Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CT 05-12; Ocean Street Residences; Water Quality Technical Report; 2005-05-11
WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUM 2303-2327 Ocean Street City of Carlsbad Prepared for: 2303 Investors, LP 1020 Prospect Street, Suite 314 La Jolla,CA 92037 Prepared By: brlA, Inc. land planning, civil engineering, surveying 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008-4287 760-931-8700 May 11,2005 Revised August 3,2005 Revised July 26,2007 W.O. 724-0978-400 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description 1.2 Pollutants and Condition of Concern 2 MITIGATION MEASURES TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY 2.1 Site Design BMPs 2.2 Source Control BMPs 2.3 Treatment Control BMPs 2.4 Numeric Sizing of BMPs 3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 4 REFERENCE ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Site Map C. Storm Water Requirement Applicability Checklist D. Reference E. Hydrology and Hydraulic Report F. Engineering of Work Statement 1 INTRODUCTION A Water Quality Technical Report (WQTR) is required under the City of Carlsbad's storm water management requirements. The purpose of this WQTR is to describe the permanent storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated in the project to mitigate the impacts of urban runoff due to the development of Ocean Street Condominium. This WQTR is intended to ensure the effectiveness of the BMPs through maintenance that is based on long-term planning. The WQTR is subject to revisions as needed by the engineer. 1.1 Project Description This is a Water Quality Technical Report for the proposed Tentative Map for the Ocean Street Condominium project in the City of Carlsbad. This 3.1 acre site is located on Ocean Street between Garfield Street and Mountain View Drive. The Development proposes the construction of 35 residential condominium units. In the existing condition, the project site is occupied by several apartment buildings and parking spaces. The runoff from project's frontage, Ocean Street, flows to two existing curb inlets in Ocean Street, just east and west of the site. The runoff from the site flows in a northwestern direction, through a series of pipes and gutters in the apartment complex, and outlets into Buena Vista Lagoon. In the proposed condition, the apartment buildings and garage structure will be demolished and removed. A 35-unit condominium complex with underground parking garage and a paved driveway will be constructed. The runoff from the driveway is collected by the proposed rolled curb and channeled to a curb opening near the fire truck turn around. From the curb opening, the driveway's runoff is filtered and released into a proposed grassy swale along the northern boundary. The runoff from the structures, hard scape, and pool area will be collected by the internal storm drain system and piped to the northern portion of the property. The runoff, after being treated by option A. media filtration system or option B. infiltration pits, is released into the proposed grassy swale where it is filtered again and released into Buena Vista Lagoon. According to the Storm Water Requirement Applicability Checklist, this project is subject to the "Priority Project Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements," and "Standard Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements (see Table 1 Standard Development Project & Priority Project Storm Water BMP Requirements Matric). Priority and Standard project require the incorporation of the Site Design BMPs, Source Control BMPs, BMPs applicable to individual priority project (Private Road), and Treatment Control BMPs into the design of the project. 1.2 Pollutants and Condition of Concern Identify Pollutants from the Project Area - Using Table 2, identify the project's anticipated pollutants. Table 2. Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type. Project Categories Attached Residential Development Streets, Highways & Freeways General Pollutant Categories Sedi- ments X X Nutrients X P(l)x Heavy Metals X Organic Compounds X(4) Trash & Debris X X Oxygen Demanding Substance P(l) P(5) Oil& Grease P(2) X Bacteria & Viruses P(l) Pesticides X X = Anticipated P = potential (1) A potential pollutant if landscape exists on-site. (2) A potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas. (4) Including petroleum hydrocarbons. (5) Including solvents. Identify Pollutants of Concern in Receiving Waters -1) The project is located in the El Salto Hydrologic Sub-area (904.21), part of Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (904.00). 2) According to the California 2002 303(d) list published by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, this project discharges into Buena Vista Lagoon which is an impaired water body. Buena Vista Lagoon is impaired with bacteria indicators, nutrients, and sedimentation/siltation. Identify Condition of Concern - A hydrology report was written for this project. A copy of this Hydrology Report is in the back of this report for reference. 2.2 MITIGATION MEASURES TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY To address water quality for the project, Standard Storm Water Permanent BMPs will be incorporated into the project design. Pollutants of concern as noted in Section 1.2 will be addressed through four types of BMPs. These types of BMPs are Site Design BMPs, Source Control BMPs, BMPs for Individual Priority Project Categories (Private Road) and Treatment Control BMPs. 2.1 Site Design BMPs Maintain Pre-Development Rainfall Runoff Characteristics Control post-development peak storm runoff discharge rates and velocities to maintain or reduce pre-development downstream erosion by applying the following concepts: • Minimize impervious footprint to the maximum extent practicable by Increasing building density (multi-stories building). • Construct driveway with paver (permeable surface). • Convey runoff safely from the tops of slopes. • Install energy dissipaters, at the outlets of new storm drains, culverts, conduits, or channels that enter unlined channels in accordance with applicable standards and specifications to minimize erosion. Energy dissipaters shall be installed in such a way as to minimize impacts to receiving waters. 2.2 Source Control BMPs Source control BMPs will consist of measures to prevent polluted runoff. • Trash storage areas will be indoor, garage level. • Use efficient irrigation system and landscaping design. • Provide concrete stamping, or equivalent, to all storm water conveyance system inlets and catch basins within the project area with prohibitive language (e.g., "No Dumping -1 Live Downstream".), to the satisfactory of the City Engineer. 23 BMPs Applicable to Individual Priority Project Categories (Private Roads) For Priority Project, the following shall be incorporated into the project. The driveway slopes to the proposed rolled curb, a curb opening with a filtration device, Catch Basin Stormfilter by Contech Stormwater Solutions, will filter the pollutant of concern from the street's runoff before the runoff is released into the proposed grassy swale. 23 Treatment Control BMPs As part of the Treatment Control BMPs requirements, this project proposes the use of a grassy swale and option A. Stormfilter by contech stormwater solutions or option B. Infiltration Pit, to maximize the pollutant removal of pollutant of concern. (See the Reference section for the fact sheets and pollutant removal capacity of BMPs.) See the Numeric Sizing Section for Calculations. Table 3. Structural Treatment Control BMP Selection Matrix Pollutants Sediments Nutrients Metals Trash & Debris Organic Compound Oil & Grease Oxygen Demand Pesticides Bacteria Biofilter M L M L U M L U U Stormfilter H M M H M M M M M L=Low removal efficiency M=Medium removal efficiency H=High removal efficiency 2.4 Numeric Sizing of BMPs Flow-based BMPs Shall be designed to mitigate the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour of a storm event. Catch Basin Stormfilter at Node 4.1: Q=CIA =(0.76)(0.2)(0.76) Q=0.11 cfs Cartridges quantity=(0.11 cfs)(449 gpm/cfs)/(15 gpm/cart) =3.3 Catch basin Stormfilter by Contech stormwater solutions with 4 cartridges will be adequate. Catch Basin Stormfilter at Node 5.9 and 6.9: Q=CIA =(0.76)(0.2)(0.86) Q=0.13 cfs Cartridges quantity=(0.13 cfs)(449 gpm/cfs)/(15 gpm/cart) =3.9 Catch basin Stormfilter by Contech stormwater solutions with 4 cartridges will be adequate. Storm Gate Manhole High Flow Bypass Structure by Contech stormwater solutions will be placed before each Stormfilter to bypass the in excess runoff from 100 year storm event. For Grassy Swale: Q = CIA = (0.76)(0.2)(3.23) Q = 0.5 cfs Velocity = 0.2 fps Grassy Swale is approximately 380 feet. Time of Concentration = 30.1 minute :: Need 10 minute of Time of Concentration OK See the Reference Section for BMPs fact sheets. tmptfl.txt Channel calculator Grassy Swale Given input Data:Shape Rectangul arSolving for Depth of FlowFlowrate 0.5000 cfsSlope 0.0050 ft/ft Manni ng's n 0.2400 Height 1.0000 ft Bottom wi dth 6.0000 ft Computed Results:Depth 0.3880 ft Ve I oci ty 0.2148 fps Full Flowrate 2.1685 cfsFlow area 2.3281 ft2 Flow perimeter 6.7760 ft Hydraulic radius 0.3436 ftTop width 6.0000 ft Area 6.0000 ft2 Perimeter 8.0000 ft Percent full 38.8012 % The Channel is approximately 380 feet and Velocity is 0.21 fps. Travel Time is 30.1 minutes Page 1 (a) Volume-based BMPs if proposed shall be designed to mitigate (infiltrate, filter, or treat) either: i. .The volume of runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record and shown on the official County Isopluvial Map for the 85th percentile contained in the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual or on the County's Website at www.sdcountv.ca.qov/gov/dpn/enqineer/flood.htm: or The volume of runoff produced by the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event, determined as the maximized capture urban runoff volume for the area, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998); or The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage volume, to achieve 90 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook - Industrial/ Commercial, (1993). (b) Flow-based BMPs if proposed shall be designed to mitigate (infiltrate, filter, or treat) The maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour for each hour of a storm event; or ii. The maximum flow rate of runoff produced by the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity, as determined from the local historical rainfall record, multiplied by a factor of two; or iii. The maximum flow rate of runoff, as determined from the local historical rainfall record.that achieves approximately the same reduction in pollutant loads and flows as achieved by mitigation of the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensity multiplied by a factor of two. G5.5.2: Step 9: Locate BMPs Near Pollutant Sources. Structural treatment control stormwater BMPs, if proposed, should be implemented close to pollutant sources to minimize costs and maximize pollutant removal prior to runoff entering receiving waters. Such BMPs may be located on- or off-site, used singly or in combination, or shared by multiple new developments, pursuant to the following requirements: (a) Any structural treatment control BMPs shall be located so as to infiltrate, filter, and/or treat the required runoff volume or flow prior to its discharge to any receiving water body supporting beneficial uses. G-27 Revised March 2005 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM The operation and maintenance requirement for each type of BMP is as follows: 3.1 Maintenance Schedule and Cost for BMPs Stormfilter by Contech Stormwater Solutions oc c1-3O OPi < Sediment removal Inspection for debris/trash Inspect for Minor Maintenance Manufacturer's recommended major maintenance General Maintenance Inspection Total Lg B c S'3 '-55 3 Sediment occupies 10% of the filter chamber volume. Trash and debris present. Per manufacture's guide lines. ( See the fact sheet in this section.) Per manufacture's guide lines. ( See the fact sheet in this section.) Inlet structure, Outlet structure, vault, piping; or other features damaged and for graffiti or vandalism. C 1s 2 | ES Measure with appropriate device. Visual observation None Per manufacture's guide lines. ( See the fact sheet in this section.) Visual Observation aoE fe>£ c3 § nj O"4) <US £ Annually in May. During routine trashing per districts schedule. Annually Annually Semi- Annually L.s -SCO "Q Remove Sediment prior to wet season. Characterize sediment and property disposal. Remove and dispose of debris/trash. Target completion period while onsite conducting inspection. Clear per manufacturer's guidelines. Prior to wet season. Consult with manufacturer regarding need for replacement of cartridges. ( See the fact sheet in this section. Take corrective action prior to wet season consult engineer if immediate solution is not evident. sio E&.£"? 3u g" 53 Oi V)6 201.36 970.32 0 $201.36 $5375.88 $402.72 $6748.92 Biofilter - Grassy Swale RoutineActionHeight of vegetation Assess adequate vegetative cover Inspect for debris accumulation MaintenanceIndicatorAverage vegetation height exceeds 12 inches, emergence of trees, or woody vegetation less than 90 percent coverage in strip invert/swale or less than 70 percent on swale side slope Debris or litter present FieldMeasurementVisual inspection of vegetation throughout strip/swale Visual inspection of strip/swale. Prepare a site schematic to record location and distribution of barren or browning spots to be restored. File the schematic for assessment of persistent problems. Visual observation MeasurementFrequencyOnce during wet season, once during dry season. (Depending on growth) Assess quantity needed in May each year late wet season and late dry season. During routine trashing, per Districts schedule MaintenanceActivityCut vegetation to an average height of 6 inches Reseed/reveget ate barren spots by Nov. Scarify area to be restored to a depth of 2- inches. Restore side slope coverage with hydroseed mixture. If after 2 applications (2 seasons) of reseeding/reveg elating and growth is unsuccessful both times, an erosion blanket or equivalent protection will be installed over eroding areas. Remove litter, and debris Site-SpecificRequirementRemove any trees, or woody vegetation w $539.98 547.19 $0 Biofilter - Grassy Swale G c 3 -2O o04 < Inspection for accumulated sediment Inspect for burrows 8c C o & ac 8 '£ '~ZS £ Sediment at or near vegetation height, channeling of flow, inhibited flow due to change in slope Burrows, holes, mounds s 32 § E 2 Visual observation Visual observation c E §• 5 a1 12 £ Annually Annually and after vegetation trimming 8§ ^ .~*o 12S tsS < Remove sediment. IF flow is channeled, determine cause and take corrective action. If sediment becomes deep enough to change the flow gradient. Remove sediment during dry season, characterize and properly dispose of sediment, and revegetate. Notify engineer to determine if regrading is necessary. If necessary, regrade to design specification and revegetate swale/strip. If regrading is necessary, the process should start in May. Revegetate strip/swale in Nov. Target completion prior to wet season. Where burrows cause seepage, erosion and leakage, backfill firmly o c '3 E d* *•• fl'i o"£ oc/5 K <_> oO $1046.23 (once every three years) $87.26 Biofilter - Grassy Swale RoutineActionGeneral Maintenance Inspection Total =MaintenanceIndicatorInlet structure, outlet structures, side slopes or other features damaged, significant erosion, emergency of trees, woody vegetation, fence damage, ect.FieldMeasurementVisual observation MeasurementFrequencySemi-Annually, late wet season and late dry season.MaintenanceActivityCorrective action prior to wet season. Consult engineer if an immediate solution is not evident Site-SpecificRequirementRemove any trees, or woody vegetation. a $751.76 $2972.42 * See the Appendix H of County of San Diego SUSMP, dated 1/23/2003, in Attachment Reference Section of this report regarding the values used in this table. 4 REFERENCE Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, September 8,1994 County of San Diego, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan for Land Development and Public Improvement Projects, February 2003 California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, Municipal, March 1993 2002 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segment, February 2003 ATTACHMENT "A" VICINITY MAP ATTACHMENT "B" SIT MAP OUTLET STUD (SEE NOTES 4*5) WEIR WALL U-...U" ..',.TMT G" OVERLAP 6"—H r— INLET STUB (OPTIONAL) (SEE NOTES 4*5) REINFORCING BARS (SEE NOTE 6) 4-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN - PLAN VIEW /I I - INLET GRATE ACCESS COVER '(TYP) OUTLET STUB (SEE NOTES 4*5) CLEANOUT ACCESS PLUG ON WEIR WALL 3'-6""INSIDE' 2 1/2" X CONCRETE COLLAR (SEE NOTE 6) STORM FILTER - CARTRIDGE (TYP) (SEE NOTE 2) UNDERDRAIN"MANIFOLD OUTSIDE 4-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN - SECTION VIEW ©2006 CONTECH Stomnwater Solutions THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT StormFilter® U.5. PATENT No. 5,322.629,No. 5.707,527, No. 6,027.639No. 6,649,046, No. 5,624,576, AND OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN PATENTS PENDING STORMWATCR SOLUTIONS. oontech8tomnwater.com DEEP STEEL CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS STANDARD DETAIL - 4 CARTRIDGE UNIT DRAWING DATE: 11/01/05 fsCALEiNONE | FILE NAME:CBSF4-SD-OTL |ORAWN:MJW | CHECKED: ARG PERMANENT POOL ELEVATION VARIES 3'-3 5/6" MAX. 4"0 OPENING INLET STUB (OPTIONAL) (SEE NOTES 4* 5) i 2'-0 1/2" i "OUTSIDE"^ OUTLET STUB (SEE NOTES 4*5) 2"0 OUTLET PIPE FROM UNDERDRAIN 4-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN - SECTION VIEW « 9" CARTRIDGE SUPPORT " i d -E a— fliHf 1 > / \ 0 LIFTING EYE "(TYPOF4) PERMANENT / POOL ELEVATION 4-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN - SECTION VIEW ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT StormFilter® U.S. PATENT No. 5,322,629,No. 5,707,527. No. 6.027.639 No. 6,649.O4a, No. 5,624,576, AND OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN PATENTS PENDING STORMWATER 'SOLUTIONS. conlechstcxmwater.com DEEP STEEL CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER SECTION VIEWS STANDARD DETAIL - 4 CARTRIDGE UNIT DATE: 11/01/05 ] SCALE: NONE | FILE NAME:CBSF4-SD-OTL DRAWING 2/3 I DRAWN: MJW | CHECKED; ARG GENERAL NOTES 1) STORMFILTER BY CONTECH STORMWATER SOLUTIONS; PORTLAND, OR (800) 546-4667; SCARBOROUGH, ME (677) 9O7-8676; EUsRIDGE, MD (666) 74O-33 18. 2) FILTERS TO BE SIPHON-ACTUATED AND SELF-CLEANING. 3) STEEL STRUCTURE TO BE MANUFACTURED OF 1/4 INCH STEEL PLATE. 4) STORMFILTER REQUIRES 3.3 FEET OF DROP FROM RIM TO OUTLET. INLET SHOULD NOT BE LOWER THAN OUTLET. INLET (IF APPLICABLE) AND OUTLET PIPING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. 5) CBSF EQUIPPED WITH 4 INCH (APPROXIMATE) LONG STUBS FOR INLET (IF APPLICABLE) AND OUTLET PIPING. STANDARD OUTLET STUB IS 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER. MAXIMUM OUTLET STUB IS I 5 INCHES IN DIAMETER. CONNECTION TO COLLECTION PIPING CAN BE MADE USING FLEXIBLE COUPLING BY CONTRACTOR. 6) FOR H-2O LOAD RATING, CONCRETE COLLAR IS REQUIRED. CONCRETE COLLAR WITH QUANTITY (2) #4 REINFORCING BARS TO BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. 7) ALL STORMFILTERS REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR MORE INFORMATION. 4-CARTRIDGE DEEP CATCHDA5IN STORMFILTER DATA STRUCTURE ID WATER QUALITY FLOW RATE (cfs) PEAK FLOW RATE (< 1 .& cfs) RETURN PERIOD OF PEAK, FLOW (yrs) CARTRIDGE FLOW RATE ( 1 5 OR 7.5 e\pm) MEDIA TYPE (CSF, PERLITE, ZPG) RIM ELEVATION PIPE DATA: I.E. INLET STUB XXX.XX1 OUTLET STUB XXX.XX1 XXX X.XX X.XX XXX XX XXXXX XXX.XX1 DIAMETER XX" XX" CONFIGURATION OUTLET 1001 1001 INLET SLOPED LID YESVNO SOLID COVER YE5\NO NOTES/SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: ACCESS COVER (TYP)'INLET GRATE 4'"INSIDE RIM 2'-4" INSIDE RIM I 0'-5" OUTSIDE RIM 4'"INSIDE RIM 2'-4" INSIDE RIM 4-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN - TOP VIEW f\ 32006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT StormFilter® U.S. PATENT No. 5,322,629, No. 5.707,527. No. 6,027,639 No. 6.649.O46, No. 5,624,576, AND OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN PATENTS PENDING STORMWATER SOLUTIONS contechstormwater.com DEEP STEEL CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER TOP VIEW, NOTES AND DATA STANDARD DETAIL - 4 CARTRIDGE UNIT DRAWING DATE: 11/01/05 [SCALE:NONE | FILE NAME:CBSF4-SP.DTL 313 | DRAWN: MJW | CHECKED: ARC •TOP OF SWALE BERM d ROPER TY LINE 0.5' TTTTT 1.0' SWALE DEPTH z4"X24" BROOKS CATCHBASIN W/GRATE, & OPEN BOTTOM. FLOW DIRECTION (GRASSY SWALE 2' 12 Inlet Pipe 3'DIA x 8'DEEP BORING FILLED WITH 3/8" CRUSHED ROCK DOo,° -GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PER GREENBOOK, SECT. 213-2 UNDISTURBED NATURAL SOIL DETAIL: INFILTRATION PIT NOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT "C" STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST 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. Part A: Determine Priority Project Permanent Storm Water BMP Requirements. Does the project meet the definition of one or more of the priority project categories?* 1 . Detached residential development of 10 or more units 2. Attached residential development of 1 0 or more units 3. Commercial development greater than 1 00,000 square feet 4. Automotive repair shop 5. Restaurant 6. Steep hillside development greater than 5,000 square feet 7. Project discharging to receiving waters within Environmentally Sensitive Areas 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 5,000 square feet or greater Yes X X X No X X ^£ ^<.x X * 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 utility 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 Storm Water Standards 4/03/03 Part B: Determine Standard Permanent Storm Water Requirements. Does the project propose: 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 1 00 feet of any natural water body? 4. Trash storage 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 X JX A X No x ^ Xx *X *To 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.gov/stormwtr/industrial.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 D, below. Part C: Determine Construction Phase Storm Water Requirements. Would the project meet any of these criteria during construction? 1 . Is the project subject to California's statewide General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Construction Activities? 2. Does the project propose grading or soil disturbance? 3. Would storm water or urban runoff have the potential to contact any portion of the construction area, including washing^and staging areas? 4. Would the project use any construction materials that could negatively affect water quality if discharged from the site (such as, paints, solvents, concrete, and stucco)? Yes Xx X No * 31 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.] J§| 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 Q 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 (NOIs) and SWPPPs are not required. Q 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 ATTACHMENT "D" REFERENCE Storm Water Standards 4/03/03 Table 1. Standard Development Project & Priority Project Storm Water BMP Requirements Matrix. Standard Projects Site Design BMPstv R Source Control BMPsW R BMPs Applicable to Individual Priority Project Categories'3! COXJTO O CC CU1a. CO 0 b. Residential Driveways &Guest Parking0 c. Dock Areas0 d. Maintenance Bays0 e. Vehicle Wash Areas0 f. Equipment Wash Areas0 g. Outdoor Processing Areas0 h. Surface Parking Areas0 i. Fueling Areas0 j. Hillside Landscaping0 Treatment Control BMPsW 0 Priority Projects: Detached Residential Development Attached Residential Development Commercial Development >1 00,000 ft2 Automotive Repair Shop Restaurants Hillside Development >5,000ft2 Parking Lots Streets, Highways & Freeways R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R<5> R R R S S S S S S S S R = Required; select one or more applicable and appropriate BMPs from the applicable steps in Section III.2.A-D, or equivalent as identified in Appendix C. 0 = Optional/ or may be required by City staff. As appropriate, applicants are encouraged to incorporate treatment control BMPs and BMPs applicable to individual priority project categories into the project design. City staff may require one or more of these BMPs, where appropriate. S = Select one or more applicable and appropriate treatment control BMPs from Appendix C. (1) Refer to Section III.2.A. (2) Refer to Section III.2.B. (3) Priority project categories must apply specific storm water BMP requirements, where applicable. Priority projects are subject to the requirements of all priority project categories that apply. (4) Refer to Section III.2.D. (5) Applies if the paved area totals >5,000 square feet or with > 1 5 parking spaces and is potentially exposed to urban runoff. Storm Water Standards 4/03/03 III. PERMANENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SELECTION PROCEDURE When referred to this Section, by Step 2 of Section II, complete the analysis required for your project in the subsections of Section 111.1 below. 1.IDENTIFY POLLUTANTS & CONDITIONS OF CONCERN A. Identify Pollutants from the Project Area Using Table 1, identify the project's anticipated pollutants. Pollutants associated with any hazardous material sites that have been remediated or are not threatened by the proposed project are not considered a pollutant of concern. Projects meeting the definition of more than one project category shall identify all general pollutant categories that apply. Table 2. Anticipated and Potential Pollutants Generated by Land Use Type. Project Categories Detached Residential Development Attached Residential Development Commercial Development > 100,000 ft2 Automotive Repair Restaurants Hillside Development >5,000 ft2 Parking Lots Streets, Highways & Freeways General Pollutant Categories Sediments X X PC') X PO X Nutrients X X PC) • X PC) P(I)X Heavy Metals X X X Organic Compounds P<2) Xw<5> X«) Trash & Debris X X X X X X X X Oxygen Demanding Substances X PH) P(5) X X PO) PI5) Oil& Grease X P(2) X X X X X X Bacteria & Viruses X PW R3) X Pesticides X X P'.5) X po X = anticipated P = potential (1) A potential pollutant if landscaping exists on-site. (2) A potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas. (3) A potential pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products. (4) Including petroleum hydrocarbons. . • (5) Including solvents. 12 ^v /MOONTAIMx^nC I *"!" '/RIVERsbE COUNTY S^r ^^^ftlra j—^ v^s^-r' i fn burial fjfOun<T>.es.\ J I, 'TKiSLL: l^/l •r £ /isfe^ ^ | 2-S^w^dmill/ A &^^\' ''''-S \ RartchV^/'sXT---—lr.X.TI^^J^^T^K/P^FA -^r ujm^F^i^^ / ^ >Xf^W W 4vTh ^TTT ftffc^s ^ }< -^^<^-4^ ^v;>^%;-f :^"r^r/^i A-y7 r^^w^i-o- ^-y ^c v-(^nj^^i vps^" \,rx~r.<f£> ^ / ^^vh*QfvVX--^Wx^C^^^o - fe U-^- WILD^-g^j^i^M^r^ t^ ^^li^^t^ >»««JB-U^^^A , / /s v-A v^/^yw,,«M^^>H* i, Jft, va !-fei-tL&r;T > 7i^.i_i.j H^* t^-Vii-*'j>" ..ki - J- 4B^•v^-t -U ^ESERVAJnO^ ' ^ ^^J»" 1 A\ M A ^i\/>d<w.•'x?7 '•3594-| VV-^'WJ' »// i ^J .^mP/^S^j ,-/ v-.c.i. -y^- Liw" ^^^SS^^IM ^' ^rjHiNTON .jrVrfa SanMtSI Beach CWf-by-the-Sea CardiflSt Beach1-, Vegetated Swale TC-30 Description Vegetated swales are open, shallow channels with vegetation covering the side slopes and bottom that collect and slowly convey runoff flow to downstream discharge points. They are designed to treat runoff through filtering by the vegetation in the channel, filtering through a subsoil matrix, and/or infiltration into the underlying soils. Swales can be natural or manmade. They trap particulate pollutants (suspended solids and trace metals), promote infiltration, and reduce the flow velocity of stormwater runoff. Vegetated swales can serve as part of a stormwater drainage system and can replace curbs, gutters and storm sewer systems. California Experience Caltrans constructed and monitored six vegetated swales in southern California. These swales were generally effective in reducing the volume and mass of pollutants in runoff. Even in the areas where the annual rainfall was only about 10 inches/yr, the vegetation did not require additional irrigation. One factor that strongly affected performance was the presence of large numbers of gophers at most of the sites. The gophers created earthen mounds, destroyed vegetation, and generally reduced the effectiveness of the controls for TSS reduction. Advantages • If properly designed, vegetated, and operated, swales can serve as an aesthetic, potentially inexpensive urban development or roadway drainage conveyance measure with significant collateral water quality benefits. Design Considerations • Tributary Area • Area Required • Slope • Water Availability Targeted Constituents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sediment Nutrients Trash Metals Bacteria Oil and Grease Organics A • • A • A A Legend (Removal Effectiveness) • Low • High A Medium January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com 1 of 13 TC-30 Vegetated Swale • Roadside ditches should be regarded as significant potential swale/buffer strip sites and should be utilized for this purpose whenever possible. Limitations • Can be difficult to avoid channelization. • May not be appropriate for industrial sites or locations where spills may occur • Grassed swales cannot treat a very large drainage area. Large areas may be divided and treated using multiple swales. • A thick vegetative cover is needed for these practices to function properly. • They are impractical in areas with steep topography. • They are not effective and may even erode when flow velocities are high, if the grass cover is not properly maintained. • In some places, their use is restricted by law: many local municipalities require curb and gutter systems in residential areas. • Swales are mores susceptible to failure if not properly maintained than other treatment BMPs. Design and Sizing Guidelines • Flow rate based design determined by local requirements or sized so that 85% of the annual runoff volume is discharged at less than the design rainfall intensity. • Swale should be designed so thatthe water level does not exceed 2/3rds the height of the grass or 4 inches, which ever is less, at the design treatment rate. • Longitudinal slopes should not exceed 2.5% • Trapezoidal channels are normally recommended but other configurations, such as parabolic, can also provide substantial water quality improvement and may be easier to mow than designs with sharp breaks in slope. • Swales constructed in cut are preferred, or in fill areas that are far enough from an adj acent slope to minimize the potential for gopher damage. Do notuse side slopes constructed of fill, which are prone to structural damage by gophers and other burrowing animals. • A diverse selection of low growing, plants that thrive under the specific site, climatic, and watering conditions should be specified. Vegetation whose growing season corresponds to the wet season are preferred. Drought tolerant vegetation should be considered especially for swales that are not part of a regularly irrigated landscaped area. • The width of the swale should be determined using Manning's Equation using a value of 0.25 for Manning's n. 2 of 13 California Storm water BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Vegetated Swale TC-30 Cons fraction/Inspection Considerations m Include directions in the specifications for use of appropriate fertilizer and soil amendments based on soil properties determined through testing and compared to the needs of the vegetation requirements. • Install swales at the time of the year when there is a reasonable chance of successful establishment without irrigation; however, it is recognized that rainfall in a given year may not be sufficient and temporary irrigation may be used. • If sod tiles must be used, they should be placed so that there are no gaps between the tiles; stagger the ends of the tiles to prevent the formation of channels along the swale or strip. • Use a roller on the sod to ensure that no air pockets form between the sod and the soil. • Where seeds are used, erosion controls will be necessary to protect seeds for at least 75 days after the first rainfall of the season. Performance The literature suggests that vegetated swales represent a practical and potentially effective technique for controlling urban runoff quality. While limited quantitative performance data exists for vegetated swales, it is known that check dams, slight slopes, permeable soils, dense grass cover, increased contact time, and small storm events all contribute to successful pollutant removal by the swale system. Factors decreasing the effectiveness of swales include compacted soils, short runoff contact time, large storm events, frozen ground, short grass heights, steep slopes, and high runoff velocities and discharge rates. Conventional vegetated swale designs have achieved mixed results in removing particulate pollutants. A study performed by the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) monitored three grass swales in the Washington, D.C., area and found no significant improvement in urban runoff quality for the pollutants analyzed. However, the weak performance of these swales was attributed to the high flow velocities in the swales, soil compaction, steep slopes, and short grass height. Another project in Durham, NC, monitored the performance of a carefully designed artificial swale that received runoff from a commercial parking lot. The project tracked ll storms and concluded that particulate concentrations of heavy metals (Cu, Pb, Zn, and Cd) were reduced by approximately 50 percent. However, the swale proved largely ineffective for removing soluble nutrients. The effectiveness of vegetated swales can be enhanced by adding check dams at approximately 17 meter (50 foot) increments along their length (See Figure i). These dams maximize the retention time within the swale, decrease flow velocities, and promote particulate settling. Finally, the incorporation of vegetated filter strips parallel to the top of the channel banks can help to treat sheet flows entering the swale. Only 9 studies have been conducted on all grassed channels designed for water quality (Table i). The data suggest relatively high removal rates for some pollutants, but negative removals for some bacteria, and fair performance for phosphorus. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www, cabmphandbooks. com TC-30 Vegetated Swale Table 1 Grassed swale pollutant removal efficiency data Removal Efficiencies (% Removal) Study Caltrans 2002 Goldberg 1993 Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology 1992 Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology, 1992 Wang et al., 1981 Dorman eta 1,1989 Harper, 1988 Kercheret al.,1983 Harper, 1988. Koon, 1995 TSS 77 67.8 60 83 80 98 87 99 81 67 TP 8 4-5 45 29 - 18 83 99 17 39 TN 67 - - - - - 84 99 40 - NOg 66 31-4 -25 -25 - 45 80 99 52 9 Metals 83-90 42-62 2-16 46-73 70-80 37-81 88-90 99 37-69 -35 to 6 Bacteria -33 -100 -25 -25 - - - - - - Type dry swales grassed channel grassed channel grassed channel dry swale dry swale dry swale dry swale wet swale wet swale While it is difficult to distinguish between different designs based on the small amount of available data, grassed channels generally have poorer removal rates than wet and dry swales, although some swales appear to export soluble phosphorus (Harper, 1988; Koon, 1995). It is not clear why swales export bacteria. One explanation is that bacteria thrive in the warm swale soils. Siting Criteria The suitability of a swale at a site will depend on land use, size of the area serviced, soil type, slope, imperviousness of the contributing watershed, and dimensions and slope of the swale system (Schueler et al., 1992). In general, swales can be used to serve areas of less than 10 acres, with slopes no greater than 5 %. Use of natural topographic lows is encouraged and natural drainage courses should be regarded as significant local resources to be kept in use (Young et al., 1996). Selection Criteria (NCTCOG, 1993) m Comparable performance to wet basins • Limited to treating a few acres • Availability of water during dry periods to maintain vegetation • Sufficient available land area Research in the Austin area indicates that vegetated controls are effective at removing pollutants even when dormant. Therefore, irrigation is not required to maintain growth during dry periods, but may be necessary only to prevent the vegetation from dying. 4 of 1 3 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www. cabmphandbooks. com January 2003 Vegetated Swale TC-30 The topography of the site should permit the design of a channel with appropriate slope and cross-sectional area. Site topography may also dictate a need for additional structural controls. Recommendations for longitudinal slopes range between 2 and 6 percent. Flatter slopes can be used, if sufficient to provide adequate conveyance. Steep slopes increase flow velocity, decrease detention time, and may require energy dissipating and grade check. Steep slopes also can be managed using a series of check dams to terrace the swale and reduce the slope to within acceptable limits. The use of check dams with swales also promotes infiltration. Additional Design Guidelines Most of the design guidelines adopted for swale design specify a minimum hydraulic residence time of 9 minutes. This criterion is based on the results of a single study conducted in Seattle, Washington (Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology, 1992), and is not well supported Analysis of the data collected in that study indicates that pollutant removal at a residence time of 5 minutes was not significantly different, although there is more variability in that data. Therefore, additional research in the design criteria for swales is needed. Substantial pollutant removal has also been observed for vegetated controls designed solely for conveyance (Barrett et al, 1998); consequently, some flexibility in the design is warranted. Many design guidelines recommend that grass be frequently mowed to maintain dense coverage near the ground surface. Recent research (Colwell et al., 2000) has shown mowing frequency or grass height has little or no effect on pollutant removal. Summary of Design Recommendations 1) The swale should have a length that provides a minimum hydraulic residence time of at least 10 minutes. The maximum bottom width should not exceed 10 feet unless a dividing berm is provided. The depth of flow should not exceed 2/srds the height of the grass at the peak of the water quality design storm intensity. The channel slope shouldnot exceed 2.5%. 2) A design grass height of 6 inches is recommended. 3) Regardless of the recommended detention time, the swale should be not less than 100 feet in length. 4) The width of the swale should be determined using Manning's Equation, at the peak of the design storm, using a Manning's n of 0.25. 5) The swale can b e sized as both a treatment facility for the design storm and as a conveyance system to pass the peak hydraulic flows of the loo-year storm if it is located "on-line." The side slopes should be no steeper than 3:1 (H:V). 6) Roadside ditches should be regarded as significant potential swale/buffer strip sites and should be utilized for this purpose whenever possible. If flow is to be introduced through curb cuts, place pavement slightly above the elevation of the vegetated areas. Curb cuts should be at least 12 inches wide to prevent clogging. 7) Swales must be vegetated in order to provide adequate treatment of runoff. It is important to maximize water contact with vegetation and the soil surface. For general purposes, select fine, close-growing, water-resistant grasses. If possible, divert runoff (other than necessary irrigation) during the period of vegetation January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com TC-30 Vegetated Swale establishment Where runoff diversion is not possible, cover graded and seeded areas with suitable erosion control materials. Maintenance The useful life of a vegetated swale system is directly proportional to its maintenance frequency. If properly designed and regularly maintained, vegetated swales can last indefinitely. The maintenance objectives for vegetated swale systems include keeping up the hydraulic and removal efficiency of the channel and maintaining a dense, healthy grass cover. Maintenance activities should include periodic mowing (with grass never cut shorter than the design flow depth), weed control, watering during drought conditions, reseeding of bare areas, and clearing of debris and blockages. Cuttings should be removed from the channel and disposed in a local composting facility. Accumulated sediment should also be removed manually to avoid concentrated flows in the swale. The application of fertilizers and pesticides should be minimal. Another aspect of a good maintenance plan is repairing damaged areas within a channel. For example, if the channel develops ruts or holes, it should be repaired utilizing a suitable soil that is properly tamped and seeded The grass cover should be thick; if it is not, reseed as necessary. Any standing water removed during the maintenance operation must be disposed to a sanitary sewer at an approved discharge location. Residuals (e.g., silt, grass cuttings) must be disposed in accordance with local or State requirements. Maintenance of grassed swales mostly involves maintenance of the grass or wetland plant cover. Typical maintenance activities are summarized below: • Inspect swales at least twice annually for erosion, damage to vegetation, and sediment and debris accumulation preferably at the end of the wet season to schedule summer maintenance and before major fall runoff to be sure the swale is ready for winter. However, additional inspection after periods of heavy runoff is desirable. The swale should be checked for debris and litter, and areas of sediment accumulation. • Grass height and mowing frequency may not have a large impact on pollutant removal. Consequently, mowing may only be necessary once or twice a year for safety or aesthetics or to suppress weeds and woody vegetation. • Trash tends to accumulate in swale areas, particularly along highways. The need for litter removal is determined through periodic inspection, but litter should always be removed prior to mowing. • S ediment accumulating near culverts and in channels should b e removed when it builds up to 75 mm (3 in.) at any spot, or covers vegetation. • Regularly inspect swales for pools of standing water. Swales can become a nuisance due to mosquito breeding in standing water if obstructions develop (e.g. debris accumulation, invasive vegetation) and/or if proper drainage slopes are not implemented and maintained. 6 of 13 California Storm water BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Vegetated Swale TC-30 Cost Construction Cost Little data is available to estimate the difference in cost between various swale designs. One study (SWRPC, 1991) estimated the construction cost of grassed channels at approximately $0.25 per ft2. This price does not include design costs or contingencies. Brown and Schueler (1997) estimate these costs at approximately 32 percent of construction costs for most stormwater management practices. For swales, however, these costs would probably be significantly higher since the construction costs are so low compared with other practices. A more realistic estimate would be a total cost of approximately $0.50 per ft2, which compares favorably with other stormwater management practices. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 7 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www. cabmphandbooks. com ! i I flillllilfliiif I i I 1 I 1 I I I 1 ! i i I 1 TC-30 Vegetated Swale Table 2 Swale Cost Estimate (SEWRPC, 1991) Component Mobilization / Demobilization -Light Site Preparation Clearing1"... Grubbing". General Excavation*1 Level and Till' Sites Development Salvaged Topsoil Seed, and Mulch'.. So* SubtoM Contingencies Totei Unit Swale Acre Yd3 Yd3 Yd3 Yds - Swale - Extent 1 n •; 0 25 372 1,210 1.210 1,210 - 1 - Low $107 S3 ?nn $3,800 $2.10 $0.20 $0.40 $1 20 -- 25% - Unit Cost Moderate $274 t-i ann $6,200 $3.70 $0.35 $100 $2.40 - 25K - High $441 ts dan $6,600 $5.30 $0.50 $1.60 $360 - 25% -- Low $107 ii ion $950 $781 $242 $4B4 $1,452 $6,115 $1,279 $6,385 Total Cost Moderate $274 fri ann $1,300 $1.376 $424 $1,210 $2.904 $0,388 $2,347 $11,735 High $441 *?7nn $1 ,650 $1.072 $606 $1.036 $4.356 $13,660 $3.415 $17,075 Source: (SEWRPC, 1881} Note: MobiKzatJon/demobilizBtion refers to the organization and planning involved in establishing a vegetaSve swale. "Swate has a bottom width of 1.0 foot, a top width cMO feet with 1:3 side slopes, and a 1,000-fool length. b Area cleared = (lop width + 10 feel) x swale length. " Area grubbed = (top width x swale length). "Volume excavated - (0.67 x top width x swale depth) x swale length (parabolic cross-section). " Area tilled = (top width + Btswale depth2) x swale length (parabolic cross-section). 3(top width) ' Area seeded - area cleared x 0.5, 1 Area sodded - area cleared x 0,5. of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www. cabmphandbooks, com January 2003 I i I i i I i i I i 11 II i i li II II II II 11 i i 1 Vegetated Swale TC-30 Table 3 Estimated Maintenance Costs (SEWRPC, 1991) Component Lawn Mowing General Lawn Care Swale Debris and Litter Removal Grass Ra seeding with Mulch and Fertilizer Program Administration and Swale Inspection Total Unit Cost $0.85/1,000 ft3/ mowing $9.00/1, 000 IP/year $0 10 /linear foot /year $0.30 /yd3 $0.15 / linear loot 1 year, plus $25 / inspection - Swale Size (Depth and Top Width) 1.5 Foot Depth, One- Foot Bottom Width, 10-Foot Top Width KM4 /I in ear fool $018 /linear foot $0.1Q/linearfoot $0.01 /linear foot $015 /linear foot FO.S8 I linear foot 3-Foot Depth, 3-Foot Bottom Width, 21-Foot Top Width $021 /linear foci $028 /linear foot 10 10 /linear foot $0.01 /linear foot {0.15 /linear foot $0.75 /linear foot Comment Lawn maintenance srea=(top widti + 10 feet) x length. Mow eight times per year Lawn maintenance area = flop width + 10 feet) x length - Area revegetated equals 1% of lawn maintenance area par year Inspect four times per year - January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www .cabmphandbooks. com 9 of 13 TC-30 Vegetated Swale Maintenance Cost Caltrans (2002) estimated the expected annual maintenance cost for a swale with a tributary area of approximately 2 ha at approximately $2,700. Since almost all maintenance consists of mowing, the cost is fundamentally a function of the mowing frequency. Unit costs developed by SEWRPC are shown in Table 3. In many cases vegetated channels would be used to convey runoff and would require periodic mowing as well, so there may be little additional cost for the water quality component. Since essentially all the activities are related to vegetation management, no special training is required for maintenance personnel. References and Sources of Additional Information Barrett, Michael E., Walsh, Patrick M., Malina, Joseph F., Jr., Charbeneau, Randall J, 1998, "Performance of vegetative controls for treating highway runoff," ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. u, pp. 1121-1128. Brown, W., and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics ofStormwater BMPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1996. Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems. Prepared for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomons, MD, and USEPA Region V, Chicago, IL, by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Colwell, Shanti R., Homer, Richard R., and Booth, Derek B., 2000. Characterization of Performance Predictors and Evaluation of Mowing Practices in Biofiltration Swales. Report to King County Land And Water Resources Division and others by Center for Urban Water Resources Management, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Dorman, M.E., J. Hartigan, R.F. Steg, andT. Quasebarth 1989. Retention, Detention and Overland Flow for Pollutant Removal From Highway Stormwater Runoff. Vol. i. FHWA/RD 89/202. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Goldberg. 1993. Dayton Avenue Swale Biofiltration Study. Seattle Engineering Department, Seattle, WA. Harper, H. 1988. Effects ofStormwater Management Systems on Groundwater Quahty. Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL, by Environmental Research and Design, Inc., Orlando, FL. Kercher, W.C., J.C. Landon, and R. Massarelli. 1983. Grassy swales prove cost-effective for water pollution control. Public Works, 16: 53-55. Koon, J. 1995. Evaluation of Water Quality Ponds and Swales in the Issaquah/East Lake Sammamish Basins. King County Surface Water Management, Seattle, WA, and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Metzger, M. E., D. F. Messer, C. L. Beitia, C. M. Myers, andV. L. Kramer. 2002. The Dark Side Of Stormwater Runoff Management: Disease Vectors Associated With Structural BMPs. Stormwater 3(2): 24-39.Oakland, P-H. 1983. An evaluation of Stormwater pollutant removal i 0 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment ww w. cabm phandbooks. com Vegetated Swale _ TO 30 through grassed swale treatment In Proceedings of the International Symposium of Urb an Hydrology, Hydraittics and Sediment Control, Lexington, KY. pp. 173-182. Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory. 1983. Final Report: Metropolitan Washington Urban Runoff Project. Prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC, by the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, Manassas, VA. Pitt, R., andJ. McLean. 1986. Toronto Area Watershed Management Strategy Study: Hianber River Pilot Watershed Project. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON. Schueler, T. 1997. Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Urban BMPs: Areanalysis. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(2):379-38s. Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992 . Biofiltration Swale Performance: Recommendations and Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Water Pollution Control Department, Seattle, WA Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWRPC). 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Technical report no. 31. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, WI. U.S. EPA, 1999, Stormwater Fact Sheet Vegetated Swales, Report # 832^-99-006 http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/vegswale.pdf, Office of Water, Washington DC. Wang, T., D. Spyridakis, B. Mar, and R. Homer. 1981. Transport, Deposition and Control of Heavy Metals in Highway R unoff. FHWA-W A-RD -39- 10 . University of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, Seattle, WA. Washington State Department of Transportation, 1995, Highway Runoff Manual, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. Welborn, C., and J. Veenhuis. 1987. Effects of Runoff Controls on the Quantity and Quatity of Urban Runoff in Two Locations inAustin, TX. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report No. 87-4004. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA Yousef, Y., M. WanieKsta, H. Harper, D. Pearce, and R. Tolbert. 1985. Best Management Practices: Removal of Highway Contaminants By Roadside Swales. University of Central Florida and Florida Department of Transportation, Orlando, FL. Yu, S., S. Barnes, and V. Gerde. 1993. Testing of Best Management Practices for Controlling Highway Runoff. FHWA/VA-93-Ri6. Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA. Information Resources Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2000. Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, www. mde . state . md.us/environment/wma/stormwatermanual . Accessed May 22, 2001. Reeves, E. 1994. Performance and Condition of Biofilters in the Pacific Northwest. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(3): 117-119. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 11 of 13 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com TC-30 Vegetated Swale Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Biofiltration Swale Performance. Recommendations and Design Considerations. Publication No. 657. Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. USEPA1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint PoRution in Coastal Waters. EPA-840-6-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. Watershed Management Institute (WMI). 1997. Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Stormwater Management Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC, by the Watershed Management Institute, Ingleside, MD. 12 of 13 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment w w w. cabm phandbooks. com Vegetated Swale TC-30 Provide for scour protection. (•) Cross Httion of SK ak with check dura. Notation: L = L«n(|thef»w»l» Impoundnwnt»»« p« ttwc* darn (ft) (h) Dimenfimml vit» of swalelmpoundmctit ets =D«ptliolcr«ecK«Jmi(fl) S6 = Bottom >lpe of twafe (*•*()W a Top width of dwc* dim (ft) W, = Bottom width of check dam (ft) 2U3 = Ratio of Iwrtzonul la vorrtcil dv«ng« in swalo site slope (tt/N| January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook New Development and Redevelopment www. cabmphandbooks. com 13 of 13 ,"n- Ml! GRATE & FRAME I SLOPED DIVERTER PLATE ! ; OVERFLOW WEIR CREST j ( j SCUM BAFFLE i, j i DEBRIS SUMP CLEANOUT OPENING IN WEIR WITH HOLE & EXPANSION PLUG CONCRETE COLLAR FILTER CHAMBER COVER N^kO*S FILTER CHAMBER INLET CARTRIDGE SUPPORT BEAMS (2) StormFilter CARTRIDGE DEBRIS SUMP FILTER CHAMBER OUTLET OUTLET PIPE Also available in concrete and plastic. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INC. 12021-B NE Airport Way, Portland, OR 97220 // ff 800.548.4667 ff 800.561.1271 ©stormwaterinc.com M-03-006-A ' MTCHUSIK St TRAFFIC BEARING LID STEEL CATCHBASIN SiormFlltar - PLAN VIEW 5C*LE: h.T.5 I OUTLET PIPE STJB STEEL CATCHBASIH StormFilter - SECTION VIEW fy-SSTEEL CATCHBASIN SiormFllter - SECTION VIEW U.S. PATENT No. 5,322,629. 5,624,576, AND OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN PATENTS PENDING The Stormwater Management StormFilter® is now available in a steel, concrete or plastic catch basin configuration. The CatchBasin StormFilter system, an extension of the widely accepted StormFilter Best Management Practice, has been engineered to replace the standard catch basin. In the CatchBasin StormFilter, polluted runoff enters the system through a traffic-bearing grate. In the inlet chamber primary settling of the runoff occurs, and the heavier solids drop to a sump on the vault floor. The water is directed under a baffle into the filter chamber where the StormFilter cartridge is housed. During filtration, finer solids and soluble pollutants are removed. Clean water is discharged from the filter and directed around the overflow bypass weir to the outlet pipe. During heavy storms, when the flow exceeds the design flow, water in the inlet chamber spills over the bypass weir, preventing the re-suspension of sediments and pollutants trapped in the cartridge chamber. SYSTEM FEATURES AND BENEFITS • Proven StormFilter technology targets site-specific pollutants • Low cost, heavy gauge, all steel construction • Internal bypass minimizes re-suspension of trapped pollutants • Simple, low cost installation • Easy maintenance supported by Stormwater Management • Operation and Maintenance Guidelines available from Stormwater Management Inc. • Also available in concrete and plastic GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS • StormFilter capacity - 5 -15 gpm/cartridge (up to 4 cartridges) • Peak hydraulic capacity - 1.0 cfs or 3.0 cfs • Hydraulic drop (Rim to Invert) - 2.3' to 3.3' • Outlet pipe diameter - 6" to 12" • Load bearing capacity-H-20 rated • Optional corrosion-resistant powder coating 12021-B NE Airport Way, Portland, OR 97220 // ft 800.548.4667 (§800.561.1271 flstormwaterinc.com OUTLET STUB (SEE NOTES 4*5) WEIR WALL r-lO"e" OVERLAP INLET STUB (OPTIONAL) • (SEE NOTES 4*5) 4-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN - PLAN VIEW REINFORCING BARS "(SEE NOTE 6) L -INLET GRATE ACCESS COVER "(TYF) OUTLET STUB (SEE NOTES 4*5) CLEANOUT ACCESS PLUG ON WEIR WALL 3'-6" " INSIDE' r-2 1/2" CONCRETE COLLAR (SEE NOTE 6) STORM FILTER CARTRIDGE (TYF) (SEE NOTE 2) UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD IO1- ' OUTSIDE 4-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN - SECTION VIEW ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT StormFilter® U.S. PATENT No. 5.322.G29, No. 5.707.527, No. 6,027,639 No. 6,649,046, No. 5,624,576, AND OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN PATENTS PENDING DEEP STEEL CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS STANDARD DETAIL - 4 CARTRIDGE UNIT DATE: 11/01/05 SCALE; NONE DRAWING 1/3 FILE NAME: CBSF4-SD-DTL | DRAWN: MJW | CHECKED: ARG PERMANENT POOL ELEVATION VARIES 3'-3 5/8" MAX. 4"0 OPENING INLET STUB (OPTIONAL) (SEE NOTES 4* 5} l 2'-0 1/2" i ^ OUTSIDE ^ OUTLET STUB (SEE NOTES 4*5) 2"0 OUTLET PIPE PROM UNDERDRAIN 4-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN - SECTION VIEW /B LIFTING EYE (TYPOF4) 4'-9"PERMANENT POOL ELEVATION 4-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN - SECTION VIEW 62006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormflter® U.5. PATENT No. 5.322.C29, No. 5,707.527. No. 6,027.639 No. 6,649,046, No. 5,624,576, AND OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN PATENTS PENDING ^MTEOH STORMWATER OLUTIONS. cont8chstormwater.com DEEP STEEL CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER SECTION VIEWS STANDARD DETAIL - 4 CARTRIDGE UNIT DATE: 11/01/05 SCALE: NONE | FILE NAME:CBSF4-SD-OTL DRAWING 2/3 DRAWN: MJW CHECKED: ARC GENERAL NOTES 1) STORMFILTER BY CONTECH 5TORMWATER SOLUTIONS; PORTLAND, OR (dOO) 546-4667; SCARBOROUGH, ME (677) 9O7-6676; ELKRIDGE, MD (666) 740-33 16. 2) FILTERS TO BE SIPHON-ACTUATED AND SELF-CLEANING. 3) STEEL STRUCTURE TO BE MANUFACTURED OF 1/4 INCH STEEL PLATE. 4) STORMFILTER REQUIRES 3.3 FEET OF DROP FROM RIM TO OUTLET. INLET SHOULD NOT BE LOWER THAN OUTLET. INLET (IF APPLICABLE) AND OUTLET PIPING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. 5) CB5F EQUIPPED WITH 4 INCH (APPROXIMATE) LONG STUBS FOR INLET (IF APPLICABLE) AND OUTLET PIPING. STANDARD OUTLET STUB IS 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER. MAXIMUM OUTLET STUB IS I 5 INCHES IN DIAMETER. CONNECTION TO COLLECTION PIPING CAN BE MADE USING FLEXIBLE COUPLING BY CONTRACTOR. 6) FOR H-2O LOAD RATING, CONCRETE COLLAR IS REQUIRED. CONCRETE COLLAR WITH QUANTITY (2) #4 REINFORCING BARS TO BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. 7) ALL STORMFILTERS REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES POR MORE INFORMATION. 4-CARTRIDGE DEEP CATCH BASIN STORMFILTER DATA STRUCTURE ID WATER QUALITY FLOW RATE (cfe) PEAK, FLOW RATE « 1 .8 cfe) RETURN PERIOD OF PEAK FLOW (yrs) CARTRIDGE FLOW RATE ( 1 5 OR 7.5 e\pm) MEDIA TYPE (C5F, PERLITE, ZPG) RIM ELEVATION PIPE DATA: I.E. INLET STUB XXX.XX1 OUTLET STUB XXX.XX1 XXX X.XX X.XX XXX XX XXXXX XXX.XX1 DIAMETER XX" XX" CONFIGURATION OUTLETn 1001 1001 INLET SLOPED LID YES\NO SOLID COVER YE5\NO NOTES/SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: ACCESS COVER (TYP)'INLET GRATE f' 4'"INSIDE RIM'2'-4" INSIDE RIM I O'-5" ' OUTSIDE RIM 4'"INSIDE RIM 2'-4" INSIDE RIM 4-CARTRIDGE CATCHBASIN - TOP VIEW ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions THE STORMWATER. MANAGEMENT Stormrifter® U.5. PATENT No. 5,322,629, No. 5,707.527. No. 6,027,639 No. 6,649,046, No. 5,624,576, AND OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN PATENTS PENDING DEEP STEEL CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER TOP VIEW, NOTES AND DATA STANDARD DETAIL - 4 CARTRIDGE UNIT DRAWING DATE: 11/01/05 | SCALE: NONE RLE NAME:CBSF4-SD-DTL | DRAWN:MJW [CHECKED:ARG PEAK FLOW OUTLET FIFE (SEE NOTE 4) INLET FIFE (SEE NOTE 4) VARIABLE DIAMETER (SEE NOTE 2) WATER QUALITY FLOW OUTLET FIFE (SEE NOTE 4) STEPS STORMGATE MANHOLE - PLAN VIEW GRADE RING (TYF) 24" 0 FRAME AND COVER (STD) STORMGATE ADJUSTABLE WEIR (SEE DETAIL 1/2) STORMGATE MANHOLE - SECTION VIEW 02006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions STORMWATER ^SOLUTIONS. contechslormwater.com STORMGATE MANHOLE HIGH FLOW BYPASS PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS STANDARD DETAIL DRAWING DATE: 04/04/06 SCALE: NONE | FILE NAME:SG-MH-OTl ] DRAWN: MJW | CHECKED: ARG GENERAL NOTES 1 ) STORMGATE BY CONTECH 5TORMWATER SOLUTIONS; PORTLAND, OR (800) 546-4667; SCARBOROUGH, ME (677) 907-6676; ELKXIDGE, MD (666) 740-33 1 8. 2) PRECAST MANHOLE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A5TM C476. DETAIL DRAWING REFLECTS DESIGN INTENT ONLY. ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION OF STRUCTURE WILL BE SHOWN ON PRODUCTION SHOP DRAWING. 3) STRUCTURE AND ACCESS COVERS TO MEET AA5HTO H-20 LOAD RATING. 4) INLET AND OUTLET PIPING TO BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. PRECAST STORMGATE MANHOLE EQUIPPED WITH EITHER CORED OPENINGS OR KNOCKOUTS AT INLET AND OUTLET LOCATIONS. 5) CONTRACTOR TO ADJUST WEIR TO DESIGN ELEVATION SPECIFIED IN DATA TABLE BELOW. DO NOT EXCEED 5.0 FT-LB5 TORQUE WHEN TIGHTENING SCREWS ON WEIR FRAME. SEAL WEIR TO FRAME WITH RTV 5IUCONE SEALANT AFTER FINAL ADJUSTMENT. r 4"MIN S5~\ <V [":*! SET SCREWS (TYP) / (SEE NOTE 5)1. _I l_^ \i>^ WEIR DETAIL - PLAN VIEW /TN 1 - y WEIR FRAME if ADJUSTABLE •*•* WEIR PLATE <^ f.^FF NDTF B) STORMGATE MANHOLE DATA STRUCTURE ID WATER QUALITY FLOW RATE (cfs) PEAK FLOW RATE, Qpeak (cfs) MANHOLE DIAMETER (46", 60", 72") RIM ELEVATION PIPE DATA: I.E. INLET PIPE XXX.XX1 WATER QUALITY vvv w, FLOW OUTLET PIPE ***'** PEAK FLOW vw w, OUTLET PIPE XXX'XX ORIENTATION XX" XX" XX° ORIFICE TYPE (PIPE, CAP, PLATE) ORIFICE DIAMETER (in) WEIR CREST ELEVATION WEIR WALL ELEVATION HEAD OVER WEIR, H (ft) W5E at Qpeak WEIR ORIENTATION FLOOR ELEVATION NOTES/SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: PIPE Ifi XXX X.XX X.XX XX" XXX.XX' MATERIAL DIAMETER XXX XX" XXX XX" XXX XX" xxxxx XX" XXX.XX' XXX.XX' X.XX' XXX.XX' xx° XXX.XX' ORIENTATION KEY: 90° 27O° , .*• :-.' - -i - '• • •» - i 4' MIN EMBEDMENT ANCHORS (TYP) WEIR DETAIL - SECTION VIEW 24" 0 FRAME AND COVER (5TD) STORMGATE MANHOLE- TOP VIEW ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions contechstornnwater.com STORMGATE MANHOLE HIGH FLOW BYPASS TOP VIEW, WEIR DETAIL, DATA AND NOTES STANDARD DETAIL DRAWING DATE: 04/04/06 SCALE: NONE | FILE NAME: SG-MH-DTL 2/2 | DRAWN: MJW | CHECKED: ARG r TOP OF SWALE BERM \ d ROPERTY LINE fob)0.5' 1.0' SWALE DEPTH BROOKS CATCHBASIN W/GRATE, & OPEN BOTTOM. FLOW DIRECTION (GRASSY SWALE 2' 12 Inlet Pipe .0 0 ° O V "O 3'DM x S'DEEP F/LLED H//7H J/S" CRUSHED ROCK GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PER GREENBOOK, SECT.213-2 UNDISTURBED NATURAL SOIL DETAIL: INFILTRATION PIT NOT TO SCALE STORMWATER "SOLUTIONS INC. This table's purpose is to provide expected removal capabilities for the Stormwater Management StormFilter®. The StormFilter is a passive siphon-actuated, flow-through, stormwater filtration system consisting of a structure that houses rechargeable, media-filled filter cartridges. The StormFilter works by passing stormwater through the media- filled cartridges, which trap particulars and adsorb pollutants such as dissolved metals, nutrients, and hydrocarbons. Pollutant Sediment Nutrients Metals Trash and Debris Oil and Grease Oxygen Demand Pesticides Bacteria StormFilter H1 M M H M M2 M3 M4 H = >75% expected removal efficiency for typical urban stormwater runoff M = 75% to 25% expected removal efficiency for typical urban stormwater runoff L = <25% expected removal efficiency for typical urban stormwater runoff Notes: (1) Sediment removal is dependent on particle size distribution (i.e. 55% sand, 40% silt, 5% clay-U.S.DA). (2) The StormFilter's optional drain-down system reduces degradation of captured organic matter thereby decreasing biochemical oxygen demand. (3) A media combination of Perlite/Granulated Activated Carbon is required to achieve "M". (4) Limited data exists to support removal of bacteria by the StormFilter. However, removal of bacteria appears to correspond to removal of sediment. Since the StormFilter is highly effective for removal of sediment, it follows that it is effective for removal of bacteria. 12021-B NE Airport Way, Portland OR 97220 Toll-free: 800.548.4667 Fax: 800.561.1271 STORMWATER "SOLUTIONS, Parameter Brief Performance of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® for Removal of Total Phosphorus Phosphorus in the Urban Environment Phosphorus loading to freshwater can promote algal blooms and eutrophication that threaten ecosystems by lowering dissolved oxygen levels. As shown in Figure 1, phosphorus cycles through the environment in forms organic, inorganic and soluble forms. Plants absorb orthophosphates from the water or soil Phosphorus is carried by rivers to lakes or the ocean bottom Animals obtain organic phosphorus from their food Organic Start-Term Photpbonus Cycle Phosphorus is stored in sediment or by the formation of sedimentary rock Bacteria feeding on animal wastes or deod plants and animals release phosphates Stored phosphorus is disturbed by currents pipeline construction or eroded by rivers from uplifted rock Figure 1. Inorganic and Organic Cycle (RiverWatch, 2001) Total phosphorus (TP), expressed in milligrams/liter is the sum of inorganic phosphate, organic phosphate, and soluble phosphorus (Ortho-P). Organic phosphates are a part of plants and animals, their wastes or decomposing remains. Inorganic phosphorus originates from decomposing natural materials and man-made products. Non-point source runoff (stormwater) increases phosphorus concentrations in lakes and streams by transporting sediment and organic matter (bud shatter, leaves, lawn cl ippings, etc.) from impervious surfaces. Additional phosp horus sources in stormwater are misapplied fertilizers, some detergents, and animal waste from birds and domestic pets. Phosphorus in urban runoff is typically measured as TP and sometimes Ortho-P is measured as well. The non-soluble portion of the TP is commonly associated with the total suspended solids (TSS). Of this form, the phosphorus can be in an organic or inorganic form. TP concentrations in stormwater are variable but range from 0.01 to 7.3 mg/L (Minton, 2002). Concentrations of Ortho-P in urban runoff are frequently in concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L (Wigginton, 1999). USE PA guidelines indicate that Ortho-P concentrations in stream in excess of 0.10 mg/L can trigger algae blooms in fresh water lakes. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions contechstormwater.com RS - 0221 9/09/05 INT Page 1 of 4 Removal of phosphorus can be accomplished by three mechanisms. The first is removal of organic and inorganic P associated with solids. The second is removal by biological uptake by plants or bacteria. The third is through chemical precipitation such as the reaction of Ortho- P with iron to form iron phosphate in aerobic conditions. Depe nding on the type of treatment system, organic phosphorus can transform to Ortho-P and be released later. For exam pie, leaves trapped in a sum p can decompose or fall senescence of w etland plant can release Ortho-P. 1.5 O LU in=> O•g. •i —— Regression 95% Confidence Intervals for Regression 95% Prediction Intervals Regression Equation: y = 0.38x +0.065 1.4 -- 1.3 -- 1.2 -- 1.1 v 1.0 -- 0.8 •- 0.8 • - 0.7 •- 0.6 •- O.5 -- 0.4 :- 0.3 '-- 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Influent Total Phosphorus EMC (mg/L) Figure 3. Total phosphorus removal performance summary collected from 9 sites, in multiple geographic locations, with different media. The linear regression produced an equation of y = 0.38x + 0.065, which translates to a 62% removal with a 95% confidence interval of 53% and 78% (lower and upper limits, respectively). Data was statistically significant with a P < 0.001. Data was current as of July 2003. Results Performance data for removal of total phosphorus were summarized from ongoing field evaluations. These field evaluations are a combination of first and third party investigations. Data were collected from 9 sites located in different geographic locations (primarily from the West Coast (WA, OR, CA) and a single Midwest site) and configured with different media types at different flow rates. Available reports are listed in the reference section. This performance summary focuses on Total Phosphorus removal only. The following information presented in Figure 3 contains data collected since 2001, mostly during the late spring, summer, and fall for total phosphorus removal by the Stormwater Management StormFilter. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions contechstormwater.com RS - 0221 9/09/05 INT Page 2 of 4 Fifty-five data points are presented in Figure 3. The mean removal efficiency using linear regression was 62% with 95% confidence limits of 53% and 78% (lower and upper limits, respectively). Sixteen data points that were included in the analysis did not have a positive removal. Overall these systems demonstrated statistically significant removal (P<0.001; 99% probability of net removal) of Total Phosphorus. Table 1. General Site Description Site Description Shopping Center Carwash Hotel Mixed Use Shopping Center Commercial Office School Resort Roadway WQ Flow Rate (cfs) 0.503 0.070 0.165 1.600 0.033 0.594 0.297 1.650 0.300 Unit Size 8x16 CBSF 6x8 8x16(2) CBSF 8x16(2) 8x16 CIP 6x12 Media ZPG, CSF CSF CSF Perlite/Zeolite Perlite Perlite/CSF Perlite/Zeolite Perlite/Zeolite ZPG No. of Cartridges 23 2 5 48 1 24;30 14 50 9 Location Vancouver, WA Vancouver, WA Vancouver, WA Sammamish, WA Vancouver, WA Olympia, WA Redmond, WA California Midwest References Delaware State Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, (no date). Urban Stormwater Fact Sheet prepared for Inland Bays Watershed. Dover, DE. Retrieved 11/11/03 from www.dnrec.state.de.us/water2000/Sections/Watershed/ws/fact ib stormwater.pdf Minton, Gary. (2002). Storm water Treatment: Biological, Chemical, & Engineering Principles. Resource Planning Associates. Seattle, WA. RiverWatch. (2001). Beyond Books Institute of Alberta. (2001). Retrieved on 11/11/03 at www.riverwatcn.ab.ca/how_to_monitor/p_info-types.cfm Symons, James, Lee Bradley, Jr., Theodore Cleveland. (20 00). The Drinking Water Dictionary. American Waterworks Association. McGraw & Hill. New York, NY. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2002. Heritage Marketplace Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management Storm Filter with CSF Leaf Media. Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. University Place Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with Perlite Media. Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. Overtake School Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with Perlite/Zeolite Media. Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. Salmon Creek Plaza Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management CatchBasin StormFilter™ with Coarse Perlite Media. Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. University Inn at Salmon Creek Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with CSF Leaf Media. Author. Portland, OR. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions contechstormwater.com RS - 0221 9/09/05 INT Page 3 of 4 Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. Larry's Carwash: Stormwater Management StormFilter with CSF Leaf Media. Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). 2003. Saffron Village Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with Perlite/Zeolite Media. Author. Portland, OR. Stormwater Management Inc (SMI). 2004. Heritage Marketplace F ield Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPG Media (Report No. PE-04-008.0). Portland, Oregon: Author. Stormwater Management Inc (SMI). (2004). Lake Stevens North F ield Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPG Media (Report No. PE-04-001.1). Portland, Oregon: Author. Wigginton, Byran O. James Lenhart. (2000). Using Iron-Infused Media and StormFilter technology for the removal of dissolved phosphorus from Stormwater discharges. Water Environment Federation - 73rd Annual Conference and Exposition. Anaheim, CA. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions RS - 0221 Page 4 of 4 contechstormwater.com 9/09/05 INT Parameter Brief Total Phosphorus Removal: Comparing the Performance of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® and Sand Filters Summary Two media filters, the Stormwater Management StormFilter® (StormFilter) and sand filters were compared for the removal of total phosphorus. Nine different sites with 110 paired influent and effluent samples were evaluated. For the sand filter, 52 paired samples were retrieved from the International Stormwater BMP Database (BMP database) for five sites. For the StormFilter, 58 paired samples were analyzed from four peer reviewed and/or independent studies. Regression of Event Mean Concentration (EMC) results indicates that there was no statistical difference between the StormFilter (64% mean removal: 95% confidence limits 54% and 74%) and sand filter (67% mean removal: 95% confidence limits 52% and 83%) for the removal of total phosphorus. Introduction Total phosphorus (TP), expressed in milligrams/liter is the sum of particulate organic phosphorus, particulate inorganic phosphate, dissolved inorganic phosphorus (ortho- phosphate), and dissolved organic phosphorus. Organic phosphates are a part of plants and animals, their wastes or decomposing remains. Inorganic phosphate originates from decomposing mineral materials and man-made fertilizer products. TP concentrations in Stormwater are variable but range from 0.01 to 7.3 mg/L (Minton, 2002). Removal of phosphorus can be accomplished by three mechanisms. The first is removal of organic and inorganic phosphorus associated with solids. The second is removal by biological uptake by plants or bacteria. The third is through chemical precipitation such as the reaction of ortho-phosphate with iron to form iron phosphate in aerobic conditions. Both the StormF liter and sand filters primarily remove TP by the removal of solids and can be amended with alternative media like iron to target ortho-phosphate. Approach Sand filter data were retrieved from the International Stormwater BMP Database (www. bmpdatabase.org) on Septem ber 30, 2005. A total of six sand filter investigations tha t included TP - all roadway sites - were available from the B MP Database. Only five sites were utilized in this comparison. One sand filter site (I-5/SR-78 P&R - Vista, CA) contained a large variance in data and demonstrated poor performance (-167% aggreg ate load removal) that was not consistent with the other investigations, and thus was omitted from the analysis. The only criterion for selection was paired influent and effluent samples with the assumption that the BMP database has screened and assured data integrity. The data set represents storm events that were sampled from April 1999 to May 2001. Data used for the StormFilter were collected from four sites that have been either independently tested and/or peer-reviewed. The criteria used for StormFilter data selection was that a final, ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions RS-0161 1 of 6 contechstormwater.com 10/21/2005 INT Parameter Brief completed evaluation report was issued as of October 1, 2005; all information has been peer- reviewed; and each investigation eva luated a stand-alone, flow-based StormF ilter system using ZPG (Perlite/Zeolite/Granular Activated Carbon) or Perlite/Zeolite (PZ) media. Three investigations contained ZPG media, while one investigation contained PZ media. Only 5% by volume of the ZPG media contains granular activated carbon. Since 95% of ZPG and PZ media are the same, they were deem ed comparable for the purpose of the analysis. The data set represents storm events that were sampled from November 2001 to March 2004. The peer review entities and/or third party investigators with report titles were: • NSF International in cooperation with U.S. EPA, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources under the Environmental Technology Verification Program. o "Environmental Technology Verification Report. Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device. The Stormwater Management StormFilter Using ZPG Filter Media." NSF International, 2005. • City of South Lake Tahoe in conjunction with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. o "StormFilter Performance Analysis prepared for the City of South Lake Tahoe, CA." 2nd Nature Environmental Science + Consulting, 2005. • State of Washington Department of Ecology and APWA Surface Water Managers Technical Review Committee. Resource Planning Associates provided a Technical Engineering Evaluation Report regarding Quality Assurance/Quality Control and confirmed analysis in accordance with the Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies, Technology Assessment Protocol - Ecology (TAPE) for Basic Treatment. o "Heritage Marketplace Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPG Media." Stormwater Managment Inc., 2004a. o "Lake Stevens North Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPG Media." Stormwater Managment Inc., 2004b. Table 1. General Site Description for the StormFilter sites Location Vancouver, WA Lake Stevens, WA S. Lake Tahoe, CA Milwaukee, Wl Media ZPG ZPG PZ ZPG WQ Flow Rate (cfs) 0.50 0.23 1.65 0.30 Unit Size 8x16 8x16 CIP 6x12 No. of Cartridges 23 10 50 9 Surface Area of Media (ft2) 168 73 365 66 Individual Cartridge Flow rate (gpm) 7.5 7.5 15 15 Site Description Shopping Center Roadway Resort Roadway Table 2. General Site Location Whittier, CA Escondido, CA Monrovia, CA Carlsbad, CA Norwalk, CA Description Media sand sand sand sand sand for the sand filter sites WQ Flow Rate (cfs) NA NA NA NA NA Surface Area of Media (ft2) 291 291 431 776 614 Site Description Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway NA - Not Available Site Description Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of the general site descriptions available for the StormFilter ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions contechstormwater.com RS-0161 10/21/2005 INT 2 of 6 Rs-0161 Parameter Brief and sand filter evaluated for the comparison. Limited information was available from the BMP database regarding the sand filters. Data Analysis Method Data were compared using Regression of EM C (REMC). Linear regression statistics similar to those suggested by Martin (1988) and URS et al. (1999) were used to estimate the mean TP removal efficiency. Instead of using calculated load values as suggested by Martin (1988), regressions were performed on EMC values alone so as to avoid any error associated with the storm volume data. REMC is a quantitative data analysis method that uses parametric statistics. REMC provides 95% confidence intervals and is more robust than using qualitative data analysis methods such as the Line of Comparative Performance, Discrete Removal Efficiencies, or Aggregate Load methods that can be subject to interpretation or require non-parametric statistical tools, such as a sign test. REMC analysis estimates the mean removal efficiency over a range of influent concentrations, and thus yields a continuous series of normal distributions. Resulting standard deviations can thus be used to statistically compare performance. 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 O) 1.0 -- ANOVA Source of Variation df SS MS Explained Unexplained Total 1 0.1792 0.1792 17.59*** 60 O.B093 0.01019 51 0.6884 SIGNIFICANCE OF COEFFICIENTS Coeff. Std. Error t yO=0.08092 a=0.3266 0.02615 0.07787 3.094** 4.194*** = 0.01 < P < 0.05 - 0.001 < P < 0.01 *= P < 0.001 Regression 95% Confidence Interval 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 Influent Total Phosphorus EMC (mg/L) Figure 1. Sand filter data analyzed using Regression of EMC for Total Phosphorus (TP) removal representing 52 paired influent and effluent samples at 5 roadway sites and demonstrating a mean removal efficiency estimate of 67% with 95% confidence intervals of 52% and 83%. Data was statistically significant at the P <0.001 level. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions contechstormwater.com RS-0161 10/21/2005 INT 3 of 6 Rs-0161 Parameter Brief Results Figures 1 and 2, and Table 3 summarize the data analyzed using REMC. Figures 1 and 2 provide detailed statistical analysis. Table 3 provides general descriptive statistics. Both media filters had similar influent concentrations, with the sand filter data containing a higher median influent concentration (0.23 mg/L) than the StormFilter data (0.16 mg/L). Figure 1 and Table 3 indicate that the performance of the sand filter for five roadway sites evaluated in California achieved a m ean removal efficiency of 67% with 95% confidence intervals for the mean removal efficiency of 52% and 83%. A grand total of 52 storm events were sampled, and eight data points had an effluent concentration higher than the influent concentrations. The sand filter demonstrated a statistically significant removal (P<0.001; 99.9% probability of net removal) of TP. ANOVA Source of Variation SS O)E LLJ en O.cQ. Explained Unexplained Total 1 56 57 0.2326 0.2300 0.4626 0.2326 56.63' 0.00«107 SIGNIFICANCE OF COEFFICIENTS Coeff. Std. Error t yO=0.05045 0.01317 3.831* a-0.3595 0.04778 7.525* * - 0.01 < P < 0.05 ** - 0.001 < P < 0.01 ***- P < 0.001 REGRESSION EQUATION Y = 0.36X + 0.050 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 Influent Total Phosphorus EMC (mg/L) Figure 2. StormFilter data analyzed using Regression of EMC for Total Phosphorus removal representing 58 paired influent and effluent samples at 4 sites and demonstrating a mean removal efficiency estimate of 64% with 95% confidence intervals of 54% and 74%. Data was statistically significant at the P <0.001 level. Figure 2 and Table 3 represent the StormFilter data using ZPG or PZ media at four sites for 58 storm events. The total phosphorus mean removal efficiency using linear regression was 64% with 95% confidence limits of 54% and 74%. Two data points that were included in the analysis had effluent concentrations greater than the influent concentrations. Overall the StormFilter system demonstrated statistically significant removal (P<0.001; 99.9% probability of net removal) of TP. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions contechstormwater.com RS-0161 10/21/2005 INT 4 of 6 Rs-0161 Parameter Brief In Figure 3, StormFilter and sand filter data were compared using the estimated mean and standard deviation of the sample populations. When com paring these distributions, a one-tailed or two-tailed test is used to determine the cumulative probability of Type I and Type II errors (i.e. the probability of wrongly rejecting or wrongly accepting the null hypothesis) in the statistical analysis. In this instance, Figure 3 graphically demonstrates that the StormFilter data is 99.6% within the sand filter 95% confidence intervals. Thus, there is no signi ficant difference (P=0.05) between the performance of the StormFilter and sand filter for total phosphorus removal. Table 3. Total phosphorus removal statistical information for the StormFilter and sand filters. Sand filter data were retrieved from the International Stormwater BMP Database. StormFilter data were from four sites (Milwaukee Riverwalk, Ski Run Marina, Heritage Marketplace, and Lake Stevens) using ZPG or Perlite/Zeolite media. Filter type Descriptive Statistics n Sand Filter 52 StormFilter 58 Range of Influent EMCs (mg/L) 0.04 to 1.00 0.04 to 1.06 Median Influent EMC (mg/L) Regression of EMC Removal Efficiency Estimate (%) 0.23 67*" 0.15 64*" 95% Confidence Interval for the Mean Removal Efficiency Estimate (%) 52 to 83 54 to 74 Effluent EMC Estimate (mg/L) 0.16 0.11 95% Confidence Interval for the Median Effluent EMC Estimate (mg/L) 0.13 to 0.19 0.09 to 0.12 *** = P < 0.001 Sand filter and StormFilter Comparison of Total Phosphorus Removal 0%10%20%30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Mean Total Phosphorus EMC Removal Efficiency 90%100% Figure 3. A comparative analysis of the StormFilter and sand filter data that displays the probability distribution of the mean total phosphorus removal performance of these two types of media filters. A total of 9 sites, each data set containing over 50 storm events were used in the comparison. The overlap of the two bell shaped curves indicate that there is no statistical difference between the performance of the StormFilter and sand filters for the removal of total phosphorus. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions contechstormwater.com RS-0161 10/21/2005 INT 5 of 6 Rs-0161 Parameter Brief Conclusion Two media filters, sand filter and StormFilter, displayed similar TP removal performance when analyzing the data with RE MC and comparing the standard deviation and the distributions of these sample populations. Although the sand filter demonstrated a higher mean (+3%) than the StormFilter, the StormFilter exhibited more precise range of performance (standard deviation (SD) = 10) than the sand filter (SD = 15). Therefore, these two media filters can be said to have equivalent performance for the removal of total phosphorus. References 2nd Nature Environmental Science + Consulting. (2004). StormFilter Performance Analysis prepared for the City of South Lake Tahoe. Santa Cruz, CA. Author. Martin, E. H. (1988). Effectiveness of an Urban Runoff Detention Pond - Wetlands System. J. Environnemental Eng. 114 (4), pp. 810 - 827. Minton, Ph.D, PE., Gary. (2002). Stormwater Treatment: Biological, Chemical, & Engineering Principles. Resource Planning Associates. Seattle, WA.: Author. NSF International. (2004). Environmental Technology Verification Report. Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device. The Stormwater Management StormFilter Using ZPG Filter Media. Report No. 04/17/WQPC-WWF; EPA/600/R-04/125. Milwaukee, Wl.: Author. Stormwater Management Inc. (2004a). Heritage Marketplace Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPG Media (Report No. PE-04-008.0). Portland, Oregon: Author. Stormwater Management Inc. (2004b). Lake Stevens North Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPG Media (Report No. PE-04-001.1). Portland, Oregon: Author. URS, Urban Drainage and Flood Di strict, and Urban Water Resources Research Council of ASCE. (1999). Determining Urban Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) Removal Efficiencies. Task 3.1 -Technical Memorandum. Available on ASCE website: http://www.asce.org/pdf/task3 1 .pdf. Washington, DC: Author. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions RS-0161 6 of 6 contechstormwater.com 10/21/2005 INT Rs-0161 ?B^• ^^== Operation and Maintenance STORMWATER "SOLUTIONS. TMCatchBasin StormFilter Important: These guidelines should be used as a part of your site stormwater plan. Overview The CatchBasin StormFilter™ (CBSF) consists of a multi-chamber steel, concrete, or plastic catch basin unit that can contain up to four StormFilter cartridges. The steel CBSF is offered both as a standard and as a deep unit. The CBSF is installed flush with the finished grade and is applicable for both constrained lot and retrofit applications. It can also be fitted with an inlet pipe for roof leaders or similar applications. The CBSF unit treats peak water quality design flows up to 0.13 cfs, coupled with an internal weir overflow capacity of 1.0 cfs for the standard unit, and 1.8 cfs for the deep steel and concrete units. Plastic units have an internal weir overflow capacity of 0.5 cfs. Design Operation The CBSF is installed as the primary receiver of runoff, similar to a standard, grated catch basin. The steel and concrete CBSF units have an H-20 rated, traffic- bearing lid that allows the filter to be installed in parking lots, and for all practical purposes, takes up no land area. Plastic units can be used in landscaped areas and for other non-traffic-bearing applications. The CBSF consists of a sumped inlet chamber and a cartridge chamber(s). Runoff enters the sumped inlet chamber either by sheet flow from a paved surface or from an inlet pipe discharging directly to the unit vault. The inlet chamber is equipped with an internal baffle, which traps debris and floating oil and grease, and an overflow weir. While in the inlet chamber, heavier solids are allowed to settle into the deep sump, while lighter solids and soluble pollutants are directed under the baffle and into the cartridge chamber through a port between the baffle and the overflow weir. Once in the cartridge chamber, polluted water ponds and percolates horizontally through the media in the filter cartridges. Treated water collects in the cartridge's center tube from where it is directed by an under-drain manifold to the outlet pipe on the downstream side of the overflow weir and discharged. When flows into the CBSF exceed the water quality design value, excess water spills over the overflow weir, bypassing the cartridge bay, and discharges to the outlet pipe. Applications The CBSF is particularly useful where small flows are being treated or for sites that are flat and have little available hydraulic head to spare. The unit is ideal for applications in which standard catch basins are to be used. Both water quality and catchment issues can be resolved with the use of the CBSF. Retro-Fit The retrofit market has many possible applications for the CBSF. The CBSF can be installed by replacing an existing catch basin without having to "chase the grade," thus reducing the high cost of re- piping the storm system. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Toll-free: 800.548.4667 contechstormwater.com CatchBasin StormFilter Operation and Maintenance Guidelines 1 of 3 I E I I I I I I I I Maintenance Guidelines Maintenance procedures for typical catch basins can be applied to the CatchBasin StormFilter (CBSF). The filter cartridges contained in the CBSF are easily removed and replaced during maintenance activities according to the following guidelines. 1. Establish a safe working area as per typical catch basin service activity. 2. Remove steel grate and diamond plate cover (weight« 100 Ibs. each). 3. Turn cartridge(s) counter-clockwise to disconnect from pipe manifold. 4. Remove 4" center cap from cartridge and replace with lifting cap. 5. Remove cartridge(s) from catch basin by hand or with vactor truck boom. 6. Remove accumulated sediment via vactor truck (min. clearance 13" x 24"). 7. Remove accumulated sediment from cartridge bay. (min. clearance 9.25" x 11") 8. Rinse interior of both bays and vactor remaining water and sediment. 9. Install fresh cartridge(s) threading clockwise to pipe manifold. 10. Replace cover and grate. 11. Return original cartridges to CONTECH Stormwater Solutions for cleaning and media disposal. Media may be removed from the filter cartridges using the vactor truck before the cartridges are removed from the catch basin structure. Empty cartridges can be easily removed from the catch basin structure by hand. Empty cartridges should be reassembled and returned to CONTECH Stormwater Solutions, as appropriate. Materials required include a lifting cap, vactor truck, and fresh filter cartridges. Contact CONTECH Stormwater Solutions for specifications and availability of the lifting cap. The vactor truck must be equipped with a hose capable of reaching areas of restricted clearance. The owner may refresh spent cartridges. Refreshed cartridges are also available from CONTECH Stormwater Solutions on an exchange basis. Contact the maintenance department of CONTECH Stormwater Solutions at (503) 240-3393 for more information. Maintenance is estimated at 26 minutes of site time. For units with more than one cartridge, add approximately 5 minutes for each additional cartridge. Add travel time as required. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Toll-free: 800.548.4667 contechstormwater.com CatchBasin StormFilter Operation and Maintenance Guidelines 2 of 3 contechstormwater.com CatchBasin StormFilter Operation and Maintenance Guidelines Mosquito Abatement In certain areas of the United States, mosquito abatement is desirable to reduce the incidence of vectors. In BMPs with standing water, which could provide mosquito breeding habitat, certain abatement measures can be taken. 1. Periodic observation of the standing water to determine if the facility is harboring mosquito larvae. 2. Regular catch basin maintenance 3. Use of larvicides containing Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (BTI). BTI is a bacterium toxic to mosquito and black fly larvae. In some cases, the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons may interrupt the mosquito growth cycle. Using Larvicides in the CatchBasin StormFilter Larvicides should be used according to manufacturer's recommendations. Two widely available products are Mosquito Dunks and Summit B.t.i. Briquets. For more information, visit http://www.summitchemical.com/mos_ctrl/d efaulthtm. The larvicide must be in contact with the permanent pool. The larvicide should also be fastened to the CatchBasin StormFilter by string or wire to prevent displacement by high flows. A magnet can be used with a steel catch basin. For more information on mosquito abatement in stormwater BMPs, refer to the following: http://www.ucmrp.ucdavis.edu/publications/ managingmosquitoesstormwater8125.pdf ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Toll-free: 800.548.4667 contechstormwater.com CatchBasin StormFilter Operation and Maintenance Guidelines 3 of 3 I 1 I II II II II II II II i if li li li if 11 if 11 11 1of16 1/23/2003 APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Caltrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. BIOFILTER - STRIPS and SWALES Preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections ROUTINE ACTIONS Height of vegetation Assess adequate vegetative cover Inspect for debris accumulation Inspect for accumulated sediment MAINTENANCE NDICATOR Average vegetation height exceeds 12 nches, emergence of :rees, or woody vegetation Less than 90 percent coverage in strip invert/swale or less than 70 percent on swale side slope Debris or litter present Sediment at or near vegetation height. channeling of flow, inhibited flow due to change in slope. FIELD MEASUREMENT Visual inspection of vegetation throughout trip/swale Visual inspection of strip/swale. Prepare a site schematic to record location and distribution of barren or browning spots to be restored. File the schematic for assessment of persistent problems. Visual observation Visual observation MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY Once during wet eason, once during Iry season. (depending on growth) Assess quantity needed in May each year late wet season and late dry season. During routine trashing, per Districts schedule. Annually MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY Cut vegetation to an average height of 6 nches Reseed/revegetate barren spots by Nov. Scarify area to be restored, to a depth of 2- inches. Restore side slope coverage with lydroseed mixture. If after 2 applications (2 seasons) of reseeding/revegetating and growth is unsuccessful both times. an erosion blanket or equivalent protection will be installed over eroding areas Remove litter, and debris. Remove sediment. If flow is channeled, determine cause and take corrective action. If sediment becomes deep enough to change the flow gradient, remove sediment during dry season, characterize anc property dispose of sediment, and revegetate. SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Remove any trees, or woody vegetation. None Per. Mrs 10 8 0 0 Labor Rate 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 Cost 436.3 349.04 0 0 0 16 0 43.63 0 698.08 Type one-ton truck & hydroseeder one-ton truck & hydroseeder one-ton truck & hydroseeder one-ton truck & hydroseeder Equipment Days 2 1 0 0 rate 26.84 4B.15 26.84 26.84 Cost 53.68 48.15 0 0 one-ton truck & hydroseeder one-ton truck & hydroseeder 0 1 0 0 48.151 46.15 Mater Hem string rimmer, rake, fork, bags, safety equipment seed blanket als Cost 50 150 0 seed, testing and disposal of sediment 300 Total Cost 539.98 547.19 0 0 0 1046.23 Comments once every ;hree years i i i i i I I !i f I If II II II i j ! i 2 of 16 1/23/2003 Appendix H Estimated OSM Cost for Treatment BMPs.xIs-Delails APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Caltrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. nspect for burrows General Maintenance inspection TOTAL BIO FILTER AND SWALES BIO STRIP WITH SPREADER DITCH Inspect for standing water Burrows, holes, mounds nlet structures, outlet structures, side slopes or other features damaged, significant erosion, emergence of trees, woody vegetation , fence damage, etc. Water accumulation in spreader ditch Visual observation Visual observation Standing water in spreader ditch Annually and after vegetation trimming. Semi-Annuatry, late wet season and late dry season. Within 72 hours after a storm event 0.75 nches or greater. Notify engineer to determine if regrading is necessary. If necessary, egrade to design specification and revegetate swale/strip. If regrading Is necessary, he process should start n May. Revegetate strip/swale in Nov. Target completion prior to wet season. Where burrows cause seepage, erosion and leakage, backfill firmly. Corrective action prior to wet season. Consult engineer if an immediate solution is not evident. De-water the spreader ditch to a depth of less than 0.25 Inches. If sediment impedes the de watering activity, then move or remove that portion of the sediment Characterize and property dispose. De-water the spreader ditch to a depth of less than 0.25" by removing the bypass plug and allowing the water to drain into the infiltration trench. Use care to prevent sediment from discharging into the infiltration trench. Replace the bypass plug once the de-watering has been completed. None Remove any trees, or woody vegetation. Includes all the above plus the following. Per. Mrs 2 Labor Rate 43.63 Cost 87.26 0 16 52 0 43.63 0 698.08 2268.76 3 6 43.63 43.63 0 130.89 261.78 Equipn Type Days I lent rate Cost 0 one-ton truck & hydroseeder one-ton truck & hydroseeder 0 2 26.84 26.84 0 53.68 203.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mated Item als Cost 500 j Total Cost 87.26 0 751.76 2972.42 0 130.89 261.78 Comments I \ I I 1 I I 1 I i I i I f I i I 1 I i t 1 i 3 of 16 1/23C003 Appendix H Estimated O&M Cost for Treatment BMPsjds-Details APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Cattrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. TOTAL BIO STRIP WITH SPREADER DITCH CONTINUOUS DEFLECTIVE SEPARATION (CDS) UNITS Preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA, ROUTINE ACTIONS nspect sump for accumulation of material. Inspect weir box for accumulation of material. Inspect (or standing water. ( Include with aH of inspection) Inspect the screen for damage and to ensure that H is properly fastened. Inspection for structural integrity TOTAL CDS UNITS DRAIN INLET INSERTS - FOSSIL FILTER MAINTENANCE INDICATOR or When the sump is 50% full during two consecutive monthly inspections. or Annually in May, effect cleaning within 15 days Presence of trash and debris Standing water in sump Screen becomes clogged, damaged or loose Holes in screen, large debris, damage to housing or weir box FIELD MEASUREMENT Visual observation Visual observation Visual observation Visual observation MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY Monthly during the wet season AnnuaHy, 72 hours after target2 storm (0.75 in) Annualy before wet season. AnnuaHy or after a cteanout. At the end of the wet eason, remove the bypass plug and allow he spreader ditch to drain. Use care to prevent sediment from discharging into the nfiltration trench. Remove, characterize, and dispose of sediment from the spreader ditch. Replace the bypass plug before the beginning of he wet season. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY Empty unit Remove trash and debris while onsfte conducting Inspection. If standing water cannot ie removed or remains through the wet season notify VCD. Clean screen. Immediately consult with engineer and manufacturer's representative to develop a course of action, effect repairs prior to the wet season. SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS None None None Per. Mrs 2 55 72 0 0 72 Labor Rale 43.63 43.63 0 0 Cost 87.26 2399.65 0 0 3141.36 D 0 0 0 3141.36 I Equipment Type sedan one-ton truck & vacfor 0 Days 1 3 0 0 rate 21.28 198.75 0 0 Cost 21.28 203.66 0 0 596.25 0 0 0 0 596.25 I Materials Item e sting a disposal costs testing & disposal costs 0 Cost 200 500 1800 0 0 1800 Total Cost 308.54 3103.31 0 0 5537.61 0 0 0 0 5537.61 Comments Hours accounted for during inspections Hours accounted for during inspections Hours accounted for during inspections I 1 I § i I I II 11 11 11 II II II 11 4 of 16 1/23/2003 APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Cattrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will hange as additional data becomes available. Preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA, ROUTINE ACTIONS nspect for debris/trash 0 Before and once during each target2 storm (0.25 in) event Oil and grease removal Inspection for structural integrity Annual renewal of medium TOTAL DRAIN INLET INSERTS-FOSSIL FILTERS DRAIN INLET INSERTS - STREAM GUARD Preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA. ROUTINE ACTIONS Sediment removal Inspect for debris/trash Oil and grease removal Inspection for structural integrity MAINTENANCE NDICATOR Sufficient debris/trash hat could interfere with iroper functioning of nseri Absorbent granules dark gray, or darker, or unit clogged with sediment. Broken or otherwise damaged insert End of wet season, April 30 MAINTENANCE INDICATOR Sediment more than Cl- inches Sufficient debris/trash that could interfere with proper functioning of insert When oil absorbent polymer becomes saturated with oil Signs of rips, gashes, and/or fallen media FIELD MEASUREMENT Visual observation Visual observation Visual observation None FIELD MEASUREMENT Visual inspection of sediment collected within insert Visual observation Visual observation (absorbent polymer expansion indicates oi saturation) Visual observation MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY luring the wet season; D At the end of each target2 storm (0.25 in) event Twice per year in October and May. Annually, in May MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY During the wel season: During the wet season Monthly Twice per year in October and May. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY Remove and properly dispose of debris/trash. Target completion period while onsite conducting nspection. Replace Fossil FfKerTM adsorbent within 10 working days. Characterize and iroperty dispose spent media prior to wet season. Replace insert or mmediately consult vendor to develop course of action, effect repairs within 10 working days Remove, characterize, and properly dispose of media a Replace media before Oct 1 MAINTENANCE ACTlvrfY Replace insert. Target completion while onsite conducting inspection. Remove and dispose of debris/trash. Target completion period white onsite conducting inspection. Within 10 working days, replace oil absorbent polymer Replace insert or immediately consult vendor to develop a course of action, effect repairs within 10 working days SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS None None SITE-SPECIFtC REQUIREMENTS None I Labor Per. Mrs 18 2 2 2 24 2 2 Rate 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 Cost 0 785.34 87.26 87.26 87.26 1047.12 0 0 87.26 87.26 Equipment Type sedan Days 1 rate 21.28 Cost 0 0 0 a 21.28 21.28 0 0 0 0 Materi Item als Cost new adsorbent and testing & disposal costs 115 115 l 1 i- Total Cost 0 785.34 87.26 87 .26 223.54 1183.4 0 0 87.26 87.26 Comments 5 of 16 1/23/2003 APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Cattrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. Annual renewal of medium TOTAL DRAIN INLET INSERTS-STREAM GUARDS EXTENDED DETENTION BASINS Preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA, ROUTINE ACTIONS iasin side slope planted for erosion protection and planted nvert Slope stability Inspect for standing water. Inspection for trash and debris Inspection for sediment management and characterization of sediment for removal End of wet season, April 0 MAINTENANCE NDICATOR Average vegetation height greater than 12- nches, emergence of rees or woody vegetation. Evidence of erosion Standing water for more ihan 72 hours Debris/trash present D Sediment depth exceeds marker on staff gage None FIELD MEASUREMENT Visual observation and andom measurements hrough out the side slope area Visual observation Visual observation Visual observation D Measure depth at apparent maximum and minimum accumulation of sediment. Calculate average depth Annually, in May MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY Once during wet season, once during dry season. October each year Annually, 72 hours after a targets storm (0.75 In) event During routine trashing, per Districts schedule. Annually Remove characterize, and properly dispose of media.. Replace media before Oct 1 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY Cut vegetation to an average height of 6- nches and remove rimmings. Remove any rees, or woody vegetation. Reseed/revegetate Barren spots prior to wet season. Contact environmental or andscape architect for appropriate seed mix. Scarify surface if needed. If after two applications (2 seasons) of reseeding/revegetating and growth is unsuccessful both times, an erosion blanket or equivalent protection will be instated over eroding areas. No erosion blanket win be installed in the basin Invert. 0 Drain facility D Check and unctog clogged orifice. Notify engineer, if immediate solution is not evident. Remove and dispose of trash and debris Remove and properly dispose of sediment. Regrade if necessary. sJone SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS NOT AN ANNUAL COST None Should be Annual Mice. None Labor Per. Mrs Rate Cost 2 43.63 87.26 6 261.78 48 43.63 2094.24 0 43.63 0 0 43.63 0 16 43.63 698.08 Equipment Type Days rate Cost sedan 1 21.28 21.28 21.28 one-ton truck 2 26.84 53.68 one-ton truck & hydroseeder 0 48.15 0 | one-Ion truck 0 26.84 0 4-yd dump truck, backhoe & trailer, one- ton truck & hydroseederse dan 0.4 176.5 70.6 Materials Item Cost new adsorbent and testing & disposal costs 195 195 string irimmer, rake, fork, bags, safety equipment 50 seed 150 blanket 0 testing and disposal 460 Total Cost 303.54 478.06 2197.92 150 0 1228.68 Comments once every 5 years I i t i i i f i I i i i i I 1 1 i I i I I I 1 I i 1 i I i I i 6 of 16 1/23/2003 Aooendix H Estimated O&M Cost for Treatment BMPs.xIs-Delails APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Caltrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. nspect for burrows General Maintenance nspection TOTAL EXTENDED BASIN INFILTRATION BASINS Preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA. ROUTINE ACTIONS Vegetation of basin invert and side slopes nspect for standing water. Inspection for trash and debris at inlel structures Inspection for sediment accumulation Slope stability iurrows, holes, mounds nlet structures, outlet structures, side slopes or other features damaged, significant erosion, emergence of rees or woody vegetation, graffiti or vandalism, fence damage, etc. MAINTENANCE NDICATOR Vegetation height exceeds 12 inches, emergence of trees or woody vegetation, Standing water for more than 72 hours Debris/trash present Sediment depth exceeds marker on staff gage. Evidence of erosion. Visual observation Visual observation FIELD MEASUREMENT Visual observation and random measurements through out the side slope and invert area Visual observation Visual observation Measure depth at apparent maximum and minimum accumulation of sediment. Calculate average depth Visual observation Annualfy and after vegetation trimming. Semi-Annually, late wet season and late dry season Monthly MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY Once during wet season, once during dry season. Annually, 72 hours after a target? storm (0.75 in) event. During routine trashing, per Districts schedule. Annually October each year. 0 Where burrows cause seepage, erosion and leakage, backfill firmly. Corrective action prior to wet season. Consult engineers rf immediate solution is not evident. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY Cut vegetation to an average height of 6- inches. Remove any trees, or woody vegetation. 0 Drain facility, rf possible. D Notify engineer to consider: D Remove sediment, scarify invert, and regrade if necessary. D If unable to achieve acceptable infiltration rate or implement alternative solution then move to decommission D If standing water can not be removed then notify VCD. Remove and dispose of trash and debris Remove, characterize and property dispose of sediment. Regrade and revegetate bare areas. Reseed/revegetate barren spots by Nov. Scarify surface if needed. None SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS slone None None None I Labor Per. Mrs | Rate Cost 16 80 48 16 4 20 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 696.08 3490.4 2094.24 698.08 0 0 174.52 872.6 i Equipment Type one-ton truck iwo-ton truck one-ton truck 4-yd dump truck, loader & trailer, grader, sedan, one-ton truck & hydroseeder one-ton truck & hydroseeder Days 2 2 4 0.5 1 rate 26.84 50 26.84 256.94 48.15 Cost 53.68 177.96 100 107.36 0 0 128.47 48.15 Materials Item string trimmer, rake, fork, bags, safety equipment seed, testing & disposal seed Cost 660 50 150 275 Total Cost 751.76 4328.36 2244.24 805.44 0 0 452.99 1195.75 Comments covered under sediment removal once every 10 years I i I I i 1 I I i 1 1 i 1 i i i I 1II I i II 11 li 70(16 1/23/2003 APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Caltrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. nspect for burrows General Maintenance Inspection TOTAL INFILTRATION BASIN INFILTRATION TRENCHES Preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA, ROUTINE ACTIONS Inspect for standing water Inspection for trash and debris at inlet and outlet structures Burrows, holes, mounds. nlet structures, outlet structures, side slopes or other features damaged, significant erosion, emergence of rees or woody vegetation, graffiti or vandalism, fence damage, etc. MAINTENANCE INDICATOR Standing surface water for more than 72 hours Trash/debris present Visual observation Visual observation FIELD MEASUREMENT Visual observation Visual observation Annually and after vegetation trimming. Semi-Annualry. late wet season and late dry season MEASUREMENT Annually. 72 hours after a target2 storm p.75 in) event During routine trashing per Districts schedule. f after two applications 2 seasons) of reseeding/revegetating and growth is unsuccessful both times, an erosion blanket or equivalent protection will be installed over eroding areas. No erosion blanket wil be Installed In he basin invert. Contacet environmental or landscape architect for appropriate seed mix. a Where burrows cause seepage, erosion and leakage, backfill firmly. Take corrective action prior to wet season. Consult engineer if mmediate solution Is not evident. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY a Drain facility D Notify engineer to consider. 0 Undertake investigation for course of action to achieve acceptable infiltration rate. If unable to achieve acceptable infiltration then BMP operations cease. a If standing water can not be removed, notify VCD. Remove and dispose of trash and debris. None None slone SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS None None Labor Per. Hrs | Rate 0 0 0 20 108 16 0 0 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 Cost 0 0 0 872.6 4712.04 698.08 0 0 0 0 Equipment Type one-ton truck one-ton truck Wfo-ton truck one-ton truck Days | rate 0 0 1 2 26.84 26.84 SO 26.84 Cost 0 0 0 50 433.98 53.68 0 0 0 0 Materials Item blanket Cost 60 535 0 Total Cost 60 0 0 922.6 5681.02 751.76 0 0 0 0 Comments Does not include Vector Control Agency costs i I t I If I i f i i I i I I I i I ! Sol 16 1/23/2003 APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vtaues derived from CaKrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet wilt change as additional data becomes available. Inspect for sediment accumulation General Maintenance inspection TOTAL INFILTRATION TRENCHES rfEDIA FILTERS - PERLITE/ZEOUTE Preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA, ROUTINE ACTIONS nspect for sediment accumulation in pre-treatment sedimentation chamber Inspect for minor maintenance Manufacturer's recommended major maintenance Inspection for trash and debris at inlet and outlet structures and within vaults Inspect for standing water Visible sediment nlet structures, outlet structures, filter fabric or other features damaged, emergence of trees or woody vegetation, graffiti or vandalism, ence damage, etc. MAINTENANCE INDICATOR Sediment occupies 10% of Ihe filter chamber volume. Per manufacture's guidelines Per manufacture's guidelines Trash/debris present Water accumulation in any structure or other location within the fitter Visual inspection of he stone aggregate, no sediment should be visible at the top of the rench due to sediment buildup from filter fabric. Visual observation FIELD MEASUREMENT Measure with appropriate device None Per manufacture's guidelines Visual observation Standing water In any structure or other location within the filter Annually. Sem'hAnnualry, late wet season and late dry seasonMonthry MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY Annually in May. Annually Annually During routine trashing, per Districts schedule. Annually, at end of wet season. Remove top layer of rench, silt, fitter fabric and stone, wash stone and reinstall fabric and stone into trench prior to wet season. Take corrective action, prior to wet season. Consult engineer if mmediale solution is not evident. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY Remove sediment prior to wet season. Characterize sediment and properly dispose Clean per manufacturer's guidelines. Prior to wet season. Consult with manufacturer regarding need for replacement of canisters. If manufacturer confirms need, replace canisters. Prior to wet season. When canisters are changed send canisters to manufacturer to determine remaining life of the media Remove and dispose of trash and debris when on site conducting inspections. n Gravity drain where possible. None None Remove any rees, or woody vegetation. SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS None None. None None Labor Per. Mrs 8 8 32 0 4 8 4 8 Rate 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 Cost 349.04 349,04 1396,16 0 174.52 349.04 0 174.52 349.04 0 43.63 o 0 43.63 o Type gradeall shovel. 10-yd dump trucks one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck sedan one-ton truck one-ton truck Equlpn Days 0.066 2 0 1 1 1 1 I lent rate 6000 26.84 26.B4 26.84 21.28 26.84 26.84 Cost 396 53.68 503.36 0 26.84 21.28 0 26.84 26.84 0 one-ton truck 100 Mater Item replacement stone and filter fabric testing & disposal costs major malntenanc e als Cost 1200 1200 600 5000 Total Cost 1945.04 402.72 3099.52 0 201.36 970.32 0 201.36 5375.88 0 0 Comments once every 15 years By Contract and oversite i i i i i i i I \ I ill!till 9 of 16 1/23/2003 Appendix H Estimated O&M Cost for Treatment BMPsjds-Details APPENDIX H Estimated O&M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Caltrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. General Maintenance nspectlon TOTALMEDIA FILTERS - PERLITE/ZEOLITE MEDIA FILTERS -SAND W/PUMP 'reventrve Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA, ROUTINE ACTIONS Drain time of 48 hours Inspect for sediment accumulation in sedimentation chamber Inspection for trash / debris Inspect pumps for proper functioning nlet structures, outlet structures, vault, piping, or other features damaged and for graffiti or vandalism MAINTENANCE INDICATOR Drain time exceeds 72 lours Sediment depth exceeds marker on staff gage. Trash and debris present Pump does not operate Visual observation FIELD MEASUREMENT Determine drain time by visual observation Measure with appropriate device Visual observation Energize pump to see if water is discharged Semi-AnnuaHy. late wet season and late dry season Monthly MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY Annually, after one targets storm (0.75 in) event during wet season Measure sediment depth annually. During routine trashing, per Districts schedule. After every storm. 0 If standing water can not be removed or remains through wet season notify VCD. Fake corrective action >riorto wet season. Consult engineer if mmediate solution is not evident. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY D Remove sediment, trash and debris. D Check orifice D Notify engineer to consider removing top 2 inches of media and dispose of sediment. Restore media depth to 18 inches when overall media depth drops to 12 inches. Complete prior to wet season. Remove sediment prior to wet season. Characterize sediment and property dispose. Remove and dispose of trash and debris during routine trashing. Make assessment to determine if problem Is electrical or mechanical. Take appropriate action. Replace pump if needed. None 'Jone SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Escondido MS Delaware SF — Remove and restore media depth to 12 inches. None District 7 fillers only Labor Per. Mrs 8 32 4 12 12 0 0 Rate 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 Cost 0 349.04 1396.16 174.52 0 523.56 523.56 0 0 I Equipment Type one-ton truck one-ton truck boom truck boom truck one-Ion Iruck one-ton truck Days 2 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 rate 26.84 26.84 74.94 74.94 26.84 26.84 Cost 0 53.68 155.48 26.84 0 37.47 37.47 0 0 I Materials Item drums, shovel, rake, drum grappler, confined space equipment characteriza tion and disposal drums, shovel, rake, drum grappler, confined space equipment characieriza tton and disposal confined space equipment confined space equipment Cost 5600 1250 1250 0 0 Total Cost 0 402.72 7151.64 201.36 0 1811.03 1811.03 0 0 Comments Does not include Vector Control Agency costs every 2 years every 2 years l i i I I i I I 1 I 1 I 1 i iiiiiiiiiilii I I i i ,Oof 16 1/23/2003 APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project change as additional data becom Inspect pumps for serviceability and periodic maintenance Inspect for burrows Inspect for standing water General Maintenance nspection TOTAL MRDIA FILTER-SAND W/PUMP MEDIA FILTERS - SAND WO/PUMP 3reventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA, ROUTINE ACTIONS Drain time of 46 hours Itrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will es available. Per manufacture's guidelines Jurrows, holes, mounds. Water accumulation In any structure or other ocalion within the filler nlet structures, outlet structures, filter fabric or other features damaged, emergence of vegetation, graffiti or vandalism, fence damage, etc. MAINTENANCE INDICATOR Drain time exceeds 72 hours Per manufacture's guidelines Visual observation Standing water in any structure or other ocation within the filter Visual observation FIELD MEASUREMENT Determine drain time by visual observation Per manufacture's guidelines Annual inspections after vegetation rimming. Annually, 72 hours after a targets storm (0.75 n) Semi- Annually, late wet season and (ate dry season Monthly MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY Annually, after one target2 storm (0.75 in) event during wet season ser manufacture's guidelines 0 Where burrows cause seepage, erosion and eakage, backfill firmly. D Gravity drain where possible. 0 Notify engineer, if mmediate solution is not evident. 0 If standing water can not be removed or remains through wet season notify VCD. Within 30 working days, take corrective action. Consult engineer if mmediate solution is not evident. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY D Remove sediment, trash and debris. 0 check orifice a Notify engineer to consider removing top 2 inches of media and dispose of sediment. Restore media depth fo 18 inches when overall media depth drops to t2 inches. Complete prior to wet season. District 7 filters only None \lone None SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Escondido MS Delaware SF - Remove and restore media depth to 12 inches. Labor Per. Hrs 0 4 2 2 8 44 4 B Rate I Cost 55.7 43,63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 0 0 174.52 87.26 87.26 349.04 1919.72 174.52 0 349.04 Type one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck boom truck i Equipment Days I rate | Cost 0 1 2 1 0.33 26.84 26.84 26.84 26.84 74.94 0 0 26.84 0 0 53.68 182.3 26.84 0 24.7302 Materials Item pump or sarts, confined space equipment drums, shovel, rake drum grappler, confined space equipment characteriza tion and disposal Cost 0 2500 833 Total Cost 0 0 201.36 87.26 87.26 402.72 4602.02 201.36 0 1206.77 Comments Does not nclude Vector Control Agency costs every 3 years 10 1 I I i i i i i i illilifitilllllillIJtitili . I of 16 1/23/2003 APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Caltrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. Inspect for sediment accumulation in sedimentation chamber Inspection for trash / debris Inspect for burrows Inspect for standing water General Maintenance Inspection TOTAL MRDIA FILTER-SAND WO/PUMP MULTI-CHAMBER TREATMENT TRAINS Preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA. ROUTINE ACTIONS Maximum filter drain time of 72 hrs for design and smaller storms Sediment depth exceeds marker on staff gage. Trash and debris iresent Burrows, holes, mounds. Water accumulation in any structure or other location within the fitter Inlet structures, outlet structures, fitter fabric or other features damaged, emergence of vegetation, graffiti or vandalism, fence damage, etc. MAINTENANCE INDICATOR Drain time greater than 72 hours or sediment accumulation is greater than 0.1 inch over more than 50 percent of the fabric surface area. Measure with appropriate device Visual observation Visual observation Standing water in any structure or other ocation within the filter Visual observation FIELD MEASUREMENT Visual observation Jleasure sediment depth annually. During routine trashing, per Districts schedule. Annual inspections after vegetation rimming. Annually, 72 hours after a target2 storm (0.75 n) Seml-AnnuaHy, late wet season and late dry season Monthly MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY After one target2 storm (0.75 in) event during wet season. Remove sediment prior o wet season. Characterize sediment and property dispose. Remove and dispose of rash and debris during routine trashing. 0 Where burrows cause seepage, erosion and eakage, backfill firmly. O Gravity drain where possible. Q Notify engineer, if immediate solution is not evident. 0 If standing water can not be removed or remains through wet season notify VCD. Within 30 working days, take corrective action. Consult engineer if immediate solution is not evident. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY 0 Remove and replace filter fabric blanket. D If problem persists, consult with engineer, the media may need to be replaced. Complete prior to wet season. None None None None SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS None Per. Hrs 8 24 4 2 2 8 60 4 2 Labor Rate 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 Cost 349.04 1047.12 0 174.52 87.26 87.26 349.04 2617.8 174.52 87.26 Equipment Type aoom truck one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck Days 0.33 2 1 2 0 rate 74.94 26.84 26.84 26.84 26.84 0 Cost 24.7302 53.68 0 26.84 0 0 53.68 210.5 26.84 0 Mater! Hem drums, shovel, rake, drum grappler. confined space equipment characteriza tion and disposal confined space equipment als Cost 833 50 1716 0 Total Cost 1206.77 1 150.8 0 201.36 87.26 87.26 402.72 4544.3 201.36 87.26 Comments every 3 years Does not include Vector Control Agency costs 11 I j fi II ii fi 11 II If t \ II II II II 1111 If II II ,2 of 16 1/23/2003 Appendix H Estimated O&M Cost for Treatment BMPs.xls-Details APPENDIX H Estimated O&M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Caltrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. nspection for trash/ debris at inlet and outlet structures and the MCTT nspection for sediment accumulation Replace fitter media every 3 years per designer's specification Inspect sorbent pillows in main settling chamber Inspect pumps for proper unctioning Inspect pumps for serviceability and periodic maintenance General Maintenance Inspection TOTAL MULTI-CHAMBER TREATMENT TRAINS OIL-WATER SEPARATOR Preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA. ROUTINE ACTIONS 'rash and debris iresent Sediment accumulates 50% of the volume underneath the tube settlers. Maximum of 2- eet grit chamber Operation greater than 3 years Darkened by oily material Pump does not operate °er manufacture's guidelines Inlei structures, outlet structures, fitter fabric, settling tubes or other features damaged, emergence of vegetation, graffiti or vandalism, fence damage, etc. MAINTENANCE INDICATOR Visual observation Measure with appropriate device Not applicable visual Observation Energize pump to see if water is discharged Per manufacture's guidelines Visual observation FIELD MEASUREMENT .During routine rashing per District schedule Remove tube settler, measure sediment depth annually Every 3 years Annually, in May. After every storm. Per manufacture's guidelines Semi-Annually, late wel season and late dry season MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY Remove and dispose of rash and debris During routine trashings. Remove sediment prior o wet season. Characterize sediment and property dispose. 0 If standing water can not be removed or remains through the wet season notify VCD. Remove and replace finer media. Characterize and properly dispose. Annually, renew sorbent pillows, or immediately if lillows are darkened by oily material, characterize and properly dispose. Make assessment to determine If problem is electrical or mechanical Take appropriate action. Replace pump if needed. Per manufacture's guidelines Within 30 working days, take corrective action. Consult engineer if immediate solution is not evident. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY None None vlone None None None None None SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Labor Per. Mrs 0 36 2 a 4 0 0 8 64 Rate 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 55.7 43.63 Cost 0 1570.68 87.26 349.04 174.52 0 0 349.04 2792.32 Equipment Type one-Ion truck one-ton truck vactor and one- Ion truck one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck Days 0 1 0.33 1 0 0 2 rate 26.84 26.84 198.75 26.84 26.84 26.84 26.84 Cost 0 26.84 0 65.5875 26.84 0 0 53.68 199.788 L Materials Item confined space equipment drums, shovel, rake, drum grappler, confined space equipment, character iza tion and disposal confined space equipment, characterize tion and disposal sorbent pillov confined space equipment confined space equipment, pump or parts Cost 50 600 1200 100 0 0 1950 Total Cost 50 2197.52 87.26 1614.628 301.36 0 0 402.72 4942.108 Comments Does not include Vector Control Agency costs every three yea 12 1 i I i i i t I i i i f) ii li 11 li ti if ii if .j of 16 1/23/2003 Appendix H Estimated Q&M Cost for Treatment BMPsjds-Detaili APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Cattrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. Inspect for sediment accumulation in the pre- separator and separator chamber nspect for oil accumulation in oil chamber Inspect coatescer for debris and gummy deposits Inspect water level In tank Inspect for general mechanical integrity TOTAL OIL-WATER SEPARATOR WET BASIN preventive Maintenance and Routine Inspections DESIGN CRITERIA, ROUTINE ACTIONS 24-hour draw down measured between the rim of the outlet structure and Invert of the WQ orifice in the outlet structure. Inspect for burrows General Maintenance Inspection Greater than 12-inches Oil depth is not more han 50 percent of chamber volume lebris or gummy deposits present Less than full Per manufacture's guidelines MAINTENANCE INDICATOR Drawdown greater than 25 hours or water is flowing over weir. Burrows, holes, mounds Inlet structures, outlet structures, side slopes or other features damaged, significant erosion, graffiti or vandalism, fence damage, etc. rteasure with appropriate device Gauge the level of oil/water with a wooden gauge stick Visual observation Visual observation Jer manufacture's guidelines FIELD MEASUREMENT Evaluate drain time from inlet and outlet flow data loggers or observe 25 hours after targetZ storm (0.75 in) Observation of water flowing over spillway Visual observation Visual observation Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually MEASUREMENT FREQUENCY Once during wet season and after completion or modification of the facility. Annually and after vegetation trimming. Serni-AnnuaHy, late we1 season and late dry season Prior to wet season, remove the accumulated material. Characterize and properly dispose. 'nor to wet season emove and properly dispose of oil and grease. Wash the coatescer in an appropriate area with tigh-pressure hot water when needed. Fill with water prior to wet season. Operate each mechanical component o ensure proper operation. Repair as needed MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY If >25-hours: D Open gate to discharge water to permanent pool elevation, Q Clear outlet of debris. D Consult engineer if needed. If water is spilling over weir, open canal gate until water level is at permanent pool elevation. Check/clear outlet of debris. Where burrows cause seepage, erosion and leakage, backfill firmly. Take corrective action, or restore to as-constructed condition prior to wet season. Consult engineers if Immediate solution is not evident. Jone None Jone 4one None SITE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS None None None Labor Per. Hrs 4 1 1 1 4 11 4 2 2 4 8 Rale 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 43.63 Cost 174.52 43.63 43.63 43.63 174.52 479.33 174.62 87.26 87.26 87.26 0 174.52 174.52 349.04 I I Equipment Type one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck one-ton truck Days 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 rate 26.84 26.84 26.84 26.84 26.84 26.84 26.84 Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.84 26.84 26.84 26.84 0 26.84 26.84 53.68 Materials Hem esting and disposal esting and disposal Cost 120 60 180 Total Cost 294.52 103.63 43.63 43.63 174.52 659.93 201.36 114.1 114.1 114.1 0 201.36 201.36 402.72 Comments every 5 years every 5 years 13 I i li i i I i I I i I i .4 of 16 1723/2003 APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vtaues derived from Cattrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. nspecl Zone 1 4 for vegetation coverage and density to sustain vector abatement efficacy (See attachments for zone locations.) Inspect Zone 2 4 for vegetation coverage and density to sustain vector abatement efficacy Observable vegetation coverage/density Vegetation density is such that mosquito fish cannot swim freely In the planted area. Visual, visible vegetation growth or emergent vegetation growth Mosquito fish cannot be seen in the planted area, vegetation density approximately 80 to 100 percent Quarterly Quarterly . Have a biologist survey the Wet Basin to determine if any birds are nesting or other sensitive animals are present. If >irds are nesting, with advice from the biologist, proceed with the maintenance. 2. Lower and maintain he water level to expose he area to be maintained, do not completely drain basin 3. Mechanically remove ailCut plantsvegetation 4. Dispose of the vegetation material in a landfill or other appropriate disposal area. 4.5. Restock mosquito ish as recommended by vector control agency. Annually, or at a special request of the local vector control agency 1. Have a biologist survey the Wet Basin to determine If any birds are nesting or other sensitive animals are present. If birds are nesting, with advice from the biologist, proceed with the maintenance. 2. Lower and maintain the water level to expose the area to be maintained, do not completely drain basin None Per. Hrs 8 4 56 24 8 8 4 Labor Rate 70 43.63 43.63 43.63 70 70 43.63 Cost 0 S60 174.52 2443.28 1047.12 560 0 0 560 174.52 I I Equipment Type sedan one-ton truck one-ton truck packer sedan sedan one-ton truck Days 1 1 3 3 1 1 rate ,_ 21.28 26.84 26.84 53.44 21.28 21.28 1 i 26.84 Cost 0 21.28 26.84 80.52 160.32 21.28 0 0 21.28 26.B4 I Materials Item string trimmer. land tools, hand tools, safety equipment Cost 100 50 Total Cost 0 581.28 201.36 2623.8 1257.44 581.28 0 0 581.28 201.36 Comments 14 I i i i i i i i i I i I i I I I I I i * I I 1 ,6 of 16 1/23/2003 APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Cattrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet wilt hange as additional data becomes available. Maintain Vegetated Access Road to reduce fire hazard from contact with vehicle catalytic converters. nspect for sediment accumulation in forebay and main pond TOTAL WET BASIN More than 2 inches in the forebay and 4 inches n the main pond, or j NOTES: | Sediment depth exceeds marker on staff gage. Measure in forebay by estimating depth using stationing along concrete maintenance ramp. In main pond by measuring down from water quality orifice and comparing to as-constructed grade. ! ! When pond is drained for Zone 1 vegetation removal, or every 3 years. 1. Trie design storm event is a storm that has a one year, 24 hour recurrence frequency. 3. Mechanically emoveCut Typha sp. cattail). Sdrpus sp. bulrush) to produce random vegetation clusters (2-5 plants) with clusters at approximately 0.5 meters on centert. An effort should be made o maintain a ratio of Sdrpus to Typha of 2:1. f the vegetation is cut, cut the vegetation to below the permanent >ool water surface. 4. Dispose of the vegetation material in a andfiB or other appropriate disposal area. 5. Monitor vegetation density quarterly to determine grow back rate. Remove and properly dispose of sediment. By November, restore vegetation to the plan shown on the as-built drawings. None La Costa site only Labor Per. Mrs 56 24 4 222 Rate 43.63 43.63 Cost 2443.28 0 174.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9271.62 2. A target storm event is a storm greater than 0.7525 inches of rainfall. For drain inlet inserts, a target storm event is a storm with a prediction of greater than 0.25 inches of rainfall. Equipment Type one-ton packer one-ton Days 3 3 1 rate 26.84 53.44 26.84 Cost 80.52 160.32 26.84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 840.76 | 3. Woody wetland vegetation consists of: willows (Saltx spp), mule fat (baccharis salicrfolia), cottonwood (populus fremontii), and western sycamore (plantanus racemosa). Note, this criterion is not applicable to the wet basin. Mater Item string rimmer, hand tools, bags, safety equipment hand tools, safety equipment als Cost 100 50 300 T" "1 Total Cost 2623.8 210.32 201.36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10412.38 Comments life cycle life cycle 4. Zone 1, open water area of the basin, average depth is about 3 feet. Zone 2, shallow water bench, depth of water 0-12 inches. Zone 3, periodic inundation is the temporary water storage volume impounded between the permanent pool and the overflow weir, i.e. the water quality storage. (See attachments for zone locations.) Zone A is the remaining upland slope between Zone 3 and the maintenance road. 15 16 of 16 1/23/2003 APPENDIX H Estimated O & M Costs for BMP Project Estimated vlaues derived from Caltrans Pilot BMP Study. This spreadsheet will change as additional data becomes available. j 1 Per. Mrs Labor Rate Cost Type 1 Equipment Days rate | Cost Materials Hem Cost Total Cost Comments threatened and endangered species harborage. Further, some of the maintenance recommendations are based on the requirements of specific plant species used in this Pilot Program. The recommendations provided in this document must be reassessed with respect to species and plant materials if the guidance contained herein is to be used for a separate project in another area. 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION 9 R Agua Hedionda Creek 9 E Agua Hedionda Lagoon 9 R AHso Creek 9 E Aliso Creek (mouth) 9 E Buena Vista Lagoon 90431000 90431000 90113000 90113000 90421000 Total Dissolved Solids Bacteria Indicators Sedimentation/Siltation Bacteria Indicators Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown point source Nonpoint/Point Source Phosphorus Impairment located at lower 4 miles. Urban Runofl/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Toxicity Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Bacteria Indicators Bacteria Indicators Nonpoint/Point Source Low Low Low Medium Low Low Medium Low Nonpoint/Point Source Nutrients Low Estimated size of impairment is 150 acres located in upper portion of lagoon. Nonpoint/Point Source Sedimentation/Siltation Medium Nonpoint/Point Source 7 Miles 6.8 Acres 6.8 Acres 19 Miles 19 Miles 19 Miles 0.29 Acres 202 Acres 202 Acres 202 Acres Page Iofl6 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD rmm'ff b\ VSEPA: CALWATER POTENTIAL REGION TYPE NAME WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR SOURCES 9 R Chollas Creek 90822000 Bacteria Indicators Cadmium Copper Diazinon Lead Zinc Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source TMDL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TMDL PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED COMPLETION Medium High High High High High 1.2 Miles 1.2 Miles 2004 1.2 Miles 2004 1.2 Miles 2002 1.2 Miles 2004 1.2 Miles 2004 R Cloverdale Creek B Dana Point Harbor E Famosa Slough and Channel 90532000 Phosphorus Total Dissolved Solids Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Low Low 90114000 Bacteria Indicators Impairment located at Baby Beach. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Marinas and Recreational Boating Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Medium 90711000 Eutrophic Low Nonpoint Source 1.2 Miles 1.2 Miles 119 Acres 32 Acres Page 2 of16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD bv USKP.I- July 2001 REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION R Felicita Creek R Forester Creek R Green Valley Creek L Guajome Lake 90523000 90712000 90511000 90311000 Total Dissolved Solids Agricultural Return Flows Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Fecal Coliform Impairment Located at lower 1 mile. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Spills Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source PH Impairment Located at upper 3 miles. Industrial Point Sources Habitat Modification Spills Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Total Dissolved Solids Impairment Located at lower I mile. Agricultural Return Flows Urban RunofPStorm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Low Medium Sulfates Eutrophic Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Natural Sources Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Nonpoint/Point Source Low Low Low Low 0.92 Miles 6.4 Miles 6.4 Miles 6.4 Miles 1.2 Miles 33 Acres Pagei of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Approved h\ I'SKPA: .liiir 20D.< REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER " ' '' ; ' ' ~ -, WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION Hodges, Lake R Kit Carson Creek E Loma Alta Slough 90521000 90S21000 90410000 Color Nitrogen Phosphorus Total Dissolved Solids Total Dissolved Solids Bacteria Indicators Eutrophic Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Agriculture Dairies Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Agriculture Dairies Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Agricultural Return Flows Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Natural Sources Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Agricultural Return Flows Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Nonpoint Source Nonpoint Source Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 1104 Acres 1104 Acres 1104 Acres 1104 Acres 0.99 Miles 8.2 Acres 8.2 Acres Page 4 of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Ifiprnredhy I'SEI' I- REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TMDL PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED COMPLETION 9 E Los Penasquitos Lagoon B Mission Bay R Murrieta Creek C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Aliso HSA C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Buena Vista Creek HA C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Dana Point HSA 90610000 90640000 90252000 90113000 90421000 90114000 Sedimentation/Siltation Nonpoint/Point Source Low Medium 469 Acres 2032 AcresBacteria Indicators Impairment located along entire bay shoreline. Nonpoint/Point Source Eutrophic Low 2032 Acres Estimated area of impairment of 0.5 acres located at mouth of Rose Creek and 0.5 acres located at mouth of Tecolote Creek. Nonpoint/Point Source Lead Low 2032 Acres Estimated area of impairment of 0.5 acres located at mouth of Rose Creek and 0.5 acres located at mouth of Tecolote Creek. Nonpoint/Point Source Phosphorus Low 12 Miles Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Bacteria Indicators Medium 0.65 Miles Impairment located at Laguna Beach at Lagunita Place / Blue Lagoon Place, Aliso Beach. Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Low 1.2 Miles Impairment located at Buena Vista Creek, Carlsbad City Beach at Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad State Beach at Pine Avenue. Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Medium 2 Miles Impairment located at Aliso Beach at West Street, Aliso Beach at Table Rock Drive, 1000 Steps Beach at Pacific Coast Hwy (Hospital, 9th Ave), Salt Creek (large outlet), Salt Creek Beach at Salt Creek service road, Salt Creek Beach at Dana Strand Road. Nonpoint/Point Source Page 5 of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Approvalbr VSEP.i: liiiv 20(13 REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TMDL PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED COMPLETION 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Escondido Creek 90461000 HA 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Laguna Beach HSA 90112000 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Loma Alta HA 90410000 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Lower San Juan 90120000 HSA 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Miramar Reservoir 90610000 HA 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Clemente HA 90130000 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Diego HU 90711000 Bacteria Indicators Low 0.44 Miles Impairment located at San Elijo Lagoon outlet. Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Medium 1.8 Miles Impairment located at Main Laguna Beach, Laguna Beach at Ocean Avenue, Laguna Beach at Laguna Avenue. Laguna Beach at Cleo Street, Arch Cove at Bluebird Canyon Road, Laguna Beach at Dumond Drive. Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Low 1.1 Miles Impairment located at Loma Alta Creek Mouth. Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Medium 1.2 Miles Impairment located at North Beach Creek, San Juan Creek (large outlet), Capistrano Beach, South Capistrano Beach at Beach Road. Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Low Impairment located at Torrey Pines Stale Beach at Del Mar (Anderson Canyon). Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source 0.39 Miles 3.7 MilesBacteria Indicators Medium Impairment located at Poche Beach (large outlet), Ole Hanson Beach Club Beach at Pico Drain, San Clemente City Beach at El Portal St. Stairs, San Clemente City Beach at Mariposa St., San Clemente City Beach at Linda Lane, San Clemente City Beach at South Linda Lane, San Clemente City Beach at Lifeguard Headquarters, Under San Clemente Municipal Pier, San Clemente City Beach at Trafalgar Canyon (Trafalgar Ln.), San Clemente State Beach at Riviera Beach, San Clemente State Beach at Cypress Shores. Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Medium Impairment located at San Diego River Mouth (aka Dog Beach). Nonpoint/Point Source 0.37 Miles Page 6 of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Ipprnvuri IT > 'SKP.-\: REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIALSOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TMDL PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED COMPLETION 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Diequito HI) 90511000 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Joaquin Hills HSA 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Marcos HA 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Scripps HA 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Tijuana HU 9 R Pine Valley Creek (Upper) 90111000 9 C Pacific Ocean Shoreline, San Luis Rey HU 90311000 90451000 90630000 91111000 91141000 Bacteria Indicators Low 0.86 Miles Impairment located at San Dieguito Lagoon Mouth, Solana Beach. Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Low 0.63 Miles Impairment located at Cameo Cove at Irvine Cove Dr./Riviera Way, Heisler Park-North Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Bacteria Indicators Impairment located at San Luis Rey River Mouth. Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Impairment located at Moonlight Stale Beach. Nonpoint/Point Source Low Low Medium 0.49 Miles 0.5 Miles 3.9 MilesBacteria Indicators Impairment located at La Jolla Shores Beach at El Paseo Grande, La Jolla Shores Beach at Caminito Del Oro, La Jolla Shores Beach at Vallecitos, La Jolla Shores Beach at Ave de la Playa, Casa Beach (Childrens Pool), South Casa Beach at Coast Blvd., Whispering Sands Beach at Ravina St., Windansea Beach at Vista de la Playa, Windansea Beach at Bonair St., Windansea Beach at Playa del Norte, Windansea Beach at PalomarAve., Tourmaline Surf Park, Pacific Beach at Grand Ave. Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Low Impairment located from the border, extending north along the shore. Nonpoint/Point Source Enterococci Medium Grazing-Related Sources Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (permitted, point source) Transient encampments 3 Miles 2.9 Miles Page 7 of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION R Prima Deshecha Creek 90130000 R Rainbow Creek 90222000 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, 32nd St San Diego Naval Station 90822000 San Diego Bay Shoreline, between Sampson and 28th Streets 90822000 Phosphorus Turbidity Nitrogen Phosphorus Benthic Community Effects Sediment Toxicity Copper Mercury PAHs Low Low Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source High Agricultural Return Flows Other Urban Runoff Nurseries Onsite Wastewater Systems (Septic Tanks) Nonpoint/Point Source High Agricultural Return Flows Other Urban Runoff Nurseries Onsite Wastewater Systems (Septic Tanks) Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Medium Medium High High High 1.2 Miles 1.2 Miles 5 Miles 5 Miles 103 Acres 103 Acres 55 Acres 55 Acres 55 Acres 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 Page 8 of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD l hr I'SEP i: .liilv 2<W1 REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION C San Diego Bay Shoreline, Chula Vista Marina 90912000 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, Downtown Anchorage 90821000 9 C San Diego Bay Shoreline, G Street Pier 90821000 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, near Chollas Creek 90822000 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, near Coronado 90822000 Bridge PCBs Zinc Bacteria Indicators Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source High High Low Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Marinas and Recreational Boating Boatyards Boat Discharges/Vessel Wastes Benthic Community Effects Medium Nonpoint/Point Source Sediment Toxicity Medium Nonpoint/Point Source Bacteria Indicators Low 55 Acres 55 Acres 0.41 Miles 2003 2003 7.4 Acres 7.4 Acres 0.42 Miles Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Benthic Community Effects Medium Nonpoint/Point Source Sediment Toxicity Medium Nonpoint/Point Source Benthic Community Effects Medium Nonpoint/Point Source Sediment Toxicity Medium Includes Crosby Street/Cesar Chavez Park area, that will receive additional monitoring. Nonpoint/Point Source 15 Acres 15 Acres 37 Acres 37 Acres Page 9 of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, near sub base 90810000 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, near Switzer Creek 90821000 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, North of 24th Street Marine Terminal 9 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, Seventh Street Channel 90832000 90831000 Benthic Community Effects Sediment Toxicity Chlordane Lindane PAHs Benthic Community Effects Sediment Toxicity Benthic Community Effects Sediment Toxicity Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Other Boatyards Nonpoint/Point Source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Other Boatyards Nonpoint/Point Source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Other Boatyards Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium 16 Acres 16 Acres 5.5 Acres 5.5 Acres 5.5 Acres 9.5 Acres 9.5 Acres 9 Acres 9 Acres Page I Oof 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD br USEP July I'XI REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION 9 C San Diego Bay Shoreline, Shelter Island 90810000 Shoreline Park 9 C San Diego Bay Shoreline, Tidelands Park 91010000 B San Diego Bay Shoreline, Vicinity of BSt 90821000 and Broadway Piers 9 B San Diego Bay, Shelter Island Yacht Basin 90810000 9 R San Diego River (Lower)90711000 Bacteria Indicators Bacteria Indicators Low Low Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Bacteria Indicators Low Estimated size of impairment is 0.4 miles around the shoreline of the bay. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Benthic Community Effects Medium Nonpoint/Point Source Sediment Toxicity Medium Nonpoint/Point Source Copper, Dissolved Nonpoint/Point Source Fecal Coliform Lower 6 miles. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Wastewater Nonpoint/Point Source Low Dissolved Oxygen Impairment transcends adjacent Calwater wtareshed 90712. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source High Low Low 0.42 Miles 0.38 Miles 9.9 Acres 9.9 Acres 9.9 Acres 153 Acres 12 Miles 12 Miles 2003 Page 11 of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED '(I by VSEPA: PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION 9 E San Elijo Lagoon 9 R San Juan Creek 9 E San Juan Creek (mouth) 9 R San Luis Rey River 9046100U 90120000 90120000 90311000 Phosphorus Impairment transcends adjacent Calwater watershed 90712. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Total Dissolved Solids Impairment transcends adjacent Calwater watershed 90712. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Natural Sources Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Bacteria Indicators Estimated size of impairment is 150 acres. Nonpoint/Point Source Eutrophic Estimated size of impairment is 330 acres. Nonpoint/Point Source Sedimentation/Siltation Estimated size of impairment is 150 acres. Nonpoint/Point Source Low Low Bacteria Indicators Bacteria Indicators Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Chloride Impairment located at lower 13 miles. Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Low Low Medium Medium Medium Low 12 Miles 12 Miles 566 Acres 566 Acres 566 Acres 1 Miles 6.3 Acres 19 Miles Page 12 of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Approved by S'SEl'l: July 200 f REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION 9 R Sandia Creek 9 E Santa Margarita Lagoon 9 R Santa Margarita River (Upper) 9 R Segunda Deshecha Creek 90222000 90211000 90222000 90130000 Total Dissolved Solids Total Dissolved Solids Eutrophic Phosphorus Phosphorus Turbidity Low Industrial Point Sources Agriculture-storm runoff Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Surface Mining Flow Regulation/Modification Natural Sources Golf course activities Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Flow Regulation/Modification Natural Sources Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Nonpoint/Point Source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Construction/Land Development Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Channelization Flow Regulation/Modification Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Low Low Low Low Low 19 Miles 1.5 Miles 28 Acres 18 Miles 0.92 Miles 0.92 Miles Page 13 of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD I CALWATER ~ REGION TYPE NAME WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR 9 L Sutherland Reservoir 90553000 Color 9 R Tecolote Creek 90650000 Bacteria Indicators Cadmium Copper Lead Toxicity Zinc 9 R Tijuana River 91111000 Bacteria Indicators Eutrophic Low Dissolved Oxygen Pesticides Solids Synthetic Organics Trace Elements Trash POTENTIAL SOURCES Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source Nonpoint/Point Source TMDL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TMDL PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED COMPLETION Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 561 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Acres Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Miles Nonpoint/Point Source Page 14nfl6 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD REGION TYPE NAME GALWATER WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED Approved by I 'SEP4: PROPOSED TMDL COMPLETION 9 E Tijuana River Estuary 91111000 Bacteria Indicators Low Estimated size of impairment is 150 acres. Nonpoint/Point Source Eutrophic Low Estimated size of impairment is 1 acre. Nonpoint/Point Source Lead Low Estimated size of impairment is I acre. Nonpoint/Point Source Low Dissolved Oxygen Low Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers Wastewater Unknown Nonpoint Source Unknown point source Nickel Low Estimated size of impairment is 1 acre. Nonpoint/Point Source Pesticides Low Estimated size of impairment is I acre. Nonpoint/Point Source Thallium Low Estimated size of impairment is 1 acre. Nonpoint/Point Source Trash Low Estimated size of impairment is I acre. Nonpoint/Point Source 1319 Acres 1319 Acres 1319 Acres 1319 Acres 1319 Acres 1319 Acres 1319 Acres 1319 Acres Page 75 of 16 2002 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENT SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD •\ppro\vdbr I'SEP. I: REGION TYPE NAME CALWATER . f ' ' ' ' WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR POTENTIAL SOURCES TMDL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TMDL PRIORITY SIZE AFFECTED COMPLETION ABBREVIATIONS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 North Coast San Francisco Bay Central Coast Los Angeles Central Valley Lahontan Colorado River Basin Santa Ana San Diego WATER BODY TYPE B = C = E = L = R = S = T = W= Bays and Harbors Coastal Shorelines/Beaches Estuaries Lakes/Reserviors Rivers and Streams Saline Lakes Wetlands, Tidal Wetlands, Freshwater CALWATER WATERSHED "Calwater Watershed" is the State Water Resources Control Board hydrologica) subunit area or an even smaller area delineation. GROUP A PESTICIDES OR CHEM A aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorocyclohexane (including lindane), endosulfan, and toxaphenc Page 16 of 16 ATTACHMENT "E" Hydrology and Hydraulic Report HYDROLOGY REPORT OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUM 2303-2327 Ocean Street City of Carlsbad Prepared for: 2303 Investors, LP. 1020 Prospect Street, Suite 314 La Jolla, CA 92037 Prepared by: briA, Inc. land planning, civil engineering, surveying 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 May 11, 2005 Revised July 30, 2007 W.O. 724-0978-400 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Discussion II. Calculations A. Existing 100-Year Storm Hydrology B. Developed 100-Year Storm Hydrology III. Exhibits A. Existing Hydrology Map B. Developed Hydrology Map IV. References I. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION: This is a Hydrology Report for the proposed Tentative Map for the Ocean Street Condominium project in the City of Carlsbad. This 3.1 acre site is located on Ocean Street between Mountain View Drive and Garfield Street. This Development proposes the construction of 35 residential condominium units. In the existing condition, the project site is occupied by several apartment buildings and parking spaces. The runoff from project's frontage, Ocean Street, flows to two existing curb inlets in Ocean Street, just east and west of the site. The runoff from the site flows in a northwestern direction, through a series of pipes arid gutters in the apartment complex, and outlets into Buena Vista Lagoon. In the proposed condition, the apartment buildings and garage structure will be demolished and removed. A 35-unit condominium complex with underground parking garage and a paved driveway will be constructed. The runoff from the driveway is collected by the proposed rolled curb and channeled to a curb opening near the fire truck turn around. From the curb opening, the driveway's runoff is filtered and released into a proposed grassy swale along the northern boundary. The runoff from the structures, hard scape, and pool area will be collected by the internal storm drain system and piped to the northern portion of the property. The runoff is released into the proposed grassy swale where it is filtered and released into Buena Vista Lagoon. Drainage basin areas were determined from the proposed finish grades as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map for the above referenced project. Using the Rational Method, the on- site Runoff Coefficients were determined as: User Specified Storm Event (Year) = 100 6-Hour Duration Precipitation (Inches) = 2.6 Soil Classification of "A" will be assumed for the drainage basins for the hydrology calculation. Existing Runoff Coefficient = 0.60 (60% impervious) Developed Runoff Coefficient = Residential (43 Du/Ac) = 0.76 (80% impervious) The exhibits show the proposed on-site drainage system, subarea, acreage, and nodal points. This study considers the runoff for a 100-year storm frequency and the on-site drainage system shown in the Tentative Map. The above referenced project is designed for a 100-year storm frequency. The actual size and location of the pipe will be design during the final engineering. The summary of existing and developed runoff is in Table 1-1 Table 1-1 Summary of Existing and Developed Runoff Basin 1 Total Per Acre Existing (node/cfs/ac) 3/11.93/3.23 3.69 cfs/ac Developed (node/cfs/ac) 8/ 8.83/2.66 3.32 cfs/ac CONCLUSION: The proposed design does not adversely affect the surrounding properties. The storm drain system adequately drains the proposed project in a 100-year storm event. (The actual sizing of the internal storm drain system will be done during the Final Engineering Stage.) II. CALCULATIONS II. CALCULATIONS A. EXISTING 100-YEAR STORM HYDROLOGY J ****************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2005 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 06/01/2005 License ID 1459 Analysis prepared by: Bha, Inc. 5115 Avenida Encinas Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008 nDDDnnnnnDnnDDDDDDDDDDDnnnnnannnnnnnnnnnnDnnDnnDnnnnnnnnnnanannDDDDDnDonnnDD ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 100 YEAR EXISTING HYDROLOGY * * OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUMS * * 724-0978-400 * ************************************************************************** FILENAME: K:\HYDRO\0978\E1.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 16:08 07/31/2007 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* | OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUM - W.O. 724-0978-400 | j EXISTING 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY j j EXISTING BASIN 1 |!___________________., _ ______ _L **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 >»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<«« *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): RESIDENTAIL (14.5 DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 69 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 38.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 34.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.212 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 51 >»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<«« >»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <«« ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 34.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 10.30 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 720.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0329 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.155 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): RESIDENTAIL (14.5 DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 69 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.12 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.10 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.69 Tc(MIN.) = 5.90 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.18 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.74 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.600 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.23 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.93 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.47 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.68 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 790.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 3.23 TC(MIN.) = 5.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 11.93 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS II. CALCULATIONS B. DEVELOPED 100-YEAR STORM HYDROLOGY r******************************************************* RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2005 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 06/01/2005 License ID 1459 Analysis prepared by: Bha, Inc. 5115 Avenida Encinas Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 100 Year Proposed Hydrology * * OCEAN STREET CONDUMINUMS * * 724-0978-400 * ***************************************************** FILE NAME: 0978PR.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 17:31 08/01/2007 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE (INCH) = 8.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE =0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C" -VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET- SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL : CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 >»»RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<«« RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7600 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 86 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 50.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 44.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 43.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.50 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.327 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.850 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.47 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.47 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 41 >»»COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<«« >»»USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) <«« ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 14.60 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 12.80 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 8.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.13 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 8.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.47 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.96 Tc(MIN.) = 5.29 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 230.00 FEET. ************************************************************* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 81 >»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<«« 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.608 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7600 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 86 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.46 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.38 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.91 TC(MIN.) = 5.29 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 41 >»»COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<«« >»»USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) <«« ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 12.80 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 12.50 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 40.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.1 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.98 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 12.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 1.91 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN-) = 0.17 Tc(MIN.) = 5.45 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 4.00 = 270.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 81 i I >»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<«« B 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.476 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7600 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 86 g AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.38 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.87 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.76 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.74 _ TC(MIN.) = 5.45c **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE = 41IP >»»COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<«« >»»USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE (EXISTING ELEMENT) <«« B ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 12.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 12.20 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 30.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 16.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.1 INCHES g PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.25 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 16.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 3.74 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.10 Tc(MIN.) = 5.55 I LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 5.00 = 300.00 FEET. ****************************************************** • FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 51 >»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«<« >»»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <«« • ============================================================================ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 12.20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 11.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 130.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0054 _ CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 6.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000 • MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.351 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7600 | SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 86 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.86 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.22 • AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.34 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.78 Tc(MIN.) = 7.33 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.24 g AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.760 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.82 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.74 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: • DEPTH(FEET) = 0.33 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.21 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 430.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 81 I >»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< • ======================================================-============:========= 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.351 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7600 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 86 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.86 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.50 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.68 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.83 TC(MIN.) = 7.33 ************************************************* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 51 >»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<«« »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <«« ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 11.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 10.95 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 170.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0032 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 6.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.470 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7600 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 86 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 6.92 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.20 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.52 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.36 Tc(MIN.) = 9.69 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.17 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.760 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.73 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.83 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.51 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.19 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 7.00 = 600.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 81 >»»ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<«« 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.470 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7600 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 86 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.7600 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.87 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.96 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.83 TC(MIN.) = 9.69 **************************************************************************** FLOW'PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 8.00 is CODE = 51 >»»COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<«« »>»TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) <«« ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 10.95 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 10.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 110.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0050 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 6.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.144 RESIDENTAIL (43. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7600 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 86 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 8.93 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.52 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.52 TRAVEL TIME(MIN-) = 1.21 TcfMIN.) = 10.90 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.19 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.760 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.66 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.52 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 1.51 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 8.00 = 710.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.66 TCfMIN.) = 10.90 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.83 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS III. EXHIBITS III. EXHIBITS A. EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP III. EXHIBITS A. DEVELOPED HYDROLOGY MAP IV. REFERENCES BEST ORIG II It 1 i II 1 ill!II 11 I i i i li i i i I i 10.0 9.C 8.C 7.C 6.C 5.C 4.C 3.C 2.0 o.e 0.5 0.4 02 0.1j , s s s, — si •^ s s INNNT V Xli. isT xTjV X I ! > i ; j : i i i i ii • 1 1 S s- S x X s s Si Si s Vk X, s s s s s s. s. x s ^ s, s > ^, X ;x s fc ^ N^ ^ i 6 7 3 9 tO 15 4 >'ss vis<,'fi;x;^sx '! '"""• ''i ""l '''« v^ 'S '' "'«T l j i ; 1 i 11 s* ' L ' k S ' s. i I ' X ' , ' i.^" ' i'^'> , i \s1 1 i • I ' s; • ii 1 11' f ,1; i ! : . i f f. - , i ^ i_- i \ . J 1 |; 1 | ! 1 1 1 i ;•. i Ij l 'i'V'1*! i NI '4 '• J '' ^, ^ l' S, ' 1 1 1 lit = r!S5 - - • -H t 4. . ij 4 F i = ! if ; LL • *LL ;i 'tt Ml 20 3D 40 50 1 Mimjtes Duration EQUATION 1 = 7.44 P6D-0-645 1 = Intensity (in/hr) P6 - 6-Hour Precipitation D = Duration (min) T j a i > v xi s j i -L \ 1 S 1^ : E *h.,, : fIjI i ni . s s ^•^ %, y ^ S ^->. §;§- x,. 4<>» *> "V. S|*s '•^ ^ ^ \fc s- ' 15 x '' ^ , v> * \^ 2 3 Hours (in) g X ' y : J k — * 1 ! ; . R n ^ , - , E ! 5.5 S S.C' 5.0 § 's f-l £-5-j| •s I-, . L . ? nx r. ^ L . 2-5 _ ... 1.5 Si . . I - - • 10 466 Direct* (1>Fro fort COL intl (2)Adj the app (3) Ptol (4)Dra (5) This beir Applic; (a) SeU (c) Adji Note: 1 c P8 Dwaticn 5 ~J 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 «D 90 120 150 180 240 300 360 ons for Application: m precipitation maps determine 6 hr and 24 hr amounts he seiected frequency. These maps are included in ihe mty Hydrology .Manual (10, 50, and 100 yr maps included ie Design and Procedure Manual). jst 6 hr precipitation (if necessary) so thai it is within range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr precipitation (not licaple to Desert). 6 hr precipitation on the right side of the chart. w a line through the point parallel to the plotted tines, s line is the intensity-duration curve for the location ig analyzed. stfort Form: jcted freauencv /&£> year = 2.(o in Po,= ¥:$ -3z- = 5^3 %*> ~1 P24 min. in./hr. "his chart replaces the Intensity-Duraticn-Frequency urves used since 1965. 1 HJ5 1 2 2.5 3 JLS 4 4.5 S 5.5 6 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 263i39Sl527 6.59 793 $.22 1C.54 1185 13.1? 14*5 1581 ~2 12 fl 18J4~24 530 635^742 848 95* 10SO I1 56 12.72 "168 253J337 42' 5,05 5 90* 6 74 ' 7.58 842 * 9.27 1011 IJO *19S|25S 3.24 3B9J454 519 584^649*713 778 108 *1«2t21S 269 3.23, 377T431 4.KS SJS'SS' 646 643 '1401187 233 2 Kr S^7< 373 420 467 5.13 SSC' CJ3"I124^1€6 207 2*9*290 332'3.73 415 4^6 493 069*103,138 172207~24" 276*3-ol345 37S 4 13 | CW 090*119 149 179209 239 26S ^9S 32S 353 C.53 080! 1 CSi 133 1.55; 1^; 2.12 ; 2.39 i 2.G5 2.92 i 3.13 i C41 Q61I0B2 102 1.23 1 1 43 163 1.8* 2.04 2L25 245, tSA 'OSll068 0^15 102 1 19 136 1.53 ' 1 7D '.87 204 C^9_C44]OS9!C.73;O.BS] Ij03 118 1^2 147^-62 176 f *M& "f 1O* 1 fj f* JKK A 7R* t* O^ ^ 1 f\A 1 ^fl 1 14 * ' SJl 1 C7Vw^D ;S..o5*) v.S^f s U.GO U./D;t.^* 1 O4 1 o 1XJT ^4 * &/ C.22 ,033 3 43 C 54 0 65 C 76 C 87 i 0 98 1 03 * 1= '30 C.19 '028028 C.4? O^S C.66 C?5 OSS 094 IOC '13 "C.17 D.25 333 C.42'o^0 0.58* C 67 0.75*084 052 ".DC FIG U R E Intensity-Duration Design Chart - Template 3-1 li 1 i t i 1 i li • II i i li i i f i I a I i i I i -33-301- 33-151 33'00' 33-30' 32M5' 15' 32'3d' County of San Diego Hydrology Manual Rainfall Isopluvials 100 Year Rainfall Event - 6 Hours Isopluvial (inches) DPW C^TCSafiGIS VfCLUDJMG BUTNOriKUltEOtO Tl«NlAfliUrYM«>FnFCSSFD't*'>'WttiC 303 Miles I i I i i 1 i t i i i i i § I i i I i i i County of San Diego Hydrology Manual Riverside County••-.-&. /«••:* y Rainfall Isopluvials 100 Year Rainfall Event - 24 Hours _ .ORMPUEO NCLUDIHa. BUT MOT LIMITED TO THEIUPllEOW*RRANl<EOF MEBCH*MABILITY AND FfTPCBS FOfl *P*HTCtH*ft KfAPOSE CoewtaM M e x i -c ° BEST ORIGINAL o o BEST ORIGINAL I 1 660000 FEET R. 5 W. I R. 4 W. lAVLt: - Ib INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND MANAGEMENT KEY TO INTERPRETATION RATING SYMBOLS: (3/4) HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUPS: LIMITATIONS: Soil Map Symbol3 (D InA InB loA IsA KcC KcD2 LaE2 LaE3 LcE LcE2 LcF2 LdE « (La) (Sp) LdG c (La) (Sp) LeC LeC2 LeD LeD2 LeE LeE2 LeE3 LfC c (Le) (Ur) LfE ° (Le) (Ur) LpB LpC LpC2 LpD2 LpE2 LrE LrE2 LrG LsE LsF A - HIGH INFILTRATION RATE SL • SLIGHT DEGREE OF LIMITATION B • MODERATE INFILTRATION RATE M • MODERATE DEGREE OF LIMITATION C • SLOW INFILTRATION RATE SE - SEVERE DEGREE OF LIMITATION D • VER Y SLOW INFIL TRA TION RA TE Interpretation Rating*HydrologicGroup(2) C C C C B B A A A A A A C A C D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D C C Erodibility by Water (3) SE (str) SE (str) SE (str) SE (str) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (sip) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (sip) SE (sip) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) M (txt) M (txt) M (txt) M (txt) M (sip) M (sip) M (sip) SE (sip) M (txt) SE (sip) ill (4) SL 9 SL g( SL 9 SE 9 M 9 M 9 M 9 M a M 3 M a M * SL SL SL SL SL SL SE SL SL SL SL SL M M M M M Soil Map Symbol3 (D Lu LvF3 c (Lu) (Hr) Mr1 MIC MIE MnA MnB MoA MpA2 MrG MvA MvC MvD MxA OhC OhE OhF OkC c (Oh) (Ur) OkE c (Oh) (Ur) PeA PeC PeC2 PeD2 PfA PfC Py RaA RaB RaC RaC2 RaD2 RcD Interpretation Rating*HydrologicGroup1(2) B D D D A A B B B B D A A A D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D C C C C C C Erodibility by Water (3) SE (str) SE (sip) SE (sip) SE (txt) ^ SE (txt) SE (str) SE (str) SE (str) SE (str) SE (sip) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (txt) SE (str) SE (str) SE (sip) SE (dpt) SE (dpt) SE (dpt) SE (dpt) SE (str) SE (str) M (txt) SE (str) SE (str) SE (str) SE (str) SE (str) SE (str) ||| (4) SL SE SE SL SL SE SL * SL a SL a SL a SL SL M SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 95 i i i i it li If i i t I I I i II l i 11 i i I i i i t i San Diego County Hydrology Manual Date: June 2003 Section: Page: 3 6 of 26 Table 3-1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAS Land Use NRCS Elements Undisturbed Natural Terrain (Natural) Low Density Residential (LDR) Low Density Residential (LDR) Low Density Residential (LDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) High Density Residential (HDR) High Density Residential (HDR) Commercial/Industrial (N. Com) Commercial/Industrial (G. Com) Commercial/Industrial (O.P. Com) Commercial/Industrial (Limited I.) Commercial/Industrial (General I.) County Elements Permanent Open Space Residential, 1 .0 DU/A or less Residential, 2.0 DU/A or less Residential, 2.9 DU/A or less Residential, 4.3 DU/A or less Residential, 7.3 DU/A or less Residential, 10.9 DU/A or less Residential, 14.5 DU/A or less Residential, 24.0 DU/A or less Residential, 43.0 DU/A or less Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Office Professional/Commercial Limited Industrial General Industrial Runoff Coefficient "C" Soil Type % IMPER. 0* 10 20 25 30 40 45 50 65 80 80 85 90 90 95 A 0.20 0.27 0.34 0.38 0.41 0.48 0.52 0.55 0.66 0.76 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.83 0.87 B 0.25 0.32 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.67 0.77 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.87 C 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.45 0.48 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.69 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.84 0.87 D 0.35 0.41 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.57 0.60 0.63 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.87 *The values associated with 0% impervious may be used for direct calculation of the coefficient, Cp, for the soil type), or for areas that will remain undisturbed in perpetuity. is located in Cleveland National Forest). DU/A = dwelling units per acre NRCS = National Resources Conservation Service runoff coefficient as described in Section 3.1.2 (representing the pervious runoff Justification must be given that the area will remain natural forever (e.g., the area 3-6 San Diego County Hydrology Manual Date: June 2003 Section: Page: 3 12 of 26 Note that the Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the general land-use at the upstream end of a drainage basin. A single lot with an area of two or less acres does not have a significant effect where the drainage basin area is 20 to 600 acres. Table 3-2 provides limits of the length (Maximum Length (LM)) of sheet flow to be used in hydrology studies. Initial Ti values based on average C values for the Land Use Element are also included. These values can be used in planning and design applications as described below. Exceptions may be approved by the "Regulating Agency" when submitted with a detailed study. Table 3-2 MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH (LM) & INITIAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION (T,) Element* Natural LDR LDR LDR MDR MDR MDR MDR HDR HDR N. Com G. Com O.P./Com Limited I. General I. DU/ Acre 1 2 2.9 4.3 7.3 10.9 14.5 24 43 .5% LM 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Ti 13.2 12.2 11.3 10.7 10.2 9.2 8.7 8.2 6.7 5.3 5.3 4.7 4.2 4.2 3.7 1% LM 70 70 70 70 70 65 65 65 65 65 60 60 60 60 60 Ti 12.5 11.5 10.5 10.0 9.6 8.4 7.9 7.4 6.1 4.7 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.2 2% LM 85 85 85 85 80 80 80 80 75 75 75 75 70 70 70 Ti 10.9 10.0 9.2 8.8 8.1 7.4 6.9 6.5 5.1 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.1 3.1 2.7 3% LM 100 100 100 95 95 95 90 90 90 85 85 85 80 80 80 Ti 10.3 9.5 8.8 8.1 7.8 7.0 6.4 6.0 4.9 3.8 3.8 3.4 2.9 2.9 2.6 5% LM 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 95 95 95 90 90 90 90 Ti 8.7 8.0 7.4 7.0 6.7 6.0 5.7 5.4 4.3 3.4 3.4 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.3 10% LM 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Ti 6.9 6.4 5.8 5.6 5.3 4.8 4.5 4.3 3.5 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.9 *See Table 3-1 for more detailed description 3-12 • EQUATION A E /11.9L»\0.385 Feet \ AE / 5000 Tc = Time of concentration (hours) L = Watercourse Distance (miles) — 4000 ^E _ change in elevation along - effective slope line (See Figure 3-5) (feet) 3000 Tc Hours 2000 4 3 1000 -900 ,; 800 2 -"TOO -600\ — 500 X\ 400 \ .S^fe 300 "&\ S\ 200 \ \ S «-\ Miles Feet S— 100 1^n : A ~ _ *"" 0.5 —— 50 — 40 mr — 30 — 20 — 10 L.4000 - \ — 3000 N N 2000 S N — 1800 \ — 1600 \ — 1400 S — 1200 — 1000 — 900 — 800 — 700 — 600 — 500 — 400 ~ — 300 — 200 Minutes — 240 — 180 — 120 — 100 —90 — 80 — 70 — 60 — 50 — 40 — 30 20 — 18 — 16 — 14 — 12 10 — 9 — 8 — 7 — 6 — 5 — 4 —3 AE L Tc SOURCE: California Division of Highways (1941 ) and Kirpich (1940) iHH Nomograph for Determination of Time of Concentration (Tc) or Travel Time (Tt) for Natural Watersheds FIGURE 3-4 Watershed Divide. Watershed Divide Area "A" = Area "B" SOURCE: California Division of Highways (1941) and Kirpich (1940) Design Point (Watershed Outlet) FIGURE Computation of Effective Slope for Natural Watersheds 3-5 0.4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Discharge (C.F.S.) EXAMPLE: Given: Q = 10 S - 2.5% Chart gives: Depth - 0.4, Velocity = 4.4 f.p.s. SOURCE: San Diego County Department of Special District Services Design Manual 20 30 40 50 Gutter and Roadway Discharge - Velocity Chart FIGURE 3-6 EQUATION: V = 1,49 R^ s^ n i 1 L_<uQ. •Jj .2 .C 111CL O C/3 p-0.3 .0.2 • 0.15 -0.10 •0.09 •0.08 -0.07 •0.06 -0.05 • 0.04 .0.03 - 0.02 ^. 0)<D C CO • 0.01 Q - 0.009 ^ - 0.008 Q - 0.007 3 • 0.006 3 • 0.005 Q rt ^"-0.00^0^ i %x* •'ooos • 0.002 - 0.001 - 0.0009 - 0.0008 - 0.0007 - 0.0006 • 0.0005 • 0.0004 w 0.0003 -0.2 - -0.3 . .0.4 • -0.5 .0.6x .0.8 \\ •0.9 ^^ • 1'° v<? \N \ <^" ^^^ ^^"3 • •4 • 5 -6 • 7 • 8 -9 • 10 -50 ! jX '__ ^s^ C ^^ ®^s* l_ \% 1 \ 1 111> . 20 40 30 20 ^^10 >^ c•8 , "c7 0)'ofi ^I r-5 WWHI Z OD 0£ ' • 2 • r1.0 • 0.9 • 0.8 i.0.7 ; •0.6 -0.5 0.01 0.02 0.03 •0.04 0.05 .0.06 • 0.07 • 0.08 • 0.09 •0.10 • 0.2 . -0.3 -0.4 GENERAL SOLUTION SOURCE: USDOT, FHWA. HDS-3 (1961) FIGURE Manning's Equation Nomograph ^ fy O" f ATTACHMENT "F" Engineering of Work Statement I I<I I I I I This Water Quality Technical Report has been prepared under the direction of the following Registered Civil Engineer. The Registered Civil Engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions ape, based. Michael H. Smith Registered Civil Engineer Date i C BEST ORIGINAL I I I i