Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CT 00-21; HOLLY SPRINGS; STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN; 2007-12-14
·1 I I I .I I I I I .I :1 ,I :I 1· ,I :I .I .I ,_I PLANNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING IRVINE LOS ANGELES RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO ARIZONA DAVE HAMMAR LEX Wll.'.LIMAN ALISA VIALPANDO DAN SMITH RAY MARTIN CHUCK CATER 9707 Waples Street San Diego, CA 92121 (858) 558-4500 PH (858) 558-1414 FX www.HunsakerSD:com lnfo@HunsakerSD.com HUNSAKER &ASSOCIATES S A N D I E G 0, I N C. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN for CANT ARINI RANCH City of Carlsbad, California Prepared for: BW Properties, LLC 1714 Monterey Avenue Coronado, CA 92118 W.O. 2580-1 December 14, 2007 David A. Blalock, R.C:E. Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. DE:kc h:\reports\2580101\swmp-02.doc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w.o 2580-1 12/17/2007 11:34 AM M-a 'C)~ rdJ '1 I ,. I ... , VICINITY MAP NOT70 SCALE 3 I 3.24 I 0.3 l\\\\'\1 109 I 13 I 0.46 0.0 119 0.26 0.0 121 5.67 0.5 125 0.25 0.0 128 30 2.61 0.2 131 35 1.27 0.1 202 37 4.11 0.4 206 .,, 47 3.28 0.3 y 210 48 2.09 0.2 213 ,,, 53 0.68 0.1 217 54 4.66 0.4 221 58 2.09 0.2 225 62 1.24 0.1 228 66 0.52 0.0 232 70 0.45 0.0 234 73 0.26 0.0 ,.. 303 76 0.12 0.0 307 80 0.85 0.1 315 84 0.36 0.0 318 89 2.48 0.2 322 1.47 0.1 325 2.66 0.2 ,.. 329 NODE # AREAS VEGETATIVE AREA 3.78. ,. 0.3 l'/1/fl\\;-:::::=.:~}.:\:'~l~~A:Y~~ 0.59 0.1 0.57 0.1 6.95 0.6 2.59 0.2 1.99 0.2 2.63 0.2 3.54 0.3 0.46 0.0 1.80 0.2 1.80 0.2 2.21 0.2 3.11 0.3 4.33 0.4 1.61 0.1 0.28 0.0 1.41 0.1 1.32 0.1 2.39 0.2 2.08 0.2 1.06 0.1 1.47 0.1 0.59 0.1 0.0 ¥i) r::.-.· r .-: I ., ... ·::.~.,·: .. . : · ... : I .... I ~~\I BIO-SWALE AREA I \•\ ,\. . ~\1\\\!-c\l""'/ /"{ ,..,..,1/ /-,-II!JJ,,-,,,. ,=,,J;.'"";,;=~--==~=~=~=. UJ"'"'~,.,.., w,_===·~=,,_ ~-:,,-:;c;.-~--}'"1/f,._/,.,/""/[!""/J~ '•, 'ft\ A":tttlllb .':&. :_~-. ,;:-Y~r"\: '?' -::: l!ffit:·-.. ~?.11!- ',;7~:f;r~~ '~ ~~~~,' · .. ~;~· •ibt>->,%'*-~'~""'"" .. '!!lWi-',lf.,.,-.if_. •• ,!_ ~-~,'I"~,." ',i;-,..;::, mn:,, ~ '~"" l~:§:._ L'<::-'i ,,;;_-ti:::: • ~ ~ SITE BMP DESIGN: 300 -DRAINING ROOFTOPS, PATIOS, WAL.¥mAYS, AND TRAILS INTO LANDSCAPING PRIOR TO DISCHARGING INTO STORM DRAIN MINIMIZES DIRECT CONNECTION .WITH THE IMPERVIOUS AREAS. • USING NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, STABILIZING CHANNEL CROSSINGS, PLANTING NATIVE VEGETATION,. AND USING ENERGY DISSIPATERS WILL PROTECT SLOPES AND.CHANNELS. • NO TRASH STORAGE AREAS WILL BE-LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. BMP SOURCE·CONTROL: I~ !• ~ .. ... ~ I~ .,/ ;. ·:~ ·~:~ [~ \.-i/,::,. ·~~ .. /-l~~ .. ~,__\~:_:;~-::·~~rff..-~~-·· :..::· ;;:~>~~~~\ ... -:~ .. ;,~-. ·-~-..... (' '· .. Jt!!ilil I' PREPARED BY: i i I • HUNSAKER ~~.~98½-IE5 PWlNINC '!0179~~\ ~Slll0iqo,C.92tt11 SUlVEYINCPHte.s&lSSS-tsoo,~1414 l ..... w -MANUFACTURED SLOPES SHALL BE LANDSCAPED WITH SUITABLE GROUND COVER. HOMEOWNERS WILL BE EDUCATED AS TO THE PROPERRQUTINE MAINTENANCE TO LANDSCAPED AREAS • HOMEOWNERS WILL BE EDUCATED TO THE PROPER APPLICA'TION, USE AND DISPOSAL OF POTENTIAL STORM.WATER RUNOFF CONTAMINENTS, AND MADE AWARE OF THE RWQCB REGULATIONS -FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES WILL BE SELECTED AND APPLIED TO MINIMIZE RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT -THE DEVELOPMENT WILL INCORPORATE CONCRETE STAMPING ON ALL STORM WATER SYSTEM INLETS AND CATCH BASINS WITH PROHIBITIVE LANGUAGE SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY ENGINEER -ALL HOA MAINTAINED LANDSCAPED AREAS WILL INCLUDE SHUTOFF DEVICES TO PREVENT IRRIGATION DURING AND AFTER PRECIPITATION • ALL OPEN SPACE AREAS WILL FEATURE SIGNAGE AND PET WASTE COLLECTION BAGS PREVENTING ANY SOURCES OF POTENTIAL BACTERIAL POLLUTANTS (100% SOURCE CONTROL) ,. 11,, ... "i, ~ '-~ ,---1 ........... ~, , _.i;-'l I ,, ~~~~:~j ~~l _/{ ~ _.l.,..: .:., ;,•,("'Ill .; ·' \ / :;! ·;,, 1:> --~~ =!if -al ·, \ ·~.I •., SHEET 1 CANTARINI RANCH OF CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1 R1\0848\&Hyd\0848$H05-BMP.dwg[JDec-11-2D07112:128 i ~ ~ I (.) ~ z z a: 0 <( LI.. ::i a: <( () -6 z <( m a: ~ a: ~ <( () LI.. z 0 <( r:: (.) u I I ·1 I 1· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 -Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Summary of Pre-Deveioped Conditions 1.3 Summary of Proposed Development 1.4 Results and Recommendations 1.5 Conclusion 1.6 References CHAPTER 2 -Storm Water Criteria 2.1 Regional Water Quality Control Board Criteria 2.2 City of Carlsbad SUSMP.Criteria CHAPTER 3 -Identification of Typical Pollutants 3.1 Anticipated Pollutants from Project Site 3.2 Sediment 3.3 Nutrients 3.4 Trash·& Debris 3.5 Oxygen-Demanding Substances 3.6 Oil & Grease 3. 7 Pesticides 3. 7 Bacteria & Viruses 3.9 Organic Compounds 3.10 Metals CHAPTER 4 -Conditions of Concern 4.1 Receiving Watershed Descriptions 4.2 Surface Water Quality Objectives and Beneficial Uses 4.3 Coastal Waters 4.4 303(d) Status 4.5 Conditions of Concern -Developed Condition Hydrology Summary 4.6 Identification of Primary & Secondary Pollutants of Concern DE:djg h:lreports\2580101\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/14/2007 9:03 AM I I I I I I I I I I :I I I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan CHAPTER 5 -Treatment Control BMP Design 5.1 BMP Location 5.2 Determination of Treatment Flow 5.3 BMP Unit Sizing 5.4 BioClean Curb Inlet Filter Units 5.5 Pollutant Removal Efficiency Table 5.6 BMP Unit Selection Discussion CHAPTER 6 -Source Control BMPs 6.1 Landscaping 6.2 Urban Housekeeping 6.3 Automobile Use 6.4 Integrated Pest Management Principles 6.5 Storm Water Conveyance Systems Stenciling and Signage 6.6 Efficient Irrigation Practices 6. 7 Pet Ownership Responsibility CHAPTER 7 -Site Design BMPs & Low Impact Development 7.1 Site Design BMPs 7.2 Minimize Impervious Footprint 7.3 Conserve Natural Areas 7.4 Permeable Pavements 7.5 Minimize Directly Connected Impervious h\reas 7.6 Slope & Channel Protection/ Hillside Landscaping 7.7 Maximize Canopy lr,terception & Water Conservation 7.8 Residential Driveways & Guest Parking · 7.9 Trash Storage Areas CHAPTER 8 -Operations & Maintenance Plan 8.1 Maintenance Requirements 8.2 Operation and Maintenance Plan 8.3 Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs CHAPTER 9 -Fiscal Resources 9.1 Agreements (Mechanisms to Assure Maintenance) DE:djg ~:\reports\25B0I01lswmp-02.dac w.a. 25B0-1 12/14/2007 9:03 AM I !.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan List of Tables and Figures Chapter 1 -Vicinity Map Chapter 1 -Watershed Map Chapter 1 -BMP Map Chapter 3 -Pollutant Category Table Chapter 4 -2006 CWA Section 303(d) List Chapter 4·_ Beneficial Uses·of Inland Surface Waters Chapter 4 -Water Quality Objectives Chapter 5 -BM.P Location Map Chapter 5 -Pollutant Removal Efficiency Taple · Chqpter 5 -Design Runoff Determination Summary Table Chapter 5 -85th Percentile Rational Method Calculations . Chapter 5 -BioClean Product Information ·Exhibits BMP Location Exhibit Developed Conditions Hydrology Exhibit OE:djg h:\reports\2580\01\swmp.02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12114/2007 9:03 AM I I I I I 1· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·1· 1· I I I 1· I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan CHAPTER 1 -EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Storm-Water Management Plan addresses the treatment of 85th percentile runoff from the proposed Cantarihi Ranch development. The design will utilize multiple flow based BMPs to treat the 85th p~rce.ntile flow from the development. 85th percentile design runoff calculations are provided in Chapter 5 of this report. 1.1 -Introduction The proposed Cantarini Ranch development consists of 161 single-family residences, a future multi family residential site, servicing roads; associated sidewalks and open space lots. The site is located adjacent to College Boulevard and west of El Camino Real within the City of Carlsbad, California (see Vi.cinity Map on this page). CITY OF OC£ANSI[)£ 78 PACIFIC CITrW ENC/MTAS · VICINITY NOT TO SCALE MAP Per the City of Carlsbad Storm Water Management Program for residential urban runoff, the Cantarini Ranch project is classified as a priority project and subject to the City's Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements. DE:djg h:\reports\2580101\swmp-02,doc w.o. 2580-1 12/14/2007 9:03 AM I I I I I I I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan This Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) has been prepared pursuant to requirements set forth in the City of Carlsbad's "Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)." All calculations are qonsistent with criteria set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Order R9-2007-0001, and the City of Carlsbad SUSMP. . This SWMP recommends the location and sizing of site Best Management Practices · (BMPs) which include multiple flbw treatment units and on-lot site design. To provide maximum water quality treatment for flows generated by the proposed- residential development, a BMP "treatment train" is to be employed within the Cantarini Ranch at the developed discharge location. Developed residential site flows will receive primary treatment via Site ·oesign On Lot Filtration. Any 85th percentile flow not infiltrated on each residential lot will the drain to the adjacent curb and gutter, discharging . to BioClean curb inlet filter prior to discharging from the project site. Furthetmore, this report determines anticipated project pollutants, pollutants of concern in the receiving watershed; peak flow mitigation, recommended source control BMPs, and methodology used for the design of flow-based BMPs. 1.2 -Summary of Pre-Developed Conditions The existing Cantarini Ranch site consists of approximately 156 acres of vacant open space previously used for agriculture. The proposed site is a natural lightly vegetated hillside that drains in multiple directions eventually discharging to five (5) points of discharge. Runoff from the steep slopes located in the northern portion of the project site flow in a northerly direction to two (2) points of discharge eventually confluencing at College Boulevard. Runoff from the steep slopes located to the south primarily flow in a southerly _djrection to three (3) points of discharge confluencing at College Boulevard. Flows drained to the northern and southern College Boulevard drainage locations drain overland in a westerly direction, ultimately confluencing within Agua Hedionda Creek. Please refer to the regional drainage exhibit on the following page for further information. Per the "Drainage Study for Cantarini Ranch", dated December 2006 by Hunsaker &- Associates, peak flow data from the e_xisting site is summarized in Tables 1, 2 and 3. DE:dJg h:\reportsl25BDID1\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12114/2007 9:03 AM I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I~ I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan Table 1 -North College Blvd Existing Conditions Discharge to Agua Hedionda Creek North College Blvd Drainage Area 100-YearPeak Flow Outlet Location (Ac) (cfs) North 50.3 57.5 North West 22.8 36.8 TOTAL 73.1 94.3 . . Table 2 -South College Blvd Existing Conditions Discharge to Agua Hedionda Creek South Coliege Blvd Drainage Area 100-Year Peak Flow Outlet Location (Ac) (cfs) West 47.9 61.5 South West 203.0 243.3 - South 12.0 17.2 TOTAL 262.9 322.0 . . Table 3 -Overall ~xisting Conditions D~scharge to Agua Hedionda Creek Agua Hedionda Creek Drainage Area 100-Year Peak Flow (Ac} (cfs) North College Blvd Outlet 73.1 94.3 South College Blvd Outlet 262.9 322-.0 TOTAL .. 336.0 416.3 The Regional Water Quality Control Board has identified Agua Hedionda Creek as part of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, A·gua Hedionda Hydrologic Area, and the Los Monos Hydrologic Subarea· (basin number 904.31 ). · 1.3-Summary of Proposed Development · Development of the ~ite vyill include the construction of 161 residential units, a proposed future multi-family development, associated streets, sidewalks, and internal storm drainage systems. The Cantarini Ranch residential development also incl.udes the construction of College Boulevard adjacent to the project site and also the construction of the regional detention facility labeled "Basin BJ" per the Master Drainage Study for the City of Carlsbad. · · DE:djg h:\reports\2580101\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580.1 12/14/2007 9:03 AM ·--· ·--,~ .... -,.: -. ·,,, ~ ·., /;. _:·\-. ·~., ~ •: .. :\ • ~ • ~ • , .. .: ,1 ;-• ·-r '· - ---- __ . _ .... __ .,,:-.·1n. ir:.-:s·· ·B::.A..:,~ .. , ·._·, ..... _!.~_~ .... ~ .. --~-~-. --n-u-,·;\. _: ~: ,~:. • ·:'·.,.·r·:::;_ --------- ll#NG _._.__ -....... c._ -.,..__,..._ ---- CANTARINI RANCH CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I I· , .. I I I I. -1 I I I I I· I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch · Storm Water Manc;1gement Plan .. . All pipes have been sized to accommodate the 100-year storm event. Runoff from the developed site area will be collected and conveyed via twelve (12.) storm drain systems within the Can~arini proJect $ite. Runoff frqm the ·developed site drains to seven (7) points of discharge from the project site. Four (4) discharge locations will drain developed and natural flows to the northern portion of College Boulevard. Three (3) discharge locations will drain developed and natural flows to the southern portion of College Boulevard. Flows drained to the northern and southern College Boulevard drainage locations drain overland in a westerly direction, ultimately co_nfluencing within Agua Hedionda _Creek. Per the "Drainage Study for Cantarini Ranch", dated December 2006 by Hunsaker & Associates, peak flow data from the developed site is summarized in Table 4. Runoff · coefficients of 0.46 and 0.71 were assumed for the single family and proposed multi family developments per the '.'2003 San Diego County Hydrology Manual". Table _4 -Overall Developed Conditions Discharge to Agua Hedi.onda Creek . A~ua_ Hedionda Creek Drainage Area 100-Year Peak Flow (Ac) (cfs) North College Blvd Outlet 94;9 126.0 South College Blvd Outlet · 241.1 322.2 TOTAL 336~0 448.2 ... To provide maximum water quality treatment for flows generated by the proposed residential development, a BMP "treatment train'; is to b(;} employed within the Cantarini Ranch at the developed discharge location. Developed residential site flows will receive primary treatment via Site Design On Lot Filtration. 85th percentile flows generated via · the propos~d internal roads will drain to receiving BioClean curb inlet filters prior to discharging from the project site. The proposed roadways wi.11 also feature Site Design Grassy Swales to provide passive _B_MP cle~nsing and infiltration for .a portion of the _85th flows generated via the roadways-. 1..4 -Results and Recommendations Jndividual on lot infiltration-based BMPs and multiple flow-based BMPs have been proposed to treat 85th percentile ru_noff from the site prior to discharge. 85th percentile flows tributary to each individual single family residence will be infiltrated via the large ~mount of vegetated open space located on each residence, thus all pollutants of concern generated via single family residences will not discharge from the project site. DE:dJg h.lreports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/14/2007 9:03 AM I .. I I I I ·I 1· ·1 -I· I I. I I I I I I I I ... Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan_ . To determine the infiltration rate associated With the proposed single family residential development, a typical lot area was calculated. A cons~rvative infiltration rate of 40 minutes/inch (1.33 in/hr) was assumed to reflect the anticipated _soils onsite in ultimate developed conditions. A developed footpri,nt of approximately 0.15 acres has also been . assumed for each developed residence. Calculations provided in Chapter 5 of this report illustrate the ability of each single family residence to adequately infiltrate all '85th · percentile .flows tributary to each res_idence. · To determine the design treatment flows for the BioClean Inlet filter units the 85th percentile design runoff has been calculated using the Rational Method. A runoff coefficient of 0.46 was assumed for the proposed developed site as per the "2003 San Diego County Hydrology Manual". 85th percentile_flow calculations have been provided in Chapter 5 of this report indicating the expected treatment flows at each curb inlet location. Site design BMPs & tow Impact Design (LID) principles will also be implemented on each individual lot to the maximl,Jm extent practicable to ensure water quality treatment is maximized throughout the Cantarini Ranch development. Rooftop runoff will be discharged -to vegetated landscaped areas c;m each residential lot, draining overland via the vegetated landscaping to the receiving curb ,:md gutter. This conveyance through the natural landscaping pmvides passive treatment for these flows allows for infiltration via the on-lot vegetated areas, targeting the potential bacterial and nutrient pollutants of concern · generated via each single family residence. The conveyance of treatment flows via the vegetated landscaped areas on each individual residence. provides passive treatment for pollutants of.concern typically associated with single family residential developments.such as Nutrients and Bacteria & Viruses. Many alternate treatment BMPs, including extended detention basins, hydro dynamic separators, wet ponds, media filters; and grassy swales were exp'lored and evaluated (see Chapter ·5 for a full comparison on all treatment BMPs considered). However, due to site design. constraints and treatment efficiency requirements for pollutants of concern,· On-Lot . infiltration and FloGard curb inlet filter units were deetnec;i to be the most effective and feasible BMP treatment for the Cantarini Ranch development. Implementation of the disconnection of roof drains will ensure maximization of on lot infiltration of 85th percentile flows in accordance with Lib principles, reducing overall treatment flow generated via the development. In order fo be Conservative, it should be noted that all treatment control BMPs have been sized without the assumption of reduced treatmenf flow caused via LID infiltration. Permeable pavements were also evaluated for implementation within the Cantarini Ranch project site. However due to several factors including_ porous pavements high failure rate, porous pavements have been deemed inf~asible for the Cantarini Ranch project site. A full discussion is provided within Chapter 7 of this-report. DE:djg h:\reports\2580101\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/14/2007 9:03 AM I I I I ·1 I ·1· ,. I I I I I 1· I I· I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan 1.5·-Conclusion The combination of proposed construction and permanent BM P's will-reduce, to the , maximum extent practicable, the expected project pollutants and will not adversely impact the beneficial uses df the receiving waters. 1.6 -References "2006 CWA Section 303(d) List," California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Hydrology Manual. County of San Diego Department of Public Works -Flood Co~trol Division; June 2003. ·"Order No. R9-2007'-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758-Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the· Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems . (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the lnco;porated Cities of San Diego County, San Diego .Unified Port District and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority': California Regional Water Quality Control Board · -San Diego Region; January ·24, 2007. "Water Quality Plan for.thl;J San Diego Basin", California Regior1al Water Quality Control Board -San Diego Region, September 8, 1.994. . "Drainage Study for Cantarini Tentative Map CT 00-1 B': Buccola Engineering, Inc.; January 2003. "Storm Water Management Plan for Cantadni Ranch and Holly Springs Tentative Map", Q'Day Consultants, Inc.;. March 2007. "Drainage Study for Cantarini Tentative Map CT 00-18", Buccola Engineering, Inc.; January 2003. "Drainage Study for Cantarini-Ranch': Hunsaker & Associates Inc; December 2007. DE:djg h:\reports\2580101\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12114/2007 9:03 AM ·I I' I I 1· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·1 Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan CHAPTER 2 -STORM.WATER CRITERIA 2.1 "'."' Regional Water Quality Control Board Criteria All runoff conveyed in the proposed storm drain systems will be treated in compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations and NPDES criteria prior to discharging to natural waterco1,.1rses. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9-2007-0001, dated January 24, 2007, sets waste discharge requirements for discharges of urban runoff from municipal storm separate drainage systems draining the watershed~ of San Diego County. Per the RWQCB Order, post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or Which have not been reduced to _the maximum extent practicable. Post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), which refer to specific storm water management techniques that are applied to manage . construction and post-construction site runoff and minimize erosion, include source control -: aimed at reducing the amount of sediment and other pollutants -and treatment ·controls that keep soil and other pollutants onsite once they have been loqsened by storm water erosion. Post construction pollutants are a result of the urban development of the property and the effects of automobile use. Runoff from paved surfaces can contain both . sediment (in the form of silt and sand)' as well as a variety of pollutants transported by the sediment. Landscape activities by homeowners are an additional source of sediment. All structural BMPs shall be located to infiltrate, filter, or treat the required runoff volume or flow (based on the 85th percentile rainfall) prior to its discharge to any receiving watercourse supporting beneficial uses. 2.2 -City of Carlsbad SUSMP Criteria Per the City of Carlsbad SUSMP, the Cantarini Ranch project is classified as a Priority Project and subject ~o the City's Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements. These. requirements required the preparation of this Storm Water Management Plan. The Storm Water Applicability Checklist, which must be included along with Grading Plan application~. is included on the following page. DE:dJg h:lreports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o. 258().1 12/11/200711:42AM I I I I: I I 1· 1· I -·1 1· ·1· I :1 I I I I 1-· Storm Water Standards 4/03/03 APPENDIX.A STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST Complete Sections 1 and 2 of the following checklist to determine your project's · permanent and construction storm. water best . management practices requirements. This form must be completed and submitted with your permit application. Section 1. Permanent Storm Water BMP.Requirements: If any answers to Part A are answered "Yes," your project is subject to the "Priority Project Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements," and "Standard Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements" · in Section Ill, "Permanent Storm Water BMP Selection Procedure" in the Storm Water Standards manual. · Ir all answers to Part A are "No;" and any answers to Part B are "Yes," your project is only subject to the "Standard Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements". If every question in Part A and B is answered "No," your project is exempt from permanent storm water requirements. Part A: Determine Prioritv Proiect Permanent Storm Water SMP Ret1uirements. Does the project meet the definlt!on of one or more of the-priority project Yes No .cateaorles?* 1., Detached residential develooment of 10 cir more units ,, , 2. Attached residential develooment of 10 or more units i/ 3. Commercial development areaterthan 100,000 souare feet ,/ 4. Automotive reoair shoo ,,,,, 5. Restaurant ,/ . 6. Steep hillside dev.elopment areater than 5,000 sauare feet ,/ 7. Proiect discharoing to receivina waters within Environmentally Sensitive Areas ,, 8. Parking lots greater than or equal to 5,000 ff' or with at least 15 parking spaces, and ,/ _ ootentiallv exposed to urban runoff 9. Streets, roads, highways, and freeways Which would create.a new paved surface that is / 5,000 square feet or greater * Refer to the definitions section in the Storm Water Standards for expanded definitions of the priority oroiect cateaories. Limited Exclusion: Trenching and resurfacing work associated with utility projects are not considered ·priority projects. Parking lots, buildings and Other structures associated with utility projects are . priority -projects if one or more of the criteria in Pa"rt A is met. If all answers to Part A are "No", continue to Part B. 30 I I I 1- I I I I I I I: I. I I I I I I I Storm Water Standards 4/03/03 P rtB D t a . e ermme an ar ermanen . St d d P - Does the project propose: t St orm Wt· R a_er t eqmremen s. 1. New impervious areas,. such as rooftops, roads, parking lots, driveways; paths and '. sidewalks? - . 2. New oervious landscaoe areas and irriaation svstems? 3·. Permanent structures within 100 feet of anv natural water body? 4. Trash storaoe areas? 5. Liauid or solid material loadina and unloadina areas? -- C 6, Vehicle or equipment fuelitm, washing, or maintenance areas? 7. Require a General NP DES Permit'for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Except construction)?* 8. Commercia_l or industrial waste handling or storage, exclucling typical office or household waste? 9. Any aradina or tiround disturbance during construction? 10. Anv new storm drains, or alteration to existini:i storm drains? Yes. No / / ,,. ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ / ,/ ,/, ,, *To find out if your project is required to obtain an individual General NP DES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, visit the State Water Resources Control Board web site at, www.swrcb.ca.aov/stormwtr/industrial.html Section 2. Construction Storm Water BMP Requirements: If the answer to question 1 of Part C is answered "Yes,n your project is subject to Section IV, '.'Construction Storm Water BMP Performance Standards," and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If the answer to question 1 is "No," but the answer to any of the remaining questions is "Yes," your project is subject to Section IV, ''.Construction Storm Water BMP Performance Standards,n and must prepare a Water Pollution· Control Plan (WPCP). If every question in Part C is answered "No," your project is exempt from any construction storm water BMP requirements. If any of tile answers to the questions in Part C are "Yes,° complete the construction site prioritization in Part D, below. P rte D t a . -e ermme ons rue 10n ase orm a er eQu1remen . . C t f Ph St Wt R ts Would the project meet any of these criteria during CQnstruction? Yes No - 1. Is the project subject to California's statewide General NPDES Pennit for Storm Water / · Discharaes Associated With Construction Activities? .. / 2. Does the oroiect propose aradina or soil dis_turbance? .. V 3. Would storm water or urban runoff have the potential to contact any portion of the / construction area, including washing and stagina areas? 4. Would the project use any construction materials that could negatively affe~t water ~ quality if discharged from the site (such as, paints, solvents, concrete, and stucco)? . 31 I ·1 I. I: 1· 1· 1· 1: I 1· I I. I 1· I I. I I 1· Storm Water Standards 4/03Z03 Part D: Determine Construction Site Priority · In accordance with the. Municipal Permit, each construction site with construction storm water BMP requirements must be designated with a priority: high, medium or low. This prioritization must be completed with this form, noted on the plans, and included in the SWPPP or WPCP. Indicate the project's priority in one of the check boxes using the criteria below, and existing and surrounding conditions of the project, the type of ::ir-ti\litiAc nACACC::ir., tn t"nmnioto tho-l"nnctr,,,,.tinn ~nn ~n\l nthor ovton11~tinn -"""······-: ··-----. .,, ·-__ ,.,,...._ .. _ ···-----··-··-""'"·-·· _,,..... -··, -···-· """"""'"''~'""'· .. ·~ circumstances that may pose a threat to· water quality. The City reserves the right to adjust the priority of the projects -both before arid during construction. [Note: The construction priority does NOT change construction BMP requirements that apply ·to projects; all construction BMP requirements must be identified on a case-by-case basis. The construction priority does affect tl:te frequency of inspections that will be conducted by City staff. See Section IV.1 for more details on construction BMP requirements.] ~AJ High Prion'ty 1) Projects where the site is 50 acres or more. and grading will occur during the rainy season 2) Projects 5 acres or more. 3) Projects 5 acres or more within or directly adja~ent to or discharging directly to ~ coastal lagoon or other receiving water . within an environmentally sensitive area Proj~cts, activ~ or inactive, adjacent or tributary to sensitive water bodies / 0 BJ Medium Priority 1) Capital Improvement Projects where grading occurs, however a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not required under the State General Construction Permit (Le., water and sewer replacement projects, intersection and street re-alignments,' widening, comfort stations, etc.) 2) . Permit projects in the public right-of-way where grading occurs, such as installation of sidewalk, substantial retaining walls, curb and gutter for an e_ntire street frontage, etc. , however SWPPPs are not required. 3) Permit projecis on private property where grading permits are required, however, Notice Of Intents (NO ls) and SWPPPs are not required. 0 .CJ Low Priority 1) Capital Projects where minimal to no grading occurs, such as signal light and loop installations, street light installations, etc. 2) Permit projects in the p1;1blic right-of-way where minimal to no grading occurs, such as pedestrian ramps, driveway atjditions, small retaining walls, etc. 3) Permit projects on private property where grading permits are not required, $UCh as small retaining walls, .single-family homes, small tenant improvements, etc. 32 I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I -1 I I I I I I 1·- 1 I I I .I I I I I Cantarlni Ranch Storm Wat.er Mana_gement Plan CHAPTER 3 -IDENTIFICATION OF TYPiCAL POLLUTANTS 3.1 -Anticipated Pollutants from Project Site The following table details typical anticipated and potential pollutants generated by various land use types. The Cantarini Ranch development will consist of a single family residential development. Thus the Detached Residential Development and Streets, Highways and Freeways categories have been highlighted to clearly illustrate which general pollutant categories are anticipated from the project ar~a. Priority Project Catego;ies Commercial Development . >100,000 ft2 Automotive Repair Shops Restaurants Hillside Development> 5,000 ft2 Parking Lots X = anticipated P = potential General Pollutant Cate ories en en "C C -en C -C.) .:S· olS en G) C >, en ·-0 E Cl) C Q;, .c •c: ·c: >-~E =c cu J! en .c -G) :s Cl) Cl) ._ o· E Cl) u, z :I: ::iE 00 t-0 X X X p< p(1) p(2) X 1) X x<4ics> X X x. X X p< p(1) X X 1) (1) A potential pollutant if landscaping exists on-site. e> en Cl) en C Cl) cu· olS ·-C.) Cl) C "C C ... ;~ en. ci, C CU· (!) ... Cl) C> cu ti ci, en olS ~ E.c -:s g_~ G) :s· 0 0 O ti), m> p(1) p(2) p p (5) X p(3) X X X X X X p(1) X (2) A potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas. (3) A potential pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products. (4) Including petroleum hydrocarbons. (5) Including solvents. en Cl) ·"tJ 'cl ;: en G) D. X p(S) X p(1) DE:djg h:lreports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w,o,2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM I I I I I- I I I I I:· I I I -,_. 1 ~. I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan 3.2 -Sediment Soils or-other surface materials eroded and then transported or deposited by the action of wind, water, ice, or gravity. Sediments can increase turbidity, clog fish gills, reduce spawning habitat, smother bottom dwelling organisms, and suppress aquatic ve_getative growth. · 3.3 -Nutrients Inorganic substances, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, that commonly exist in the form of mineral salts that are either dissolved or suspended in water .. Primary sources of nutrients in urba·n runoff are fertilizers and eroded soils. Excessive -. .- discharge of nutrients to water bodies and streams can cause excessive aquatic algae and plant growth. Such excessive production, referred to as cultural eutrophication, may lead to excessive decay of organic matter in the water body, loss of oxygen in the water, releas!3 of toxins in sediment, and the eventual death of aquatic organisms. 3.4 -Trash & Debris Examples include paper, plastic, leaves, grass cuttings, and food waste, which may have a significant impact on the recreational v~lue of a water.body and aquatic habitat. Excess organic matter can create a high biochemical oxygen demand in a stream and thereby lower its water quality. In areas where stagnant water is present, the presence of excess organic matter can promote septic conditions resulting in the growth of undesirable organisms and the release of odorous and hazaraous compounds such as hydrogen sulfide. 3.5 -Oxygen-Demanding Substances Biodegradable organic material as well as chemicals that react with dissolved oxygen in water to form other compounds. Compounds such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are examples of oxygen-demanding compounds. The oxygen demand o_f a substance can lead to depletion of dissolved oxygen in a water body and po~sibly the development of septic conditions. 3.6 --Oil & Grease Characterized as high high-molecular weight organic compounds. Primary sources of oil and grease are petroleum hydrocarbon products, motor products from leaking vehicles, oils, waxes, and high-molecular weight fatty acids. Elevated oil and grease content can decrease the aesthetic value of the water body, as well as the water quality. DE:djg h:lreports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42 AM I I I I I I I I I I I. I I 1. ···1 I I I 1 I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan 3. 7 -Pesticides Pesticides (including herbicides) are chemical compounds commonly used to control nuisance growth or prevalence of organisms. Excessive application of a pesticide may result in runoff containing toxic levels of its .activ~ component. 3.8 --Bacteria &Viruses Bacteria c;1nd viruses are ubiquitous microorganisms that thrive under certain .. environmental conditions. Their proliferation is typically caused by the transport of · animal or human fecal wastes from the watershed. Water, cbntaining excessive bacteria and viruses can alter the. aquatic habitat and create a harmful environment for humans and aquatic life. Also, the decomposition of excess organic waste causes ·increased growth of undesirable organisms in the water. 3.9 -Organic Compounds Organic compounds are carbon-based. Commercially.available or naturally occurring organic compounds are found .in pesticides, solvents and hydrocarbons .. Organic compounds can, at certain concentrations, indirectly or directly constitute a hazard to life or health. When rinsing off objects, toxic levels of.solvents and cleaning compounds can be discharged to storm tjrains. Dirt, grease and grime retained in the cleaning fluid or rinse water may-also adsorb level of organic compounds that are harmful or hazardous to aquatic life. 3.1 O -Metals Metals are raw material components in non-metal products such as fuels, adhesives, paints and other coatings. Primary sources of metal pollution in storm water are · typically commercially available metals and metal products. Metals of concern include cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc. Lead and chromium have been used as corrosion inhibitors in primer coatings and cooler tower systems. At low concentrations naturally occurring in soil,-metals are not toxic. However, at higher concentrations, certain metals can be toxic to aquatic life. Humans can be impacted from contaminated groundwater resources,. and bi9accumulation of metals in fish and shellfish. Environmental concerns, regarding the potential for release of metals to the environment, have already led to restricted metal usage in certain applications. DE:djg h:lreports\2580\01\swmp-02,doc w,o, 2580-1 12111/2007 11:42 AM I I I I I I I IV I I I. - I I I I - I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan CHAPTER4 --CONDITIONS OF CO-NCERN 4.1 -Receiving Watershed Descriptions As shown in the watershed map on the following page, the pre-developed Cantarini Ranch site drains to an unnamed tributary of Agua Hedionda Creek which eventually discharges to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon within the Carlsbad watershed. Development of the site will not cause any diversion to or from the existing watershed to the storm drain system. The Regional Water Quality Control Board ha_s identified Agua Hedionda Creek as part of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, Agua Hedionda Hydrologic Area, and the Los Monos Hydrologic Subarea (basin number 904.31 ). The beneficial use for this hydrologic subunit is found in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Basin Plan, dated May 5, 1998. 4.2 -Surface Waters 'Beneficial uses for Agua Hedionda Creek include municipal supply, agricultural supply, industrial supply, contact. water recreation, non-contact recreation, warm freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. The table at the end of this chapter titled 'Water Quality Objectives" depicts the water quality objectives for the inland surface waters. 4.3 -Coastal Waters The-existing beneficial uses of costal waters for Agua Hedionda Lagoon include Industrial Process Supply (IND), Contact Water Recreation (REC-1 ),-Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2), Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM), Estuarine Habitat (EST), Wildlife Habitat (WILD), Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE), Marine Habitat (MAR), Aquaculture (AQUA), Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR), Spawning, Reproduction, and/or early Development (SPWN). Refer to the table at the end of this chapter titled "Beneficial Uses of Coastal Waters". -4.4-303{d} Status ' Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the State to identify surface waters that do not meet applicable water quaiity standards with certain technology-based controls. The State Water Resources Control Board has approved the 2006 303(d) Li$t of Water Quality Limited Segment. DE:djg h:\reports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w,o. 258o-1 12/11/200711:42AM I I I I I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I I I Cant~rini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan The project location and watersheds have been compared to the current published 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segment; ·the nearest impaired water bodies are Agua Hedionda Creek impaired by Manganese, Selenium, Sulfates and Total Dissolved Solids. and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon .impaired by Indicator Bacteria and Sedimentation/Siltation. 4.5 -Condition of Concern-Devel~ped Condition Hydrology Summary Tables 5 and 6-summarize pre vs. post-developed condition drainage areas and resultant 100-year peak flow rates at the storm drain discharge locations. Per San Diego County rainfall isolpluvial maps, the design 100-year rainfall depth for the site .. area is 2.6 inches respectively .. Table 5 -Summary of Existing Vs. Developed 100-Year Peak Flows Outlet l.ocation Drainage· Area 100-Year Peak Flow (Ac) (cfs) North College Blvd. Discharge Existing Conditions 73.1 94.3 Developed Conditions 94.9 126.0 Difference +21.8 +31.7 South College Blvd. Discharge Existing Conditions 262.9 322.0 ,. Developed Conditions 241.1 322.2 . Difference -21.8 + 0.2 Table 6 ..,. Overall Develop·ed Conditions Discharge to Agua Hedionda Creek Agua Hedionda Creek Drainage Area 100-Year Peak Ffow (Ac} (cfs) Pre-Developed Condition 336.0 416.3 Pre-Developed Condition 336.0 448.2 DIFFERENCE 0.0 + 31.9 As illustrated in Tables 5 and 6, the overall developed cohdition flow discharge to the receiving Agua Hedionda Creek increases by approximately 31.9 cfs due to the residential development of the project.site. DE:djg h:\reports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM I I I I I I I I I· I· I I I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan · This· 31.9 cfs increase in peak flow is experienced at the northern discharge location from the project site, North College Boulevard. Per the Master Drainage Study of the City of Carlsbad, regional detention facility "Basin BJ" is also to be located at this aforementioned point of discharge. The Cantarini Ranch development includes t.he construction of this regional drainage mitigation basin in order to alleviate the existing flooding conditions experienced downstream of the project site at Cannon Road and El Camino Real. Per the "Drainage Study for Basin BJ" by Hunsaker & Associates,. dated December 2007, the peak flows generated by not only the proposed Cantarini Ranch development but also the large offsite tributary are reduced to well below those flows experienced ,in current existing conditions, alleviating the current flooding of property owners downstreartrof the project site. As such, the 31.9 cfs increase in runoff experienced due to the residential development will have no negative impact downstream of the project site due to the overall reduction in peak flows mitigated via the const_ruction of Basin BJ .. -· · Peak flow rates listed above were generated based on criteria set forth in the "2003 San Diego County Hydrology Manual". For further information in regards to this rational method analysis, please refer to the "Drainage Study for Cantarini Ranch" dated December, 2007 by Hunsaker & Associates. 4.6 -Identification of Primary & Secondary Pollutants of Concern .As stated previously in segment 4..4; the nearest 303(d) listed endangered water body the Cantarini Ranch development are Agua Hedionda Creek impaired by Manganese, Selenium, Sulfates and Total Dissolved Solids and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon impaired by Indicator Bacteria and Sedimentation/Siltation. Thus Bacteria & Viruses, Sediments and Nutrients are primary pollutant of concern from the proposed site. Secondary pollutants generated by the project site include Heavy Metals, Tra$h and Debris, Oil and Grease, Oxygen Demanding Substances and Pesticides. DE:djg h:\reports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/1412007 9:05 AM -----·------------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD - SWRCB Al"l'ROV AL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 - .. REGION TYPE. NAME CALWATER WATERSHED PO~UTA,NT/STRESSQ~ POTE~'tIAL SOURCES · l£S'fIMAT~D. · PROPOSED TMDL : ~12,EA:FFJllC'.JlEI> . COM;),'J.,ETI()N 9, R Agua Hedionda Creek 90431000 Manganese Selenium Sulfates Total Dissolved Solids Source Unknown Source Unknown Source Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 7 Miles. 2019 7 Miles 2019 7 Miles 2019 7 Miles 2019 -~-...---.. ,__.._,_.., .............. -----. ----..... ~-;;;:;;;;.··:::.::;_--;:.,·;=.---...-~-.-~~----..,,. ........ ~ :.....:::.:.:-"..::.::::;::-.::;-_...:_:::-..:::,) 9 E Agua Hedionda La~oon 904;11000 Indicator bacterfa 6.8 Acres 2006 Nonpoint/Point Source Sedimentation/Siltation 6.8 Acres 2019 Nonpoi11t/Poh1t Source ;:-----1.. --~-'Z"',,,;:;;;;.~---·--i-'•,......., ........ -.i--, ....... -.......... ---.-..., .,,_ _,._ _...,___ .._. .. ..,... __ ,..,.t -,-.. ··¥-"·---:r= .... ~.:-:-:~::: •. ~-.. ::;:t;;..;;,;.;,.··,~~~---.-,,....:.: .. :_·;;,:..,.·~ ·~ • .:.J R Aliso Creek 90113000 Indicator bacteria 19 Miles 2005 This listing for indicator bacteria applies to the Aliso Creek mainstem and all the major tributaries of Aliso Creek which are Sulphur Creek, Wood Canyon, Aliso Hills Canyon, Dairy Fork, and English Canyon. Phosphorus Urban RunoftYStorm Sewers Unknown point som·ce No11poi11t/Poi11t Source 19 Miles 2019 This listing for phosphorus applies to the Aliso Creek mains/em and all the major tributaries of Aliso Creek which are Sulphur Creek, Wood Canyon, Aliso Hills Canyon, Dairy Fork, and English Canyon. Pagel of27 Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source -----.. -----~-------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD SWRCB Al'PROV ~ DATE: OQ:OBER 25, 2006 ESTIMATED l'ROP0SED TMDL : ' RJi:G:J.ON ti"P.E: N~ CALWATER , WAT]l;){SHED P~l.,LUTA;N'tiS'll,JlESS©R J>OTENl:IAI, , .. SOVRCES_, sliil: A)?i<'Ec:rtp, · _c0~iill_IQN Toxicity 19 Miles 2019 This listing/or toxicity applies to the Aliso Creek mainstem and all the major tributaries of Aliso Creek which are Sulphur Creek, Wood Canyon, Aliso Hills Canyon, Dairy Fork, and English Canyon, Urban Runoff/Storm Sen:ers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point sonrce .,.,,.,-...,_........y.q-,.,..,_.,,. ,_,._.,.,._, ,..,,w..,.,,.,,.,_.,.,,_,,,~--.,......,,...,,..,._ ·-·-•"4•,,_,. __ ,,_,..,,.,. ___ .. ~.....W-...:-r.~.........,~,.-., ...... -,..-,_•.,,,.......,.,..,.i..,. i; .. -' ,...,_w~~,,.,._.,_.1.,,-,.•~ .. ..,.· .... :..,..,,_,,.,...,....,, ............... :._ .. ,,.:.~ .• ·-< .f 9 E Aliso Creek (mouth) 90113000 Indicator bacteria 0.29 Acres 2005 Nonpoint/Point Source i:.:·-;:;;.::·-::;;::::::;=:;:;::;:.;;.;:,.,:;;;:;;;-.::.::;::;:.,_-____________________ ;-;-.=:.;:;;:;::::::~~. ; -----~ .. --~ ...__ --... -:::.:::...-:::: ..... : .. ::.~~-:;. ____ ----... -... .....,._..._ ~' '!"'---.... ·::::_;._ ..... ~.--........... ....,: _ _, ___ _';, . .:.__,,~-. -~':~-~ ..... ~ ... ------------~ -----... --~ . -~ .. .:1 9 L Barrett Lake 91130000 Color 125 Acres 2019 Source Unknown Mangllnes_e 125 Acres 2019 Source Unknown pH .125 Ac1·es 2019 Source Unknown - t::·C';' ~-... ,~ '-.. ----~~....:::::;:::-.:::;:::;;-_...,,_,.. __ ~ ..... --=......... -·----~-~ .... b·-"'-'""f'-" .. ---.. ............ ....-,-.,._,.,.,_, _...,,___._ --·· --·:=,.-_:::....::::::~;-:;;:..":_":...,'"'::.:..:.J 9 R Buena·Creek 90432000 DDT 4.8 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Nitrate and Nitrite 4.8 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Phosphate 4.8 Miles 2019 Source Unknown ,:-=~~-;;;;:;;:;;:::.:.;:;::;;:::;:;.; ' ' '_,..,~, ... ..,.,....: • .....,d>,""••--· .,....;:_..,,_.-,/ .u,J...,...._..,..., -..... J.1,,....._,._._,.,_,::;_.,.~,.., .. ,1/ . .,,r,,,~'<-1-,.__,,._..,.,;.,..,~.,...""(,;, ":C•._.,._;,;A,__ ~....,_.,..."°:'::_'..,,!;-,•...,m,.•._.:..•:. .. .::.,."7,...,,,._,~ :::":"';~,, •• ,/':."': ""','>·,. ":,i•'~t 9 R Buena Vista Creek 90421000 Sediment Toxicity 11 Miles 2019 Source Unknown ,._ _. .._,...,__ ,. • •• :::;::., N __ _,,,,::..,,,_..;,,..,__.,.~ • ...,...! ... ~...._ ..... ..,.,.l--,..;...-....._::,..__ ... .,__ •. ......-., _ _...._4....,~· --_i:,.._.. __ ,__,.,., .. r--t ... ,.. , ___ ,_ •• ~~ ......... ..,..!~_, .. -,. •• _.._~., ...... -~ ........ ..,.;,4,..,..~r .. i~~.:r. . ...,....,.,~.----:J: .. : •. ~ -. ,,-.~·, ... :....., •• ',.,;...,.',.__,., · ~:,,-, ·' ,...,., ..,.. ~ Page2o/27 ----,_ -------.. --·---PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD SWRCB ~l"lt{)V AL D;\'l'E: _!)CTOBER 25, 2006 ESTIMA,TED PROPOSED '.fMDL iPi:GION 'I;Y:,P~· N:A:M,lt CA.LWA'.l'ER W:ATERSl:lED POLLVf:AJl!T/STRES~O~ . .PQT~NT-t<U, ,SQURC!]:$ · SIµ 4tF.f!:O'E:{> • .. CO~:fl.,ETJ_O~ 9 E Buena Vista Lagoon 90421000 Indicator bacteria Nonpoint/Po~nt Source Nutrients Estimated size of impairment is 150 acres located in upper portion of lagoon. Nonpoint/Point Source Sedim,!lntation/Siltation Nonpoint/Point Source 202 Acres 2008 202 Acres 2019 202 Acres 2019 r;-,,. ......... ··----~;;:::;;;-~---·u.., .......... -'-· -~ .... ,......... . .'. -~, ............ ,_ ......... ffl , ............................... _ --,--';""~ ........................... ,.......... ...... , ........ ,.~--'. ·---• ..,..,,, ..... ·~--"'!'' • (-~-·\ .... ,. .... ..,. ............... ...;:,,,,,-·,, .. ....,....,. • ...,_z_--;:,...-·-..._.,,·--·r·.,. .,._..,.....::\-..... ,~ ....... -... --. -· :· --... -· -·-.... _. ~ .-,. ·-,'"" !,, • ., J 9 R Chollas Creek 90822000 Copper 3.5 Miles 2004 Nonpoint/Point Source Indicator bacteria 3.5 Miles 2005 Nonpoint/Point Source Lead 3.5 Miles 2004 Nonpoint/Point Source Zinc 3.5 Miles 2004 Nonpoint/Point Source - ~ --·:= ••,n ---""'l'~ ----;-,-•-..•w•_ .. __ ,. ......... .,._~ __ ,4 ____ .......___H __________ ..., .... --,-~.--.-.---------:_...,. ~-.. ----• _,..,._ . .,., -... ;..::...:-.-:. .• : ... ::;:.:;;;:,..] 9 R Clove1·dale Creek 90532000 Phosphorus Total Dissolved Solids Urban Run:ofti'Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Som·ce Unknown point source 1.2 Miles 1.2 Miles 2019 2019 ~.i. ..... <i ... u • .....,..:..;,c;'..., ...... ~./4.,.;,.';-:,.;z..;...,.7..t_;;,,tt.i-.:.. ..... ;.;.c~.,M:::...i..t.':t,,..J;,M.::T.-,,.JJi..........;~1:.~ ..... t.Z . ..,_,,4...,,.,,,,,.._..:J:. .. .-.':...\::J..:..:.t.~., ..... --,.,/;jt_,,,,i,,,~·-:-!t.~, ... :..:r. .. ~,.,..,,.,.,...,.J.W...,, • ..:: ... ~~~ .. ....,\.\, , •• :::;;. ~~-;J;..&..,,.,'Q"..:..if.t.~.,.i.u,h.: .. ~ 11r:d:1,:.; .... ,.,11,.: .. -th-k:.-:.~~--l>,...t:.--... ~~.._, .. ,~ ..... """' ·~~ j!:,,,..,. .~ . .)..! ~ _.,-:,~,""', -~. ,.. ~,~ ... ~a~.,,,. Page3 o/27 --------------------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD ' ~GIQN, TYP~ ~ 9 R Cottonwood-Creek (San Marcos Creek watershed) C.1\:liWJ\T});R ~A,TER.§JY!iD 90451000 J.>O~LWAt-fl'/$TRES,SOR DDT Phosphorns Sediment Toxicity ·f01'ENTIM, ... _~9UR.~Ji,~ Source Unknown Source Unknown Source Unknown SWRCB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 ]tSl'JMA~ SJZE~CTE]) 1.9 Miles 1.9 Miles 1.9 Miles iP!l-OPOSED TMi)L • POM;Plit'.FIQ~ --. • 2019 2019 2019 c-~---_<'r< ___ .. , -·--~---~-,,_..,. ---;;.::_~-:=-.=~ ~---~ .: .•.. "'-:-"'.---~-~-.:~ .... :.. ,::. ·--~---~: .. ~ .... : ___ .:.·:-.~J 9 B Dana Point Harbor 90114000 -Indicator bacteria Impairment located at Baby Beach. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Marinas and Recreational Boating Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 119 Acres '2006 r.;.;:::;;;;;::-~ .... -................ ~-~,; .. ~,. .• ::::;::;:::::::;;;:;.,,_ i..,,,,. ' .. ,t.i.,....,,...,..;,,..~ __ .;::;.--.. ~~ ..... , ....................... ~-~-, ... '-... -.. -.;,,,.,_;;::::;::,,..,.,,..._,-.0,_,._,, ___ .. _,._ .. .:.-.::::.::::..-;;::,:::,c::,.,:;:.,~;:::~::-:::;-,;;;,.·;:-:.::~=:.;;:;;,.-::-,.,.,"".;::.3, 9 R De Lu:i; Cre_ek 90221000 Iron 14 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Manganese 14 Miles 2019 Source Unknown r.....;..._,:_~....,. .... -.,..{...,_..-• __,_ .:;,...~~ -,,. ' ,_,... ,..,...,........._ ~.;;;_,::;;.,_:=-__, ' -,~ • ~ .. ?,"..,~-==-~:...::::.~.,,.~ . ..., . ,..,.,....,. ..... ..= ..... ,':;:'::.::."'="";::;;::;::f.£',:'; .... ~...._.~.::.~:1..'Z,,-.,.;:._':"';.k,~,, ... :;;.~-::_~~"'.,,~ ... ~-.::-,--..· .';,.~":-~ •. ,.".,_;~ I 9 L El Capitan Lake 90731000 Color 1454 Acres 2019 Source Unknown Manganese 1454 Acres 2019 Source Unknown pH 1454 Acres 2019 Source Unlmown !";.;:~ ""~:..:::r,,......, *"" ----:· ~:i' '~-~~-,, ... ,;;.;i.:.,,;· ..J;,•"" !' • ·,...,. • J,., '•' ••,, -;·~. ".. , .... :-·,, O' • ·~';';.' '.i ...... -~ ,-.;:-•",-•• ,;:,-·~ :•,•,.-• ... -•• .., • • '•, "--;;;."•;r,..,..,-:,~. # , ..... \"._ ••• , .. •:• ¥ '" •,-•..;-,w:d • '""1, .,._.. ,...,..-. "'.--:,•1::;:_".:1:~:-• ~-~· <" ........ ,~ ""',,;_;•• .. 1-•·-_ ....... ----:-.,.-..-• ~-;,• "... C :, '•,•••• • • tt:• •• ~ Page4of27 ... -.. -.. -------------' PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD SWRCB ;\PPROVALDATE~ OCTOBER 2.S,. 2006 ·. ESTIMATED · :PROPOSE.I> TMDL • - . ~GION_ ':f,YP,t N.MIB ·CAL Wa'tER WATEQSHED -'---·-·-~··_'_'_,' PO~L,UTAN'f/STRESS('.R PO.:XE!"l;J:',(AL . . SQ.tJRCES . SIZE M?n;cf.tu . ' CQMPLETIQN . 9 R Encinitas·Creek 90451000 Phosphorus 3 Miles 2019 Source Unkuown t,..;:;;..:;;;,..~:::.::::;::;;:;;,;·''·---~.,, ... _., ...... ...,.,.,,...~ . .,,.,.,, ....... ,, ........... .....,,,.... . ..,,,, --·---,_7·-~,,..;r,::;:;;:--~,... _... .,,...,,.i,~ ... , .. ~· ~ ~ ---·· ·----~--.-y----_______ , _ _,_ .. ~J 9 R English Canyon 90113000 Benzo[b ]fluoranthene 3.6 Miles 2019 Source Unkuown Dieldriu 3.6 Miles 2019 Source Unkuown Sediment Toxicity 3.6 Miles 2019 Source Uuknown ., ".::. ::-::,;..,: .• : :::~:-:.c:~ .. .:•:::,,._,._,,,.·.:::~:::-, ,: ' ';:_~ .. :.~:::::,. ~ .. ,:;:,;;' :-:, 9 R Escondido Creek 90462000 DDT 26 Miles 2019 Sou1·ce Unkuown Manganese 26 Miles 2019 Source Unkuown Phosphate 26 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Selenium 26 Miles 2019 Source Unkuown Sulfates 26 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Total Dissolved Solids 26 Miles 2019 Source Unknown t:...:..:.:.'Z,;~.::£.~~~~,,:~;~-;;,;:.;;z.;~ .• ,u;. ;::,;,,.....__,_;:..::,,:::: .. -.:;;::.--:;:;:.:;:--.J:: ~:...A"":1;;.~;~11:~;;;..~.'::"'.":,~~ ..... ~~,.;:;.;.,,: .. ~,...,_,,,,,. •• .,,._-. ..,~,,..;;-~:;,0.:.,:,":,-:;.,.,,.;,,......,._.,....-~ ,,. :,... .~ .... ,...... '~--:z,:;;., ...... ""'T..--::;;z~;.;_"7::.·i, .. ~:r...:z..--:-:::-:-:_-:-:=7,.::,.._ .. ~:_-,...-:,;:;---z-:.-:.:: : -,-;-,-' Pnge5 of27 .. ---------------·-PROPOSED 2006 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD - SWR.CB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 25,, 2006 • JIBGJ.ON . TYPE ·~'AME CAJ,WA,TEJ,l.. WATERSHEP j.>OtLrjTAN'Ji/STRF;$S0R·. · . );>QTli;N'.(:IAJ:,. SOiJR;~IDS ESTIMATED l'RO~OSElD TMDL s:itif~,fF:E;CT-EP · Gqiv1rii:rlQ~. 9 E Famosa siongh and Chann~l 90711000 Entrophic 32 Acres 2019 Nonpoint Source ,..::. .... --.. ;~·----~--~; -';'"?_, • ..,,...,.....,.,.,, ___ ,._.,,,.,, ----,,,,;:...",w.;;.,;,_,:.::::.:=-~---.:...=-;:;~:::.....-.. ~ ...... i,. ------..-.. ••--.< _. ..... _ •_,,.....,....,....;;,;.: ____ , ___ ,•T'.:::;;..-;::;;::,::.::~::::.:.. __ :,.--. .. --:-::.~::--:::~-=::·:_..:.::,~::-::;•:..:...::. .... ":: .. '..:::.::.: -:_ ,:,.,:,~ :· _j. Felicita Creek 90523000 Aluminum Total Dissolved Solids Source Unknown Agricultural Return Flows Urban RnnoWStorm Sewers Flow Regulation/M.odification Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown, po~nt source 0.92 Miles 2019 0.92 Miles 2019 - c:===============:.·;;;·;;;·-z: . .::--:::.~·;;.:· -:::-::.::· -·--. ___ :;.:.::=-.. ····---·· ----....... --~-,;7::....::. ·::::::.:::.::::::.·.:::·-;;:;:·., •• ·.::::: .. ::--... : •. : :.;·;-.:· ··:.:· ··., ::1 9 R Forester Creek 90712000 Fecal Coliform Impairment Located at lower I mile. Oxygen, Dissolved Urban RnnoWStorm Sewers Spills Unknown Nonpoint Source ·Unknown pointsonrce Source Unknown pH Impairment Located at zipper 3 miles. Phosphorus Page6 of27 Industrial Point Sources Habitat Modification Spills Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Source Unknown 6.4 Miles 2005 6.4 Miles 2019 6.4 Miles 2019 6.4 Miles 2019 .. ---.. -·--... ------·--PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303.(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD - SWRCB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 REGION· TYPE· •!.'l:A;M.E CAL\¥:ATER W.:,\T>,E~~D ' POLWTANJ/ST¥ESS<?R ' tOT.ENTIA,L .SOURCES ES'.FThUTED _.~I~EA:FffE<;;TE;Q. i>R()fOs~p, TMDL 9QM!,~F;1J9N i.:.:.......... 9 -'---.....!_'-'' Total Dissolved Solids Impairment Located at lower I mile. Agricultural Return Flows Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown p9int source 6.4 Miles 2019 . .., --...... -__ ..,.... -..... ----·""''"---· --~-.. --.., . ...,,._. ..................... --.......... ·----~-· _ ...... : ,: ::-·,.:"/4-·: _:· ~ ~ .. ·· .• :-.~-:~::-.: ~~-· --~ ~ ( R Green Valley Creek 90521000 Chloride Manganese Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Sulfates Source Unknown Source Unknown Source Unknown Urban Runoff/Storm·Sewers Natural Sources Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 0.98 Miles 2019 0.98 Miles 2019 0.98 Miles 2019 0.98 Miles 2019 - r~""-; · ......... ~.:..7;:.~:;.=··~--.. -:.--_ --.. :-:::::t:::::::::.:::;,._..~ .. _,.,,, ·~~·+~._ ........... _.__...,,._;.._.s_,,..,, ,., . ._.,.. ___ ... ....,,,,_ .... ~:::.,:._~~---~-#.,,,,."':,, .... ,.,,,,:::::::::::!':::::.-.::::::::::::::::,,"::::::::::::::J.::~~;;:::::::::.~-.::...::r:1 9 L Guajome Lake 90311000 Eutrophic 33 Ac1·es 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source i.i.~,.,,__,.,~~...i>~•~l'~O~ "+ '"'*""° __,_ _. --:::..~~..;:_.,~_!;.J::,.,.,s,J1.,.;i/..,~ •• ":;~,:,,.,,·.,.,',,_,,,,~...........:.,.....:.,.t:.,J~........,,\.,......::.,.,,...:...,,...:,. ... ..-.~~2;.,..,..,.,..1,--....,,i~•!.._ .. ~..,_ ... __,-;:'?.._:.,..,.,,..,.-.'!:..C.,~':;,1,.-,1,:.,),lt),'.-..;..,_J~ • .; , .• ',;7·.~ .. ,,.,••L~ .. -~,., :·-,"', 9 L Hodges, Lake 90521000 Color Manganese Page 7of27 Urban Ruuoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Source Unknown 1104 Acres 1104 Ac1·es 2019 2019 ---------· --------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD - SWRCB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOB~25,. 2006 . l{EGIOJS', TYPE ·N!AMit C~WATER WAT~RSIIBD . fOI,J;iT:Jl'~T/$T~SSQ~ :eoTENTIAL SOlffi.CES . : ESl'IM;ATE])-·:i>Rofo-sEP. TMDL ~I~.E ~f]):C'.pm <;!QMfl!,E'flQN Nitrogen pH Phosphorus Turbidity ' • f_ "-'-- Agriculture Dairies Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unlmown Nonpoint Source Unlmown point source Source Unlmown Agriculture Dairies Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unlmown Nonpoint Som·ce Unlmown point source Source Unknown ·1104 Acres 2019 1104 Acres 2019 11Q4 Acres 2019 1104 Ac1·es 2019 t: .,,, --··~--:-·~ -~~-':"" .. ~-----,._..... .. ____ -~..,.:....___ ___ ..,;. ....... ·---_..,_,,,.,__,-.:::::;~ .. ----~--""-.;::;..:~....:::•~, .. -... _P;.,:::...::.:::;:.:•...::-__·_..,:.:..•1 9 R Kit Carson Creek 90521000 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Total Dissolved Solids Source Unknown Agricultural Return Flows Ui·ban Runoft'lStorm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Unlo;iown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 0.99 Miles 0.99 Miles 2019 2019 .t,;. .............. ~-~ • -·--_,....,,.,...-4.-...,__.,...~., , ;-:::;-__ , __ ,..._~.;;-....,.. -·~~---~-....... ,.ff...:.--~..:J:-:..-.,,. ....... -:...:::. .. .:.;..;..,...i.,.......,_.-~ ...... ~~-...... ~ ......... ,.,,,,;;,.,.___,.,,__ .. ..,,_,.~ __ ,...,_~_,.,."11-;., ... ~:... ... ~ _.: .......••• -... ,_,. ·-.,_:·:.·z~.t 9 R Laguna Canyon Channel 90112000 Sediment Toxicity 1.6 Miles 2019 Source Unknown ~:..;: ~ "": ;..,·;.:;2.;,,.,:;;,.~ii.:;.::.z/;:;·;..~-~;;a.;,,;.:~:;J.EJ....;..1.,,,w~·.K 1:,.::,,,;;:.';.;;.,,.:~:~~ ... :r...;:.i:,,...::~'M.:;....:.;;.;;1-::,:;:..~:...t.:,-..~,.;,";,::. -z:;,~""~..:~.~te •• ~~,.:,,-i~.:...,:,,..:;....:..:;,,.:;:,.:.::.,~-~-:;;.J~:~: ,.,.;;_~ ..... .r.:.itt:.::-;;:,":-:.:7 .... ~----:.,:: .. £~ .. ::.. -~~ ... ~.i ·"".'!t:::.::::::.c.:· -;:;.,""::,:;,7;,,';;[;:_-......: .,." 1:. ..... •• ,.:\:~ .. ~·--··.'t' .... ; :...:~ .. •. •?· ~';:;._:..... ~-~+-· -~·,.:: ... '!~:.·-. . _.;, ... , Page8 o/27 - -- 9 ----------------PROPOSED 2006 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD G,n;W.A,Tll}R. NAME WAJillRSl{EQ l'OLJ;iPTA,NT/STRE&~OR Loma Alta Slough 90410000 Eutniphic Indicator bacteria f,.OTJJ;Nl'l:M · S~lVR~ES Nonpoiht Source Nonpoint Source SWRCB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER ZS,. 2006 . l\l$l'~TJllD.· . . &~M:i'F!J:CTED 8.2 Acres 8.2 Acres P.JlOPOS:!];D TMt)l;, . . CQNf P!,ifflO~ . 2019 2008 C::-' --· --·--• ::::::::::...,-:=:::::-:::-z::::.--.--s-.-.. , ..... .::.::;:·:::.-,:;;::;.:::;-;:·.-;:: .. :;;::;,,", .. ..::;; '..'~ '..:': ::.'.'.:1 9 R Long Canyon Creek 90283000 Total Dissolved Solids 8.3 Miles 2019 Source Unknown r·--.. ~. -~-~--..~-...... -.. ~ -~..-..---_., ......... -· --~ -.,........ _ :...:...,..._....... . • .• _.,,_,,.,,.-,.,,·<, __ _...,,.'f .. ~,,..,._,,,_;::::,:--.,,....,.,_,~.,.., --• ~ -• _,..,.,.....,__,_ .. _.,.,'~ . .'...,.,~ .~,.,_-..-. •~,··--••··,._,.,,,,.,,-.,,.~_,.-,_'..,,,v_,,.. ___ _:.., .I: 9 R Los Penasquitos Creek 90610000 Phosphate 12 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Total Dissolved 'Solids 12 Miles 2019 Source Unknown ~~---,,,,.. ""'~:..::::::::,,:;.;;:;:;,.;,.. -·~<J"'f~ • ,,,.,,,,., •I><•,_._.:;,::~~~---... ........ . ::::;-.,._.,,._,,_, .... ,.:.,.~..:,:;:,:',:" .. ';" ,..;:.-.;.:::;:::~:;:::::;,.,::.::.. ....... ..,_, __ ,,_ -.,.-,., .... ,t-.-,.,.,,..~._...,...,,.~.,., •.• , -...... ~. -· --.. -..... -----, .,_ .... .,~ ,,,.... -~ ... ..:... ' --. .,;. ~:. ·-..:.:. :. ... .:. .... ::.J 9 E Los Peuasquitos Lagoon 90610000 Sedimentation/Siltation 469 Acres 2oi9 Nonpoint/Point Souri;e ,._,,. 1.. .-,1 · ----....-.H,..... , .. ,_.,,........,._,,.._.,...,,___ . .,._;....,,.._.,,_~-~=:::!'"..:S::::. .. 4'-... ,.,~-•• ..-,.,...--1 ........ , ........ ~;::,:;::,:--1<>"'-'?.'::;;.:•,~t .. ":::" ... "";~;::' .. ,."~~=.:~~-:r,::::r..:;1.::'7.:Z,,.,':;_~-:;;,"7;..7J 9 L Loveland Reservoir 90931000 Aluminum 420 Acres 2019 Source Unknown Manganese 420 Acres 2019 Source Unknown Oxygen, Dissolved 420 Acres 2019 Source Uulmowu - !M.~~_,.,,..,...:,.__,,....,...,.M,__...i>,o'"""_......,_,,.!,..IJ;,,_..,.h-:.:J-.. ..... .-,,,...,,.,,rl.,•-•""'•-n,..,:,.~,_,-....,_.:.-,-.....----¥'......,.::J-,.,..,.,,..,,...,,.,_ .. .._ . ...i_,_..,,:;:~ ... ,,__;j.~.-._..,_....,..~:,.,,.r,i;:,. • .,_ ,..,.;;., .... ,,._....,_.,...:..:;;,;..,._ ...... ~..,.,:..,.....,_...__,._.,~~--::-;..._ .. ,.._,:_,;:, .... ,,-. •• ..,.,r:.,, ,_.· .-.."'~· • ~~ ...... ~~ ,,t-..~ .. -... ~ ..... ~"', .,,'....-~.', ~ -~,;,, • ;, .. ~·..,, .,'t 9 B Mission Bay (area at mouth of Rose Creek only) 90640000 Eutrophic 9.2 ACI'es 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Page 9of27 -----... ------------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD SWR,CB AP.PROV.AL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 ··i;· ' ,; . ' .. -~ .. '. : ' CALW:ATER ·· · 't$¥'.iiv.tir.Eri. , PRO.Pos]):D TMi>t· - , [J.Ul)Gt<:>N TYPJD:. . t~A;MIJ; 'W-!\TEJ.{SW!{D .. J>QLLl:Jl.f~/ST~SSQR · POTE~IAL · SQUR,c;:F;~ .SIZE AFEEC'.fED COMPLE'.l'ION _, ". • ~c..._ ' -· _. ·_. -· -'!: • "!_ ,, ·--'······' _,.,_ __ _,__, Lead 9.Z Acres 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source -~· ..._,_, -·--... --~---...;.~.:.. .... -..-.. ~-;·.~,.;:·:--:::::::.:: ... , ............ , ... _____ .,_ ___ .._'":::::! 9 B Mission Bay (area at·mouth ofTecolote 90650000 Creek only) Eu trophic 3.1 Ac1·es 2019 Noupoint/Poiut Source Lead 3.1 Acres 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source ~· ... -------.... --------~ .,,,.__,.. -·----~ .. -------,~ .· .. -~ .. ~.:--,..,.. ..... "( _...., ____ , _____ ·--·- 9 L Morena Reservoir 91150000 Color 104 Acres 2019 Source Unknown Manganese 104 Acres 2019 Source Unkm;iwn pH 104 Acres 2019 Source Unknown -...... ~---... .J.!..1..t...:--~-~--..... -.... ~:::.~ ............ ....:...t 9 L Murray Reservoir 90711000 pH 119 Ac1·es 2019 Source Unknown r:-;.:;-.-::c.;-.."";;.:_,._..,... '--·· ..;;:;;;::-"'-..,_.,!""--~-·,.:-::::;;;:;:::::.:::.::::;:;:;,;;:::;:;:;,."':::1::::::::::.::.:.C::::-~:::.-.,,..--..,,_~ ~::..~.;::1.1::~tJZ.:;::!-:.'!".;:r .. ::--c,.:~~,.z-.%Z..-:::i:=~·;.:;:i::.i':~""S:,C.:::~:-::;:;;:-~:=-:.z.:;::i:!Z~~~";A::.::C:L-":.."Et"Z::C'.-:'.S;;,i.,..-::..,";!:,Z:-;:.-,:z'::.,:..:;.,--;:\,:..:, ·,.:,;,,;: ... ".;.~:;;;.1 9 R Murrieta Creek 90252000 Iron 12 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Manganese 12 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Nitrogen 12 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Page JO o/17 ---·---------------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED S:EGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD SWRCB APPROVA,LDATE: OCTOBER 2?, 2006 ·, .,, .. ,. QAJ:.WATi\:R ES\l'IM41fll,J;>. P)l@POSED TMi>L : Rli!GION TY,f],l} N:A;ME W:A:1J!!)RSl;Qll~ ,._,_.,_ roL~U1:,\NT/STRESSOR :POTEilr.l'IAL. ,. s9iw:c;F;s. . . . SI~-,AFF~filW . CQ;tVifJ,'!'JTjO~ Phosphorus Urban Runofl1Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 12 Miles 2019 C' .,.,,..._._.. _ _.,,.,~ ,.,,..,...,,,. .... _...,. .... ..,,. .. -.,.,, .,.,.., • ......,. · ............. ~ . .,,.,., • ....,...,,,....,."<>!"_, .. ..._ •• "::;; • .,.,~-t1r-...,-,,.._ ...................... , • .....,"":' ...... _ ....... , ........ -......... :\... ,,,.~~ ........ ..,.._, ... , .... :::t"')""' ... ..,.,-::,. ...... .,,._. . .,...,_, ..... ··-·---..... ~-,,.,,.,,: .... ,~··;,.;-, ·.,, .. ,.,,., ...... , ....... ,,_.., .. •·,_1 9 R Oso Creek (at Mission Viejo Golf Course) 90120000 Chlol'ide 1 Miles Z019 Source Unknown Sulfates 1 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Total Dissolved Solids 1 Miles 2019 Source Unknown ~---;:-::·-~-~----~~--·~--s-,.,-,.-., .. ..,,_,..,...,.· ... ,n.W.:-__ ..,,,..,... ...... -~ ,,.._.,.. __ _.,.: ... :::::::::-_~.::.....,-:::.·~~--::::::::~·,::;.:.,..,::_-.:;,:; ... ,_:::;:..~;.,4,..,.._,.:·,.._-.·_"',.=J 9 L OtayReservoir, Lower 91031000 ~: -~-----~,,. ""_.,. ··-::::::::;.::;;;,,..-;;:.--,--,.--,.-~,_c~ 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Aliso HSA 90113000 Color Sonrce Unknown Iron Source Unknown Manganese Source Unknown Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) Source Unknown pH (high) Source Unknown 1050 Ac1·es 2019 1050, Acres :Z019 1050 Acres 2019 1050 Acres 2019 1050 Acres 2019 · ·,> ~-..,.,_ .....,....,_.,.,,.,~_, .... ,,-;,.,, ---'*--~_.......,...._..,,..~ ... :.,·-~ .. --.-::,,.. ............. er=';,-;.,.....,_~ ..... _=.~.':'..:,,.,.~. _,.;f'.,.,,_,-_.,,~ Indicator bacteria 0.65 Miles 2005 Impairment located at Laguna Beach at Lagunita Place I Blue Lagoon Place, Aliso Beach. Nonpoint/Point Source ·~""'~--L ~ .. , ......... ·:,:,,i~~;;;:,,.,.,,~....,-;;,,,.,., "'·-,,;..,,, ... ~._ ...... -...:..:. :...:·, ·:-~~ .J ;z· :_ -·.;..,;,..· ..:,,. ~.,;,.:..,...,;;J,,,.>· ... ..:. ... -.-,,;-~ ~ ,,,.:,.:._,..,,-~. ~ :;;:;·-: ':': ~~ .:..,. --;:::.,..· .•. :-.:.;--;;. ::;~-:::;. .... ·":·-~ ;,,.·:,,"' ·~,:;,,_,,~.::.;.,-,,-;;.z_ -~-... :.·,:,,.~.: s::..:..:; ~ ... ~ ...... ~-,.,. -;--•. :: . .,--,__:,: • .,,. ', ... -~ • Pagell of27 - ------------------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL ~OARD REGION TY}'E 9 C NAME Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Buena Vista Creek HA ;CALW:A,TER WATJ!;~~D 90421000 fOLL"OT~T/STRESSQJl Indicator bacteria POJI'EN1JA1:, .. . S0.~C~S SWRCB APPROVAL DATJi:: OCTOBER 25, 2006 ¥ST.~T.ED SIZE AFFECTED 1.2 Mil~s ... PROPOSED 'FMDL ~QNlfiErio_i .. 2008 Impairment located at Buena Vista Creek, Carlsbad City Beach at Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad State Beach at Pine Avenue. Nonpoiut/Point Source t'.::'-r"i_,.....,.. ..... .,,,....,,.. .. -.--: ............ ~.~·-_, ................ _, ,,..,.-.. ~ .... -.............. _,__ .... .,... ................ ..,,. ...... ,.... ....... ,...,.,. ................... ::::;::::c:~~~ ......... h~-·:.....:., ...... _,.,.,,. -:.:::::::-:.::-7,.~:--:-::..--.:.::.::T'-.:'.-. -·;::-:;-.~ :; .: .• .--;,,,. ~-:..~·:.:.., •. --~~'";:--: ·,.·.: ,t 9 C 9 C Pacific Ocean-Shoreline, Dana Point HSA Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Escondido Creek HA 90114000 90461000 Indicator-bacteria 2 Miles 2005 Impairment located at Aliso Beach at West Street, Aliso Beach at Table Rock Drive, 1000 Steps Beach at Pacific Coast Hwy .(Hospital, 9th Ave), Salt Creek (large outlet), Salt Creek Beach at Salt Creek service roqd, Salt Creek Beach at Dana Strand Road. Nonpoint/Point Source -.. -... -----.... ~-~,·--.,..-..... ----.......... ,..:,,~-~--"'-•• ____ w,.,...-,.,..,.....,.,.,. ·-•·,---~,.·-,-~-· • ,{,,~~~---•, • lndicato1· bacteria 0.44 Miles 2008 Impairment located at San Elijo Lagoon outlet. Nonpoint/Point Source •• -I r_:......,,.-;,_ ____ ,..,.__ ------.....,.... _.,,... -_,,,..; ..... _ .. __ ..,...,........,,.~ ,.._, . .,_ --.-.--.. -.~--:~.-=~:::.-~-~--"')"t--.-~;:;.:;;-:.:::.::-:::----;-;:;;:.~~==~--:.-.:::.:::~-:;:: ... :;:-.,:.";..-·.:: ... ::..·.:::t ··,i 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Imperial Beach Pier 91010000 PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) 0.42 Miles 2019 Source Unlwown ~~;--:.;"' • -...-._.... ~~ .,. .. , ~, • ~ ,.,,,..,..,,...,,..... .,......_....,.,._....,.,,.,.,..._,~ .... , .. ·I<> ..... -., ... ,.,..,~~:=z.!::.-t-.::"~=.z;;~-:-J:1:.:-::=..=~ ..... ~-,, ... :r'r:.:::;;;;:::;t'-r-....... ..._-,.-. .. .,~ ::::;;::..1-:r::.";:::.~'t.-::::.,-;,;,,.:.:;::.:..~:.::.:.:;;_;; ...... ,.:;:·~ 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Laguna Beach 90112000 HSA Indicator bacteria 1.8 Miles 2005 Impairment located at Maiii Laguna Beach, Laguna Beach at Ocean Avenue, Laguna Beach at Laguna Avenue, Laguna Beach at Cleo Street, Arch Cove at Bluebird Canyon Road, Laguna Beach at Dumond Drive. Nonpoint/Point Source ~-' • __ .,,....,,...,. '" , · .... -~ .... , .. ......,,.,,.._ ...... ..,_ · ~_,.. .. -., --~.~ ........ -·---:.....-;::"""; ---....... , -~ .............. ~ ...... v."''--,;:.,,.. .. -.... -.... ,-.... --.:..--... ~-t,.,...~., ....... --:· ..,_, -,_..,-....,..,.. ..... ,..,...,........,......,. .... ,·,oe'o/,_~-:-., __ ... .,."1 ,-"".-we .. .,,-.1 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Loma Alta HA 90410000 Indicator bacteria 1.1 Miles 2008 Impairment located at Loma Alta Creek Mouth. Nonpoint/Point Source ~..:~U .... "t.'::'.::..:.\~7.:~: ... .,,i.,....:~ • ..,., ... ~..:,.,, "'::.1.:.-:.,.,,-::.:::,, .. ,.:;:;:ws.-... ~~-"!.,::::..?:2':tr .. :-:::u:: ... :::.,..-;;:,;:r -4;:;,,e,; li:,i.. .,_:,... !71:i.~:M~":"f.,,::, .. ....::.,,;;..;::::s~ .. ~z:M:::. ~ .. ., ·.~-:-~.;....,..." ... ·~··,,___..,~,,,,4;~..:.... ..... :::,...;,..,.t •• "' t,__ -:.,.,-....................... ~_;.,;;,,.; • .,,,.,. ~~ .. ;-;:,~ .... ~ .. 7,, --, ~ i:, :.-~ ,,.!, ~--~~·-"'" __ ........ :: .d::..,:,.-i.: .... ~ ,. -': • , ~-, · .... Page12 o/27 - -------------------PROPOSED 2006 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO RE<:;IONAL BOARD SWRCB APPROVAL DATE: ·OCTOBER 25, 2006 ,<::AJ,,WA'rtR · ESTIMATED•. . PRQJ,10SED0 'FMDL : ID;GION. I¥PEl · ·l'l':AME W.:A1:ER$l;WD . . ;pq~~/(;J~~~SJ~ssql'l .. PO,fEN1'hU, .. , s·o_u,Rg,s .. · . '$IZJl: A:lifECTJj:J? J:()J\iff;t'.IJQN 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Lower San Jnan HSA 90120000 Indicator bacteria 1.2 Miles 2008 Impairment located at North Beach Creek, San ,luau Creek (large outlet), Capistrano Beach, South Capistrano Beach at Beach Road. Nonpoint/Point Source ~ ...... _.,..,.._..,._~.,,,... .. -,_ .... __ ..,...., ... .,... ... _l<o,_..,...::;::;;;-:;:;::;;;:;;;:.,,.,,_ ... .,..., ...... _, ,-.,. .._.,_~ _ _.,4 ,.--:-;::;;;::;_,~••,-.-_,..,-,.,.,~, .... _.,...,_ ... ,_,.,_, ,...,...;:,...,H~/....,_,. .,..,..,_..,, _,.,\_,_,,_ "''" .. ,.__....,,.,_ "';;.:-;::,::::.,.'7::.,;,:;:-----•· ::-: :: .. =-·:•::-::::S.,7-".j 9 C t:.....,..><,:, 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Clemente HA 90130000 Indicator bacteria 3.7 Miles 2005 Impairment located at l;'oche Beach (large·outlet), Ole Hanson Beach Club Beach at Pico Drain, San Clemente City Beach at El Portal St. Stairs, San Clemente City Beach at Mariposa St., San Cle1i1ente City Beach at Linda Lane, San Clemente City Beach at South Linda Lane, San Clemente City Beach at Lifeguard Headquarters, Under San Clemente Municipal Pier, San Clemente City Beach at Trafalgar Canyon (J'rafalgar Ln.), San Clemente State Beach at Riviera Beach, San·Clemente State Beach at Cypress Shores. · Nonpoinf/Point Source ~-... ~--~ ..._ ... --..-~ ·--·--~---........... ...,,.....,.._,,. -..--,.~ -~-~-·-·-·---:-~::::.··-·-·-,..--, ..... ----....... :.:."'."."z..:::::. ~::-.:::-.:::::....-::::::..-:.---::-:..-: ... i... -.:.-=-.:.:~-::::.-: .. ~··::.:::::::::..---:::-. .. --.. ::::::.::..""::.'"'-:_::::.:· ~-":.:~-:... -:--:--:: .... :::: . · .... :~ ::.~·· _..,,.,_ ___ :.::::"":. ---~ Pacific Ocean-Shoreline, ·San Diego HU 90711000 Indicator bacteria 0.37 Miles 2005 Impairment located at San Diego River Mouth (aka Dog Beach). Nonpoint/Point Sonrce c::;::;::--.._-...... ......~. _...,..._~ ....... ,,., .... .,...,....,_, ____ ---~...... -,.._, ... :;:;::.:;::.. ............... :.. ............... ,.,,,.,.( ~--~........,,.....';.....:::,,.---.::::-,,.:.:.:---· -., ........ ,;--·-~.:~.:"·:..:.z.~ ... ::..:.:.:.::-.--:.: .. -.. . ..-..:.::.:....:::..::1 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Sa11 Diequito HU 90511000 Indicator bacteria 0.86 Miles 2005 Impairment located at San Dieguito Lagoon Mouth, Solana Beach. Nonpoint/Point Source ,...__,, --~--~ ... ._. .... -...._... '-~ .... ------.., ___ ,., ____ ............. ··-:,:_-,,.,:;:::::;:::;.:,.::::,-4·.,::·:..:;::..:;·,_,,.~.,.. .. _ .. '~-~.'..l 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Joaquin 'Hills HSA 901P000 Indicator bacteria ·0.63 Miles Impairment located at Cameo Cove at Irvine Cove Dr./Riviera Way, Heisler Park-North Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 2005 ~~,..!,_.I,• ' ,,...........,.. .. , ,_ ...:;.,,J_.-~A~....;;_::,...,,..;;.,,.:,..;:..:,,.~.._:.:,_,_j,_..,..;::::;;;.: .::;:.,::,,.,:::::z::::.,A.,,;;;:,s..._~,._,,_'°"._ ,...::,;....::::.r:::..:.::-:..::..,..:,..,,_;~ ":~,i:.?.-.,~-'•,;,__~ . ...-.'..-=:..~..:..... ::,..':::..1:..~.~~,_;:-$"...:t,~~£,::...:.:....!..~~1•_y!!;:;t,;:;::; .. .-·:,.:::::::tt.;_ ~,.>,'J!.',.i'"'..,,;J,._--...•.,,.' .'• ,-..,.,:.. .. ,;u,z: ..,,,'._\,..'\.......,. ~ ~: :e, ~ • • ":__,': ~: '.;•', f .,, ,J 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Luis Rey HU 90311000 lndicato1· bacteria 0.49 Miles 2005 Impairment located at Sau Luis Rey River Mouth. Nonpoint/Point Source ¥~~--..... ,.;::;.;.~~-~ .. T~ .... ::;:~;;...,,,,,.,,.;.,,,: ..... .;,.,..:, .. ......,.~'"""--. ......,._. ~!:..~:'~ .... ,..,,. ::::.._ ___ .,,,.,._""':.:~-.,_,__, ....... ~~~~-~-.~--.... ,,__, __ ,_. !"-,_,_..'.;::.;..,,._£ ~ ..... ~....___,,_,.__~-u.,.....,J;,, __ ._ -~~~ ,""_, __,~ ..c: -~· -~t Page 13 o/17 ---,_ -------------PROPOSED 2006 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD - SWRCB APPR~VAL DATE: OCT()BER25, 2006 : JltG)ON TYPE ·"N'Mv.IE·. C.t\LWA'FER. "W:A'.r~RSHED 9 C Pacific Ocean Shor!)line, San Marcos HA 90451000 ·POJ;;:J;l:JTAl'IT/$11,RE$S0R Indicator bacteria POTENlf~ 1$0.lJRC~S Impairment located at Moonlight State Beach. Nonpoint/Point Source 'ESlfIM':ATED :PROPOSED TMDL SI~ A:FFECT~:P -PQMPTu!'}_,poN 0.5 Miles 2005 t.."'Z;;:.;~~~"":'.:";,·~7-,"~ .......... ""l'· ... ~·-__::::;:;:,~.-......... --f'f' ...... ...,.,,. ......... -...,,,.,.~,.,.---""--.... --·~ ---~,.,.~ ........ ---.... ,-.... ~..::.:..~:..;:_ :·--~...;~ ..... -.............. ;,.. •• ,..., ... ,!_-_._..,._.,___ __ ,~ .... ,-•• -_. 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Scripps HA 90630000 Indicator bacteria 3.9 Miles 2019 This listing/or indicator bacteria onliy.applies to the Childrens Pool Beach area of this ocean shoreline segment. Nonpoint/Point Source r-·--··•··-•-·--•·••••· •-·-•-··-···-·------·----~,-.---·-,.,..,,.,_._, •. ,_ .. ___ , -·•"•"--~--·-·-·•--·-•--·-, ______ -..-~_-•.--.•,--__ ::.:;::_,,_ ... _, --s-.-,~ • .,., .. ~.~•-.-•• -.. 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Tijµana HU 91111000 Indicator bacteria 3 Miles 2010 Impairment locatedji·om the border, extending north along the shore. Nonpoint/Point Source ·-1 """';"~-~·;:;;.~, ··-~~~~-::::;~; --· ·-··;,.--_ ..... ~ ......... , .... ,.,...,_,. .......... ....._ --.,_,· '0 ...... __ ,, __ _, ~-~.....,__ •• ::;::::::;.-*-_ .. ,..., ...................................... ,,,... .......... , .,..,__ _ __,......,,.. __ ,_ ___ ~---·-...,..--..,,. --'S"-·-.-7 ....... --~----·e<, ---·--• ~-" ~, -~ 'J 9 R Pine Valley Creek (Upper) 91141000 Euterococcns Phosphorus Turbidity Grazing-Related Sources Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (permitted, point source) Transient encampments Source Unknown Source Unknown 2.9 Miles 2010 2.9 Miles 2019 2.9 Miles 2019 - ~-., ........... ,.. .,_ ...,,:..,._.,· __ _:;: ... ~~ -----..... -..... ~_,. .• ~~, ... .,..._ .,,.,, ·-.::.::r-...:.. ":-.::..::..:..-:-~:-.:;;..:.;:.....:::..-:::~::-.: ..... -:-.::....:.: ,_, 9 R Pogi Canyon Creek 91020000 DDT 7.8 Miles 2019 Source Unknown s~.~ I',\ , .,, ~ ~,t.~.....:;.'X:.~..;~ ... l:.'..:.,:..";;';~ ............. ....:.::;:r=....~..:...:'Z,..,,. . .....::7..J:..::: ... .:r....:..:::"'..,;:;z...:~~.::i..:~..!':!...~.<:-........ ::s:;:;:,i!.. 1::::r.~:t:, ....... .;.;.c ... ~;;... . ..,..; ..... .:...-...:...:;j~,w,!'~~~~.£.,:..,., ... ...:.....;•:0w..:s ... , ___ ,,.,;2..~,-~> .. ..:• ••.•..•. ~Z",._,,,.,_""'·""··",l,·~ ........ !. ~~-.,~_-._ .... t 9 R Prima Deshecha Creek 90130000 Phosphorus Page 14 o/27 Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 1.2 Mi)es 2019 ----·-------------PROPOSED 2006 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD - SWR.CB APPROVAJ, DATE~ OCTOBER 25, 2006 CAI.,WATER ,, IU;GION T¥P¥< NAME.' W.ATER;s}JEJ) . PO.f.:,Up'.FMilTJST-RJSSQR PQl'EN'.f.IA,1,' ' :SOi;/R(:~~ ··· $$T~t.~-· ··, :i»il&i>.os:lto iJMI>L ·• SIZE AFF!]iCJ.'·ED . ,CJOMP!,JE'fl_ON Turbidity Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 1.2 Miles 2019 I""" --• .,,,.,,~..._,_.., .,,.. ... ..._ ~ ...... .,. , .. ,, ",~. .., ..... _ -~-~ ""' __ , ..... ___ _,,...,,........,...,.....,, .. __ • ,_.,,,,..,_ ___ + . ..,."".,-~ __ :;:..., ... ..-.... ""',,._ _ _,_........... , , .• ,;,.,,-... · ... -:.~ .... -:. .... -, .. ,.: .. ~::::::::"·"' .... .,. • .,,.....,,_,.,i..<~--, ... :.,.....,...-...,.,.,...-..,.. .• --~ ... ,,_, __ ~. 1- 9 R Rainbow Creek 90222000 Iron 5 lY.liles 2019 Source Unknown Sulfates 5 Miles 2019 Sonrce Unknown Total Dissolved Solids 5 Miles 2019 Source Unknown ;:::::::.::::;:::;:;;;=::;:;.=::========::::::::·-::--;;:;=::z:-;::::=:::;:c::-;:-;:;-.-=-=::.-.::;-;:;;.;_;:::::::;::;,.,..,,·':.':.;:,::Z;;'~~.:-;.::~.::::1::-... ...,.,_.., _.,__.. __ ...,....,_, __ ,..___ _, ......... · .... ~ ,.,,,....,_ .. ,;.;r,..,.....,,,.·---~ .. -',' .·~:.-::-:.:::.::-:-:-,".":.~::-;:-.:~--:~--::::::.:::::_7::_::,.,::: .1 9 R Reidy Canyon Creek 90462000 Phospborns 3.9 Miles 201_9 Source Unknown ~ _ -·---'::'-·-----.,., ........ ;..,i.-... .-..... , ...... ....: .. --4--1-.--.... ........... .-. ...... ,... ......... __ ....... _.::r,:z...,,.._.,_,_:.· .. -~ ........ -~-.i..~::..=.:~.:.::;:= ... :::.:~::::::;..-::::::.-;;,:;--;:;:::::::::-:..:i.:.1 9 B San Diego Bay 91010000 PCBs (Polycblorinated biphenyls) 10783 Acres 2019 Source Unknown i;;: __ _ 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, 32nd St San ·· -:-__ ..,..,::-~~::-::-..::;::::-..:::;..:..:o.:.:::;;:c'.:;:.::.. ~ • .:..z::i 90822000 Diego Naval Station 'Benthic Community Effects 103 Acres 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Sediment Toxicity 103 Aci-es 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source ~ ........... ~...:l-~.-.6,,,.~1>~ .... ..,;.,r.,..,.;:_~,:,;..-................. --• ..i.... .................. -......-••• __..,.:;., ... h,,..,,.,. .... , .... .a ,,....._~ ~---.,\-,,¼ ........... ~ •• _.:,,.,,~ .... ~.;;-; ______ ·-.._ ,· "'"i:..---~-~ .... -...::.;;-. ..... _ ................ -. .. .-,--.... !, .. ;,,.,_,_,.,.a.:,.-~-......... 2 ... : .......__.......,. -· ..... ~ ...... __ ._ ~ ."".,.-..... _,, : . ~-~ . : 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, at Americas Cup Harbor 90810000 Copper 88 Acres 2019 Source Unlmown - ~ .... 0 ... .-...,,,:.,-, -; ............................ -"· ·" .,,,., --~, 4--,., ~ """'··~ ~----~~:::-· .... _..., .... .,,,,_--:~:::-• .~~~"' . .....,"."," .-..i,. • ..-·z:;, .. .,,._..__-.-...~~' ·"'!f-:""'Jf'"',-~ .. ~~-:.,_,,.._:; v1/......,... ... ::_. ··-· .... ~ •••• "'.L . '>,~.:."' "',-,.,;··~· ·, ~ "--;} _:_ .. i Page IS o/27 ------------------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303-(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD SWRCB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 21}96 :--: -1* , -, •"f',-.-, ~-···;·-,~-.--,-'' }j';S:flMA.~I); ,' PR('):fOS~~:'.TMI)L' - REGION TYPE N:A:ME · c~w A.Tilt · W:AT,!1:RSHED J>OLLUTANTJSTRESSOR ·, l>OPEN'.l'IA:L: ~OURCES' SI.ZE; AF~C'f:EJ) CQ'MJ'iE'.11QN . 9 B San Diego Bay Shorelii;te, at Coronado Cays 91010000 Copper 47 Acres 2019 Source Unknown ..... -· ·I'"'---.. '",? "1 , -,"" -...:.: ...... -~.-,, ... .,..,,,.,.~ .... ~. , -• -~--......................... ..--... ,.......;, .... ____ -. ... , .. .,;::,.__.,._...,.::::;;:.,. __ j\.)..., __ .._...,. ......... ............_ ........... T'-........ ~ .. '-~,,:::,,. ____ ......_,. ,,,..,,.._,;_,,,,.:; ..... ~ ..... ~-----~· ~, .... ~_:;:,,.-., .... ,.,.... .....-.1 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, at Glorietta Bay 91010000 Copper 52 Ac1·es 2019 Source Unknown r,.. ~ ........ · ,, ,.,.. ....... --....... ---•• ..... -.. --...... ,. __ _,, .. ..,,........-.,.::;c.~_..1:_ ..... 1 .... 1..:__.. ..... ,....,._,., __ ,.,.... .... .,...,, ..... .,, , ,.,,.,...,.."':;;:.............. """ -.. -'*" "--:::::..-I".....: .. ~ .. ~·-!:~~ ........... ---:;,.,., ,.,,.. ,,,1,, --... " , .,,.......,_,.,_ ~ •• ~ .... 1 9 B 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, at Harbor Island (East Basin) San Diego Bay Shoreline, at Harbor Island (West Basin) 90821000 90810000 Copper Copper 73 Acres 2019 Source Unknown ._.,_ ·------... -:::.-.. ~ .. :-:::·: __ , 132 Aues 2019 Source Unki10,yn ~-.. ,...... .... _ _,_ ~ -,..,.~:::::..v;;::,,-"~":,--...,., .. .,,._ .. ,....,,......., .. .,....,..":JZ--.:---J~·;::;::-"'-"''""__,._ .i;,.:,!'.z:=.:..'"z..·:::r~~~...::;:,-: .. -:~~:':',...:'.:~";;.,-.. ~ ... ~ .1 San Diego Bay Shoreline, at Marriott Marina 90821000 Copper 24 Acres 2019 Source Unki1own t;.:...:...-_,~----.,.,,. -~ "',_......,_ -~ .....-.....:...-..,...,~~~-.,....,,,..~1»,~-........ -,,,,..~...,..........:..--::;....--;:,.-;:.._,. __,,_.. --· ""'-;...,... ...;;.::::;::r··...-............. ____ ~ , .. ---.,-..-=-....-" .... ,.,.~,.,,--~:::J 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, between Sampson and 28th Streets 90822000 Copper Nonpoint/Point Source Mercm·y Nonpoint/Point Source PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) Nonpoint/Point Source Page 16 o/27 53 Acres 2005 53 Acres 2006 53 Acres 2006 -----.. ------------PROPOSED 2006 CW A SECTION 303( d) LISt OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD : REG~ON TY:PE ' • ' _,_:_______~1_,_· ~ ' ; +'JAME GALWAT.Ji;R ~AT,~R,S~ED, POLLU1'.l\N'l'/STR.ESSOR ' ,,,. __ , c'' ·« ~ ' ___ ,,_ POTE1'!TI:AL SOURCES ,_:,,, __ -________:__:_,_'. _ __,._ __ . PCBs (Polychiorinated. biphenyls) Nonpoint'Point Source Zinc Nonpoint/Point Source SWRCB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 ESTIMA1:il;D .PROJ?QSED 1'.MDL . SIZ~.~'l?Fl!JC~P .... ,.,c;:q~f!,ll:'l'~('.)~ . 53 Acres. 2019 53 Acre.s 2019 t,.::,._ .. --·-·-~~~-~-..,..,,. ... ""~ ......... -···--·> .... _...,....., ____ _.,... .......__ .....,,._. -.,,~-.::,:::..-.... :::::-;~~-::.:..:~:.::::;;..:.:-~-::;.:.::..:..:~~-;_·':'." • .::_ ........ :::.-. ::~·.,;.'.J 9 C San Diego Bay Shoreline; Chula Vista Marina 90912000 Copper 0.41 Miles 2019 Som·ce Unknown w,--, ,~ -··--· ,.. ---,._.,..,. ...... ....., .. ~.;,,...-... ..;..:~ .• h·.~------··~~-.. -..-.~··.;,.····~,: ...... ,-..:i,.; •• --·--.. --~ ...... < ... 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, Downtown 90821000 Anchorage Benthic Com1mmity Effects 7.4 Acres 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Sediment Toxicity 7.4 Acres 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source c;;::::;:;;.;;._~.---..,;;: .... --.::='~~~~.,,.~-..-~-=-... ~~-....... __ .. _ __...,,:::0-;;;::;;:.... ......... ___.--.. .............. ~-~~ ....... .., ... _, .... i..,.t,..,-.. ...:,,,..__....-....... ..,_-.:...,.---.::::."'t:""'...:.-:;:;;,....,.__,..,.,., .. ,...,..1,~-"',;-..... ,,.., . ...,.;.,. ..,,,,. .• _,,,,,.,,.'! ___ ,, ..... ....,, ;:,.-~~~.:-::--r=-...::;:-;~""':..'".:--. ~·::::::-:::·) 9 C San Diego Bay Sl1oreline, G Street Pier 90821000 Indicator bactel"ia Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 0.42 Miles 2006 i1o -• ..,, ·""'"' .... ---·-· .. ~.::r .. ,.,..,,..,.r--..::::::.~__.....,.......--~ .... _..... ....... ::::.:::-...:. ·"'7"'.=~T.::::~:..::......~.---....... ··:----f."·-... :z::=.~.. ..._...:--,,.~·";Z:;::-:-:-:.::. ... ..::::::::r--::~::::;.:-.:.r~~~-;. ":'.~:.::~;..:~::-.~:,~1:::.:~ .. ~:·1 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, near Chollas Creek 90822000 Benthic Community Effects Sediment Toxicity 15 Acres 2006 Nonpoint/Point Source 15 Acres 2006 Nonpoint/Point Source - i.....-i. -,:;,-,_~~ _, ... , l/ ,..., 'i, '• ~~-1csz:-,_;_,~:..;..._..;.. · "".;;,~~.!,-;~,,_,~;;:_..,.-...:,..;__~,. .... .::,..._......,_,.:;,._;,.'~·-",:__,__;i/...,_.._...,......_,;' '">T .-~~:.c..~.::'.:-:7,..:1 ,..-~ ' . ":'__~:F.:;.,,!,;'::_'7 ,.,.,.~:. .---.._-,...,:;.,".,.'.:'..:,_';,.._-...:.,_..:.,.~.._., ........ -..,.«; .:~ :. ~A~ •• ,, , .._. f 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, near Coronado Bridge 90822000 Benthic Community Effects 37 Acres 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Page17o/27 --.. ------------_, ---PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD N~. " ·cA:J.,:W~TJtR WATElRS}IED PQJ,LlJTANT/~TRESSOR Sediment Toxicity , ~01'E!'lTI.AL SQURCJilS SWRCB APP.ROV AL DAD;: oqOBE!{ ZS,. 2006 ESl'IM!AT:FiD . i.!,'RQPOSll)D· TMJ)I;, \ •. s1iii: ,A:FFEC11ED ·: cOMfJiE;T!.QN 37 Acres 2019 Includes Crosby Street/Cesar Chai1ez Park area, that will receive additional monitoring. Nonpoint/Point Source ============::::::============:::-:;:===:::;:::::::;:;::=::::::==::::::::===,,S;::,.=-=========:::-:::,=-·-.,M~,,.,.;.~----~-----'. ---.. -··.··;1 9 B t=:: 9 B San Diego B;ty Shorelin_e, near sub base San Diego Bay Shorel\ne, near Switzer Creek 90810000 90821000 Benthic Community Effects Sediment Toxicity Cbl01·dane Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint!Point Source Urban Runoff/Storm-Sewers Other Boatyards Nonpoint/Point Source Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (IICH) Urban R11uoff/Storm Sewers Other Boatyards Nonpoint/Point Source PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) Urban Ruuoft'lStorm Sewers Other Boatyards Nonpoint!Point Source 16 Acres 2019 16 Acres 2019 -:-.::.::::::;:::..::::.--:.::::..·':::·::· :;:::·---~:.::'·:~: .:·: .. -;--·:·· '.l 5.5 Ac1·es 2019 5.5 Acres 2019 5.5 Acres 2019 t; . ...,.;;.., ..... ~ .. -:~~-.... ~-.t...:-..J:.--...-....... ~.,,U~,..;.t......,.i..,:.:;Jl-..:.l;~~l:;~t;.\1,-.,~ ,.,,;;,;,;;...,., .. ,.~ ... -!:.~~,--;;;:;::,..,, .. .,~~~;;:;:.:..,.. ......... -. ..w.--:!. ,._,,.,.;.,;~.:~,.~,,;:;.;,,,-~.,.._, ... ,.~ ... ~-;J;:;::.. ..... -··«~u~ ......... ~--~ ............ ;._._,,_.. ... ~ ..... · .... ~~,, . ..,.,_ ~ . ....-. ..n.:1~ ,_._ • ..,_ .. : • ..:. • ..: ;,-:-~ .. -: ,~. * •• r-'-", 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, North of 24th Street Marine Terminal 90832000 Benthlc Community Effects Sediment Toxicity 9.5 Acres 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source 9.5 Acres 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source ~~~-... -·.ta--·~--~;;.~~~, ..... ~M::J..,.,;r~:r,:.:;:.i:;.:::;~1~.,.~.:'::""~~~"....,,_r..J::,.,~ .... ~:.i.;.~.-...,,~al,'l!r.;.;.,. ... : ::...~-:: ....• ,;-..:r-;r:.,,~: ...... :.;:r: ..., "'i.tz,,,,5,:,~":.-~ ... '<:::;;., --~-':::, ."'::"-:JL--:~-;,..7i.;~~-. ·~~='.:".~:::u.::;.:;;:..-.;~1.r;~4:::..:-... .::: •. :;.,,.•;:.,,x::;:,-:,..,:::;.;..;...,.--.:::::~.> •. -, :: __ ,.. ::-;: ::__..::~ .• , Page 18 o/27 - ·-- 9 9 -.. ---·-----.. ----- B C PROPOSED 2006 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD "N~~ San Diego Bay Shoreline, Seventh Street Channel San Diego Bay Shoreline, Shelter Island Shoreline Park C.Ai.:WATER: .. ~AT,ER$HED. 90831000 90810000 :i>OLLUTANT/STRESSOR -~-"---' -. Benthic Community Effects Sediment Toxicity Indicator bacteria ' }'QTEN;J;l.A\Ji;. SOURCES Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown.point source SWRCB AP.PROV~ DATE: OCTOBER 25,. :Z006 :jl:S\j'Il\i!\,'fF)D. · ¥RotUS,!i.:l> :TMDL : SIZE AFFECTED .-CQ1\1J'L~TION . 9 Acres 2008 9 Acres 2008 ,_ --------~.....,_,,..--~· -·--. ~-..-.~ ..... -----.~--~-. ~-,--~-__ .,_ .. -_,,,_ ___ , --. ..__ --~. .... :1 0.42 Miles 2006 - ~ ---_ _ _,._......,. _,.,.. ~:: ._ r··=::_-::::;.:;;;::::::::::---·--·::-..~ ... :;;.,:;;;::~:.:::::;-~:,,.;;..Z,,.;;;_-;::,.·.1 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, Vicinity of.B St and Broadway Piers 90821000 Benthic·Community Effects Nonpoint/Point Source Indicator bacteria Estimated size of impairment is 0.4 miles around the shoreline of the bay. Sediment Toxicity UrJ?an.Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Nonpoint/Point Source 9.9 Ac1·es 2019 9.9 Acres 2006 9.9 Ac1·es 2019 t: ..... ~-------~-""'.......J.,,,·· ~ ~~--..,.,....--·I"'·~ ·-............. · ~--... ~ ..... .,..., .. :::;.::::;;,:-;::;;;:;::::;;::.:=:::::=:t.--:..:::::---·---~----:-_:.:...-;::....._ ....... _.., __ , ____ ~~ 9 R San Diego River (Lower) 90711000 Fecal Coliform Lower 6 miles. Urban Runofl'lStorm Sewers Wastewater Noupoint/Point Source Low Dissolved Oxygen Impairment transcends adjacent Ca/water wtareshed 90712. Page19 of27 Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 16 Miles 2005 16 Miles 2019 -· --.'--· -.. ------·----· ... PROPOSED 2006 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD NAME CA.LWATER WATERSHF;D l'OLLUTAN'f/STRE$$0R Phosphorus FOT,Eil!TJA'L SQURCES ' Impairment transceiids adjacent Ca/water watershed 9~712. Total Dissolved Solids Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Impairment transcends adjacent Ca/water watershed 90712. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Natural Sources Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown 11oint source SWR~ AfPRC)V ;\L :PATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 , :ESTJM,,\:T:ED . · . ~Qf0$EID· T,1\1.'QJ;. . SIZE A'f'FECTE:D £c;>l\1P,:,tT~O~- 16 Miles 2019 16 Miles 2019 r-·--p·,_..-_-----... ~.... ,_~--;::;::;,.:·:: ... -:::...:.~ ................. ,.. ..... -:... ... .....--....::.::.:::::~=-.... --..........__...~ ... ---.::.::.:.: ::;:..::.:::.:-,:;_·~-~ .. ~ .. :-.............. ::;=..:-.. -.,z..~ =.: :.:: ....... t 9 E San ·Elijo :Lagoon 90461000 Eutrophic Estimated size of impairment is 330 acres. Nonpoint/Poilit Source Indicator bacteria Estimated size of impairment is 150 acres. Nonpoint/Point Source Sedimentation/Siltation Estimated size of impairment is 150 acres. · Nonpoint/Point Source 566 Acres 2019 566 Acres 2008 566 Acres 2019 - t"'..;~-....... ~ • ..,-~ ,.. .... ..,. --~·---...,,..,...._,. ,....,...,,..,,. _,_ _ _,,...,,..~...,,.· -,.,...,. a.,~----~-,._ .. ....,...,.,.,.,..,,..,,.,.~-_,,,,.... . ..-.4,..::., ...... r,...~•,.,;.,,,. __ .. ~,... .. -,,,.,fo• _,_;:,..__,_.__..,....:; __ ~--.-.. .,...,....-....,.._--;.,,_ ,... .. ~ ............ ...::.~--;:;;~:·...:,.~.,.,"';_~";.:;: ::;::;;..;:-,:.::::::;.::.::...:,J 9 R San Juan Creek 90120000 DDE 1 Miles 2019 Source U11k11ow11 Indicator bacteria 1 Miles 2005 Nonpoint/Point Source 1,-~.--~""::-~-....z....:.-:-_,, ___ , _.._.._.=..,.....,.,z_~.---l..•~.._i;.,.i.,.__~, ..,..,_ __....., ""1"' ... ,, • .,u,__,..::::::;;:::. __ _;;;:_:.,_"':.,. ,.,... ~ ~ • ":.:~~..;..Z,.....,,-.,.~-,~~-=~""~'------~ .... .:...._"; ... ~.....,;::,_..;,,...;;...;..._;. __ .... ; :.H-__ -:, __ ::: ,_ ,_'_, ___ c 9 E San Juan Creek (mouth) 90120000 Indicator bacteria 6.3 Acres 2008 Nonpoint/Point Source ~,,~ ... ~ • ....;;::.:;.;.:.,.,. ...... ,;,.,;.,.,.?'L.,,,...,..~,..,_.,.,~t .... ,,_,__,._,,,,,,...~ .... --..,/;..c~..-.... .,.._~,..;.-;::rc,_,,..-..,r.=.,,_..z.:.::;.i:,.::...,,.,,_,.,,!"3:;•.,.,~ ::t:::'.::it:;::~;:,fl;;.).,"':;;;,,J:..,:JA,:...,~ • .,.--1;..,.;•7.::::...f.-..:.';;"J.,,,.,.;.,.r~_.,,.,l,.:k,..,.,,.~~-•-Mwa~-"'"'-"-··M:,.,,.j,.,};,t,:,._, ~J;,£!;: .•• '..;;,C::,.,,. , •.-.'-,t~',,~J,'-.v, , •• ,·:J.~, '.1.1 Page 20 o/27 ----!--·-----------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD - SWRCB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 :JlEGION 1'¥P~. -N~E .Q,U.,WA'lWrR- WATEW,~ED . ifOLt°OtrA:Nf-lST~S~0R ,. POT.ENTlAL. . $C>lJRCt$ .ESTIMATED PROJ,!OSEJ> TM]}];, · · ·,. 'SIZE.AFFECTED-' · C0MP.l..ET10N · · . -~--·~··· . ~ ---' ' ----' ' 9 R San Luis Rey River 90311000 Chloride Impairment located at lower 13 miles. Total Dissolved Solids Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Sonrce Unknown point source Industrial Point Sources Agriculture-storm runoff Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Surface Mining Flow Regulation/Modification Natural Sources Golf course activities Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 19 Miles 2019 19 Miles 2019 - c .... ..-.. .... ~--·~ ..... ---........ ,.~->-l"'""-• ... ~~---........... _ .... ~ ..... -..... ,,,..,,,,.,.,.,....;.."."'''~-... ~ .. -,ni,w., .... ---· .. __...,.._ .... , ......... ~~ .. -~z:;::;::::..,, .... ,,....._,......,., .......... <Ssljt>-··""~·.-.• --··---1.,-,,,'...: ~ ............. ---:-.:::::.:....», .. ..,._e.-,.., ...... -,,,.,:,~-:: ... ,.""'~";:;,:--::-.::.:..."":." :·· .. • ... ::· ,.:;.:.::: -.. .:z·: .. ·, 9 R San Marcos Creek 90451000 DDE 19 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Phosphorus 19 Miles 2019 Som·ce Unknown Sediment Toxicity 19 Miles 2019 Source Unknown ~-....,,..,\.,..~~~,,,__ .. ...--..-·-r-.. _ ... _ ..... . . -' -:.. ~-.,_,.,,..-;:,..,.-;., ... jt,f~-~----.,;:;.._-~-;-,.,.,..,...._:..,,...,.,.__..,;:_ --,.:.~ •• _.,...,_,, -' ~ ,... . _._,;,.;~ .... ...._.__ ....... ~~-.. ··-·-:.~ .. -· •. __ ,.;,..·;,, ..... ...,., ,,,-.,..:: .. ·. ':: ~, .. ··~·-----.; ··--: 1 9 L San Marcos Lake 90452000 Ammonia as Nitrngen 17 Acres 2019 Source Unknown Nutrients 17 Acres 2019 Source Unknown Page21 o/27 ----·-·--------------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD SWRCB .APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 , ~GJ0N 1-'~P:F: ' ·.~AMF;·,_ CALWA'J,'ER. WA1'.ER$W.;D "'"•,,,,·,--- l'0Lt:U,T A:N:I;/$'.f,Rll:SS())R '.POTENTIAL · .. ·.~~trkc;!l)s ., . ,., .ESTiMA;t¥D: l'llOfQSED 'TMpi, .• , SJZJi: ~.F:f;S'flf~.. . fQMt~ltf:tQN Phosphorus 17 Acres 2019 So1,1rce Unknown • ~ ~ ""--.. --.. ,-.....,.,,.___ ----~"'-_____ ,.,,,,,_~---.---...... -l 9 L San Vicente Reservoir 90721000 Chloride 1058 Acres 2019 Source Unknown Color 1058 Acres 2019 Source Unknown Manganese 1058 Ac1·es 2019 Source Unknown pH(high) 1058 Acres 2019 Source Unknown Sulfates 1058 Acres 2019 Source Unknown ~ ..... ~-~ .......... _.,....,.__ r ~..:X:::: ~-.• ~;;,,:.A-:-:_--z.:;;::_-:._-:.::;-~~-:.., ,....,,.....,.,,..,,,..,_. .___,.::.;.::;:z::;;:;;~.; ...... ..,;,i,,..,,.,..._-:.;-.:::::;::::;::;;:::;:;::::-;;;:::-:,-;::~.~ .. ,;::,:;::::::;~ . .:;;.:;,~-;:~_ ;;;;:;.:::,::.;.:;:::-~;.;:.:;;;::l ? R Sam!ia Creek 90222000 Iron 1.5 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Manganese 1.5 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Nitrogen 1.5 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Sulfates 1.5 Miles 2019 Source Unknown PageZZ o/27 --:--,_ ,_ ------·------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST ·OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD SWRCB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 ·CALWATER l'Ol'EN'.l'JAJ:, 'ESTIMATED · PROPOSED 1'MDL ' REGWN: fy:,PE NAME·· ... , .", ·w:A:T:ERSimD • POLLUTANJJ/Slf.RESSOR . , .·: ' • ' " _, •. .-. ' -' __ -~ •• ,_,_, .. __ ._:'--------=-;,,L, __ ,_,,' t ' ' · :$Q,\JRG.!1/.~._;, ~ ·,~:IZJ]: :A:1?,FEGT-E)U C0MPLE'.FI0N, ' . ' .. , -' '(, .,,.,,,, ., '' Total Dissolved Solids Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Natural Sources Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 1.5 Miles 2019 ,......,....., , ........ --~ .• "·~-................... _~---.:...:.:.., .......................... """i ' .,, .=....~ .............. -. ... -.... ../4,.., __ , .. , .. ,,.,........ ., .... .,..:: ......... :· ,r-......, -....... ~===~ .... ~:. ..... .;...., ... tt-.. ( .. .,. ..... ..,,. .. ,._~ .................... -----·-·· .. ~ .. :.. .... },.,,_ .. .,;..,~-··~._ .. ..,...,,.,.., .... ~ -.. ,,~ .. -'.. ....... _,._j '9 E Santa Margarita Lagoon 90211000 Eutrophic 28 Acres Nonpoint/Poii1t Source f"" .,..,.., ..,....,,,.,,..__, ..... ...,_._.. ----~,_...,.......,,..., ---.-..... -., "' -...-,, Z,.w._, • .,~---~---·"~-..,.,, ,"f" -. _.__~_..__,,,,~,._.vk-y·•-~~··~ 9 R Santa Margarita River (Upper) 90222000 Phosphorus Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unkno,vn Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 18 Miles 2019 . ~ -. ~,.__,.. -... ---~----. 2019 - ,..__ -..... -_..,.., ...... ,,._ ..... -....... ..._ • ...,.. ........ ... ,h_,.......,.,..,.. ..... ,, ... ·-_____ .,._..........,.,,~----~ ...... -.• -...--.. :··, 9 R Segunda De~hecha Creek ---·.::.·------.., • .,. ..,,.... ..,. .. ,--. .... _; ___ ............. -...... -.._..-l.-,-' 9 R Soledad Canyon 90130000 Phosphorus Turbidity Urban Runoff/Storm Se,v.ers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source · Construction/Land Development Urban Runoft'lStorm Sewers Channelization Flow Regulation/Modification Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 0.92 Miles 2019 0:92 Miles 2019 ,..,-•-...-..:----.-~ ••• •·•.::.::::;,,.,,.-:;::.,--__;:;;:;..,.;:;;•t!;:;';..:..:.•:;:,::,';J,.·f!::,~-;,:,£;;.,:,::;;;:;:__.-=.,,-· ""'If"" .,,.._._._. ~;:;:t:,.",!;;..,;._{.,~--;:;::.-;:.;~,~.,",;:;;,:::';_,,.:,"' •~: ~-::..::-·.,,,::[,ta:"~ •;: :-:. ;.,._~·'",.... :·•-:_"'. \•. , "> ;• -~--~- 90610000 Sediment Toxicity 1.7 Miles 2019 Source Unknown ~p-~~.,:;;:;";;j_ · -~--• ....,..,,., •. ,. ·---,~-:;:· ---~-,.,-.;;;4-~ ..... --, .. ;:,;;.;....··:::::::c: ._,.. :;:-:;_~/~~,;...,--i:,~.., "t'\ .. , •• ,,.._ ... ~ ~--~ ......... "" -~, ... ·4• .. -·~--~-~;,.,..•··-1-;.,.;..., ..... ·~·)"·~··"'J;;':,.."<,;;:.::;-~·,.,.~ ... ::r.:;;;.,,:t:;"t'.'.:;<'f•;,;: ····~.".'\"''•;:·-.,;,,~· ... .,, ............ •,.,., • .,;.~". , .. , • .... ,. ,J ·:· -.~:· ' Page23 of27 ---------.. --------PROPOSED 2006 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BO,ARD " REGION TYPE ,,,· ·, . - . ', . NAME , CAL~:i\-TER . WATER$$D :POi;.LUTANT/Sl:.tU'.SSQ;R 9 L Sutherland Reservoir 90553000 Color Manganese pH . P01ENi'i:AL -SQU-6-t:Ef_ Urban Runoff/Stoqn Sewers Unkµ_own No.npoint Source Unknown point source Source Unknown Source Unknown SWRCB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 tSTrnATED PROJ>@~iil' WMDL ' . 'SIZE:M!lF.El©'.DED C:0MPLE'FI0N · , -•· ~---. . . ---' ,_ ---·-, . ·-~"-" 561 Acres 2'019 561 Acres 2019 561 Ac1·es 2019 i:::::=:;::;;;:=;=::::;:::;;::::::::::::::======:;::;·-======:=:;:::;_";::;..':'"""',,._,~~-....--:::.,-:::.,·-,... .. ---,;,,.,.:.:..:.= ..... ,::......i..'l"J"~==;:::.. .. -:;;;:::::::;::::::,,-::::.,...__..,..,~ ... ~---... ~···-'-""---~·~----..::...... ·--.... ...--...... _ .... , ..... -=:~-:.::::::::=-:-:-:;::;::,: ... ::.:;;:-;:::;;::,::., ::-.:;;:;;:..-:::-...:.::.::::::-:::,·:.....-... ·:.::t 9 L Sweetwater Reservoir 90921000 Oxygen, Dissolved 925 Acres 2019 Source Unknown 1..-: ....... ·--------~-____ ,,, ........ "-:"' ... ".......,..,...,. ....... ~-~---. ,., _______ ,, ___ .,.. ._.,._ ·-;~::::,.:::...-:.: ... :::-~:: ....... ---:;::-.:.::.:...--::._::;:;.::..:.~":".:.··: .. :.::.: 9 R Tecolote Creek 90650000 Cadmium 6.6 lY-(iles 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Coppe1· 6.6 Miles 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Indicator bacteria 6.6 Miles 2006 Nonpoint/Point Source Lead 6.6 Miles 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Phosphorus 6.6 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Toxicity 6.6 Miles 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source P"ge24 o/27 - -----------------PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD - SWRCB Al"fROV AL DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2006 'RJ1:ctlON T~E Nilllt CALW:AT.ER W.AT.E)F.SJU)D . POL1;1'JTANir/$TllE;SS0R . POTENTIAL · , so tr.Re.ii:~ ESTOOTED . .· .PllOPOSED TMbL l 81~ AFFJ!)CTEJi . ,<;:QMf,Ii~t10~, Turbidity 6.6 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Zinc 6.6 Miles 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source r _.,.._ -----·---·-... v~--·-. ...,......,. -. .,., ....... ~---....... __ ,_ . .....,. _, .,,.,..,,. ,...,....., ..... " :..::::::::::::. :::::::...."'!:;:::::::.:"¥~ _____ .. __...,"" .... ~~-~ ~_..._ t'-"o/""'.·-:-,,;;_-:;.:.:::::z.r:::: .. ~::.::::~:-::··.:-:.::::;..:·:-:::::. .. "'::-::Z:.:;::...~~:..~.::.:... ·:..:.::~-...:.::~;,,·::.,.:,,:i 9 R Temecula Creek 90251000 Nitrogen 44 Miles 2019 Source Unknown Phosphorus 44 Miles 2019 Source· Unknown Total Diss.olved Solids 44 Miles 2019 Source Unknown I,:~·~"'':"" .... 4"~';,.....·-'""r-~·-·""·----4·-........... ... "" --~ -,-.,.,,.. ... ~--• ....., --------~ ........ ...~ ....... ~ ... .....=-...:..-:;:.::.-;;,;:;;,.,~........,..,.. .. __.....,,"", .. .:..~.,.......:::::: ._,_ ----. ---4'<..,_ ___ . .., ........ -~~-, .... -•,r •• _..,. ... ~ • -·;.-·-~~.--.... -...........,._.,,, __ ---................. .,. .. ,-.,.---_:::.::.·-;--..; ;:.:.:-.".:_;:.;:-:·.,,.: -.:-;:.:.:::-:: :rc .-;.,._..:_-J 9 R Tijuana River 91111000 Eutropbic 6 ~!es 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Indicator bacteria 6 Miles 2010 Nonpoint/Point Source Low Dissolved Oxygen 6 ~!es 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Pesticides 6 Miles 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Solids 6 Miles 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Synthetic Organics 6 ~!es 2019 Nonpoint/Point Source Page25of27 - ---------· ---------PROPOSED 2006 CW A SECTION 303( d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD . REGION 'J,'¥PE, . ~:A.?4E. CM, WATER .. W ~ !ER$IlE,D POL~UTANT/s~imss9R Trace Elements Trash 'f0'if:EN;f<j'.i\,h . so.u~c:;~~. Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source ,,_,_,_ ~-.,...,...,,,,..,., '-,,,..,--,,_ ··--·-••'-,"..,.,._ _ _.. , -.,<>,::::.:::..••-;:,i:,:--,.,...l:'""" •...-~v,;;:::;::,:-:;:;...~::·~-:::~:::::::••::.:•:::•:.":.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::.:: ·----.-,~--- 9 E Tijuana River Estuary 91111000 Eutrophic Estimated size of impairment is I acre. Nonpoiut/Point Source Indicator bacteria Estimated size of impairment.is 150 acres. Nonpoint/Point Source Lead Estimated size of impairment is 1 acre. ·Nonpoint/Point Source Lmv Dissolved Oxygen Nickel Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Wastewater Unknown Nonpoint'Source Unknown point·source Estimated size ofi111pairment is I acre. Nonpoint/Point Source Pesticides Esti111ated size of i111pairment is I acre. Nonpoint/Point Source Thallium Estimated size of impairment is I acre. Nonpoint/Point Source Trash Estimated size ofi111pairment is I acre. Nonpoint/Point Source Page26of27 ~WRCB APPROV~ :OA;TE: OC'.[OB~ 25, 2006 . ·E$lf~':f~D JI'.4E A'fmj:C1'ED 6 Miles 6 Miles J.>ROP0SED TMDL : ~OM.Pl.,ETlO~ ... 2019 2019 . , .. --.• ·-.-~· -:::.,.;;: .. ::-:;::::::::--..;:._·_;· ;;:; · .• --==.::~:::-·-;::. .l 1319 Acres 2019 1319 Acres 2010 1319 Acres 2019 1319 Actes , 2019 1319 Acres 2019 1319 Acres 2019 1319 Acres 2019 1319 Acres 2019 - -------------.. --·-PROPOSED 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BOARD - SWR.CB APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER :zs. 2006 :'REG~ON ij_lyp~;'. ··~~ · GM;:W~'.J!ER· · WATE~iiir,i) P(j){il,;'Q:;l';A'.N'.('isi\1tii:~S0,R :POT>ENff11A:L sotin.dilis: . · .iESTIM:A'.l:f'.ED· · ·. PRIDB0SED T-~L •• sim 'A:FF·!l)c~i>: · · .cl~l\i!fit1~iri0~ .. · · -"-. ~."'-', Turbidity 1319 Al;res .20i9 Source Unknown 1.....,,..__-... ,~---~,......,..~~ .... ~.:...~7;::::;:,::;·...::.-::--~,~.-_ _..,,,,,h,tf~----1!.-~--~ ~ ----r--·----~="!"' .. .:::::::::::::.:=:=., ... '*t~ ............... -.:. ... ,_._._. ,,,:.::.;;.z; .. -.,,,... ~ ..,.,. ......... ~:..::z:.:::t.::::.::~::;:~::::.:;c .. ~.~: .. ::~:-:;.~~==:-::~l ABBREVIATIONS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS WATER BODY TYPE 1 North Coast B= Bays and Harbors 2 San Francisco Bay C= Coastal Shorelines/Beaches 3 Central Coast E= Estuaries 4 Los Angeles L = Lakes/Reservfors 5 Central' Valley R= Rivers and Streams 6 Lahontan S= Saline Lakes 7 Colorado River Basin T= Wethtnds, Tidal 8 Santa Ana W= Wetlands, Freshwater 9 San Diego CALWATER WATERSHED "Calwater Watershed" is.the State Water Resources Control Board hydrological subunit area or an even smaller area delineation. GROUP A PESTICIDES OR CHEM A aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptacWor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorocyclobexane (including lindane), endosulfan, and toxaphene Page27 ofZ7 - ----· --:-----· ---------·,,. . . . Table 2-3.·BEN.EFICIAL USES OF COAS·TAL WATERS BENEFICIAL USE Coastal Waters Hydro logic I . . N R R· C B E. w Unit Basin N A I: E .0. I s I· Number D V C C M 0 T L 1 2 M L D .. Pacific Ocean • • • • • • • . Dana Point Harbor • • ' •. • • • · Del Mar Boat Basin • •• • • ., •• Mission Bay • • • • • • Oceanside Harbor ·• • • • • • San Diego Bay 1 •. • • • • • • • • Coastal Lagoons .-11.11 • •• • • • Tij~ana River Estuary • Mouth of San Diego River 7.11-• • • • • Los Penasquitos.'Lagoon 2 " 6.10 •• • • • • -· .. San Pieguito Lagoon 5.11 • •• • • • Batiquitos. Lagoon 4.51 • • • • • San Elijo Lagoon . 5.61 •• •· • • •• Aqua· Hedionda _Lagoon 4.31 • • • • • • 1 Includes the tidal prisms of the Otay and Sweetwater Rivers. 2 Fishing Jrom shore or boat permitted, ·but other water contact recre_ational (REC-1) uses are prohibited. e Existing Beneficial Use Table 2-3 BENEFICIAL USES 2-47 R A R E • • • • • • • • • • • •• • M A M. A Q I R. u G A R -• • • •• • • •• • • • •• • •• • .-.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • s p w N •· • • •• • • • • • • • • • w s A H R E. 'M L L • • • • • • • • • • March 12, 1997 -'- I ··I r I I -1 i -·: j. -j ' I ol ·\ ---------~--------- Table 2-~~-BENEFICIAL USES O-F INLAND SURFACE WATERS . BENEFICIAL USE 1,2 M A" I p G F p R R B w C w· Inland Surface Waters Hydro.logic Unit u G N R w R 0 E E I A 0 I Basin Number N R . D. ·o R s w C· C ·o R L L C H 1 2 L .M D D Sarr Diego County Coastal Streams -continued .. Buena Vista Lagoon 4.21 See Coastal Waters-Table 2-3 Buena Vista Creek 4.22 + • • • • • • . Buena Vista Creek 4.21 + • • • • • • Agua Hedlonda 4.31 See Coastal Waters-.Table 2-3. Agua Hedionda Cre~k 4.32 • • • • • • • . Buena Creek 4~32 • • • • • • • Agua Hedionda Creek 4.31 .•. • • • • • • .-.-Letterbox canyon 4:31 • • • • • • • Canyon de las Encinas 4.40 + 0 • • ·•. . San'Marcos ·creek Watershed · Batiquitos Lagoon 4.51 See Coastal Waters-Table 2-3 S~n Marcos Creek 4.52 + • • • • • unnamed intermittent streams 4:53 + • • • • • San Marcos Creek Wat~rshed San Marcos Creek 4.51 + • • • • • Encinitas Creek ·4.51 + • • • • • . 1 Waterbodies are listed multiple times if they cross hydrologic area or sub area boundaries. • Existing Beneficial Use O Potential Beneficial Use 2 Beneficial use designations apply to all tributaries to the indicated waterbody, if not listed separately. + Excepted From MUN (See Text) Table 2·2 BENEFICIAL USES 2-27 R s A p R w E N ••• . ' ., March 12, 1997 I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan Chapter 5 -TREATM.ENT CONTROL BMP DESIGN 5.1 -BMP Location To provide maximum water quality treatment for flows generated by the proposed residential development, a BMP "treatment train" is to be employed within the Cantarini Ranch at the developed discharge. location. Developed residential site flows will receive primary treatment via Site Design On Lot filtration. Any 85th perc~ntile flow not infiltrated on each residential lot will the drain to the adjacent curb · and gutter, discharging to BioClean curb inlet filter prior to discharging from the project site. The enclosed map shows the location of the proposed flow-based BMPs. 5.2 -Determination of Treatment Flow Flow-based BMPs shall be design.ed to mitigate the maximum flowrate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch per hour. Such BMP's utilize either mechanical devices (such as vaults that produce vortex effects) or non-mechanical devices (based on weir hydraulics and specially designed filters) to promote settling and removal of pollutants from the runoff. The 85th percentile flow calculations were performed using the Rational Method. The basic Rational Method runoff procedure is as follows: Design flow (Q) = C * I * A Runoff Coefficient (C) -The weighted runoff coefficient for the treatment unit was determined using the areas analyzed in the final engineering hydrology report. The runoff coefficient is based on the following characteristics of the watershed: Land Use -Single Family Residential Soil Type -Hydrologic soil group D was assumed for all areas. Group D soils have very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a high permanent water table, soils with Clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervim1s materials, Group D soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.· Rainfall Intensity (I) -Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations and NPDES criteria have established that flow-based BMPs shall be designed to mitigate a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch per hour. Watershed Area (A)-Corresponds to total area draining to treatment unit (acres). DE:djg h:\reports\2580101\swmp-02.dop w.o. 2580.1 12/11/200711:42 AM I l't'HV,. I~., __ \~ I\ ,-~\\-C7: VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE ,,. ' Inlet# Area (ac) Oas (cfs Inlet# ,.. I ,..I 3 3.24 0.3 109· 8 1.62 0.1 :!.:!E. 13 0.46 0.0 119 18 0.26 0.0 121 22 5.67 0.5 125 24 0.25 0.0 128 30 2.61 0.2 131 35 1.27 0.1 202 37 4.11 0.4 206 47 3.28 0.3 210 48 2.09 0.2 213 53 0.68 0.1 217 54 4.66 0.4 221 58 2.09 0.2 225 62 1.24 0.1 228 66 0.52 0.0 232 70 0.45 0.0 234 73 0.26 ,. ;i 303 76 0.12 ,. l 307 80 0.85 315 84 0.36 89 2.48 93 1.47 2.66 0.59 4.26 NODE AREAS VEGETATIVE AREA AREA 2.59 ·-'~~~~'\.-.:lit~~\',ll\. 1.99 ~ ~ 2.63 3.54 0.3 0.46 0.0 1.80 ,0,2 1.80 0.2 221 0.2 3.11 0.3 4.33 0.4 1.61 . 0.1 0.28 0.0 1.41 0.1 1.32 2.39 2.08 1.06 1.47 0.59, 0.49 '2.84 # fj ~ r~ ·t{ __ ,.~ ':1 ,, l I //j,. -I /lf/lJ .,. ..,.-;;a.;:\.t.' , r,.---... ,.L,·:tJ,"'f· Af-~ -:11Lii:H111l/,,~.....,,,._~~ • /Jlll': ' ~:<~:-.,... . :-; ~-'- . -, '-~ ,..,, ......_.,,_<1.._.,.._,,.,,,,., ,, '"'""""'~c..c...-.·,~-.,,.""'f. --~~ :, ~ .:::,:;: ... ~, 1!. 1...- ~ ~ 1~ r, 150 300 _110 '"""' SITE BMP DESIGN:· SCALE 1'=150' :_~;~~~~ ',.: .. ·1r·..----~~ .! ... ~-~..-k~{l _,.. • DRAINING ROOFTOPS, PATIOS, WP.JJ(!NAYS, AND TRAILS INTO LANDSCAPING PRIOR TO DISCHARGING INTO STORM DRAIN MINIMIZES DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THE IMPERVIOUS AREAS. -USING NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, STABILIZING CHANNEL CROSSINGS,'PLANTING NATIVE VEGETATION, AND USING ENERGY DISSIPATERS WILL PROTECT SLOPES AND CHANNELS. , l"ii"!ii ..... ,f~imJit :? -NO TRASH STORAGE AREAS WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. BMP SOURCE CONTROL: -MANUFACTURED SLOPES SHALL BE LANDSCAPED WITH SUITABLE'GROUND COVER. HOMEOWNERS WILL BE EDUCATED AS TO THE PROPER ROUTINE MAINTENANCE TO LANDSCAPED AREAS / 1_ .. ~ ••• :.~ I PREPARED BY: I ' i i • HUNSAKER ~~~~½-JBS Pl.MHNG l(J'[7!11umtbn.Stiitt l EN~San0qo.C.921Ztf SUlvrnNGPH(as&l5:s8-0co,1 1ffl '\,· -·HOMEOWNERS WILL BE EDUCATED TO THE PROPER APPLICATION, USE AND DISPOSAL OF POTENTIAL STORM WATER RUNOFF CONTAMINENTS, AND MADE AWARE OF THE RWQCB REGULATIONS -FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES Will BE SELECTED '"I AND APPLIED TO MINIMIZE RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT -THE DEVELOPMENT WILL INCORPORATE CONCRETE STAMPING ON ALL STORM WATER SYSTEM INLETS AND CATCH BASINS WITH PROHIBITIVE LANGUAGE SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY ENGINEER -ALL HOA MAINTAINED LANDSCAPED AREAS Will INCLUDE SHUTOFF DEVICES TO PREVENT IRRIGATION DURING AND AFTER PRECIPITATION -ALL OPEN SPACE AREAS Will FEATURE SIGNAGE AND PET WASTE COLLECTIQN BAGS PREVENTING ANY SOURCES OF POTENTIAL BACTERIAL POLLUTANTS (100% SOURCE CONTROL}, -..... -Ill ·, '\ ., • •. ~ ~.,.. '11,_..i"j: • I' 'I CANTARINI RANCH _Cl1r_ OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA R1\0848\P.iiyd\0848SHDS-l!MP.dwgODec--11-2007112128 ,1 \ l { ·, SHEET 1 OF 1 i i ~ , ·' I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan 5.3 -BMP Unit Sizing 5.3.1 On Lot Infiltration · In order to calculate an approximate infiltration ability of a typical lot within the Cantarini Ranch development, several assumptions were incorporated within the calculations including rates of soil impermeability, average on lot impervious footprint and individual on lot 85th percentile flow. To determine the infiltration rate associated with the proposed single family residential development, a. typical lot area was calculated. A conservative infiltration rate of 40 minutes/inch (1.33 in/hr) was assumed to reflect the anticipated soils onsite in ultimate developed conditions. A developed footprint of approximately 0.15 acres has also been assumed for each developed residence. Calculations provided in the end of this chapter illustrate the ability for each residential lot to infiltrate flows greater than the individual 85th flow experienced on each individual residence. Not tmly does this infiltration of initial first flush flow provide high levels of treatment for pollutants typically associated with single family residences, but this reduction in runoff volume also assists the project site in achieving low impact development design criteria. TABLE-TYPICAJ_ LOT INFILTRATION Lot Use Typical 85m Percentile Typical Lot Infiltration Flow (cfs') (cfs) Single Family Residence 0.05 0.62 5.3.2· BioClean Unit Sizing In accordance with BioClean manufacturer guidelines, the SioClean curb inlet filter units are to be sized to fit the proposed curb inlets within the project site. Inlet filter units are typically not sized in accordance with the treatment flows directed to the specific inlet. The units are typically sized per the inlet opening, such that all flows directed to the inlet are treated by the unit in question. Typically, curb inlet filters (such 8$ the BioClean unit) t:tave a pre fabricated diversion structure within the inlet filter unit, ensuring peak flows are conveyed via the receiving inlet to the receiving storm drain. 5.4 -:-BioClean Curb Inlet Filter Insert The treatment BMPs proposed on-site includes multiple BioClean Curb Inlet Filter Inserts within all curb inlets located within the C~ntarini Ranch project site. DE:djg h:\reports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM I I I I I I I 1· I I I I I I I I. I I I Cantar:ini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan Bio Clean Curb Inlet Basket Units are a flexible storm drain catchment and filtration systems designed to collect contaminants and debris prior to discharge into storm drain systems. Per Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc, the units have following properties. Shelf System: The filter basket is located in the catch basin directly beneath a manhole opening for direct service/access from the manhole. The filter provides a shelf system made of UV protected marine grade fiberglass to direct water flow from the curb inlet to the filter, which is located directly under the manhole. Non-Corrosive Materials: All components of the filter system, including mounting hardware, fasteners, support brackets, filtration material, and support frame are . constructed of non-corrosive materials (316 stainless steel, and UV/marine grade fiberglass). Fasteners are stainless steel. Primary-filter mesh is 316 stainless steel welded screens. Filtration basket screens for coarse, medium and fine filtration is ¾" x 1 ¾"expanded, 10 x 10 mesh, and 35 x 35 mesh, respectively. No polypropylene, monofilament netting or fabrics shall be used in the products. Durability: Filter (e~cluding oil absqrbent media) and support structures are of proven durability, with an expected service life of 10 to 15 years. The filter and mounting structures are of sufficient strength to support water, sediment, and debris loads when the filter is full, with no slippage, -breaking, or tearing. All filters are warranted for a minimum of five (5) years. Oil Absorbent Media: The Filter is fitted with an absorbent media for removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from influent, and so placed in the filter assembly to treat influent at rated flow. Absorbent media is easily replaceable in the filter, without the necessity of removing fixed mounting brackets or mounting hardware. Overflow Protection: The drain filter is designed so that it does not inhibit storm flows entering the curb inlet, or obstruct flow through the catch basin during peak storm flows. Filter Bypass: Water will not bypass the filter at low flows, nor bypass through attachment and inlet contact surfaces at low flows. Pollutant Removal E~ciency: The filter is designed to capture high levels of trash and litter, grass and foliage, sediments, hydrocarbons, grease and oil. POLLUTANT Trash & litter Oil & Grease · Sediments/TSS · Organics · Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus C1.,1rb Inlet Basket 90 to95% 543 to 96%* 731 to 91%2 79.3%2 65 to 96%3 71 to 96%3 DE,djg h:lreports\2580101\swmp-02,doc w,o, 2580-1 12/11/200711:42 AM I I I I I I 1· I I I I I I I I ,, I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan Non-Scouring~ During heavy storm flows or other flows that bypass the filter, the filter screen design prevents washout of debris. and floatables in the filter basket. Filter Removal: The filter basket is readily removable from the mounting/support frame f9r maintenance or replacement. Removal and replacement of filter screens is accomplished without the necessity of removing mounting bolts, support frames, etc., but by lift out through the manhole. Product information on the BioClean Curb Inlet Filter Insert unit is provided at the end of this chapter. 5.5-PollutantRemoval Efficiency Table. The table below shows the generalized pollutant removal efficiencies for infiltration and drainage inserts. The BioClean inlet filters provide treatment for pollutants such as trash and debris, -hydrocarbons and heavy metals typically associated with roadways. The on lot infiltration provides treatment for pollutants such as sediments, trash and debris, hydrocarbons, bacteria-& viruses, nutrients and heavy metals. Detention Pollnfunt of Concern :Biofilters :Basin.s Sediment M H Nntµents L M Heavy Mettls M M Organic Compmmds u u Trash&Debris L H ~"}'gen Demanding L M Subsmm:es Bac.tma u u Oil&Grease M .M 'Pe....qicides u u (1} :Ii:dudilll; ttettchE:.andpoIOWcpanment. (2) .Also-lrnown as hydrod.ynamic de.ices .and baffle boxes. L: Liw temDval.-e:fficiew:y M: !.'!edimn removal efficim:y H: HipRmW..rl;!fficieocy U: Uiibown=-a1 efficiency Treatment Controllll\,fP Categories WetPonds H·ydrodynmnk Infiltration Or Drainage Separator Basins (I) \Vetlan.ds Inserts Ftltration Systems (2) H H L H M M M L NI L M H L H L u u L M L u u .M H M M M L M L H u L M L u u l H 1 -u u l u. L Somi:i!s~ Guidanca SJ1«izyb1K lrt~t M,a:.ure.: far Soo,-1:4:: qfNtmpoi.nt PalluJicm in C=tal Wa:te.r:: (1993}. N.atwMl Stonn:water Best .3-wlagem6ll't Practic«s Databa!#'(2001), mi Gukkfor EMP .election in {n-lwt D.n;sicped.-irea. (2001). DE:djg h:\reports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580.1 12/11/200711:42 AM I I I 1· I I I I I I ,. I I ·1- 1. I ,. I· I Cantarini Ranch Storm-Water Management Plan 5.6 ...,. BMP Unit Selection Discussion 5.6.1 Extended Detention Basins Extended detention basins collect the first flush runoff volume and retain it in the basin for a period of 24-48 hours. . . 85th percentile runoff volume,. contained below the overflow elevation of the basin riser, will be slowly discharged from the treatment control basin via low flow orifices in the basin riser. After passing through the riser, an outlet pipe will dewater the basin and discharge runoff to the natural drainage course downstream. Advantages • Due to the simplicity of design, extended detention basins are relatively easy and inexpensive to construct and operate. • Extended detentions basins can provide substantial capture of sediment and the toxics fraction associated with particulates. • Widespread-application with sufficient capture volume can provide significant control of channel erosion and enlargement caused by changes to flow frequency relationships resulting from the increase of impervious cover in the watershed. Limitations • Limitation of the diameter of the orifice may not allow use of extended detention in watersheds of less than 5 acres (would require an orifice · with a diameter of less than 0.5 inches that would be prone to clogging). · • Dry extended detention ponds have only moderate pollutant removal when compared to $Orne other structural stormwater practices, and they are relatively ineffective at removing soluble pollutants. • Dry ponds can detract from the value of a home due to the adverse aesthetics of dry, bare areas and inlet and outlet structures. Conclusicm: Due to the multiple points of discharge from the project site and the fact that on lot infiltration on each residential lot provided equal or higher levels of treatment efficiency for target pollutants of concern, extended detention basins were not implemented within the project site. DE:djg h:lreports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o.2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM I I I I .I I I I I I· I I ·I I 1· I ·I I !I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan 5.6.2 Vegetated Swale Vegetated swales are open, shallow channels with vegetation covering the side slopes and bottom that collect and slowly convey runoff through filtering by the vegetation in the channel, filtering through a subsoil· matrix, and/or infiltration into the underlying soils. Swales can be natural or manmade. They trap particulate pollutants (suspended solids and trace metals), promote infiltration, and reduce the velocity.of stormwater runoff. Vegetated swales can serve as part of a stormwater drainage system and can replace curbs, gutters and stormwater systems. Advantages • If properly designed,·vegetated, and operated, swales can .serve as an aesthetic, potentially inexpensive urban development or roadway drainage conveyance measure with significant collateral water quality · benefits. Limitations • Can be difficult to avoid channelization. • May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur. • Grassed swales cannot treat a very large drainage area. Large areas may be divided and treated using multipie swales. • A thick vegetative cover is needed for these practices to function properly. • They are impractical in areas with steep topography. • They are not effective and may even erode when flow velocities are high, if the grass cover is not properly maintained. • In some places, their use is restricted by law: many local municipalities require curb and gutter systems in residential areas. • Swales are more susceptible to failure if not properly maintained than other treatment BMPs. Conc·lusion: Due to the multiple points of discharge, steep topography and low treatment efficiency for pollutants of concern, construction of master vegetated swales is not a feasible option for the Cantarini Ranch project site. As a site design however, grassy swales have been located adjacent to the roads within the residential development through out the project site to provide passive BMP treatment for 85th percentile flows generated via the paved roadways. DE:djg h:lreports\2580101\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42 AM I I: 1· I I 1· .. I I I I I' 1· I I I I I I I Cantarini .Ranch Storm Water Management Plan. 5.6.3 Infiltration Basins An infiltration basin is a shallow impoundment that is designed to infiltrate stormwater. Infiltration basins use the natural filtering ability of the soil to remove pollutants in stormwater runoff. lnfiltration·facilities store runoff until it gradually exfiltrates through the soil and eventually into the water table. This practice has high pollutant removal efficiency and can also help recharge groundwater, thus helping to maintain low flows in stream systems. Infiltration basins can be challenging to apply on many sites, however, because of soils requirements. In addition, some studies have shown relatively high failure rates compared with other management practices. Advantages • Provides 100% reduction in the load discharged to surface waters. • The principle benefit of infiltration basins is the approximation of pre- development hydrology during which a significant portion of the average rainfall runoff is infiltrated and evaporated rather than flushed directly to creeks. • If the water quality volume is adeq·uately sized, infiltration basins can be useful for providing control of channel'forming (erosion) and high frequency (generally less than the 2-year) flood events. Limitations • May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur. • Infiltration basins require a minimum soil infiltration rate of 0.5 inches/hour, not appropriate at sites with Hydrologic Soil Types C and D. • Infiltration rates exceeding 2.4 inches/hour, the runoff should be treated prior to infiltration to protect groundwater quality. • Not suitable on fill sites or steep slopes. • Risk of groundwater contamination in very coarse soils. • Upstream drainage area must be completely stabilized before construction. • Difficult to restore functioning of infiltration basins once clogged. Conclusion: Due to the multiple points of discharge from the project site and the fact that on lot infiltration on each residential lot provides _'medium to high levels of treatment efficiency for target pollutants of concern, on lot infiltration was implemented within the Cantarini Ranch development. OE:djg h:\reports\2580101\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM .1 I I II I I . , I I 1: I 1· I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan 5.5.4 Wet Ponds Wet ponds are constructed basins that have a permanent pool of water throughout the year (or at least throughout the wet season) and differ from constructed wetlands primarily in having a greater average depth. Ponds treat incoming stormwater runoff by settling and biological uptake. The-primary removal mechanism is settling as stormwater runoff resides in this pool, but pollutant uptake, particularly of nutrients, also occurs to some degree through biological activity in the pond. Wet ponds are among the mm,t widely used stormwater practices. While there are several different versions of the wet pond design, the most common modification is the extended detention wet .pond, where storage is provided above the permanent pool in order to detain stormwater runoff and promote settling . Advantages • If properly designed, constructed and maintained, wet basins can provide substantial aesthetic/recreational value and wildlife and wetland habitat. • Ponds are often viewed as a public amenity when integrated with a park setting. • Due to the presence of the permanent wet pool,. pm.perly designed and maintained wet basins can provide significant water quality improvements across a relatively broad spectrum .of constituents including dissolved nutrients .. • Widespread application with sufficient capture volume can provide significant control of channel erosion and enlargement caused by changes to flow frequency relationships resulting from the increase of impervious cover in a watershed. Limitations • Some concern about safety when constructed where there is public access. • Mosquito and midge breeding is likely to occur in ponds. • Cannot be placed on steep unstable slopes. • Need for base flow or suppl'ementar water if water level is to be maintained. • Require a relatively large footprint. • Depending on volume and depth, pond designs may require approval from the State Division of Safety of Dams. Conclusion: Due to the multiple points of discharge and proxim'ity to residences (vector issues) wet ponds are not a feasible option for the Cantarini Ranch project site. DE:djg h:lreports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o, 2580-1 12/11/200711:42 AM I I I I I ,, I ,, I I' I I~ I ., I 1: 1· I 1· Cantarini Ranch Storm Water,Management Plan · , 5.6.5 Media Filters Stormwater media filters are usually two-chambered including a pre-treatment settling basin and a filter bed filled with sand or other absorptive filtering media. As stormwater flows into the first chamber, large particles settle out, and then finer particles and other pollutants are removed as stormwater flows through the filtering media in the second chamber. Advantages • Relatively high pollutant removal, especially for sediment and associated pollutants. ·• Widespread application with sufficier:1t capture volume can provide significant control of channel erosion and enlargement caused by changes to flow frequency relationships resulting from the increase of impervious cov~r in a watershed. Limitations • More expensive to construct than many other BMP's. • May require more maintenance than some other BMP's depending upon the sizing of the filter bed. · • Generally require more hydraulic head to operate properly (min 4 feet). • High solids loads will cause the filter to clog. • Work best fot relatively small, impervious watersheds. • Filters in residential areas can present aesthetic and safety problems if constructed with vertical concrete walls. • Certain designs maintain permanent sources of standing water where mosquito's and midge breeding is likely to occur. Conclusion: Due to the multiple points of discharge from the project site and the fact that on lot infiitration on each residential lot provided equal or higher levels of treatment efficiency for target pollutants of concern, media filter units were not implemented within the project site. DE:djg h:\reports\2580101\swmp-02,doc - w,o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM I: I I I I ,~ ·1 I . I 1- 1 ·1: ,~ I· I 1· I ·1 I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan 5.6.6 Drainage Inserts Drainage inserts are manufactured filters or fabric placed in a drop inlet to remove sediment and debris. There are a multitude of inserts of various shapes ·and configurations, typically falling to one of three different groups: socks, boxes and trays. The sock consists of a fabric, usually constructed of polypropylene. The fabric may be attached to a frame or the grate of the inlet holds the sock. Socks are meant for vertical (drop) inlets. Boxes are constructed of plastic or wire mesh . . Typically a polypropylene "bag" is placed in the wire mesh box. The bag takes form of the box. Most box products are o.ne box; that is, the setting area and filtration through media occur in the same box. Some products consist of one or more trays and mesh grates. The trays may hold different types of media. Filtration media vary by manufacturer. Types include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose and activated carbon. Advantages • Does not require additional space as inserts as the drain inserts are already a component of the standard drai"nage systems . • Easy access -for inspection and maintenance. • As there is no standing water, there is little concern for mosquito breeding. • A relatively inexpensive retrofit option. Limitations • Performance is likely significantly less than treatment systems that are located at the end of the draina~e-system such as ponds and vaults. • Usually not suited for large areas or areas with trash or leaves that can plug the insert. Conclusion: As part of a BMP treatment train, curb inlet filter units were incorporated within the project. Also as a site design, grassy swales have been located adjacent to the roads within the residential development through out the project site to provide passive BMP treatment for 85th percentile flows-generated via the paved roadways. OE:dJg h:lreports\2580\01\swmp-02.dac w.a. 2580.1 12/11/200711:42AM 1, I. I: I I I; I I I- I: I 1~. I· I I I' I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan 5.6. 7 Hydrodynamic Separator Systems Hydrodynamic separators are flow-through structures with a settling or separation unit to remove sediments and other pollutants that are widely used in storm water treatment. No outside power source is required, because the energy of the flowing water allows the sediments to efficiently separate. Depending on the type of unit, this separation may be by means of swirl action or indirect filtration. Variations of this unit have been designed to meet specific needs. Hydrodynamic separators are most effective where the materials to be removed from runoff are heavy particulates -which can be settled -or floatables -which can be captured, rather than solids with poor settleability or dissolved pollutants. In addition to the standard units, some vendors offer supplemental features to reduce the velocity of the flow entering the system. This increases the efficiency of the unit by allowing more sediments to settle out. Advantages • May provide the desired performance in less space and therefore less cost. • May be more cost-effective pre-treatment devices than traditional wet or dry basins. • Mosquito control may be less of an issue than with traditional wet basins. Limitations • As some of the systems have standing water that remains between . ,storms, there is concern about mosquito breeding. • It is likely that vortex separators are not as effective as wet vaults at removing fine sediments, on the order 50 to 100 microns in diameter and less. • The area served is limited by the capacity of the largest models. • As the products come in standard sizes, the facilities will be oversized in many cases relative to the design treatment storm, increasing cost. • The non-steady flows of stormwater decreases the efficiency of vortex separators from what may be estimated or determined from testing under constant flow. • Do not remove dissolved pollutants. • A loss of dissolved pollutants may occur as accumulated organic matter (e.g., leaves) decomposes in the units. Conclusion Due to the multiple points of discharge from the project site and the fact that other BMPs provided high~r levels of treatment efficiency for target pollutants of concern, hydrodynamic treatment units were not implemented within the project site. DE:dJg h:lreports\2580101\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/2007 11:42 AM I I I· I· ·1. 'I I I ·1, ·.··.:· . . ·-.: I I I: ,, 11 I I I I ~-35500 ON 1,...-0.T t:7\.'i ,t!.,,,--. )~"\-=-'-'i::) ei\/'°"'~--/ lo\-= G::>ct-S O\· ~ ~k" 1-~ O· l S ~ lot-"'" e-'. A---r -::: O· <"l ~ A.,l"\f --O· {-S i;::....<.. • Pu-(:.;-\~ ~ A-T -:::-0~ <a,S A-e;.,, ,4.,1"'\ f' "" o • IS --- /J.. ~ -: 6-~'b~ A-.,.. ::: 0 . .ttq G:\.. c.---- A1"" ~ ~ o-,4"' ~c;.... A~ ::: o. 'J.~ o-- <?e.r ~q -2-ao7--oee., b1 -tl-J---(2.w c:zc...-~ ~d-.--~ • 0.-SS'-"~L--" fb="< Cc:;.il 'f-e..-l'~ LcoAC.-t-f.l~ve.,,) ;::.. 40 r°V\)A { il"I. ......,. ? 40 Nl'ti"\ (i"'\ ~ X.. ( t '2. t-"cA-) l<-( '=:.O -.--.:--""" ) ;: .f?t-t""'i~ I -S' . -· :2-eeoc -~ · 't? >< ro fl-/ S-c.---e,.., Q. ~ lf'~'iiO"""~-)..rc:..,,e::..,.,, CAp-cr) r-.Per c:..-~--C~+(i).. .c...~ .:::. 179~4.lp'l( '6·Lf7,<to0 :=-o.eoz. ~r. I 't -I '.if I c-0t,( ""' I ol-q-I'-pv-c./4-nf-ll <..--flow : o-""' ~ + o.eos~ '-f-o. 'fq CL.,(... ~ O· 'f-6 ~ 01'c:=vi~ Uc-c."'evev·O 0 , 2-. i,.._/ "1-r , . q,srv ~ v ( A ~ O·'flo ><-0-?-'I<.. o. S'~ ::::. . =-{J , _ I I I I- I I I I I I I 1· I I I I I I I I I Inlet# 3 8 13_ 18 22 24 30 35 37 47 48 53 54 58 62 66 70 73 76 80 84 89 9,3 . 98 101 105. 109 115 119 121" 125 128 131 202 206 210 213 · 217 221 225 228 232 234 303 . 30.7 . 315 318 322 · 325 329 332. 336 33.9 CANTARINI RANCH 85th PERCENTILE FLOWS-DRAINAGE.INSERTS Area(ac) 85th Percentile Qss (cfs) Intensity {In/Hr) 3.24 0.20 0.3 1.62 0,20 0.1 0.46 0.20 0.0 0.26 0.20· 0.0 5.67 0.20 0.5 0.25 · 0.20 0.0 2:61 0.20 0.2 1.27 0.20 0.1 4.11 0.20 0.4 3.28 0.20 0.3 2.09 0.20 0.2 0.68. 0.20 0.1 4.66 0.20 0.4 2.09 0.20. 0.2 1.24 0.20 0.1 -0.52 0.20 0.0 0.45 0.20 0.0 0.26 0.20 0.0 0.12 0.20 0.0 0.85 0.20 0.1 0.36 0.20 o.b 2.48 0.20 0.2 _1.47 . 0.20 0.1 2.66 0.20 0,2 0.59 0.20 0.1 4.26 0.20 0.4 3.78 0.20 0.3 · 4.01 0.20 0.4 ·0.59 0.20 0.1 0.57 0.20 0.1 6.95 0.20 0.6 2.59 0.20 0.2 1.99 0.20 0.2 2.63 0.20 0.2 3.54 0.20 0.3 0.46 0.20 0:0 1.80 0.20 0.2 1.80 0.20 0.2 2.21. 0.20 0.2 3.11 0.20 0.3 4.33 0.20 0.4 1.61 0.20 0..1 0'.28 0.20 0.0 1.41 0.20 0.1 1.32 0.20 0.1 2.39 d.20 0.2 2.08 .. 0.20 0.2 t.06 0.20. 0.1 1.47 0.20 0.1 0.59 0.20 0.1 0.49 0.20 0.0 2.84 0.20 0.3 1.28 0.20 0.1 I I I I I I I I I I·· I I I I. I I Drain Inserts Description · Drain :inserts are manufactured filters or fabric pla~ed j.na drop inlet to remove-sediment and debris. Tb.ere are a multitude of inserts of various shapes and con.figurations, typically.falling into one of th.tee different groups: socks, boxes, and trays: The sock consists of a fabric, usually constructed of polypropylene. The fabric may be attached to a frame or the· grate of the inlet holds . the sock. Socks are meant for vertical (drop) inlets. Boxes are constructed of plastic or wire mesh. Typically a polypropylene "bag'' is placed in the wire mesh box.· The bag-takes the form of the box. Most box products are one box; tb.atis, the setting area. · and filtration through media occur :in the same box. Some . products consist of one or more trays or mesh grates. The trays may hold different types of media. Filtration media vary by manufacturer. Types include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose, and activated carbo~. California Experience The number of installations is unknown but likely exceeds a thousand Some users have reported that these systems require considerable :µiaintenance to prevent plugging and bypass. Advantages· • Does not require additional space as inserts as the drain inlets are already a component of the standard drainage systems. • Easy access for :inspection and maintenance. • As there is no standing water, there is little concern for mosquito breeding. • A relatively inexpensive retrofit option. Limita~ions Performance is likely significantly less than treatment systems that are located at the end of 't;he drainage system such as ponds and vaults. Usually not suitable for large areas or areas with trash or leaves than can plug the :insert. Design and Sizing Guidelines. Refer to manufacturer's guidelines. Drain :inserts come any many configurations but can be placed 41.to three general groups: socks, boxes, and trays. The sock consists of a f~bric, usually constructed of polypropylene. The fabric may be, attached to a frame or the grate of the inlet holds the sock. Socks are meant for vertical (drop) inlets. Boxes are constructed ofplastic or wire mesh. Typically a polypropylene "bag'' is placed in the wire mesh box. The bag takes the form ofthe box. Most box products are jar'luary 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development end R:edeveiopment www.cabmphandbooks.com MP-52 Design Considerations • Use with other BrvPs • Fit and Seal Capacity within Inlet Ta'rgeted Constituents @ Sediment @ Nutrients @ Trash @ Metals Bacteria @ Oil and Grease @ Organics Removal Effer:tiveness See New Development and Redevelopment Handbook-Section 5, i:.A.l.lR)KNL,\$lUK\1W.\ l !:.'< ..,2lJr\LITY ,;-<,Sft~-!Af:Oi~ 1 of3 I I I I I I I I I I I I -1· I I I I I I MP-52 Drain Inserts one box; that is, the setting area and filtration through media occurs in the same box. One manufacturer has a double-box, Storm water enters the first box where setting occms. The storm water flows into the second box where the filter media is located. Some products consist of one or more 1rays or mesh grates. The trays can hqld different types of media. Fil1ration media vary with the manufacturer: types include polypropylene, porous polymer, treated cellulose, and activated carbon. · Co11structio11/I11Spectio11 Co11sideratio11s Be certain that installation is done ma m~er that makes certain that the storm.water enters the unit and does not leak around the perimeter. Leakage between the frame of the insert and the frame of the drain inlet can easily occur with vertical ( drop) inlets. Peno rmance Rew products have performance data collected under field conditions. Siting Criteria It is recommended that inserts be used only for retrofit situations or as pre1reatment where other treatment BMPs presented in this section area used. Additional Design Guidelines Follow guidelines provided by individual :manufacturers. Maintenance Likely require frequent maintenance, on the order of several times per year. Cost • · The initial cost of individual inserts ranges from less than $10oto about $2,000. The cost of · using multiple units in curb inlet drains varies with the size of the inlet . • The low cost of fu.serts may tend to favor the use of these systems.over other, ;more effective treatment BMPs. However, 'l;P.e low .cost of each unit may be offset by the number of units that are required, more frequent maintenance, and the shorter structural life (and therefore replacement). - References and Sources of Additional Information fuachovec, R., and G. Minton, 2001, Field testing of a sock-type catch basin insert, Planet CPR, Seattle, Washington Interagency Catch Basin Insert Committee, Ev~uation of Commercially-Available Catch Basin Inserts for the Treatment of Stormwater Rlllloff fro;m Developed Sites, 1995 Lany Walker .Associates, June 1998, NDMP Inlet/In-Line Con1rol Measure Study Report Manufacturers literature Santa Monica (City), Santa Monica Bay Municipal Stormwater /Urban R1.m.off Project - Evaluation of Potential Catch basin.Retrofits, Woodward Clyde, September 24, 1998 2 of3 Callfomla Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com January 2003 I I I I I I I I I I 1. I I I I I I I I Drain Inserts MP-.52 Woodward Clyde, June 11, 1996, Parkirig Lot Monitoring Report, Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. · January 2003 Califomla Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www, cabmphandbooks. com 3 of3 I I I I I I I_ 1· I I I I I I I I I I I ·I .1 I 1. 1· -. I ·1-l . I· ·I·· ·1.-· I. 1.· I ·1 I I-':· I I·· I. . . .. -~~ ~~----~ UUfiJll-~' E'~ffi ~~I-... ·; · . . . . . . . . . . With the ever increasing environmental :QUid!:ilines: such as NPDES permitting and TDML requirements, Suntree Technologies has developed a complete line·. pf prodµcts and services to meet the · needs of .. engineers, contractors, and . munici_palities. The ability of muniqipaliti'es to retrofit existing stormwater structures with .. our product~ saves t:axpayer funds, and. bring,s lo~al watershed management within ~pacification qu:ickly. New construct.ion projects have to dt:;1al with the requirements of TDML. ·-lncorporating our products into the· constru.ctfon specifications ,~flows the :project to be built. The Retrofit Experts . ' . " Oqr prodµ;qt Une. and sefriceg· hav~ eV'olved a~i' ye-.g 0.fwQ1king with other4 t9 }lelp sol-ve polltltion.-and erosion p:roblelDS, -We reallz~ that different communities are going to liave 4iffer~t :needs,, and we stand read~ to _help you till those needs. Custotii solutions to unique pro]?le~ is o\11' specialty/' Page1 He:pr9 H~ppel President I I I I I I I I I I I· I ,.·.·. 1· 1. I I ·1 I -. .lndex ·Product (J.e.scription · Page Number Grate. Jn'fet Skirtnner aox--------.. ·---------------3 . . . .. Special ·features _;..,; __________ ,. ___ ,... ___ ..: •• ___ 4 Flinctiona.I de$cription-----·---·-····---·----5 Capturing debris----·---.:...--···,-·:--·-'"··-···.,·--7 . Sizing & Flow Rates ................... _ ......... -·-·----8 Curb Inlet Basket (Stand~rd)..----·-.·--·-·----·····---····-9 C~pturing -debris.-..---...,,,...-..: ______ ._ •. _.,. ____ 1 o Ct:1rb· lnl~t J3asket (High Capacity)-···---:·:--·-·-----· 11 . Capturing debris....,;-._.,...,. __ _;_ ..... _,. ..• -•. ---.. 12 Nutrient Se,pa.rating ·e.affle · Box :-.......... ·------·--··--· .. ·-1. 3 Fu.ncttonal ·des.qr~ption-----.. --·---·--· ---14 Capturing debris·---·--··.: ......... -.... ..-.......... ___ .. 1-5 Si.zing the system .................... ,,, .. ______ .,.,.,....._. ___ 16 Pre~assembty -------:--------·--------------17 Setting the structure .......... ,... _ _,_,.; ____ ,,_,.,,__ ..... ~ 18 Golf Green. Fitter----------.---.... -... -....... _ .. ,..._ .......... 19 Stotn1 Boom----.. ---------.. --------.. -----..-·--------20 Skimmers ~------------.......... ------------~--.. -~------21 .~ Gri;it~ Protector 2000 --------------------.. --,.------21 Curb Inlet Protector------...,.------------·----.. ·----21 ''•' • ~ : • I • • . Page_2 I --·--·--- 1· I I ·I ·1 .. · .-. -_,-_ I ·I- I I I I I -I .. I I ·I I -. , . -~~~ ···~--__ .,.,.,.--_~------~ ~-l" ,'.:~. ·rec!JtiUf)O!AlP~ JiotJ~ 798 Cl.eai'l1;1~e _Rpa_<f, Co~oa,. Fl.. 32922 Ph: 321-637 .. 7552 FAX: 321-637 .. 7554 www.suntreetech.com . . ®lril!@/liifMl~ &l@Jg . . c~mrea ·· Stomiwater Treatment System 1Eveizythffl$ Fmm · For A Grllited Inlet · · JEJ!y.dff({})Cfltrbo ~-~...-.---- Sediment, To .. To Litt,-_ ]Ey~q~hi lostalls · · ·autckly • Rem.Qv.~ the gra.te • Drop In the filter • Repla.o& th~ g~e . WlllNot l»r,p.ed.e The -D~ik.~t!d Flow 0/~fke lnltt- Custolllit , -ie.Sef)© No Prtol!Jle.m I -. ---. - I I I I-- I I .. T,1.1!1/itJ!fJ!:'-.: ,"'n.rr..-.wi21 ~w Screens of Different Sieve Sizes Optimize· Filtrtatia Arnd Water Fli O Bypass Openings ~1/,,.....,,,. -~~-... -~ I•, ~ . , . .. . . . . 0 Coarse Si~ve Size S_cree~--. . . · ·· · 0 Medium Si~ve Size Sere.en Grate-Inlet Skimnier Box Special Features 0 Fine Sieve Size Screen--· ... --(Fine sieve_ size screen aJso 011 bottom) Screens · on all four sides Interior com.po.nerils- are e4J$.ily removed _ to allow -e(l:SJ' -ace_:-· · -/l)wer jil'trat.ion · c~ .. ,. :!;:;:: Fiberglass components have gelcoat~d finish + · UV fitter 1- 1 I I I I I I I I I I . · c·storm Boom-(:i~ , : stc,rm. Boom !!/ , absorbs . /•''t • . ,.-hydrocarbons 0 Zip Tie-~-- 0 Skimmer Tray · · 0 Deflection Shield O Flarig,e. i~ reinforce.d -· with knitted 1808 +45° biaxial. fibergl-aS$ Built :-.--t{}ng To Last! Page4 I I I. I I I .1· I I I I: ·1 . I ,I 1·· I ·I I I Grate Inlet Skimmer Box-:-Functional Description . ~ ffel/JfJIJ@(m;uo OJ)f!CD~ ~ @ff~ -~ ~ ii@ @~fm ~lfil A1ldJ ~ ffeC@VM . Stage· 1.: h stQrmwater enters the inlet .. through the grate·it comes in contact with and. passes th,rougn a Storm Boom located around the top perimeter of the Grate Inlet Skimmer · Box. After making. contact with tbe Storm Sopm1 the stormw~t~r flows down into the lower filtration thamber whi~h is equipped with 3 dffferent ·sl'eve size filtration screens and l:!ypass openings. · Stage 1 ~Co11rse Screen-:> ' ' +-Mealum Screen~ ~Fine Screen~ l- A-s St9>rmwater Enters The lnlet Stage. 2·: Toreughotit the entire storm everit, §Jtortnwavar e·ontfnues to CQme in contact With the Stotm Bo.am and then flpw Into the lower Typical Low Flow Storm Ev.ant fUtrati0n eha.rnber1 adjacent-to the.fine sieve siz.e $Greens: The fine si~ve size .screens -are $izea to ee abie to capture sediment sy9h as $anq; clay, phosphates, .eta. A sand filter quickly forms across the bottom .which has the potential to capture· the finest of P6!rticle$ • Stage ·a: As th~ storm event incre~ses in intensity ~e water level in the Grate Inlet Skimmer b(Jx rises to a level aqjacent to the medium sieve size scr..eens and the tl.!rb/Jlenc;e . d.¢let;for. Th!! medium sore~n provitl$ additional flow with t~ss chan~e-of oast~tton than ·tt-ie fine screen: The. tt1rbulence d~f!ector · dramattoally r~u~e!;3 the turbulence In the . lower fifiratJon Chl!!mber, which allows sediment to r.AfJJ continue to ·settle. without . -~ re..st,!_$peng1ng ~edim~n~ that bas previously been oaptur~d .. Page5 .. $tage·3 Typical Medium Flow storm l:vent " t ,. s I ........... ····--. I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I. I I '' ', .. Stage 4: As the storm event increases in intensity to that of high flow storm event, the water level in the Gtate Inlet Skimmer box rises ta a level adjacent to the coa·rse sieve size screens above turbL[/ence deflector. Stage 4 .. Typical High Flaw Storm .E.vent The coarse screen provides additional filtered flow with less chance for oJ:>struction than either the m~dium or fine .screen. The coarse screen is sized to capture fl.o~t~bles like foliage and litter. At this-'stage water is flowing throµgh all the different sieve size screens, the turbulence deflector contiritJes to dramatically reduc~ the turbulence in the lower filtration chamber., ,and sedtment conUnues to settle and collect toward the bottom. Stage~,- Stage 5: If' the storm event create$ an e-xtrem~ly high fl9W rate into the inlet which exceeds the floW'thr1;>1:Jgh all the s·creens, the w!:rler flow can bypia$S the filtration scre~ns through skimm~r pro.t~i:ted bypass openings near · the top of "the Gtatf ltllt#f $kim,ne.t Box: As Wi:lter flows through. the bypass openings, it also continues to flow through all the other sere.em;; · Storm events that produr;;e ·su~h hig.h flqw rates are rare and typically don't l;ast very _lon9. Typical Super High Flow Storm. Event . . After The Storm E,v~nt Can Hold Hundreds Qf Pounds of Oebris ~11~~ lfime Al~ ~~ -~, ~~ -~~.~· After The Storm Event: The stormwater drain$ oompletlillY out ~f the Grate Inlet Skimmer Box a·fter the $torm event. The debrit> collected in the unit fs storeq In ~ dry state Wnlch hel~ to contain the nutrient pollutant.tead, prevents the filter from going ~epti~; and prevents mosquitqes from breeding in. the .unit After each storm event more.debris is coUected, which can ultimately wergb many hundreds qf pounds. Page~ I I I I I I I I I I I -1 I I 1· I I I ii· G-rate Inlet Skimmer Box -Captured Debrls . ~ ~B~QCJ . • ,;,l C .. ~®/iJ1ll/f,®~~ ~,:: ,,-. ~ ~~f]{~1i1Jfn)~.,., 'JJ'<te/JoN8_,a-_ Jlllfic. . . . ~ . -. . ~~ . . ff{~ II l!l#i ~ [Ff:@.r[-U · The picture to the right shows an inlet with a Grate.In.Jet Skimmer Sox immediately after the g~te wa~ removed, just 45 days after it was installed. Becaust;¼.-this inlet is .. adjacent to a wash down area, it . experiences a sim~ated storm event every day. The filter Js fun to capacity and has been oJ,erating in bypr3ss mode for .. s.ome ·time. .. The picture to the left shows the G.rat~ Inlet Skimmer Box ·immediatery after the remov:al of booms and sklmmer tray. Notice · the _byp~ss-openings around the top are · completely unob$trOcted. The fitter· is full to .capa_oi:ty: and 'is ·operating in bypass mode. Becau$e this Jnlet experience·s an extra heavy hydrqcarbon pollutant load it is fitted ·with extra -Storm Booms. AJth9ugh the inlet is relatively small with a grate that measures .24» x 24'\ debris wei.ghlng 232 pounds with a volume of 18 qua.rts was removed during this servici'OQ.1 To the right i$ a phcto of the sam~ Grate:Jnleft $1(immer Box after b~ihg $$rvic.ed. .. R.~ f<tWTh@ --~~ Page7 I I I I I I I- I I I 1· I· I. I I ·1 I I I Grate Inlet Skimmer Box -Sizing and Flow Rates Filter Open_ings ~~~ · ,M@~ ' , The maximum flow rate of a Gra"te Inlet . I -Skimmer Box' is d.etermined PY the amount of +a-boarseScreen.-i,,, flOW that can pass through the· throat,. the ~ -r exception is fo.1.md oi:,ly In very l1;1rge unfts. +-MectlumScraen Ta determine the minimum flow rate of *"""'Fine Screen~ a Grat~ tnlet-Sl(linmer ·aox, consider only the potential flow ~hrougn the throat and bypass. If 1towforwaterllow the potential flow through the throat is less than· undl!r fitter. the potential flow through the bypass, then the throat determines the minimum flow. If the ·potential water ftow through th~ bypass is less ,~:!m'-mDl!llmmm==zm=:~mmaadJJthaf'! th~t of the throat, then the byp~ss .. de.wtmlhes the minimum flow. filtered Flow repr~s~rits the potential flow rate through all· screens., and does not include the potential flow through. the bypass. Water flow thr0~gh the bypass happens only when the flow rate thro1,;1gh the gr~te .exceed$ the flow rate thro.~1;1n all the screens. " Flow Rate Table For 8 different Models ..... Dim~nslons of the flange · . _ Fl9w Ra~e aroun.tl the top e>f the 'Grate {cubic feet per secQng) lnl~lSl.drom~r P~x Model Width Length Oepth Throat Filtered Jaypass Number (inches) (i"nches) (inches) Fl.~W Flow GlSB .. l.-24,,.l4-25 ~4 24 is 4.4 14.9 6.7 GISlJ..A-l.4-37-2$ 24 ~' 25 10.2-. 21.1 8.7 '. GJSB-C-28-37 .. iS l8 37 25 12., l9.,4 7.4 '~J-2441-~ 24 41 25 ll 24,6 10 .. · -GISB-NK-3~,:-32-25 ·J.2 '32 %5 12.5. i9.1 10,3 ... '' GlSB .. 3.,-3'u-.25 . 36 ~6 25 18.8 23.4 13A .. . ' GiSB-D--36-48"18 36 ll8 · 18 33.l i6.3 13',3 . . ~ . -" GISB-G..s2 .. ss~1.s 52 58 ' . . . .,. 18 89,3 40.1 25 + The yellow blocks repre.~enJ th~ mln.i~i.Jm flow rates. • FIitered fl<>W is based cm unof:>str.uct~d. .,$ct~~ns •. ·Drawin9'$ ~,nd flow specifications ·for any $ize Grate Inlet Skimriu~r Box is available upon request. Pilse 8 I .......... - I I I I I I I 1·. I I 1·· 1. ·1- I I I I I 5 Jk&irr W@tlf-lf@n·ty @fm/J)/JtrilMt~ Standard· Capacity Coarse Screen Up High For-Capturing ~- . Foliage and Litter Storm Boom For · · · Colle.Gting --- Hydrocarbon,s Fine Screen In Back and Bottom · i=ot Collecting Sediment Patented Durable . Built Strong ,,,_ L. ti .llO· · tflJS., · f:iberglass Body Page9 I I I I I I I i 1 ·I y I· ~ • • I ~ I I I I I·. I I 1· I I Curb Inlet Basket .-No Need To Bntelf . The Confined Space Of The Catch/Jasin . To Service · Hea¥Y a~-d Expensive· ·. · · Equip1!Jet1:t ls :N,ot · Multi-stage Filtrat/qn Captures Everytliing From Hy1l1•ocar.bon.$, To· Sedimttnt, To . · Grass-ClippingS., To Litt.er. •• Ev~ry,tlting/ . Rs.qu.ired To Do Sen,ic,i Wo-1k · To. Service: ~ .Remove the ·manhole lid + Reach in by hemd or wfth a manhole hook and .rsmove the basket • Empty the con·tiants of the basket and ·· r~place the ·Storm Boom · · • R~pla-ce.-t:fte ilasket and ·manhole lid Page10 ~--....... _,._ .. -- I I I I I I I I I. I- I I I -1-. I .. I- I I I ~ . JLifrJ& ({)OIJO 'lf /k,,r({P[J{Jg/JtJ M! (f}Jll8/k,@Uf Jtei.lla•lkrP.p# lw~· 5 Ik@lf W@rirrmmuty · 798 Clearlake Road, Cocoa. FL 32922 Ph: 321""637-7552 .FAX: 32·1-637-1554 www:suntre~tech,cem @}(ml)J_~e ~a High Capacity · -~~Ii) Screens of Diff er-ent Sieve Sizes Optimize Filtration And Water Flow .,. Patent~d 0 storm Boom ______ ........ ~11--~~---~--~ ·· ·· -~-- 0 Coarse Sieve Size Screen------• 0 Medi-um Siev.e Size Screen -----i• 0 Fine Sieve Size Screen----------(Ftn.e sl~\!e !Size se~en also on bottom) Sh·eff · Sysfem --··-- . ' -(#im~a P~~e 1·1 _ For use·in inlets where th~ only access is thro1.1gh a manhole. A shelf-system directs water flow irtto the filtration basket and p·ositk:>ri$ the basket directly under the manhole for ~asy . access. If necessary, the water flow_ Gan bypass the entire filtrat1on $ystem simply by flowing ·past the filter ~r:id into the catchbasin. I I I I. I 1· ·1 I I I ·1 1. 1· I I 1· I I I. Above; View .of the curb tntet·showing th.at the only a~ces$ is through a marihote. Right: View of full High Cap-cfty Curb In.Jet Ba$ket imrnediatety after the manhole ttd was removed. Lakeland, Florida High C(JljJP@rcirty Crmlf!J» lmJUet B({JJ&k<et South Side of Hibriten Way & Lake Hollingsworth DR November 5; 2002 \ J .. , A total of 200.5 pounds of debris was· rern.oved. having a votu.rne of 123 quarts~ The foliage weighed 140.4 poon~$ and the sediment . weighed 58.2 pounds. A large quantfty of palm nuts was captured by this unit. · Left: ihe Curb Inlet Bas_ket has been · removed and can be easlly emptied by hand Without the need of a vac:yum truck. ·fM#Pel Sedl,ne~t,-Foli,ge, PJaosphaJtres, Litter, Hjdrocoi6on, ... Ever,fhingl _T/hJen Drains Dry! PaQe 1.2 I I 1· I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 ·1 .I I I I .I I I I· I I 1· I. 1· I I I I I· ·I I I ~ffiJ -~mm~ WIDffulJ® ~- C~ptures· foliage, litter, sediment, phosphates,. · .. hydrocarbons ... Everything! Turbulence . deflectors prevent captured sediment ·.--· from· . te-su$penditJ.g. Hydrocarbons · coliect _in fron·t of skimmer cilnd are absorbed by · Storm Boom. Nutrient pollutant loa.d is not lost to static water and flushed out at the Funcvona1 oescnpaon ~r.il'. ~~ ~mf.-Jam~ ~u.~ mv~.uu.~ ·-. Hatch Hatch Nutrient rich vegeta~lori.ahd litter are . . c~ptured 111·fi1tra.tlon screen s.y1;1tem. Sediment settles to tlie-bott<!lm. Bottom of COPCl"$te struqtiJr_e, is. Qnly 4-' below U,e pipe. .. ~-'file!" . . :~~ ~~ ... ..A\11.~-! -m.u-1UiaW!8VIRllil~ -.. _ . :-, . ·-· .. · .. -. ' ... ·. Vege~ion arid litter ls above the static water and dries 00.t between storm ev!\lnts. VVitj'l 11'\~·!:)rgan.tc pol1t.1tant le.~d $'eparc1ted from the water; the system does no.t go septic. _nex_t_storm event. -~~~5~ Separating 9tgan,ie. matter "from the stati.c . W~ter prevents bacterial buildup .. During serviting, the s~en $ystem hll"!S~ off to the side·to give ea$Y. a®ess to the sediment collect.ed lh the lower chambers-. . . . . No.~ Fer A•~ Dall-.! .. · -. PaQe 14 -. . .. Patented I ·I 1· I I I .. I I 1- I I I ·._I . I I- I I 1. I OOUU@Uuir ~U<ID@m@ ~® ~ Captured Debris NotNB~~S)$~Are ~ llq~ To the.right is a photo of the beck page· of a road atlas being held 1 O" underwat~r in a Nutrient Separating Baffle Box. After a couple of months with · · no rain, ·the ~ter still /las nti smell and Js clear. Th~ sediment·· can be clesrty seen on·the bottom,. . . and sman fish and critters have .. established a happy and healthy · ecosyste~ wrthin: the structure. -If you are reluctant ·tP touch tlte w~ter in your storniwater filtratlpn system because it Is $epfic, th'-en you have a problem because the next storm .e-v~nt will flu$h ouf your syst,m Into_ the environment-. · To the l&ft is a view of 5790 p9µt1ds. ·of -sediment colle(:ted in ~ Nutrient Separating Saffl~ Box ju.st 30 days after iristanation . Tt;>· the ·rig.ht is a view of f9Jia_ge and Utter c;qltected ·within th~ $t;i'een · $Y$tem of a Nfflrient Separ~ting· B11.ff/e Box~ · Page 15 I I I I I. I . .. I ·1 I I ·1 I I I I I 1· I I Sizing-The Nutrient Separating Baffle Box '3ecam~e the entire flow is always. treated and t,ead loss ·is so mfr~imal, determining the appro_priate size of Ni,trient Separating Baffle Sox-for a project is more often an element of pipe. size than flow rate • Model·# Inside Width Inside Length . · Standard Recommended Height* : Pipe Sizes . NSBB4-6 41 6' 6' · 8" to 18" NS684-8 4' \. 8' 7'. 12'' to 1811 NSSB 5-10 I .. 12" to 3011 5' 1'0' T NSB86-12· 6' 12' 7' 18!' to 3611 'NSBB 8.;12 '. .. S' 12' 8' 3611 to48i1 .. .. . . . . NSBB a-·14 8' . ' ... 14' S' 40" to54'' .. NSBB 10-14 10' 14' ?' 4811 to tt' .. NSl:3'B 10,.16 10' 16i ·al 48" to 72" .. *Height can vary as needed 0 B~cause waf(!r flow is ngj; ducted off line fot·treatment, head lo$s is min.hnal and comparable to a larg~ Jq.uar~ c.atchbasin. Bec~us.e of this, existing . , . a.t,;>rm.Wate.r systems can p~ t,lr~titt~d Witti · a Nutden.t Separat1~g Baffle B_ax1 wlth,e\4t com.promising . the· orlglnal design specifications of the existing stormw1ter $y$tem. · · 0 A.II $tructures are, load rated 'fer at leJ$t H-20. Standard wall c,;mstruct!on ~f .· the structure ,s 611 thitk steel r~-enfc:m:~d ·cqnerete. Cqncr~te waU thicknes~ can be more hea,vlly reJnfore~d· and thicker upon request. C) A. Wide variety.-of manhole lids.·and hJ.tch~s; aild dampers to blo·cic off water . flow during setvlcin,g,. ean be incorporated into the-structµre. · . . · · 0 $.~r,en systems have . sta_inless .. ste~I screens bolted Jnto a heavy duty aluminum framework. The screen systems are hinged to· give easy ac;cess to the tower chio~p~rs, and have a· wide range of adjustments to ctecom.mo~at$ unforeseen varlables during inst~nation. P~ge 16 I I I· ·1 1, I ., I I I I I I I 1· .. , ·1· I I . t<Fa-ssemu/y-OrTtwNutri-qnrSr!pcfrattng Baffle Sox . . ' The internal components .are installed ·prior to delivery ·to .the job site. TUrbtilenae defiectors ire ·attached to the tops of-tta, b~ffJe.s. with st~h11ess · st~~• bc_fts. s~vera·~ boll$ per d$flect0r are req,u(t:~~' Four·brack~t~, hei~ In pfa·c;:e witq 4 stalriless ·steel b.ofbs each1 secu'i'e th.El, scre~n-system · to .tht· ~affl~$. The ~cree.n ~ys:tem inclqdes a Wide ~~nge .of posi~ion~J ~dJus~ent Page 17 I 1· I I. I I , 1· I I I' I I 1· I· I ,, I I I ,-----~---E~,.---.,.;,_.,11e5tructure Installation Of A Nutrient Sepilrrtatin.g B4.ffle Box In Perry Florida . . ~~'{t0) o~t~-~ ~~~ .: -~~ffil Ttie h~: le was dug ·starttng -at 1Q!OOam • . By 3:00 m ti,i.e $ai:ne day, the entire - _ structure was set In. ·. ptae::e-with m~st of tne l)ackfitflng done. Becc;li.!se l~stallalh)n is so fast, the risk of -wa~houts When retrofitting existing ---~------------~---....... --!"""!---stormwater. $ystems _ . ft~"dy t~: PQ$f}J~1.1JP~~w: pf p~ ~!'ld_ ~j~_I _pJpe~i wJtti grout · Is ~ramatically reduced~ ·~ ~-~-. . . . Notice the. custom ffilw:~4 pip.~ fJtt_J(lg Ori the . . . . , -· ·· Jnflow ·e·nd; 1i I• designed if;> •c:commodate two · 18" RCP s.l~e by· sld$. To block off-'the \i')/Ster flow _9f $_ubnieiged o.r partially $Ubmerged pipes ~qrtng servi,cl_n.91 · lntero~ d~tnper $ysterns are availabtE\'. . ·A Sur:atree representative is always _ av.aUabJe to oversee in$tallation to ensure a successful project. · Page 18 I I I I I I -1· I I. I. I I -I I ·1. I I I 1· I 1 -~ :/k(f[Jrt. W({ljlfffO!Jt!lty Uses An Activated! (Carbon Media toAbserb ·contt1fllllttinates l1mt!<elflfa(fJ0 JlJJXIJ&& !PJJt~V~PfJtls AllltiJ lfrD@w 0!/p:Jt!!fMct!i@lifJ . . . When Installed . 'fhe Access Hatch ls Flush With The Turf As the exfiltri,itiOn system -under the golf green dt'.~tns .away stortnwa;ter, it is c~eled toward the Golf G.reen Filter. As ~he $torrnwater is enters the-Golf Green Filte1· 1t is dispersed across a bed of activated oarbon and percolates down through the in¢dia. Once the stormwater passes th.rpugh the absorbent media it exits the G~lf Green Fiiter and flows tqward a-retention pond or spell area. If the flow raw into. th~-Goff Gt~en Filte,: exc~<;:ds the :Oow· rate tbrm,1.gh the abs~rbent medi; the water flow can byp~$s over the.top of'tlte media unimpeded, Page 19 I I I I ·1 I I· {1 f· I I I ·1: I 1: I I _I I I I ~~ Hydrocarbon Absorption Bo.oms - Specifically Desiqned FQr Stormwater Applications Suntree Technologies· as developed 4 types of Storm Booms that have specialized applications to achieve optimum results. St~rm Boom Type 1 is filled wiJh · onfy Absorbent w aad h~s ~ J~rge $leve. size ~overing for better stotmwater p~netration. Absorli>ent W is a celllllose filler made from reclaimed paper -rnill by .. pro.dµetsi l:\nd it is certified t3y Green Cross. as 1· 0.0% recycled m~~erl~I. Absqrpe.d liquid. is drawn Into the cellulose fiber.s through_ capillary actlon ana · Jo-_~.ed . fnto the: boom b-y enGapsufath,m. Abs9t~en.t W ts a wide spectrµm ~bsorbent .capable Qf ~bsqrbing chemicals other than ln.ydrocarbons. tt 'Is te:c0rotnended that ·this boom ·oe re~l~c::ed every. 3 ta 4· months, and net exc.eed·e months of~~rvice .. . -~torm Boom Type 2 is :filled With $t.'.IF!a.d.qed-melt blown potypn~pytene and has a large sieve size covering, The melt ~lown polyprspy.len_e YJill not biodegtade ~~d. hi:l~. an lnd~~n.ite lifespan in in th~ fief~. -It's, ~p~ctrum tJf absorption ii~ limited to tiy~i'q¢ar._bons, lt ts recomm~nded that .this beom b.e. tepla~d. when ft starts to darken -fo_o~ contaminated. · Storm Boom Type 3 is filled with a 50- 50 blend of Absorbent W and melt blown polypropylene with a large siev~ size covering. This _boom offers wide spectrum · absorption with an extra emphasis on hydro.carbon absorption. · It rs · · recommended that this boom be repl~ced every 3 · to 4 months and not exceed 6 mor:if~s of service. It is especially effective In high pollutant li:~ad ~reas $Uch as maint~nanc~ facmties and gas stations. Storm Bopm Type 4 is filled with a polymer crumb filler and has a fine sieve size c¢vering. lt'S spectrum of Sb$Orption is lin)ited to hydroc~rboris whith it absorbs on PPnt~Gt_ QY ch~mh;;ally bondj ng. with thE;) hy.drocarb.oh · molecules. The polymer crumb filler will not $P$Ofb water and can ~oat indefiniteiy,_ and ·It will not biodegrade. 1-t is re:e.ommended . that this boom be repi~ce ~~ needellt, l;>.as~d on ·visual observations · (when ·it starts to darken & look contaminated). This Storm Boom ls recommended · for use · in the Nutrient Separating t3affle Box near th~ 9Utflow. P~ge20 I I I I I I .. 1- I I ·I. 1- I I 1· 1 ... I I I I £NV/RO-SAFE HIGH CAPACITY ROUND GRAT£ INLET SKIMMER TH£ CURB SHELF BASKET WATER CLEANSING SYSTEM HIGH CAPACIT'f CURB INLET BASKET ROUND GISB FOR MOUNn G UNDER MANHOLE I DIMENSIONS WILL VARY I DET'NL OF' PARTS F(9URE t IROUND CANIST'ER IN CYIJNDRICAL BASIN I ·• Curb Inlet somt · / 1-::.;,;.•, ·./ :"!. --t=::.=.===l~f ~-f •;[· ~t l J ~~~=·::..:.:.:: :.:....~.~.:,a:,,S~ FIGURE 3 D£rAIL OF PROCESS RatOY.ASt;E" BASKlrr CATCHES &ERYTfllNG . AND M4Y BE REMOVED 71fROUGH MANHOLE WFTHO/JT ENIR'f. 5 YEAR MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY PATENTED ALL ALTER SCREENS ARE STAINLESS STEEL ,WIDTH OF /NI.ET' WILL VARY I FIGURE 2 Dlrf'AlL OF JNST'ALJAnON Fl.OW P.I.TES _. -3 FT". Elasht Q-SO-"=~A>/2"~ t:d• "=,"• .67 so Ait?') h (ft) Q (4) 1DP SIDE 1 135.22 5.50 3.42 CENTER 'SIDE .112. 130.36 11.6 2.95 BOTT'OM SIDE ,56 12S.50 17.50 3.11 Ba1TOl,I ,68 63.14 20.Bt 2.11 1'lmL 11.65 'THROAT FtOW RATE 2.4 r:fs NOTcS: 1,SH'ELF S'tSTEM PROVIDES FOR ENTIRE COVERAGE OF INLET" OPENING SO TO DIVEF(T' ALL FLOW TO BASKET. 2.SHcl.F S'fSTEM MANUFACTURED FROM MARINE GRADE FTSERG!ASS,GEI. CQ41m FOR W PROTEr:TION. :I.SHELF'· S'fSTEM AITACHED TO THE CATCH BASIN WITH NON-CORROSNE HARDWARE. 4.FILTRA710N BASKET' SiRU(:rlJRE MANUFACTURED .OF' MARfNE GRADE FIBERGL.'SS.GEJ. CCl41E) FOR W . PROTECTION, . 5-:"f/r,,JJ/tl'w~a:fl~~:: =:fE ST'AINI.ESS STEEL. . 6.FILlRATTON BASKlrr HOWS BOOM OF N3SORBENT MEDIA 1D C4PTURE HYDROC.4R80NS, BOOM IS EASILY REPLACED wrrHOUT REMOVING MOUNnNG HARDWARC: 7.Fll.lRATlON BASKET' LOCATION IS DIRECTLY UNDER MANHOLE FOR E:4SY MAINTENANCE:. l£XC:Ll.iSIVE: CALJFORN/A DISTRISUTOR: l!l/0 . C:1,.E:AN ENVIRONMl=:N7"AL St::RVIC:E: P.O. EIOX l!J/!S9. · OOE:ANS/DC:, CA. 920..,_9 Tfrl... '750-..,_:!l:!l-75..,_0 F"AX:7fS0-4.3.:!S-.317S E:rnall: · in1"oObioc/eaf'!aif'!vrr .. ,,m•n1:al.f'!•1: SUNT"REE: T'E:CHNOI.-OGI/E:S - S1/NTlEE (1.WJT'f PRODU:is Ni£ UJ FDR £UY ctDlilC ANO NE DESIGlED 10 8£ l'ERI/NENr WTMSlRIJC1IJR£ JIKJ SIIOWJ lA51' FDR lmD££ 7Sltl C~J'ct('~ Rg29~mr #2 321-537-7552 r;u(~af-437-7554 _ CURB ·/NL.E:T BASl<IT SYST/!£M l==.----1--=,----l OATl!r: 04/1 2/04 SCAl..E::SF" -1 a ORA'F"TE:R: N.Ff.S. ·UNITS -INOHE:S I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I. Specifications .. SPECIFICATIONS curb Inlet Basket Coverage: TI:ie curb inlet basket provides full coverage of inlets such that all catch basin influent, at rated flows, is conveyed ·to the filter. The filter will retain all windblown and swept debris entering the drain. Shelf System: The filter basket is located ·in the catch basin directly beneath a manhole opening for direct service/access from the mant,ole. The filter provides a shelf system made of UV protected marine grade fiberglass to direct water flow from the curb Inlet to the filter, which is located directly under the manhole. Non-Corrosive Materials: All components of the filter system, lricludlhg mounting hardware, fasteners, support -· brackets, filtration material, and support frame.are constructed of non-corrosive materials (316 stainless steel, and UV/marine gr13de fiberglass). Fasteners are stainless steel. Primary filter mesh is 316 stainless steel welded screens. Filtration basket screens for coarse, medium and fine filtration Is ¾• .x ·1 ¾"expanded, 1 a x 1 a mesh, and 35 x 35 mesh, respectively. No polypropylene, mol'lofilament netting or fabrics shall be used in the products. Durability: Filter (excluding oil absorbent media) and support structures are of proven durability, with an expected service life of 1 a to 15 years. The filter and mounting structures are of sufficient strength to support water, sediment, and debris loads when the filter is full, with no suppage, breaking, or tearing. All filters are warranted for a minimum of five (5) years. · Oil Absorbent Media: The Filter is fitted with an absorbent media for removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from Influent; and so placed in the filter assembly to treat influent at rated flow. Absorbent media is easily replaceable in the fiite_r, withbu~ the-necessity of removing fixed mounting brackets or mounting hardware. . · Overflow Protection: The .drain filter is designed so that it does not Inhibit storm flows entering the curb inlet, or ~bstruct flow through the catch basin during peak storm flows. · Filter Bypass: Water will not bypass the filter at low flows, nor bypass through attact,ment and Inlet contact surfaces at low flows. · · ' -Pollutant Removal Efficie11cy: The filter is designed to capture high levels of trash and litter, grass and foliage, sediments, hydrocarbons, grease and oil. POLLUTANT Curb Inlet Basket Trash & Litter . .. 90to95% Oil &Grease. 54:sto 96%* Sediments/TSS 731 to 91%:a Orcianios 79.3%:l_ Total Nitrooeh 65to 96%3 .. Total Phosphorus 71 to96%:s. Non-Sc;ourlng: During heavy storm flow~ or other flows that bypass the filter, the filter screen design prevents washout of debris.and floatable~ in the. filter basket. . Filter Removal:· The filter basket is readily removable from tlie mounting/support frame for maintenance or replacement. Removal ahd replacement of filter screens is accomplished without the necessity of removing mounting bolts, support frames, etc., but by lift o(Jt through the manhole. -11. Installation . · Installation: . The.filter will be securely'iristalled in the catch b_asin or curb inlet opening, with contact surfaces sufficiently joined together"So that no filter bypas!;, can occur at low flow. All !,li1choring d~vices and fasteners are Installed within the interior of the drain inlet The filter basket is Iodated in the catch basin directly beneath a I I 1·· I I I . I- I I I I I I I I I , .. I manhole opening for direct service/access from the manhole. Toe filter system provides a shelf system to direct water flow from the inlet to the filter, which is located tinder the manhole. Installation Nc;,tes: 1. · Bio clean environmental services, inc. Inlet filter inserts shall be installed pursu!:lnt to the manufacturer's recommendations and the details on this sheet i. Inlet filter insert shall provide coverage of entire inlet opening, including inlet wing(s) where applicable, to direct ' all flow to basket(s). 3. Attachments to inlet wails shall be made of non-corrosive hardware. 4. Filtration basket structure shall be manufactured of marine grade fiberglass, gel coated for ultraviolet protection. 5 .. Filtration basket fine screen and coarse containment screen shall be manufactured of stainless steel. ·. 6. For inlet filter Inserts that include the shelf system, shelf system shall be manufactured of marine grade fiberglass,. gel coated for ultrt!violet protection . Ill. ·Maintenance Maintenance: The filter is designed to allow for the Lise of vacuum removal of captured materials in the filter basket, serviceable by centrifugal compressor vacuum units without causing damage to the filter or any part of the mounting .and attachment hardware during normal cleaning and maintenance. Filters can be cleaned and vacuumed from the manhole-opening and not from·the ct1rb opening. All filters not accessible from the manhole will b~ rej~cted. · Maintenance Notes: 1. Bio clean environmental services, Inc. Recommends·cleaning and debris removal maintenance a minimum of four times per year, and replacement of hydrocarbon booms a minimum of twice per year. · 2. Following maintenance and/or inspection, the maintenance operator shall prepare a maintenance/Inspection record. The record shall include any mi:iintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition offilter. · 3. The owner shall retain the, maintenance/inspection recorcHor a miriimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These recotcls shall be .made available tQ tl;le governing municipality for inspection u·pon request at'anytlme. 4. Any person performing maintenance activities must have completed a minimum of OSHA 24-hour hazardous · waste worker (hazwoper) training. 5. For grate Inlet units: remove grate to gain access to inlet filter insert Where possible the maintenance should be performed from the ground surface. Note: entry into an underground stormw~ter vault such as an inlet vault . requires certification In confin.ed space training. 6. For curb inlet units: remove manhole Jfd to gain access to Inlet filter Insert. Where possible the maintenance should be performed from the ground surface. Note: entry into an underground stormwater vault such as an Inlet vault requires certification In confined space training. 7. Remove all trash, debris, organics, and sediments collected by the inlet filter insert 8. Evaluation of the hydrocarbon boom shall be performed at each cleaning. If the boom is filled with ft:td,rocarbons and oils it should be replaced. Attach new boom ta basket with plastic lies through pre-drilled holes in basket . 9. · Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility f9r disposal in accordance with local and . . state requirements. 10. The hydrocarbon boom is classified as hazardous material and Will have to be picked up and disposed of as hazardous waste. Hazardous material can only be handled :by a certified hazardous .waste trained person (minimum 24-hour hazwoper). P ·o Box 869, Oceanside, CA 92049 {760 433-7640 Fax (760) 433-3176 ·www.biocleanenvironmental.net I I I-·:,: .. I I I I I I I 1. I I I I I I I I Curb inlet Basket -Removal Efficiencies Removal E;fficiencies (mg/L) Turbidity (Ni\JJ Total Nitrates mg/L Total Iron mglL Zlncmg/L Location I I Rtmov1I Inlet Outlet Efflcl1ncy I I Rtmoval Inlet Outlet Ef!lciency · ·, ·1 R1m0val Inlet . Outlet Efficlancy I ti Removal Inlet Outlet Efficiency Unlvar.slty af Sauthom calllamia I I 84.% I I 85% 2u I 10.4 I 64% 24.:i I 10.4 I 79% Univarslty alSaUlham c.lllamla•CMI and ~ranmilllll l!nglnoollrig. lND!IAUUC PEIIFOftMANCI!. POLI.UTANTR!MOYALEFl'ICIENCIES, A_ND ECONOMIC EVALU'-llDN CF CATCH BASIN INSERT. DEVICES 2DOS • lndipendenl Tut I I I 1· ·I, I I I I 1. I I I I I: I I I ' - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WORLD WATER FORUM INNOVATIVE CONSERVATION RESEARCH AND T)tCFINOLOGY GRANT PROGRAM HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCl:'., POLLUTANT REMOVAL · EFFICJENCIES, AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF CATCH BASIN. INSERT DEVICES APRIL 2006 Student Project Manager: Suraj Kumar Shankar 3620 South Vermont Averiue Kaprielian Hall 229 Los Angeles, CA 90089-2531 Phone: (213). 74.0-0561 Email: sshankar@usc.edu Student Project A~ociate: Zhiqing Kou 3620 South Vermont Avenue Kaprielian Hall 229 Los Angeles,. CA 90089-2531 Phone: (213) 740-0561 -Email: zkou@usc.edu Directing Faculty: Dr. J. J. Lee, Ph. D.1 P.E1 Professor Department .of Civil and Environmental Engineering · University of Southern California · 3620 South Vermont Avenue Kaprielian Han 200 Los Angeles, CA 90089-2531 · Phone: (213) 740:.2032 . Fax: (213) 744-1426 E-mail: ]lee@usc.edu www.usc.edu/dept/civil. eng/dept/index.html I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . .. ~ Stormwater poUution is a major problem in urban areas. The Stormwater pollution leads to deteriorated water quality in oceans, lakes, and rivers. This study was conducted to evaluate the hydraulic perform.ance and pollutant removal potential of curb inlet devices. Four different types of curb inlet devices were donated to the University of Southern California from Biocleanenvirontnental Storrnwatersystems, · · ~tormwater360, and United Stormwater. The unit~ were installed on McClintock Avenue inside the University Park. Campus with the help of facilities management services. at USC, Trast,· was obtained from Los Angeles Sanitation Services and United Stormwater for the purpose of the· study. The units were filled with trash to . .. evaluate the hydraulic performance. The t~st was conducted by running water from water trucks onto the streets. The wat~r then entered the devices at approximately 635 gallons per minute (gpm). The units were evaluated for pollutant removal po~ential by collecting. water quality samples before it reached the unit and then from under the µnits at different time intervals. The samples wer~ evaluated us.Ing chemical analysis to determine the water quality. The water quality analysis results were documented and analyzed. It was found that the units reduce trash entering the drains. The_ report discusses issues with respect-to the hydraulic performance of the devices at high flow rates. .. Maintenance of the units is another major concern that has a major impact on the total cost of this type of BMP. ·The report provides an economic analysis of the . . devices analyzed during this study .. 1 I I 1·· 1· I· .·1 I I I I I I I -I I I I I 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Funding for-this project was prov!ded _ through a grant from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Helpful comments on development were provided by Dr. Dr. Jiin-Jen Lee, and the Water ·Resources group in the USC Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. Facilities Management Services at USC was instrumental in providing access to Storm water catch basins on university park campus for the purpose of the study. I am grateful to Mr. Steven Wolverton for his cooperation and constant help during the period of this project. · The Manufacturers/Companies, Siocleanenvironm~ntal, Stormwatersystems, Stormwater360 and United Stormwater were generous and donated their curb inlet devices for the purpose of this study. I am extremely grateful for their help in this regard. I thank the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division for their input and help during the course ofthis study. 2 I I 1.··· I ·I I I I I 1 .. I I· I ·1 I I I I I INTRODUCTION Stormwater runoff is part of a naturai hydrologic process. Rainwater and snowrnelt run off the earth's. surface and enter local surface drainage channels, swales, creeks, ponds, ~nd reservoirs. Contaminated stormwater discharges · have been increasingly identified as a significant source of water pollution. Stormwater runoff often carries pollution from created through human activities. Stormwater pollu_tion . degrades the quality of surface and ground . Wa\er resources. This type of pollution is usuaJly referred to as non-paint source pollution because it has no single discharge point into a storrnwater collection system or into surface waters. A variety of activities cause nonpoint pollution: driving on roads, fertilizing lawns and agricultur.al land, plowing farm fields, constructing. buildings and roads, and removing snow -from streets and highways. The more land people develop for housing-, schools, business, and industry; the more awareness is needed on What is required to control stormwater runoff and its accompanying pollution. Two hundred years of unregulated, unmanaged stormwater have contributed to many severe public health problems and-expensive natural resource losses in the. United States. Unregulated and uncontrolled Stormwater have been found to have the following consequences: • pollutes drinking water sources oy filling in reservoirs with clogging silt and oxygen-robbing nutrients which contributes ta drinking water emergencies; • fills in navigable waterways with contaminated sediment, resulting in ' . increased dredging and spoil disposal costs; • clos~s or shrinks lucrative rockfish, shad, flounder, crab, oyster, and other commercial fisheries due to chemical contamination, oxygen starvation, and the resulting loss of habitat; 3 I I 1· I I I I I· I 1. I I I I I I I • fouls beaches and other recreational waters, causir:ig losses in revenues from declines in boating, fishing, duck hunting, and coastal tourism; • scours smaller stream channels and dumps huge graver and silt loads, ruining fish and amphibian habitat; . • . obliterates small streams, springs and wetlands during development (these natural water bodies are sources of clean ground and surface water and serve as habitat for aquatic life); and • damages homes and businesses during the flash floods common where . . stormwater is left uncontrolled [Stiurce: National Re$ource Defense Council; NRD.Q] This report reviews current stormwater pollution problems in Los Angeles as it relates to curb inlet devices. The report provides information relative to the hydraulic performance of the curb inlet devices tested during this study. The report also discusses the evaluation of pollutant removal potential of the curb inlet devices. The economic analysis related to the installation and maintenance of curb inlet devices in the Los Angeles area are also provided in the report. The Objectives of the present study are: :> To review current Stormwater pollution problem in Las Angeles :> To evaluate hydraulic performance of the curb inlet µevices :> To evaluate pollutant removal potential of curb inlet devices 4 I I I· I I I I I I I ... I I I I I I I I I LITE:RA TURE REVlEW Stortnwater Quality in LQs Angeles With nearly 10 million people living in Los Angeles County, each resident's contribution to stormwater poUution adds l.lP quickly to create a serious public nealth situatio·n. In a 1997 study cohduc;ted by Pelegrin· Research Group, an estimate of the nu~ber of times per month that Los Angeles County !esidents engage in polluting activities was ·esta_blished. This type of study is known as pollution volumetrics. According to an updated 2001 study, it is conservatively estimated that each month in Los Angeles County, residents contribute to stormwater pollution· by: • Dropping cigarette butts on the ground nearly 9-1-5,000 times • · Dropping litter on the ground or out a car window more than 830,000 times. • Allowing paper. or. trash to blow into the street more than 800,000 times • Throwing something in the gutter or down a storm drain "nearly 280,000 times • Emptying a car ashtray into the street more than 40,000 times • Hosing leaves or dirt off a driveway or sidewalk into the street nearly 420,000 times • Washing off paint brushes under an outdoor faucet more than 130,000 times . • Spraying the garden or lawn with pesticide more than 210,000 times • Walking a dog without picking up the droppings more than 82,000 times Also, in Los Angeles County, approximately 1·00 million gallons of contaminated water and debris drain through the storm drain system each dry day. That would fill the Rose Bowl 1.2 times. On rainy days,. the daily flow can increase to 10 billion gallons per day. [Source: State Water Resources Control Board, SWRCB] 5 I .1 I I I I I I I I. I I 1- ·1- .I I I 1--·:.-. I A study conducted by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project found that stormwater pollution in the ocean ·tead~ to increased risk of viral infections, earaches, sinus problems, fever, flu and skin rashes and viral diseases for th9se s)Nimming in the ocean close to storm drain outfalls. This is especially true following a rainstorm, when litter and contamin~nts are flushed into the storm drain system. The Los Angeles County · Department of Health Services recognizes the increased health danger assocj~ted-with storrnwater pollution. They have a standing rain advisory that "recommends that beach users avoid contact with ocean water, especially near flowing storm drains, creeks and rivers for a period of 3 days after rainfall ertds.11 Heal the Bay's 2002-2003 Annual Beach Report Card on the health of Los Angeles County's beaches gave 56 percent of monitored beaches a failing grade d_uring wet we~ther. This means the conditions were hazardous to human health and would have adverse he?lth effects to swimmers who enter the water. When bacteria levels exceed the State Standards, a warning sign is posted and swimmers are encouraged not to enter the water. Storrnwater contaminants are one of the main causes of increased bacteria levels at local beaches. During 2002, th~re were 269 warnings ·posted on Los . Angeles County beaches for a total of 1, 181 days where the ocean was too . . polluted for human ~se. Each. month in Los Angeles County, -residents drop their · cigarette butts ·on the ground more than $15,000 times. These cigarette butts pose imminent risks to child health and safety including the risk of swallowing, choking or burning themselves with· discarded, toxin-laden butts. Research conducted _ by regional· agencies, respected environmental non-pr9fit organizations, and academic institutions have identified storrnwater pollution and url:>an runoff as the leading sources of pollutants to Los Angeles County's inland rivers, creeks, the ocean and beaches along the area's coastline. The widespread critical issue has_ reached a level that has prompted local, state, and federal policymakers and regulatory agencies to enact and enforce more 6 I I 1-i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -stringent stormwater permit regulations, financial penalties, and Qther compliance measures·. Beach attendance has dropped by 56 percent since 1983 .. The recreation and tourism in_dustry is one of the top employers in the nation, and is a particularly valuable p~rt of the Los Angeles· coastal economy. Each year, Americans take more than 1.8 billion trips to-water destinations, largely for recreation. This recreation creates jobs. Activities related to the county's $2 billion annual tourism industry depend largely on the access and enjoyment of clean waters. If the. popular perc~ption is that beaches are deteriorating, it poses broader . . . . implications for the region's financial growth. When storm drains become clogged with trash and debris, it can result in street and neighborhood flooding during . the rainy season. This water backup can lead to closed roads and increased traffic. It al.~o creates an un~ealthy environment of smelly and · unsanitary conditions in communities which worsens local aesthetics and lowers property values; The cleanliness of communities has an impact on the financial and .personal' 'investment residents make in their property. Cleanliness also contributes to the qverall sense of community pride and civic engagement. Figure 1: Image s~owing accumulation c;>f trash. on the beach 7 I 1· I I I .I 1· I I I I I I I. I I I I I Figure 2: lm~ge showing various materials found accumulated on the beac~ due to stc;,rmwater pollution·[Source: www.goldenstateimaqes.c~m] Figure 3: Picture taken near Venice beach of resident pouring oil .into storm drain 8 . ,I J .1· _ .. . I .I I I .I I .I·- I I- I I I I I I.-:"--. I Figure 4: Picture taken-of a catch basin in the vicinity of Venice ·beach . . Fi~ure 5: Picture showing _the amount trash .on the streets and sidewalks that eventually lead its way in storm drains during runoffs and finally to the water bodies [Source: Bureau of Sanitation, Watershed Protection Division, Trash study Project] 9 I .I I'·. · .. • ' .1· I I I I I I . :· .;• I I I I. I I .I ., .. _.-: I Characterization of Stormwater Pollutants The first step in targeting· outreach dealing with Stormwater management is . . determining the pollutan'ts tha't pose the grea~est threat to water quality. This effort requires an a·nalysis .of water quality data and reconciling this information across watersheds if the jurisdiction covers more than · one wat~rsh_ed. The City .. of Los Angeles l_ies within three primary· watersheds and a multitude· of sub- watersheds._ The three primary_ wat~ra,hed~, Los Angeles river watershed, . . Ballena creek watershed and Dominquez watershed, are mostly within an urban environment. However, at the sub-watershed level! there were vast differences in the enviro11ment. After results were evaluated, it was· found that the main . pollutants are: -• Bacteria/Pathogens • Pesticides • . PAHs (Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons) • Nutrients • Trash ·and Debris F9r the purpose of ·this study, the main focus is on removal of trash and debris that accumulate in the stormwater catch basins. After a considerable amount of . . research and field observation, the trash and debris were characterized for the City of Los Angeies. 10 Ii Ii Ii I:·· I I: I. ' ' I. 1. I I ,, I I I I I ?lasl!c-ll.40ldab;a 21.% Wood Plesll~. 7% Cardl:OafdJChlpboar;;! 10% Cigar~tte= 6ut'.s 103~ Cloth 6% =:---...J Glass 1% i3% Figure 6: Character.istics of Trash [Source: California Department of ·rralisportatiori (June 20.00) District 7 Litter Management Pilot Study] Stormwater Pollutio~ Mitigation Measures The California Water Resources Regional Board adopted waste discharge requiremen~s fa~ municipal stom:,water and urban runoff discharges within the county of Los Angeles on July 15, 19~6. These requirements prohibit non- stormwater discharges to storm drain systems unless they are covered by ' ' separate NPDES permits. This prohibition, in general, does not apply .to rising groundwater, uncontamina~ed groundwater infiltration discharges, discharges from potable water ~ources1 ft?unda~on and footing drains discharges, and water from crawl space pumps. The municipality may allow discharge. of these types· of ' . . discharges into the storm drain system. However, the municipality or the Regional Board may prohibit these discharges if t~ey are determined to cause, or threaten to cause; degradation of water quality, . v_iolation of water qu_ality objectives, nuisance and/or impair beneficial uses_ ·of receiving waters. Effluent discharge limitations are presented in Appendix A. 11 I I I I 1. I I I. 1· I I I I I I I I I I Best Management Practices (BMPs) ' . Over a period of time, many BMPs have come into practice to control water quality · deterioration resulting from stor.mwater pollution. Several BMPs include the trash p_roduc\ion prevention through public educatfon, using physical devices at the source to· prevent trash entry into storm drains, end of pipe colle<;:tiori systems, hydrodynamic devices, Wetlands programs etc... Below is a pictorial representation of some of the BMPs. Figure 7: Hydrodynamic device (Continuous Deflective Systems, CDS} These devices use the storm flow$ energy to cr~ate a vortex, much like a centr.ifuge, that separates the solids/trash, which then fall to the sump at the bottom of the structure. 12 -l I 1·. I· I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I Figure 8: Tras.h Barrier at the End of pipe entering the river [Source: Bureau of Sanitation, Waters~ed Protection Division, Trash study Project} Figure 9: Trench Drain Filters [Source: Bioclenenvironmentaij 13 I I · .. I.·· I I I 1·· I I· 1· ·1 I· 1·· 1· I· ii I I I Fig1Jre 10: Storm treat systems [So_urce: Biocleanenvironemntal] Figure 11: C~tch Basin inserts [Source: Stormwatersystems] 14 I I I I- I I 1- I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure _12: Catch Basin inserts [Source: Bio(?leanenv!ronmental] Figure 13: Enviropod [Source: Stormwater360] Figure 14: Dr~inpac [Source: Unitedstorynwater] 15 I I I I I I I I I ·I-... ·1 I I I I I I I I FIELD WORK AND EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY The curb inl~t devices were obtained from four different companies: Biocleanenvironmental, Storwatersystems_, Stormwater~60, .. and United .. s_tormwater. A field evaluation of these inserts was necessary. The hydraulic performance and pollutant removal potential of these curb inlet devices were evah,1ated through this field study. Initially a cort~iderable amount of time. was . ' . spent in interviewing different related city agencies to gather sufficient . .. information for a suitable analysis of this study. The Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, . Waterslied Protection divisipn, was very· helpful providing current TMDL and BMP information. Wastewater Collection System Division (WCSD) Catch Basin Cleaning Data helped in getting_r~cent data on the amount and type of trash-that is cleaned out of catch· basins· in the· City of Los Angeles. Furth~r. the data was interpreted quantitatively and the trash was characterized as shown in the table below. Table 1 Characterization o·f trash Category .. No. of Items (%) Density (lb/ft;j) Plastics 60 2.8 M~tals · 13 3.8 . Paper 8 2.0 Wood 8 7.7 Polystyrene 5 0.7 Cloth/Fabric 3-8.3 . Sensitive Items 1.6 NA Miscellaneous 1 9.8 Glass 0.4 13.8 16 I I I 1· I ·I I I· I I·.·· I I 1· 1· I I I I I Research Testing Locations The study was conducted with Los Ange_les area being the area of major concern. Field· trips were conducted to observ.e different BMPs in the County of Los Angeles. The region around Venice beach, City of Rasaden.a, and Downtown Los Angeles were toured to gather current information on the street litter, drain conditions, and BMPs. The curb inlet, devices were installed inside the University Park Campus of the University of Southern California. The Facilities Management services were instrument~! in installing the· curb' inlets _for evalua~on _purposes on McClintock Avenue. Five sites were· available for installation. The. units were installed at 'these sites and were observed over a time period during storm events. Some of these locations are as shown in these photographs. 17 I I , .. · .. I -1 I· I I. I I I I I I I I I I 11 Figure 14: Location 1 (McClintock avenue) Figure 15: Location 2 ((NicClintock avenue and 34th street) 18 I I 1·- 1 .. ·I- I .I I I ·I Figure 16: Location 3 (N(cClintock avenue)- I I 1· I ... I 1· I Figure 17: Locatior, 4 (Mcclintock avenue) I 19 I I I 1· I I: I I I I I .. . I I I I ii I I I I The locations are as shown in the map_ below . 20 I I I I I I I I I. 1· I I I I I I .1. I I •., .·: .. ·· Figure 18: Map showing locations of the units on the field Description of the units · The units have been named Insert 1, Insert 2, Insert 3, and .insert 4 respective to the location of their installation. The product name and location inf'?rmation are found in Appendix H. Insert 1. is. designed for gra~~ inlet catch basins and consists of a stainless steel frame that is supported by the catch-basin un9erneath the grate opening. The insert was modified to fit a curb inlet. Modular panels attached to the frame guide the flow of water to the screening bag. The screening bag_ capt~res t~ash, debris_, and associated pollutants. .The device allows the water to pass through to the .·. outlet pipe. Absorbent material inside the screening bag captures 'an and grease. . . . . ~ Openings· in the frame allow water to bypass the screening bag during high flow conditions. The unit is installed right underneath the manhole. The installation wa~ easy and requires about 20 minute$ to install. -Insert 1 is as shown_ below. Cost of Insert 1 is approximately$ 200 -$ 300 depending on the size of the unit for including the installation cost . 21 .I I 1·· I I 1· I- I -I ,, I ·1 I I· I I 1·1 I I Figµre 19: lnsert1 Insert 2 is a unit with a removable basket suspend~d on a weir. The boom is attached right at the weir opening. The boom t;:onsi_sts absorbents to trap some · pollutants. This unit is mounted underneath the manhole for easy cleaning. The · installation take_s 15 minutes. Insert 2 is shown below in figure 20. Cost of Insert 2 is approximately$ 675 ·_ $ 900 depending on the size of the unit. 22 I I I I I I I I I I. 1- 1 I I I I .I I I Figure 20: Insert 2 Insert 3 consists of a support basket that extends the length of the catch basin and is suspended just below the entrance of the catch basin. The.support basket is placed onto the studs of the bracket. !he liner i~ suspended in the basket and . the retainer_ rings on the liner fit onto the studs of the bracket. The filter system is -suspended above the main channel of the drain. The unit is installed in 15 minutes. The· insert is as shown below in figure 21. Cost of the unit · is approximately.$ 275 for a standard size vault of 4~ X 5ft. The cost is higher for larg~r units. 23 I 1·· I I I I I I I .I_ I I I I ·1 I. I I I Figure 21: Insert 3 Jnsert 4 is a two piece design. The filtration screen uses a type of stainless steel screen that is-self cleaning, high velocity capacity which passes water extremely quickly, and with low maintenance. There are narrow openings in the screen. The part of the vault right below the manhole is used as· a collection basin and trash is supposed to get collected in this region. The installation takes about 45 minutes. · · The· unit is as shown below in figure 22. Cost Qf the unil is approximately $ 2100 for.the 7 ft X 5ft vault. The cost of the hydroscreen in particular is approximately $120 per-ft. 24 I I ·1· .. :' I I I·· I· 1. I I .. · I- I I I;· I I I I,..··. I METHODOLOGY Evaluatiorj Figure 22: Insert 4 tne evaluation of these units considers two major topics: 1. Hydraulic performance evaluation 2. Pollutant removal potential evaluation The evaluation for: these-inserts was conducted only for the worst case trash scenario. The literature review indicates that high flaw conditions are· very challenging to perform and only low flow conditions were tested in this project. 25 I 1· 1· I I I I I I Considering the amount of time available for the study, only short term evaluation of these units was possible. Hydraulic performance evaluation Tl)e area of.drainage for each basin and the hydraulic capacity of each vault was calculated .in order to evaluc1,te hydraulic performance (App~ndix B -design. characteristics ofthe i:::atc:h basins). The units were_ filled up to 3/4ths of their capacities. Water trucks with 10,000 gallon .capacity were hired. These trucks discharged water fnto the catch basins. at an estimated 632 :gallons per minute. The water was then run through these units and th~ observations were documented every 1 O to 15 minutes. The time at which the street started flooding and the point at which the trash inside the units start to float in the water was . . specifically noted. The results are as shown Appendix F .. Pollutant removal potential evaluation . . For. this project, the pollut~nt removal efficiency for some pollutants entering the storm drain after passing through the curb inlet devices was evaluated. The units were again filled partially with characterize·d trash and some trash was laid in front of these catch basins. Subsequently small runoff was simulated using fire hydrants. A flow rate of 2~5 gpm was obtained in each case. The sample of the stormwater at time O was collected to determine the initial reading of pollutant in 26 I I I' 1· I I, 1· 1· 1· I I 1. I I I I I I I the stormwater. Samples were collected at 15 minute intervals for one hour. The chemical an~lysis for the pollutants was performed in ~e lab. To get a good match on the readings, the experiment was repeated at the same flow rate for 30 · minutes and this time the sample was collected every 10 minutes, Sampling procedure Ttie samples were collected from underneath the curb inserts/ filters close to the entrance of the storm drain. Small buckets were placed at the entrance of storm drain with a submersible pump. The water was pumped up at 15 minute intervals in first case and 10 minute intervals in the second case. To avoid mixing of samples the water was completely drained out from the bucket just before. sampling. Figure 22: Sampling setup 27 I I I I I I 1. I I I I I I I I I ii I I Results· and Discussion Hydraulic. Performance Insert 1 · does not perform well at high flow rates. The· unit gets filled with water very quickly and starts flooding the streets. The trash inside the unit blocks the water froin flowing into the vaults. The unit. gets clogged when filled with trash and the trash starts floating in the water. The trash and insert reduce the hydraulic capacity of the vault during high flaw situations. · Insert 2 does not perform well at high flow rates. The unit fills with water very . . . . quickly and-starts flooding the streets. The trash inside the units prevents water from flowing into the vaults. The unit clogged when it is filled with· trash. In this case, a small amount of trash also enters the storm drain. The trash starts floating in the water. The device reduces the hydraulic capacity of the vault during high flow situations. Insert 3 does not perform well at high flow rat~s. The. unit fills with water very quickly and starts flooding the streets. The trash insid~ the units prevents water from flowing into the vaults. The unit clogged when it is filled with trash. In this · case, a small amount of trash also enters the storm dr;ain. The trash starts floating in the water; Insert 4 does not perform well at .high flow rate~~ The unit fills with water very quickly and starts flooding the str~ets. The trash · is in the back section of the vault. The water flows w~ll into the storm drain and the trash gets collected for a while. At high flow rates, the water enters the cailection sectiqn and suspends the · trash: The trash_ starts floating. The unit reduces ~he· hydraulic capacity of the vault during high flaw situations. The tr1;1sh do.es not enter the storm drain directly· until the flooding occurs. 28 I I 1=-·· . .-·. I ·.I 1· I I I I=··-- I I ·I I· 1: :. ·· . . : :. -: I I I .. I The Performance ranking is as in Appendix K. Ranking system goes from 1 being poor to 10 being excellent. Pollutant Removal Potential The graphs in Appendix I show the performance of each· unit with respect to. all the pollutants. Concentration of pollutants in the effluent is plotted-· against time. The concentration is a direct correl_ation with pollutant removal efficiency. The ' . ·table below shows the poUutant removal efficiency of each pollutant with respect to the inserts. pH and T~mperature are not influenced by the inserts. Table 2 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies · · Percent~gl;! Total Chemical Biochemical Total Turbidity Total Total Total Removal Dissolved Oxygen Oxygen Organic. (NTU} Phosphates Nitrates Iron (%} Solids Demand Demand Carbon Insert 1 . 81.58 11.8 32.8 24.29 . 21.83 2.82 80.31 2728 · lnsert2 84.22 8.8 31.79 30.81 23.73 12.59 84.94 63.64 lhsert3 81.58 827 26.7 20.38 21.48 23.08 83.75 76.48 Insert 4 78.95. 9.67 24.73 24.93 . 20.85 -2.57 79.72 71.88 All the . .inserts are considerably efficient at turbidity removal. TDS is not influenced by any of the inserts. Chemical oxygen demand, Biochemical oxygen demand and iotal oxygen carbon are correlated and there is very little change in · the readings. There is a reduction in effluent .concentration values, but these are still much higher than the discharge standar.ds. The inserts do not moderate phosphates. The booms· ~nd the absorbents in all . . the .inserts have no influence on phosphates, However, the appear to influence the nitrat~, iron, and zinc removal to i;l great e~ent. Insert_ .1 does not remove zinc. The trash itself acts as filter in Insert 1, Insert 2, and Insert 3 up to a certain extent. In the case of insert 4, there is a chance of rapid fouljng since the water 29 Zinc 22.92 79.17 79.17 81.25 I I I I I I I .1 I I I 1: I I I I I 1· I does not drain out completely from the collection s~ction. This adds to the p(?llution. The outcome cannot, however, be substantia.ted with short period analysis. Complete analysis would include a long-term evaluation at topographically different sites. Economjc Analysis The capital cost of installation is definitely important. But, the maintenance cost for all these units is-as important as the units purchase price. These units need t~ be maiotained constantly to keep them functional. Insert 1 costs approximately $ 200 per ur.iit. Unit is n.ot expensive but needs constant maintenance. It needs cleaning about 4 times a year. In· case of insert 1 the vault does not need any kind of cleaning as no trash can enter the storm drain. Insert ·2 is also ·not V • . expensive but the vault needs cleani.ng occasionally. Insert 2 costs approximately $ 275 per unit. Cost of insert 3 is approximately $ 675. It needs constant m,:Untenance. It needs cleaning 2 to 3 times a year. In this case the water drains ·out completely and the problem of fouling needs lesser concern. Insert 4 costs $ 2100 for a 7ft X 5ft vault. The need for maintenance is less as it utilizes a part of the vault as the collection basin. If the problem of fouling is addressed, the need for maintenanc~ will reduce to cleanup just once a year. The maintenance co·st is about $ 105 for a standard 3ft X 5ft vault which is currently incurred by the City of Los Angeles. there are 34000 catch basins in . Los Angeles and 90000 in. Los Angeles County. The life span for these units is considered to be .10 years. It was estimated that for a catch basin insert, it costs the city approximately $ 1000 /year including maintenance on an average. 30 I 1· I I I I I.- I I I I- I I I I I I I I CONCLUSI_ONS AND RECOMMENDATiONS · 1. The Curb inlet devices. are good trash collecting devices. · 2. The Curb inlet devices perform well at low and normal flow rates. 3. The hydraulic performance decreases wht;m the flow rates are high. 4. Insert 1 and Insert 2 reduce th_e hydraulic capacity of the catch basins. 5. The inserts do a goad jab reducing the turbidity. 6. 7. . . Insert 2, Insert 3 and Insert 4 do well in reducing nitrates, iron, and zinc. . ' . None of the ins_erts remove phosphorus, which is a major contaminant in rivers and lakes. Aquatic life is greatly affected by phosphates in lakes and rivers. a. _Maintenance of the units is easy and requires no special equipment. 9. Insert 1, 2, and 3 need m~intenance every thre·e months during the dry season and· more frequently during the storm season. · 1 O. Insert 4 needs monitoring and cleaning of the collection basin to prevent fouling. Dry season maintenance is required once every 6 months. lt should be noted that short-term analysis was conducted with resp~ct to these inserts .. A more rigorous study needs to be done with respect to hydraulic performance. Different street slopes and catch basin slopes need to be considered in the study. Residential, Industrial, and. Commercial areas need ta be incorporated in the long-terrn evaluation. 31 I I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I··:·- I GLOBAL APPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY In the cities of the developing world, it is the urban poor who are affected the · most by problems related to poor drainage and water quality. Poor communities often-inhabit low value marginal land. This land is either prone to flooding or on steep hillsides and is therefore unattractive . for development. Although the consequences of flooding can be devastating, the benefits of living near sources of employment and urban services generally outweigh the disadvantages for the poor. In poorly·drained areas, urban runoff mixes with sewage from overflowing latrines and sewers, causing pollution and a wide range of problems associated with waterborne diseases. Flooded septic tanks and leach pits. provide breeding sites for mosquitoes, and faecaily contaminated wet soils provide ideal ·conditions · for the spread of in~estinal warm infections. Infiltration· of polluted water into low- pressure water.ctistribution systems contaminates drinking water supplies causing outbreaks of.diarrhea and other gastro-intestinal ilinesses. Many problems associated with the operation of stormwater drainage systems are linked to poor solid waste management. Municipal agencies responsible for_· · solid waste management lack sufficient resources and equipment for drain cleaning. The curb ·inlet devices r:iiay not be the only solution but definitely help in reduction of trash entering water bodies. This leads-to pollution control for local water bodies used for drinking and domestic purposes. Catch basin inserts can be brought into practice in urban. regions of the developing ·nations. The manufacturing of these u·nits will be cheaper with the available resources in some of the developing nations and the catch basin inserts can be used as a good · system to control storrnwater·poilation to a great extent. 32 --_, -------··.-------~ -- Appendix A Eff.luent Dlsctiarge Standards [Source: CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ORDER NO. R4-2ooi-01oi] . . . DIE:tc1-.ar--c1 o:)i Lln-.u.e,t•ona. oonstltuen1~ u-nit:s DaUy Max,in,u01 Monthly Avi:er,t1ge Total Su1:1.cended SoUd~ .rriaJL . '150 60 Turbklitv NTU ·J50 60 . .. •. i-.. •:.,.-,--c~ rn..-1.11 90 ?n Oil a r:id t::'.rcase n-,,.-.JL 1 Ei ·wo Sett•e.a:t:JJe .sonc1-s IUI/L 0:.3 ·o.·1 Su:tficle.s maJL .• , .. o Phenols r11ic1JL 1.0 R•c18'l cfua,1 c11110,·1n,e; . n,,'J!iL. ·o.·1 A,c:etone ,c,/L 701'.l: Acro:(e,in · llOiL 'iOO Aie:tvlon,1,t.-~l-0 ,,.n/L -0.U5f;f B~n:zene-uo/L · 1.0 Bt·ornoforn, f.l'g/L 4.a · C,;:u-bo:n 'tetirachlc.-ide u..-../L 0.26 .. Oh1o,rob,anziene ui:1/L 30 Ohlo,i-odlb1·ot:Y101-netl"'lane i.a·CI/L 0.40"1 -~ . ChJ01·oeth.a1'11e: u,cr/L 'iOO _(:h·l~1-r,:tMrn• · · · uri/1 ·inn D 1,1:hfoint:11b,r-.-':,l'i!~,c;,4'\1·e·t'.111.,:u ... ...-:. u,t:t/1 ·IJ ~B ·4 . ·• -DWhlof"oalhane ul.'"LIL 6 . '1 .2-Dkihlo.roethane w:1/L 0.38 .. 1 1-0ii::::nk:woethvle:nc: , .. c:,IL 0',067 - 1.2-Dlth1oror.,rooane u-n/L •0.5.2. ·1 3-DIC!h1c,r.oo,001::avlena .ur.:tlL o.~. D.1-iiscl'l:i,n::n::i-.til ether lDlPE') t1·clL 0.8 1 4-DiOX(!Al'lC: nn/L .. 3 E.t.hvib•:r,nze~1!:I' a.L~llL 70-0 Gthvtt!:!!nci dibr-o 1n[cle' •.• ..... JL 0.0,15 - Le.;;,:icl u,cr/L 5.2 . 2.e~ --.... . ,t l'.'.lr,nn-.1,rl.e, : .. ,. .... , ·10 Me:U"IVl Chfo:l'Mde· 1,..-1/L 3 IVleOTYI •3'ne-ch10,·Ic1e 11-!:tfL 4.7 Meihvt: ethvl ke'f:one lMEJ<) ., ..... JL 700 Melh-..A g:-=,.-ti:ai:-v bu·n•I -ether (.:MTEE::) .. , .... JI_ 6 33 -----·-----· lllli --.. ----- Appendix A (Continued) Effluent Discharge Standards [~ource: CALIFORNIA RE~IONAL-WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ORDER NO. R4-2002-0107] Di;schar.ae Ur.nitatnons. Constiltu,ents Unllts Dally M'axlmu:m : r .... 1onthly Avenllge N:aDhtliri.alene UIO.IL 2'1' · N-Niitrosocff~nethvU an1ine lNDt,YAl 1110/L 0:000139 ::i · Per,ch!lorate .t11.c11i'L ·4 .. Terli-~.uv butvl ah:::ohol! Cf.BA) ·,uoll '12 ·t 1 2.2-Tetrad,laroeiihane , 110!1L 0.:17~ Tetr,achtoroelhvlene ' . ,uoilL 0.8 Toluene u~JIL -15,0 Total oettrol!eunil hvdr6carbof1Js"' .1.1,:ctlL ··100 ·1 • 2-Trans--dic::11:f.(,rootlillvl!ene _ uoiJL '_10 1 1 1, ·1-T1·i.chlbroetlhane µg,JL 200 1 1 1 12-Tri-chl\oroethan.e · 1.11glL . OA:.iO Trichloroethyfene . JUg!IL 2.7 · . Vini'N(I -chl-oriide 11,0/L 0.5 Xv~ene:s uf.lilL ·a75:0 34 -----·-------------- AppendlxB Design Characteristics of the Stormwater V:ault~ Size of the Size of the storm Hydraulic Number Number Curb of Pipes storm drain drain Total Area Capacity Hydraulic· Width hleight of Pipes Length(ft) opening pipe pipe , of the Vault · of the Performance (ft) (ft) (ft) entering leaving entering the leaving (Sq.ft) Vault theVauH the Vault .. Vault · the (cubic ft) Vault : (inches) Vaull 1 3.7 3,9 4.6 0.5 0 1 0 12 14.43 59 Vault2 3.5 3.6 4.8 0.58 a 1 0 12 12,6 54 Vault 3 3.5 3.6 4.fr 0.58 0 1 0 12 12.6 54 Vault4 6.8 4.3 5 0.6 ·o 1 0 12 29.24. 129 35 : -----_._ ---------------.. . . ·· ::. AppendixC Results oflhe Field Test (Discharge: 235 gpm) Total ---Total -Sample Temp@rature Turbidity Dissolved Dissolved Chemical Biochemical · Organic ... Total ·-Total• Total -Zinc at Time (C) PH . (NTU) Solids oxygen Oxygen Oxygen Carbon Phosph.ates Nitrates Iron (mg/L) 0 (mg/L) Demand Demand (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/ (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) L) . Insert 1 22 3.5 38 1500 . 1.8 1250 1050 1017 85.4 66 33 48 Insert 2 22 3.5 42 1500 1.8 1290 . ,1055 978 85,8 73 33 48 Insert 3 ·22 3.5 46 1500 1.8 1255 1055 815 85.8 80 34 48 lnsert4 22 3.5 40. 1500 1.8 1262 1055 1137 85.B 69 32 48 Total ---Total -Sample Temperature Turbidity· Dissolved Dissolved Chemical Biochemical : Organic -Total . -Total Total -Zinc at Time (C) PH (NTU) Solids oxygen Oxygen Oxygen Carbon Phosphates Nitrates Iron (mg/L) 15 (mg/L) Demand· Demand (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/ (mg/L) (mg/L). (mg/L) (mg/L) L) Insert 1 -22 4.2 21 1467 1.8 1150 981 935 80 37. 33 48 lnsert2 22 4.1 25 1456 1.8 1145' 942 868 77 44 24 34 Insert 3 22 4 25 1435 1.8 1132 970 736 79, 44 2:1. .33. lnsert4 22 4.2 26 1460 1.8 1200 990. 1082 81 45 32 . 30 Sample Temperature PH . . Turbidity Total 'Dissolved -. -·-Total· -Total ·. -Total --Zinc at Time (C) (NTl)) Dissolved oxygen Chemical Biochemical Organic Phosphates Nitrates Total (rng/L) 30 Solids (mg/L) Oxygen Oxygen Carbon (mg/L) · (mg/L) · Iron (mg/L) Demand Demand (mg/L) · (mg/ (mi:t/L) · (ma/Ll L) · Insert 1 22 . · 5.2 12 1350 2.1 1021 901 831 74 21 33 44 lnsert2 22 5.1 12 1400 2 1020 910 773 74 21 17 24 Insert 3 22 5.1 12 1469 2 10t8 912 662 75 21 13 23 lnsert4 22 5.1 12 1402 2.4 · 1200 940 1082 77 . 21 22 18 36 --------~---~-------- Appendi_x C (Continued) Results of Field test (Discharge: 235 gpm) Sample Temperature PH Turbidity Total · Dissohie_d -..... -Total -Total -Total --Zinc at Time (C) (NTU} Dissolved oxygen Chemical . Biochemical Organic Phosphates Nitrates Total (mg/L) 45 Solids (mg/L} Oxygen Oxygen Carbon (mg/L) (mg/L) Iron (mg/L) Demand Demand (mg/L) .. (mg/ Cma/L) (mo/U . L) Insert 1 22 5.8 8 1376 ·2.1 882 841 . 820 69 14 30 44 lnsert2 22 5~8 . 8 1345 2 890 830 776 68 14 12 17 Insert 3 22 5.8 9. 1440 2 924 856 648 86 16 8 · 14 lnsert4 22 5.8 8 1289 2.4 976 900 921 •' 92 14 14 15 Sample . Temperatl!re PH . Turbidity Total . Dissolved . -' --Total -Total -Total ---Zinc at Time -(C) (NTU) Dissolved oxygen Chemical Biochemical Organic Phosphates Nitrates .Total. (mg/L) f!O Solids (mg/L) Oxygen Oxygen Carbon (mgtl) (mg/L) Iron (mg/L) Demand Demand (mg/L) (mg/ lma/U · (mall) L) · Insert 1 22 5.8 7 1323 2.1 840 795 795 83' 13 24 37 Insert 2 22 5.8 6 1368 2 ·880 730 746 . ·. 75 11 12 10" Insert 3 22 5.8 7 1376 2 920 840 640 66 13 s· 10 lnsert4 22 5.8. 8, 1355 2.4 -.950 792 900 88 14 9 9 37 -------~~---------- AppendixD Results of the Field Test (Repetitions for a shorter time) . Discharge: 235 gpm Total ---Total - Sample Temperature · Turbidity Dissoived Dissolved Chemical Biochemicai · Organic -Total -Total Total -Zinc at Time PH oxygen Oxygen Oxygen Phosphates Nitrates Iron o· (C) (NTU) Solii:ls (mg/L) Demand Demand Carbon. (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/ (mg/L) (mg/L) {mg/L) (mg/L) . (mg/L) L) . Insert 1 24 3.9 45 1560 1.2 1250 1050 1017 86 78 42 · 48 lnsert2 24 3.9 46 1572 1.5 1266 991 960 . 81 80 33 48 lnsert3 24 3.9 45 1500 . 1.5 1240 1010 806 83 78 · · 34 48 lnsert4 24 3.9 45 1566 1.5 1255 10~0 . 1131 83 78 41 48 ---Total -Total Sample Temperature Turbidity Dissolved 'Dissolved Chemical Biochemical Organic -Total -Total Total .-Zinc atTime (C} PH (NTU). Solids oxygen : Oxygen Oxygen Carbon Phosphates Nitrates Iron (mg/L} 10 (mg/L) Demand· Demand (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/ (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/I.:} L) Insert 1 24. 4.6 3.3 1500 1.6 . 1181 940 9t;;1 77 57 42 ,37 lri'sert 2 24 4.13 32 1523 1.7 . 1130 . 900 857 74 56 24 34· Insert 3 24 ·4.8 32 .1489 1.7 1146 942 745 77 56. 21 29 · 1nsert4 24 5 30 1445 1.6 1200 991 1082 132 52 21 22. Total ---Total - Sample Temperature Turbidity Dissolved Dissolved Chemical Biochemical Organic -Total -Total Total -Zinc at Time (C) PH (NTU) Solids oxygen Oxygen Oxyg·en Carbon. Phosphates Nitrates Iron (mg/L) 20 .(mg/L) (mg/L) Demand Demand {mg/L}. (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/ {m11/L) (moll) . L) Insert 1 24 4.6 24 .1460 2 1040 887 846 120 42 42 37 lnsert2 24 4.8 23 1444 2 1075 845 815 121 . 40 17 24 Insert 3 24 4.8 24 1439 2 1075-870 699 118 42 13 18 lnsert4 24 5 25 1369 2 1162 900 1047 124 44 10 11 38 -· --------··------· ---- Appendix D (Continued) Results of the Field Test (Repetitions for ~ shorter time) . Dis.charge: 235 gpm Total ·---Total -Sample Temperature Turbidity Dissolved Dissolved '.Chemical Biochemical . . Organic -Total • -Total Total -Zinc at Time (C) PH (NTU) Solids oxygen Oxygen Oxygen Carbon Phosphates Nitrates Iron (mg/L) 30 . (mg/L) Demand DemaAd . (mg/L) (mg/L) . (mg/ (mg/L). (mg/L) (mall\ (mg/L)_ L) Insert 1 24 4.6 15 1400 2 1000 750 814 112 26 42 30 lnsert2 24 4.8 15 1345 2 1051 750 797 110 . 26. 12 17 Insert 3 24 4.8 15 1378 2 1040 800 676 110 26 8 18 lnsert4 24 5 15 1256 2 1100 730 991 120 26 10 11 39 ------------~----~-- · ApperidlxE . Trash Characteristics ---Total -Total · Dissolved ChemJcal Biochemical -Total -Total T9tal Characterization Temperature Turbidity Dissolved Organic -Zinc PH (NTU) oxygen Oxygen Oxygen . Phosphates Nitrates Iron of Trash (C} Solids Carbon (mg/L) . (mg/L) Demand Demand (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/ (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) L) Trash 1 20 2.5 -·--4000 . 2500 -170 83 45 68 Trasfi 2 20 2.2 .. --4250 2290 -192 96 45 · 59 Soiirce of Trash.1: Los Angeles Sanitation Services . . Source· of Trash.2:. United Storrriwater 40 --·-----·------·-----.. - AppendixF Hydraulic Perfonna11ce (Discharge: 632 gpm) Size of the ,, storm drain Total Area of Hydraulic Hydraulic , " f-lydraulic -Capacity of Capacity of pipe,:! leaving the Vault 15 minutes 25 minutes 35 minutes 40 minutes-Performance the Vault the Vault the Vault (Sq.ft) (Inches) (cubic ft) (gallons)· Water Trash from the exceeds the Street Starts Street Is device gets Vault 1 12 14.43 59 374 suspe_ndeci into vault flooding flqoded capacity flooding water Water Trash from the exceeds the . Street Starts Street Is device gets Vault2 12 . 12.6 54 403;98 vault flooding flooded suspended into .. capacity , flooding water Tras~ from the Water flows Trash starts . device gets into the suspended Into flowing Into · Street· starts Vault 3 12 12.6 54 403.98 storm drain flooding water the sto.rm flooding by and some drain overflowing enter the .drain as-well 41 ---·-· -·---·-·---------- Appendix F (Continued) Hydraulic Performance (Discharge: 632 gpm) Trash from the Water filled device gets up to the Street Starts Street Is suspended,in Vault4 12 29.24 129 964.92 brim of the flooding flooded the vault and vault starts entering · the drain 42 ---(-.·------·--·-.. -..... --· -- AppendlxG P.ollutant Removal Efficiency ofthe Curb Inlet Inserts Percentage Turbidity Total Chemical Biochemical Total Total Total Dissolved Oxygen Oxygep Organic Total Iron Zinc Removal(%) (NTU) · Solids Demand Demand Carbon Phosphates Nitrates Insert 1 81.58 : 11.8 32.8 24.29· 21.83 2.82 80.31 27.28 · 22.92 lnsert2 84.22 · 8.8 31.79 30;81 23.73 12.59 · 84.94 63.64 79.17 Insert 3 81.58 8.27 26.7 20.38 21.48 23.08 83.75 76.48 79.17 lnsert4 78.95 9.67 · 24.73 24.93 20.85 -2.57 79.72 71.88 81.25 · Percentage Turbidity Total Chemical Biochemical Total Total Total Dissolved Oxygen Oxygen Organic Total Iron Zinc Removal (%) . (NTU) Solids Demand Demand Carbon. Phosphates Nitrates insert 1 '66.67 10.26 20 28.58' 19.97 . -30.24 66.67 0 37.5 lnsert2 67.4 14.45 16.99 24.32 16.98 . -35.81 67,.5, 63.64 64.59 Insert 3 66.67 8.14 16.13 · 20.8 16.13 -32.54 66.67 ' '76.48 62.5 lnsert.4 66.67. 19.8 12.36 27.73 ·12.38 -44.58 66.67 75.61 77.09 43 --------·--·----·-·---.. Inserts Insert 1 lnsert2 lnsert3 lnsert4 Appendix A Insert Details Name of.the Unit Manufacturer/Company Envlropod Stormwater360 .. Curb Inlet Filter .. Biocleanenvironmental -Drainpac United Stormwater Curbstop FIiter Sto~mwatersystems 44 :.,· -- ---·--1----· -... ---·-.. --... -I- Appendix I Graphs Graph1 PH vs Time ~ Insert 1 --•--Insert 2 Insert 3 lnsert4 I 7 6 -, ;:• .. r .. , --------· 5 - 4 - d: Jo"":,. 3 _, 2 - 1 - 0 - 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time in Minutes 45 -------------------- 50 1 . 45 _, ~ 30 -.s I 25 _ 20 _, F 15 10 - 5 0 - 0 Graph2 Turbidity vs Time ·1 • Insert 1 "-11111--Insert 2 Insert 3 ''·~-------· ;..J\' 10 20 30 40 Time in Minutes 46 Insert 4] ;,;; ""'··'=·-==-=-==-=:.::_~~ 50 60 70 -~---~--------------- Graph 3 Total Dissolved Solids vs Time • Insert 1 -rai-Insert 2 lns~rt 3 ·,-Insert 4 J 1550 1500 ;-:r. ·.j .Ei 1450 -i 1400 -1 1 1350 - E F 1300 -1 N:..::::_:~._ ----.:.::::::..... . ~ ..... ~~....... ____..._______ -"---->-', "'----<....:_ . ~ ·' ~ ~--· -----.. . " ' ' -, .... .,. 1250 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time ~n Minutes 47· ------------------- Graph4 Dissolved Oxygen vs Time .,__ Insert 1 -lill-.-Insert 2 Insert 3 lnsert4 I 3 ------··--- 2.5 -I :•-: 1 2 ·-I jl''I , .. I'" .5 .,,.. ........ J .-:-... _ 1.5 _, i 1 '" 0.5., 0 0 10 20 30 40· 50 60 70 Time in Minutes 48 I I I I 0 I ·t-- I '4' +' :· I 0 I. (0 a> I i U) I £; 0 1· U) a, 'ctl E +' ·-I. J-Gl I U) 0 ~ ,s : Q) ' I 0 ..., "C / ,;t ::l C C I -I m I I ~ E ! ! N I I C Ill a .. .r: I. ! Q) a. G) '• ./ 0 0\ I !!! r: U) !,. (I) E -s:1- C!) Ql £; -Cl J-. g I I • i ! 0 .E ''!"' N I E t a) Q) , rn .c .; 0 t I 0 'I"" I ,o ,. I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·O 0 0 0 '4' N 0 0::) co '-I" ('J '!"" l"' l"' I ~LJ!p:.m,q]l.EfKo J=C!LB-0 I I --------~-------~-- j i ~ J Graph 6 Biochemical Oxygen Demand vs Time -Insert 1 ···•-Insert 2 Insert 3 lnsert4 J ---------·-------· -----1200 ~,-._,:, _____ _ ''---=-----. .. . . . .. .. . . .. , 1000 ~ ~-~ ..., BOO-, -··rm a·oo -, 400 - 200 - 0 --1--------.-------.-----..---------..------.------.--------1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time in Minutes 50 __ , _____ _ -· --·---· --.. --.·. ,: .. ··:·, Graph7 To1:al Organic Carbon vs Time 1--. Insert 1 --•---Insert 2 Insert 3 la:-isert 4] 1200 l, I 1000 -----. ---------.. ------·--·-··· ... ,,,-·~r·· ............ 1 800 I 600 - 400 - • --··------. ~ e ··--·-.:;.____ ... _____ a ID----·--·--------. ~ 200 _, 0 -·1-----:--..-------...------...-----~-----.------.-------1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time in Minut:es · 51 -------------------- 1 " I ~ Graph 8 Total Phosphates vs Tirn e .,._ Insert 1 -!ti-Insert 2 Insert 3 Insert 4 J 100 -.--------'-------------------------~--~ 90 -~ . . 80 ·r----~~-. -~ -~""----.-,.,.,. • • D.'ill ---_,_! _,,_.-'--- 70 -I ------..ia,;,.::o.:::=----··-. · 60 - 50 - 40 _, 30 - 20 _, 10 - 0-----~----~----~----~----~----~----1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time in Minutes 52 I I I·- I O· I I"- 1. 'V ·, 0 .... (0 Lo I I Ql Ill I ~ I 0 10 (I) t: ~ I G) GI !I) Ill E ,; a) I 0 .. ·-~ ::2 I I-C ·-Ill :a > / C) Ill N C .c t: ·-C. . GI QI C"1 I I!! ' .. dJ 0 in C!) 1G !I) '!'· (1) E I. ~ .. i ·-z ! I- I -I 1G i .. 1 0 , I I-r-0 t: N I. II) !I) ob I t 0 'I"" I L. 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·o Ol a:) I"-(C) ID 'q' (I) N '1"" .. °ViUU!~ ieP.L I I I I I 1· I ----------------~o I'-, I I "-I' ~ Ill I rn J; g; 0 . I co ' I ! l .. I (I') ..., I. I G) 1/) J;; G) E I ·-I- 0 t,') N .... >· .i:: C t C. I I! 0 (I) C!) I. (/J -.; -I I ... I 0 ' I- ,.. ..., I I., (I) . Ill J;; ·I t .I 0 .:"J 10 .// lJI 0 GI +I _./ I v :, C ·-// a // ' . C / GI -.:I" I 0 ll"l 'f E . ,. r ('I) I ·; ·-I I-f / l I I I I I 1 / I 0 I / / N f I . I i --· j, 1' t. 0 / /. ! ,.. -I // j . r-----r I 0 I 0 10 0 LO 0 10 0 U) 0 'q' ('I) ('I) N N T'" ,.. -,,auUJLDlf ~.L I ,, I I I 1-· I I I I I (I) t: I Q) UI· £; 1. - G) E .... ·-·N .... I- I. I .c ..., C. 1/l I. !ti· > Q) ,_ (!) u U) £; C ~ N· I T"' ..., I I. G,) Ill' .; I f I I I I I r------------"----0 r... . ,.. . l{ ;. /· I ;: 1· I . II', ru- l I: . r. '.I' ' ; I'• I . . / I I ! I • ~ ~ ,/ I I /-' / i ./ ' .. I / /. / // /,/ I I . /' /.' /' 0 co 0 lO 0 '-I' 0 (I') 0 N 0 T"" ; i--~,t--~--,--..,--,------,---!-0 0 co 0 LO 0 "t 0 (I') 0 N 0 T"" 0 1/l a) ""' :I C ·-~ C -tr'! G) If'! E ·-I- -------111111 ---·-------- AppendlxJ Parameter Values Comparison Chart (Standards Incorporated from different sources of literature and Interview) Water body Parameters Discharge Insert 1 lnsert2 Insert 3 lnsert4 Standards Temperature <4o·c 22 ' 22 22 22 PH 5.5-9.0 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Turbidity (NTU} -7 . 6 7 8 . Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L} 500 1323 1368 1376 .. 1355 Diss.olved oxygen (mg/L) 2 2.1 2 2 2.4 Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) 250 72 67 66 · 52 Biochemical Oxygen Demand 30 103 100 102 98 (mg/L) Total Organic C.arboo ·(mg/L) -92 90 78 74 Total Phosphates (mg/L} 20 84 76 67 89 Total Nitrates (mg/L) 3.0-5;0 13 , 11 13 14 Total Iron (mg/ L) 5 24 12 ~ 9 Zinc (mg/L) 5 37 10 10 9 56 -... -... --.. --1111111 -----· ---- Perform Hydraulic ance. Perfonnanc · Rank e during 1-fighFlow Insert 1 3 Insert 2 3 · Insert 3 2 lnsert4 3.5 Hydraulic Performanc eduring p Turbldlt Low/Normal H y (NTU) Flow 6.5 * 8 5.5 * 8 7 * 8 8 * 8 AppendixK .Performance Rank for Inserts (1 -poor 10-Excellent) Chemic Total Dissolve al Dissolve d . Oxygen. d Solids oxygen Demand (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) * 7 6 * 7 6 * 7 6 * 7 5 Total Blochemlc · Organl Total al Oxygen C Phosphate Demand Carbo s (mg/L) (mg/L) n (mg/L) 5 -4 5 -4 5 -4 5 -4 * Device has no influence ori the parameter directly, -Insufficient Information Ranking Is based on performance, TMDL requirements and sensitivity of the parameter 57 Tota Total I Zinc Nitrate Iron· (mg/L s (mg/ ) (mg/L) L) 7.5 3 4 7.5 5 6 7.5 7'.5 6 6.5 6· 8 I. I I_ I I 1· 1- -1 1: 1: I I I I :1 I I I I References • American Public_ Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association .(AVI/WA) & Water Environment Federation (WEF),1998, "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" , 21st Edition. • City and .County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental Services, March· 2004 ;,The Efficiency of Storm Drain Filters in Removing Pollutants from Urban Roqd Runoff Phase Ill and Final Report" • City and County of Honolulu, Department of Environmental Services, April 1999 "Storm Drain and Street Cleaning Effectiveness Report" • Santa Clara V~lley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program 1997. · Metals Control Measures Plan and Evaluation of Nine Metals of Concern, February 1997 • State of California, Department of Transportation, March 2003, "Construction Site Best Management Practices Manual" • Transportation Research Board, 81st Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., Jan.13-17, 2002 (included in conference proceedings). "Characteristics of Stormwater Runoff from Galtrans Facilities0 , • Watershed protection division , · Department of public works, Bureau of sanitation, city of Los Angeles, Janu~ry 2004, "Technical Report: Best Management Practices for Implementing the Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads" 59 I I ,-._ I I I 1·· I I I' I ,- 11 I I ,, I I I • Watershed protection division, Department of p~blic works, Bureau of sanitation, city of Los Ang_eles, January 2004, "Pictorial Examples of _ Implemented Structural BMPs to meet the Trash TMDL in the City of LA" • Watershed protection division, Oepartment of public works, Bureau of sanitation, city of Los Angeles, January 2002, "High trash-generation areas and control measures" 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interlace J. AARON HIPP, t 0LADELE 0GUNSEITAN ,•,t RAUL LEJAN0,* AND C. SCOTT S·MITHi Department of Environmental Healrl1, Sci~nce. and Polig~ and Departnz~nc of Planning. Policy, and Design, tlniuernty of California, Irvine, California 92697-7070 Environmental pollution from cities is a majQr ecological problem i!ttributed to contaminated runoff from nonpoint . sources. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's guidance on implementation of total maximum daily loads (TMDU does not adequately cover methods to improve W!lters impaired by nonpoint sources. To comply with TMDLs, cities may install filters in curb inlets, or use other Best Management Practices (BMPsl. We tested 10 different filters and found their effectiveness in retaining pollutants ranged from O to >90%, depending on combinations of pollutant types (metals, pathogens, and total suspended sediments (TSS)) and filter materials. Hence, the decision to deploy filters into curb inlets must consider land use patterns associated with specific categories of pollutants generated within cities. We developed a geographic information system (GIS)-enabled model for estimating and mitigating emissions ·of pollutants from urban regions into watersheds. The model uses land use categories and pollutant loadings to optimize strategic placement of filters to accommodate TMDLs. For example, in a city where the landuse pattern generates 4 x 109 kg of TSS, 55 kg of Cd, and Z x 103 kg of Zn per year into 498 curb inlets that discharge into a sensitive watershed, the optimized placement of 137, 92, and 148 filters can achieve TMDL endpoints for each pollutant, respectively. We show further that 15B strategically placed filters affectively meet the requirements simultaneously for all three pollutants, a result at least 5 times more effective than random placement of filters. Introduction Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act (C\¥A) requires states, ter.titorles, and authorized ttjbes to generate a list of water systems that remain impaired after identiliable point sources of.pollution have installed remediation technology (l). These jurisdictions must develop action plans to improve water quality based_ on total maximum daily loads (IMDLs) that mandate maximum annual pollutantloadingallocations (I.As) to impaired wambodies. The 1987 OVA aeauthorlza- tjon, 1990s Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments, ~dlitigationinvolv!ngCWAsectlon303(d) andlMDLs, have began to address deficiencies in the coverage ofnonpoint sources of pollut;ion by the otherwise effective National • Cor:respondlngauthorph011e: 949-824-6350; rax: 949-824-2056; a-mail: Oladel11.0gunseltanlluci.edu. t Deparrmimt or Environmental Hwth, Science, and Polley. * Department of Planning. Policy. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDE$) (2, 3). The implem·entation of L~ from nonpoint sources can occur through a wide vari~ty of regulatory, nonregulatozy, or incentive-based programs or through voluntary action by stakeholders ( 4). The complexity of managing storm"A.rater is matched only by the complexity. of urbari pollutant mi-..'tllres emanating from an equally coII1plex may of sources. For example, an estimated 19 million resiq.ents and 60 million visitors to California's coastal communities account for almost $10 b~on~ofthe ~ual state economy, with fishing and water- intensive agriculture providing an additional $28 billion (5, 6). The U.S. Em'lionmental Protection Agen1:1• (USEPA) approved Califomia!s Section303(dJ list, including 684 \\'liter bodies (30% of monitored systems), on July 25, 2003 (1). '.fhe most·pronounced gap in recent efforts to manage urban stonnwater rune.ff ls the lack of coordination of linkages bet\Yeen land· use and pollutant loadings in the technical design and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwiµ:er remediation (7-10). Installation of filter inserts into storm drains at street level ls a convenient BMP for controlling urban runoff due to its potential specificity and ease of placement. However, there has been little research linking the material composition of these filters to specific pollutant loadings under different land use conditions (11). Municipalities currently have an assortment of technologies for reducing runoff according to the text of TMDL regulation and to the "maximum extent possible" according to NPDES pennit guidelines (12-14). However, the ambiguity of the tel."t has led to differences in . the adoptj:oµ of various BMPs by cities contributing effluent to the same watershed, and there are no comparative studies on. the effectiveness of various technologies across Bl\i!Ps. Here, we analyze the placement of filters at the ip.terface of urban runoff and·storinwater drainage systems. Catch basin filter inserts employ a variety of adsorbentinaterials designed to retain pollutants, but there is uncertainty on their ability to remove a mixture of specific pollutants in urban runoff .[15-18). In theory, no single product can effectively deal ,Yith various categories of pollutants with acceptable ef- ficiency and at affordableitlstallation and maintenance costs. Therefore, cities need to conduct extensive preliminary !n~gation on the capacities of different filters, their pollutant removal effic~encies, and the bestlocationfor each category of filter, depending on land use patterns. For our case study, three TMDLs are established for Newport Bay and its tnqutary San Diego Creek at the bpundary of the Cit.y of Costa Mesa: toxics (metals and pesticides), sediments, andnuttients (P andN).Additionally, there is a T.MDL for fecal coliform within Newport Bay (19). Out research focused on metals, sediment, and fecal coli!or.m TMDI.s, and the potential for meeting the TMDL limits by using storm drain filter inserts throughout the city. We address two important goals: (il The generation of data on pollutantremoval efficiencies forvarlous filters and demonstration of how such data can be used to support the optimization routines, and {iU Development of a methodol- ogyfor optimizing the employment of structuralBMPs across a city, using a model that couples a GIS-based runoff generation module with a linear programming-bil,\ied opti- mization routine. The model does not account for potential ~ations'in filter performance due to antecedent dry and wet dB}~. hydraulic peaks, and shear factors, which are better evaluated· under field conditions, subject to technical and liability constraints miposed by cities such as Costa Mesa, 10.1021/nDBOfflf CCC: 533.50 Q JaOIX Amerkan Cllemic:11 SocillY Pub~1d on Web ll&/24/2QQ8 PAGE EST: 7.7 VOL ""• NO, xx, _,,, ( ENVIRON. SCI. & TECHNOL • A I I I I I, ' I I I I I I I I I I I California, which we used to· demonstrate the optimizati~n process. Experimental Section Effectiveness of Filters. The characteristics of the· 10 filters tested in th.is study are descnbed in the Supporting Infonna- tion, Tables A and B. The filters were pre-washed and saturated with sterile deionized water. prior to i:qtrodµcing pollutants. · To bacterial retention, we used.Escherichia coli O157:H7 cultivated in LUI:ia-Bertani (LB) broth at 37 •c to represent · fecal coliform bacteria, designated as such throughout the te,-t Cells were harvested, washed twice, and re-suspended . in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) at 100-B00 CFU m1-1 in increments of 100 CFtJ mL-1• Bacterial suspensions were applied to test filters at a flo,vrate of 3 Lmm-1• Each b acterlal concentration was tested in duplicate, and triplicate samples of the efiluent were serially diluted in PBS prior to enumera- tion. by viable assay on LB agar. Metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn, and Se) were tested at concentra- tions (O.0l-,0.4 mg L -11 based on the respective acute clissolyed :rMDLllmits 9rmonitored values !or the watershed (20, 21). Each metal was tested in duplicate at a flow rate of 3 Lmin-1.250 mLof~e efiluentswere collected and adjusted to pH2.0 with nitric acid prior to tile determination of metal conceritt'ations using EPA method 6010B: Inductively .Coupled Plasma-Atomic Enrlssion Spectromeo:y. We tested B concentrations of total suspended;secliments (!SS) in two duplicate batches. Initially, we tested p.S-4.8 gL -1, and all but one.filter retained 100% oftsS in this range. Therefore, we tested higherTSS concentrations caverlngS-48 g 1-1,. which is re!15onable considering that the highest monitored suspended sediment concentration ·within the watershed as 28.8 gL-1 (22. 23). lhehigherTSS concentrations · did not attain cake .filtration, thus particle removal mech- anisms fall within the range predicted by clean bed filter theory, straining for larger particles and adsorption for finer particles (24). Toe TSs·emuent concentrations were estimated according to ·pa~an et al. (25). We used sand with a 40- 100 m~size (420-149µm) and a:rnodel966 Otbeco-Helli'.ge portable turbiclimeter. Similar particle size represented up to 15% of monitored TSS in the watershed inApril 2005 (29) and constitute 26% of surface nmoff detemrlned· qy Lau et al. (14). lhe correlation between TSS and turbiditywas strong (RZ = 0.94) and described by Log TSS = [Log (NTU-1)/1.50] +0.63. l'MDI.s. The TMDLs established for San Diego Creek and Newport Bay a.re reported in the Supporting Information Tabli, D. Toe TMDL target requires ai.-ute fecal coliform concentrations to be less than 4 CFU ml -1 and chronic concenttations C5·day meanJ to be less than 2 ci=U mL-i (19).Monitoringbetweenyears 2001 and2005 revealed spike concentrations within the Newport Bay greater than230 CFtJ ml -1 (26). Under·current guidelines the )'..As are scheduled to allowunimpairedrecrea.tiona.l use by December 30, 2014 and shellfish harvesting by December 30, 2019. Toe sediment and toxics TMDLs for the watershed were predicated by a 1991:litigation; Defend the Bay, Inc.v.Marcus: N. D. c;alno. C i,7-3997 MMC (22). The sediment TMDL was completed by the USEPAin 1998 and amended by the State of California in 1999. The TMDL requires cities within the watershed to reduce sediment loads by 50%-from 127 006 tonnes of sedimentperwatersystem to 63 503 tonnes-within . 10 years (23). Toe metals TMDL was promµlgated by the USEPAin2002, with the caveatthatdfssolved saltwaterl'MDL tor cadmium app~es onlyto the Upper Newport Bay and not to the Lower Newport Bay (21). . · To evaluate filter performance toward mei,ting water quallty standards, we compared average pollutant retention measurements to the ratio of TMDL--IA and the highest B •ENVIRON.SCI. ll TECHNOL / VOL. ,ex, NO. xx, x,ccx monitored pollutant concentrations in the watershed (Sup- porting Information Table D). ~tegrative Model ofLand Use and Filter Optimization. To optimize the implementation of city-scale efiluent filtra- tion, we developed a conc;eptual framework that integrates land use!filtration·effecciveness, and regulatory ormanager.ial options in an analytic geographicalinformationsystem (GISJ modeL The model consists of fi\'!i components associated with urban stormwater hydrologic processes: (a) pollutant · source residual esrimation, represented as a raster GIS layer such that the modeled ,wtershed is divided into an array of cells, with cells representing an average mass loading from nonpoint sources particular to the corre$ponding land use type;-(b) surface flow pollutant distribution. to capture topographic constraints on the dismoution of pollutants generated in step one, also represented in raster format; (c} inlet pollutant entry estimaEion, calculates the mass loadings tllat enter the stomiwater.net\vorkthroughstructuralfea.tuies such as curb-inlets, represented as node features within the GISframev.i!Jrk; (d) networkflow pol]utanrdistribution, which models the 'transport of pollutants specifically through a city's stormwater system and is represented as a topologically integrated line feature; and (e) outlet pollutant discharge utimarir;m, based· on pollutant mass loadings that are returned to receivingwaters through specific discharge outlets or-the tenµini of the stormwater network. To test the model, we obtain!ld datasets from the City of Costa Mesa., including categorical land use zones, transpor- tation, and stormwater network. including topological in- formation, flow direction, and associated structura!fearures such as location of curb inlets and drainage outlets. We relied on the Better Assessm~t Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS3.l}hydrologicmodel developed by the t,JSEPA (27) as tile template for customizing·GIS. (ArcView 3.3 and ArcGIS 9.0). We also used BASINS for pollutant source residual estimation based on unit area loads (UAL) repri,senting the mass of a. given pollutant generated from a given area and type of land use during a specified time interval (kg/1:anZ/year). Mass loacling of the pollutant into the environment.is modified by the runoff coefficient (30). R._.u = 0.00197 + (Q.2286 X f,.) (1) Where RV\I is runoff coefficient for land.use type u, (mm run/ mm rain! and,Iu!s the percent imperviousness, and Lp =Lu (P x Pj x R.., x·c., x,4,. x 0.4992) (2) Where Lp is pollutant load, (l"g], Pis precipitation, 'tmmyr-lJ, Piis ratio of storms producing runoff, Rvuis runoff coefficient . for land ~e type .u. [mm nm/mm rain], C. is event mean concentration (EMC) for land use type u, [mg 1-11, and Au is area. of land use type u, [km2]. The city's land use pattern was converted from a vector- based GIS layer to araster or ESRI GRID dataset at a resolution oi' 10 m. Pollutant loadings are estimated for each 10-meter pixel cell in tile raster dataset. For example, the annual generation of total suspended secliments (l'SSJ was based on a;iaverage of289 mm of annual rainfall and an av~ge 85.0% of stenos producing runoff (31) Please refer to Table E witllin the Supporting Information for exact EMCs. A 10-meter resolution digital elevation model (DEM) provided by the United States. Geological Survey (32) was used to-model the flow of pollutants across thi, land surface. Toe raw digital terrain model was corrected using the U.S. Aimy Corps of Engineers Geospatial Hydrologic Modeling Extension or HEC-GeoHMS (33). Toe extension's fill function was used to create a depression-less terrain model (i.e., a terrain model relatively free of abmant pits or depressions) I I 1-- I I I. I I· I I: I I· I I I I andweappliedaburningtechnique.tolrnposeopendrainage channels and streets onto the landscape so as to·account for the urban features that influence water flaw. We also used Arcµtl'a Workstation's flowdirecrion function to compute a grid represen~g the direction of flow between every cell in .the· DE¥ grid. Last. we computed .the accumulated con- centration of pollut;ion across the landscape using aflowac- cumu~tion function together.with Jhe flow direction and pollutant residuals layers developed earlier. The output' of the surface flow distribution model ls a continuous raster grid, with each gi;id cell representing an estimated annual distribution or accumulation of mass loadings; greatest accumulations of pollutants accµr along road'l'.'llys, natural channels, resen•airs, and other physical depressions. We adapted the city's inleu GIS point layer to-compute the likely amounts of pollutants entering the stormwater network through curb inlets. Mass loading estimates were inferred from the value of the 10-meterpb:el associated with each of the city's curb inlets and the total-pollutant loadings accumulated within a specified proportion of the sub-basir), flowing into the· inlet. Pollutant mass loading estimates by curb inlet wei-e conceptually transported through the city's starmwater infrastructure using standard ArcGIS network analysis tools. The modeling of network flow allows fa!= estimation of total pollutant discharge by outlet. The portion of the City of Costa Mesa's stormwater network, which discharges directly into Newport Bay ind the Ne\\'POrt Bay . Ecological Reserve, ts comprised of 498 curb inlets and extends approximately 67 km; 52 ~ of which are· open (riacural stream, concrete-lined, and open earth) chann~ and the remaining 15 km are closed·(l.e., main, connector, and culvert) channels.· . After estimating generation of specific pollutants per land use and modeling their transportation over land surfaces, we nel.'t incorporated the results of filter pollutant removal. effectiveness. lu'ter specific percentile reduction of the pollutants, nowwasmodeled through storm,wternetworks, and total filtered pallut~t discharge was aggregated by stonnWater outlet. Costa Mesa's GIS dataset is comprlsed of 42.outlets, themajorityof'whichdischargeintonaturalswales or retention basins within the city, butsome discharge directly into sensitive watersheds such as San Diego Creek. Newport Bay, and the Upper Newport Bay EcoiagicalReserve CUNBERl located at the confluence of the two and incorporating 752 acres of the upper bay area. We used mixed integer programming (MIP) to e,-cplare various placement optimiza- tion routines to identify filter Insert system strategies throughout the city, in this case, the optimization models calculate the mlnlmum number of filters needed to comply with TMDL require~ents given the mass loadings into each · · · curb inlet ~d the average removal efficiencies of the filter .inserts for.each pollutant category. Toe LPSolve IDE version 5.5 mathematical package was used to calculate solutions ta the different optimi;ation scenarios (34). Results and Discussi~n Commercial availability of filters and ease of installation at curb inlets make them appeallng to cities tharv.>ish simply to achieve the goals ofl'MDL regulatai:y specifica~ons ind to reduce pollutant loading ·to the maxim.1,llll extent pos- sible". However, it remains unrealistic for large cities with typically more than i,ooo curb inlets to fit every inlet with filters and expect uniform performance, becaus~ there is a large se!ecti_on of filters with a variety of feat:ures. which complicates the decision process. 'There are two Important questions: . (ll can.filters achieve quantitative water quality go!lls of T.MDL Implementation and ,(2) ·can this be dope incorporating strategic placement of filters to elhninate the neces~ty of a filter per catch basin, redu.cuig a city's cast and maintenance. To answer these questions, we evaluati:d 10 , 1011.l),:l'll,. Copper Removal Effic!ano.y j . 90.03-il -150.DD'-;;.. JI ::_...._~ ._ • .__..J;......._.li""'--'-'. *-· •--·-=--' A1 AZ a C DI Cl Flltar llitamafactu:rwr e · Lud Removal Efflclenc:y ,\I AZ I C: DI CZ E Fl1111rM1nllfadUl"lr F '31 F GI 100.aa,r.-. Zinc R•moval Elllclancy SO.CQ'lo • ;: __ ..__~ __ _LIJLli. 100.~ - A1A:! 11 CD1Dal!. F Gt Flhar Maaufa:turllr ,S1l1nium Removal Efficiency I I ~~ ~ , I : I i i I Al AZ 11 ,: DI m e I' Ftnllr M1nurae1m1:r Al J/Z • i: D1 m s I' c; m FUlarN>nllfl....,, Fecal Collfom, RIIIIO'RI Efflr:iancy C.1 RGURE 1. Pollutant removal effectiveness for each filter and pollU1aot. Lina repre$ents largeted TMDL reduction (TMDL-LA/ highast monitored value) and bars represBJ1t actual removal afficiancias· of 11ach filter :!: SD. The highest monitored Pb value was less than 1he TMDL · VOL. xx. NO. xx. xxxx /ENVIRON.SCI. Ill. TECHNOL. • C I I: I I I' I ·I I I I 'I. I I 1· I I A .-- --,/ \. / City of Santa Ana City of Tustin \_ '\ \~WPORT BAY WATERSH!ED J ..,,. ... CITY.OF . /\./ Water feature :'.".":.~ V\lal:ershed boundary c:J City of Costa Mesa boundary commercii!lly available products for their effectiveness in filtering different categories of pollutants generated in dties. furthermore, we integrated the data on filter perfoi::mance into a GIS model of .land use patterns linked to pollutant ·. generation and transportin the case study dty of Costa Mesa. D • ENVIRON. SCI. & TECHNOL / VOL. xx. NO. XX. xx,ac c=i Moderate density residential Biffl High density residential 11111 Comtnercial l'l!llMbc!!dUse ~ Industrial c::::J Transportation ~ Vacant/Open . C::J City of Costa-Mesa boundary .:r'! ~ Catch Basin Filter Properties. There are two main types of.filters: box and sock (Supporting Information Tables A and BJ. ·Box filters are rjgid containers of filtration media. Influent runoff percolates through the media, continumg into the·stoxm d.ra.i.n. Sock filters are fabric sheetS directing I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. I .1 C influent runoff into a c.entral pocket, typically including .a Se\'\'Il•in pol;'Iner fabrlc. Storm'l\-ater permeates the fabrlc and leaches tbraugh·to the stom1 drain. laboratory-testing provided the necessary conditions for evaluatingbest-case-scenariosforf!lterperformancewithout Curb inlets draining into bay Outfall /'./ Storm drain c:::l cay· ot cosia Mesa boundary 250 lbs TSS or less ,@ 251 to 780 lbs TSS ~ 781 to 2,290 lbs TSS ~ . 2.291. lbs TSS or more * Outfall ,,,-..../ Storm drain c::::J City of Costa Mesa boundary the liability Issues asso elated with ~ellberate release of pollutants such as toxic metals and bacteria in afield setting. Conversely, we could not analyze high flow rates that might ·be encountered in first flush· situation, but these are rare in the case study watershed. Each pollutant was tested at VOL l0f, NO. lOf, xxx,c / ENVll'ION. SCL !I. TECHNOL • E I I I I I I I I 1. I I I I I I ... .. I E L.l. VVifh Filter lnser:t (N=137} Wthout Filter Insert (N=361) * Outfall /v' Stonn drain c:::l City of Costa Mesa Boundary FJGURE 2. P.anal A: San Diego Creek and Newport.Bay watel'Shads. Pana! B: l,.anduaa pattern far th11 casa stJidy City of Costa Mesa Panel C: Location of curb inlets far thl entire city, Panel D: P'ollutant laailing allacatlan far suspended sediment discharging into the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Resirv, fram·th• city's49B curb inlets. Panel E: Optimized placement of filter iµserts by curb inlet. combined TSS, Cd .and ZI_I TMDL compliance. · · c_oni;entrations reflecting current !MDL allocations and observed data in the watershed. Fecal Coliform Removal The perfo,nnance of the filters In ~oving fecal coliform ranged from 0% (standard ·deviation, O,OJ'to-46,6% (SD, 32.4).Allfilters testedperform_ed below the 98.3% removal effidencynecessillyto meetTMDL standards (Figure 1 and Table C, Supporting Information). The highest recorded level of fecal coliform. within the Newport Bay, 230 CFU mL -1, is an outlier in.the µionitoring data; this population density is more than 5Q times high~· than the required acute lMDL (4 CFU mL ~1). Amore re~tic · remo:vai efficiency of 50'!& is within one SD of the removal mean for .five of nine tested filters. For municip~ties with a more chronic thaµ acute coliform problem, these results could be beneficial. It was swprlsing to note the two lowest removal rates were measured for filters.that containedlcnown anti-microbial substances (A2 and G2). We re-tested these filters, storing the etnuent for a 24 h period before analysis, and the performance o,f G2-increased to 96.4%, lnclicatin_g that prolonged contact with the coliform was necessary to activate the anti-microbial acdvity of the filter material. No . . such increase in remo,'al efficiency was obsexved with filter A2. These data imply that filters rnarket!!d as having antimicrobial properties are not necessarily more effective -In redutjng the ef!luent risk from fecal coliforms than other filter materials. Metal Removal. three filters· removed less than 7.5% of influent Cu. and no filter removed.greater than 55'lfi of this metal, Ho~er. for Pb, eight of nine filters tested were with- in 1.0 SD of removing-more than ~9.5% and ,ave filters removed·a mean value of Pb .equiµ to or .greater than 90.0IJL. The needed removal effectiveness for Pb.was not estimated ·because all data from monitoring programs showed values · lower than established 1MDL-IA. For Cd, six of the nine F • ENVIRQN. SCI. II< TECHNOL. I VOi. ""• NO. xx. xxxx filt~ exceeded the needed removal efficiency (50.6%), with fivi; filters significantly exceeding that amount. For Zn, two filters demonstrated removal effectiveness above the 1MDL reqtiireq 55.7%, and two filters werev.'i.thin one SD of needed removal. Removal of Se was likewise sporadic, with only twe filters within one SD of the mean needed removal efficiency. · TSS Removal. All but one filter exceeded the needed removal efficiency for T$S. Filter F was constructed'ofloosely pa.eked materials which-increased the turbidity and TSS of the effluent, exceeding the influent. The remaining'nine filters each supported a mean removal rate beyond the determined TMDL percentage. The ilowrate used in this study (3 Lmin-1) may exaggerate TSS removal, but the test con~tions are consistent with reasonable dry weather conditions (majority days in southern California) and the beginnings of first flush. Compliance with Total 1'4a:ximum Daily Loads. The combined mean effectiveness of the filters met the needed · TMI>Lremovaipercentageforthreepollutants, TSS, Cd, and Zn. Mean Cd removal was 60.1 % (50.6% removal required to comply with lMDL); Mean Zn removal of 30.6% + 1.0 SD . (29,4%) was greater.than the required 55.7%; and the 68.3% mean ofTSS removal outpaced the neededsq:0%. In addition, the meanretµo~ of Pb was the_greatestof all tested at 74.2% and the fil~ers removed approximately 30% of Se. The filters performed poorly in the temc;11ral of Cu (18.9%) and fecal coliform (~4.5%), v.'i.th no single filter removing greater than 55% of these pollutants. · FJ.l.ters that retained pollutants at values exceeding the necessary concentrations to meet the lMDLstandardswere considered·"high-performing" filters, and the mean pollutant removal values for these filters were used in the model optimization scenarios. Nine of 10 filters tested removed an average-of 75.85% of TSS, whereas, only two of those nine I I I 1··. I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I I TABLE. 1. Esti11Jated Poll!113nt Mass Loadings into Storm Drains Ba_sed on Land-ils·e Patt~ms,.. and tlte Result of Optimization Modeling of Filter Requirements Based on Data on Averag~ EffectlVeness of Filters · . · . TSS (tonnes/yr) Cd (kg/yr} Zn [kgfyr) sum of mass loadings mean median standard deviation minimum maximum TMOL required removal number of filter inserts needed · for Tl\1DL compliance· 4.hc 103 8.3 5.5 1.5 X 103 o.o 4. 1 x 103 . 2,1 X 103 137 of '499 possible . intervention locations filters sufficiently removed Zn (73.23%) · and five filters effectively reduced Cd concentrations (88.88%). Model Optimization and Scenarlq Results. Ta optimize effluent.filtration we investigated potential reductions ih TSS, Cd, and' Zn by modeling various distrlbutioris and applica-. · ~ans of filters to curb inlets throughout the section of stonn drain networkwbich.dis~ges directly into Newport Bay. The objective functions minimize the numl;>er of inserts necessary for !MDL compliance or, more specifically; the minimum nuinber of filter 1,nserts necessary to· meet the percentage reductions in TSS, C.d, and ~ noted al;,ove. Figure 2a.-d presents the overview map of the urban watershed, the landuse pattern. the location ofall 1266 curb mlets within clie cii:y's confines, and a 66.8 km section oftbe City of Costa Mesa's stoxm. drain network tb1:1.t flows 'into Newport Bay through fh•e discharge points. According to our estimates, more than 4 x 101 kg ofTSS,· 55 J..--g of Cd and 2;x 103 kg of Zn cutrently discharges from tbese outlets into the bay ~ually. {Figure 2d shows the estimated discharge distribution for TSS}. Yet, there is a considerable amount,of variation with respect to the mass loadings that flow through each of the 498 curb inlets (Table 1). Because of distinct land usepattems, where the city chooses to install filter inserts will affect the total amount of TSS, Cd, and~Zn discbarged into the receiving water.To illustrate this, we generated the OJ?.ed ~bution of filter inserts by pollutant type-:-or the minimum number of inserts needed to comply with the .. s_tated !MDL reductions for ea.ch pollutant modeled inde- pendently (Supporting Information, Figure A), Figure .2e sho,m the combined optimized placement qf filter inserts- or the miIJimum number of filter inserts necessary to meet the collective requirement of all three ·poiluta.nts. Strategic placement of only 156 filte~ i:an reduce the city's pollutant loading to meet !MDL requirements. Toe optimizatio~ process means that the dtyneeds only to maintain filters in 30% of available catch basins, a major sa.viilg In economic and energy expenditure compared to the alternative of. blanket installation of filters in catch basins as CUIIently practiced in some municipalities. 55.1 0.1 0.1 . 20 •. B O.Q 55.1 27.9 ·~2 of.498 po!jsible intervention locations 2. 1 X 103 4.2 2.1 , 8.0 X 102 o.o 2.1x103 1.2 X 103 . 148 of 498 possible intervention locations water network requires a rigorous optimization e."tercise, in .additioi;i to care,ful sel~ction of filter type for particular sections of the storm drain nerwork, depending on iand use patterns and specific pollutant loadings. We contrast the arguments for deliberative action neces- i,ary for e~ective BMP application with the ad hoc manner that many municipalities CUII_ently employB.f\!Ps because of inherent flexibility in the interpretation of federal policy on the control ofnonpqint sources of pollution. In their concern over strlngentTMDL requirements, city decision makers are Implementing BMP strategies with insufficient analysis. For_ ~ple, adj a.cent to Costa Mesa is the CityofNewportBeacb, which decided to install a. single type of filter insert in all its street inlets. Op. the. other hand, the nearby City of Irvine ls proposing to co-qi.pletelyreiyon artificial wetlands scattered throtighouttµ.e city.Reasons for such widelyva.I}oingstrategies 11+e unclear because all three cities contribute to the quality of water in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. In conclusion, we strongly advocate the need to ·cpmbine rational BMP optimization methodologies with empirical BMP effectiveness data, aswe have done here. Toe stringency ofTMDLs that are just being developed, suggescs tbat this rational method must also be combined with institutional designs based on collaborative, learning approaches that are sensitive to temporal and spatial cha.z:igl!S in urban land use patterns (e.g., see ref 35). Acknowledgments Funding was provided by NOJ\A's Sea Grant Program, UC- Irvine's Urba.ri Water Researc~ Center, and the Program in Industrial Ecology. We thankAllyson Dong, Diana Tsai, and Associated Laboratories of Orange, CA, for their assistance iI!, data. collec;i.on and analysis. This is UWRC publication no. 2. · Supporting Information Available Details of the filter inserts used, including fill cap a.city, cost, and materials; tabulated results of filter·tests; 1MDL load alloci1.1:fons; and EMCs used in optimization model. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http:// pubs;acs.org. · Quantitative data on filter effectiveness in conjun!=tlon V1oith modeled land use pollutant loadings and stonnwater flows suggest curb·inlet filters and placement,optimizatl.on ·within a city can be combined to meets~gent!MDL-I.As. The approach presented here can be extended to additional BMPs, stonnwater dynamics, and cities or watersheds to reduce the impairment of waterbodies due to stormwater pollution. Optimal placement increases cost-benefit ratios · literature Cited . by meeting requirements using tbe least posSible number _of . teso.urces. · Policy Implications. We show here thatTMDLattalnment requires a rational method for BMP. employment. As seen in the case of Costa Mesa, filter itlserts prove to be feasible BMPsformeetingTSS, Cd, and Zn standards, butinaeasingly ineft'ectfye when more pollutant TMDI.s are added to the · · list. Moreover, placement of these BMPs across the storµi- {l) California Water Resoutees Conircl Beard:· 303d. http:/1 www.waterboards.ca.ggv/tmdl/303cllists,html. (2) Gang,_O.;Qiang,2.;Zhang, Tl.NcnpointScurces. WarerE11uiro1L Res. 2005, 77 (6), 2527-2575 • , (3) c;ooter, W. s; Clean Water Act assessment processes in relation to cbanging ·U; S. Environmental Pxotect!on Agency mana.ge-'!IJ,entsa:ategies. Enuiran. Sci. Teclznol. 2004, 38(20), 5265-5273. (4) Sabati,er, P.A.; Focht, W.; Lubell, M.; Tf<!chtenberg, Z.;Vedlitz, :,\..; M~tiock, ?.L Collaborativa approaches to wacershed man- agement. In Swimming Upsrremn: Collabaradlll!Approaches lO Warershed Manageineni; Sabatier, P. A., Fccht,·W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., Matlock. M., Eds.; Mil' Pri:ss: Cambridge, MA, 2005. VOL.""-NO. xx. xxxx / ENVIIION. SCI. I Tl:CHNOI. • G I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1- 1-"- I I I I (5) Cicin-Sain, B,; K'necht, B. w. Coastal tourism and recreation: the driver of coastal de,•elopment.Indusny Dri1•en Changes and Policy Respa11ses; National Oceanic and Atmospheric .-\dmin- is!Iation: Washingtan, DC, 1999; pp 73-75. (6) California Farm Bureau Federation's Communication/News · Division. Facr: & Scats About California.Agriculrure [Brochure}: California Fum Bureau: Sacramento, 2003. (7) .",hn, J. H.; Grant, S.B;; Sur beck, C. Q.; Digiacomo, P. M..; Nezlin, K. P .; Jiang, S. Coastal water quallcyimpact of stormwaterrunoff' from an urban watershed in southern California. .Environ. Sci. TechnaL 2005, 39 (l6J, 5940-5963. (8) Dwight, R.H.; Baker, D. B.; Semenza, J. C.; Olson, B. H. Health effects associated with recreational ccasral water use: Urban versus rural California.Am./. Publu:Healrlt. 2004, 94 (4), 565- 567. "[9) Burian, S. J.: Brown, M. J.; McPherson, T. N. Evaluation of land use/land.cover datasets for urban ·watmhed modeling. Waru Sci. 'fl!Chnal. 2002, 45 (91, 269-276. - (10) Ha, H.; Stenstrom, M. K. ldem:!lication of land use with water quality data in st0rinwater using· neural networks. Water Ru. 2003, 37, 4222-4230. (lll Buffleben, M. S.: Zayeed. K.; Ximbi:oilgh, D.; Stenstrom, M. K.: Suffer, L H. Evaluation of urban nonpojnt sourc~ rurtolf of hazardous metals enteringSamaMonicaBay, California. Water Sci. Technal. 2002, 45 (9), 263-268. (12) Ice, G._ His_t9ry ofinnova,ttve best management practice devel- opment and its role in addressing water quality limited _ ,vacerbodies. J. Environ. .Eng. 2004, 130 (6), 684-689. Cl3l· Lau,.Y.; Marsalek. J.: Rochfort. Q. Use ofbiofilrer for treatment of hi:avy metals in highway tunoft W'aru Qual. Ru. J. Can. 2000, 35-[3), S63-580. (14) :µu, s.-L.; Xhan,.E.; Stenstrom. M. K. Catch basin insem to -reduce pollutioo.fromstormwarer. Water Sci. Teclmol. 2001., 44 (7), 23-34. (l5J Papiri, S.; aaponl. C.: capodagllo,A.: Callivignatel!i, C.: Bertaru:a, G.; Swartling, F.; Crow, M.: Fantozzi, M.: Valcher, P. Field monitoring and evaluation of innovative solutions for cleanb:lg storm water 1:1111oft Warer Sci. TeclznaL 2003, 47 (7-BJ, 327- 334. (161 Strecker, E. W.; Q'1fgley, M. M.; Urbonas. B. R.; Jones, J. E;; Clary, J. K. Detemlin!ng urban st0rm water BMP effectiveness. J. Water RB.sour. Plan. Manag& 2001, 127 (3J, 144-149. (17} Struble. G.; Hramadka. T.; McCarty, J. Usage of ston:o. water bestmanagemencpraclic;esinsouthem Callfomia. Water Resour. Manage. 1997, ll, 467-48L . (lBJ Moig8ll, R.; Edwards, F.; Br:ye.-IC.; Burian, S. An evaluation of tbeurbanstoamvacerpollutantremoval efliciency of catch basin inserts. Water Environ. .Ru. 2005, 77 (SJ, 500--51D. . (191 Califomia State Water Reso~es Contri:if Board: Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Baud Water Quality ·eontrol 'Plan Attachment to resolution no. 99-1~. http:/ 1-w:w-,'.ocwa- tershecls.com/wacersheds/pd!s/Fecal_Coliform_TMDLpdf. (201 U.S. Emironmenr:al Protection Agency Region 9: Total Maxi- mum 'Daily Loads for Toxic PollutantS San Diego Creek arid -. Newpon Bal'• Califomia: Pare D: Selenium. http:/ /v,.•ww. epa.gov/region09/water/-trndl/nbay/tsdd0602.pdf. (21) U.S, E1wironmental Protection Agency Region 9: Total Ma.-..i- mum Daily Loads far Toxic Pollutants San Diego Creek and Newport Bay, California.http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/ ttndl/nbay/summary0602.pdf. (22} County oC-Orange Resources and Development Management Deparonenc UpperNewportBay/SanDiego CreekWatershed Sediment TMDL. http:/ /www.ocwatetsheds.com/watersheds/ pdfs/secliri:i~nLtmdl/NP_spc_sediment:..TMDt,_2004-2005_Re- port.pdf. . (23) California Water Resource Control Board: Attachment. Basin Plan Total Maximtl!I1 Daily Load for sediment in the Newpott Bay/San Diego Greek Watershed. http://www.Wl!terboard· s.ca.gov/sanra;ina/pdf/TMDL02.pdf. (241 Yao, IC.-M.; Habibian, T.; O'lvlelia, C.R. Wall?r and waste water ftltrarionr. co11c~prs a11d applican·ans. Em1iro1L ScL Technol. 1971, S, 1105-1112. · !25J Packtn~, J, J.; Comings, K. J.; Booth, D. B. Using turbidity to determine total suspended solids in urbanizing screams in rhe ·Pugetlowlands. In Confronting Uncertainty: MqnagingChange in Water Remurces and rhe E11uln:mment; Canadian. Water ResourcesAssociation.Annual Meeting: Vancouver, BC, October 1999. (26) County of Orange-Resources and Development Management Department: Newport Bay Fecal Colifonn TMDL Annual Data Report. http:/ /WW\\•.ocwatersheds.com/\vatetsheds/pdfs/ TMDL_F~calColifo;mZOOSAnnua!DataReport.pdf. (27) U.S. EnviroMl.ental Protection Agency version.3.1 [computer software]; Eto\SINS: Better Assessment Science IntegntingPoint & Nonpoint Sources; 2004. (2Bl .'\re View version·3.3 [computer software]; ESRL: Redlands, C.b,, . 2003. (29] Arc:GISversion 9.l [computer software]; ESRI.; Redlands. CA, 2005. (30J U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency PLOAD, version 3.0: A11 An:View GIS Toal ra Calculare Nonpoinr Source. of Pallutian in WaterslJed and Scormwarer Projects [B1ochureJ: USEPA: Wash- . ington, DC, 2001, {31) Westem Regional c;:limate Center: Newport Beach Harbor Climate Summary. \\'\W-1"-:wrcc.drl.edu/. (32) Gea<;:ommwiity: USGS Digital.Elevation Models CDEMJ. http:// ,dara.geocomm.com/dem/. (33)_ HEC-GeaHMS, version 1,1 [c!Jmputer software]: http://www. hec.usace.mny.mil/software/hec-geohms/indl!le.html. (341 LP _Salue version ;i.1.1.3 !computer software); http://lpsolve- .sourceiorge.net/ 5.1 /. . (35) Innes, J. E.; Booher, D. :e. Consensus building and complex 11.daptive systems: a framework £or evaluating collaboi:ative planning. Am. Planning. A;sac. J. 1999, GS, 412-423. Received for review March 6, 2006. Revised manuscript re· ceived May l 5, 2006. Accepted May 19, 2006. ES060520F H • ENVIRON. SCL ~ TECHN(;>L. / VOL. icx, NO. icx, xxxx PAGE EST: 7.7 I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I ·1 I FOG A1 A2. 8 .c D1 · ·· D2 E F G1 Avg Avg. Removal 97.44% 99.92%" 89.71% 81.85% 98.73% 95;84% 83.54% 97.75% 98:31% 93.68% c ~ 0.8 .:! ii o ~ 0.6 II. i:: c ;; 0.4 fl a: . u 0.2 11, 0 SD 8.09% 26.28% 0.64% 1.02% 22.14% 1.65% 2.42% 10.82% FOG Removal Efficiency A1 B C D1 02 E F G1 Filter Manufacturer · j IE Filter 1'emoval I I I 1 · = .... I I I I ·1. I I I I I I I I I I I Optimization of Stormwater Filtration at the Urban/Watershed Interface Hipp, J. A.; Ogunseitan, 0. A.; Lejano, R.; Smith, C. S. . . . This Supporting Information Section includes this cover sheet, five tables (A-E) and one Figure with three panels. Tables A and B detail the filter inserts tes~ed. Table C provides the filter removal efficiencies in table form.at along with needed removal rates. Table D presents TivIDL load allocations and monitored data for San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. Event Mean Concentration levels used for the optimization model are included in Table E. Figure A shows the results ·of optimization modeling of the location of filters for: meeting TMDL limits for TSS (panel a), Cd (panel. b ), and.ZJJ. (panel ·c ). · · S1 I I I I Table A. Commercial information on catch basin insert filters . . I I Fill Max. Flow Filter Typ Capacity Rate Operation and Cost Company e Insert Material (cm3) (LPM) Maintenance ($) I A1 Box OARS NA1 4,164 NA NA Smartsponge A2 Box ·NA1 NA NA NA NA I [ ! I /- I -r, •0e,1ev1J'' {,l~- s~ I B Box Oil absorbing 226,535 25,381 5 year warranty on 5951 polymer2 product; routine maintenance and vacuuming ) C Soc Hydrophobic 2,950 1-,S93 Clean, replace every 55 k absorbent' 3-6 mos. D13,4 Box Perlite and 17,747 NA Replace every 6-12 NA HEG-1505 mos. 02M Box Perlite and 17,747 NA Replace every 6-12 NA Highly mos. Reactive I Carbon Mixtur'e5 I E Box Xsorb 37,7076 1,908-3 cleanings per yr. 248- 2,362 ($65-80/cleaning) 276 F3 Box Zeolite "Built to 1,893 Replace materials $21.6 I suit" annually and body 7/kg every 1 0yrs. of mater! al I G (1 & 2)4 Soc Polypropylene 22,614 _ 1,893-Clean, replace every 55-84 k geotextile 2,915 3-6 mos. I 1 Manufacturer declined or was unable to provide _ihis ii:iformation. 2 Includes patented materials. 3 No! commercially available at testing timE). 4 Filters may differ depending on pollutant testing for. " Manufacturer D provided two similar filters with uniqt,1e absorbent material. The proportions of the . . material used varied per pollutant. 8 Fill capacity can expand to 297,327 cm3 with optional equipment. I I S2 I I I I I Table B. Measured descriptors of catch basin insert filters.· I -%of Initial Media in Hydrauli_c Effluent Influent Total Fill Media Effluent Contact Loading Color and I Filter Opening Capacity Volume Opening wt Saturation Rate Sediment- Company (cm2) {cm3} (cm3) (cm2) .Influent Level (L)2 (m3/s/m2) ation A1 1,048 55,921 1 16,928. 1,048 85 1.1 -2.0 4.8e-5 Clear I A2 1,048 55,9211 16,928 1,048 85 2.0 4.8e-5 Slightly clouc and frothy I 8 ~.716 226,535 Poly 3,716 Poly 1.1-1.2 1.3e-5 Black effluer sock-sock-due to 2,894 25 charcoal Charcoa Charcoal leaching 1-I bag3 -bag3 - 541 100 I C 11,148 Sock-Apron-3064 Apron-1.1 4.5e-6 Slightly froth: 2,9$0 11,148 20 but clear cm2 Sock- I Sock..;. 100 1,990 cm2 I D1 1,703 75,5121 23,597 4s 100 4.5-9.0 2.9e-5 Clear D2 1,70~ 75,51z1 23,597 4s 100 3.0 -6.0 2.9e-5-Slightly gray E 2,768 63,270 7,571 2,265 25 1.1 1.8e-5 Mostly clear, I few media dust particlei F 1,950 42,4821 42,482 1950 85 2.0 -4:0 2.6e-5 Brown to I black discoloration and sedimentatic I G1 8,361 Sock-Apron -1704 Apron-1.1 -1.5 6.0e-6 Clear 8,361 20 7,217 cm2 I Sack-.. Sock-100 1,793 I cm2 Filler- I· S3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I G~ 847 cn,2 13,419 Sock-Apron-1704 Apron-1.1 3.7e-6 Clear 7,140 13,419 20 cm2 Sock-- Sock-100 · 1,S41 cm2 1 Total Fill Capacity for A, D~ & F filters includ_es media area. Other filters are either sock filters or their media are essential flat sheets. 2 Amount of non-contaminated influent water poured through gutter and insert filter to receive a minimum of 1 L of effluent. Range due to· multiple tests and varying thickness of ·· insert media. 3 Multiple charcoal bags can be used. 4 Effluent opening of the two sock filters includes only the exit holes in the cloth and does r,ot include water leaching through the actual material. 5 Consists of three 1.3cm diameter circles. S4 I I 1·· : .. I T~ble_C. Filter effectiveness-(%) for each pollutant and necessary removal proportions (Highest monitored data/TMDL). Mean pollutant removal effectiveness(%) is I represented by top number and the standard deviation is in_ parenthesis. Bold, italicized numbers meet essential pollutant removal effectiveness. "'- I Pollutant Filter I Company Cd Cu Pb· Se Zn Coliform TSS A1. 18.2 17.9 63.9 8.9 ·8.4 25.0 82.1 I · (25.7) (25.3) (5.6) (12.6) (6.4) (28.5) (7.2) K2. 92.8 _(2.7) 17.5 100.0 85.2 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 80.1 (24.8) (O."O) (6.5) (0.0). (15.8) I B 94.7 (7.4) 7.1 98.8 8.9 11.0 32.8 53.0 {10 .. 1) (1.7) (4.8) (8.1) {24.0) (26.9) I. C 8.5 (0.9) 22.5 26.4 1.8 0.1 23.8 93.9 (3.5) (0.3) (2.5) (0.2) (18.5) (2.5) D1 84.9 (8.5) 24.3 100.0 59.3 71.7 22.4 -62._0 I (29.3) (0.0) (33.7) (2.1) (29.5) (21. 7) D2 77.2 (6.3) 26.4 100.0 · 33.9 74.8 39.3 63.4 I (23.2) (0.0) (1.8) (1.6) (33.2) (26.5) E 22:5 0.0 94.6 15.3 19.8 20.3 94.9 (13.2) (0.0) (2.6) (21.7) (9.6) (.16.9) (2.6) I F 94.7 (7.4) 0.0 21.4 43.2 47.5 46.6 0.0 (0.0) (50.0) (0.5) (18.6) (32.4) (0.0) I G1 . 47.6 54.3 81.6 9.2 · 42.3 78.7 (22.7) (1.0) (26.1) . (13.0) (15.0) (15.9) G2 10.7 74.5 I (8.5) (33.2) Mean 60.1 18.9 76.3 29~5 30.6 24.5 68.3 Removal (36.0) (16.6)-(:32.0) (28.4) (29.4) (14.1) (27.5) I Needed 50.6 87.9 69.0 59.7 98.3 50.0 .removal I I S5 I I I 1-:. 1· I I I -1 I I I I I I I I I I I Table D. TMDL Load Allocation and monitored data for San Diego Creek and Newport Bay. Base Flow Acute Pollutant · TMDL Se (µg/L) 20.0 Cd (µg/L) 19.1 ·_Cu (µg/L) 50.0 Pb (µg/L) 281.0 Zn (µg/L) 379.0 Fecal Colifonn (CFU/ml) Large Flow Acute TMDL 20.0 8.9 25.5 · 134.0 208.0 .Dissolved Saltwater Acute TMDL 71.0 42.0 4.8 210.0 90.0 4 Geometric Monitored Monitored mean (5 Data-Data- sample avg. over San Diego Newport 30 days) Creek Bay 64.6 18.0 2.0 210.0 24.0 46.0 4.0 470.0 59.0 2 25 (Geomean) 230 (Acute) The TSS TMDL requires a reduction of 50% in the annual average sediment load within the watershed (50% into San Diego Creek and 50% into Newport Bay). Monitored data from the following sites: www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/tmdls.asp. http:/lw.vw.ocwatersheds.com/StormWater/documents damo section11.aso, http://www.epa.gov/reqion09/water/tmdVfinal.htm~ and htto://www.ocbeachinfo_cam/dowriloads/data/index.htm S6 I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I . Table E. Event Mean Concentrations '(EMC) used for estimating storrnwater pollutant loadings. Madera te Density Retail/ Resid-Multi-Family Mixed Trans-Comm- Pollutant Vacant ential Resid~ntial Residential Industrial portation ercial Cd (µg/L) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 Zn (µg/L) 120 150 150 120 360 276 197 T$S .. 192 40 40 62 1.57 64 70 (mg/L) Percent 10 55 74 59 91 91 90 Impervious Event mean concentration and percent impervious valUeSi adapted from LADPW. 1999. Los Angeles County Stormwater Monitoring -Report: 1998-1999. Los. Angeles: Los Angeles Department of Public Works; and Schiff, Kenneth. 1996. Review of Existing ~tormwater Monitoring Programs for Estimating Bight-wide Mass Emissions from Urban Runoff: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. S7 I I I I ·1· I I I I I I' -1 I I I ·1 I ·I: VI A B 'Mtli Filter !nsart.(N=13.7) 1/vlthout Filter Insert (N=361) * Ouifalls /',./ Starm Drain Network c::::::J ~ily or Costa Mesa Baundary 'Mlh Fllter Insert (N=92) V'llthout Filler Insert (N=406} OUttalls /'v" Storm Drain Network c:;:::J City of Casla Mesa Boundary S8 I I I _.·: .. I I I ·I I 1.- I I I I I I I I C· • · \Mlh Filter Insert (N=148) D Vliithciut Filter Insert (N=350) * Outfalls /'V Storm Drain Networlc c:::J City of Costa Mesa Boundary : ' Figure A:-Panel a: Optimized Placement of Filter Inserts by Curb Inlet, TSS TMDL Compliance. Panel b: Optimized .Pl.acement of Filter Inserts by Curb Inlet, Cd TMDL Compliance. Panel c: Optimized Placement of Filter ln_serts by Curb Inlet, Zn TMDL Compliance. S9 I I I I 1· I I I. I I I 1. I I I I 1: I I VI I ·1 I I I I I ·I ·1 I I I I I I . 1 I ·I I· Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan CHAPTER. 6 -SOURCE CONTROL 6.1 ..., Landscaping Manufactured slopes shall be landscaped with suitable ground cover or installed with an erosion control system. Homeowners will be educated as to the proper routine maintenance to landscaped areas including· trimming, pruning, weeding, mowing, replacement or substitution of vegetation in ornamental and required lan·dscapes. Per the RWQCB Order, the following landscaping. activities are deemed unlawful and are thus prohibited: · Discharges of sediment Discharges of pet waste Discharges of vegetative clippings - Discharges of other landscaping or com~truction-related wastes. During landscaping operations both during and after construction, landscape maintenance should be completed proactively. When these operations are in progress, bare or disturbed areas should be re-seeded/re-vegetated as quickly as possible to ensure that erosion is minimized. In addition, when landscape maintenance operations require the stockpiling of materials for longer than a period ofone day, these stockpiles should be coveted to minimize the opportunity for rainfall to come in contact with tt19 material. 6.2 -Urban Housekeeping Fertilizer applied by homeowners, in addition to organic matter such as leaves and lawn clippings, all result in nutrients in storm water runoff. Consumer use of excessive herbicide or pesticide contributes toxic chemicals to runoff. Homeowners will be educated as to the proper application of fertilizers and herbicides to lawns and gardens. The average household contains a wide variety of toxins such as oil/grease, antifreeze, paint, household cleaners and solvents. Homeowners will be educated as to the proper use, storage, and dispos~I of these potentiaf storm water runoff contaminants . Per the RWQCB Order, the. following housekeeping activities are deemed unlawful and are thus prohibited: Discharges of wash water from the cleaning or hosing of impervious surfaces including .parking lots, streets, sidewalks, driveways, patios, plazas, and outdoor eating and drinking areas (landscape irrigation and lawn watering, as well as non-commercial washing of vehicles in residential zones, is exempt from this restriction) DE:djg h:\reports\2580101\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42 AM I I 1·. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan Discharges .of pool odountairi water containing chloride, biocides, or other chemicals · Discharges or runoff from material storage areas containing chemicals, fuels, grease, oil, or other hazardous materi~ls · Discharges of food-related wastes (grease, food processing, trash bin wash water, etc.). 6.3 "'.'" Automobile Use Urban pollutants resulting from automobile use include oil, grease, antifreeze, hydraulic fluids, copper from brakes, and various fuels. Homeowners will be educated as to the proper u_se, storage, and disposal' of these potential storm·water contaminants. Per the RWQCB Order, the following automobile use activities are deemed unlawful and are thus prohibited: Discharges of wash water from the hosing or cleaning of gas stations, auto repair garages, or other types of automotive service facilities. Discharges resulting from the cleaning, repair, or maintenance of any type of equipment, machinery, or facility including motor vehicles, cement-:- related equipment, port-a-potty servicing, etc. Discharges of wash water from mobile operations st1ch as mobile automobile washing, steam cleaning, power washing, and carpet cleaning. The Homeowners Association will make all homeowners aware of the aforementioned RWOCB regulations through a homeowners' education program (note: examples are .provided at the end of this chapter). Homeowners should be notified via HOA newsletter prior to the rainy season (Oct. 1st) of storm water requirements. · 6.4 -Integrated Pest Management {1PM) Principles Integrated pest management (1PM) is an ecosystem-based pollution prevention strategy that focuses on long ... term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitation manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and ·Use of resistant plant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established · guidelines. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and non-target organisms, and the environment. More information may be obtained at the UC Davis website (http://www.ipn.ucdavis.edu/WATER/U/index.html). DE:djg h:\reports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM I I 1· I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan IPM.is achieved via the following: Common Areas: -Eliminate and/or reduce the need for pesticide use in the project design by: (1 )· Plant pest resistant or well-adapted plant varieties such as native plants. (2) Discouraging pests by modifying the site and landscape design. Home Owners: Educate homeowners on applicable pest resistant plants and native species and also encouraging onsite landscaping design. Pollution prevention is the primary "first line of defense" because pollutants that are never used do not have to be controlled or ~reated (methods which are inherently less efficient). -Distribute 1PM educational materials to future site residents/tenants. Minimally, educational materials must address the following topics: (1) Keeping pests out of buildings and landscaping using barriers, screens and caulking. (2) Physical pest elimination techniques, such as, weeding, squashing, trapping, washing, or pruning out pests. (3} Relying on natural enemies to eat pests.· (4) Proper use of pesticides as a last line of defense. 6.5 --Storm Wate·r Conveyance Systems Stenciling and Signage The proposed development will incorpo_rate concrete stamping, or equivalent, of all storm water conveyance system inlets and catch basins within the project area with prohibitive language (e.g., "No Dumping -I Live in <<name receiving water>>"), satisfactory to the City Engineer. Stamping may also be required in Spanish. 6.6 -Efficient Irrigation· Practices All Home Owners' Association (HOA) maintained landscaped areas will include rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation during ahd after precipitation. Flow reducers and shutoff valves triggered by pressure drop wi.11 be used to control water loss from broken sprinkler' heads or lines. · 6.7 -Pet Ownership Responsibility All open space areas will feature signage and pet waste collection bags to insure · that pet waste is collected, preventing any sources of potential bacterial pollutants. DE:djg h:lreports\2580101\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM ·---- Jlr\t,;. ::'ff :;i<Y' .. ,,., ;,:: , . . · ;J.\-;7-,.-1-::d·;fflJ'.@lFeonnected to sanitary sewer ,:;/:,\:~·;,:-t;~-::1;\t~:1~t}i7>'" . ' . ;::)i:{.i_~"f1;,,:.~t'.§~~'fems and treatment plants? The :~, _'}";t : V < 'j_,: -,'l-'?;-4} -,' ,., .. Ii,~ • O 't2ili;,iif:}6t,m~ry purpose of storm drains is to ~~,_/t~r-),;..,',,;. '.~-t}__;:1\' ,,, .., _; , ·L~,?,,~;ft1(~riey::rainwater away from developed ·, ~;7-~:-:r··,,v..·,:-;--t, ~:--1!', . \f!:\'f:;«~}ij~~~~·:to prevent flooding. Untreated _;«•,. > ;. ,(» .,, •. -'·-~'..,1•. ,,:;;1.>, !} ;()}Jril~~i(~.trn water and the pollutants it tlti~:{~~;:t,~~ti~s flow directly into creeks, f 11.fi:f{~r1~l~Qns.and the ocea·n. •'''' )bent years, sources of water J;tj,on like industrial waters tom ~des have been greatly reduced. ·:-..t:r~ . :,:ever, now the· majority of water '! ., ~ion occurs from things like cars !'• • • 6g oil, fertilizers from farms and ::~·s, failing septic tanks, pet waste . . ;~sidential car washing into the B··:drains and into the ocean and I rways. ' ,I:-, ~~u . ~H~se sources add up to a pollution )~jem! But each of us can do our /'1; 11fo help clean up our water and ::-~dds up to a pollution solution! fl;, 'I> -- --~ -... - 411ii:1):/~. Car washingfp~ofajt.µ,ie:~ . courtesy of f::f~Waferr~··:'? .... .,·::-·· ... , . .,.,.,-."·'· A,"• .. •.• Quality Con '0"1'.li:lrit:''·.:a,0·~1-,1-.. : ·•. •."' ... ,. , , ~--' " . , cooperative :~ntYftf" _ .>:_ \·{ •. -., between the w~sh1_ii~~,ii :·,. : ·, State Departr:ent:of. <'. , .. ' Ecology, King.QQuritf.:a,rfd;:'" . ~ , .. the cities of ~:ij:Oe~u:~;-. . .• _-, ·. · :; \:, :"··· ;, - ---·- '< -~-:~ •• :,·::: -_,.~?-i:~~{~t;~<.~·-; ~f}):J/J!hl~[~'.s no problem with washi.ng your ~1',\)tf };ji![k$. just how and where you do it. r/'.,D'.'}:t~ftt:-. · · · /JJ ;2/;_::Mg~f~~ap contains phosphates and r},:/'.!to.l~~i:ihemicals that harm fish and ~;:~_?':"~f'.C.i:2'>f;Ji~i/t; · , · l·:~~f{~?~;,,:~\~Y.~uality. The ~oap, together with ' -• y •• ·tiit ~,a··~ t I d ·1 h d f ;,}:;~,~"·',f.-~i:iei. Ji:,f;,me a an 01 was e rom }~'J?ff',i.;,;~1::.,;/1~?;-x{'i,~~ A • f·;:?,:>r,,iJ(t;>]Jf..;car; flows into nearby storm f'{'.i: ~t:1i~fit:.1~;xtA'D _: :·' ')\:'.J~s1~\;.t~t~Ul$,:'.;,VJhich run dire.ctly into lakes, -f'.:'.~:,~f:~\<~~;;;:7§JJJr-1f:~/~t 1 • , , .:<t:;;;:1·;tt.ft¥,.err~:,9r. manna waters. ~/1)~'.,tlt}~('-. '",,.,,,,,.r-.-;,,,..;EHA.¾hhp~phates from the soap can )*-cess algae to grow. Algae ':!'".''l· ~d·, smell bad, and harm water 1/As algae decay, the process 'f•::A• i oxygen in the water that fish 0 u::o 0 ;ii?\ 0 ~o 0 o,~ ,::• 0 0 -------· -·-· . . , ~.:}IIt:~:j:~~ How can YOU help keep the environment clean? :;{ttJ1?1'·· · 1::?·;;'.)~~Ving a clean environment ~ ·;: \\j~'.r,~f:rjr:imary importqnce for '\," ( :; ,"'; ~,7 -.:-:· . :-, · -.. }QU~Mealth and economy. . _ :.'. 1:/:).:9i~~h)vaterways provide · ' > :' '_.,,' ,1/ '/, ' • t~ ;, :;, ~./:;c~rnmercial opportunities I .. ;_t,·-;.: ::~,_-·~\~·:t·:,;:¥'/:·~-, ~y:-t~·,.:;::te.cf,eation fish habitat and :;, f"~~:--'t~ :,?;., :'-:': :r·•;-:··: :-~ J )i,;·~1-:9:J!g~fb~auty to our · }~/?i£~!~~1ic.~pe. YOU can help ~,:~-,f:j_':~&J!~~Pi9UJ ocean, creeks ~nd \ ·,:·(,,} \t;>«¥ ;;i~;s~y)(.\-~,i--~:-. · :\;-,: .. (:,:::¾l'ag'00@s· clean by applying ~.rjJ£{~·: / :· -~:Z-~;;;:t.~~~ ::. · -. . ;.(,..-;.;.:, .. \otf:re·ifollowmg tips· '.:{i;{}:)~;t~l~ti;:'. . ·::soap sparingly. :i,> ••. :(-. • $Eta hose nozzle with a trigger to ~~:·water. · r~~ri your bucket of soapy water :J~::·ihe sink when you're done, not f,:·,, H'etstreet. 1·-r:-~ . y~·id. using engine and ~heel •'!·' ,)iners or degreasers. ;~;}<: . 't~ke your car to a commercial car · · fl~.h, especially if you plan to clean 11( . . -'~~{Jl,,~ "',' ,,,, the engine or the bottom of your car. Most car washes reuse Wash water several times· before sending. it to the sewer system for treatment • Hire only mobile detail operators that will .captur_e wash water and chemicals. It is unlawful-for . commercial vehicle washing . operators to allow wash water to· enter the storm drain system. __ :_ --:·--- What you should know before using Concrete and Mortar ... In the City of Carlsbad, storm drains flow dir,ectly into local creeks, lagoons and the . ocean without treatment. Storm water pollution is a serious problem for our natural -environment and for people who live nf3ar streams or·wetlands. Storm . W<!1ter pollution c:omes from a variety of sources including oil; fuel, and fluids, from vehicles and heavy equipments, pesticide runoff.from landscaping, and from materials su<;:b as concrete and morta·r.from construction activities. The City of, Carlsbad is committed to . · imp~ov'ing water quality and reducing the amount of pollutants ~hat enter our · precio.us waterways. -----· - ·A_ Clean Environment is _Important to All of u:s1 . :<'\~the St. ~~' 01: ~ :~ ~ 6~ 0 ~- CJ) ;::l ..... ·-9. E ~ ~ % l' 'fer ~ Protec\\O~ City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Storm Water HOTiine: 760-602-2799 stormwater@ci.carlsbad.ca.us March 2003 ---· --------· ------------· - Pollution Prevention .is.up to VO:U! Did you know that storm drains are NOT connep:ed to sanitary sewer: systems or treatment plants? The primary purpose of storm drains is to carry rainwater away from developed areas to prevent flooding. Untreated pollutants such as concrete and mortar flow directly into .creeks,.lagoons and the ocean and are toxic to fish, Wildlife, and the aquatic environment. Disposing of these materials into storm drains causes serious ecological . probl~ms-and is PROHiBlTED by ·law. Do the Job Right! · This brochure was designed for do-it- yourself remodelers, homeowners, masons and bricklayers, contractors, and anyone else who uses concrete or mortar to complete a construction project. Keep storm water protection in mind whenever you or people you hire work on your house or property. • nly Rain in the Storm Drainl .Best Management Practices Best Management Practices or BMPs are procedures and practices that help to prevent pollutants such as chemicals, concrete, mortar, pesticides, waste, paint, and other hazardous materials from entering our storm drains. All these sources add up to a pollution problem. But each·of us can do our part_ to keep ·storm water clean. These efforts add up to a pollution solution! What YO-U Can Do: • Set up and operate small mixers on tarps or heavy plastic drop cloths. • Don't mix up more fresh concrete or mortar than you will need for a project. • Protect applications of fresh concrete and mortar from rainfall and runoff until the material has dried. • Always store both dry and wet materials under cover, protected from rainfall and runoff and away from storm drains or waterways. • Protect dry materials from wind. Secure bags of concrete mix and mortar after they are open. Don't allow dry products to blow into driveways, sidewalks, · streets, gutters, or storm drains. • Keep all construction debris away from the street, gutter and storm drains. • Never dispose of washout into the street, storm drains, -landscape drains, drainage ditches, or stream~. Empty mixing containers anc;J wash out chutes onto dirt areas.that d6 not flow to streets, drains or waterways, or_ allow material to dry_ and dispose of properly .. • Never wash excess material from bricklaying, patio, driveway or sidewalk . · construction into a-street or storm drain.· Sweep up and dispose of small amounts of excess _dry concrete, grout, _and mortar in the trash. • _ Wash concrete or brick ar~as only when the wash water can flow onto a· dirt area without further runoff or drain ont'o a 0 s~rface which has been bermed, so that the water and sol ids can be pumped off or vacuumed up for proper .. disposal. · · • Do not place fill material, soil or compo_st piles on the sidewalk or street. • If you or y~_ur contractor keep a dumpster at your site, be sure it is securely covered with a lid or tarp when not in use. • During cleanup, check the street and gutters for sediment, refuse,· or debris. Look around the corner or down the ·· '· · street-and clean ·up any materials _that may have already traveled away from your property. -·---:------ ~fJ/~:-:j,_ . 'knc;,w that storm drains are f:~ l mected·to sanitary sewer ,·J·, ~:;~.rid treatment plants? (~tlf::·: n·acy .. purpose of storm drains l-" ~' ' • /ry;:rainwater away from '.i~-~~reas to prevent flooding. ~9 storm wate~ and the \f¥)j car.ries, flow directly into '.!~goons and the ocean. ··~~> Jy~ars, sources of water ''l' ~)iRe industrial waters from ,h~ve been greatly reduced. j16w, the majority of water ~ccurs from things like cars i•; !ttertilizers from farms and jling septic tanks, pet :residential car washing into .rains and into the ocean , , ources add up to a pollution '[;But each of us can do small :\t '. /help clean up our water and '•.'up to a pollution solution! What's the problem with fertilizers and pesticides? . Fertilizer isn't a problem-IF it's used · carefully. If you use too much fertilizer or apply it at the wrong ·time, · it can easily wash off your lawn or · garden inb storm drains and then flow untreated into lakes or streams. Just like in yourgarden, fertilizer in· lagoons and streams makes plants grow. In water bodies, extra ilrtili.zer can mean extra algae and aquatic plant growth. Too much algae harms waterquality and makes boating, fishing and swimming unpleasant.. As algae decay1 they use up oxygen in · the water that fish antj other wildlife need. ---· -_,,_ - -Fertilizer photo is used courtesy of the Water Quality Consortium, a cooperative venture between the Washington State Department of Ecology, King County and the cities of Bellevue, Seattle and Tacoma. ·"' \(I tne St, <>:-1$-" q,."' ~ ,r·~ 0 ~-(./) ?.. 'g._ E ~ G ~ ,? ~to ~~ rprotec\\0 Storm Water HOTiine: 760-602"'2799 stormwater~ci.carlsbad.ca.us l i · City of earls bad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 www.ci.carlsbad.c'a.us l ~Printed on recycled paper --- -------------.. ---------- ~~}i~j{.Jf. '.){an·· environment i~ of ~portance for our health and /'.[Clean waterways p_rovide :~t-,;~~ • . . J!;c;,pportunities, recreation, if.and add beauty to-our /r-,.:..1,~-; . . ··'eT:)'OU can help keep our ~6hs and ocean clean by ,::. /e:following tips: . :--1:~;{(· ', · low or rake leaves and other O:.;' \te into the street or gutter. '.~. soaker hoses or micro- ~stem and water early in the ve a spray head sprinkler i( c;:onsider adjusting your ,t ' j'9 method to a cycle and session into 5 minute intervals allowing water to soak in before the next application. -,:, ~ , ~ , \;., ;f.; y,, .,,..;:~/ \.. ·~- /' ,;,,,~. f ""'(> • Keep irrigation systems well- . maintained. and' water only when needed to save money and· prevent over-watering; • . Use fertilizers and pesticides sparingly. • Have your soil tested to determine the nutrients needed to maintain a healthy lawn. · • Consider using organic fertilizers- they release nutrients more slowly. • Leave mulched grass clippings on the lawn to act as a natural fertilizer. • Use pesticides ~nly when. absolutely necessary. Use the least toxic product intended to target a specific p~st, such as insecticidal soaps, boric acid, etc. Always read -the label and use only as -directed. : • Use predatory insects to control harmful pests when possible. • Properly dispose of unwanted .pesticides and fertilizers at Household Hazardous Waste collection facilities. For more information on landscape irrigation, please call 760-438-2722. Master Gardeners San Diego County has a Master Gardener program . through the University of California Cooperative Extension. Master Ga~deners can provide good i~fdt~tHt{l?~J . about dealin~ with specific pes\sp~rip:J//:}j plants. You may call the Mast~/'..::_:>;, /:tif1 ' ' • '', •' ' ,,_i~,,. ~ ·,:\,n} . Gardener Hotline at · 85_8-694.;2~_?9 .. ot-t\}~ ·_ check out their website at -• : ·. ; · /b8s~-fi;·~ www.mastergardenerssandie~~:·o,rH:·:·;::~~1;;,~J;~ · The hotline is staffed Monday, iM:~~iilf~1; 9 am--:'3 pm, by experienced;g~~9~1e(ft/lj.· who are available to answer sp~titlc\f'f,i;ft quJstions.-lntormatio~ from Ma~tir{:::{~)i{t Gamenera is free~ the pu~ic lt~i~tiaj ·----·- ~~J+{f,-~, 'fi)>)cf:you know that storm drains are ~i,}4pf connected to sanitary s.ewer ~:sy~tems a·nd treatment piant~? · The ,;df ~~ir:nary .purpose ·of storm drains is to· r.11 \ '<,:, ·' ~Jt:·c;arry rainwater away from developed .:(<j/~'?r~:~?~rar~~s to prevent flooding. Untreated f ;r:;-;.L·,1,!,+,,~ '. . (~flt;{~:;~£/ storm water and the pollutants it 1 · 1""'":if( Gc;mies, flow directly into creeks, i\I:\r lagoons and the ocean. ,,..,, ~l, ,l • ~)1~;1/:r..,: {!1f. In: rec~nt years, sources of water ·;;'.,)>pollution like industrial waters from .:\~factories have been greatly reduced. }.~ewever now, the inajori~ of water .-,.,_ .· ·):t>"ollution occurs from t_hings like cars ,::_le~king oil; fertilizers from farms, lawns ;'l~nd gardens, failing septic tanks, pet \w~ste and-residential car washing into :-the storm drains and into the ocean ., Ji. and waterways. :\)\~; -,:~' < .' ' it;:t.:_·An these sources add up to a pollution .. ~t)/.'problem! But each of us can do small ~Jtr .. thing·s to help clean up our water and ft}}:i~<-).:>.that adds up to a pollution solution! l1Ef ~r~:,\": --11111111 -'.--., Motor oil photo is used courtesy of the Water Quality Consorti~ .. mi, a cooperative venture between the Washington State Department of Ecology, King County and ' the :cities of Bellevue, . Seattle and Tacoma. i\ . l:->,?t, . tf/:i .~.1;·· • . 'f;~PJY Rain in the Storm Drain! ~..:V.:.':.../ ... City of Carlsbad Storm Water Protection Program City of Carlsbad 163 5 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Storm Water HOTiine·: 760-602-2799 •~ . ~: f, .. _..d&,.'' ,-"", RF.CYCLE USF.D OIL Funded by a ·grant from the California Integrated Waste Management Board !\ . l,_ ~ Printed on recycled paper - . j,/{rtr~w:~~•n;~f~j~tT'tf :~j['.;:· ---- ~:i?i('.'.·l;(·' Oil does ~ot di~sol\ie in 'water. It '.:\Q.":·!,;y·~ ;.;;•< ; : . :i,rt)t-:: lasts a long time and sticks to ·.:'S1~·t:·,},;.'. · · ,·,;,;./:,'..:'. · everything from beach sand to bird :~Tt\:~· f~athers. Oil and other' petroleum ~~7}~f4i"::iproducts are toxic to people, wildlife ~h;":}f .·:·; · d I t :l·,,~·,:::;-4; an pans. \, ,,,,,,.. '!f;,ktl1 m:s-one pint of oil can .make a slick \-;.,,_.L..~ '.,.. ·,:' . . , ... fj'!j::' '-!~rger than a football .field. Oil that 1" ~~BIM' · r, ::f)~f;t~~ ieaks from our cars onto roads and ~i~)i1li~;d~iveways is washed into storm ~~~f/dr~ins, and then usually flows Fctk~cuy to ~ creek or 1agoon and tp)\aliy to th~ ocean. ~·t~~::~~. ·:, ( ,;' ' I I I -~:?!ff, µsed motor all 1s the largest single ~p!;1~ .. ~~,, ,~!t(~io.ur~e of oil pollution in our ocean, -~f:~;~··,'.1-:., ~Y: ~ ¢r,eeks and lagoons. Americans spill ,f11;~· i, ' ;~t:)J'80 million gallons of used oil each ,, .. , ,~,>. ', ,. ' - t{}::year into our waters. .J .... :fi'.1,'1: • I I .. :1,':'1",Th1s 1s 16 times the _:·1-vi ·, ~{h'::{amount spilled by the -'), •,,. ! 1r:.;;.:::::::-:.-:,:,,i,,'."),:'·. --... ---------- How can YOU help keep our environment clean? ~>r ·::·, :, · Having a clean environment 111';:. ' ' . ii'. : .. · .. ~-,is of primary importance for fit/.:·::.;__: ,our health. and economy. f{~·.·::' ,-:.Clean waterways provide ~1·-<'" ' ,. , !})~ · ,]-.'· · : commercial opportunities, ;;f)::).r::\/recreation, fish habitat and if[.:<.,"·, .. :,: ' ttr:::: ;: .. _ :J~dd. .beauty to our f.ii,H<,.;,.·· ,: , ~;~{{:.J,/,landscape. YOU ·can help Fl>Yii·{?l~eep .our ocean, creeks and l;fr,J., ',,i, -~ ' ' ' , r:,/: ,,-''1e:,, -, \ i: '' • t~i!t;.,;>::.· '.laggons clean by applying h~;:j, t~:-, ;~).i :·: -,. , ' . . . h~-:: :~:.:;::,t~Ahe following tips. tit}:,{;(.':;t_;;.:' '. ,. . . . ~:.;:\i:f/;;'.;·:.·:.":'Stop drips. Check for 011 r,..·.-.,.·,,·.;, ' -tj[;~/:·1-:{0;:\leaks ·regularly and fix them !l'.!1-i :>'. ,·,,c,,·,·.',, ... · .i '. tlt</);:,·:::·p,romptly. Keep your car tuned to. [,{J,I;j\:~·':··,,-',';;~·:j;~,~af :, . " ·1 ~i\f'.~,f-,;,r:re uce m use. f/~~f·,/:-f.~}J}:::; ;t. vi.~f!t}};\·.,:~· use ground cloths or drip pans tJ1!/j',t~:t-: :-~ _ . . ~i~) j.~'~:_,beneath your vehicle if you have leaks it~: )/\ior are doing eng,ine work. 1f:-/l}: ; '· I .· . . ;;,.:;: /:'>>. . '. "Clean up spills immediately. ~;;;;: );,: · _),Collect all used oil in containers with · i~f(' /:: (\1tight fitting lids. Do not mix different 1-~~t--;:· ~ . >~ --i•tr. ·: · 'engine fluids. i~:r: ·:(:1: ·: · . ~J;.i;t, .. ,J::~ • When you change your oil, ;:,t .· . dispose of it properly: Never dis_pose ~foil or other engine fluids down the storm drain, on· the ground or into a ditch. • Recycle used motor oil. There are several locations in Carlsbad that accept used motor oil. For hours and locations, call 760-434-2980. • Buy recycled ("refined") motor oil to use in your car. ---.. --------- -s~3~3~0;~i€Ji~¥J~p~~-ihat storm drains are 1;::i:¥tt""~1.;::NQ?]c&·M~!ite.d' to sanitary sewer '.·~1,1r-~1r·~~~-{._~,;.'i~~-r~k~~~jiffi?)?'· ,i,,:· _·: •. _ .... _, ·.· . . ;;~;_.';.;? ;~;i·.f~~$:t~fll~A~no:',freatment plants? The :~~'-;,f} -:.~~:::r-1:-,1 v ,; '. <"'!:v!1~li:.i;1_:~·-: , ! ', ,_,, '·. Jt)tftt<!~F:ir,n&tffrapipose of st~xm drains is to ~ ,.,,.:,.t:,.-..!',,. «,.', ,.. .... > '< ,, ,,·~· ·r.-l-,-, ,, , ·'1 itf:1:.~tfi~)d~tijiif nwate'r away from developed ::;~&~i;_ \,:·r,/;:·:,-.: ·~, -,:-·'_.:::7:~~t~·:i:i~t/: . ;,::;,)':!:·:j,:·> ;~a:r~a~J~Jt~event flooding. Untreated '·',-,,~: ,;,y,",>',,,. -,~-1':,1.:,,:,~--j>,Ji~ ..... , ;;t?/::~f{,';jti)i~~water-' and the pollutants it ';·-r::,~.;J~-~:\,'\: <;: .. : 2-<f~=t~··:l,{;.:::: :l. _::2{\)jf:::9~r~J~~1W~~-directly into creeks, fiz:~~f ,~Wltli~the ocean. i~intj~~rs, sources of water ~-';.:.: JQdU_strial waters from ·-'e~-been greatly reduced. _, J~~;·;_the majority of water ,~,,...-r .-,' _, W6W<iurs from things like cars : 'i:' .~fl3rtilizers from farms and ~11jf}~'-',' ' taiHng septic tanks, pet waste -·~~!ial: car washing into the 1 • ', ~'-· ' 'h:f a,nd into the ocean and '9~ .. }u~c~s add up to a pollution ,/fi;:f;J,•: w~~ql-each of us can do small t~}_,._ :,: . t~fi:eip clean up our water and <~ ,,.,· $f~p-to a pollution solution! '~/~M ,. ' \);\'i-·:· ....... . . - Pet waste photo is used courtesy of the Water Quality Consortium, a cooperative ·venture between the Washingto_n State Departm~nt of Ecology, King County and the cities of Bellevue, Seattle and_· Tacoma. -~\(\the s~ 'll-(Or ~ 1J " 0 C ,-,_ 0 ~- (/) ;:) .---0 -,..,, e ~ E % ~Cr) l"i:tr ~5 Protec.\\0 Sto'rm Water HOTiine: 760-602-2799 stormwater@ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us !\ [µPrinted on recycled paper - ,-·--- :i.6ir:{\jt~~t ·.:: · . : .~ ::<:.:,::~e,t::~~~rt~::i~t.~ health risk to pets and l:?}It~i~etiij~~,~pi~uy children. Jt' s a ,.lt~:'. .:}fg;uts,-~~~e;;ir(~4.r neighborhoods .. Pet ~ <}~'1 '-, ,.,_:•,, t 1'_.--, '1' .f,i;,lo/..-:1_!t, ~ '!> J • :,~;//:-,{:tas{e:,j~~fuli\of;bacteria that can make :-~;,'::,,::;i~·/:'.1;·}t,,':~:--:-~\,;'~t:.i(}"/ :·.,· ,'.I'D\~i)}p~0~1e.·{$iGki·Thjs bacteria gets ,)~~ .. -.:,~;·;i,j:f rf)~:~.;_}tJi,:~tr,.~:r\ _:_ ' /\i:::i/: ·wa$he:d{ifit(ftne·storm drain and ends -{ is,?,¥":,"' J"t ;'J:,; f.t/J;'.k~~:f-:l ~'r;_i~:,~· · 1 " • • • l[:/i:1/fii~:Jfu(~i.~tf.br~~ks,. lagoons and ocean. t:;-, ;:. .. f":-,~~:i>_;l:_:\;'J?I,r:r_:·;f,!~; -.:.i ~;:~ ·• 1 , j/,::'~;{::lmJ~J~~qt.~ri~·,~mds up in shellfish living '.i"} .:~·-:-~:~?l:'-;~~~T~~~.zfti):ir~:1:,~--.< • _. .. ~:-.. · . .:/,~Jmt!Je.setwater;,.bod1es. People who »\Az.:,, -:f:·;·>.,:', __ ,::~1f1_,;,:i;;f,r~·i':;.{.~ :;::. 1 · )1z'<t;~:::t~attW~s"e~~1:1e11fish may get very sick. ~i~i:tt[lf?tt!tl,i~~ti~}·:.; . . "''~''·""'" ,,,,,,.,..,..,,.,m .. :.:u:s;/,_,,."''ydj~s show that dog arid '\~nlribute up to 25% of .~ct~ria found in our local ',\'.· ,, ' ' :·.,.'·, . :~j:,' ' tf:!ag, ~~) . ' ~P.' ·[:>;.·:,. : ~~of waste )in:"<,. \;initoilet or ---,.,~."'-''' ··-.. -- .'. JJ:-r~vln's:,;~;;clean. environment ' ', 's ·}-.":{:';i:\: ;.,:,~ -·:, .''. . . j ,.:,.:is:lOf l~tl,ITT~ty::.irnportance for ,':' -,~-,, : ;-1c-Y~,-· ;;/: :·-~;¼~:-:--, ¥,r'' - · .. <:·P~~tf6:ealfh"and·economy. ) '''"',"'\W-;{•-t-:.,,.,-,.~';,',"f~:t, :,---r ' -. · .. , ~9I~~n,:1W,~~~p!{ays provide :'·;:/:;/00rrtl}jijfer~ro,pportunities, '~;,: '« ·' _:;,_-'t{·:}·';i,,_J"._'',,}.'.--~.·., '···\i~or~~tipi;i:;;fj~h habitat and . -:--. ; '--\: :: ~ .. ~ ·~-Y ~: .. ~,)~ ~/ /·.;·:· .:: :' , , :;:., :J;F:;:~dl~-~.i;1~tft9, our ·.}\JfJtJl~]f:1::::!p L, ,:: ~;; ;:,~ntfScleaii13:'Glean, .by 1)1·1~1,:r:::1 :en i/: .. :ti,~,ri~wal~ibl:P~f$rahd be sure to pick up '"? ,.,, ,,~ 'Jjf ..... . '1ipi!p·etwaste in your yard ~'~ft~ .. -i~ ~ • :~~~}/:i~: R~~fte(your pets before c~~tl~~. driveways and ~~'.,~~·rfaced areas. Never R:waste into the street or ity::, ;~?( .. _;'',,~' -·-·---- The best way to dispose of ·pet was_te ·is to flush it down the toilet because •it gets treat~d by a sewage treatment : ·plant. ' Other disposal methods for pet waste include sealing it in a b.ag and ,placing in trash or burying sni.all quantities in your yard to decompose. Be su.re to keep it away from vegetable gardens. -111111!11 . -· --· --. ----- A Clean Environment is- Important to Al I, of Usl In· the City of Carlsbad, storm drain~ flow directly into local cre~ks, lagoons and the ocean without treatment. Storm water pollution is a serious problem for our natural environment and for people who live near streams or wetlands. Storm water pollution comes from · ·a.variety of sources including oil; ·fuel, and fluids, from vehicles and heavy equ1 pment, pesticide runoff from landscaping, and from . _materials s'uch as concrete, mortar and soil from construction qctivities. · The·_city of Carlsbad is committed to improving water quality and reducing the amount of poll.utants that enter our precious waterways. . :<'\{\ the St. ~ Or, -~ (); "Y 6 ('.) C: .... 0 ~- (/) ::) .... -- 9.. E ·? ~ ~ '-. 00:,. c:lt, q_' e,-Protec'-'o~ Storm Water Protection Program stormwater@ci .car ls bad.ca.us 760-602-2799 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~ ' l.. ~ Printed on recycled paper .. 11111111 .... ---.. --··--... --,_, __ --:-1111. - Only Rain in the Storm Drainl It's A.II Just Water,_ Isn't.It? Althou~h we enjoy the fun and relaxing times in them~ the water used in swimm.ing:pools and spas· can cause problems for our creeks, lago~>ns and th¢ ocean if not disposed of properly. When you drain your -swimming pool, fountain or spa t_o the street, the hig_h concentrations of chlorine and other chemicals found in the water flows directly to our storm drains. ()id you know that these storm drains are · NOT connected to sanitary sewer systems and treatment plants? The primary purpose of storm .drains is to carry rainwater away from developed-areas to prevent flooding .. . . Improperly disposing of swimming pool and spa water into storm drains may be harmful to the environment. Best Management Practices Best Management Practices or BMPs are procedures that help to prevent pollutants like chlorine and sediment from entering ou·r storm drains. Each of us can do our part to keep storm water clean. Using BMPs adds up to a pollution solution! How Do ·r Get Rid of Chlorine? Pool and spa water may be discharged to the storm drain if it has been properly dechlorincited and doesn't contain.other chemicals. The good new? is that chlorine naturally dissipates over time. Monitor and test fo_r chlorine levels in the pool over a period of 3 to 5 days. Drain the wat~r before algae starts to grow. Consider hiring a professional pool service company to dean your pool, fountain, or spa and make sure they dispose of the water and solids properly. For more information about discharging wastewater to the sanitary sewer, please contact the .Encina Wastewater Authority at (760) 43.8- 3941. Before you discharge your swimming pool or spa water to the storm drain, the water: • Must not contain chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, acid, or any other chemicals. • Can not carry debris or vegetation. • Should have an accepJable pH of 7-8. • Can not contain algae or harmful bacteria (no "green" present). • Flow must be controlled so that_ it does not cause erosion problems. Pool Filters·, Cle~n filte~s over a IAwn or othir iandscciped area··where the_ discharge -can be absorbed. Collect materials on tilter clothiand disp_~se into . · the trash. Diatomaceous earth cannot be di°scharged into the street or-stor~ drain systems. Dry it o~t as much as possible, bag it . iri plastic and dispQse into the trash . Acid Wash_ing Acid cleaning wash water is NOT allowed into the storm drains. Make sur_~ aciiwashlng is dcine_ in ci proper and safe manner that is not -harmful to people or the environment. It may be dischcirged into "the. sanitary sew~r through a ' legai sewer connection after the pH has been · ac;ljust~dto r:io lower than 5.5 and rio higher than 11. · -b~ the job Rig~tl _ + Use the water for irrigation. Try draining -de-chlorinated pool water gradually onto a . landscaped area. Water dischc;irged to · . landscape must-not cross property lines and· must not produce r·unoff. • Do not use copper-based algaecides. · Control algae with chlorine or other · alternatives to copper;.,based pool chem_icals. _ Copper is harmful to the aquati~ . environn,ent. • During pool construction, contain ALL· materials and dis.pose of properly: ·: Mater.ials such·as.cement, Gunite, mortar, and sediment must not be discharged into the storm drains. -I I I 1. 1· I I I I II I I 1. ' I; VII I I I I I 1· I I I I I I I I I 1· I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan Chapter 7 -SITE DESIGN BMPS & LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT 7.1 ""'.' Site·oesign BMPs Priority projects, such as the Cantarini Ranch development, shall be designed to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable the introduction of pollutants and conditions of concern that may result in significant impact, generated from site runoff to the storm water conveyance system. Site design components can significantly reduce the impact of a project on the environment. 7.2-:-Minimize Impervious Footprint. Methods of accomplishing this goal include: -Construct streets, sidewalks, and parking lots to the minimum widths necessary to be in ?Ccordance with standards set forth by the City of Carlsbad. -Incorporating landscaped buffer areas between sidewalks and streets. -Minimizing the number of residential -street cul-de-sacs and incorporate landscaped 9reas to reduce their impervious cover. Increase building density while decreasing the building footprint. 7~3 -Conserve Natural Areas Much of the existing Cantarini Ranch project sfte will remain in its current naturally vegetated state. Residential development of the site will incorporate large, 1-acre lots which incorporate large areas of vegetated open space, ensu·ring that much of the existing natural open space will be maintained in developed conditions. . , -7 .4 -Permeable Pavements Site design BMP alternatives such as pervious pavements were also considered for use within the Cantarini Ranch project site. However, the use of pervious pavements has several disadyantages such as: Many pavement engineers and _contractors lack expertise with this technology. Porous pavement has a tendency to become clogged if improperly installed or maintained. . Porous pavement has a high rate of failure. Anaerobic conditions may develop in underlying soils if the soil is unable to dry. out between storm events. This may impede microbiological decomposition. OE:dJg h:\reports12seo1011swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM I I I I I I I I I I-- I I I. I I I I I I: Cantarin1 Ranch Storm Water Management Plan These factors listed influenced the d~cision to not -include pervious pavements within the site design. 7 .5 -Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas Methods of accomplishing this goal include: Draining rooftops into_ adjacent landscaping prior to discharging to the storm drain. _ Draining roads, sidewa.lks and impervious trails into adjacent landscaping. · The discharging roof drains to receiving swales will be impl~mented within all residential project lots. Draining 85th percentile flows via the pervious, vegetated portions of the re~idential developments allows these flows to infiltrate within each lot, preventing low flows discharging to the adjacent curb and gutter.· 7 .6 -Protect Slopes & Channels Methods of accomplishing this goal include: Use of natural drainage systems to the maximum extent practicable. Stabilize permanent channel crossings. Planting native or drought tolerant. vegetation on slopes. Energy dissipaters, such as riprap, at the outlets of new storm drains, culverts, conduits, or channels that enter unlined channels. All slopes will be stabilized by erosion control measures. All outfalls will be equipped . with an energy dissipation device and/or a riprap pad to prevent erosion. ·· 7.7-Residential Driveways & Guest Parking As this is a single family residential development, driveways have been proposed for the project site. Residential streets will have curb and gutters and will also allow for parking along the street. To account for this a BMP treatment train is provided down within the adjacent roads, incorporating site· design grassy swales and curb inlet filter units. · 7.8-Maximize Canopy Interception & Water Conservation Landscaping on site will incorporate the planting of native, drought tolerant vegetation to meet this requirement. DE:dJg h:\reports\2580\01\sWmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/2007 11:42 AM I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan 7 .9· -Trash Storage Areas. Trash storage areas could be sources of bacteria pollutants. As such, all outdoor trash container areas shall meet the following requirements. A "trash containment area" refers to an area where a .tra~h. receptacle or receptacles are located for use as a repository for solid wastes. pesign for such areas will include: -Paved with an impervious surface, designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas, screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash. -Provide attached lids on all trash co_ntainers that exclude rain, roof or awning to minimize direct precipitation. It should be noted that no trash storage areas will be located on the Cantarini Ranch project $ife. Each individual resident is to store trash in their respective garage until weekly coll.ection. DE:dJg h:lreports\2580101\swmp-02.doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42 AM I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VIII I I I I· I I I I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I Cahtarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan · CHAPTER 8 -OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PLAN 8.1 -Maintenance Requirements Maintenance of the site BMPs will be the responsibility of the Homeowners. Association. A maintenance plan will be developed and will include the following information: Specification of routine and non-routine maintenance activities to be ~~~~ . A schedule for maintenance activities . Name, qualifications, and contact information for the parties responsible for maintaining the BMPs For proper maintenance to be performed, the storm water treatment facility must be accessible.to both ·maintenance personnel and their equipment and materials. 8.1.1 BioClean Curb Inlet Filter Unit Maintenance of the BioClean filter treatment un_it requires quarterly annual inspections during the dry season (June through September) and monthly during the wet season (October through May). The units need to be Cleaned out quarterly to remove trash, debris and -excess sediment. The BioClean filter treatment unit requires replacing annually at which time the filter shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal environmental ,protection requirements. The replacement filter is then placed into the existing bracket within the downstream cleanout. ·· 8.2 -Schedule of Maintenance Activities 8.2.1 -BioClean Curb Inlet Filter Insert Target Maintenance Dates -June 15th , September 15th (Dry Se13son Inspections) Maintenance Activity -Regular inspection to ensure that filter unit is functioning properly, has not become clogged, and does not need to be replaced; Target Maintenance Dates -15th of each month; October through April (Rainy Season Inspections) · . Maintenance Activity -Regular inspection to ensure that filter unit is functioning properly, has not become clogged, and does not need to be replaced; Target Maintenance Date -March 15th , June 15th , September 15th, December 15th Maintenance Activity ..... Qu~rterly cleanouts; Cleanout filter, remove trash, debris and excess sediment. Target Maintenance Dates --March 15th , DE:dJg h:lreports\2580\01\swmp-02.doc w.o, 2580-1 12/11/200711:42 AM I I 1· I I I I I I I I I- I I I 'I I .I· I Cantarini Ranch Storm Water Management Plan · Maintenance Activity -Annual filter replacement;. Remove and replace filter. Dispose of used filter according to state and federal environmental protection guidelines. Place. new filter in existing bracket below the storm drain entrance. 8.3 --Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs The following costs are intended only to provide a magnitude of the costs involved in maintaining BMPs. Funding shall be provided by the HOA for the Cantarini Ranch development. · 8.3.t -~ioClean Curb Inlet Filter Insert An approximate annual maintenance cost for the proposed BioClean Curb Inlet Filter Insert is outlined below. Costs assume a 3 man crew: · · Periodic Inspection and Cleanout ($100 per inlet x 4 times a year x 53 units) = . $21,200 Annual Filter Replacement= '$200/unit x 53 inlets= ~10,600 BioClean Subtotal= $21,200 + $1.0,600 = $31,800 10% Contingency = $3, 180 Approximate Total Annual Maintenance Costs = $34,980 DE:dJg h:lreports\2580101\swmp-02.dac w.a. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IX I I I I I 1: I I' 1. I I I I I I I I 11 ,I -, ~:I fl Cantarini Ranch Sto[m Water Management Plan _ Chapter 9--FISCAL RESOURCES · 9.1 -Agreements (Mechanisms to Assure Maintenance). There are multiple flow-based BMP treatm~nt units within the proposed Cantarini Ranch development for storm water quality treatment. Funding for the water quality treatment devices will be provided by the Cantarini Ranch HOA. The Cantarini Ranch HOA will be responsible to perform the maintenance activities and to ensure adequate funding. The City of Carlsbad Watershed Protection, Stortnwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance require ongoing maintenance of BMPs to ensure the proper function and operation of theses BMPs. The treatment unit will require maintenance activities as outlined in Section 8 of this report. DE:dJg h:lreports\2580\01\swmp-02,doc w.o. 2580-1 12/11/200711:42AM ' ' I ' \ VICINITY MAP NOT 70 SC.ALE .,- ,-~·-1 ,:. _,._:___,c,,..~ , __ f ----' I { 'I ~f ... .- ,•• ,,-----·--.• PREPARED BY: \"-'\.\\ -i 0 150 300 450 NOTES: SITE BMP DESIGN: -DRAINING ROOFTOPS, PATIOS, WAU<WAYS, AND TRAILS INTO LANDSCAPING PRIOR TO DISCHARGING INTO STORM DRAIN MINIMIZES DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THE IMPERVIOUS AREAS . -USING NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, STABILIZING CHANNEL CROSSINGS, PLANTING NATIVE VEGETATION, AND USING ENERGY DISSIPATERS WILL PROTECT SLOPES AND CHANNELS. -NO TRASH STORAGE AREAS WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. BMP SOURCE CONTROL: -MANUFACTURED SLOPES SHALL BE LANDSCAPED WITH SUITABLE GROUND COVER. HOMEOWNERS WILL BE EDUCATED AS TO THE PROPER ROUTINE MAINTENANCE TO LANDSCAPED AREAS -HOMEOWNERS WILL BE EDUCATED TO THE PROPER APPLICATION, USE AND DISPOSAL OF POTENTIAL STORM WATER RUNOFF CONTAMINENTS, AND MADE AWARE OF THE RWQCB REGULATIONS -FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES WILL BE SELECTED AND APPLIED TO MINIMIZE RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT -THE DEVELOPMENT WILL INCORPORATE CONCRETE STAMPING ON ALL STORM WATER SYSTEM INLETS AND CATCH BASINS WITH PROHIBITIVE LANGUAGE SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY ENGINEER -ALL HOA MAINTAINED LANDSCAPED AREAS WILL INCLUDE SHUTOFF DEVICES TO PREVENT IRRIGATION DURING AND AFTER PRECIPITATION -ALL OPEN SPACE AREAS WILL FEATURE SIGNAGE AND PET WASTE COLLECTION BAGS PREVENTING ANY SOURCES OF POTENTIAL BACTERIAL POLLUTANTS (100% SOURCE CONTROL) / - •, .. -~ ... • BMP EXHIBIT FOR SHEET 1 /, , I / !, ,. i \ I / / , / /'?',' \ ' ,, ' ,'~ j ' , ' ,/ / / . , / , . ' . •, . , , / /if ~ ' ,,. /( / ,/ / •' . . / I! . . /, I i ,, / / / /, /i / , 250 • """'-·~ ,. ' , ---~,,, ~ ., \, '~\ \ "\,,' ., . ;'· ' Is , j / ' 1 \ . \ \ \ \ o, 4.1 cfs. A= 44. a Tc =19. 7 min. , ,; // / / / '•, •,, / ' ! , / \ 1/ ,,~~ .,, ", ~ / ,,, ' ' / i \ •. ·•. ,, ... . • .,. 1 """ ( /'\ ,, ,, I ' . ) ,/ '. / / \ ' \ .. ~ • • \ \ \ ';I/ f , I / / / ! / '/ ·//' , , I I , , / / / , I ' i 32 '~'·® \ ' \ ~ \ 35 '(,llw / • ! , \ \ ' \ \ \ '•. ' ,,,,.-. I \ I \ I I . . ... / '• • ·, ' \ \ \ .. \ .. .. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / \ \ J' \1 ' ll& ' •, \ I , 6., ( • f\ ,. , ' 1)0 ... ,, " . ' ',, . ,. "' . •, \ \ (,' , / /! ·1 ; , ') ' : I '. , ' ' -• •, I I/ . ' "·"-~ ' I/"' ' /J l'/2 ; ! f/ ,/ ·; \ ; \ ,,, ·" / J / , . ,.,., . . ; ; • I . ' ; w, tJ&d#=-~,," 1 )•; ,/ • • -SC:: • f,~~ / ' '• ' ' -$ ~· , ,· / ' / ' ,, ' • " I I ·, ' / • " • ' ,•, t " ' • " ' , p i s N R • / ,. ' • ,. ' ,? ' / P RED BY: ING ING HU S A DI E G 79 H ne ens Str S n iego, Ca 9 1 (85 )558,4500 · fX I N C 58)558,1 • • / " • ' ' • • ? ' ' ., • EVE C / • / / • " , ' ' ' • ' , :~ \ ' "' , , l ' , , / // / I ' / .. " • • " ,. " G ND TER H WATE HE FLO LI ODES • / , CON XHI D • r " • • ~· . ~· .l I ' ,,,ft' BOUN SUB- D,C R,\08 8\ / ,, / • I ARY E Hy 08 H02- 0 , ' --- 0 OGY R I 0 ,10,0 ' ' • / • ,' 9',!\illilli~ ' . s , / • / ' E 2 OF " , ' ' " ' '