 040 0 4 -: 4. . 00• 0 4. •O 4 •O 4. 0 004 0 0 .........4 0 0 4 . •O •O 0 0 0 0 •O 0 4 • 4 0 - 00 4 4 4. ... . 4 4 4 4 0 0. .,.. 44 4 4 . if 4 IA .4 4 0 ...0 . 4 0 4 0 40 44 . 0 .0 0 4 4 O. 4 44 4 0 '14 .. 4 4 . : 4 0 0 0 0 04 •O 0 ....... 400 0 4 4. .• 0 0 :. 0: O 0 4 4. 0 4 0O• 40 . 0 0 .40 0 . O 00 •O : A 4 00 . •4 0 0 00 •. 4 . 00 .4 O•0• .0 4. 00 . 0 • 0 ' 4.040 0 4• 0 4• •. ••• ••. .. .....0 - :4. • 4 4., 0 4 0 4 . 0 O .4 0 4. . . 0 0 0 4 . 4 4 .4 0 0 0 40 44. .. .4004 . .. 0 .4 0 4. •.: A. ooO o0 0 0 4 0 4 . 0• 0 4 •0 . 4 . 0 .4 0 4 0 4 4 4 00 •• . . 00 4• ••O 4.4. 0 0 4 0 0 .04 40 ... 0 4 •. • 440 :40 00000•_ 000o0 0 1 0 23'- I NOTES: I ONCRETE STRENGTH © 28 DAYS, 5%-8% ENTRAINED AIR, 4" MAX. SLUMP. ET ALLOWABLE SOIL PRESSURE AS INDICATED ON SHEET 1.0. 3. SOIL CONDITIONS TO BE VERIFIED ON SITE BY OTHERS. . REBAR: ASTM A-615 GRADE 60. BLACK BAR. )IMENSION OF FOUNDATION MUST HAVE 1-0" OVERHANG BEYOND EXTERNAL FACE OF MODULE. )IMENSION OF STORMTRAP SYSTEM ALLOW FOR A 3/4" GAP BETWEEN EACH MODULE. 7. ALL DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY OTHERS. 3. THE CONTROL JOINTS SHALL BE BETWEEN (IF REQUIRED BY ENGINEER OF RECORD) [6-0" TO 24-0" MAX APART. EE SHEET 3.0 FOR INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS. I TOP OF FOUNDATION SLAB THICKNESS 12 -; PAD REINFORCEMENT CONTROl JOINT TO BE CUT INTO SLAB WITHIN 8 HOURS AFTER SLAB IS POURED gd SLAB THICKNESS CONCRETE STRENGTH 0-11" 4500 PSI #5 © 12" O.C. CONTROL JOINT DETAIL TOP OF FOUNDATION 'A' CLEAR COVER SLAB THICKNESS -. STORMTRAP FOUNDATION DETAIL PATENTS LISTED AT [HUP//STORMTRAP.COM/PATENT] 1287 WINDHAM PARKWAY ROMEOVILLE, IL 60446 P:815-941-4549 / F:331-318-5347 I ENGINEER INFORMATION: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 NORTH COAST HWY SO LANA BEACH, CA. 92075 858-259-8212 PROJECT INFORMATION: VIASAT PHASE 5 CARLSBAD, CA CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL DATE: ISSUED FOR: DWN 8/5/2020 APPROVAL RJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 8 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: NTS I 'A' CLEAR SHEET TITLE: COVER SING LETRAP FOUNDATION LAYOUT L SHEET NUMBER: DETAIL 4 8" WIDE JOINT WRAP (SEE NOTE 7) PATENTS LISTED AT fl-IrTP/ISTORMTRAP.COMIpATENT1 1287 WINDI-IAM PARKWAY ROMEOVILLE, IL 60446 P:815-941-4549 / F:331-318-5347 ENGINEER INFORMATION: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 NORTH COAST HWY SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 858-259-8212 PROJECT INFORMATION: VIASAT PHASE 5 CARLSBAD, CA CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL REV. DATE: ISSUED FOR: DWN 8/5/2020 APPROVAL RJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 8 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: NTS SHEET TITLE: - SING LETRAP INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS SHEET NUMBER: 3L CONCRETE FOUNDATION (SEE NOTE 3) 1.' 0 JOINT TAPE AROUND THE PE OF THE SYST (SEE OPTIONAL STONE (FOR LEVELING) I 11 [DETAIL2] TOP OF STORMTRAP 8' WIDE JOINT WRP (SEE NOTE STORMTRAP INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS STORMTRAP SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C891, STANDARD FOR INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND PRECAST CONCRETE UTILITY STRUCTURES, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS SHALL APPLY: IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSTALLING CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT PROPER/ADEQUATE EQUIPMENT IS USED TO SET/INSTALL THE MODULES. STORMTRAP MODULES SHALL BE PLACED ON A LEVEL CONCRETE FOUNDATION (SEE SHEET 2.1) WITH A 1-0 OVERHANG ON ALL SIDES THAT SHALL BE POURED IN PLACE BY INSTALLING CONTRACTOR. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER WILL BE EMPLOYED, BY OWNER, TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN EVALUATING THE EXISTING SOIL CONDITIONS. TO ENSURE THAT HE SOIL BEARING PRESSURE MEET OR EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN LOADING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED ON SHEET 1.0. THE STORMTRAP MODULES SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE MAXIMUM SPACE BETWEEN ADJACENT MODULES DOES NOT EXCEED " (SEE DETAIL 2). IF THE SPACE EXCEEDS ", THE MODULES SHALL BE RESET WITH APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT MADE TO LINE AND GRADE TO BRING THE SPACE INTO SPECIFICATION. STORMTRAP MODULES ARE NOT WATERTIGHT. IF A WATERTIGHT SOLUTION IS REQUIRED, CONTACT STORMTRAP FOR RECOMMENDATIONS. THE WATERTIGHT APPLICATION IS TO BE PROVIDED AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT THE SELECTED WATERTIGHT SOLUTION PERFORMS AS SPECIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER. THE PERIMETER HORIZONTAL JOINT BETWEEN THE STORMTRAP MODULES AND THE CONCRETE FOUNDATION SHALL BE SEALED TO THE FOUNDATION WITH PRE-FORMED MASTIC JOINT SEALER ACCORDING TO ASTM C891, 8.8 AND 8.12 (SEE DETAIL 1). THE MASTIC JOINT TAPE DOES NOT PROVIDE A WATERTIGHT SEAL. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE JOINT TAPE IS TO PROVIDE A SILT AND SOIL TIGHT SYSTEM. ALL EXTERIOR JOINTS BETWEEN ADJACENT STORMTRAP MODULES SHALL BE SEALED WITH 8' WIDE PRE-FORMED, COLD-APPLIED, SELF-ADHERING ELASTOMERIC RESIN, BONDED TO A WOVEN, HIGHLY PUNCTURE RESISTANT POLYMER WRAP, CONFORMING TO ASTM C891 AND SHALL BE INTEGRATED WITH PRIMER SEALANT AS APPROVED BY STORMTRAP (SEE DETAILS 3 & 4). THE JOINT WRAP DOES NOT PROVIDE A WATERTIGHT SEAL. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE JOINT WRAP IS TO PROVIDE A SILT AND SOIL TIGI IT SYSTEM. THE ADHESIVE EXTERIOR JOINT WRAP SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS: 7.1. USE A BRUSH OR WET CLOTH TO THOROUGHLY CLEAN THE OUTSIDE SURFACE AT THE POINT WHERE JOINT WRAP IS TO BE APPLIED. 7.2. A RELEASE PAPER PROTECTS THE ADHESIVE SIDE OF THE JOINT WRAP. PLACE THE ADHESIVE TAPE (ADHESIVE SIDE DOWN) AROUND THE STRUCTURE, REMOVING THE RELEASE PAPER AS YOU GO. PRESS THE JOINT WRAP FIRMLY AGAINST THE STORMTRAP MODULE SURFACE WHEN APPLYING. IF THE CONTRACTOR NEEDS TO CANCEL ANY SHIPMENTS, THEY MUST DO SO 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THEIR SCHEDULED ARRIVAL AT THE JOB SITE. IF CANCELED AFTER THAT TIME, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT MANAGER. IF THE STORMTRAP MODULE(S) IS DAMAGED IN ANY WAY PRIOR, DURING, OR AFTER INSTALL, STORMTRAP MUST BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY TO ASSESS THE DAMAGE AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE MODULE(S) WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED. IF ANY MODULE ARRIVES AT THE JOBSITE DAMAGED DO NOT UNLOAD IT; CONTACT STORMTRAP IMMEDIATELY. ANY DAMAGE NOT REPORTED BEFORE THE TRUCK IS UNLOADED WILL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY. STORMTRAP MODULES CANNOT BE ALTERED IN ANY WAY AFTER MANUFACTURING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT FROM STORMTRAP. PATENTS LISTED AT [HTTP//STORMTRAPCOM/PATENT] 1287 WINDHAM PARKWAY ROMEOVILLE, IL 60446 P:815-941-4549 / F:331-318-5347 ENGINEER INFORMATION: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 NORTH COAST HWY SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 858-259-8212 PROJECT INFORMATION: VIASAT PHASE 5 CARLSBAD, CA CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL REV.[ DATE: {ISSUED FOR: DWN 8/5/2020 APPROVAL RJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 8 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: NTS SHEET TITLE: SING LETRAP INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS END PANEL LIFTING DETAIL SHEET NUMBER: 0% - ----] END PANEL bRbCTION/INSTALLATION NOTES END PANELS WILL BE SUPPLIED TO CLOSE OFF OPEN ENDS OF ROWS. PANELS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A TILT UP FASHION DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO OPEN END OF MODULE (REFER TO SHEET 2.0 FOR END PANEL LOCATIONS). CONNECTION HOOKS WILL BE SUPPLIED WITH END PANELS TO SECURELY CONNECT PANEL TO ADJACENT STORMTRAP MODULE (SEE PANEL CONNECTION ELEVATION VIEW). ONCE CONNECTION HOOKS ARE ATTACHED, LIFTING CLUTCHES MAY BE REMOVED. JOINT WRAP SHALL BE PLACED AROUND PERIMETER JOINT PANEL (SEE SHEET 3.0). I MODULE LIFTING DETAIL I I CONNECTION HOOKS PROVIDED BY STORMTRAP AND INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR (SEE DETAIL 6) HOOK SIDE OF STORMTRAP MODULE SIDE OF END PANEL PANEL CONNECTION ELEVATION VIEW STEP 1 STEP 2 DETAIL 6 FILL DEPTH TRACK WIDTH MAX VEHICLE WEIGHT (KIPS) MAX GROUND PRESSURE 12' 12' 51.8 1690 psf 18" 56.1 1219 psf 24" 68.1 1111 psf 30' 76.7 1000 psf 36" 85.0 924 psf NOTE: TRACK LENGTH NOT TO EXCEED 15-4". ONLY TWO TRACKS PER VEHICLE. GEOFABRIC/GEOTEXTILE AS REQUIRED PER APPROVED ZONE 1 BACKFILL OPTIONS. ZONE 1 ZONE CHART ZONES ZONE DESCRIPTIONS REMARKS UNIFIED SOILS CLASSIFICATION ZONE 1 BACKFILL (GW, GP, SW, SP) - SEE BELOW FOR APPROVED BACKFILL OPTIONS ZONE 2 FINAL COVER OVERTOP MATERIALS NOT TO EXCEED 120 PCF APPROVED ZONE 1 BACKFILL OPTIONS OPTION REMARKS THE STONE AGGREGATE SHALL CONSIST OF CLEAN AND FREE DRAINING ANGULAR MATERIAL. ' STONE THE SIZE OF THIS MATERIAL SHALL HAVE 100% PASSING THE 1' SIEVE WITH 0°!, TO 5% AGGREGATE PASSING THE #8 SIEVE. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM NATIVE MATERIAL USING GEOFABRIC AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BACKFILL (ASTM SIZE #57) AS DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. IMPORTED PURE SAND IS PERMITTED TO BE USED AS BACKFILL IF IT IS CLEAN AND FREE SAND DRAINING. THE SAND USED FOR BACKFILLING SHALL HAVE LESS THAN 40% PASSING #40 SIEVE AND LESS THAN 5% PASSING #200 SIEVE. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM NATIVE MATERIAL USING GEOFABRIC AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SAND BACKFILL. CRUSHED CLEAN, FREE DRAINING CRUSHED CONCRETE AGGREGATE MATERIAL CAN BE USED AS BACKFILL FOR CONC RETE STORMTRAPS MODULES. THE SIZE OF THIS MATERIAL SHALL HAVE 100% PASSING THE 1" SIEVE WITH AGGREGATE O% TO 5% PASSING THE #8 SIEVE. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM NATIVE MATERIAL USING GEOFABRIC AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BACKFILL. STONE AGGREGATE 100°!, PASSING THE 1-1/2 SIEVE WITH LESS THAN 12% PASSING THE #200 ROAD PACK SIEVE (ASTM SIZE #467). GEOFABRIC AS PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER RECOMMENDATION, STORMTRAP ZONE INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS/PROCEDURES THE FILL PLACED AROUND THE STORMTRAP MODULES MUST DEPOSITED ON BOTH SIDES AT THE SAME TIME AND TO APPROXIMATELY THE SAME ELEVATION. AT NO TIME SHALL THE FILL BEHIND ONE SIDE WALL BE MORE THAN 2-0" HIGHER THAN THE FILL ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. BACKFILL SHALL EITHER BE COMPACTED AND/OR VIBRATED TO ENSURE THAT BACKFILL AGGREGATE/STONE MATERIAL IS WELL SEATED AND PROPERLY INTER LOCKED. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO PREVENT ANY WEDGING ACTION AGAINST THE STRUCTURE, AND ALL SLOPES WITHIN THE AREA TO BE BACKFILLED MUST BE STEPPED OR ENGINEER INFORMATION: SERRATED TO PREVENT WEDGING ACTION. CARE SHALL ALSO BE TAKEN AS NOT TO DISRUPT THE JOINT WRAP FROM THE JOINT DURING THE BACKFILL PROCESS. BACKFILL MUST BE FREE-DRAINING MATERIAL. SEE ZONE 1 BACKFILL CHART ON THIS PAGE FOR APPROVED BACKFILL OPTIONS. IF NATIVE EARTH IS PASCO LARET SUITER SUSCEPTIBLE TO MIGRATION, CONFIRM WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND PROVIDE PROTECTION AS & ASSOCIATES REQUIRED (PROVIDED BY OTHERS). - NORTH DURING PLACEMENT OF MATERIAL OVERTOP THE SYSTEM, AT NO TIME SHALL MACHINERY BE USED OVERTOP THAT EXCEEDS THE DESIGN LIMITATIONS OF THE SYSTEM. WHEN PLACEMENT OF MATERIAL OVERTOP, MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE DIRECTION OF PLACEMENT IS PARALLEL WITH THE OVERAI.I I flN(TTIJDINAI. DIRECTION OF THE SYSTEM WHENEVER POSSIBLE. PROJECT INFORMATION: 3. THE FILL PLACED OVERTOP THE SYSTEM SHALL BE PLACED AT A MINIMUM OF 6" LIFTS. AT NO TIME VIASAT PHASE SHALL MACHINERY OR VEHICLES GREATER THAN THE DESIGN HS-20 LOADING CRITERIA TRAVEL OVERTOP THE SYSTEM WITHOUT THE MINIMUM DESIGN COVERAGE. IF TRAVEL IS NECESSARY OVERTOP THE SYSTEM PRIOR TO ACHIEVING THE MINIMUM DESIGN COVER, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REDUCE THE ULTIMATE LOAD/BURDEN OF THE OPERATING MACHINERY SO AS TO NOT EXCEED THE DESIGN CAPACITY OF THE SYSTEM. IN SOME CASES, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED COMPACTION, HAND COMPACTION MAY BE NECESSARY IN ORDER NOT TO EXCEED THE ALLOTTED DESIGN LOADING. SEE CHART FOR ''ARLSBAD CA TRACKED VEHICLE WIDTH AND ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM PRESSURE PER TRACK. CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL COAST- -- - 535 NORTH COAST HWY SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 858-259-8212 I AS REQUIRED PER APPROVED ZONE 1 BACKFILL OPTIONS. ZONE 2 BACKFILL DETAIL REV. DATE: ISSUED FOR: DWN 8/5/2020 APPROVAL PJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 8 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: NTS SHEET TITLE: SING LETRAP BACKFILL SPECIFICATIONS SHEET NUMBER: ZONE 1 I Li I )lz=l I - I 1- 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-11 - I I = I =- I I STEPPED OR SERRATED AND APPLICABLE OSHA REQUIREMENTS (SEE INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS) COVER AS ED BY ENGINEER ED BY OTHERS) PATENTS USTED AT: [HTTP//STORMTR.4P.cOM/PATENT] 1287 WINDHAM PARKWAY ROMEOVILLE, IL 60446 P:815-941-4549 / F:331-318-5347 ENGINEER INFORMATION: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 NORTH COAST HWY SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 858-259-8212 PROJECT INFORMATION: VIASAT PHASE 5 CARLSBAD, CA CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL RISER I STAIR DETAIL RECOMMENDED ACCESS OPENING SPECIFICATION 1. A TYPICAL ACCESS OPENING FOR THE STORMTRAP SYSTEM ARE 2-0' IN DIAMETER. ACCESS OPENINGS LARGER THAN 3-0' IN DIAMETER NEED TO BE APPROVED BY STORMTRAP. ALL OPENINGS MUST RETAIN AT LEAST 1-0' OF CLEARANCE FROM THE END OF THE STORMTRAP MODULE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL ACCESS OPENINGS TO BE LOCATED ON INSIDE LEG UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. PLASTIC COATED STEEL STEPS PRODUCED BY M.A. INDUSTRIES PART #PS3-PFC OR APPROVED EQUAL (SEE STEP DETAIL) ARE PROVIDED INSIDE ANY MODULE WHERE DEEMED NECESSARY. THE HIGHEST STEP IN THE MODULE IS TO BE PLACED A DISTANCE OF 1-0' FROM THE INSIDE EDGE OF THE STORMTRAP MODULES. ALL ENSUING STEPS SHALL BE PLACED WITH A MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF 1-4 BETWEEN THEM. STEPS MAY BE MOVED OR ALTERED TO AVOID OPENINGS OR OTHER IRREGULARITIES IN THE MODULE. 3. STORMTRAP LIFTING INSERTS MAY BE RELOCATED TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH ACCESS OPENINGS OR THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE MODULE AS NEEDED. STORMTRAP ACCESS OPENINGS MAY BE RELOCATED TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH INLET AND/OR OUTLET PIPE OPENINGS SO PLACEMENT OF STEPS IS ATTAINABLE. ACCESS OPENINGS SHOULD BE LOCATED IN ORDER TO MEET THE APPROPRIATE MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS. STORMTRAP RECOMMENDS AT LEAST TWO ACCESS OPENINGS PER SYSTEM FOR ACCESS AND INSPECTION. USE PRECAST ADJUSTING RINGS AS NEEDED TO MEET GRADE. STORMTRAP RECOMMENDS FOR COVER OVER 2' TO USE PRECAS I BARREL OR CONE INSPECTIONS. (PROVIDED BY OTHERS) RECOMMENDED PIPE OPENING SPECIFICATION 1 MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE FOR AN OPENING ON THE OUTSIDE WALL SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 1-0'. PRECAST CONCRETE ADJUSTING RINGS, BARREL OR CONE SECTIONS AS NEEDED SEE RECOMMENDED ACCESS OPENING SPECIFICATION NOTE 6. (SUPPLIED BY OTHERS) NON-SHRINK GRC WALL OF STORMTRAP HIGH STRENGTH, 1-0' x 1-0" CONCRETE COLLAR NON-SHRINK GROUT INLET/OUTLET PIPE HIGH STRENGTH, . .. .. AGGREGATE CRADLE NON-SHRINK GROUT CONCRETE FOUNDATION 1-0 x 1-0' CONCRETE COLLAR INLET/OUTLET PIPE 13/16" / AGGREGATE CRADLE 1-5 1/2" 1-4 3/4"_- I HI I 1 STEP DETAIL IF A PIPE IS PROPOSED AT THE SYSTEM INVERT, NOTCH PIPE TO ALLOW PIPE INVERT TO MEET SYSTEM INVERT IO TE: ALL ANCILLARY PRODUCTS/SPECIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED AND SHOWN ON THIS HEET ARE RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER THE INSTALLING CONTRACTOR AND/OR PER LOCAL MUNICIPAL CODE/REQUIREMENTS. REV DATE: ISSUED FOR: DWN 8/5/2020 APPROVAL RJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY [ RJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 8 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: [ NTS SHEET TITLE: - RECOMMENDED PIPE / ACCESS OPENING SPECIFICATIONS SHEET NUMBER: L OH PIPE CONNECTION DETAIL . MAXIMUM OPENING SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE MODULE HEIGHT. PREFERRED OPENING SIZE 0 36' OR LESS. ANY OPENING NEEDED THAT DOES NOT FIT THIS CRITERIA SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF STORMTRAP FOR REVIEW. CONNECTING PIPES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A 1-0 CONCRETE COLLAR, AND AN AGGREGATE CRADLE FOR AT LEAST ONE PIPE LENGTH (SEE PIPE CONNECTION DETAIL). A STRUCTURAL GRADE CONCRETE OR HIGH STRENGTH, NON-SHRINK GROUT WITH A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI SHALL BE USED. THE ANNULAR SPACE BETWEEN THE PIPE AND THE HOLE SHALL BE FILLED WITH HIGH STRENGTH NON-SHRINK GROUT- RECOMMENDED PIPE INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS CLEAN AND LIGHTLY LUBRICATE ALL OF THE PIPE TO BE INSERTED INTO STORMTRAP. IF PIPE IS CUT, CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO ALLOW NO SHARP EDGES. BEVEL AND LUBRICATE LEAD END OF PIPE. ALIGN CENTER OF PIPE TO CORRECT ELEVATION AND INSERT INTO OPENING. WALL OF STORMTRAP HIGH STRENGTH, NON-SHRINK GROUT CONCRETE FOUNDATION LI 1 . I MEETS: OPSS 1351.08.02 BNQ ASTM C-478.95a ASTM D4-101.95b AASHTO M-199 ASTM 4A-15 TYPE IV TYPE IV END PANEL REV. DATE: ISSUED FOR: DWN 8/5/2020 APPROVAL RJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 8 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 f 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: SHEET TITLE: SING LETRAP MODULE TYPES PATENTS LISTED AT: [IIUP://STORMTR.AP.COM/PATENI] 1287 WINDHAM PARKWAY ROMEOVILLE, IL 60446 P:815-941-4549 / F:331-318-5347 ENGINEER INFORMATION: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 NORTH COAST HWY SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 -- 858-259-8212 PROJECT INFORMAl JON: VIASAT PHASE 5 CARLSBAD, CA CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III SHEET NUMBER: NOTES: OPENING LOCATIONS AND SHAPES MAY VARY. SP - INDICATES A MODULE WITH MODIFICATIONS. 3• P - INDICATES A MODULE WITH A PANEL ATTACHMENT. 4. POCKET WINDOW OPENINGS ARE OPTIONAL. PATENTS LISTED AT: [HTTP://STORMTP.AP.COM/PATENT] 1287 WINDHAM PARKWAY ROMEOVILLE, IL 60446 P:815-941-4549 / F:331-318-5347 ENGINEER INFORMATION: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 NORTH COAST HWY SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 858-259-8212 PROJECT INFORMATION: VIASAT PHASE 5 CARLSBAD, CA CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL REV. DATE: ISSUED FOR: DWN 8/5/2020 APPROVAL RJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL S 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: NTS SHEET TITLE: i OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL 1 SHEET NUMBER: 7o 7 --- ISOMETRICVIEW SIDE VIEW .3O"ø ORIFICE INVERT=O.00 6" 5, 1k"] 2' 2' 24"0 ACCESS OPENING WITH STEPS 1 ===============fl=7==fl= H 3 -2k" = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = J 12-4" - 3' 12" OPEINING FOR 8" HDPE INVERT=297.25 - ----- -- - - - 6" 5-8" ' ' 6" 6" ELEVATION VIEW NOTES: I. OPENING LOCATIONS AND SHAPES MAY VARY. SP - INDICATES A MODULE WITH MODIFICATIONS. P - INDICATES A MODULE WITH A PANEL ATTACHMENT. POCKET WINDOW OPENINGS ARE OPTIONAL. ISOMETRIC VIEW SIDE VIEW PATENTS LISTED AT [HTrP://STORMTRAP.COM/PATENfl ND PANEL FLOW OPENING -\ 300 OPENING FOR \ 24" HDPE INVERT=297.25 L_ _H _ 1 6-10" 6" 8' ELEVATION VIEW NOTES: OPENING LOCATIONS AND SHAPES MAY VARY. SP - INDICATES A MODULE WITH MODIFICATIONS. .,. P - INDICATES A MODULE WITH A PANEL ATTACHMENT. 4. POCKET WINDOW OPENINGS ARE OPTIONAL. 1287 WINDHAM PARKWAY ROMEOVILLE, IL 60446 P:815-941-4549 / F:331-318-5347 ENGINEER INFORMATION: PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES 535 NORTH COAST HWY SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 858-259-8212 PROJECT INFORMATION: VIASAT PHASE 5 CARLSBAD, CA CURRENT ISSUE DATE: 8/5/2020 ISSUED FOR: APPROVAL REV. DATE: ISSUED FOR: QWN 8/5/2020 APPROVAL RJL 11 5/19/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 10 5/11/2020 PRELIMINARY PJL 9 4/28/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 8 4/24/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 7 4/21/2020 PRELIMINARY RJL 6 4/16/2020 PRELIMINARY KW SCALE: NTS SHEET TITLE: OUTLET CONTROL I STRUCTURE DETAIL 2 SHEET NUMBER: L71 240 ACCESS OPENING-', 1-END PANEL WITH STEPS \ / 3,-5" 3'-2" 7 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = J 3-10" 8" PLAN VIEW OUTLET 1 INLET 1 11-01,01 SECTION A-A ET FIBERGLASS INLET, AND CYLINDER PVC HYDRAULIC SHEAR PLATE ENTER OF COS STRUCTURE, SCREEN AND SUMP OPENING S 2 *_7L S_*S 5E"~ 525 flsf 0 s :u CD 300 x 4" FRAME AND COVER PLAN VIEW CONTECH TO PROVIDE RIM ELEV. = 314.30 ± GRADE RING/RISER OIL BAFFLE —" _4_1,9,_jJ"L PVC HYDRAULIC SEPARATION - SHEAR PLATE I SCREEN 9 cli I I SOLIDS STORAGE - 1 OUTSIDE BOTTOM SUMP 5-00 ELEV. 294.34 ELEVATION VIEW I I I I A A FIBERGLASS SEPARATION I I CYLINDER& INLET I r- 1 1 OUTLET 1 INLET 1 60 PVC I - 6 0 PVC (120 OPENING) (120 OPENING) PERMANENT - POOL ELEV. SECTIONS CONTAINING INTERNAL COMPONENTS ARE DELIVERED 9 MECHANICALLY ATTACHED C" I H U C z 0 TOP OF STRUCTURE ELEV. = 313.51 INLET PIPE 1 INV. ELEV. = 299.35 OUTLET PIPE 1 INV. ELEV. = 299.35 SITE DESIGN DATA WATER QUALITY FLOW 0.278 IFS RATE PEAK FLOW RATE OFFLINE RETURN PERIOD OF OFFLINE PEAK FLOW -J 1 - , z O Lu LLD u CONTRACTOR TO GROUT TO FINISHED GRADE w IM MATERIAL LIST (PROVIDED BY CONTECH) COUNT DESCRIPTION INSTALLED BY 1 FIBERGLASS INLET AND CYLINDER CONTECH 1 4700 micron, 2' 0.D. x 1.67' SEP. SCREEN CONTECH 1 3/16 INCH PVC HYDRAULIC SHEAR PLATE * CONTECH 1 SEALANT FOR JOINTS CONTRACTOR 1PLC GRADE RINGS/RISERS CONTRACTOR 1 300 x4" FRAME & COVER, EJ#41600484, OR EQU IV. CONTRACTOR * SEE HYDRAULIC SHEAR PLATE DETAIL GENERAL NOTES CONTECH TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. FOR FABRICATION DRAWINGS WITH DETAILED STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC REPRESENTATIVE. www.ContecliES.com CDS WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL DESIGN DATA AND INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING. CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM STRUCTURE MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF PROJECT. STRUCTURE SHALL MEET AASHTO HS-20 LOAD RATING, ASSUMING EARTH COVER OF 0' - 2', AND GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AT, OR BELOW, THE OUTLET PIPE INVERT ELEVATION. ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CONFIRM ACTUAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION. CASTINGS SHALL MEET AASI-ITO M306 AND BE CAST WITH THE CONTECH LOGO. IF REQUIRED, PVC HYDRAULIC SHEAR PLATE IS PLACED ON SHELF AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN CYLINDER. REMOVE AND REPLACE AS NECESSARY DURING MAINTENANCE CLEANING. COS STRUCTURE SHALL BE PRECAST CONCRETE CONFORMING TO ASTM C-478 AND PASHTO LOAD FACTOR DESIGN METHOD. INSTALLATION NOTES ANY SUB-BASE, BACKFILL DEPTH, AND/OR ANTI-FLOTATION PROVISIONS ARE SITE-SPECIFICDESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER OF RECORD. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT WITH SUFFICIENT LIFTING AND REACH CAPACITY TO LIFT AND SET THE COS MANHOLE STRUCTURE. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL JOINT SEALANT BETWEEN ALL STRUCTURE SECTIONS AND ASSEMBLE STRUCTURE. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE, INSTALL, AND GROUT INLET AND OUTLET PIPE(S). MATCH PIPE INVERTS WITH ELEVATIONS SHOWN. ALL PIPE CENTERLINES TO MATCH PIPE OPENING CENTERLINES. CONTRACTOR TO TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ASSURE UNIT IS WATER TIGHT, HOLDING WATER TO FLOWLINE INVERT MINIMUM. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT ALL JOINTS BELOW PIPE INVERTS ARE GROUTED. 05/15/20 3/8" = 1-0" DESIGNED: DRAWN: RWR RWR CHECKED APPROVED PRECS PROJECT No.: SEQUENCE No.: LAYOUT 4A 1 647397 10 2015-4-FGIS SHEET. 5850/5850 1 o 1 STRUCTURE WEIGHT APPROXIMATE HEAVIEST PICK = 7000 LBS. STRUCTURE IS DELIVERED IN 6 PIECES MAX FOOTPRINT = 05' CONTECH PROPOSAL DRAWING Draft Stormwater Maintenance Standard Sin1e Sheet BMP Exhib