Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 02-12; CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS; WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT; 2007-07-19,I I -I' .1 I I, 'I ·1 I I I I I I I ~I ··1 I ,I K&S ENGINEERING Planning Engineering Surveying WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT FOR G ~SIiAD OFFICE CAMPUS TENT A TIVE MAP . CT 02-12/ DP 02-311PIP 02-041PUD 02-05 PREPARED FOR: CARLTAS INVESTMENTS 5600 A venida Encinas, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008-4452 USA PREPARED By: K&S ENGINEERING 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92108-1314 USA July 19,2007 K&S #01-048 RECEIVED AUG 09 2007 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 100 • San Diego, California 92108 • (619) 296-5565 • Fax (619) 296-5564 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.0 3.1 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.0 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 . 7.0 8.0 Figure 1 -Location Map HYDROLOGIC UNIT CONTRIBUTION Beneficial Use Table 1 -Beneficial Uses Figure 2 -Vicinity Map CHARACTERIZATION OF PROJECT RUNOFF Constituents of Concern and Sources Table 2 -General Pollutant Categories Soil Characteristics Site Hydrology Site Map MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY Table 3 -BMPs Applicable to Project Categories Site Design BMPs Source Control BMPs Specific Land Use Category BMPs Treatment Control BMPs Summary OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Fossil Filters Inspection Frequency Preventive Maintenance Corrective Maintenance Biofilters Inspection Frequency Preventive Maintenance Corrective Maintenance Porous Pavement Inspection Frequency Preventive Maintenance Corrective Maintenance Table 3 -BMP Maintenance Scheduling EDUCATION AND OUTREACH FISCAL RESOURCES BMP Estimated Maintenance Costs 9.0 CONCLUSION CERTIFICATION ATTACHMENTS A Hydrological Analysis B FloGard+™ Down Spouts Antimicrobial Smart Sponge Filterra Bio-retention system C Tentative Parcel Map Storm Water Requirements Applicability Checklist Page 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 INTRODUCTION The California State Water Quality Control Board approved Order Number 2001-01 (Order) on February 21, 2001. The Order outlines the stormwater discharge requirements for municipal stormwater systems, which drain "development" areas from watersheds within; 1.) The County of San Diego, 2.) Incorporated cities of San Diego County, and 3.) San Diego Unified Port District. The City of Carlsbad is one of the municipal co-permittees identified in the order and, therefore, subject to its requirements. In general, the order requires that Best Management Practices (BMPs): • Control the post-development peak: storm water storm discharge rates and velocities to maintain or reduce pre-development downstream erosion • Minimize storm water pollutants of concern in urban runoff from new development through implementation of source control BMP'S • Remove pollutants of concern from urban runoff through implementation of structural treatment BMP'S • Include proof of a mechanism, to be provided by the project proposal, which .will ensure ongoing long-term structural BMP maintenance. In addition, structural BMPS shall be located to infiltrate, filter, or treat the required runoff volume or flow (numeric sizing criteria) prior to discharge to any receiving water body supporting beneficial uses. This "numeric sizing criteria" is either volume or flow based. Specifically, volume based BMPs must be designed to infiltrate, filter, or treat the volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour -85th percentile storm event. This is approximately 0.6 inches of runoff for San Diego County. Similarly, flow based BMPS must be designed to infiltrate, filter or treat a flow rate of 0.2 inches of rainfall per hour. Note that the above "numeric sizing criteria" allows the option of infiltration, filtering or treatment of this volumelflow and relates only to water quantity. Retention or detention of water volumelflow is not a requirement of the "numeric sizing criteria." This Water Quality Technical Report (wQTR) proposes to address the possible water quality impacts from the grading and improvements of the Carlsbad Office Campus (Project) located at 5600 A venida Encinas and define the potential Best Management Practice (BMP) options that satisfy the requirements, identified in the following documents: 1.) City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Storm Water Standards, (Standards) April 2003 2.) County of San Diego Watershed Protection Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Section 67.817). 3.) Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 4.) NPDES General permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, and 5.) County of San Diego Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit (Order Number 2001-01). The goal of this WQTR is to develop and implement the best available procedure policies of the Standards to insure to the maximum extent practicable that development does not increase pollutant loads from the project site and considers urban run-off flow rates, potential pollutants, and velocities. The WQTR also intends to insure the effectiveness of the Best Management Practices (BMP) through proper maintenance that is based on long-term fiscal planning. According to the Storm Water Requirements Applicability Checklist (Appendix A of the Standards) (see Appendix C of this report), the Project is subject to; • Part A -the Priority Project Permanent Storm Water BMP requirements • Part B -the Standard Permanent Storm Water BMP requirements • Part C -the Construction Storm Water BMP Performance Standards and is required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and • Part D -High Priority construction site ranking due to discharging to a tributary to a sensitive water body. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This WQTR is subject to revisions as needed by the engineer. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is located on Assessors Parcel No. 201-090-50, known as Parcell of Parcel Map 16274 .. The Project consists of the redevelopment of the present single lot into five lots, A through E respectively, per the Tentative Parcel Map. The existing structure, including any appurtenant parking and improvements, ate to be raised for the construction of four tilt-up industrial shell buildings, with parking areas, a separate parking structure and pedestrian access. Landscaped area site improvements are integral elements of the proposed Project. In general, the proposed site will surface-drain to four proposed curb inlets, two located on the northwesterly and two on the westerly sides of the site. These storm drains, combined with the existing northerly flowing concrete drainage swale (to be enclosed by a box culvert) outlet into an existing vegetated drainage channel traversing the site along the northerly property line. l:;'A,C/F/C OCEAN FIGURE 1 LOCATION !/IAP NOT TO SCALE 2 OF CARLSBAD IRPORT ROAD I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 HYDROLOGIC UNIT CONTRIBUTION According to the State of California, Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Hydrologic Basin Planning Area, the Project is located in the Canyon de las Encinas hydrologic area (HA) (904.40) of the Carlsbad Watershed hydrologic unit (HU). The area is characterized by mostly moderately sloping land occupied by predominately non-native grass. The cities of Carlsbad, San Marcos, and Encinitas are located entirely within the HU. Approximately 48% of the Carlsbad HU is urbanized. The dominant land uses are residential (29%), commercial/industrial (6%), freeways/roads (12%), agriculture (12%), and vacant/undeveloped (32%). Constituents of concern include coliform bacteria, nutrients, sediment, trace metals, and toxics. The Agua Hedionda, Buena Vista, and San Elijo lagoons are experiencing impairments to beneficial uses due to excessive coliform bacteria and sediment loading from upstream sources. These coastal lagoons represent critical regional resources that provide freshwater and estuarine habitats for numerous plant and animal species. Other water bodies in the Carlsbad HU have been identified as impaired on the California 303(d) list for elevated coliform bacteria. The Project's 12.7 acres (11.0 acres disturbed) represents a very small percentage of the approximately 210 square miles (134,400 acres) of the hydrologic unit area. The existing site contains 9.1 acres of impervious surface area with a slight increase to 9.9 acres in the planned developed condition. Therefore, the increase in imperviousness of the Project will have a negligible impact on the hydrologic unit with the proper implementation and maintenance of the permanent BMPs outlined in this report and the proper implementation and maintenance of the construction phase BMPs identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). FIGURE 2 Carlsbad Watershed Hydrologic Unit The storm drain system for this project discharges, via a concrete headwall structure, into an open, vegetated channel that eventually flows to Agua Hedionda Lagoon and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean. The project will not alter the overall drainage pattern at the outfall of the drainage system in the existing vegetated channel. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The increase in flow from the existing to the proposed condition is approximately 5 cfs, which is approximately a 5% increase. Therefore, the proposed development will not cause a significant impact to the downstream storm drain system with additional flows. In addition, a 2-year storm analysis (see Preliminary Drainage Study, Attachment A) demonstrates that all the pipes have velocities greater than 4 fps. 3.1 BENEFICIAL USE The beneficial uses of inland surface water, coastal waters, reservoirs and lakes and groundwater for this hydrologic unit are included in Table 1.1. The data contained in this Table is extracted from the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. TABLEt Beneficial Uses Inland Coastal Reservoirs Ground Beneficial Uses Surface Waters and Lakes Water Water Municipal and Domestic Supply X X X Agricultural Supply X X X Industrial Service Supply X X X X Navigation X Hydropower Generation X X Contact Water Recreation X X X Non-Contact Water Recreation X X X Commercial and Sport Fishing X Warm Freshwater Habitat X X X Cold Freshwater Habitat X X Estuarine Habitat X Wildlife Habitat X X X Biological Habitat X Rare, Threatened, or X X Endan2ered Marine Habitat X Migration of Aquatic Organisms X Aquaculture X Shellfish Harvesting X Spawning, Reproductive and/or X Early Development The reader is directed to the Water Quality Control Planfor the San Diego River Basinfor more detailed descriptions of the above beneficial uses. 4 I I I I I I I I I DITU~®rrU wo©oITUoi1W ITUDCID~ [?O~QI][P® ~ I I I I I I I I I I 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF PROJECT RUN-OFF According to the California 2002 303( d) list published by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, Agua Hedionda Lagoon is the only impaired water body, due to water quality problems, that is located downstream of the project in this hydrologic unit. Based on the basin plan for the San Diego Region, the Agua Hedionda, Buena Vista, and San Elijo Lagoons are experiencing impairments to beneficial uses due to excessive coliform bacteria and sediment loading from upstream sources. Identified constituents of concern are coliform bacteria, nutrients, sediment, trace metals, and toxics. These coastal lagoons represent critical regional resources that provide freshwater and estuarine habitats for numerous plant and animal species. Other water bodies in the Carlsbad HU are identified as impaired in the California 303( d) list for elevated coliform bacteria including several locations in the Pacific Ocean near creek and lagoon outlets. 4.1 Constituents of Concern and Sources There are no sampling data available for the existing site condition. In addition, the project is not expected to generate significant amounts of non-visible pollutants. However, the constituents listed in Table 2.1 are commonly found on similar developments and could affect water quality: TABLE 2 Priority General Pollutant Categories Project Heavy Organic Trash Oxygen Oil & Bacteria Categories Sediments Nutrients Metals Compounds & Demanding Grease & Pesticides Debris Substances Viruses Commercial Development >100,00 fr p(l) p(l) p(2) X p(3) X p(4) p(3) Parking Lots p(l) p(l) X X p(l) X p(l) X = anticipated P = potential (1) A potential pollutant if landscaping exists on-site. (2) A potential pollutant if the project uncludes uncovered parking areas. (3) Including solvents. (4) A potential pollutant ifland use involves food or animal waste products General Pollutant Categories The potential sources for the constituents of concern for the project could be, but are not limited to those listed below: o Sediments -Sediments are soils or other surficial 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, lower young aquatic organisms survival rates, smother bottom dwelling organisms, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth. o Nutrients -Nutrients are inorganic substances, such as nitrogen and phosphorus. They commonly exi$t in the form of mineral salts that are either dissolved or suspended in water. Primary sources of nutrients in urban run-off are fertilizers and eroded soils. Excessive discharge of nutrients to water boc;lies and streams can cause excessive 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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, release of toxins in sediment, and the eventual death of aquatic organisms. o Metals -Metals are raw material components in non-metal products such as fuels, adhesives, paints, and other coatings. Primary source 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 cooling 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 bioaccumulation 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. o 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 drains. Dirt, grease, and grime retained in the cleaning fluid or rinse water may also adsorb levels of organic compounds that are harmful or hazardous to aquatic life. o Trash & Debris -Trash (such as paper, plastic, polystyrene packing foam, and aluminum materials) and biodegradable organic matter (such as leaves, grass cuttings, and food waste) are general waste products on the landscape. The presence of trash & debris may have a significant impact on the recreational value 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. Also, in areas where stagnant water exists, the presence of excess organic matter can promote septic conditions resulting in the growth of undesirable organisms and the release of odorous and hazardous compounds such as hydrogen sulfide. " o Oxygen-Demanding Substances -This category includes biodegradable organic material as well as chemicals that react with dissolved oxygen in water to form other compounds. Proteins, carbohydrates, and fats are examples of biodegradable organic compounds. Compounds such" as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are examples of oxygen-demanding compounds. The oxygen demand of a substance can lead to depletion of dissolved oxygen in a water body and possibly the development of septic conditions. o Oil and Grease -Oil and grease are characterized as high-molecular weight organic compounds. Primary sources of oil and grease are petroleum hydrocarbon products, motor products from leaking vehicles, esters, oils, fats, waxes, and high molecular-weight fatty acids. Introduction of these pollutants to the water bodies are very possible due to the wide uses and applications of some of these products in municipal, residential, commercial, industrial, and construction areas. Elevated oil and grease content can decrease the aesthetic value of the water body, as well as the water quality. o Bacteria and Viruses -Bacteria and 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, containing 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. o 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 run-off containing toxic levels of its active component. 4.3 Soil Characteristics. The project area consists of soil group D. Soils of group D have: a very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. They are chiefly clays that have a high shrink-swell potential or have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface. Soils of this type can have a high permanent water table or are soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. Rate of water transmission is very slow and classified as having a very high run-off potential. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.3 Site Hydrology Per the Hydrological Analysis (Attachment A), the existing flow rate for the Project drainage areas from a lOa-year storm event is 89.0 cfs that currently drains from the site via an open concrete culvert located on the westerly portion of the site. This open culvert empties into an open, vegetated swale flowing along the northerly property line from the east to the west. The Project drainage areas produce a flow rate in the proposed condition for a lOa-year storm of 94.1 efs. The run-off coefficient and basin area are unchanged for the project. This increase to the total storm flow from the Project is attributable to a slight increase in the impervious areas as a percent of the entire project. The project continues to drain to the same vegetated swale. The storm flows drmn through a new system of inlets and underground pipes to reach the outfall point. 8 I I I I I I \ EXISIIIIl IULDIIQ J -q f-. t;-1 <:.Q ... 'fT' o Q) a 1 '0 .... C'.1 Z fL- <:£" ? i.t.. . 1 EXISIIIII IULDIIQ - IQ ~.--::.~ III ~ :-;" A • [d .. ~~'''"'.: D ~ 8 . Lr<..-3 T 'f SCALE: ,-0040' • "":.-: ll11f&:.-,J,1 ..... ~ 1'UlI.&ft • r: LEGEND FOSSIl.. fillER INSERlS SMART SPONGE MEDIA FLlERRA ~FL1RA1JON S'tS1Bt DRAINAGE SlRUClURE FlOW SURFACE FlOW DRAINAGE NfEA PAm.tENT AREA (CONC.-ASf'H.) PERVIOUS PAVEMENT BIOFLlER/'t£GETAlED SWALE SEEDED,I\.ANOSCAPED AREA ElOS1ING DRAINAGE atANNEL EXlS1ING SlOPE PROPOSED SLOPE .. o o Il. ~-_1- [ I, J 1IIIIillil!lliil! ~ ~ ~ --<~ >- BASIN AREA posr-IIMP TREATMENT CONlRO!. 0.37 AC 1.15 AC 2.14 AC -2.17 AC 1.70 AC 1.0 AC 2.48 AC FIllERRA BIO-RE1EN1ION \f:GETAlED BIO-SWALE F1LlERRA Blo-RETENlION PI.AN1ERS FOSSIl fillERS SMART SPONGE filTER MEDIA SMART SPONGE FIlTER MEDIA &: F1LlERRA BIO-RETENlJON r:r:J1 C~~AD I~ r--::: -CVMm --coma. KIll --I CNI SBAD OFFICE CAMPUS K&S ENGINEERING PIcIIIIIng ~ !MW)Ing ....... t "fII tII74 I SITE MAP I m\. \I C{02-NO.12 II '4 I I i ~ i .. ~ :; ! ~ ~ · · · ~ i I I ~ ~ ~ .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I 5.0 MITIGATIVE MEASURES TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY J'o address water quality for the project, BMPs will be implemented during construction and post construction phases. Per Section II, Table 1 of the Standards, the Project is best described as being a combination of the commercial development> I 00,000 ft2 and parking lot categories. . As a Priority Project, these categories require appropriate BMPs from the applicable categories below or equivalents as identified in Appendix C of the Standards: • Site Desigil. BMPs • Source Control BMPs • BMPs applicable to specific categories 1. Dock Areas 2. Maintenance Bays 3. Vehic1e Wash Areas 4. Equipment Wash Areas 5. Surface Parking Areas In addition, incorporated into the Project are appropriate site design and source control BMPs for Standard Projects. TABLE 3 BMPs Applicable to Individual Priority ProJect Categories "" "" Cd "" ~ "" ~ Cd bI) ~ 'Cd bI) ~ I:: "" ~ . S ..... ~ bI) ~ ..s::: "" ~ "" "" b.O u .t:: I:: ~ ..s::: ~ Q) I:: "" "" "" Q~ u :.;;l '''0 ] Q) "" Cd Project CI) u Cd £ ~ § 0 ]P-t Cd § ~ ..... 1a Category p::: ~ I:: ~ ....:l .......... I:: 8 I-< Q) I:: CI) Q) 0 Q) bI) Q) Q) Q) Q) -0 ~ .S "0 ~ "0 ::l ~ ..... U 0.. "" ..... I:: ..... . .... "0 Cd "" ;> '::i3e!:) u .~ ..s::: 6-'t: --8~ Q) -Site Source .t:: ~Od 0 ::;s Q) ::l ~ ..... P-t Q >-J:LI CI) ::t: Design Control Treatment BMPs BMPs cd .ci U -ci a> ~ c:» .c .-.~ Control BMPs Standard R R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Projects Priority Projects Commercial Development R R R R R S >100,000 ft2 Parking Lots R R R S R= Required o = Optional! or may be required by City Staff. S = Select one or more applicable and appropriate treatment control BMPs. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.1 Site Design BMPs The Project has incorporated specific site design characteristics to provide a minimum of impervious areas through the consolidation of building structures into three story buildings. The maximum number of compact car parking spaces allowed by code reduces the pavement areas in surface parking while a two level parking structure allows increased capacity in the same usage area. A combined driveway entrance for this site and the southerly adjacent property further reduces impermeable areas and affords a greater level of safety on A venida Encinas by reducing driveway openings. Permeable pavement surface, of TurfBlock or appr9ved equivalent; will be utilized on the northerly row of parking bays to provide infiltration of stormwater fQn-off. The use of permeable surface treatment on the westerly row of parking bays as a site design feature was initially considered but overruled due to the proximity of existing utilities in the area. The landscaped areas provide a more efficient use of permeable areas ,than in the existing condition. Roof drainage flows are directed into landscaped areas adjacent to building structures. Installation and monitoring of the irrigation system for these landscape areas will reduce over-irrigation, thereby reducing the oversaturation of the areas leading to excess run-off. All existing areas outside of the disturbed areas will be left in a natural state or will incorporate major plantings into the new landscape scheme. All storm flows will exit the site in the same location as in the existing condition. The introduction of a vegetated biofilter swale along the southern edge of the site development area further allows for infiltration treatment of stormwater before entering the box culvert via a standard catch basin, ultimately draining to the existing vegetated drainage channel. Utilization of curbing with openings will allow the passage of drainage to the biofilter. The construction of a headwall structure at the outlet of the underground storm drain system to the existing vegetated channel directs the effluent onto a concrete apron to dissipate velocity and prevent scour and erosion in the channel. The slight increase in post-development peak flow is mitigated by the use of the porous pavement surfaces, the biofiltration vegetated swale and the landscaped areas adjacent to structures. 5.2 Source Control BMPs Source control BMPs, including construction stage BMPs, are selected, constructed, and maintained to comply with all applicable ordinances and guidance documents. The Project SWPPP will identify and detail construction BMPs that may include, but not be limited to, the following; Silt Fences, Fiber Rolls, Street Sweeping & Vacuuming, Storm Drain Inlet Protection, Stockpile Management, Solid Waste Management, Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit, Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance, Gravel Bag Berms, Material Delivery & Storage, Spill Prevention & Control, Concrete Waste Management, Water Conservation Practices, Paving & Grinding Operations, Stabilization of Disturbed Areas, and Permanent Revegetation of Man-made Slopes. Landscape irrigation systems will be of an efficient design and installations will be maintained on a r~gular and timely basis to prevent over-watering and the transport of silts, sediments, fertilizers and pesticides into the storm drain system. Fertilizers and pesticides will be applied per manufacturer's rate to deduce the potential of pollutant transporting. There is no planned outdoor storage of any types of materials. All material storage areas are located indoors or will be contained in an appropriate enclosure. . All trash dumpster storage areas will have concrete masonry screen wall enclosures, with gated openings. The trash dumpsters themselves are to be equipped with integral, locking lids. Any existing public storm drain inlets affected by project draiange, as well as all on-site private inlets, will be stamped or stenciled (as appropriate to location) to provide notice against illegal dumping of pollutants. The owner/developer will provide information to increase the ~owledge of tenants/employees/future owner regarding impacts of pollutants and urban run-off on receiving waters and potential BMPs for the specific land use to affect the behavior of tenants/employees/future owner and thereby reduce' pollutant releases to the environment. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I 5.3 Specific Land Use Category BMPs a) Dock Areas, -There are no loading dock areas planned for the Project. AU shipping and receiving will be by individual, closed containers and handled on an as needed basis by each tenant and' their respective shipping company. b) Maintenance Bays, -There are no maintenance bays associated with the Project. Any vehicular maintenance will be performed at an off-site location. c) Vehicle Wash Areas, -Any vehicle washing/steam cleaning is to be performed in the parking structure lower level or at an off-site location. All wastewater in this location will be collected and directed to a sewage wastewater clarifier included in the architectural design. d) Outdoor Processing Areas, -All processing activities are contained within the buildings. No processing allowed outdoors unless it occurs within covered or enclosed areas and discharges any drainage or wastes into a sewage wastewater clarifier before entering the municipal sewer system. e) Surface Parking Areas. -All landscaped areas contained within parking areas positively drain to the parking lot surface and collected by the surface drainage system. Surfacing selected parking bays that receive sheet flows with permeable pavement surfaces allow for infiltration and filtration of stormwater flows. 5.4 Treatment Control BMPs All landscaped areas will act as biofilters for irrigation waters. Mulching, seeding and planting of these areas provide biofiltration of applied pesticides and fertilizers. Following manufacturer guidelines to avoid over treatment of landscaping will provide a limited occurrence in the planted areas of the Project. Porous pavement areas located in parking bays that receive sheet drainage flows will allow stormwater to infiltrate to the sub-base and underlying natural ground. Filtration of silts and sediments contained in run-off as they percolate will prevent them from reaching downstream waters. An eight foot wide vegetated biofilter swale along the southern row of parking bays will allow infiltration of silt and sediments before emptying into the 36" grated inlet outletting to the box culvert before draining into the existing vegetated drainage channel. Curbing with openings along the parking bays adjacent to the biofilter will allow the sheet flow to reach the biofilter. The swale area for the length of the bays is greater then the 1000 ft2 minimum requirement outlined in the design criteria of "Industrial/Commercial California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook" by the Stormwater Quality Taskforce, March 1993. FloGard™ Fossil Filter inserts (Kristar Enterprises, Inc.) will be installed on catch basin along the northerly side of the higher level parking structure; the Fossil Filters shall be adequate to treat the hydrocarbons, oil & grease, dirt and metal debris from vehicle brake pads. (See Attachment B for efficiency data.). The screening mechanism of the filter inserts is highly effective in the removal of trash and debris. Using the flow-based aspect of the "numeric sizing criteria," the BMPs must be designed to mitigate (infiltrate, filter or treat) a flow rate of 0.2 inches of rainfall per hour and relates only to water quantity. Retention or detention of water volumelflow is not a requirement of the criteria. The flow based insert .sizing for the Project is as follows: o Using the basin area formula A=Q/CI: o Each Filter down spout has a clean flow rate of 30 GPM or 0.07 cfs (per specifier chart, Appendix B). where Q=flow rate, .07 cfs, C= coefficient of run-off 0.95, 1= intensity 0.2"/hr or A=0.07/(0.95(.2» Therefore, the maximum acreage draining to this could be approximately 0.37 acres. 12 I I I I' I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I Parking structure will install 7 filter down spouts with a contributing area on each one of 0.25 acres, therefore this shall be sufficient to treat the parking structure. Appendix B contains manufacturer information on the capacity of the FloGard™ inserts to treat the required volume. Filterra Stormwater Bioretention filtration system will also be introduce to the project to treat pollutants of concern such as bacteria, the high pollutant removal efficiency is primarily due the mUltiple trea,tment systems inherent in its unique plant -soil -microbe treatment media. (See Attachment B for efficiency data and sizing information). Antimicrobial Smart Sponge Plus is another product that will help on the pollutants removal, this also is a high source of bacteria and hydrocarbons treatment. The polymer technologies that are chemically selective to hydrocarbons and can destroy bacteria, smart sponge recovers and fully encapsulates recovered oil, resulting in a substantially more effective response that prevents absorbed oil from leaching .. (See Attachment B for efficiency data and sizing information). 5.5 Summary The use and combination of different treatment controls and their maintenance of catch basin inserts on all appropriate inlets, vegetated swale, bio-retention filter system and antimicrobial smart sponge plus will effectively help in the removal of pollutants of concern on our site. The biofiltration vegetated swale and porous pavement areas are effective treatment BMPs that also allow for infiltration of pollutants of concern. The filtration of silts and sediment by these methods will prevent those pollutants from entering downstream waters. New wastewater clarifying system(s) are planned to mitigate the wastes from the lower level of the parking structure. The c1arifier(s) are part of the architect's building package and are completely separate from the storm drain system. 13 I I I I I' I I, I I I' I I I I I I I I I 6.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 6.1 CATCH BASIN INSERT When installed in a drainage inlet, catch basin or tank, FloGard™ inserts are effective tools in the ~ffort to reduce pollution of downstream rivers, streams, lakes, lagoons, and oceans caused by pollutants borne in urban water run-off. Vehicle parking lots, corporation yards, and so forth should be swept on a regular basis. Sediment and debris (litter, leaves, papers, cans, etc.) within the area, especially around the drainage inlet, should be collected and removed. The frequency of sweeping should be based on the amount of sediment and debris generated. The operation and maintenance needs of FloGard™ are: • Periodic sediment removal to optimize performance. • Removal of trash, debris, grass trirrimings, tree pruning, and leaf collection to prevent obstruction ,of swales. • Removal of standing water, which may contribute to the development of aquatic plant communities or mosquito breeding areas. 6.1.1 Inspection Frequency FloGard™ inserts should be inspected at the following times: • Not less than three inspections per year. • After every run-off producing storm. • On a weekly basis during extended periods of in climate weather. 6.1.2 Preventive Maintenance Preventive maintenance activities for FloGard™ inserts are: • Trash and Debris -Debris and trash removal will be conducte~ to reduce the potential for inlet and outlet structures and other components from becoming clogged and inoperable during storm events. • Removal of Standing Water -Standing water must be removed if it contributes to the development of aquatic plant communities or mosquito breeding areas. • Use and Application of Fertilizers, Herbicides and Pesticides -The application of these materials should be in strict conformance with the manufacturer's instructions and in accordance with federal, state and local regulations. Care should be taken not to over-apply. Excess nutrients can hamper effectiveness of filter medium. 6.1.3 Corrective Maintenance Corrective maintenance is required on an emergency or non-routine basis to correct problems and to restore the intended operation and safe function of a FloGard™ insert. Corrective maintenance activities include: • Removal of Debris and Sediment -Sediment, debris, and trash, which impede the hydraulic functioning and prevent vegetative growth, will be removed and properly disposed. Temporary arrangements, will be made for handling the sediments until a permanent arrangement will be made for handling the sediments until a permanent arrangement is made. • Structural Repairs -Once deemed necessary, repairs to inserts should be performed within 10 working days or immediately if storm prediction exceeds 40% probability. Repair or replacement is suggested depending on severity of damage. • Erosion Repair -Where a reseeding program has been ineffective, or where other factors have created erosive conditions (i.e. pedestrian traffic, concentrated flow, etc.), corrective steps must be taken to prevent subsequent damage to and alteration of the performance, through clogging, of the FloGard™ inserts. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I 6.2 BIOFILTERS Biofilters are vegetated swales or strips that treat concentrated and sheet flows respectively. They are suitable for small catchment areas of less than a few acres. Biofilters offer filtration of storm flows with vegetation and infiltration to underlying surfaces. They are effective in the removal of sediments, heavy metals and oil & grease particulates. They are less effective in the removal of nutrients, trash & debris and oxygen demanding substances. The operation and maintenance needs of biofilters are: • Vegetation management to maintain adequate hydraulic functioning and to limit habitat for disease- carrying animals. • Animal and vector control. • Periodic sediment removal to optimize performance. • Removal of trash, debris, grass trimmings, tree pruning, and leaf collection to prevent obstruction of swales. • Removal of standing water, which may contribute to the development of aquatic plant communities or mosquito breeding areas. • Erosion and structural maintenance to prevent the loss of soil and maintain the performance of the swales. 6.2.1 Inspection frequency Bio-filters should be inspected at the following times: • Once a month at a minimum. • After every runoff producing storm. • On a weekly basis during extended periods of inclement weather. 6.2.2 Preventive Maintenance Preventive maintenance activities for bio-filter swales are: • Grass Mowing. -Vegetation seed mix or sod within the bio-filter will be designed to be kept short to maintain adequate hydraulic function and to limit the development of faunal habitats. • Trash and Debris. -Debris and trash removal will be conducted to reduce the potential for inlet and outlet structures and other components from becoming clogged and inoperable dlJring storm events. • Sediment Removal. -Sediment accumulation, as part of the operation and maintenance program for swales, should be monitored once a month during the dry season, after every large storm, and at least monthly during the rainy season, October 1 to April 30. Specifically, if sedimynt reaches a level at or near plant height, or could interfere with flow or operation, the sediment will be removed. If accumulation of debris or sediment is determined to be the cause of decline in design performance, prompt action (Le., within ten working days) should be taken to restore the swale to design performance standards. Actions will include using additional fill and vegetation and/or removing. qccumulated sediment to correct channeling or ponding. Characterization and appropriate disposal of sediment will comply with applicable local, county, state, or federal requirements. The swale will be re-graded, if the flow gradient has changed, and then replanted with appropriate vegetation. • Removal of Standing Water. -Standing water must be removed as it contributes to the development of aquatic plant communities or mosquito breeding areas. • Use and Application of Fertilizers, Herbicides and Pesticides. -The application of these materials should be in strict conformance with the manufacturers' instructions and care should be taken not to over-apply. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.2.3 Corrective Maintenance Corrective maintenance is required on an emergency or non-routine basis to correct problems and to restore the intended operation and safe function of a Swale. Corrective maintenance activities include: • Removal of Debris and Sediment. -Sediment, debris, and trash, which impede the hydraulic functioning of swales and prevent vegetative growth, will be removed and properly disposed. Temporary arrangements will be made for handling the sediments until a permanent arrangement is made. Vegetation will be re-established after sediment removal. • Structural Repairs. -Once deemed necessary, repairs to bio-filters Should be performed within 10 working days. • Embankment and Slope Repairs. -Once deemed necessary, damage to the embankments and slopes upstream of swales should be repaired within 10 working days. • Erosion Repair. -Where a reseeding program has been ineffeytive, or where other factors have created erosive conditions (i.e. pedestrian traffic, concentrated flow, etc.), corrective steps will be taken to prevent loss of soil and any subsequent danger to the performance of the bio-filter. There are a number of corrective actions than can be taken which include erosion control blankets, rip-rap, sodding, or reduced flow through the affected area. 6.3 POROUS PAVEMENT SURFACE Porous pavement surfaces are special types of pavement with underlying filter beds comprised of stone, gravel and sand capping a filter fabric blanket. The porous pavement surface allows storm water to pass through and be temporarily stored in the stone filter reservoir before infiltrating into the subsoil. Surfaces types are available in several treatments, including, but not limited to; grass pavers, porous asphalt, pervious concrete and engineered interlocking paver blocks. Ideal applications for porous surfaces are light traffic and parking areas. Pervious pavements increase the areas available for stormwater infiltration while still having limited vehicular uses. The operation and maintenance needs of porous pavement surfaces are: • Limit of usage in low intensity parking areas or light volume/weight traffic areas. • Frequent vacuum sweeping and high-pressure washing. • Resurfacing only with similar porous surface materials. • Inspection for surface deterioration or spalling. • Application, inspection and specification enforcement by qualified personnel during construction and resurfacing operations. 6.3.1 Inspection frequency Porous pavement surfaces should be inspected at the following times: • Once a month, at a minimum, following initial usage after installation. Yearly thereafter. • Mter every runoff producing storm. • On a weekly basis during extended periods of inclement weather. 6.3.2 Preventive Maintenance Preventive maintenance activities for porous pavement surfaces are: • Surface Sweeping.-Keep surface clean of debris and sand by vacuum sweeping at a minimum of four times per year or more frequently if unusual sand accumulation occurs. • Surface Washing. -Wash with high pressure hose to keep top layer from clogging on porous asphalt and pervious concrete surfaces. • Landscaping. -Prevention of silt and cuttings from washing onto porous surfaces. Trimming/removal of growths through interlocking paver blocks and removal of cuttings. 16 TABLE 4 BMP Maintenance Program A schedule of periodic maintenance should be implemented and modified, as needed, to insure effective operation of the indicated BMP's. As a guideline, a tentative schedule of maintenance frequency follows. The schedule is based on certain indicators outlined for a particular BMP. . I BMP FloGard+ ™ Inserts Porous Pavement Biofilters ROUTINE ACTIONS Sediment removal. Trash and debris removal. Oil and grease removal. Structural integrity of insert. Annual renewal of adsorbent medium. Inspect for height of vegetation. (Only for interlocking paver blocks.) Inspect for standing water accumulation. Inspect for debris accumulation. 1 MAINTENANCE INDICATORS I ' FIELD MEASUREMENT ; Sediment more than 1/2 height of filter ! Visual inspection of filter body. ! body. J j Sufficient trash or debris accumulation Visual inspection of inlet and filter ! to hinder filter performance. insert. I Absorbent medium dark gray or darker Visual inspection of adsorbent filter I and saturated with oil. media. ! Broken or damaged insert with visible rips, tears, gashes and/ or fallen media. End of wet season. Average height of vegetation growth exceeds 1" above Eavers. Puddles of water remain after rainfall. Visual inspection of insert components. Lack of precipitation for extended period. Visual inspection of vegetation. Visual inspection for puddles. i FREQUENCY I After each rain event. I I After each rain event. After each Target 2 (0.75") rain' event. MAINTENANCE ACTNITY Remove and properly dispose of sediment. Remove and properly dispos~ of trash and debris accumulation. Replace adsorbent media within 10 working days. Characterize and properly dispose of spent media prior to wet season. Semi-annually, May and Octob~~. I Replace insert. Contact vendor to develop I I preventative procedures. Effect repairs I :..... within 10 workin days. -l ! Annually before wet season. Remove, characterize and properly dispose of spent media. Replace adsorbent media before start of wet season. I Inspect weekly and after rainy . periods. After each rain event. Cut vegetation as required. Distribute water to other areas for infiltration. Power wash area to unclog upper layer of pavement. Drill W'holes in I area of Eonding for immediate remedy. -'r Visual inSpection for trash. During routine site landscape . I Remove and properly dispose of trash""', -li-tt-e-r--l . Debris or litter accumulation. i maintenance. --l and debris. Inspect for accumulation of silt, sand or : Silt, sand or sediment is visible on ! Visual inspection for accumulation of I' Inspect monthly and after each'-l-R'-"-e-'--rr-l-o-v-'-e-'-a-c-'-c-u-m-u-l-:-a-t-ed-'--s-e""dc-im-e-n-t-=-b-y-v-a-c-u-uill sediment. ; pavement surface. dirt. I significant rainfall. I sweeping as necessary. Test & dispose of ! I I wastes properly Inspect the surface for deterioration or spalling. Height of vegetation. Assess adequate cover. Inspect for debris accumulation. ; Pavement surface has breaks, cracks or , potholes. Visual inspection for surface integrity. Visual inspecth. ------"'--_. ----",-_. ----------,---------~ --.--------------- Inspect for accumulation of sediment or erosion of soil.. Sediment is at or near vegetation height. Visual inspection for sediment depth. : Rills or gullies in topsoil. ' Visual inspection for rills and soil , erosion. Semi-annually, May and October Patching mixes may be used for repairs if and after each rain event. less than 10% of total area is affected. Surface may need replacement if area affected is greater than 10%. \8 I Remove accumulated sediment when , interfering with drainage flows. ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7.0 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Potential BMP's that could be utilized by anyone performing activities on the site that could iinpact tun-off will be provided by the owner/developer, on an as needed basis, to thereby reduce pollutant releases to the environment. The owner/developer will be notified of their responsibilities pertaining to the BMPs set,..fbrth in the County of San Diego Watershed Protection Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, Ordinance #9424 N.S., Sections 67.807 and 67.808. Additionally, the owner/developer will be advised of the reporting of illicit discharge responsibilities and provided with the reporting telephone hotlines: (888) 846-0800 and (888) 844-6525. 8.0 FISCAL RESOURCES The owner/developer of the project will be financially responsible for construction/installation of the post- development BMPS and implementation of the SWPPP. An on site association will perform the maintenance of the catch basin inserts and water clarifier, as well as the private onsite storm drains and landscaping. Most of the permanent BMP's accrue minimal maintenance costs. Mulching, seeding and pUl.l1tings are part of a continuing landscape maintenance program. Landscaping maintenance for permanent stabilization of graded areas and the maintenance vacuum sweeping of the porous pavement surface will be the' responsibility of the owner/developer through the onsite association. A maintenance contract entered into with the FloGard™ insert, Antimicrobial Smart Sponge and FiIterra provider upon installation will insure a continued monitoring of all catch basin inserts of the Project. The contract provides for necessary maintenance and needed repairs to continue insert effectiveness for the ,length of the contract. ' Installation and maintenance of the post-development BMP's will be the responsibility of the owner/developer under a BMP Maintenance Agreement. A security will be required to back-up the Maintenance, Agreement to equal the cost of two years maintenance activities and the agreement will remain in place for an interim period of five years. The permanent responsibility of the post-development BMP's will remail) with the owner/developer. 19 I I ·1 WJ t:: I o I I I I I I I I I I' I I I TABLE 5 BMP ESTIMATED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) COSTS I Permanent BMPs constructed and installed for this project will necessitate continuous operation and maintenance when the project is complete. O&¥ costs are based upon California DepartmeJ;lt of Transportation estimated costs for pilot BMP project utilizing prevailing wage rates. Below are the itemized costs, based on prevailing wage rat9s, of the project BMPs as shown in Figure I. , \ \ As identified in WQTR Section 8.0, Fiscal Resources, the source for funding ofBMP operation and maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner(s)(and/or owners association. Post construction pennanent BMP operation and maintenance costs include, but are not limited to the following: BMP OPERATION &·MAINTENANCE COSTS i BMP OPERATION & MAINTENANCE I ITEM LABOR EQUIPMENT MATERIALS i TOTAL COST I I Per Hrs. I Rate I Cost I TYQe I Days I Rate I Cost I Item I Cost \ ! I FLOGARD+rnINS~RTS 24.0 43.63 $1,047.12 1 Ton Truck 1.5 26.84 $40.26 New Adsorbent, $115.0q $1,202.38 Testing & Disposal , . Vacuum Sweeper, ! POROUS PAVEMENT 24.0 43.63 $1,047.12 Power Washer 4.0 198.75 $795.00 Testing & Disposal $460.00 $2,302.12 Trimmer, Rake, 1 Ton Truck, Fork, Sags, Safety BIOFIL TER SWALE 62.0 43.63 $2,705.06 2.0 48.15 $96.30 Equipment, Sags, $500.00 $3,301.36 Hydroseeder Seed, Testing & Disposal I T~~~L I $5,603.48 1.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I 9.0 CONCLUSION This WQTR has been prepared to define potential Best Management Practices (BMP's) that satisfy the requirements identified in the following documents: 1) City of Carlsbad "Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Storm Water Standards" dated April 2003. 2) County of San Diego Watershed Protection Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Section 67.817). 3) Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, current edition. 4) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit), issued by the, State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Order 99-08 DWQ. 5) San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order Number 2001-01). Thus, it has been shown that this project can meet the water quality objectives as outlined in Order 2001-01 as the proposed and shown on the site plan. An analysis has been performed to ensure that the site plan can accommodate the water quality BMPs. Therefore, it is anticipated that the site plan will not affect downstream waters by the implementation of these BMPs. 21 ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATION This Water Quality Technical Report has been prepared under the direction of the undersigned to comply with the requirements of the County of San Diego Watershed Protection Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Section 67.817). Date 22 I I I I I I ATTACHMENTS I I ATTACHMENT A HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS 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 K&S ENGINEERING Planning Engineering Surveying PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY FOR CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS IN CITY OF CARLSBAD IN 01-048 June 18, 2003 R.C.E. 48592 7801 Mission Center Court. Suite 100 • San Diego. California 92108 • (619) 296-5565 • Fax (619) 296-5564 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I.SITE DESCRIPTION 2.HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS 3.INLET DESIGN ....................... APPENDIX A 4.HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS APPENDIX B S.TABLES AND CHARTS ................................ APPENDIX C 6.HYDROLOGY MAPS ................................... APPENDIX D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. SITE DESCRIPTION A. EXISTING CONDITION B. C. THE EXISTING SITE CONSISTS OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16274. THE ENTIRE SITE CURRENTLY SURFACE-FLOWS TO AN ONSITE CONCRETE CHANNEL THAT FLOWS NORTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE AND OUTLETS INTO AN EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL LOCATED WITHIN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IN ADDITION OFFSITE FLOWS FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH ENTER THE SITE AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER. THE TOTAL COMBINED FLOW (Q100) EXITING THE SITE IS 89 CFS. PROPOSED CONDITION THE PROPOSED TENTATIVE MAP CONSISTS OF LOTS A THROUGH E OF THE CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS WITH A TOTAL OF FOUR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND THEIR CORRESPONDING PARKING AREAS. FURTHERMORE, A RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (C) OF 0.95 WAS USED SINCE THE ENTIRE SITE IS LOCATED IN SOIL GROUP "D". THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATERN IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CONDITION. THE PROPOSED SITE WILL SURFACE-DRAIN TO TWO PROPOSED CURB INLETS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWESTERLY SIDE OF THE SITE. IN ADDITION, THE OFFSITE FLOWS WILL BE INTERCEPTED BY A NEW 2' X6' RCB DRAIN, WHICH WILL REPLACE THE EXISTING ONSITE CONCRETE CHANNEL MENTIONED ABOVE. THE TOTAL COMBINED FLOW EXITING THE SITE IS 94 CFS. SUMMARY THE INCREASE IN FLOW FROM THE EXISTING TO THE PROPOSED CONDITION IS 5 CFS (5% INCREASE); THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE DOWNSTREAM STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. ALSO, A 2- YEAR STORM ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATES THAT ALL THE PIPES HAVE VELOCITIES GREATER THAN 4 FPS EXCEPT FOR THE 2'X6'RCB WITH A VELOCITY OF 3.48 FPS AS DISCUSSED WITH CITY STAFF. ALSO, A SEPARATE REPORT ENTITLED "WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT" HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT. THIS REPORT ADDRESSES THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BOARD ORDER 2001.01. BRIEFLY, THE REPORT DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE WILL BE NO DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS DUE TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WITH RESPECT TO WATER QUALITY AND EROSION.A MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR THE BMP'S HAS ALSO BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE REPORT. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. HYDROLOGY DESIGN MODELS A. DESIGN METHODS THE RATIONAL METHOD IS USED IN THIS HYDROLOGY STUDYi THE RATIONAL FORMULA IS AS FOLLOWS: Q = CIA, WHERE : Q= PEAK DISCHARGE IN CUBIC FEET/SECOND * C = RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (DIMENSIONLESS) I = RAINFALL INTENSITY IN INCHES/HOUR (PER FIGURE 3-1) A = TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE AREA IN ACRES i *1 ACR~ INCHES/HOUR = 1.008 CUBIC FEET/SEC THE OVERLAND FLOW METHOD IS ALSO USED IN THIS HYDROLOGY. STUDY; THE OVERLAND FLOW FORMULA IS AS FOLLOWS: B. C. Tc=1.8 (l.l-C) (L) .5/ [S (100) ] .333 L = OVERLAND TRAVEL DISTANCE IN FEET S = SLOPE IN FT./FT. Tc= TIME IN MINUTES DESIGN CRITERIA -FREQUENCY, 100 YEAR STORM. -LAND USE PER SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP. -RAIN FALL INTENSITY PER COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 2'001 HYDROLOGY DESIGN MANUAL. REFERENCES -COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 2001, HYDROLOGY MANUAL. -COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1992 REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS. -HAND BOOK OF HYDRAULICS BY BRATER & KING, SIXTH EDITION. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A (3. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I EXISTING HYDROLOGY San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c)1991-2001 Version 6.2 Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 1985 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 03/27/03 ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** K & S Engineering, San Diego, CA -SiN 868 ----------------------------~------------------------------------------- Rational hydrology study storm event year is English (in-lb) input data Units used English (in) rainfall data used Map data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation (inches) = 2.600 24 hour precipitation(inches) 4.200 Adjusted 6 hour precipitation (inches) = 2.600 P6/P24 = 61.9% San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used Runoff coefficients by rational method 100.0 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D [INDUSTRIAL area type 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 Initial subarea flow distance Highest elevation = 54.200(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 48.300(Ft.) ] SOO.OOO(Ft.) Elevation difference 5.900(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 5.71 min. TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.5 )/(% slopeA(1/3)] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.9500)*( 500.000A.5)/( 1.180A(1/3)]= 5.71 Rainfall intensity (I) = 6.286 (In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.950 Subarea runoff = 29.857(CFS) Total initial stream area = 5.000(AC.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Upstream point elevation = 48.300(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 47.400(Ft:) Channel length thru subarea 250.000(Ft.) Channel base width O.OOO(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 50.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 50.000 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel 38.695(CFS) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Manning's 'N' = 0.020 Maximum depth of channel 1.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 3'B.69S(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.617(Ft.), Average velocity Channel flow top width = 61.67S(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 2.03(Ft/s) Travel time 2.05 min. Time of concentration = 7.76 min. Critical depth = 0.520(Ft.) Adding area flow to channel Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 2.035 (Ft/s) [INDUSTRIAL area type Rainfall intensity Runoff coefficient Subarea runoff 5.1S9(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=KCIA; C 14.506(CFS) for 2.960(Ac.) Total runoff = 44.363(CFS) Total area = 7.96 (Ac.) 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 4.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Upstream point elevation = 42.900(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 42.500(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea BOO.OOO(Ft.) Channel base width . 6.000(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 1.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 1.000 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel. 77.B31(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Maximum depth of channel 5.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 77.B31(CFS) Depth of flow = 2.760(Ft.), Average velocity 3.219(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 11.521(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 3.22(Ft/s) Travel time 4.14 min. Time of concentration = 11.90 min. Critical depth = 1.57B(Ft.) Adding area flow to channel Decimal fraction soil group A 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 [INDUSTRIAL area type 1 Rainfall intensity 3.915(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=KCIA, C 0.950 Subarea runoff = 44.66B(CFS) for 12.010(Ac.) Total runoff = 89.031(CFS) Total area 19.97(Ac.) End of computations, total study area = 19.970 (Ac.) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROPOSED HYDROLOGY San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c)1991-2001 Version 6.2 Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 1985 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 03/27/03 ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** K & S Engineering, San Diego, CA -SiN 868 Rational hydrology study storm event year is English (in-lb) input data Units used English (in) rainfall data used Map data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation (inches) = 2.600 24 hour precipitation(inches) 4.200 Adjusted 6 hour precipitation (inches) = 2.600 P6/P24 = 61.9% San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used Runoff coefficients by rational method 100.0 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** 0.000 0.000 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D [INDUSTRIAL area type 1.000 Initial subarea flow distance Highest elevation = S3.490(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 50.110(Ft.) ] 500.000(Ft.) Elevation difference 3.380(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 6.88 min. TC = [l.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.S)/(% slopeA(1/3)] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.9500)*( 500.000A .S)/( 0.676A(1/3)]= 6.88 Rainfall intensity (I) = 5.S76(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.950 Subarea runoff = 8.900(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.680(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Upstream point elevation = 50.110(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 46.260(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 380.000(Ft.) Channel base width O.OOO(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = Manning's 'N' = 0.013 25.000 0.200 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Maximum depth of channel 0.500(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 8.900(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.421(Ft.), Average velocity Channel flow top width = 10.'611 (Ft.) Flow Velocity = 3.98(Ft/s) Travel time 1.59 min. Time of concentration 8.47 min. Critical depth = 0.500(Ft.) 3.984(Ft/S) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to point/Station 3.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 0.000 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 [INDUSTRIAL area type Time of concentration 8.47 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.876(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=KCIA, C Subarea runoff 32.474(CFS) for 7.010(Ac.) Total runoff = 41.374 (CFS) Total area = 8.69 (Ac.) 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 4.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = Downstream point/station elevation 43.500(Ft.) 42 . 690 (Ft. ) N = 0.013 Pipe length 142.00(Ft.) Manning's No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 41. 374 (CFS) Given pipe size = 30.00(In.) NOTE: Normal flow is pressure flow in user The approximate hydraulic grade line above 2.289(Ft.) at the headworks or inlet selected pipe size. the pipe invert is of the pipe'(s) Pipe friction loss = 1.444(Ft.) Minor friction loss = 1.655(Ft.) K-factor = 1.50 Pipe flow velocity = 8.43(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe 0.28 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 8.75 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 4.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C group D 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 8.75 min. Decimal fraction soil [INDUSTRIAL area type Time of concentration Rainfall intensity Runoff coefficient Subarea runoff 4.775(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=KCIA, C 0.953 (CFS') for 0.210(Ac.) Total runoff = 42.326(CFS) Total area = 8.90 (Ac.) 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 4.000 to point/Station 5.000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = 42.690(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 42.S00(Ft.) Pipe length 19.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 42.326(CFS) Given pipe size = 30.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 42.326(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 25.55(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 21.33(In.) Critical Depth = 26.l3(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 9.S0(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.03 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 8.78 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station S.OOO **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS **** The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 1 Stream flow area = 8.900(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 42.326(CFS} Time of concentration = 8.78 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.763 (In/Hr) Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 6.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D [INDUSTRIAL area type 0.000 0.000 1.000 Initial subarea flow distance Highest elevation = S3.490(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 49.000(Ft.) ] SOO.OOO(Ft.) Elevation difference 4.490(Ft.} Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 6.26 min. TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.S)/(% slopeA(1/3}] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.9S00}*( SOO.OOOA.S}/( 0.898A(1/3}]= 6.26 Rainfall intensity (I) = S.927(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.950 Subarea runoff = 7.489(CFS} Total initial stream area = 1.330(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 6.000 to Pointj-Station 7.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Upstream point elevation = 49.000(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 46.600(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 3S0.000(Ft.) Channel base width O.OOO{Ft.) Slop'e or 'Z 0 of left channel bank = 0.200 Slope or'oZ' of right channel bank = 0.083 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel 8.840(CFS) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Maximum depth of channel 0.500(Ft.) Flow{q) thru subarea = 8.840{CFS) Depth of flow = 7.676(Ft.), Average velocity 8.414(Ft/s) !!Warning: Water is above left or right bank elevations Channel flow top width = 0.142(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 8.41(Ft/s) Travel time 0.69 min. Time of concentration 6.95 min. Critical depth = 5.188(Ft.) ERROR -Channel depth exceeds maximum allowable depth Adding area flow to channel Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 [INDUSTRIAL area type Rainfall intensity Runoff coefficient Subarea runoff 5.539(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=~CIA, C 2.526(CFS) for 0.480(Ac.) Total runoff = 10.015(CFS) Total area = 1.81(Ac.) 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 7.000 to Point/Station 8.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = Downstream point/station elevation 43.650(Ft.) 43.430(Ft.) Pipe length 22.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 10.015(CFS) No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 10.015(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 14.06(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 14.88(In.) Critical Depth = 14.64(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 6.77(Ft!s) Travel time through pipe = 0.05 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 7.01 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 7.000 to Point/Station 8.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS **** Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 1 Stream flow area = 1.8l0(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 10.015(CFS) Time of concentration Rainfall intensity = 7.01 min. 5.511(In!Hr) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 11.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B 0.000 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [INDUSTRIAL area type Initial subarea flow distance Highest elevation = 54.200(Ft.) 1 500.000(Ft.) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Lowest elevation = 48.300(Ft.) Elevation difference 5.900(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 5.71 min. TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.5)/(% slopeA(1/3)] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.9500)*( 500.000A.5)/( 1.180A(1/3)]= 5.71 Rainfall intensity (I) = 6.286(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.950 Subarea runoff = 29.857(CFS) Total initial stream area = 5.000(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Covered channel Upstream point elevation 48.300(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 47.400(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 250.000(Ft.) Channel base width O.OOO(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 50.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 50.000 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel 38.695(CFS) Manning's 'N' = 0.020 Maximum depth of channel 1.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 38.695(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.617(Ft.), Average velocity 2.035(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 61.675(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 2.03(Ft/s) Travel time 2.05 min. Time of concentration = 7.76 min. Critical depth = 0.520(Ft.) Adding area flow to channel Decimal fraction soil group A 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 [INDUSTRIAL area type Rainfall intensity 5.159(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=KCIA, C 0.950 Subarea runoff 14.506(CFS) for 2.960(Ac.) Total runoff = 44.363(CFS) Total area = 7.96(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/~tation 8.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Covered channel Upstream point elevation 43.490(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 43.430(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 50.000(Ft.) Channel base width 6.000(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = Manning's 'N' = 0.013 0.000 0.000 Maximum depth of channel 2.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 44.363(CFS) Depth of flow = 1.748(Ft.), Average velocity Channel flow top width = 6.000(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 4.23(Ft/s) Travel time 0.20 min. 4.231(Ft/s) I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I Time of concentration Critical depth = 7.96 min. 1.188 (Ft.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to point/Station 8.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS **** Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 2 Stream flow area = 7.960(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 44.363{CFS) Time of concentration = Rainfall intensity = Summary of stream data: 7.96 min. 5.076(In/Hr) Stream No. Flow rate (CFS) TC (min) Rainfall Intensity (In/Hr) 1 10.015 7.01 5.511 2 44.363 7.96 5.076 Qmax(l) 1. 000 * 1.000 * 10.015) + 1.000 * 0.880 * 44.363) + 49.066 Qmax(2) 0.921 * 1.000 * 10.015) + 1.000 * 1.000 * 44.363) + 53.587 Total of 2 streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point: 10.015 44.363 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: 49.066 53.587 Area of streams before confluence: 1.810 7.960 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 53.587(CFS) Time of concentration 7.958 min. Effective stream area after confluence 9.770 (Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 8.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Covered channel Upstream point elevation 43.430(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 42.500(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 775.000(Ft.) Channel base width 6.000(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 0.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 0.000 Manning's 'N' = 0.013 Maximum depth of channel 2.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 53.587(CFS) Depth of flow = 1.998(Ft.) I Average· velocity Channel flow top width = 6.000(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 4.47(Ft/s) Travel time 2.89 min. Time of concentration ·10.85 min. Critical depth = 1.359(Ft.) 4.470(Ft/S) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.+ Process from Point/Station 8.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS **** The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 2 Stream flow area = 9.770(Ac.) Runoff from this stream S3.S87(CFS) Time of concentration = 10.85 min. Rainfall intensity = 4.1S7(In/Hr) Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 3 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 9.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D [INDUSTRIAL area type 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 Initial subarea flow distance Highest elevation = 47.800(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 45.500(Ft.) ] SOO.OOO(Ft.) Elevation difference 2.300(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 7.82 min. TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.S)/(% slopeA(1/3)] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.9500)*( SOO.OOOA.S)/( 0.460A(1/3)]= 7.82 Rainfall intensity (I) = 5.133(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.950 Subarea runoff = 4.53S(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.930(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 14.000 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of street segment elevation = 4S.500(Ft.) End of street segment elevation = 44.390(Ft.) Length of street segment 190.000(Ft.) Height of curb above gutter flowline 6.0(In.) Width of half street (curb to crown) 19.000(Ft.) Distance from crown to crossfall grade break 17.S00(Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.083 Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) 0.020 Street flow is on (1) side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line S.OOO(Ft.) Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) 0.020 Gutter width = 1.SOO(Ft.) Gutter hike from flowline = 1.500(In.) Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150 Manning's N from gutter to grade break 0.0150 Manning's N from grade break to crown = 0.0200 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street = 5.S11(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.441(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.803(Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width = 17.277(Ft.) Flow' velocity = 1.80(Ft/s) Travel time = 1.76 min. TC = 9.58 min. Adding area flow to street I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D [INDUSTRIAL a,rea type 0.000 0.000 0.000 1. 000 Rainfall intensity 4.504(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=KCIA, C Subarea runoff 1.712(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.) Total runoff = 6.247(CFS) Total area = 1.33 (Ac.) Street flow at end of street = 6.247(CFS) Half street flow at end of street = 6.247(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.458(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.858(Ft/s) Flow width (from curb towards ,crown) = 18.139 (Ft.) 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = 42.810(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 42.500(Ft.) Pipe length 62.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 6.247(CFS) Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 6.247(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 1,2.64 TIn. ) Flow top width inside pipe = 16'.46 (In. ) Critical Depth = 11.60(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 4.71(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.22 min. Time of concentration (TC) 9.80 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS **** The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 3 Stream flow area = 1.330(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 6.247(CFS) Time of concentration = Rainfall intensity = Summary of stream data: 9.80 min. 4.439(In/Hr) Stream No. Flow rate (CFS) TC (min) Rainfall Intensity (In/Hr) 1 42.326 8.78 4.763 2 53.587 10.85 4.157 3 6.247 9.80 4.439 Qmax(l) 1. 000 * 1. 000 * 42.326) + 1. 000 * 0.810 * 53.587) + 1. 000 * 0.897 * 6.247) + 91. 314 Qmax(2) 0.873 * 1. 000 * 42.326) + 1. 000 * 1. 000 * 53.587) + 0.936 * 1. 000 * 6.247) + 96.374 Qmax'(3) 0.932 * 1. 000 * 42.326) + 1. 000 * 0.903 * 53.587) + I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I 1. 000 * 1. 000 * 6.247) + = 94.088 Total of 3 main streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point: 42.326 53.587 6.247 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: 91.314 96.374 94.088 Area of streams before confluence: 8.900 9.770 1.330 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 94.088{CFS) Time of concentration = 9.797 min. Effective stream area after confluence End of computations, total study area = 20.000{Ac.) 20.000 (~c.) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROPOSED 2-YR HYDROLOGY San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c)1991-2001 Version 6.2 Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 1985 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 03/27/03 ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** K & S Engineering, San Diego, CA -SiN 868 Rational hydrology study storm event year is 2.0 English "(in-lb) input data units used English (in) rainfall data used Map data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation (inches) = 1.200 24 hour precipitation(inches) 1.800 Adjusted 6 hour precipitation (inches) = 1.170 P6/P24 = 66.7% San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used Runoff coefficients by rational method ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D [INDUSTRIAL area type 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 Initial subarea flow distance Highest elevation = s3.490(Ft.) Lowest elevation = sO.110(Ft.) ] sOO.OOO(Ft.) Elevation difference 3.380(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 6.88 min. TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.s )/(% slopeA(1/3)] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.9500)*( sOO.OOOA.s )/( 0.676A(I/3)]= 6.88 Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.s09(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.950 Subarea runoff = 4.00s(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.680(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Upstream point elevation = sO.110(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 46.260(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 380.000(Ft.) Channel base width O.OOO(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 0.200 Manning'S 'N' = 0.013 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROPOSED 2-YR HYDROLOGY San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c)1991-2001 Version 6.2 Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 1985 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 03/27/03 ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** K & S Engineering, San Diego, CA -SiN 868 Rational hydrology study storm event year is 2.0 English (in-lb) input data Units used English (in) rainfall data used Map data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation (inches) = 1.200 24 hour precipitation(inches) 1.800 Adjusted 6 hour precipitation (inches) = 1.170 P6/P24 = 66.7% San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used Runoff coefficients by rational method ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D [INDUSTRIAL area type 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 Initial subarea flow distance Highest elevation = S3.490(Ft.) Lowest elevation = SO.110(Ft.) ) SOO.OOO(Ft.) Elevation difference 3.380(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 6.88 min. TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.S)/(% slopeA(1/3») TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.9500)*( SOO.OOOA.S)/( 0.676A(1/3»)= Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.S09(In/Hr) for a Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) Subarea runoff = 4.00S(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.680(Ac.) 6.88 2.0 year storm is C = 0.950 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++~++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Upstream point elevation = SO.110(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 46.260(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 380.000(Ft.) Channel base width O.OOO(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 25.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 0.200 Manning's 'N' = 0.013 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Maximum depth of channel 0.500(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 4.005(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.312(Ft.), Average velocity 3.263(Ft/s)· : Channel flow top width = 7.865 (Ft.) Flow Velocity = 3.26(Ft/s) Travel time 1.94 min. Time of concentration 8.82 min. Critical depth = 0.363(Ft.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 3.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D 0.000 0.000 0.000 1. 000 8.82 min. [INDUSTRIAL area type Time of concentration Rainfall intensity Runoff coefficient Subarea runoff 2.138(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=KCIA, C 14.235(CFS) for 7.010(Ac.) Total runoff = 18.240(CFS) Total area = 8.69 (Ac.) 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 4.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = Downstream point/station elevation 43.500(Ft.) 42.690(Ft.) Pipe length 142.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.01;3 18.240 (CF..S) No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow Given pipe size = 30.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 18.240(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 16.55(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 29.84(1n.) Critical Depth = 17.37(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 6.57(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.36 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 9.18 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point;:/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 4.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 0.000 0.000 group D'= 1. 000 9.18 min. Decimal fraction soil [INDUSTRIAL area type Time of concentration Rainfall intensity Runoff coefficient Subarea runoff 2.083 (In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm used for sub-area, Rational m~thod;Q=KCIA, C 0.416(CFS) for 0.210(Ac.) Total runoff = 18.656(CFS) Total area = 8.,90 (Ac.) 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Upstream point/station elevation = 42.690(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 42.500(Ft.) pipe length 19.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 18.656(CFS) Given pipe size = 30.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 18.656(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 14.20(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 29.96(In.) Critical Depth = 17.55(In.) pipe flow velocity = 8.16(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.04 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 9.22 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 4.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS **** The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 1 Stream flow area = 8.900(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 18.656(CFS) Time of concentration = 9.22 min. Rainfall intensity = 2.077(In/Hr) Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 6.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D [INDUSTRIAL area type 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 Initial subarea flow distance Highest elevation = 53.490(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 49.000(Ft.) ] 500.000(Ft.) Elevation difference 4.490(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 6.26 min. TC = [1.8*(l.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.5)/(% slopeA(1/3)] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.9500)*( 500.000A.5)/( 0.898A(I/3)]= Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.667(In/Hr) for a Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) Subarea runoff = 3.370(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.330(AC.) 6.26 2.0 year storm is C = 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 6.000 to Point/Station 7.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Upstream point elevation = 49.000(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 46.600(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 350.000(Ft.) Channel base width O.OOO(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint Manning's 'N' = 0.015 0.200 0.083 of channel 3.978(CFS) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Maximum depth of channel Flow(q) thru subarea = 0.500 (Ft.) 3.97B(CFS) Depth of flow = 4.849(Ft.), Average velocity 6.113(Ft/s) !!Warning: Water is above left or right bank elevations Channel flow top width = 0.142(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 6.11(Ft/s) Travel time 0.95 min. Time of concentration 7.21 min. Critical depth = 3.156(Ft.) ERROR -Channel depth exceeds maximum allowable depth ,Adding area flow to channel Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 [INDUSTRIAL area type Rainfall intensity Runoff coefficient Subarea runoff 2.434(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=KCIA, C 1.110(CFS) for 0.4BO(Ac.) Total runoff = 4.480(CFS) Total area = 1.81(Ac.) 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 7.000 to Point/Station 8.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = Downstream point/station elevation 43.650(Ft.) 43.430(Ft.) Pipe length 22.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 4.480(CFS) No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 4.4BO(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 8.21(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 17.93(In.) Critical Depth = ' 9.75(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 5.71(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.06 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 7.28 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 7.000 to Point/Station 8.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS **** Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 1 Stream flow area = 1.810(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 4.480(CFS) Time of concentration Rainfall intensity = 7.28 min. 2.420(In/Hr) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 10.000 to point/Station 11.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION'**** Decimal fraction soil group A 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1. 000 [INDUSTRIAL area type ] Initial subarea flow distance 500.000(Ft.) Highest elevation = 54.200(Ft.) LOwest elevation = 48.300(Ft.) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Elevation difference = S.900(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 5.71 min. TC = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance(Ft.)A.S)/(% slopeA(l/3)] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.9500)*( SOO.000A.5)/( 1.180A (1/3)]= 5.71 Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.829(In/Hr) for a Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) 2.0 year storm is C = 0.950 Subarea runoff = 13.436(CFS) Total initial stream area = 5.000(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 12.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Covered channel Upstream point elevation 48.300(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 47.400(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 250.000(Ft.) Channel base width O.OOO(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 50.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 50.000 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of channel Manning's 'N' = 0.020 Maximum depth of channel 1.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 17.413(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.457(Ft.), Average velocity Channel flow top width = 45.716(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 1.67(Ft/s) Travel time 2.50 min. Time of concentration = 8.21 min. Critical depth = 0.37S(Ft.) Adding area flow to channel Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 17.413 (CFS) 1. 666 (Ft/s) [INDUSTRIAL area type Rainfall intensity Runoff coefficient Subarea runoff 2.238(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=KCIA, C 6.294(CFS) for 2.960(Ac.) Total runoff = 19.729(CFS) Total area = 7.96 (Ac.) 0.950, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 8;000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Covered channel Upstream point elevation 43.490(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 43.430(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 50.000(Ft.) Channel base width 6.000(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = Manning's 'N' = 0.013 0.000 0.000 Maximum depth of channel 2.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 19.729(CFS) Depth of flow = 1.004(Ft.), Average velocity Channel flow top width = 6.000(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 3.28(Ft/s) Travel time 0.2S min. Time of concentration = 8.47 min. 3.27S(Ft/S) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Critical depth 0.695(Ft.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 8.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS **** Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 2 Stream flow area = 7.960(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 19.729(CFS) Time of concentration = 8.47 min. Rainfall intensity = 2.194(In/Hr) Summary of stream data: Stream No. Flow rate (CFS) TC (min) Rainfall Intensity (In/Hr) 1 4.480 7.28 2.420 2 19.729 8.47 2.194 Qmax(l) 1.000 * 1.000 * 4.480) + 1.000 * 0.859 * 19.729) + = 21.432 Qmax(2) 0.907 * 1.000 * 4.480) + 1.000 * 1.000 * 19.729) + 23.792 Total of 2 streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point: 4.480 19.729 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: 21.432 23.792 Area of streams before confluence: 1.810 7.960 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 23.792(CFS) Time of concentration 8.468 min. Effective stream area after confluence 9.770(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 8.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** Covered channel Upstream point elevation 43.430(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 42.500(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 775.000(Ft.) Channel base width 6.000(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 0.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 0.000 Manning's 'N' = 0.013 Maximum depth of channel 2.000(Ft.) Flow(q) thru subarea = 23.792(CFS) Depth of flow = 1.138(Ft.), Average velocity Channel flow top width = 6.000(Ft.) Flow Velocity = 3.48(Ft/s) Travel time 3.71 min. Time of concentration 12.18 min. Critical depth = 0.789(Ft.) 3.484(Ft/s) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Process from Point/Station B.OOO to Point/Station 5.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS **** The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 2 Stream flow area = 9.770(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 23.792(CFS) Time of concentration = 12.1B min. Rainfall intensity = 1.736(In/Hr) Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 3 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 9.000 to Point/Station 13.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Decimal fraction soil group A Decimal fraction soil group B Decimal fraction soil group C Decimal fraction soil group D [INDUSTRIAL area type 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 Initial subarea flow distance Highest elevation = 47.BOO(Ft.) Lowest elevation = 4S.S00(Ft.) ] sOO.OOO(Ft.) Elevation difference 2.300{Ft.) Time of concentration calculated· by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 7.B2 min. TC = [1.B*(1.1-C)*distance{Ft.)A.s )/{% slopeA{1/3)] TC = [1.8*(1.1-0.9s00)*{ sOO.OOOA.s )/( 0.460A(1/3)]= Rainfall intensity (I) = 2.310{In/Hr) for a Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) Subarea runoff = 2.041{CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.930(Ac.) 7.B2 2.0 year storm is C = 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 13.000 to Point/Station 14.000 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of street segment elevation = 4S.s00(Ft.) End of street segment elevation = 44.390(Ft.} Length of street segment 190.000(Ft.) Height of curb above gutter flowline 6.0(In.) width of half street (curb to crown) 19.000(Ft.) Distance from crown to crossfall grade break 17.s00{Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.083 Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) 0.020 Street flow is on [1] side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line s.OOO(Ft.) Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) 0.020 Gutter width = ·1.S00(Ft.) Gutter hike from flowline = 1.s00{In.) Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150 Manning's N from gutter to grade break 0.0150 Manning's N from grade break to crown = 0.0200 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street = 2.4BO{CFS) Depth of flow = 0.347(Ft.), Average velocity = 1.491{Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width = 12.616(Ft.) Flow velocity = 1.49(Ft/s) Travel time = 2.12 min. TC = 9.94 min. Adding area flow to street Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Decimal fraction soil group B 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 [INDUSTRIAL area type Rainfall intensity 1.978(In/Hr) for a 2.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-area, Rational method,Q=KCIA, C Subarea runoff 0.752(CFS) for 0.400(Ac.) Total runoff = 2.793 (CFS) Total area = 1.33 (Ac. ) Street flow at end of street = 2.793(CFS) Half street flow at end of street = 2.793(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.360 (Ft.), Average velocity = 1. 533 (Ft/s) Flow width (from curb towards crown)= 13.228(Ft.) 0.950 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) **** Upstream point/station elevation = 42.810(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 42.500{Ft.) pipe length 62.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 2.793(CFS) Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 2.793{CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 7.65(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 17.80(In.) Critical Depth = 7.61 (In.) pipe flow velocity = 3.90{Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.26 min. Time of concentration (TC) = 10.21 min. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 14.000 to Point/Station 5.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS **** The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 3 Stream flow area = 1.330(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 2.793(CFS) Time of concentration = 10.21 min. Rainfall intensity = 1.945(In/Hr) Summary of stream data: Stream No. Flow rate (CFS) TC (min) Rainfall Intensity (In/Hr) 39.192 41.876 40.209 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Total of 3 main streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point: 18.656 23.792 2.793' Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: 39.192 41.876 40.209 Area of streams before confluence: 8.900 9.770 1.330 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 40.209(CFS) Time of concentration = 10.209 min. Effective stream area after confluence End of computations, total study area = 20.000(Ac.) 20.000 (Ac.) I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B (4. INLET DESIGN) I I I I I I I I I· I I ", :1 " ... , 1 CPR" &&£ Z?€f<4,v I I I ~oeA0, 7 ________________________________ ~--- , QMQ ~ L~!~C~~~1 __________________________________ _ --, L.«k I.)6,eU6Jfl ad #: /b 1/ J~ __________ . ____ ~--~- :1_ · II J&; 7jVtJ (JeJ ,?eA.. uNbfL ~ ~ ¥ 't::I?Gv,.,I\/~ . C)C.011l. Opt:::"vIN(. (L )~ '../0 ~.s-~~'/:PJ-;;; S Er, IL __ ...... ___ --_____ ~~/_;_///-Z-o/---· ::1 ___ _ ~ f1.~~ L =".~ _ ':'r:. UrJ6# 04 §vl.VJ t ~------------------,--------~~~~~- 1I ~~----------------------~------­- I I I I 1\ I I' APPENDIX C ,I (5. TABLES AND CHARTS) I I I I; I I I I I I I -I I 500 I I 400 I I-W w I u. ~ W300 u I ~ CIl 15 W CIl 0: ::l I 8200 0: W !.t ~ 100 70 ------CIl W I-::l Z 40 ~ ~ w ~ i= ~ u. 0 30 ~ 0: W ~ ~--~------~------L-------L-------~----~ ______ ~ ______ ~o EXAMPLE: Given: Watercourse Distance (D) = 250 Feet Slope (s) = 0.5% Runoff Coefficient (C) = 0.70 Overland Flow Time (T) = 14.3 Minutes T= 1.8 (1.1-C)VO 3VS SOURCE: Airport DraInage, Federal AvIation Administration, 1965 ,) FIGURE Rational Formula· Overland Time of Flow Nomograph 3-5 IHazMaVCounty Hydrogeology ManuaVOv.r1and Flow.FHB ( ( c.? .,0 :. II . 15 20 30 Minut~ 40 50 1, ~. 4' 5 6 . Hours 0.1 till t 1 L~ 1 1 1 1 II " 11"1 LIIIII" 11111111111111"1 'I I IIIUUIIII II II II I I I I 1 I I I" 1 ' 1111' 2 Duration Intensity-Duration Design Ohart· Template HazMallCounty HydrOQeOlosly Manual/lnt Our OeslQn Chart.FH8 :( 1'*'\.. '\ .--~---Directions for AppliCaliOn: (1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr and 24 hr amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are included in the County Hydrology Manual (10, SO, and 100 yr maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). (2) Adjust 6 hr precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr precipitation (not applicaple to Desert). (3) Plot 6 hr precipitation on the right side of the chart. (4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the ploUed lines. (5) This line is the intensity-duration curve for the location being analyzed. Application Form: (a) Selected frequency ______ year (b) P = in P = ---= %(2) 6 ------., 24 ______ , P -----0 24 (c) Adjusted P6(2) = ______ in. (d) tx = _____ min. (e) 1= ______ in.lhr. Note: This chart replaces the Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves used since·1965. • . ., I' P6 1",1 1.1:5,;',("!·2.S.·(3,'t3:S";-'4--r"4:(:;"'S : 5:5':,_6 Durallon I ill I 1 I ill I ' I I I I: I 1 I , , .. ,' -5 2.63 13.9515:271,6 .. 5~ i 7.901,9.22. 10.54i 11.86,13.17;'4.,49; 15,81 _ .. 7 ,~:~2,I,3.,I.~I~.~~L5!;W1.~:~I!!42! 8.48J9.54 .~0·60t.l1.~J)2.1.2 .. ,10,1.68 l2.5313.3714.21j5.os15.90; 6.74! 7.58.8.42 ,9.27 t 10.11 15 1.30: 1.9512.5913.24 ! 3.8914.54, 5.19 5.84, 6.49 ' 7.13 , 7.78 20 1.0a!1.62i 2.15~ 2.69 i 3,2313:171.'4,31 1'.4.85 ~ 5.39 t, 5.93; 6.46 25 ,0.931 1.40 l,.87 I 2.33 1 ' 2.80 13.27, 3.73 ! 4.20 • 4.67 I 5.13 i 5.60 .... 30 .0.83 ,.24\ 1.66! 2.07 2.49,2.9013.32 3.73.4.,5 14.56 I 4.98 40 0.69 1.031.381,.72 2,07!2.41[2.76 3.10.:3.45,3.79 14,13 50 0.60 0.90 1.19 1.4911.7912.091:2,39 2.69,2.98: 3.28, a,58 ....... 60 0.53 0.80 1.06 1.33 1.59j1.8612.,2 2.39 i 2.65 i 2.92 i 3.18 ... _,_. SIO 0.41 0.61 0.82 1.02! ,.231,.,~3 1.63 1.84: 2.04 I 2.25 I 2.41). 120 0.34 0.51 0,68 0.8~J 1.02 1.19 ,1.36 1.53.; ,1.70 1 1.87 12,04 1~ 0.29 0.~4 0.59 0'73~O'88 1.03 1.18 1.32 l. ,.47l,.62 I 1.76 =-,':')~ ~'9:2s, 0.39,0:52 0:65 0.781 0,91 .1.04, 1.18 i 1.31. 1.44\'1.57 ~_,2~ _~,:~2 .. C?~3 ,~:~~ ~~5.:'. Q!65l-<?:1.,6,.~:871 O.98,j .1.08. 1_:19:ll).30 .... __ .. ~1-0,'9 .. ,O:2~ 9~~ _0.4!_ O:56~C!~f?6 .o;r5'1.0.85ro.94iU:~ _1.1~, 3eO .0:17 10.25 0.330.42 0.50.0.58 0.67 0.75, 0.&4 0.921.00 FIGURE 3-1 ~ .. .. I :- I _ ...-.-____ -, - - c(, .... , '{ OF SAN 0 lEGO DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION & FLOOD CONTROL 45' \!=P!i~' .... j. ! 15' : I '1~ 't /. ,r: 33° - 45' I ~ ... JI ,{" .. D.LGO 71 -----_ .... -. .., _ .. -- Pnp"f .. d by u.s, DEPARTMENir OF COMMERCE IfATtO~AL OCEANIC AND AT. OSPHERIC ADMINISTRAnON SPECIAL STUDIES B~ANCH. OFFICE OF 11 UROLOCY, NATIONAL V,'EATHER $ERVlC! -... -. 30' ~ I"v --I -f f 118' 45' 30' 15' 117° 45' 30' IS' 116- -~'---­COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF SANITATIO~ & FLOOD CONTROL 45' 30' 15 ' --' ......... -... __ .. lOO-VEAR ~4-HOllr~ PfU':CIPM'hT1trN- '-20../ ISOPLUVIAlS OF 1 00 -YEAR 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION If.! hrHIlS OF AtJ mclt .33· ~ \V ,-1- 45 1 Prep.+·d b, u.s. OEPARTMENlr OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCY-ASIC AHO Al':JO=>I'IIERIC AO"UNISTRATIOH SPECIAL STUDIES BRA~Cll. OtoflCI:: or "tOROLOGY, NI\TIO~i\t. WEATIIER SERVICE --':- • 4 30' -i--------;I--------~I--------+--------+--------+--------+------~ • 11n° liS • 3°' 1'. ' 1170 I,~. ' )0' l!t' 116- I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I I Average Values of Roughness Coefficient (Manning's n) Type of Waterway 1. Closed Conduits (1) Steel (not lined) Cast Iron Alwninum Corrugated Metal (not lined) Corrugated Metal (2) (smooth asphalt quarterlining) Corrugated t-letal (2) (smooth asphalt half lining) Corrugated Metal (smooth asphalt full lining) Concrete RCP Clay (sewer) Asbestos Cement Drain Tile (terra cotta) Cast-in-place Pipe Reinforced Concrete Box 2. Open Channels (1) a. Unlined Clay Loam Sand b. Revetted Gravel Rock Pipe and Wire Sacked Concrete c. Lined Concrete (poured) Air Blown Mortar (3) Asphaltic Concrete or Bituminous Plant Mix d. Vegetated (5) Grass lined, maintained Grass and Weeds Grass lined with concrete low flow channel 3. Pavement and Gutters (1) Concrete Bituminous (plant-mixed) Roughness CoeffiCient (n) 0.015 0.015 .021 0.024 0.021 0.018 0.012 , 0.012 0.013 0.011 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.023 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.025 0.025 0.014 0.016 0.018 n--. ~ . .:;,;, .045 .032 0.015 0 .. 016 ArpE~lHX XV! .\ I ~I , I I I I I I I ., I I I I I I I ..,' I RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) peYELopED AREAS (URBAN) Land Use Residential: Single Family Multi-Units -Mobile Homes Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) Commercial 121 80% Impervious Industrial 121 90% Impervious Coefficient. C Soil Group 111 D .40 .45 .50. .55 .45 .50 .60 .70 .45 .50 .55 .65 .30 .35 .40 .45 .70 .75 .80 .85 .80 .85 .90 .95 , NOTES: \11 12)- Soil Group maps are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated imperviousness values of SO% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by mUltiplying SO% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousne~s to the tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50. For example: Consider -commercial property on D soil group. Actual imperviousnes~ = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 80% Revised C = .§.Q. x 0.85 = 0.53 SO IV-A-9 APPENDIX IX II ........... ,. A/O'2 Enut F. Brlter 'and Horace Williams King ,' ... .. HANDBOOK OF .." " . . '." :1 . ; I I I I I I I I I -Table 7-14. Values10f K' for <;,cular ('l~annl'ls in till' Formula Q = -d~'JSI'.: , ,I I I I I· I I, I J. '. ~~I~I' , .. . f , . . ~ .. I It D -depth of watl'f d -di:und,('r of cbannel D I . . -.00 .01 .02 .03 .Ool .os .06 .07 .08 .09 d _1 __ . -.-. --, .0 .00007' .00031 .00074'.00138' .00222 .Q0328 .00455-.OOCt04' .00775 .1 .00967 .0118 " .p-&,OG .0448 .. - .3 :0907 .09Ct6 .4 .1561 .1633 .5 .232 .239 .6 .311 .319 .7 .388 :39S .8 .;&~ .458 - .9 .49-1 .496 . --1.0 .463 '. :'t, • · • • .0142, .OIH7 :0492 .0537 .1027 .108t) .1705 .1779 .247 .255 .327 .335 .402 ..l0!) .463 1.468 .497 .-198 • .OlH5 .0585 .1153 .185ol .263 .343 .416 .473 .498 .0225 .0034 - .1218 .1929 .271 .350 .422 .477 .498 • • I , ' , .-0257 .0686 .1284 .2005 .279 .358 .429 .481 .496~·'" .0291 .0327 .03mi .0738 .07H3 .0849 .1352 .1420 .14!tO .2082 .2160 .2238 .287 .295 .303 .366 .373 .380 .43S .4·U ' .4-17 .48S .488 .491 .49-1 .489 ... 83 .' , I i I I I- I I I APPENDIX D I (6. HYDROLOGY MAP) I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ '!!. ~ 'I ~ CD :::: '" :1 ~ • t=> ci c.: t=> >-I i CD "" 0 I I } CD "" 0 I I 1 u '" ..., 0 '1 ~ . -;; I (S d U d /' ,I j /' X I I I I I I I I I I I CfTY or OCEANSIDE " I!J VICINITY MAP ~,. ~t'''lc:~ K&S ENGINEERING Planning Engineering Surve~g (619)296-5565 7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 100 SIll Diego, CA 92108 CLLL._W.=L[ !--:-L . ;M::c:::::1-l LI :LI=:L!:=" i I \ I I i I ! I \ \ I I ! '--\ """ ". ! ==Eccl I :::::r:o !:::crr:c=r:::r:r::r= ::J:::c:r:::W::LL:Ll ~ . r------. / / -" '-- _I--i.-.' • t-,-,; , I I --L _Cl::O EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP w CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS ENGINEER OF WORK: KAMAL S. SWEIS RCE 48592 EXP. 6 /O~ OA TE I ~ ru !!'! I' g , ru "-CD :::: \J) I ~ 0 0<: "" >-I i CD ... 0 I I } CD ... 0 I I f u QI -, 0 I ! " u " / I ~ / X I I I I I I I I I I I ~ (619)296-5565 VICINITY MAP ~'" <>'C!lc.~ K&S ENGINEERING Plonning Engineering, Survejing 7801 Mission Center Court, &lit. 100 500 Diego. CA 92108 I m o 1 o ~ L D... '-•••• '. 1RRlYDCABl[ OffER or DEDC4'OON P£R PM 1 &274. 1 EXISTING BUIlDING ------- .' -_._-.---_ .. -. -', t::' I SHEET I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I 1 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2 TENTATIVE !lAP FOR: CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS ENGINEER OF WORK: KAMAL S. SWEIS RCE 48592 EXP. 6/04 DATE I' I J-I I I. I. .......... I ~ til a ----a o a & til ~ DelMar '-°r ~ ... e COunty ... ,=1 ,( ~ t~ ". "'" '''', '~~~~" '>.'1.0·... ~~~. . ._ " '\ "" "',"\ ""', ,'\ " ...... \ ...... .......... '\ \ ' .......... ............ ,,\ ....... I ','I. '.. '. ... 1.2 \ ........ ..,........ \" ...... ---i .... ''I.'''' .... , 1.~ \ I " 1.0, ......... ...... \ ... 1.8 " ... 1.4, , ,-...... .. ... 1.2" ..... '... \ \ -'\, • " ". I l.p, 1.8... , , 1.0 , \ \. ',i.4 I " , " \ \ '\ " , ,\' '\ .... "" I " , \ '\ ~----... ....--.... , \ ,\"', '" ' \., \ , \ '\ "\," " \ '\,,, , 1 -.. , ': '. \ " " " \ \ "'.. I , .\ ', ..... -, , , ,....... " , , I " .... ___ -I " '~... l": ,2.0" \, '\ '\ .. I: ,-... , "... Ii"", " '.... " I I' " " , .' I, " " '.... , -'-. '\.11_' 'J.,,' " ~,-......., ~ '.... "1 ~""""""""~\ \, ", " ...................' .... _-_ .... I -, \{~\\ \\ : ' : \ '\ '-' \ '\ \. I \ ' ___ '" ' \.\ \', '\ \ \ \ \ l \ ,"--, l I ';\,\, \\1: I" 1\ ,'1 '\" , , , \ \ I , ~-"..., I I I , ........ ----08"-----1--1 " ......... -.... , " \ \ ... _-----. "",,---"'! I \ ".. J ' -''''' ' 'I. -.... -------0.7.-------__ \ __ . e \. "" .... , , .. ~ "" ........ ---.... -...' " ,' ..... __ ... ~ , , ., 'O~.7--0a;illRt\fklls ..... ......--~ ................... --'~" ~, __ ....... , 0.8 ........ " '" ................ __ .. " '''''', ""' .... ", , ,-.. _-. , , ,--,.... " \ .... " "" "', " '''''\', " , " , .. , , \ \ , , I • J I ",-----" , , , ).2 1.0 .. ----------...... _---_ ...... " '\ .' \ ,/\ , ~~ \ ... -----~--~ '\ ~' \ , ,,~-'--', -~Ca~te~~~" .. : , \' \', I..' I .~, \ \ " \ \ '-~" ~ ~, '., '. \ , ,", ' ... ~: '.. 'to '.. " \ /:" ~.. " " " " , I / , I 3 '0 CD .. III .... "..... \, '''-, '''', "", ' ...... ~" l " '\ '" ~" ....... ',.... : \ " "~,~~nt-"', I \ "', '" ,..~ " \ \ " '''(','I., \" '.. ' ... , ','" ... \ '.. "\,\\\ \ " " \ \ \ \ " '..\\\\ '... \ ' , , \, \ \ l\\\\ \ " --, .. -----1- o( K"--:---------[-~ ~ , ~ , " '< ,-... ,,' 1.0 ' . , \ \,. \ \ ' I • \ \ \ \ , , \ \ ... -........ \ \ : '\ \ \ I \ \ ' .... _, " \ " \ " ' " 1.:C", , . " \ " ... ... ... , "', ~\ " o ~:~ :;..~ =:l -I'; "1 $ III ~ X-I fi' ~; Of t· { ~ \. '~ i Io;.~. County o~ San Diego Hydrology Manual (.~,~~~ .. ;". m~' '//-'\ '.~ ~' \ .. : . ''fIt~. .J..,~ ".;/ <, . J ~"J .-!..!...~.\;,."r Rainfall Isopluvials 2 Year Rainfall Event -6 HOlI'S I'" ,. , ',' ISbpluvial (inches) Map Notes SttepIane Prqection, Zooe6, NAD83 C~ DaIe:.ble 22. 2001 OOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN CAlCULAnONS Q o 7.5 [ ] MlES ame~ """' .................. - t I~ '\ -- o o ---.. -.. ,(~uno!) .. -.. " .: , " ". v; .g ~ 9! ~ ~ ! . .. :--tI __ --II--.. - .. ~ N f ::c Q) ~ S' ", ~ < a. ;;i --• ~ ~ ~ f ;: ~. iii" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT B FLOGARD+™ DOWN SPOUT FILTER ANTIMICROBIAL SMART SPONGE FILTERRA BIO-RETENTION SYSTEM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~, I FLOGARD+™ DOWN SPOUT FILTER I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ KRISTAR ~ FloGarcP Downspout Filter A multi-model building-mounted filter designed to collect particulates, debris, metals and petroleum hydrocarbons from rooftop stormwater runoff. The working chamber of the FloGard® Downspout Filter is made of a durable dual-wall geotextife fabric liner encapsulating an adsorbent which is easily replaced and provides for flexibility, ease of maintenance and economy. It is designed to collect particulates and debris, as well as metals and petroleum hydrocarbons (oils and greases). As with all F!oGard® filters, the FloGard® Downspout Filter performs as an effective filtering device at low flows ("first flush") and, because of the built-in high flow bypass, will not impede the system's maximum design flow. FloGard® Downspout Filters are available in sizes to fit common sizes of downspouts and may be mounted in (recessed) or on (flush) a wall. FloGard® Downspout Filters are recommended for ultra-urban sites with little to no property area outside of the building perimeter. Examples of such areas are downtown buildings and parking garages. See full specifications for details. I ~ I I IAPMO Listing No. 4868 Questions? Contact Kristar at (800) 579-8819. 06/06 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MAINUNANCE INFOIIMA.llON a"..,51)-1U6 Model No. Inlet ID BoxOD (dia., in) (in x in x in) FG-DS4 4 14 x 29 x 7.5 FG-DS6 6 14 x 29 x 7.5 FG-DS8 8 22 x 33 x 17.5 FG-DS10 10 22 x 33 x 17.5 Notes: 1. Storage capacity reflects 80% of maximum solids collection prior to Impeding filtering bypass. 2. Filtered flow rate indudes a safety factor of 2. 3. FioGard® Downspout Filters are available with standard Fossil Rock or other custom adsorbents. 4. FioGard® series filters should be used In conjunction with a regular maintenance program. Refer to manufacturer's recommended maintenance guidelines. JAPMO Usting No. 4868 Patent Pending Solids Storage Capacity (cu tt) 0.35 0.35 1.70 1.70 DOWNSPOUT FILTER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE INFORMAnON 8~8·9S0·8826 Filtered Flow Bypass Capacity (gpm) 30 85 185 325 FLOGARD@ DOWNSPOUT FILTER (gpm) 145 425 915 1,650 KriStar Enterprises, Inc., Santa Rosa, CA (800) 579-8819 .10/05 I I I I I I I I I 'I I I' I I I I I I I ANTIMICROBIAL SMART SPONGE I I I I I I I I I' I I 'I I I I I I '.. ~ . -~ .;". ~ > '" • , ", The Ultra-Urban® Filter Technical Specifications , , DESCRIPTION The Ultra-Urban® Filter with Smart Sponge® developed and manufactured by AbTech Industries, is an innovative low-cost BMP that helps meet NPDES requirements with effective filtration, efficient application, and moderate maintenance. The Ultra-Urban Filter absorbs oil and grease and captures trash and sediment from Stormwater runoff before it enters the storm drain system. The Ultra-Urban Filter is ideal for municipal, industrial, and construction applications. The filter comes in two standard designs; one a modular unit geared toward curb inlet openings, and the other, a single unit designed for typical drop-in catch basin drains. The Ultra-Urban Filter, made of a high strength corrugated recycled content plastic, is designed for use in storm drains that experience oil and grease pollution accompanied by sediment and debris. Trash and sediment accumulate in the upper basket chamber while oil and grease are absorbed in the filtration media. PERFORMANCE Field and laboratory tests have confirmed the capability of the Smart Sponge to absorb, depending on the type of oil contaminant, up to five times its own weight and remove 70% to 95% of the hydrocarbons present in Stormwater runoff, typically in the range of 5 to 30 mg/liter (ppm). The captured oil is perma- nently bound within the Smart Sponge, eliminating leaching and allowing for easy disposal of the filtration media. Flow rates through the C01414 filters exceed 200 gpm. Flow rates through the filters exceed 500 gpm for the 012020 series at installation. INSTALLATION MAINTENANCE The Ultra-Urban Filter is easily installed. Instal- lation time varies depending upon mounting devices selected. A single mounting bracket made of 16-gauge galvanized steel is required for the installation of the Curb Opelaing (CO) series. The Ultra-Urban Filter should not be installed where modules obstruct the drain pipe outlet. The size of the drain should allow room for stormwater overflow. The Drain Inlet (01) series Ultra-Urban Filter will suspend from the drain into the catch basin through a structural plastic mount and funnel mechanism (see draw- ings). j t The Ultra-Urban Filter should be serviced as needed to remove sediment and debris, according to expected debris accumulation. The sediment and debris can be quickly vacuumed out of the modules through the opening of the drain with conventional maintenance equipment. For example, a curb inlet with four to five Ultra-Urban Filter modules can be typically serviced in 10 minutes or less. Under normal operating conditions the Ultra-Urban Filter should be replaced every 1-3 years. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DESCRIPTION AbTech developed the Smart Sponge technology based on its proprie- tary blend of synthetic polymers aimed at removal of hydrocarbons and oil derivatives from surface water. AbTech's process creates a very porous structure (see Figure A) with hydrophobic and oleophilic characteristics capable of selectively removing hydrocarbons while al- lowing high flow through rates for water. As hydrocarbons are ab- sorbed into its structure, the Smart Sponge® swells and maintains po- rosity and filtering capabilities. Figure A (1,000 X) Field and laboratory tests have confirmed the Smart Sponge capability to absorb, depending on the type of oil contaminant, up to five times its own weight and remove 75% to 95% of the hydrocarbons present in Stormwater runoff, typically in the range of 5 to 30 mg/liter (ppm). The absorption is per- manent and the saturated product does not leach or leak contaminants, transforming the contami- nant -in most cases -into a solid waste with lower disposal costs. During the past couple of years, Ab-,-__________ --, Tech has worked on the development of an antimicrobial technology. Org.ululilane (Juzlt't'nary 11l1liu~ ;\{oli;t'(lhrSII'urtnrC': Smart Sponge Plus features a pro-CII, o' cn,\ prietary antimicrobial agent chemi-I I cally and permanently bound to the ('11.0-1'-(CH,),-r--(CIl,),,-CH, Smart Sponge polymer surface and ? CII., hf d I h k en, I t ere ore oes not eac or lea , - avoiding any downstream toxicity ~s::.:."r;:;::fac:;;:."::.:.lIllo:.::.di::.:.fi,:.;;;.al:.::.iiJn,,--...:.;A;;::nl.:.::illl:::icr:.::.OIJ:::.;;":.:.IJ __ -' issues. The antimicrobial mechanism Figure B is based on the patented agent's interaction with the microorganism cell membrane, causing the microorganism disruption (see Figure C), but no chemical or physical change in the agent. Antimicrobial activity does not reduce the agent capability or cause its depletion and, therefore, maintains long-term effectiveness. Additionally, the hydrocarbon absorption capability is not inhibited. • Microbial reduction efficiency will vary depending on colony size, flow rates and site specific condi- tions. • Consistent positive reduction in microoial concentration realized in laboratory setting and field test- ing sites in the United States. Larger scaled field deployment and data generation projects are ongoing. TARGETED MICROORGANISMS • Enterococcus • Coliforms -Fecal coliform -Escherichia Coli I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ULTRA-URBAN'~' FILTER DRAWINGS Complete product drawings for each model available from AbTech in CAD or PDF format. I'~--l-=-i ... ) -~·::i ! I r ....... -.... _---1 : 1 0 :3 0 i . " r.. <<) r I I I I I I I I I I I I <D ill 0 i f'J €I "" I ® e .. "" I e G G:. I 1_ -0 0 €; Ef "" .7) I I~ 1 ... ;::'1) ~---P.;-O;O ..... 1 C01414N Side & Front View ULTRA-URBAN® FILTER KEY FEATURES >o,(.t.ns. 01 smart sp~~ge 10 I 1---!' L DI2020N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DISPOSAL OPTIONS AbTech's Smart Sponge technology transforms liquid hydrocarbons into a stable solid1. The handling and disposal of this solid waste is less expensive and less problematic than that of other plastic and organic solvents which leach and leak hydrocarbons back into the environment. The following waste disposal and resource recovery industries will accept spent Smart Sponge for disposal and/or recycling. • Waste-to-Energy Facilities -A specialized segment of the solid waste -industry will use spent Smart Sponge as an alternative fuel in the production of electricity. WTE is acknowledged at the federal level as a renewable energy source under the Federal Power Act, Title IV of the Clean Air Act. WTE is a participant in the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Pro- gram. • Cement Kilns -This industry will use the spent Smart Sponge as an alternative fuel in the production process of Portland Cement. This process is considered a beneficial reuse of waste products. The BTU value of spent Smart Sponge is conSistently above the average acceptable levels set for this high temperature. • Landfills -The ability of Smart Sponge to transform liquid hydrocarbons into a solid waste makes for less expensive and easy disposal. Spent Smart Sponge generated from the AbTech laboratories have been classified as a solid waste and are acceptable at Subtitle D Landfills2• 1Generators of spent Smart Sponge will need to have their waste analyzed, tested, and classified to determine the generator's particular waste. According to testing perform eo for AbTech Industries. spent Smart Sponge soaked with petroleum hydrocarbons are transformed into solid wastes. AbTech does not take any responsibility for the generator's waste classification for handling. transport and the ultimate disposal or recycling of the waste. The generator must always classify and characterize its own waste. 'Spent Smart Sponge generated from the AbTech laboratories with a multitude of liquid petroleum hydrocarbons have passeo the EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedures and Paint Filter Test. These tests are used in determining the amount of liquid waste and any free liquids present that may be released into the landfill environment. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: 4110 N Scottsdale Rd., Suite 235 Scottsdale AZ 85251 480.874.4000 1.800.545.8999 www.abtechindustries.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'Ii;.' ") > .. : ,v}';: ... l'!. "-~".~ ",.~ ~,j.t-.t, "2'"' • .",. . ;'" ~.' -. _ .;.: ."--::: f .. Smatt·S.,:onge~,;iipa~AntimiCl"obial Smart Sponge@Plus ~ "r • • '. "' ~ ~ , ~ ~,,:~,,~-'~'J" -(, -: '"i'f~'. -;"'_~ ,.J.. ,:~_ ~ ..... ,'. -'I • ~ < • DESCRIPTION Smart Sponge® technology has a unique molecular structure based on innovative polymer technologies that are chemically selective to hydrocarbons and can destroy bacteria (figure A). Smart Sponge® recovers and fully encapsulates recov.ered oil, resulting in a substantially more effective response that prevents absorbed oil from leaching. It is also capa- ble of removing low levels of oil from water, thereby successfully removing sheen. In addition, the Smart Sponge® remains buoyant in calm or agitated water, permitting it to remain in place until fully saturated and resulting in no wasted product. Once oil is absorbed, the Smart Sponge® transforms the pollutants into a stable solid for easy recycling, providing a closed-loop solution to water pollution. Smart Sponge® technology provides a cost-effective BMP with low installation and maintenance labor costs. In comparison to other products, the Smart Sponge® technology also allows for less expensive and less problematiC handling and disposal of the waste product since its technology transforms liquid oil and other pollutants into a stable solid. The Smart Sponge® was designed not to deteriorate in water, allowing for a longer product life. ANTIMICROBIAL SMART SPONGE® PLUS Over the past three years, AbTech has developed an antimicrobial technology synergistic with the Smart Sponge® technology. This effort produced Smart Sponge® Plus, which features an antimicrobial agent chemically and perma- nently bound in a proprietary process to the Smart Sponge polymer surface which destroys bacteria ,on contact. Due to this permanent bond, the antimicrobial agent is active but does not leach or leak, avoiding ·any downstream toxicity issues. TARGETED MICROORGANISMS • Aspergillus Niger • Enterococcus • Trychophyton Mentagrophytes • Staphylococcus Aureus • Penicillium Pinophilum • Escherichia Coli • Chaetomium Globosum .. Pseudomonas Aeruginosa • Trichoderma Virens .. Candida Albicans • Aureobadisium Pullulans • Salmonella • Listeria Monocytogenes .. KlebSiella Pneul110niae .. Fecal Coliforms The Agent used for this innovative technology is an Organosilane derivative which is widely used in a variety of fields including medical, consumables, pool equipment, and consumer goods to destroy bacteria. This Smart Sponge® Plus mode of action, through its bound agent, is very simple (no chlorine or heavy metals involved) and -in surface- bound applications -it neither introduces chemicals into the treated water nor produces toxic metabolites. The antimicrobial mechanism is based on the patented agent's interac- tion with the microorganism cell membrane, causing microorganism inactivation (see Fig- ure B), but no chemical or physical change in the agent. Antimicrobial activity therefore does not reduce the agent's capability or cause its depletion, and maintains long-term, effectiveness. Additionally, the hydrocarbon absorption capability is not inhibited. The antimicrobial agent is registered with the EPA for a variety of applications and has a proven performance record specifically in cases where a reduction in harmful bacterial counts in storm water runoff is desired. ill.'Ni'.M." ,---, I'> IONGMOIIrur.al<1N ~ I I C) C) cr"(Hi) ().,(.). (» .coO ,0 () 'liNIIIIL"'GtN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SIMPLE IMPLEMENTATION Products incorporating Smart Sponge@ technology are non-mechanical, do not require structural changes to storm water systems and are easily installed and maintained, often requiring only one person and no machinery. Products such as the Ultra-Urban® Filter with Smart Sponge® Inside fit into most existing catch basins. The Smart Sponge@ technology is deployed in products that offer customized solutions for stormwater pollution prevention, oil spill re- sponse, process water filtration and other industrial applications to meet specific environmental needs. AbTech Indus- tries offers an extensive product line that is upgradeable to meet evolving community needs and regulatory require- ments. RIDOT contracted with Crossman Engineering, Inc. to design a treatment system to reduce bacteria concentrations in storm water runoff dis- charged via outfall pipes on Scarborough Beach. Upon consideration of alternatives, Smart Sponge® Plus was se- lected for implementation and used for retrofitting several outfall pipes. Based on the Table 1. Outfall 1 Outfall 2 Outfall 5 Smart Sponge Plus Field Results: Inline Pipe Location: Scarborough Beach State Park Source: Rhode Island DOT. U.R.1. 2005 Fecal Coliforms Removal Effectiveness Enterococcus. Removal Effectiveness Dry Weather Sampling Wet Weather Sampling Dry Weather Sampling Wet Weather Sampling Removal Rate Removal Rate Removal Rate Removal Rate Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average Maximum Average 99.6% 886% 91.6% 82.1% 96.2% 80.9% 98.4% 68.9% 998% 90.2% 91.9% 72.4% 99.8% 84.B'Y, 99.9% 67.9% 96.6% 83.6% 89.4% 89.4% 98.8% 82.4% 983% 87.8% results of the post construction dry weather and wet weather sampling, the anti-microbial filter systems installed at the Scarborough Beach outfalls significantly reduced the bacteria concentrations (see Table 1) within the stormwater runoff. The City of Norwalk, CT in cooperation with EPA is running one of the largest federally funded projects to date for catch basins~ The project is successfully demon- strating the ability of the Smart Sponge® Plus Ultra- Urban® Filter deployed in catch basin inserts to remove trash, debris, sediment, oil and hydrocarbons as well as reduce bacteria concentration from stormwater runoff (see Table 2-Round One Sampling). Project in pro- gress. AbTech's Smart Sponge® Plus Ultra-Urban@ was selected by The City of Long Beach, CA to address existing bac- teria TMDLs. The retrofit project covers a large water- shed and the initial monitoring confirming positive effect of the Smart Sponge® Plus in bacteria reduction (see Table 3-sample data). Project in Progress. Table 2 Smart Sponge Plus Field Results: Catch Basin Insert Location: Norwalk, CT .Source: City of Norwalk 2006 Sampling Location E. coli % Removal 1 (Control) No Filter 2 '89% 3 79% 4 34% 5 >99.9 TableS Smart SponQe Plus Field Results: Catch Basin Insert Location: Long Beach, CA Source: City of Long Beach 2006 Sampling Location E.coli % Reduction 1 97% 2 83% 3 94% 4 60% 5 90% 6 84% 7 44% 8 85% 9 84% 10 70% FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: fltbTech INDUSTRIES M"ra:flS Of smartsp'9.~ge 4110 N Scottsdale .Rd., Suite 235 Scottsdale AZ 85251 480.874.4000 1.800.545.8999 www.abtechindustries.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IMILLSAPS COLLEGE Final Report: Hydrocarbon removal efficiency by AbTech Industries, Inc. Ultra-Urban® Filter in simulated stormwater runoff conditions . Allen Johnson Allison Williams Katrina Byrd Stan Galicki, Ph.D. November 21,2003 MILLSAPS COLLEGE SORBENT LABORATORY 1701 N. STATE ST. JACKSON· MS· 39210 (501) 974-3000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Introduction Regulations intended to reduce the amount of pollution discharged into rivers and wetland areas have been in place for almost 40 years. Issues related t6 the dis<:;harge of contaminant laden stormwater runoff are increasingly receiving attention from regulatory agencies and the public. Oil, grease, and other hydrocarbons are a major contaminant of stormwater and can be transported in suspension or attached to sediment particles. According to the National Research Council May 2002 Report, over 15,000,000 gallons of oil is discharged into the ocean each year from North American street runoff and wastewater operations. Per the University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service (CES) 1987 Report, one quart of oil can contaminate up to 250,000 gallons of drinking water. Objective AbTech Industries, Inc. in Scottsdale, Arizona manufactures a catch basin insert (Ultra- Urban® Filter) which is designed to qualify as a stormwater Best Management Pract.ice (BMP) device for the removal of oil, grease, and trash from stormwater. It is an industry accepted concept that the "First Flush" (first 10%) of urban stormwater runoff carries over 90% of the pollutants. The Ultra-Urban Filter, featuring the proprietary media Smart Sponge®, is the only catch basin insert that effectively filters all runoff passing through it. AbTech contacted the Millsaps College Sorbent Laboratory and requested independent testing of the Ultra-Urban Filter's hydrocarbon removal capability. The objective of the research conducted at the Millsaps College Sorbent Laboratory was to evaluate the efficiency of the Ultra-Urban Filter Series in removing hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff. Methods Testing was conducted in October and November 2003 on a flume constructed at the Millsaps College Sorbent Laboratory in Jackson, Mississippi. The flume was designed specifically to evaluate the efficiency of the UUF for removing contaminants from stormwater (Figs. 1 and 2). The tank has a maximum capacity of 275 gallons and -is capable of discharge rates ranging up to 130 gallons per minute (gpm). Figure 1 -Tank and flume system with Ultra-Urban Filter in place. AbTech Industries Figure 2 -Flume in operation at 22 gpm discharge. Note oil stain on side of flume and in the center foreground of photograph. System was thoroughly cleansed between tests. Page 1 12/9/2003 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' The Ultra-Urban Filter model chosen for this test was the most widely used model; the C01414. Four slightly different versions of the C01414 were used and they are identified as 1) NS; 2) NHD; 3) NL 1; and 4) NL2. Each model was the standard size (14"x14"x19") and was lined with Smart Sponge on all filtering surfaces. Each filter was evaluated at flow rates of 6 and 22 gpm with inflow hydrocarbon concentrations varying' from 15 ppm to 526 ppm. As a reference, a storm event producing %" per hour of precipitation will runoff at a rate of 5.7 gpm per acre through a single drain. The flume table, stainless steel troughs, intake assemblies, and hoses were cleansed following each test. All surfaces were wiped with a polypropylene sorbent pad and flushed with clean water. The hoses were flushed with soapy water followed by fresh water. Flow tests were conducted over a four-minute period with sampling taking place for 15 sec. each minute. Tests were conducted at flow rates of 6 and 22 gpm. Two, one liter samples (one inflow and one outflow) were taken by an SS201 Global Stormwater Sampler directly into amber colored glass bottles. The sample of the inflow water stream was taken from a 14" stainless steel trough mounted at the end of the flume table just above the mouth of the UUF (Fig. 3). The outflow sample was taken from a similar trough placed below the UUF. A galvanized metal diversion plate was used to direct all outflow through the trough. Two replicates were done at each flow rate and the results averaged. The hydrocarbon removal efficiency during each test was calculated as the percentage of the hydrocarbon removed from the simulated stormwater runoff. All results and average efficiencies are reported in Tables 1 through 4 at the end of this Figure 3 -Stainless steel sampling trough at end of flume. report. Foam in trough is test hydrocarbon mix. The contaminant used was a SO/50 mixture of #2 diesel fuel and used motor oil. Tests were done using two different volumes of the oil mix (either 25 ml or 50 ml) dispensed into a pool created at the head of the flume from a 50 ml burette (Fig. 4). The rate ()f the contaminant was regulated manually so that it was dispensed over the entire test period. Figure 4 -Burette discharging used motor oil/diesel mix into 22 gpm flow. AbTech Industries A total of 16 tests using the contaminant were conducted on each filter (2 replicates at each of the flow rates and concentrations). The final test on each filter was done using only water at 22 gpm. The flush test was done to check for possible contamination in the system and also as a reference for identifying the potential for leaching of hydrocarbons from the filter. Sample analysis was done by Argus Laboratories in Jackson, Mississippi using EPA Method 1664A. The limit of detection for the Oil and Grease determination is 2.0 ppm. Page 2 1219/2003 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Results Individual test results based on flow rate are displayed in Tables 1 through 4. The limit of detection is 2.0 ppm. Regardless of hydrocarbon concentration or flow rate, hydrocarbon removal efficiency of the models tested ranged from 71% to 98% with an average of 84%. Figure 5 Inflow Concentration vs. Removal Efficiency 100 • • • • • • • • • 90 • '. • • • --. 80 I.. • -.. , . • • C 70 • ~ GI ~ 60 u GI 0:: 50 c 0 .a .. CG 40 u e "tI >-30 ::z:: 20 10 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Inflow Concentration (ppm) Figure 5 above displays the inflow concentration versus hydrocarbon removal efficiency for all 32 tests conducted. The trend displayed by the data indicates increased efficiency at higher inflow concentrations. The average removal efficiency for inflow concentrations under 100 ppm is 81%, and the average removal efficiency for inflow concentrations over 100 ppm is 91%. Figures 6a and 6b below are the inflow concentration versus removal efficiency for tests done at 6 and 22 gpm respectively. The average r:emoval efficiency was 89% at a discharge rate of 6 gpm (17-526 ppm range; 195 ppm avg.) and 82% at a discharge rate of 22 gpm (15-87 ppm range; 42 ppm avg.). The flush tests conducted during the course of the experiment indicated inflow contamination values not exceeding 5.0 ppm; all outflow values were below the detection limit. AbTech Industries Page 3 1219/2003 I I I Figure 6a Inflow Concentration vs. Removal Efficiency (6gpm) 100 I • • • • • • • 90 '. • • 80 • • I • ..... ~ 70 • • ~ GI > 60 0 I u ~ 50 c 0 of! 40 co u I 0 .. "g 30 » :t: 20 I 10 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 I Inflow Concentration (ppm) I Figure 6b Inflow Concentration vs. Removal Efficiency (22gpm) I 100 • • 90 • • • • I 80 ••• • • • • • • ..... • :.e 70 0 -~ I ~ 60 0 u .. a: 50 c 0 ..a .. 40 co I u ~ "g 30 » :t: I 20 10 0 I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Inflow Concentration (ppm) I I AbTech Industries Page 4 12/9/2003 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Discussion The UUF models evaluated effectively remove between 80 and 91 % of the hydrocarbons from simulated stormwater runoff under varying inflow concentrations arid flow rates. While the sediment retention capability of the UUF has been documented, tests using both hydrocarbons and sediment combined have not. The removal of contaminant-scavenging fine-grained sediment, such as clays, from runoff should only increase the UUF's overall efficiency. Although the average concentration of hydrocarbons in stormwater is normally below 100 ppm, testing indicates that the filters in the UUF series are capable of removing hydrocarbon concentrations of over 500 ppm in simulated runoff conditions. Additionally, outflow hydrocarbon concentration values below the detection limit (2.0 ppm) in flush tests are indicative of the Smart Sponge's non-leaching characteristics. Oil sorbents that are true "absorbents" incorporate hydrocarbons into the structure of the material, whereas adsorbents simply attract hydrocarbons to exterior surfaces. As indicated in testing, absorption inhibits the re-release of captured hydrocarbons during subsequent storm events. AbTech Industries Page 5 12/9/2003 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I -I Tables AbTech UUF, Table 1 UUF C01414 NS Millsaps Rate Sample ID Argus ID (gpm) AT-110103-381 8859437 6 AT-110103-380 8859438 AT -110103-390 8859439 6 AT -110103-390 8859740 AT-110103-421 8859444 6 AT-110103-420 8859445 AT-110103-431 8859446 6 AT-110103-430 8859447 AT-110103-441 8859448 22 AT -110103-440 8859449 AT-110103-451 8859450 22 AT-110103-450 8859451 AT-110103-401 8859441 22 AT-110103-401 8859442 AT-110103-411 8859443 22 AT-110103-411 8859454 AT-110103-461 8859452 22 AT-110103-460 8859453 Oil/Diesel Added (ml) 25 25 50 50 25 25 50 50 0 Oil & Oil Grease Removed Average Oil (ppm) (%) Removed (0/0) 112 87 14.8 99 89 88 11.3 526 97 14.1 264 94 96 15 34.8 85 5.3 28.8 78 82 6.2 87 98, 10.2 54.9 96 -97 9 No 3.8 Contamination ND The sample numbers are AT for AbTech, the date, test #, then "I" for inflow and "0" for outflow. ND=Below the detection limit of 2 ppm AbTech Industries Page 6 1219/2003 I "I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I AbTech UUF, Table 2 UUF C01414 NHD Flow Millsaps Rate Sample ID Argus ID (gpm) AT -112403-541 8860795 6 AT -112403-540 8860796 A T112403-551 8860797 6 AT112403-550 8860798 AT-101403-121 8858650 6 AT-101403-120 8858651 AT-101503-131 8858652 6 AT-101503-130 8858653 AT-101503-141 8858654 6 AT-101503-140 8858655 AT-101503-151 8858656 22 AT-101503-150 8858657 AT-102003-161 8858791 22 AT-102003-160 8858792 AT-102003-171 8858793 22 AT-102003-170 8858794 AT-102003-181 8858795 22 AT-102003-180 8858796 AT-102003-191 8858797 22 AT-102003-190 8858798 Oil/Diesel Added (ml) 25 25 25 50 50 25 25 50 50 0 Oil & Oil Grease Removed Average Oil (ppm) (%) Removed (%) 63.2 71 18.2 103 72 28.5 59.7 77 74 13.8 310 94 17.5 493 98 96 11.2 18.1 75 4.6 14.6 86 80 3.8 27 78 5.9 42.5 80 79 8.3 No ND Contamination ND No Leaching The sample numbers are AT for Ab Tech, the date, test #, then "I" for inflow and "0" for outflow. ND=Below the detection limit of 2 ppm AbTech Industries Page 7 1219/2003 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AbTech UUF, Table 3 UUF C01414 NL 1 Millsaps Rate Sample ID Argus ID (gpm) AT-102803-291 8859189 6 AT -102803-290 8859190 AT -102803-301 8859191 6 AT -102803-300 8859192 AT -102803-311 8859193 6 AT-1 02803-31 0 8859194 AT-102803-321 8859195 6 AT -102803-320 8859196 AT -102903-331 8859219 22 AT -102903-330 8859220 AT -102903-341 8859221 22 AT -102903-340 8859222 AT -102903-351 8859223 22 AT -102903-350 8859224 AT -102903-361 8859225 22 AT -102903-360 8859226 AT-102903-371 8859227 22 AT-102903-370 8859228 Oil/Diesel Added (ml) 25 25 50 50 25 25 50 50 0 Oil & Oil Grease Removed Average Oil (ppm) (%) Removed (%) 101 90 9.89 61.3 84 87 9.56 201 93 13.4 248 95 94 13.3 30.2 80 6 34.2 79 79 7.3 49.6 91 4.33 65.1 83 87 10.8 4.9 PPM 4.9 Flush INFLOW ND No Leaching The sample numbers are AT for AbTech, the date, test #, then "I" for inflow and "0" for outflow. ND=Below the detection limit of 2 ppm AbTech Industries Page 8 1219/2003 I I I I I r: I I I I I I I I I I I I AbTech UUF, Table 4 UUF C01414 NL2 Millsaps Rate Sample ID Argus ID (gpm) AT-102203-201 8858835 6 AT -102203-200 8858834 AT-102203-21 I 8858837 6 AT-102203-21 0 8858836 AT-102203-221 8858839 6 AT -102203-220 8858838 AT -102603-231 8859056 6 AT -102603-230 8859057 AT-102603-241 8859058 22 AT -102603-240 8859059 AT-102603-251 8859060 22 AT -102603-250 8859061 AT -102603-261 8859062 22 AT -102603-260 8859063 AT-102603-271 8859064 22 AT-102603-270 8859065 AT-102603-281 8859066 22 AT -102603-280 8859067 Oil/Diesel Added (m!) 25 25 50 50 25 25 50 50 0 Oil & Oil Grease Removed Average Oil (ppm) (%) Removed (%) , 33 81 6.3 81.5 80 80 16.5 338 95 17.2 240 88 91 28.6 23.8 75 6.04 30.08 73 74 8.24 56.8 76 13.6 66.1 76 76 15.9 4.1 Flush 4.1 PPM ND No_ Leaching The sample numbers are AT for AbTech, the date, test #, then "I" for Inflow and "0" for outflow. ND=Below the detection limit of 2 ppm AbTech Industries Page 9 12/9/2003 FILTERRA BIOmRETENTION SYSTEM - , ,,' _. -... _M::." .... ':,' " ,~ . . 6 ••• '1"" ~ • J , ~ I I" .:'. ~ ,',' , r, ""', ..... , 1 ~" .. t i . ~ .... r- i 1 J: ,: J i L .. "_.~~ "~~~/w __ ----==, "'. ." PlimtITree _ . H " " " <, ~ !fjf® ....... \._.-.'-' ( , , , ;, ,,< ' .. - ,rmwater.·/:V,;, . : .;:, , "'r,, 'h,' .. • .' "I ~' ...... -. -- ... ···filterra i;GroWingldea i~ Storrri~iter Filtration. U.S.l;'alenl '6,277.274 16,569,321 I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I' I I I Filterra Overview Stormwater Bioretention Filtration System Save valuable space with small footprint for urban sites Improve BMP aesthetics with attractive trees or shrubs Reduce lifetime costs with safer and less expensive maintenance Remove Pollutants and Comply with NPDES Filterra ® is well-suited for the ultra-urban environment with high removal effiCiencies for many pollutants such as petroleum, heavy metals, phosphorus, nitrogen, TSS and bacteria. Filterra ® is similar in concept to bioretention in its function and applications, with the major distinction that Filterra ® has been optimized for high volumelflow treatment and high pollutant removal. It takes up little space (often 0.2% Filter Surface Area/Drainage Area) and may be used on highly developed sites such as landscaped areas, green space, parking lots and streetscapes. Filterra ® is exceedingly adaptable and is the urban solution for Low Impact Development. Stormwater flows through a specially designed filter media mixture contained in a landscaped concrete container. The filter media captures and immobilizes pollutants; those pollutants are then decomposed, volatilized and incorporated into the biomass of the Filterra ® system" s micro/macro fauna and flora. Stormwater runoff flows through the media and into an underdrain system at the bottom of the container, where the treated water is discharged. Higher flows bypass the Filterra ® via a downstream inlet structure, curb cut or other appropriate relief. Expected Average Pollutant Removal Rates (Ranges Varying with Particle Size. Pollutant Loading and Site Conditions) TSSRemoval 82% Phosphorous Removal 73% Nitrogen Removal 42% -45% Heavy Metal Removal 33% -82% ., . Fecal Coliform 57% -76% * Predicted Oil & Grease >85% * Standard Blend I', •.• ,-www.fiIterra.com I I, I I I ,I I I ,I I I I' I I I I I I 04-13-07 I filterra Table 1: Filterra® Quick Sizing Table (Western Zone -0.2 in/hr Uniform Intensity Approach) Available Filterra® Box Sizes Recommended Commercial Contributing Drainage Area (acres) Outlet Pipe (feet) where C = 0.85 4x6.5 or 6.5x4 up to 0.35 4" SDR-35 PVC 4x8 or 8x4 0.36 to 0.44 4" SDR-~5 PVC Standard 6x6 0.45 to 0.49 4" SDR-35 PVC 6x80r8x6 0.50 to 0.65 4" SDR-35 PVC 6x10 or 10x6 0.66 to 0.82 6" SDR-35 PVC 6x12 or 12x6 0.83 to 0.98 6" SDR-35 PVC Available Filterra® Box Sizes Recommended Residential Contributing Drainage Area (acres) Outlet Pipe (feet) where C = 0.50 4x6.5 or 6.5x4 up to 0.60 4" SDR-35 PVC 4x80r8x4 0.61 to 0.74 4" SDR-35 PVC Standard 6x6 0.75 to 0.83 4"SDR-35 PVC 6x8 or 8x6 0.84 to 1.11 4" SDR-35 PVC 6x10 or 10x6 1.12 to 1.39 6" SDR-35 PVC 6x12 or 12x6 1.40 to 1.67 6" SDR-35 PVC Notes: 1. All boxes are a standard 3.5 feet depth (INV to TC) 2. A standard SDR-35 PVC pipe coupling is cast into the wall for easy connection to discharge drain 3. Dimensions shown are internal. Please add l' to each for external (using 6" walls) 4. In line with TR55 data, for Commercial Developments a minimum (runoff coefficient) C factor of 0.85 is recommended. For ReSidential Developments, use of C factors less than 0.5 require individual site review by Filterra. 5. Please ask for Sizing Tables for other target treatment goals, e.g. 0.3 in/hr 6. This sizing table is valid only for CA, NV, AZ., OR, 10, AK & HI www.filterra.com Toll Free: (877) 345-1450 I, I I ,I I I I: I I I 1 I ,I . 1 I 'I I I Filterra Standard Plan Notes Construction & Installation ~ fHterrtI A. Each unit shall be constructed at the locations and elevations according to the sizes shown on the approved drawings. Any modifications to the elevation or location shall be at the direction of and approved by the Engineer. B. f the Filterra ® is stored before installation, the top slab must be placed on the box using the 2x4 wood provided, to prevent any contamination from the site. All internal fittings supplied (if any), must be left in place as per the delivery. C. The unit shall be placed on a compacted sub-grade with a minimum 6-inch gravel base matching the final grade of the curb line in the area of the unit. The unit is to be placed such that the unit and top slab match the grade of the curb in the area of the unit. Corp.pact undisturbed sub-grade materials to 95%f maximum density at 1- 29M optimum moisture. Unsuitable mate rial below sub-grade shall be replaced to the site engineers approval. D. Outlet connections shall be aligned and sealed to meet the approved drawings with modifications necessary to meet site conditions and local regulations. E. Once the unit is set, the internal wooden forms and protective mesh cover must be left intact. Remove only the temporary wooden shipping blocks between the box and top slab. The top lid should be sealed onto the box section before backfilling, using a non- shrink grout, butyl rubber or similar waterproof seal. The boards on top of the lid and boards sealed in the unit's throat must NOT be removed. The Supplier (Americast or its authorized dealer) will remove these sections at the time of activation. Backfilling should be performed in a careful manner, bringing the appropriate fill material up in 6" lifts on all sides. Precast sections shall be set in a manner that will result in a watertight joint. h all instances, installation of Filterra ® unit shall conform to ASTM specification C891 Standard Practice for h stallation of Underground Precast Utility Structures", unless directed otherwise in contract documents . F. Curb and gutter construction (where present) shall ensure that the flow-line of the Filterra ® units is at a greater elevation than the flow-line of the bypass structure or relief (drop inlet, curb cut or similar). Failure to comply with this guideline may cause failure andbr damage to the Filterra ® environmental device. G. Each Filterra ® unit must receive adequate irrigation to ensure survival of the living system during periods of drier weather. This may be achieved through a piped system, gutter flow or through the tree grate. 07107106' www.filterra.com I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I, I' I I 'I Activation ~ filterro A. Activation of the Filterra ® unit is performed ONL Y by the Supplier. Purchaser is responsible for Filterra ® inlet protection and subsequent clean out cost. This process cannot commence until the project site is fully stabilized and cleaned (full landscaping, grass cover, final paving and street sweeping completed), negating the chance of construction materials contaminating the Filterra ® system. Care shall be taken during construction not to damage the protective throat and top plates. B. Activation includes installation of plant(s) and mulch layers as necessary. Included Maintenance A. Each correctly installed Filterra® unit is to be maintained by the Supplier, or a Supplier approved contractor for a minimum period of 1 year. The Cost of this service is to be included in the price of each Filterra® unit. Extended maintenance contracts are available at extra cost upon request. B. Annual included maintenance consists of a maximum of (2) scheduled visits. The visits are scheduled seasonally; the spring visit aims to clean up after winter loads that may include salts and sands. The fall visit helps the system by removing excessive leaf litter. C. Each hcluded Maintenance vis it consists of the following tasks. 1. Filterra ® unit inspection 2. Foreign debris, silt, mulch &rash removal 3. Filter media evaluation and recharge as necessary 4. Plant health evaluation and pruning or replacement as necessary 5. Replacement of mulch 6. Disposal of all maintenance refuse items 7. Maintenance records updated and stored (reports available upon request) D. The beginning and ending date of Supplier's obligation to maintain the installed system shall be determined by the Supplier at the time the system is activated. Owners must promptly notify the Supplier of any damage to the plant(s), which constitute(s) an integral part of the bioretention technology. 07/07/06 www.filterra.com I I I I, I I I I I I I I :1 I I I 'I I I' Maintenance While the technology behind the Filterra system is complex, maintenance is not. Unlike competitive systems, a standard maintenance agreement is included with the purchase of every unit and detailed maintenance records are kept and updated after each scheduled maintenance. Although the first year of maintenance is FREE, an extended maintenance agreement is available. Allow the experts to continue to maintain your Filterra unit(s), and you won't have to worry with scheduling or record keeping. Filterra maintenance includes: unit inspection, debris, trash and mulch removal and disposal, filter media evaluation, plant health evaluation, replacement of mulch, and updated and stored records of performed maintenance. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I A l ~ 6"ll---l -W r----------------------------+~ INLET SHAPING (BY OTHERS) ~ r---------------------------r A ~ i@=: =::= :=:: ====1 j .oR-35 PVC CaUPUNG L I I CAST INTO PRECAST BOX I I WALL BY AMERicAST I I . (OUTLET PIPE I I LOCATION VARIES) L-----______________________ -k ~--1-__________________________ +: .Lf'~ CURB (BY OTHERS) ~ PLAN VIEW -41- CLEAN OUT COVER CAST IN TOP SLAB TREE FRAME & GRATE CAST IN TOP SLAB PLANT AS SUPPUED BY AMERICAST (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) GALVANIZED ANGLE NOSING TOP SLAB INTERLOCKING JOINT (TYP) • N I ':ct I MULCH PROVIDED BY AMERICAST UNDERDRAIN STONE PROVIDED BY AMERICAST CURB AND GUTTER (BY OTHERS) STREET PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM BY AMERICAST FILTER MEDIA PROVIDED BY AMERICAST DESIGNATION L 4 x 6.5 4'-0" 4 x 8 4'-0" 6 x 8 6'-0" 6 x 10 6'-0" 6 x 12 6'-0" MODIFICATIONS OF DRAWINGS ARE ONLY PERMITTED BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM FILTERRA Copyright e 2007 by Americast SECTION A-A W TREE GRATE OUTLET QTY & SIZE PIPE 6'-6" (1) 3x3 4" SDR-35 PVC 8'-0" (1) 3x3 4" SDR-35 PVC 8'-0" (1) 4x4 4" SDR-35 PVC 10'-0" (1) 4x4 6" SDR-35 PVC 12'-0" (2) 4x4 6" SDR-35 PVC DRAWING AVAILABLE IN TIF FII,.E FORMAT. DATE: 07-07-06 DWG: FTNL-2 • PRECAST FILTERRA® UNiT f~U~rr@f NARROW LENGTH CONFIGURATION us PAT 6.277.274 AND 6.569.321 I I I I I I I I, I I ,I I I I I I I I I A t • N I ':q- I • 6"l eo I I • 0 I 10 " ...J L rW = 6'-0"---11 ,6" r---~~-------------r , '" I , " I , I 'Ill"" ' I , '~ I " " I ',~ ----+ ------1 I I I , , , ' , I I A j INLET SHAPING (BY OTHERS) SDR-35 PVC COUPLING CAST INTO PRECAST BOX WALL BY AMERICAST (OUTLET PIPE LOCATION VARIES) • L--------------------T 1-.-__________ +: ~'~ CURB (BY OTHERS) eo TREE FRAME & GRATE CAST IN TOP SLAB a. o • I-eo .' ~ I')~ PLAN VIEW -4J- PLANT AS SUPPLIED BY AMERICAST (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) GALVANIZED ANGLE NOSING CURB AND GUTTER (BY OTHERS) STREET MULCH PROVIDED BY AMERICAST FILTER MEDIA PROVIDED BY AMERICAST PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM BY AMERICAST DESIGNATION L 6 x 6 6'-0" DRAWING AVAILABLE IN TIF FILE FORMAT. Copyright C 2004 by Americast SECTION A-A W TREE GRATE OUTLET QlY & SIZE PIPE 6'-0" (1) 3x3 4" SDR-35 PVC DATE: 07 -07 -06 DWG: FTST-2 PRECAST FILTERRA® UNIT STANDARD CONFIGURATION US PAT 6,277,274 AND 6,569,321 I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A l • co ...J • co SDR-35 PVC COUPLING CAST INTO PRECAST BOX WALL (OUTLET PIPE LOCATION VARIES) TREE FRAME & GRATE CAST IN TOP SLAB TOP SLAB INTERLOCKING JOINT (lYP) a.. o • l-• co ('oj .' g , I") .~ ~ I MULCH PROVIDED BY AMERICAST 1,6" r-----~-----+ \Q; , , , , i i , , , , , , , , , , , , , : : : II , , , A j INLET SHAPING (BY OTHERS) , I I L------H-------L , , . L..-----"7,L.....J...---+:...l....I~ CURB (BY OTHERS) PLAN VIEW J....,...L PLANT AS SUPPLIED BY AMERICAST (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARllY) GALVANIZED ANGLE NOSING FILTER MEDIA PROVIDED BY AMERICAST UNDERDRAIN STONE PROVIDED BY AMERICAST SECTION A-A PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM BY AMERICAST DESIGNATION L TREE GRATE OUTLET QTY & SIZE PIPE w 6.5 x 4 6'-6" 4'-0" (1) 3x3 4" SDR-35 PVC 8 x 4 8'-0" 4'-0" (1) 3x3 4" SDR-35 PVC 8 x 6 8'-0" 6'-0" (1) 4x4 4" SDR-35 PVC 10 x 6 10'-0" 6'-0" (1) 4x4 6" SDR-35 PVC 12 x 6 12'-0" 6'-0" (2) 4x4 6" SDR-35 PVC MODIFICATIONS OF DRAWINGS ARE ONLY PERMITTED BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM FILTERRA DRAWING AVAILABLE IN TIF FILE FORMAT. Copyright e 2007 by Americas! DATE: 07-07-06 DWG: FTNW-2 PRECAST FIL TERRA® UNIT NARROW WIDTH CONFIGURATION US PAT 6,277,274 AND 6.569.321 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,1 I I CONNECTION TO SOAKER/SWEAT HOSE OR SPRINKLER HEAD (BY OTHERS) TOP OF CURB IRRIGATION/SPRINKLER PIPE (BY OTHERS) 2" PVC CONDUIT PRECAST INTO CENTER OF EACH BOX WALL CONNECTION TO SOAKER/SWEAT HOSE OR SPRINKLER HEAD (BY OTHERS) IRRIGATION/SPRINKLER PIPE (BY OTHERS) \ UNIT A B SIZE 4 x ·6.5 2'-6" 3'-9" 4 x 8 2'-6" 4'-6" 6.5 x 4 3'-9" 2'-6" 6 x 6 3'-6" 3'-6" 6 x 8 3'-6" 4'-6" 6 x 10 3'-6" 5'-6" 6 x 12 3'-6" 6'-6" 8 x 6 4'-6" 3'-6" 8 x 6 4'-6" 3'-6" 10 x 6 5'-6" 3'-6" 12 x 6 6'-6" 3'-6" DRAWING AVAILABLE IN TIF FILE FORMAT. Copyright Q 2007 by Americast 1 B MULCH LAYER BY AMERICAST ELEVATION VIEW TOP SLAB I---A---l -l I-6" r------------------------, 36" OR 48" TREE GRATE I I I I I I I I I I \ \ I \ / \ / " / " / ......... ,../ --- PLAN VIEW DATE: 08-09-06 DWG: 2" PVC CONDUIT PRECAST INTO CENTER OF EACH BOX WALL MODIFICATIONS OF DRAWINGS ARE ONLY PERMITTED BY WRITIEN AUTHORIZATION FROM FILTERRA FTIRR-1 .• FILTERRA® IRRIGATION PLANNING LAYOUT fn~~rr@f US PAT 6,2T1,274 AND 6,569,321 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CROWNED FLUME CAST -IN-PLACE FLUME c!c GUTTER (CROWNED AND SLOPED TOWARD ALTERRA THROATS) FLUME -SLOPED TOWARDS FILTERRA THROAT CAST -IN-PLACE FLUME c!c GUTTER (SLOPED TOWARD ALTERRA THROAT) PRECAST ALTERRA BOX WALL CURB ~I--OOWEL SECTIONS VIEWS OF FILTERRA IN TYPICAL FLUME APPLICATIONS SEE BELOW FOR DETAILS NOT SHOWN CAST -IN-PLACE DEPRESSED GUlTER AND THROAT OPENING (BY CONTRACTOR) STANDARD 90· NOSING (OTHER NOSING AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST) #4 DOWEL BARS @ 12" O.C. BY AMERICAST TO BE BENT AS NECESSARY BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FIELD POURED GUlTER PRECAST BOX WALL SECTION VIEW THROAT PROTECTION DEVICE DO NOT REMOVE -LEAVE IN PLACE UNTIL· SITE IS STABILIZED AND FILTERRA IS ACTIVATED IMPORTANT STANDARD FILTERRA THROAT OPENING FlL TERRA FLo'WLINE MUST BE AT A HIGHER ELEVATION THAN BYPASS FLo'WLINE (DROP INLET OR OTHER) MODIFICATIONS OF DRAWINGS ARE ONLY PERMllTED BY WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM FILTERRA Copyright 0 2007 by Americas! DRAWING AVAILABLE IN TIFF FILE FORMAT. DATE: 02-27-06 OWG: CGT-4 .• I----l..-----j f~U~rr©f FIL TERRA® THROAT OPENING AND GUTTER OR FLUME. DETAIL US PAT 6.277.274 AND 6.569.321 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Filterra Plant Selections fiUerra The Filterra® Stormwater Bioretention Filtration System harnesses the power of nature to capture, immobilize and cycle pollutants to treat urban runoff. Trees, grasses and shrubs do more than make it attractive; they also enhance pollutant removal. Above ground, the system's shrubs, grasses or trees add beauty and value to the urban landscape. Underground, nature's complex physical, chemical and biological processes are hard at work removing a wide range of non-point source pollutants from the treated stormwater. Pollutants are decomposed, volatilized and incorporated into the biomass of Filterra's micro/macro fauna and flora. A wide range of plants are suitable for use in bioretention systems, and a list is available indicating those suitable for use with Filterra®. The selection varies by location accordi~g to climate. Additional photos are available on the website homepage. Some of the most popular selections to date are shown below: Filterra® with Heavenly Bamboo Filterra® with Foster Holly Filterra® with Yedda Hawthorn Filterra® with Crape Myrtle www.filterra.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. Abstract Filterra ® by Americast An Advanced Sustainable Stormwater Treatment System By Larry S. Coffman1 and Terry Siviter Filterra® is the latest advancement in Bioretention treatment technology for urban stormwater runoff. Americast, a Division of Valley Blox, Inc., working with the University of Virginia's Civil Engineering Department has optimized the treatment capacity ofthis innovative best management practice (BMP). Filterra ® relies on a specially engineered high flow rate treatment system to provide exceptional pollutant removal. Monitoring data shows Filterra® can treat over 90% of the total annual volume of rainfall with maximum pollutant removal rates reaching 95% for total suspended solids, 82% total phosphorus, 76% total nitrogen and 91 % heavy metals (measured as Cu). The high pollutant removal efficiency is primarily due the multiple treatment systems inherent in its unique plant / soil / microbe treatment media. Its unique design and use of typical landscape plants also provides many added values such as low maintenance costs, enhanced aesthetics, improved habitat value, and easy / safe inspection. The "at-the-source" treatment strategy is highly adaptable for any urban setting to achieve multiple stormwater management water quality and quantity goals including combined sewer overflow control. II. Background Filterra® is based on Bioretention technology. Bioretention has been defined as filtering stormwater runoffthrough a terrestrial aerobic plant / soil/microbe complex to capture, remove, and cycle pollutants through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. The multiple pollutant removal mechanisms of this technology make it the most efficient of all BMP's. The word "Bioretention" was derived from the fact that the biomass of the plant / microbe complex retains, degrades, uptakes, and cycles many of the pollutants / contaminants of concern including bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals, and organics such as oil/grease and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (P AH). Therefore, it is the "bio" -mass that ultimately "retains" and transforms the pollutants -hence "Bio-retention". Treatment technologies using soils, sand, organic materials, microbes and plants have been used in both water and wastewater treatment. For example, wastewater effluent spray irrigation on fields and meadows has been successfully used for centuries throughout the world (Shuval et aI., 1 Mr. Coffman has over 30 years of experience in the stonnwater / water resources management. He has authored numerous papers and articles on stonnwater management programs and pioneered the development ofbioretention or "Rain Gardens". He is the principal author of Prince George's County's, Maryland national award wining "Low Impact Development Design Manual" -an alternative technological approach to stonnwater management. He is a member of American Society of Civil Engineer's Urban Water Resources Research Coimcil and the Water Environment Research Federation Stonnwater Technical Advisory Committee. Mr. Coffman is considered one of the nation's leading experts on Low Impact Development technologies for water resources / ecosystem protection. 2 Mr. Siviter has been the Director of Business Development for Americast for over 10 years. He is responsible for the technical development, marketing, and sales of products and services for stonnwater treatment / conveyance systems and industrial wastewater and water pollution control technologies. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1986). These systems have been shown to be both economically and environmentally sustainable (Feigin et aI., 1991). Bioretention was first developed by Prince George's County, Maryland's Department of Environmental Resources (PGCDER) in the early 1990's (Coffman et aI. 1993). The PGCDER design manual provides basic Bioretention planning, design and maintenance guidance. The practice was originally developed to allow use of sites' landscaped and green space to filter and treat runoff. The original design was essentially an enhanced infiltration technique where the filtered water was allowed to infiltrate into the ground. Since the introduction of Bioretention, the success of the practice has been mixed primarily due to the lack of detailed specific design and construction standards. This lack of specificity has lead to wide variations in the soil/filter mix, infiltration rates, plant materials, and sizing resulting in costly reconstruction and maintenance repairs. The advanced design ofFilterra® has eliminated all ofthe past problems and liabilities of conventional Biotetention designs and greatly improved its performance, reliability, and ease of construction and maintenance. III. Filterra® Physical Description The system consists of a concrete container, a 3 inch mulch layer, 1.5 to 3.5 feet of a unique soil filter media, an observation / c1eanout pipe, an under-drain system and an appropriate type of plant i.e., flowers, grasses, shrub, or tree (see Figure 1). , t· ... Figure 1 A~ldotiD~!lIiIiJao. , 'USh'~M.iUV. fll.MIl1 Stormwater runoff drains directly from impervious surfaces through an inlet structure in the concrete box and flows through the mulch, plant, and soil filter media. Treated water flows out of the system via an under-drain connected to a storm drain pipe or other appropriate outfall. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Filterra® can also be used to control runoff volumes / flows by adding storage volume beneath the filter box for either infiltration or detention control (e.g. a gravel infiltration trench area beneath the box). The concrete container and treatment media are below grade with the only features visible being the top concrete slab, tree grate, plant, and inlet opening. Filterra® looks very ,similar to an ordinary tree box except that it is specially designed to treat runoff (see Figure 2). This is one of the few commercially available BMP that can also help to enhance the aesthetic value of the urban setting. IV. Pollutant Removal Processes Pollutants are captured, cycled, and removed by a wide variety of complex physical, chemical, and biological processes as the contaminated runoff flows onto and through the mulch / soil / microbe / plant treatment system. Suspended solids are removed through sedimentation as runoff is allowed to pond above the filter media with filtration of pollutants as the runoff passes through the media. Organic compounds are removed by chemical complexing with the organic constituents of the media, microbial degradation, filtration, and sedimentation. Nitrogen is captured through physical and chemical means and removed through nitrification, denitrification, and plant uptake. Phosphorus is removed through adsorption, sedimentation, precipitation and plant uptake. Heavy metals are removed through sedimentation, organic complexing, precipitation, adsorption, and plant uptake. The pollutant removal mechanisms operate in two distinct time scales. The fir$t time scale occurs during the storm event when pollutants come into contact with the media and are captured instantaneously through sedimentation, filtration, adsorption, absorption, infiltration, and chemical precipitation. The second time scale is between storm events. Pollutant removal and cycling occurs in a matter of hours, days, and weeks through biological degradation, biological uptake, and volatilization. The Filterra® filter media is designed to capture pollutants during the storm event while biological processes degrade, metabolize, detoxify, and volatilize the pollutants during and between storms. The difficulty with removing pollutants in urban runoff is that they occur in a wide array of 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I organic and inorganic fonns and in various particle sizes from gross solids to dissolved molecules. Each of the various pollutant fonns and jarticle sizes can require different processes and mechanisms for capture and treatment. Filterra complex media structure provides for an array of physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes to handle a wide variety of pollutants. Each of these processes is described below. A. Physical Processes 1. Sedimentation (Event Time Scale) The storage area above the mulch layer is designed to allow a quiescent pooling of runoff within the filter box that encourages sedimentation. Most of the larger particles associated with gross and suspended solids are deposited on the surface and / or entrained within the 3-dimensional mulch layer. The amount of sedimentation is a function of particle density, size, and water density (Stokes· Law). Heavy metals are commonly attached to these particles so the sedimentation process is effective in removing a portion of the heavy metals and other pollutants in particulate fonn. 2. Filtration (Event Time Scale) The mulch and sandy organic media are designed to filter out many particulate pollutants. As runoff passes through the mulch layer and into the underlining sandy filter media, many smaller particles are captured in the media. The efficiency of the filtration process is a function of filter depth, media size, porosity, velocity, and nature of the particles. Studies at the University of Virginia helped to optimize the filter media to achieve both high flows and pollutant removal. Particles found in runoff range in size from trash and debris to less than 1 micron all of which can be captured in the media. 3. Infiltration (Event Time Scale) When designed as an infiltration device, where soils ·pennit, Filterra® remov~s pollutants from runoff by reducing the total annual runoff volume. This infiltrated runoff is further treated through additional chemical and biologjcal processes occurring in the soils. B. Chemical Processes 1. Adsorption (Event Time Scale) The mulch and sandy / organic treatment media is complex and has a tremendous surface area. The process of adsorption is simply the preferential partitioning of a substance onto the surface of a solid substrate. This physical adsorption is caused mainly by electrostatic forces and is a function of surface area and the .polarity of the materials. The media contains hydrophilic adsorbents such as aluminosilicates (sand) and hydrophobic adsorbents such as carbonaceous / organic matter that allow for wide range of pollutants to adhere to the surface of the media's components. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Absorption (Event Time Scale) Absorption can be physical or chemical where the molecules of one substance are taken into the physical structure of another substance. For example, organic matter can act as a sponge to essentially soak up soluble molecules within its physical structure such as occurs with activated carbon. 3. Volatilization (Between Event Time Scale) Volatile organic compounds (i.e., gasoline) found in runoff and captured in the filter media and will, over time, be volatized back into the atmosphere. Gases such as water, CO2, and N2, which are derived from metabolic processes, will also be volatized back into the atmosphere. c. Biological Processes 1. Biological Adsorption and Capture (Event Time Scale) The bacteria growing in the Filterra® media are encapsulated with a slime layer. This layer helps to protect the bacteria and provides a "sticky" surface to bind with particles containing organic matter and heavy metals. As the bacteria level increases in the filter media the greater the volume of sticky surface cell surfaces there are to capture pollutants. 2. Evapotranspiration Plants also transpire or release gases to the atmosphere through openings in their leaftissues. Phytoremediation technology has shown that plants can remove volatile substance from the soil and transpire them back into the atmosphere including volatile organic compounds VOC's (Zhang, et aI., 2001). 3. Biological Processes (Between Event Time Scale) There are several biological processes that are important in the r~moving pollutants from the runoff. These processes are quite complex and vary as a function of moisture, temperature, pH, salinity, exposure to toxins, .and the presence of or absence of oxygen. Basically, these processes transform pollutants into other less harmful chemicals and compounds or incorporate the pollutants into the microbe/ plant biomass to create new cell matter. Some of these processes are listed below and briefly defined. a. Nutrient Assimilation -Biologically available forms of nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon are actively taken into the cells of organjsms and used for metabolic processes (energy production and growth). Bacteria will use all types of carbon sources for food including (oil products) breaking them down for a variety of metabolic processes and needs. Nitrogen and phosphorus are actively taken up by organisms as nutrients that are vital for a lJ.umber of cell functions, growth, and energy production. These processes remove metabolites from the media during 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I v. and between storm events. b. Nitrification / Denitrification -Through a complex series of processes and reactions that occur with and without oxygen, bacteria transform various forms of . nitrogen into cell tissue or nitrogen gas. These processes help to reduce the total nitrogen in the treated discharge. c. Biodegradation -Organisms can break down a wide array of organic compounds into less toxic forms or completely break them down into CO and , 2 water. This process is important in detoxifying or eliminating a number of toxic organic compounds of concern. d. Bioremediation -Bacteria and plants have a wide array of mechanisms to immobilize and detoxify organic compounds and heavy metals. For example, bacteria can cause metals to precipitate out as salts, bind them in proteins in the cell and cell wall slime, and accumulate metals in nodules within the cells. Metals are captured in the bacteria and transformed in ways that are generally less toxic to them and the plants (Means et aI, 1994). e. Phytoremediation -Plants also have the ability to metabolize many pollutants such as the uptake and accumulation of metals in the cell tissue to make them less toxic (Reeves and Baker, 2000). Filterra® is a living system that metabolizes volatizes, detoxifies, and cycles many pollutants in runoff. Nitrogen and phosphorus are used by the plants and bacteria to grow more cells. Organic matter is used as an e.nergy source and metabolized into water and carbon dioxide. This means that as the biomass (plant and microbes) of the system increases in mass; so does the system's capacity to capture and process more pollutants. Filterra ® uses all of the natural process of the plant / soil complex possible to treat urban runoff. These processes can last many years as pollutants are simply recycled within the system and converted into biomass. The accumulation of debris and sediment can be removed with simple annual maintenance practices. If toxic substances should ever build to levels that may cause harm to the receiving water or wildlife, the media and plants can easily be replaced. Treatment Capacity The treatment capacity of Filterra® is dependant on the overall pollutant removal capabilities of the treatment media and the hydraulic properties of the media. Many of the pollutant removal processes were mentioned above. The hydraulic properties of importance are the flow rate through the media and the volume of runoff it can treat. Both the pollutant removal and hydraulic capacity of the system have been measured though monitoring conducted by the University of Virginia. Based on these measured values, a performance curve can be developed for various pollutants (see Figure 3). This curve shows that pollutant removal capabilities vary with the ratio of media's surface area to contributing drainage area. Increasing this ratio will 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I increase the pollutant removal rate up to the maximum removal capacity of the media to capture and process the pollutants. Figure 3 100% 90% '0 80% \liS 70% GI IG 'IV f 60% 0:1-_ GI 50% "' E ~~ 40"'(' GI> 30% 0:'0 c IG 20% 10% 0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% FUterra® Performance Mid-Atlantic U.S. Region 0.6% O.B% 1.0% 1.2% Ratio -Filter Surface Area I Drainage Area 1.4% Legend Based on test data and rainfall distribution ofthe Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S., the optimum media surface to drainage area ratio is about 0.33% or 36 square feet of media / 0.25 acres of contributing drainage area. Using the 0.33% ratio, the system will treat approximately 90% of the annual volume of runoff and can achieve maximum expected pollutant removals of 95% for total suspended solids, 82% total phosphorus, 76% total nitrogen, and 91 % heavy metals (measured as eu). The 0.33% ratio will vary from region to region as rainfall intensities varies. An explanation of the hydrology and hydraulic method for sizing the system is provided below. VI. Hydrology and Hydraulic Analytical Method Filterra® uses a unique and sound analytical method to determine the appropriate media surface area needed to achieve the desired treatment levels. The key is to appropriately match the media's flow rate to the unique rainfall / runoff characteristics of the drainage area. This is achieved by matching the volume of runoff treated by the media to the volume of runoff generated by the drainage area based on actual rainfall intensity distributions for any given regIOn. For the Mid-Atlantic region, 50 years of rainfall data was analyzed from" Reagan National Airport from which the probability and frequencies of all rainfall intensities (inches/hour) were determined. Knowing this and the flow characteristics ofthe Filterra®media(from University of Virginia testing), one can determine the annual volume of runoff that can be treated and the optimum surface area for any given drainage area. The Filterra® performance chart for the Mid- Atlantic U.S. region (see Figure 4) summarizes the rainfall intensity distributions, predicted pollutant removal rates, and volumes treated for 36 sq. ft. of media surface area with a ~ acre drainage area. The MS Excel based performance spreadsheet will automatically calculate the filter media surface area needed to treatment goals of any given drainage area. If other pollutant removals are required or certain annual pollutant load reductions are needed, the spreadsheet can also calculate the surface area needed. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Filterra® Performance for Mid-Atlantic U.S. Region Drainage Area (DA) = Fllterra" Length = FBterra" Width = Available Sizes Tlbl ContrlbutJrg DrainageArea 4x6 or 6x4 0.17 ac 4xB or Bx4 0.22 ac Standard 6x6 0.25 ac 0.25 Acres 6.00 feet 6.00 feet FSA to DA Ratio = FlowVolume Filtered = TP Removal (Max 82%) = DA-10,890 FllterSumce Area (FSA) a 36.00 0.331% 90.64% 74.33% ti' ti' 8' TN Removal (Max 76%) = 68.89% filterra~ TSS Removal (Max 95%) = 86.11% Metal Removal (Max 91 %) = 82.49% 6xB or Bx6 033 ac 6,10 or 10,6 0.42 ac 6x12 or 12xS 0.50 ac SHe CondHlon = Consider lolal conlrlbutlng OA as 100% Impervious Fllerra" Flow Voh.me = 0.01 x (LxW) 14 276 x 3600 = 303.09 cu ftlhr Volumelrlc RuneII' Coemdenl. R,. (use MOE Formula) = 0.95 RunolfVolume = P' Rv 112 • OA = 862.125 P cu ftlhr (a) (b) (e) (d) (e) (f) (g) Rainfall Runoff Volume Runoff Treated Cumulative Probability Ie) x Ie) (cu (b) x Ie) (In I hr) (cult/hr) (cult/hr) Frequency Frequency ftl hr) (cult/hr) 0.020 17.24 17.24 0.4205 0.4205 7.25 7.25 0.040 34.49 34.49 0.6027 0.1822 6.28 6.28 0.060 51.73 51.73 0.7133 0.1106 5.72 5:72 0.080 68.97 68.97 0.7850 0.0717 4.95 4.95 0.100 86.21 86.21 0.8352 0:0502 4.33 4.33 0.125 107.77 107.77 0.8745 0.0393 4.24 4.24 0.150 129.32 129.32 0.9030 0.0285 3.69 3.69 0.200 172.43 172.43 0.9382 0.0352 6.07 .6.07 0.250 215.53 215.53 0.9570 0.0188 4.05 4.05 0.300 258.64 258.64 0.9687 0.0117 3.03 3.03 0.350 301.74 301.74 0.9756 0.0069 2.08 2.08 0.400 344.85 303.09 0.9810 0.0054 1.64 1.86 0.450 387.96 303.09 0.9856 0.0046 1.39 1.78 0.500 431.06 303.09 0.9881 0.0025 0.76 1.08 0.550 474.17 303.09 0.9899 0.0018 0.55 0.85 0.600 517.28 303.09 0.9918 0.0019 0.58 0.98 0.650 560.38 303.09 0.9930 0.0012 0.36 0.67 0.700 603.49 303.09 0.9942 0.0012 0.36 0.72 0.750 646.59 303.09 0.9950 0.0008 0.24 0.52 0.800 689.70 303.09 0.9957 0.0007 0.21 .0.48 0.900 775.91 303.09 0.9971 0.0014 0.42 1.09 1.000 862.13 303.09 0.9979 0.0008 0.24 0.69 1.500 1293.19 303.09 0.9999 0.0020 0.61 2.59 2.000 1724.25 303.09 1.0000 0.0001 0.03 0.17 Totals 1.0000 59.07 65.17 Figure 4 Table IS based on preepitation data obtained from NCDC (National Climatic Data Center). Calculating the annual pollutant load removal is determined by simply multiplying the percent annual volume treated by the maximum pollutant removal percentage for each pollutant. These values can be found in the performance chart above. Example: Annual volume treated = 90.64 % Maximum TSS Removal = 95% Annual TSS Removal = (90.64%) (95%) = 86.11% 100 VII. Unique Decentralized Placement ofFilterra® Systems Another unique feature of the design, sizing, and placement of Filterra® is that it utilizes a distributed design approach fundamental to the innovative Low Impact Development technology 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (LID). This design philosophy promotes at-the-source controls; off-line configuration of the units, treating relatively small drainage areas (less than Yz acre), and a more uniform distribution of controls throughout the site. This is opposed to conventional end-of pipe and in-line treatment approach used for most BMP designs. The LID approach reduces the effective hydraulic and pollutant load to each unit thereby increasing performance and reducing maintenance burdens. Controlling runoff as close to the source as possible also eliminates problems common to conventional BMP's such as concentrated high flows that cause ,erosion and resuspension of pollutants or expensive control structures to store, split, or divert high flows. Using small drainage areas ensures that runoff flows and velocities are always very low. VIII. Ease of Design Americast's recommend media surface area to drainage area ratio of 0.33% for the Mid-Atlantic; region is adequate to meet current state and Federal NPDES pollutant removal requirements. For your convenience, Americast offers a variety of precast concrete Filterra® box sizes to meet most of your site design needs. As long as you follow the LID design principles by distributing the units and keeping the drainage area to each unit at or below Yz acres, all you have to do is to properly place the right size unit to match drainage area (see Figure 5). Available Sizes Total Contributing Drainage Area 4x6or6x4 0.17 ac 4x8 or 8x4 0.22 ac Standard 6x6 0.25 ac 6x8or8x6 0.33 ac 6x10 or 10x6 0.42 ac 6x12 or 12x6 0.50 ac Figure 5 IX. Off-Line I Bypass Design Another unique design feature ofFilterra® is its off-line design configuration. This design strategy improves treatment and avoids the possibility of resuspension of particulate matter. It is important that the site designer confer with Americast on the proper location of the unit to ensure that the site grading and placement are correct (see Figure 6). Example scenarios are available by contacting Americast. CURB AND GlJITER (TYP) Figure 6 FlLTERRA PAVED AREA REQUIRED CROSS LINEAR ! GUTTER FLOW IN FRONT OF FlLTERRA (TIP) -- FlLTERRA 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The site designer must also plan for the by-pass of high flows. Although the system will treat about 90% of the total rainfall events / volume, occasIonally the flow capacity of the treatIhent media will be exceeded causing the unit to go into bypass mode. The bypass flows must be safely conveyed to a nearby inlet or other appropriate discharge point. Sump conditions must be avoided. If the unit is placed in a sump, bypass mode will result in flooding around the unit and cause resuspension of the debris collected in the unit. X. Construction Considerations Perhaps the most critical construction issue is proper location of the unit in relationship to the site grading. Generally, the units are placed in the curb line of parking lots and roadways. In this configuration, the site grading must direct runoff to the curb first to allow the flow to enter the unit from the curb in a cross linear manner along the face of the inlet. Filterra® looks very much like an inlet structure and often contractors will grade the site as if the unit is a stanclard inlet (i.e. placing it in a sump condition). The site engineer must ensure that this does not happen. XI. Conclusions Filterra® is one of the most advanced and adaptive BMP's on the market today. It has been carefully engineered and designed to meet all your water quality needs in the most cost effective manner possible. XII. References Coffman L. S., Prince George's County, MD, "Design Manual for the Use of Bioretention in Stormwater Management", Prince George's County, Maryland, June 1993. Feigin, A., I. Ravina and J. Shalhevet. 1991. Irrigation with Treated Sewage Effluent. Managementfor Environmental Protection. Advanced Series in Agricultural Sciences 17. Springer-Verlag. 224pp Means J., Hinchee R., 1994. Emerging Technology for Bioremediation of Metals, Battelle, Columbus, Ohio,158 pp. ISBN:1-56670-085-X Reeves R. D. and AJM Baker. Metal-accumulating plants. In Phytoremediation o/Toxic Metals, I, Raskin and BEnsley (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 193-230 (2000). Shuval, H.I., A. Adin, B. Fattal, E. Rawitz and P. Yekutiel. 1986. Wastewater irrigation in developing countries. Health effects and technical solutions. World Bank Tech. Pap. 51, 325pp. Zhang Q. Davis L. C., Erickson LE. Transport of methyl tert-butyl ether through alfalfa plants. Env. Sci. Technol., 35: 725-731 (2001). 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT C TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS ApPLICABILITY CHECKLIST I: >-'" a. '" '" ~ I: ~ n 0 0 ru "-Q) ::: '" Ii '" ::> ~ I i': * . ! I ~ II o. . ." ./ Q) ... I ~ I ./ X I ·1: ... u .!!,I o. c 0. ! ./ I x I :l u .11 c ./ X I C ... c i ." ./ i x I' I • II I I I ~\ I ~\ I ! II I: ! ! I: ~ I I I I of CARLSBAD i PI£lOO OCfAN VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCAlE THIS IS A IMP OF A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ~ AS DEfiNEO IN SECllON 1350 OF THE CML CODE OF THE STATE OF CAlIFORNIA WITH A MAXIMUM OF 5 LOTS. DEMOLITION KEY NOTES EXISTING BUILDING OEMDlISH EXISlING 1 STORY BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED CONC. j' fL\TWORK. DISCONNECT EXISTING GAS, WATER AND SEWER I SERVICES. = ,. m o DEMOlISH AND REMO'IE ALL ASPHALT CONCRETE fROM PRWEcr--....... -. SITE. j ';:\ Ii' !II DEMDUSH AND REMO'IE EXISTING CONC. DRAINAGE DITCH. III DEMOLISH AND REMO'IE ALL EXISTING CURBS, GUTTER AND RIBBON GUTTERS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. I EXISTING ~! BUILDING ": [[] REMO'IE ALL SEWERIMINS, SEWER IMINHDLE WITHIN THE PROJECT • ~ SITE. PLUG AT IMIN. -----~ [[] REMO\IE EXISlING METER I< BOX. CAP B" MAIN FOR fUTURr.--;-y -;::::::::r"" II] REMO\IE ALL EXISTING fiRE HYDRANTS AND ASSOCIATED PIPiNG'" WHITHIN THE PROJECT SITE UNlESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. J III REMO\IE EXISlING BACKFlOW PREVENTER REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE DETECTOR ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATED PIPING. III REMO\IE ALL EXISTING WATER VALVES WITHIN THE PROJECT SInE. ~,. SC4~f.~ WATER GPM: SEWER: ADT: BUILDING A=I60D ADT BUILDING B=12DD ADT BUILDING C=16DO ADT BUILDING 0= 420 ADT 200 GPM 29.5 EDU's 4820 ADT TOTAL SEE TRAffIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR: CARLSBAD OrnCE CAMPUS BY: R.B.F. CONSULTING DATED: OCT 2B, 2001 EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT: 15,600 CY FILL: 15,000 CY IMPORT: CY EXPORT: 500 CY BENCHMARK BENCHMARK: SAN DIEGO COUNTY BENCH MARK I 131 DESCRIPTION: DISC IN CONC. MONUMENT LOCATION: APPROX. ON E'LV ROW LINE OF AT I< SF R.R.' ELEVATION: 47.415 DATUM: M S L E (619)196-5565 K&S ENGINEERING Planning Engineering Surveying 7801 Yission Cenler Courl, Suile 100 Son Diego, CA 91108 "7.':' ~'''''' ~,,: ,l:) 1:;-; 1 :-.:' :....:,: () ::) ~,~ Z .-, I~ _. \'-1 ...... C'\.; ~.~ 9'-1) i ~ t'-..> <> ~C: 13 C'. .. EXlSIING 2.· ECP~fDJ>·:"".A.·' CITY or CARlSSAO OWe 157-8 EXISTING 10· N:.P WAfERWJN PER CflY OF CARlSBAD DWG NO. 157-e. ,I i" ,-H ~ .~ .', j TENTATIVE MAP NO. Ot.r02-12/CDP 02-31/PIP 02-04/PUD 02-05 FOR I: I EXISTING I BUILDING CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS LOTS A-E. A.P.N, 210-090-50 LEGEND PROPERlY BOUNDARY LINE - - - - PROPOSED fiNISH flOOR El£VATION r.r.=SI.1 PROPOSED B' PVC PUBUC SEWERIMIN --·s -- PROPOSED B' PVC PRIVATE SEWERIMIN ,--S --- PROPOSED B" PVC PUBLIC WATERIMIN --w-- PROPOSED SEWER IMNHOLE PROPOSED WATER SERVlCE PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE PROPOSED RCP STORM ORAIN PIPE PROPOSED STORM ORAIN C.D. PROPOSED TYPE 'G' CATCH BASIN PROPOSED fiRE HYDRANT ---0--- ~ @--; ====== PROPOSED DOUBLE DETEC. CHK VAlVE [XISTING EASEMENT LINES [XISTING LOT NUMBER DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE fLOW PROPOSED 6" CURB I< GUTTER PROPOSED S" CURB ONLY I!l o ....... ~r LOT 9 .ML PROPOSED 3' WIDE RIBBON GUTTER = '.= PROPOSED YARD DRAIN --- - PROPOSED ASHPALT PAVEMENT '---' '" ' ..... -, -I PROPDSED POROUS PAVEMENT 'ITW~Z%1j PROPOSED CONCRETE INVERT ELEVATION -~.~---t.~...'.-!..····;-:· ,0j TOP OF CURB ELEVATlON fLOWlINE ELEVATlON fiNISH SURFACE ELEVATION fiNISH GROUND El£VATION fiNISH flOOR ELEVATION SEWER MANHOLE SEWER CLEANOUT STORM DRAIN CLfANOUT TOP fiNISH SURFACE ELEVATION BOTTON fiNISH SURFACE ELEVATlON fiRE HYDRANT CONSTRUCTION NOTE: CONSTRUCTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. CLEARING &: GRUBING. 2. GRADING 3. ONSIlE UTlUTIES AND PARKING LOT. I.E. TC fl FS FG F.F. SMH S. CO SO CO US B,ts F.H. 4. CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING A-D, TWO COOLING TOWERS, ONE PARKING STRlICTURE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ALL THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16274, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CAlIFORNIA, fiLED IN THE ornCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON OCTOBER 26, 1990. CIVIL ENGINEER/LAND K&S ENGINEERING 7BOI MISSION CENTER COURT, SUITE 100 SAN DIEGO, CA 9210B TEL! 619-296-5565 OWNER: CARLMART, LP" A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ATTN.: JOHN C. WHITE, PRESIDENT 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 100 CARLSBAD, CA 9200B TEL: (760) 431-5600 GENERAL NOTES: 1. STREET ADDRESS: 5600 AVENIOA ENCINAS, CARLSBAD, CA 9200B. 2. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 210-090-50 3. EXISTING ZONING: PM (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL ZONE) 4. PROPOSED ZONING: OffiCE COMMERCIAL 5. EXISlING G.P. DESIGNATION: PI 6. PROPOSED G.P. DESIGNATlON: PI 7. EXISlING LAND USE: INDUSTRIAL J~ B. PROPOSED LAND USE: INDUSTRIAL 9. TOTAL ACRES: 12.71 AC. GROSS. , , I. II 10. NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 LOTS 11. TOPO SOURCE: MORENO AERIAL PHOTO SURVEY, 11-2001 SPECIAl DISTRICTS SCHOOL DISTRICT: WATER DISTRICT: SEWER DISTRICT: CARLSBAD UNIfiED SCHOOL DISTRICT. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CITY OF CARLSBAD ~I >-1 ~I II 1=1 "'1 \ TO THEatYOf CARLSBAD § g!' -200" 200Y." q .. =~~?: "" PER PY 16274. u' B !-...!::. •• .. ~I IRRE'vOCABl£ OFf£R or DEDICATION PER Piol 1&274. SURVEY NOTE: THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ON THE TENTATIVE MAP WERE TAXEN FROM INFORMATION SHOWN ON P.M. 16274. 'r-1- ~. ~ ,. RIBBON .I GUTTER EL=O' ii:'FS SECTION A-A NO SCALE CURB ~ GUTTER CI) +-J o Q) +-J £ o 1.-« 0) c +-J ::J en c o o £ -+--' E (J) ~ ;;: ~ :x:: ri o 0'-..... r--.. c ..... co E ,~~ ~ o c:. :;]0 ~(I~~ o ~.~ r--.l'o N::;OOO<XJ ~~~ge ~:!°H!..H=-;_~h~~:!~~n.!!.~~'~HI'_~! ............ '( .. -1d.ttolll a.. « ~ Q) o ~ o (L en --1 i ::J ~i w > -~ '" +-' I "'0 '-'-~ ! ct1ECO .Qct1E eno--c L: CO ~ Z W I-ct1 0 o R.eMsion Dates 7,-------_. --_ .. --.... _- ~ D£C£/./BER 9, 2002 7\------------------ill MARCH 26, 200J 6 .. -----.. · .. -· -... - ~-.-~ ... :== "--~-". -:- Issue o.tes Pla."lr,ing 06/14/02 Design De'le\op"T1ent Plan C~e(k BiG Set ?crmrt: Set Coos:",don SO: Drawing Date 0 9/2 7/51 ~ . '-'-' ChedcBy RJ Drawn By RSTG 5caIe so SCALE Job Number OI-04B Sheet Number TM-1 II-- II I: , 1\ ! I I I I: ; 11 i I Ii ! ; I ; , I I I I I I I I t-CI "-.. N a; § :;l lil .... CD ::: '" Ol ~ ." gl '" t-~ ~ ~ ~ S " X I of> ~ C1 a " ~ ~ " X I d of> d ." / X LINE: I LENGTH I RADUIS ':-:=_~ ~~~l._ ==~~~1~~ L3 33,00 --"L:4 33']0 --:-: ,=-_L2 ".00 =-== I'--C~ --~'ri~ ---"-~-I:- r LB ---n:oo .... -:---r9 ---n:oo I UD '1.00---------l..ll 57.6'4--_._--:- L12 57,64 -Li3 ---;r.oo ~~l--':"l 116 '1.00 ----' --ci7 32.D'O" ----I~~i--- -L20 33.001 __ -_' l21 400 -~~--- CI 94.55 I C2 9455' LIN( I LeNGTH I RADUIS -"* --llit-t----:- l28 <4.00 129-'~ I ~~~ 3!:~~. t~i.l 3!~~ L-41 I 33.00 l43 32.00· t::ml42 400 --ill... 04,DD 1---=-1. C3 63.35 C4 6335 ~'" SC4L(~~ :c:; '-'1 1..("' -, -, , C' :3) a Lll ~~ -;-"' l) ~\,~ :-2: j',' ~'-D ..... <'C « CL '-- NORTH COUNTY ,1- j ....... C·.\ tc) ~ u.... ~. --.... _-.J,o;, •• - \ , ~ { }' ,f , TRA.N;:::;IT BUILDING A F.F.=S4.6O DISTRICT RA.I LVVA.Y ® 0_6B ACRES -t. -----.. _- --1------ I TENTATIVE MAP NO. CTd2-12/CDP 02-31/PIP 02-04/PUD 02-05 i FOR CARL~BAD OFFICE CAMPUS, LOTS A-E ,- , iJi [z: <. .c:~ ..... I:"'. -,J ,-.. Z':) ;-, ~ i A.P.N. 210-090-50 If) 0:9' IS Ql Ci ,1 J~ -", ~-. eli --' LEGEND PROPOSED PUBUC EASEMENT LINES ft¢i*?'~(~~ t:;.;?-.22 ?:v~v?flJ PROPOSED LOT lEl1ER @ EXISTING LOT NUMBER LOT 9 PROPOSED PUBUC WATERMAIN PROPOSED PRr.'ATE SEWER LATERAlS -w W- -S-----S- PROPOSED PRr.'ATE SEWERMAINS -S-----S- NOTE: I-WATER EASEMENT TO BE GRANTED TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAl WATER DISTRICT PER THE FiNAl MAP. 2-LDT 'E' Will BE OWNED/MAINTAINED BY THE ASSOCIATION/CC&R's. THIS IS A MAP OF A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1350 or THE Cr.'IL CODE OF THE STATE OF CAUFORNIA WITH A LlAXIMUM or 5 LOTS. I!] (619)196-5565 K&S ENGINEERING Planning Engineering Surveying 7601 Mission Cenler Court, Suite 100 Son Diego, CA 92106 (j) +-J o Q) ~ ..c o ~ « 0) c -f-I ::J (f) C o o ..c +-J E en ~ ~ 2 .-.: ~;-..:--. " co :< ............ v~': o .S E /,\ V OMMM iIi 0 ceo-. a-. g.g: f'.i'-~<VosCO' ~'5?a~(2 _Vtt/) ......... _ "'200 I S ... hh Ctlll1"I;;1'I1 Arc!l'~Qcn "' ........ 1(:1_ 14.(:0'"' Q) a. « ~ w ~ ~ .2 (L ~CJ).-J O::J.. ~ "'C at asEco .casE OO()'1:: f- Z W f- ""i: . cu as 0 o Revision Dates . 7\---.------------" L.D. DECEMBER g, 2002 & MARCH 26, -~o~~---· l:i ----_.---------_. __ . - 6--------------- Q_~ .. -=-------.. Issue Dates Plano"g 0'/14/02 Design De'te!oprner~ PlanChec< Bid Set Pe:-rni't5ct Construction Set Drawing Dale o.'!.12.-.W!.?: ChedcBy RI Drawn By RSTG 5caIe iobNumber .?O~ ~Number OI.:Q4~ TM-2 'I: II: Ii , I: Ii • I II , Ii I I 1·1 • I -I! I 11 Ii I I I I I I I ... '" a. '" ~ g N "-~ ~: "l! ~ i!' ! ~: . "0 .--~ , 1 ~ o C 0. .--X , "0 " U " -;; , " +' " "0 .--X NO. TENTATIVE MAP <1T02-12!CDP 02-31!PIP 02-04!PUD 02-05 I FOR I' CARLSBAD OFFICE CAMPUS LOTS A-E. A.P.N. 210-090-50 ,= ~--~:'i--y-:~·L~.;J-:-:.,.l.~.;~ ;-H-j--:, :'H-~ ~ ~,. . ,Ii i . 1 i . iP~ 'i ~ I' ~ i ! ill ' ; l ~ .. ,.,_._.l.,_, __ -!_,_,.~ ~ -1 .. +-+1_,_, .. , __ ":-'-"'-i-.. -L • l' ; ~ I ~ l ' i i . L~ Ii;: I I, i::; . i ! r: CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE EXHIBIT IFOR 40mph SPEED ZONE '-- G. i ~ Cil~- ~/" 'YC4Lf.~ ------I . ..-r""" ( '--.. { ) ~ --' l--';,) \.....J \ LOOKING SOUTHERLY CORNER DISTMICE LENGTH", 440', LOOKING SOUTH 7'HIGH [("'IN. HEIGHT ftt.NGE) EXIST .NA~~G~\ -.--.-----~-.. - AVENIDA CURB UNE i I NO VERTlCA1. OBSIRUCTKlNS ___ j _._ .. T_"'i'""f'mfl'P"l"_ m~__ _ CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE PROFILE LOOKING SOUTHTERLY AND NORTHERLY LOOKING NORTHERLY CORNER DISTANCE LENGTH-440', LOOKING NORTH G. EXIST i ~ --I~ ~TURAl G~DE_~_ NO VERTICAl. OIlSTRUcnoNS I ~ p CURB LINE c::: I , , I LOOKING NORTHERLY CORNER DISTANCE LENGTH-440', lOOKIOO NORTH EX'ST mTURAl GRADE ~ -".---~-- AND TflUCK TURNING RADIUS EXHIBIT <i. i --··1 1§ K&S' ENGINEERING NO VERTICAl. OBSTRUcnONS I ~ ~ Planning Engineering Surveying CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE PROFILE LOOKING NORTHERLY (619)295-5565 7801 Mission CenleT Courl, Suile 100 Son Diego, CA 92108 (f) +-' o Q) +-' ..c o "--« 0) c +-' :J (f) C o o ..c +-' E (f) ~ g \~ ::t:: ('-I -C 0'-;-...., 1"" c t--.~ E <~r;: U u, ~8~~g:g: ~~Oo;-OO" ~'5~~~ _ V) tJi '-""-' -elOG~_:~ ~.~I:~.~~~~ a. Q) « 0 0... ~ ~ CJ)-.J W 0 ::J,+-, ~ "'C 0..,,-- I-as E Cd « .c as E I-JQO Co Z Cis 0 ~U Revision Dates 7\.-.----------. '-'" L..l.::l DECEMBER 9, 2002 -7'-,-"'-"-.----.. --.----. ill MARCH 26. 2DDJ '6.._-',.-....... 75: .. ------ lS ._._'" Issue Dates Planning 06/1 ./02 Dsg'1 DeveJop:nent P:a, C1cck B;c Set Pcrn.tS", CcrS:''1JcriO'l Se: Drawing Date 09/2 Uo.. 2 ---.--- ChedcBy RI Drawn By RSTG Scale SOS0lE Job Number Cl.!:i>:'8 S~Nu~ber TM-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Storm Water Standards 4/03103 P rtB 0 t a e ermme St d d P an ar Does the project propose: ermanen t St orm W t R a er t e~Ulremen s. 1. New impervious areas, such as rooftops, roads, parking lots, driveways, paths and sidewalks? 2. New pervious landscape areas and irrigation systems? 3. Permanent structures within 100 feet of any natural water body? 4. Trash storaqe areas? 5. Liquid or solid material loading and unloading areas? 6. Vehicle or equipment fueling, washing, or maintenance areas? 7. Require a General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Except construction)?* 8. Commercial or industrial waste handling or storage, excluding typical office or household waste? 9. Any grading or ground disturbance during construction? 10. Any new storm drains, or alteration to existing storm drains? Yes No 'X: K .>if ;< P<. /lZ x., K K X ' - *TQ find out if your project is required to obtain an individual General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, visit the State Water Resources Control Board web site at, www.swrcb.ca.qov/stormwtrlindustrial.html Section 2. Construction Storm Water BMP Requirements: If the answer to question 1 of Part C is answered "Yes," 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," 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 the answers to the questions in Part C are "Yes," complete the construction site prioritization in Part 0, below. P rtC 0 t W t R t C t f Ph St a . e ermme ons ruc Ion ase orm a er e_gulremen s. . Would the project meet any of these criteria during construction? Yes No 1. Is the project subject to California's statewide General NPDES Permit for Storm Water x:. Discharqes Associated With Construction Activities? 2. Does the project propose grading or soil disturbance? 'X 3. Would storm water or urban runoff have the potential to contact any portion of the X construction area, including washing and staging areas? 4. Would the project use any construction materials that could negatively affect water J( quality if discharged from the site (such as, paints, solvents, concrete, and stucco)? 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Storm Water Standards 4/03/03 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 activities necessary to complete the construction and any other extenuating circumstances that may pose a threat to water quality. The City reserves the right to adjust the priority of the projects both before and 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 the frequency of inspections that will be conducted by City staff. See Section IV.1 for more details on construction BMP requirements.] ~ A) High Priority 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 adjacent to or discharging directly to a coastal lagoon or other receiving water within an environmentally sensitive area Projects, active or inactive, adjacent or tributary to sensitive water bodies o B) 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 (i.e., 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 entire street frontage, etc. , however SWPPPs are not required. 3) Permit projects on private property where grading permits are required, however, Notice Of Intents (NOls) and SWPPPs are not required. o C) 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 public right-of-way where minimal to no grading occurs, such as pedestrian ramps, driveway additions, small retaining walls, etc. 3) Permit projects on private property where grading permits are not required, such as small retaining walls, single-family homes, small tenant improvements, etc. 32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Storm Water Standards 4/03/03 VI. RESOURCES & REFERENCES 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 III, "Permanent· Storm Water BMP Selection Procedure" in the Storm Water Standards manual. If 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. P tA D t P' 't P . t P t St W t BMP R t ar . e ermme nonty rOJec ermanen orm a er eqUiremen s. . Does the project meet the definition of one or more of the priority project Yes No categories?* 1. Detached residential development of 10 or more units X 2. Attached residential development of 10 or more units t.< 3. Commercial development greater than 100,000 square feet 'x. 4. Automotive repair shop [X.. 5. Restaurant )<.. 6. Steep hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet b( 7. Project discharqinq to receivinq waters within Environmentally Sensitive Areas X 8. Parking lots greater than or equal to 5,000 ft<! or with at least 15 parking spaces, and )( potentially exposed to urban runoff 9. Streets, roads, highways, and freeways which would create a new paved surface that is X 5,000 square feet or greater * Refer to the definitions section in the Storm Water Standards for expanded definitions of the priority project categories. Limited Exclusion: Trenching and resurfacing work associated with utility projects are not considered priority projects. Parking lots, buildings and other structures associated with otility projects are priority projects if one or more of the criteria in Part A is met. If all answers to Part A are "No", continue to Part B. 30