The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 91-12; MARINERS POINT; Planning CommissionI LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants TRANSMITTAL To: Bramalea of California, Inc. Date: July 16, 1996 27432 Calle Arroyo San Juan Capistrano, California 92075 Project No. 4871045-007 Attention: Mr. Tom Banks Transmitted: X Herewith Via Courier Client Pick Up Fed Ex The Following: Draft Report 4 Final Report Extra Report Proposal Other For: X Your Use _____ As Requested Subject: 1111111211 ! and July 16, 1996 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IE[.iiUtIIF Copies to: (2) County of San Diego-DHS, Attention: Mr. David Felix (2) City of Carlsbad-Planning Department, Attention: Mr. RE ME W"' J U L 1 8 1996 crrr /fL (619) 292-8030 (800) 447-2626 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 FAX (619) 292-0771 LEIGHTONANDASSOCIATE$, INCfl=J Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants RESULTS OF SOIL SAMPLES FOR POTENTIAL INSECTICIDE AND PESTICIDE RESIDUE, MARINER'S POINT, CAMINO DIE LAS ONDAS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA June 10, 1996 (Revised June 12, 1996) (Revised July 16, 1996) Project No. 4871045-007 J U L 181996 Prepared For: BRAMALEA OF CALIFORNIA. INC. 27432 Calle Arroyo San Juan Capistrano, California 92075 (619) 292-8030 (800) 447-2626 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 FAX (619) 292-0771 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants June 10, 1996 (revised June 12, 1996) (revised July 16, 1996) Project No. 4871045-007 To: Bramalea of California, Inc. 27432 Calle Arroyo SanJuan Capistrano, California 92075 Attention: Mr. Tom Banks I Subject: Results of Soil Samples for Potential Insecticide and Pesticide Residue, Mariner's Point, Camino de las Ondas, Carlsbad, California Introduction I In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has conducted an investigation for the presence of potential pesticide and insecticide residue in near- surface soils at the subject site. Based on our prior investigation of pesticide and insecticides uses I at the site conducted in September 1992, currently banned organochiorine pesticides (i.e., DDT and Toxaphene) were detected in soil Samples collected at grade to 6 inches below grade (Leighton, 1992). As requested by the County of San Diego, this investigation included an evaluation of the I possible presence/potential for residual pesticides to a depth of 4 feet below grade, the risk for residential exposure should residual pesticides be present, and appropriate recommendations for mitigation, if necessary. Accompanying Figures, Table, and Appendices I Figure 1 - Site Location Map - Page 2 Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map - Rear of Text Figures 3 and 4 - Sample Location Map - Rear of Text I Table 1 - Summary of Near Surface Soil Analysis - Rear of Text Appendix A - References Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results and Chain-of-Custody Form I I I I I I I I (619) 292-8030• (800) 447-2626 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 FAX (619) 292-0771 I 1 -\ - --- - - —c.— _ —ii - U \ 60 \ fl 812 - - 000 PALOMAR I 'N D H,,,, f -T lB I)? ,;'. . • ' . 101 Maintenance S.t,o • \\, \\\ OQO( \I Is ST • ___\ • 0 d° ;. -\-2o----- — ---—— ----...., — - -- — i: TIN T T ,Os 24 O; f SAN DIEGO 10 I - . -'- . . LSB isbad Beech tate Park 00 CAR AD I 1W \.60 — I I • I 29 sir' I 1 • --------------\ -- _4__J .-. ---- .--------- \ I \ • S21 I............Il \ —7 .I \ I Ponto / :cARLsBAD CITY' 28 I .- - 32 \ --.•-•.•. ' \ / \ . S i - . .e I / I 27 \T . AV 00 f I • — - 112 — L.. I ) . I SITE LOCATION MAP 0 2000 4000 Base Map: Aerial Graphics, 1986-87, Aerial Foto-Map scale feet' — Book, San Diego, County, Page 8D I BRAMALEA/MARINERS POINT Project No. _4871045007 flc1T] Date 6-10-96 I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1041 889 Figure No 1 I 4871045-007 Existing Site Conditions I The roughly rectangular-shaped property is located on Camino de las Ondas, northwest of the proposed intersection of College Boulevard and Poinsettia Lane in Carlsbad, California (Site Location Map, page 2). Topographically, the site is characterized by two gently sloping mesas on the western I and eastern portion of the site separated by a moderately steep, west-facing, natural slope. The maximum relief on the site is approximately 158 feet (Hunsaker, 1992). I Our background research (Appendix A) indicates the site was last farmed in 1984. At the time of our current field investigation, the site was observed to have been recently tilled as part of an apparent weed abatement measure. Geological and Ground Water Conditions A detailed discussion of the geologic conditions of the site is presented in-the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 1988). Briefly stated here, the site is underlain by bedrock units consisting of the Tertiary Torrey Sandstone and Quaternary Terrace Deposits. Surficial units noted mantling these I bedrock units are comprised of alluvium, topsoil/colluvium, and existing agricultural fill soils. The approximate areal distribution of these units (excluding topsoil/colluvium and fill soils) is depicted on I the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). Ground water was not encountered during this, or our previous subsurface exploration conducted during the geotechnical investigation of the site nor is a shallow ground water table anticipated. I _ Soil Sampling I To avoid the introduction of bias into field sample collection, the approximately 68-acre site was divided into four quadrants (approximately 17 acres each). Each of these four quadrants were I subdivided into 10-nearly equal square areas. Each square was assigned an identification numbers of 1 through 10. Utilizing a random numbers table, one square was selected for soil sampling from each of the four quadrants. These sample locations are indicated by the prefix SI through SW. I The purpose of collecting at four random locations is to obtain a more representative, statistically significant number of samples to characterize possible soil contamination. In addition, three additional sampling locations were selected in areas of the site where storage and/or equipment areas I may have been located. These samples are identified by the prefix SA. Possible storage and/or equipment areas were located from aerial photographs taken in 1978 and 1983. The approximate I location of the soil samples is illustrated on Figures 3 and 4. Twenty-one soil samples were collected on May 21, 1996 at depths of 6, 18, and 48 inches below I grade. Samples were collected with a hand auger or pneumatic samples. In order to avoid possible cross-contamination between individual samples, the hand auger or pneumatic sampler was washed with a solution of trisodium phosphate (TSP) and water, double rinsed with distilled water, and dried with clean paper towels. The soil samples were placed into laboratory- -3-ti 04 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I 4871045-007 supplied, 4-ounce glass sample jars and immediately placed into an ice-cooled container. A Chain-of- Custody Form was completed at the time of sample collection. At the completion of sampling, the I samples were transported to Ceimic Laboratories of San Diego, California for analysis. Ceimic is a California Certified Laboratory (Certification No. 1232). 1 Laboratory Testing Program I The 12 random soil samples plus the 9 samples collected in the suspected storage/equipment areas were tested for the presence of organochlorine pesticides (including Toxaphene, DDT, and DDT's decay products), and Polychlorated Byphenols (PCB's) by EPA Test Method 8081. Toxaphene and I DDTtota iave relatively slow rates of decomposition (half lives of up to 11.5 years) and are known carcinogens; therefore, the detection of these potentially hazardous agricultural chemical compounds were the focus of our laboratory testing program. DDTt ota refers to DDT and its metabolic I degradation by products, DDD and DDE. The laboratory results are presented in Appendix B, and the results are summarized on Table 1. Several of the laboratory test results are qualified by the modifier (p). This indicates that during testing, the value from the two analytical columns (quantitative and confirmation columns) differ by more than 25 percent. Our report includes the I results of the quantitative columns. Ceimic reported that surrogate recoveries were high for Ceimic accession number 605155. The surrogate spiking solution was checked by the lab and found to be twice as high as it should be. Findings and Conclusions I • Vertical Contamination I The suspected contaminants readily adhere to soil particles and do not lend themselves to vertical migration (usually within the zone of agricultural tilled soils). As such, these contaminants are typically of higher concentration in the near-surface soils and tend to decrease rapidly in I concentration with depth. Toxaphene I As summarized on Table 1, Toxaphene was detected in all of the soil samples. The concentrations ranged between ND (non detection) for several samples and 3.4 mg/kg (SA2-6"). As discussed in a preceding section of this report, all soil samples collected during this I investigation were tested individually by EPA Test Method 8081. Review of a United States Environmental Protection Agency document Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG's) (Appendix A) indicated that several of the samples taken in the upper 18 inches exceeded the I allowable level for Toxaphene in the soil at a residential site of 0.4 mg/kg. The results of our testing was generally relatively uniform across the site. The areas identified as possible storage areas did not differ significantly from the overall site condition. I -4- _ I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I 4871045-007 a DDT Soil Contamination I DDTtota as detected in a majority of the soil samples tested. The concentrations ranged between ND (non detection) (Sll-6-48") and 0.59 mg/kg (SI-3-6"). The detected concentrations of these pesticides are below the Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) of 1.3 mg/kg. I • Dieldrin and Chlordane I Dieldrin and Chlordane was detected in several of the samples tested and appears to be confined to the near surface soils. The measured concentrations for Dieldrin ranged from ND (non-detection) to 0.088p mg/kg. Preliminary Remediation Goal for Dieldrin is 0.028 mg/kg. The I average concentration for Dieldrin was 0.025 mg/kg. For Chlordane, the measured concentration ranged from ND to 0.044p mg/kg. The PRG for Chlordane is 0.034 mg/kg. The average concentration for Chlordane was 0.0016 mg/kg. I • Other Detected Constituents - EndosulfanTotvas detected in five of the soil samples analyzed at concentrations ranging between I non-detect and 0.349 mg/kg (SA2-6"). EndosulfanTotarefers to the summation of the detected concentration of Endosulfan I, Endosulfan II, and Endosulfan Sulfate. The maximum concentrations of other detected constituents included Heptachlor Epoxide (0.084p mg/kg), I Methoxychior (0.281 mg/kg), Endrin (0.281 mg/kg), Endrin (0.141p mg/kg), Endrin Ketone (0.15p mg/kg), and Endrin Aldehyde (0.153 mg/kg). These test results also indicate values below the preliminary remediation goal. I a Soil Remediation Level I A guidance document prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency - Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG5) Second Half 1995 was referenced to provide a legal basis in deciding whether waste is hazardous in order to determine disposal procedures. The Preliminary Remedial Goals for the contaminants in question are as follows: Contaminant Residential (PRGs) for Soil I at a Residential Site Chlordane 0.034 mg/kg I DDD 1.9mg/kg I DDE 1.3mg/kg DDT 1.3 mg/kg I Dieldrin 0.028 mg/kg Endosulfan 3.3 mg/kg Heptachlor Epoxide 0.049 mg/kg I Methoxychlor 330 mg/kg Toxaphene 0.4 mg/kg Endrin 2.0 mg/kg I ri&rn -5- _ I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I • General Conclusion I Based on our investigation, laboratory analysis, and statistical analyses of the chemical data as of the date of our field investigation (May 31, 1996), federally banned organochlorine pesticide Toxaphene (with lesser amounts of Dieldrin and Chlordane) is present within the upper 18 to I 24 inches of soil at the site at levels above the EPA's preliminary remedial goals. Dieldrin and Chlordane are also locally present in the near surface soils with concentration that slightly exceed the PRG's. Average concentrations of these contaminant are below the PRG level. All other I constituents detected in the soil samples collected from the site were below EPA's PROS. Based on this data and the EPA's PRGS, DDTT OtaI, Endosulfaniotai, Heptachlor Epoxide, and Methoxychlor are at concentrations that do not pose a health risk to the planned residential I development of the site. Based on conversations with Mr. David Felix of the County of San Diego Department of Health Services, the pesticide impacted soil must be handled such that it does not pose a significant future health risk. I Recommendations I In order to mitigate the presence of the pesticides in the soil we recommend that the site grading be conducted such that the material containing the higher levels of Toxaphene (i.e the upper ±2 feet) be stripped from the site and placed at depths sufficient to limit possible future contact. In our I opinion, the soils can be placed within the onsite fill areas of the site provided the soils are placed at a minimum depth of at least 10 feet below finish grade and 10 feet from the face of proposed slopes. The 10-foot depth is recommended to minimize the potential for contact related to possible I future swimming pool excavations. The impacted soil can also be placed within the right of way on site roadways. In roadway areas, the material may be placed within 1 foot of finish grade. In these areas the structural pavement section and sidewalks will provide for future containment of the soils. I Proposed site grading (excluding site remedial grading) will include the placement of 659,000 cubic yards of compacted fill. Based on our review of the site grading plans, the site can essentially be I divided into 2 halves. The eastern half will consist predominantly of a large cut area with planned excavations ranging from 5 to 30 feet in depth. The planned grading will provide for removal of the impacted soil in this area. The western half of the site will consist of a large fill area with proposed I fill depths of up to 24 feet. Based on our calculations, the soil impacted by toxaphene includes approximately 180,000 to 200,000 cubic yards of material. Approximately 310,000 cubic yards of clean material are required to cap the fill area building pads with a minimum of 10 feet of fill. This results in an excess yardage of clean material of 150,000 cubic yards. Based on these numbers, the onsite I placement of the toxaphene impacted material appears feasible. Placement of the impacted soil will, however, require close coordination with the site developer, I grading contractor, surveyor and geotechnical/environmental consultant. In addition, at the completion of site grading, we recommend that a series of confirmation tests be taken to verify that Toxaphene impacted soils do not exist in proposed building areas. I I _ -6- _ I LEIGH TONANDASSOCIA TES, INC. I 4871045-007 Prior to site grading, we also recommend that a site safety plan be prepared and reviewed by all parties. This site safety plan should address as a minimum, the importance of proper dust control and I the recommendations for dust masks for heavy equipment operations when grading in the areas of impacted soil. I If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. I Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I Thomas E. Mills, RG 4439 (Exp. 6/30/98) Princi a!, Environmental Services I Michael R. Stewart, CEG 1349 (Exp. 12/31/97) Director of Geology I . SACJTEM/MRS/jss I Distribution: (4) Addressee (2) County of San Diego-DHS Attention: Mr. David Felix I (2) City of Carlsbad Planning Department Attention: Mr. Jeff Gibson I I I I I I _ -7. _ I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I II I I F I I I 11 I I-i I F 111 F Ii LEGEND I 104 Alluvium 0 Approximate location of geologic contact, dl 00000 queried where uncertain B-4 I LQt1 Terrace deposits & Approximate location of exploratory boring, ETC TD 20' with total depth (TD) Torrey Sandstone Approximate location of exploratory trench T- 15 Base map taken from County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheets 346-1677 and 342-1677, 1960 edition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MEN W-1 i F&H h;, A Em, A%i1 I , I,,V 490 it sma . a la 0!09* S-. W-" 01 L 1 !tloi 01, mA -11 a W, I mm roo Ow IV; mA= 0 fih4i k "& IRS om ffillummolE IN v mKA15;k4ki - - Project N o 4871045-007 SAMPLE LOCATION MAP BRAMALEA Scale Approx. 1"300' Engr./Geol. MRSITEM [1 CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS Drafted By KAM 1042 889 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Date 6-10-96 Figure No.3 I III II Iv QUALITY ORIGINAL (S) I I I I I I II II II II II II II II T Base Map: Aerial Photo, December 12, 1978, Flight Path and Flight No. 210 15B 32 SDCO 0 1000 2000 I I Approximate Scale in Feet I BRAMALEA SUSPECTED Camino de las Ondas MIXING/STORAGE 4871045-007 Date 1042 889 Carlsbad, California AREAS 11..96 Figure No.4 mtor.cvs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summary of Soil Sample Analysis - Organochiorine Pesticides Cemic Sample No. Sample ID (1) Toxaphene (mg/kg) Chlordane (alpha & gamma) (mgtkg) DDTT (2) (mg/kg) EndosulfänTO 1(3) (mg/kg) Dieldrin (mg/kg) Heptachlor Epoxide (mg/kg) Methoxychlor (mg/kg) Endrin (mg/kg) Endrin Ketone (mg/kg) Endrin Aldehyde (mg/kg) 1 SI-3-6" 3.14 .036p 039 .0137 .053p .OlOp .135p .012p .lSp ND 2 SI-3-18" ND ND .0096 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 20 SI-3-48" ND ND .011 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 3 Sll-6-6" 0.615 .0235p .227p 0.0789p .034p .006 0.026 .041 0.0272p ND 4 Sll-6-18" 1.13p .068p 0.48 .165p .oSSp .016 .052 .042p .042p ND 19 Sll-6-48" ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 5 Sffl-9-6" 1.78p .018p .418 .168 .037p .006p .058p .066p .092p ND 6 Sffl-9-18" .596p .003 .203 .06 .014p ND .049p .023p .03p ND 21 Sffl-9-48" ND ND .004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 7 SN-2-6" 1.56p .022p .429 .162 .037p .008p .086 .065p ND 071 8 S1V-2-18" 1.72p .024 .431 .038p .084p .088 .067p .074p ND 18 S1V-2-48" ND ND .008p ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 9 SA1-6" 3.35p .039p .56 .346 .057p .013p .281 .136p ND ND 10 SA1-18" 3.08 .043p .547 .327 .059p .016p .234 .131p ND ND 14 SA1-48" 0.055 ND .124 .069p ND ND .035 .018p ND ND 11 SA2-6 3.4 .044p .578 .349 .069p .016p .lOSp .0141p .16p .153 12 SA2-18" .259 .002 .080p .039p .012p ND ND .011p ND ND 13 SA2-48" ND ND .006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 15 SA3-6" ND .Orlp .062p .019p .009p ND ND .007 ND ND 16 SA3-18" .326 0.25p .104p .038 .OlOp ND ND .015p .013p ND 17 SA3-48" ND ND .027p .Olp ND ND ND ND ND ND I PRG 04 0.034 4.5 I 3.3 330 [ 20 N/A [ N/A 4871045-007 (1) Please refer to Sample Location Map for sample locations (2) DDTTotefers to the summation of the individual concentrations of the isomeric forms of 4,4- DDD, 4,4-DDE, and 4,4-DDT test by EPA Method 8081 (3) Endosulfantiotefers to the summation of the individual concentrations of the isomeric forms of Endosulfant I, Endolsulfan II, and Endosulfan Sulfate (p) The quantitative value from the two analytical columns (quantitative column and confirmation column) differs by greater than 25%. The reported number is the quantitative column. ND - None detected above the laboratory detection limit mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram SA - Indicates possible material/equipment storage area. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4871045-007 I APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1 California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 1992, DDT I in Soil: Guidance for Assessment of Health Risk to Humans (Draft), in Guidance for Site Characterization and Multimedia Risk Assessment for Hazardous Substances I Release Sites, Volume 7, Chapter 6. California State Water Resources Control Board, 1982, Toxaphene, Toxic Substances Control Program, Special Projects Report No. 82-45P. I Hunsaker and Associates, 1992, Tentative Map for Mariner's Point, 8 Sheets, Scale 1"=40', W.O. No. 890-5, dated September 24, 1992. I Leighton and Associates, 1988, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 68--Acre Parcel, Camino de las Ondas, Carlsbad Area, County of San Diego, California, Project No. 8871045-03, I dated August 23, 1988. 1992, Results and Analysis of Near-Surface Soil Samples for Potential Insecticide and Pesticide Residue, Mariner's Point, Camino De Las Ondas, Carlsbad, California, dated 1 September 4, 1992. Brian F. Mooney Associates, 1991, Screencheck Draft Program, Environmental Impact Report for I Zone 20, Specific Plan Project, Carlsbad, California, p. 85-92, dated February 1991. Pacific Soils Environmental, 1992, Soil Testing for Pesticide Residue for Sambi, Portion of Section 21 I T12S, R4W, City of Carlsbad, California, Work Order 60013, dated July 30, 1992. Rick Engineering, 1996, Grading Plans for Carlsbad Tract No. 91-12 Mariner's Point, Carlsbad, I California, Project No. CT-91-12, dated February 2, 1996. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995, Region IX, Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG's) Second Half of 1995, dated September 1, 1995. I Summary of Aerial Photographs Date Photo Number Scale Angle of View I 12/13/78 210-1513-32 19 =1,000, Vertical/Stereo 11/19/83 C11109-83059 No. 1"=2,000' Vertical/Stereo I 245 I I A-i I I I SAMPLE CROSS REFERENCE Page 1 C1.ent : IjEGHTON & ASSOCIATES Report Date: iu1y 17, 1996 Project 9 : 871045007 Ceimic I.D. 511 Project Name: ERAMP1LEA-CARLSBAD I I I I I I . U ---TOTALS--- Mac * Samples SOIL 21 I CEIMIC STANDARD DISPOSAL PRACTICE The sample(s) from this project will be disposed of in twenty-one (21) days from the date of I this report. If an extended storage period is required., please contact our sample control department before the scheduled disposal date. I I. I I I SDG {iimic SD(S-Cubed) Number jl Ceimic RI Sample ID Client Sample ID 605155 5111-05 605155-01 SI-3-6" 605155 5111-06 605155-02 SI-3-18" 605155 5111-07 605155-03 S11-6-6" 605155 5111-08 605155-04 S11-6-18 1, 605155 5111-09 605155-05 S111-9-6" 605155 5111-10 605155-06 Sill-9-181, 605155 5111-11 605155-07 SIV-2-.'T 605155 5111-12 605155-08 SIV-2-1 8" 605155 5111-13 605155-09 SA1-6" 605155 5111-14 605155-10 SA1-18" 605155 5111-15 605155-11 SAM" 605155 5111-16 605155-12 SA2-18" 605155 5111-17 605155-13 SA2-48" 605155 5111-18 605155-14 SA1-48" 605155 5111-19 605155-15 SA3-6' 605155 5111-20 605155-16 SA3-1 8" 605155 5111-21 605155-17 SA2-48" 605155 5111-22 605155-18 SIV-2-48" 605155 5111-23 605155-19 S11-6-48" 605155 5111-24 605155-20 SI-3-48" 605155 5111-25 605155-21 S111-9-48" I I 1D PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET EPA SAMPLE NO. 605155-01 el Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: ERNYIALEA SAS Matrix:(soil/water) SOIL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC ConcentratedExtract Volume: 10000 (uL) Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 No.: SDG No.: 605155 Lab Sample ID: 5111-05 Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608097 Date Received: 07/10/96 Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Date Analyzed: 07/13/96 Dilution Factor: 1.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N I I I H H I [1 I I I CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG 319-84-6 Alpha-EHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-EHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-EHC 1.10 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 10.1 959-98-8 Endosulf an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldr±n 53.2 P 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 161 72-20-8 Endrin 120 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 137 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 18.0 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 17.5 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 198 P 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 160 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 231 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 135 P P 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 150 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 3140 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I FORM I PEST 3/90 I L'i 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET I 605155-01DL Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-05DL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608039 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/11/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 10.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) tJG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 17.0 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 17.0 U 319-86-8 Delta-EHC 17.0 U 58-89-9 Gamma-EHC (Lindane) 17-.0 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 17.0 U 309-00-2 Aldr±n 17.0 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 17.0 U 959-98-8 Endosuif an I 17.0 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 33.0 U 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 295 72-20-8 Endrin 128 1' 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 166 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 17.0 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 17.0 U 72-54-8 4,41DDD 279 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 183 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 1030 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 170 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 33.0 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 33.0 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 3740 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 330 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 670 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 330 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 330 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 330 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 330 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 330 U Li I FORM I PEST 3/90 U I I I I I I I I I I I 11' Li I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-01DL1 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: ERAM?LEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 $T4 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-05DL1 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608108 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/13/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 100.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: GAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 170 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 170 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 170 U 58-89-9 Gamma-EHC (Lindane) 170 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 170 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 170 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 170 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 170 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 330 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 330 U 72-20-8 Endrin 330 U 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 330 U 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 170 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 170 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 330 U 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 330 U 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 1060 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 1700 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 330 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 330 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 17000 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 3300 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 6700 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 3300 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 3300 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 3300 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 3300 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 3300 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I H I I 11 F I I I I I I 1 I [I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET I = = Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: 605155-02 Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: A SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-06 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DE608070 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-EHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 11 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.30 U 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 3.30 U 72-20-8 Endrin 3.30 U 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 3.30 U 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 3.30 U 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 3.30 U 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 9.57 72-43-5 Methoxychior 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U 1 FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-03 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-07 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608094 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachior 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachior epoxide 5.87 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 34.1 P 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 66.8 72-20-8 Endrin 41.3 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 54.3 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 16.7 P 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 6.80 P 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 62.3 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 24.6 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 97.7 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 26.4 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 27.2 P 7421-36-3Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 615 P 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I 1 I L I I I I I I I I [1 I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 1 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: I 605155-03DL Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMA.LEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 3 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-07DL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608040 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/11/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 2.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) tJG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 3.40 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 3.40 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 3.40 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 3.40 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 3.40 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 3.40 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 5.47 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 3.40 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 32.3 P 72-55-9 4,41-DDE 0 66.9 72-20-8 Endrin 6.60 U 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 53.3 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 16.1 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 6.33 P 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 60.9 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 22.6 P 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 96.8 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 34.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 6.60 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 6.60 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 571 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 66.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 134 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 66.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 66.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 66.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 66.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 66.0 U I FORM I PEST 3/90 I- I I 1 I I I El 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-04 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: 1 Ia" Lab Code: Case No.: BRAM?.LEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 £PIQ Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-08 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608095 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/13/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachior 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 15.8 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 87.9 p 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 135 72-20-8 Endrin 42.0 P 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 126 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 48.0 > 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 19.8 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 169 1031-07-8 Endosuif an sulfate 38.5 / 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 176 p 72-43-5 Methoxychior 51.5 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 41.9 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 1130 P 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I I I I I I El I I I I I ID EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: I 605155-04DL Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMPJJEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-08DL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608046 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 5.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 8.50 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 8.50 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 8.50 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 8.50 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 8.50 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 8.50 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 16.5 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 8.50 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 98.2 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 173 72-20-8 Endrin 42.5 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 141 1> 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 54.8 P 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 21.5 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 203 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 39.2 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 231 7) 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 85.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 16.5 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 16.5 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 1200 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 165 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 335 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 165 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 165 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 165 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 165 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 165 U I [1 FORM I PEST 3/90 I I Li I I I I I I I I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-05 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-09 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608093 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 4.73 P 959-98-8 Endosulf an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 36.9 P 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 115 72-20-8 Endrin 65.9 P 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 76.3 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 8.96 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 8.56 'P 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 111 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 92.0 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 192 72-43-5 Methoxychior 57.6 P 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 92.4 P 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 1780 P 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I Li I I 11 I I I I 1 [ Li I 1 L I I ID EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: I 605155- O5DL Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SD( Nn fl'ic Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 I CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 17.0 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 17:0 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 17.0 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 17.0 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 17.0 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 17.0 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 17.0 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 17.0 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 33.0 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 129 72-20-8 Endrin 59.0 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 79.0 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 17.0 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 17.0 U 72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 118 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 153 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 405 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 170 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 33.0 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 33.0 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 2000 P 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 330 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 670 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 330 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 330 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 330 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 330 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 330 U I 1 I I I I I I Lab Sample ID: 5111-09DL Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608047 N Date Received: 07/10/96 Date Extracted: 05/22/96 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Dilution Factor: 10.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N FORM I PEST 3/90 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-06 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-10 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608096 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/13/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosulf an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 14.2 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 44.0 72-20-8 Endrin 23.3 P 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 28.6 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 3.17 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 39.7 P 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 31.5 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 119 P 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 48.7 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 29.9 P 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 596 P 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I n 111 I I I I I I I I I I lD EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAM1LEA SAS Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 8.50 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 8.50 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 8.50 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 8.50 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 8.50 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 8.50 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 8.50 U 959-98-8 . Endosulfan I 8.50 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 16.5 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 44.3 72-20-8 Endrin 16.5 U 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 29.3 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 8.50 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 8.50 U 72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 39.6 'P 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 51.2 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 129 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 85.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 16.5 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 16.5 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 850 U. 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 165 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 335 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 165 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 165 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 165 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 165 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 165 U I I I I I I I I I I I I I 605155-06DL I No.: SDG No.: 605155 Lab Sample ID: 5111-10DL Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608048 Date Received: Date Extracted: 07/10/96 Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Dilution Factor: 5.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N FORM I PEST 3/90 1D PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS Matrix:(soil/water) SOIL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 I I I EPA SAMPLE NO. 605155-07 I No.: SDG No.: 605155 Lab Sample ID: 5111-11 Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608098 N Date Received: 07/10/96 Date Extracted: 05/22/96 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/13/96 Dilution Factor: 1.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N I I CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma- BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 7.63 P 959-98-8 Endosulf an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 37.1 P 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 130 72-20-8 Endrin 65.3 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 79.4 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 8.81 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 13.9 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 120 1031-07-8 Endosulf an sulfate 82.8 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 179 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 86.1 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 70.5 7) 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 1560 P 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U FORM I PEST 3/90 I 11 1D PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET EPA SAMPLE NO. Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMLEA SAS Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 I I I No.: SDG No.: 605155 Lab Sample ID: 5111-11DL Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608049 Date Received: 07/10/96 Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Dilution Factor: 10.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 17.0 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 17.0 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 17.0 U 58-89-9 Gamma-EHC (Lindane) 170 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 17.0 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 17.0 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 17.0 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 17.0 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 33.0 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 182 1> 72-20-8 Endrin 62.1 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 91.7 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 17.0 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 17.0 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 134 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 83.9 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 358 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 170 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 33.0 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 33.0 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 1700 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 330 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 670 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 330 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 330 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 330 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 330 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 330 U 3/90 lD EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-08 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-12 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608099 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/13/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachior 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 8.37 P 959-98-8 Endosulf an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 37.9 p 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 130 72-20-8 Endrin 67.1 P 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 80.7 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 9.30 P 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 14.8 P 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 121 P 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 87.1 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 180 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 88.1 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 73.7 P 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 1720 P 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I F I I I I I I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: I 605155-08DL Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 V.l Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-12DL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608050 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 10.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 17.0 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 17.0 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 17.0 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 17:0 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 17.0 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 17.0 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 17.0 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 17.0 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 33.0 U 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 178 72-20-8 Endrin 61.2 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 90.5 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 17.0 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 17.0 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 132 P 1031-07-8 Endosuif an sulfate 83.9 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 383 72-43-5 Methoxychior 170 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 62.4 1 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 33.0 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 1700 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 330 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 670 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 330 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 330 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 330 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 330 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 330 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-09 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 cl' Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-13 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608100 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/13/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-EHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-EHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachior epoxide 13.4 959-98-8 Endosuif an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 56.5 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 160 P 72-20-8 Endrin 136 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 156 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 18.0 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 20.5 72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 190 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 190 50-29-3 4,4 1 -]JDT 210 72-43-5 Methoxychior 281 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 161 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 3350 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I H H H I I I I I I IH I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155- O9DL Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Si Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-13DL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608051 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 10.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 17.0 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 17.0 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 17.0 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 170 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 17.0 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 17.0 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 17.0 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 17.0 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 33.0 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 256 72-20-8 Endrin 156 7' 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 210 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 17.0 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 17.0 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 235 P 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 224 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 555 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 284 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 33.0 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 33.0 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 4180 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 330 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 670 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 330 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 330 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 330 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 330 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 330 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I P, I I I F1 I I I I I I I I Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRPNELER SAS Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 EPA SAMPLE NO. I 605155-10 No.: SDG No.: 605155 ftbell 4 Lab Sample ID: 5111-14 Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608106 Date Received: 07/10/96 Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Date Analyzed: 07/13/96 Dilution Factor: 1.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N 1D PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 1 11 I LI I I I LI I I I I I I I CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lind.ane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachior 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 16.4 P 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 58.8 P 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 160 72-20-8 Endrin 131 P 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 151 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 19.8 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 23.4 P 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 182 P 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 176 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 205 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 234 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 140 P 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 3080 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U Li FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-1ODL Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: CaseNo.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605l55$J'' Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-14DL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608052 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 10.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 17.0 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 17.0 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 17.0 U 58-89-9 Gamma-EPIC (Lindane) 17-0 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 17.0 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 17.0 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 17.0 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 17.0 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 33.0 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 233 72-20-8 Endrin 139 P 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 187 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 17.0 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 17.0 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 211 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 318 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 442 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 240 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 33.0 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 33.0 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 4020 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 330 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 670 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 330 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 330 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 330 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 330 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 330 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I I I I Ii Ii 1 I I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-11 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 542h Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-15 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608107 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/13/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 15.5 P 959-98-8 Endosulf an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 69.0 p 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 161 P 72-20-8 Endrin 141 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 161 5103-71-9 Alpha.-Chlordane 21.4 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 22.1 P 72-54-8 4,4'-DDD 199 p 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 188 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 218 72-43-5 Methoxychior 105 p 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 160 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 153 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 3400 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 LI 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I Li 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: 605155-11DL Lab Code: Case No.: ERAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No..: 605155 .50 24 41 Matrix:(soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-15DL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608053 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 ConcentratedExtract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 10.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 17.0 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 17.0 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 170 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 17.0 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 17.0 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 17.0 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 17.0 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 17.0 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 33.0 U 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 255 72-20-8 Endrin 158 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 210 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 17.0 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 17.0 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 252 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 221 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 662 72-43-5 Methoxychior 170 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 33.0 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 33.0 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 4240 p 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 330 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 670 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 330 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 330 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 330 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 - 330 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 330 U I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I lD EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155- 11DL1 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BP1MALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-15DL1 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608111 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/13/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 50.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 85.0 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 85.0 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 85.0 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 85.0 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 85.0 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 85.0 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 85.0 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 85.0 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 165 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 239 1' 72-20-8 Endrin 165 U 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 165 U 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 85.0 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 85.0 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 165 13 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 165 U 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 706 72-43-5 Methoxychior 850 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 165 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 165 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 8500 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 1650 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 3350 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 1650 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 1650 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 1650 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 1650 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 1650 U 1 I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I fl Li I F1 I 1 I Ii I I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 1 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: r 605155-12 Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMA.LEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-16 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608071 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-EHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma- BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 11.5 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 23.3 72-20-8 Endrin 10.7 P 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 14.9 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 2.18 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 18.1 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 23.7 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 39.0 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 257 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I F] I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-13 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRPMA.LEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-17 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608072 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosuif an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.30 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 3.30 U 72-20-8 Endrin 3.30 U 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 3.30 U 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 3.30 U 1031-07-8 Endosulf an sulfate 3.30 U 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 5.96 72-43-5 Methoxychior 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I II I I I I I I P I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-14 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: I 4 Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-18 Sam1e wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608073 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-EHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.30 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 32.4 72-20-8 Endrin 18.4 P 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 24.8 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 U 5103-74-2 Garnma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 28.4 p 1031-07-8 Endosulf an sulfate 43.8 P 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 62.7 72-43-5 Methoxychior 35.3 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 550 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I III I 171 I E I I I I ID EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET ILab Name: CEIMIC Contract: I 605155-15 Lab Code: Case No.: BRANALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 S?43.t Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-19 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608080 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) tJG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 9.39 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 20.4 72-20-8 Endrin 6.99 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 10.0 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 P 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 12.6 7' 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 8.88 7) 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 28.8 P 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I 11 I I I I I I I I [ IH I I I 1D PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: ERANA.LEA SAS Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 EPA SAMPLE NO. I 605155-16 No.: SDG No.: 605155 443 1J" Lab Sample ID: 5111-20 Lab File ID:R0710-9DE608081 Date Received: 07/10/96 Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Dilution Factor: 1.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N I I I I I I L I I I I I I I I CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-EHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-EHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 10.4 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 29.6 72-20-8 Endrin 14.6 P 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 19.1 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 2.51 P 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 23.6 P 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 19.1 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 50.4 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 12.9 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 326 P 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-17 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRMALEA SAS No.: - SDGN0.: S$ Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-21 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608082 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 07/10/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosulf an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.30 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 7.32 72-20-8 Endrin 3.30 U 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 5.09 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 5.95 1031-07-8 Endosulf an sulfate 4.82 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 14.2 F 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I Iii I I [1 I 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET I Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMZ4LEA SAS Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 605155-18 No.: SDG No.: 605155 Lab Sample ID: 5111-22 Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608083 Date Received: 07/10/96 Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Dilution Factor: 1.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N I I (uL) CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachior 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosuif an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.30 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 3.30 U 72-20-8 Endrin 3.30 U 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 3.30 U 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 3.30 U 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 3.30 U 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 7.92 P 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 .33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U F~ 1 I I I I El I I I FORM I PEST 3/90 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-19 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-23 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608084 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.30 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 3.30 72-20-8 Endrin 3.30 33213-65-9 Endosuif an II 3.30 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 3.30 1031-07-8 Endosuif an sulfate 3.30 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 3.30 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 17.0 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 I I U FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I I [1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I lD EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: 1 605155-20 Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 $734 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-24 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608085 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.30 U 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 3.30 U 72-20-8 Endrin 3.30 U 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 3.30 U 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 3.30 U 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 3.30 U 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 11.0 72-43-5 Methoxychior 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I Li I LI I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET 605155-21 Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRPMLEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: 5111-25 Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608086 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: 07/10/96 Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/12/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-EHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-EHC (Lindane) 1.70 U 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 U 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 U 1024-57-3 Heptachior epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.30 U 72-55-9 4,4'-DDE 3.30 U 72-20-8 Endrin 3.30 U 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 3.30 U 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 3.30 U 1031-07-8 Endosuif an sulfate 3.30 U 50-29-3 4,4'-DDT 4.28 72-43-5 Methoxychior 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: I PIBLK60522A 1 Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMAJJEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: PIBLK60522A Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608033 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/95 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/11/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) tJG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 309-00-2 Aldrin 1.70 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 959-98-8 Endosulf an I 1.70 60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.30 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 3.30 72-20-8 Endrin 3.30 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 3.30 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 3.30 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 3.30 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 3.30 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 17.0 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 I I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PIBLK60522B Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: PIBLK60522B Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608034 %Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/11/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) tJG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.70 76-44-8 Heptachlor 1.70 309-00-2 Aidrin 1.70 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 959-98-8 Endosuif an I 1.70 60-57-1 Dieldrin 3.30 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 3.30 72-20-8 Endrin 3.30 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 3.30 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 3.30 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 3.30 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 3.30 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 17.0 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 111 I I FORM I PEST 3/90 I I Li n I I I I I I I I I I EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET PIMBS6O522A I Th Nrn C1TMT (nl-rrt- Lab Code: Case No.: BRP.MLEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: PIBMS60522A Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608035 9 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (YIN) N Date Received: Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/11/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (YIN) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (YIN) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) tJG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 13:6 X 76-44-8 Heptachlor 13.0 X 309-00-2 Aidrin 14.2 X 1024-57-3 Heptachior epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosuif an I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 28.4 X 72-55-9 4,4 1 -DDE 3.30 U 72-20-8 Endrin 33.2 X 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 3.30 U 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 3.30 U 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 3.30 U 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 31.6 X 72-43-5 Methoxychior 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U 11 FORM I PEST 3/90 U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1D EPA SAMPLE NO. PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET P IMES 60522 B Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL Lab Sample ID: PIMBS60522B Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml) G Lab File ID:R0710-9DB608037 Moisture: 0.00 decanted: (Y/N) N Date Received: Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted: 05/22/96 Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 07/11/96 Injection Volume: 1.00 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1.00 GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 0.00 Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N CONCENTRATION UNITS: CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/KG Q 319-84-6 Alpha-BHC 1.70 U 319-85-7 Beta-BHC 1.70 U 319-86-8 Delta-BHC 1.70 U 58-89-9 Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 13.0 X 76-44-8 Heptachlor 12.3 X 309-00-2 Aidrin 13.2 X 1024-57-3 Heptachlor epoxide 1.70 U 959-98-8 Endosulfan I 1.70 U 60-57-1 Dieldrin 26.4 X 72-55-9 4,4-DDE 3.30 U 72-20-8 Endrin 31.4 X 33213-65-9 Endosulfan II 3.30 U 5103-71-9 Alpha-Chlordane 1.70 U 5103-74-2 Gamma-Chlordane 1.70 U 72-54-8 4,4 1 -DDD 3.30 U 1031-07-8 Endosulfan sulfate 3.30 U 50-29-3 4,4 1 -DDT 30.2 X 72-43-5 Methoxychlor 17.0 U 53494-70-5 Endrin ketone 3.30 U 7421-36-3 Endrin aldehyde 3.30 U 8001-35-2 Toxaphene 170 U 12674-11-2 Aroclor-1016 33.0 U 11104-28-2 Aroclor-1221 67.0 U 11141-16-5 Aroclor-1232 33.0 U 53469-21-9 Aroclor-1242 33.0 U 12672-29-6 Aroclor-1248 33.0 U 11097-69-1 Aroclor-1254 33.0 U 11096-82-5 Aroclor-1260 33.0 U II I I FORM I PEST 3/90 2F PESTICIDE SURROGATE RECOVERY Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMLEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 GC Column(1) : DB608 ID: 0.53 (mm) GC Column(2) : DB1701 ID: 0.53 (inn) EPA SAMPLE NO. TCX 1 REC 4* TCX 2 REC 4$ DCB 1 -'.REC 4* DCE 2 REC 4* OTHER (1) OTHER (2) TOT OUT 605155-01 81.0 77.9 150 * 176 * 2 605155-01DL 91.9 87.3 180 * 153 * 2 605155-01DL1 98.7 97.0 327 * 131 1 605155-01MS 77.3 75.2 184 * 236 * 2 605155-01MSD 85.8 86.0 156 * 171 * - 2 605155-01MSD 108 103 182 * 158 * 2 605155-01MSD 109 104 123 132 0 605155-01MSD 93.4 90.9 202 * 183 * 2 605155-01MSD 93.0 89.1 189 * 144 1 605155-02 97.8 94.0 139 135 0 605155-03 94.6 91.4 135 122 0 605155-03DL 93.0 92.2 133 129 0 605155-04 68.8 68.2 136 126 0 605155-04DL 75.7 73.9 152 * 141 1 605155-05 83.3 79.3 141 157 * 1 605155-O5DL 88.3 84.0 138 140 0 605155-06 75.0 72.6 125 118 0 605155-06DL 82.8 80.9 137 137 0 605155-07 91.5 82.2 114 129 0 605155-07DL 105 99.7 146 * 152 * 2 605155-08 86.6 80.6 147 * 138 1 605155-08DL 102 96.9 147 * 151 * 2 605155-09 84.9 82.8 164 * 183 * 2 605155-09DL 101 96.5 181 * 177 * 2 605155-10 96.9 95.9 155 * 157 * 2 605155-1ODL 109 111 149 * 168 * 2 ADVISORY QC LIMITS TCX = Tetrachloro-m-xylene (30-117) DCB = Decachiorobiphenyl (55-144) 4* Column to be used to flag recovery values * Values outside of contract required QC limits page 1 of 2 FORM II I Do±C ,a4v: 7 -(0- bcjt £,d1V,d4 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3/90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2F PESTICIDE SURROGATE RECOVERY Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMZILEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 GC Column(1) : DB608 ID: 0.53 (mm) GC Column(2) : DB1701 ID: 0.53 (mm) EPA SAMPLE NO. TCX 1 REC # TCX 2 %REC # DCB 1 REC # DCB 2 REC # OTHER (1) OTHER (2) TOT OUT 605155-11 64.3 61.1 154 * 156 * 2 605155-11DL 75.9 71.5 133 160 * 1 605155-11DL1 73.3 72.8 134 155 * 1 605155-11MS 91.2 89.1 148 * 139 1 605155-11MSD 73.0 69.3 165 * 207 * 2 605155-11MSD 83.7 74.7 139 171 * 1 605155-11MSD 88.1 80.1 148 * 164 * 2 605155-11MSD 108 103 139 148 * 1 605155-11MSD 112 99.8 125 141 0 605155-12 67.4 65.4 119 119 0 605155-13 57.3 55.5 124 119 0 605155-14 61.5 58.8 134 120 0 605155-15 63.6 63.5 129 125 0 605155-16 65.1 62.0 123 119 0 605155-17 75.1 72.7 134 127 0 605155-18 77.3 75.2 126 122 0 605155-19 67.3 64.9 128 122 0 605155-20 68.1 65.4 133 123 0 605155-21 78.1 76.7 131 127 0 ADVISORY QC LIMITS TCX = Tetrachloro-m-xylene (30-117) DCB = Decachiorobiphenyl (55-144) # Column to be used to flag recovery values * Values outside of contract required QC limits page 2 of 2 FORM II - 'i 7-13 -U DgdC D4-e rL4I11&.( •?-fl-? 2 2E 29 3C 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 3/90 3F PESTICIDE MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RECOVERY Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMALEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix Spike - EPA Sample No.: 605155-01 Level: (low/med) LOW SPIKE SAMPLE MS MS QC. ADDED CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION LIMITS COMPOUND (ug/Kg) (ug/Kg) (ug/Kg) REC # REC. gamma-BHC (Lindane) 16.7 0 12.7 76.0 46-127 Heptachior 16.7 0 17.3 104 35-130 Aidrin 16.7 0 18.0 108 34-132 Dieldrin (1) 33.3 53.2 108 163 * 31-134 Endrin (1) 33.3 120 209 267 * 42-139 4,4 1 -DDT (2) 33.3 231 0 0 * 23-134 SPIKE MSD MSD ADDED CONCENTRATION QC LIMITS COMPOUND (ug/Kg) (ug/Kg) REC # RPD # RPD REC. gamma-BHC (Lindane) 16.7 13.4 80.0 5.00 50 46-127 Heptachlor 16.7 16.8 101 3.00 31 35-130 Aidrin 16.7 17.9 107 1.00 43 34-132 Dieldrin 33.3 91.5 115 35.0 38 31-134 Endrin (1) 33.3 170 151 * 56.0 * 45 42-139 4,4 1 -DDT 33.3 240 25.0 200 * 50 23-134 # Column to used to flag recovery and RPD values with an asterisk * Values outside of QC limits RPD: 2 out of 6 outside limits Spike Recovery: 4 out of 12 outside limits COMMENTS: (1)high recovery due to the high level native to the sample (2) interference precluded identification on MS____________ FORM III PEST 3/90 4rfrLdd( ; reddr4A -, ?- 10 t6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4* Column to used to flag recovery and RPD values with an asterisk * Values outside of QC limits RPD: 1 out of 6 outside limits Spike Recovery: 4 out of 12 outside limits COMMENTS: High recoveries likely due to interferences and variable amounts native to the sample._________________________ FORM III PEST I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 3F PESTICIDE MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RECOVERY Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMA.LEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Matrix Spike - EPA Sample No.: 605155-11 Level: (low/med) LOW SPIKE SAMPLE MS MS QC. ADDED CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION LIMITS COMPOUND (ug/Kg) (ug/Kg) (ug/Kg) REC # REC. gamma-BHC (Lindane) 16.7 0 13.5 81.0 46-127 Heptachlor 16.7 0 20.7 124 35-130 Aldrin 16.7 0 17.6 105 34-132 Dieldrin 33.3 69.0 109 121 31-134 Endrin 33.3 141 195 162 * 42-139 4,4 1 -DDT 33.3 218 229 31.0 23-134 SPIKE MSD MSD ADDED CONCENTRATION QC LIMITS COMPOUND (ug/Kg) (ug/Kg) REC # RPD # RPD REC. gamma-BHC (Lindane) 16.7 13.3 80.0 1.00 50 46-127 Heptachlor 16.7 21.9 131 * 5.00 31 35-130 Aidrin 16.7 20.4 122 15.0 43 34-132 Dieldrin 33.3 118 148 * 20.0 38 31-134 Endrin 33.3 210 208 * 25.0 45 42-139 44'-DDT 33.3 238 58.0 61.0 * 50 23-134 3/90 3.5 PESTICIDE LAB CONTROL SAMPLE RECOVERY Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRAMLEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Lab Control Sample No.: PIBMS60522A Level: (low/med) LOW SPIKE LCS LCS QC. ADDED CONCENTRATION LIMITS COMPOUND (ug/Kg) (ug/Kg) REC # REC. Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 16.7 13.565 81.4 51-117 Heptachior 16.7 12.974 77.8 49-114 Aldrin 16.7 14.171 85.0 51-107 Dieldrin 33.3 28.423 85.3 61-109 Endrin 33.3 33.196 99.6 58-122 4,4 1 -DDT 33.3 31.550 94.7 51-117 I I I I I I I I I I I It Column to used to flag recovery values with an asterisk * Values outside of QC limits Spike Recovery: 0 out of 6 outside limits COMMENTS: FORM III.V PEST 2 tk - 713; 74 Dkt .Ivac.t4: t1L D'i.tC rea)vio( 3/90 I I I I I I I 3.5 PESTICIDE LAB CONTROL SAMPLE RECOVERY Lab Name: CEIMIC Contract: Lab Code: Case No.: BRIM.LEA SAS No.: SDG No.: 605155 Lab Control Sample No.: PIMBS60522B Level: (low/med) LOW SPIKE LCS LCS QC. ADDED CONCENTRATION %. LIMITS COMPOUND (ug/Kg) (ug/Kg) REC # REC. Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 16.7 12.985 77.9 51-117 Heptachlor 16.7 12.345 74.1 49-114 Aldrin 16.7 13.203 79.2 51-107 Dieldrin 33.3 26.369 79.1 61-109 Endrin 33.3 31.395 94.2 58-122 4,4 1 -DDT 33.3 30.204 90.6 51-117 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I Column to used to flag recovery values with an asterisk * Values outside of QC limits I Spike Recovery: 0 out of 6 outside limits COMMENTS: I I I FORM III.V PEST Dok iA4J?CC )-'.-1, 7't31 Dah re.evee(; 3/90 1 I I ORGANIC REPORTING FLAGS A The TIC is an aldol condensation product. This is likely an artifact from the I sample preparation process. B The anatyte is found in the blank. The reported value is not corrected for the I . amount in the blank. C The identification is confirmed by GC/MS analysis. I P The quantitative value is from a diluted analysis. Refer to the undiluted analysis to determine useability of individual analyte quantitations. Data flagged with an E in the undiluted run are suspect, thus the diluted data should be utilized I for sample evaluation. E The quantitative value for the analyte exceeds the calibration range of the method, thus the data may be biased. See the diluted analysis for quantitative I data within the calibrain range. Unflagged data are presumably more useable- than those in the diluted analysis because they are likely to be within the i midrange of the calibration curve. J The quantitative value is estimated. For target compounds the analyte is de- .•tected below the estiamted quantitation limit, but above the instrument detec- I tion limit. For tentatively identified compounds (TICs) the quantitative value is derived from an assumed relative response factor of 1.0. I N The identification is presumptive based on library spectral matching rather than standards analysis (for TICs). I P The quantitative value from the two analytical columns differs by greater 25%. I U The analyte is undetected above the indicated estimated quantitation limit. X The analyte is spiked by laboratory. is ( I JUL 15 '95 05:04pM CEIMIC CORPORATION . S 5 P.1 I . COMIC CORPORATION I ,. ..... •.' ... i Facsimile, Cover Sheet I. TO: Mike Stewart Company: Leighton and Associates 5 I Phone: 292-8030 Fax: I S From: Leslie Getman I Company Ceirnic Córportion I S S Phone: (619)458-9141 S. i . Fax: (619)558a2389 S S Date 01/15/96 S S I Pages including this . S cover,page Cornments S S S S I . Mike, urrgatB recoveries were very high for Ceimic Accession number $05155, The Surrogate, ' spikinq solution was checked by our Rhode Island lab which performed the oMginal analysis. The surrogate solution was found to be twice as high as it should be. 1 • 5 S S .S I ' .5 5 . S S S S•5 i SS., .5 •"•H.••••• S S '•H S, 15 ,'• I. 5 0•_._. . - - -i---_- 'ri . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AFCEE or CL? protocols? - - - - If yes, complete a)and b) a) pH sample aliquoted: yes /no ma b) Either 1) Record Bottle Lot N's: Or 2) Attach Sample Kit Request Form(s) 2 Number of Coolers Received If more than one cooler received attach Multiple Cooler Documentation Form _... (MCD) Indicate "see MCD"on Item 11 below . 3 Are custody seals required for this project ? YES a) are Custody Seals present on Cooler(s) 7 YES If yes, are seals intact ? YES b) are Custody Seals present on the sample ? - YES If yes, are seals intact ? YES 4 Is there a Chain-Of-Custody (COC)° per cooler 7 if not, if a problem is found indicate which samples/test were in the affected cooler on the MCD. 5 Is the COC comple per cooler ? Relinquished: es no Requested analysis:/no 6 Is the COC i agreement with the aples received? N Samples: s no Sample ID's: e no Date sampled: no Matrix: y /no N containers: Wes/no 7 Are the samples preserved correctly? 8 Is there enough sample for all the requested analyses? 9 Are all samples within holding times for the requested analyses? 10 Record cooler temperature. Contact PM if temperature is not 4 °C ± 2°C. Is ice present in cooler? 11 Were all sample containers received intact (ie. not broken, leaking, etc.)? 12 Are samples requiring no headspace, headspace free? 13 Are VOA 1st stickers required? 14 Are there special comments on the Chain of Custody which require client contact? 15 If yes, was Ceimic Client Coordinator notified? Describe "no" items: Was client contacted? yes / no If yes, Date: Name of Person contacted: Describe actions taken or client instructions: ITmnt.1ettPrSL anri/rr chirr1 net mpmrt 09 M Ice NO NO = MR — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5550 MOREHOUSE DRIVE SAND/EGO, CA 92121-1709 Chain of Custody DATE S1Z//qPAGE ( OF____ CEIMIC Corporation Tel: (619) 458-9141 Fax: (619) 558-2389 PROJECT MANAGER: pi\- e — — Recommended Quantity and Preservative (Provide triple volume on QC Samples) — — COMPANY: Lek f Z - x C131, 0 c ADDRESS: 3L..t BILL TO: COMPANY: ADDRESS: 44 ca c E (A,)Z?-b SAMPLERS: (Signature) PHONE NUMBER ' - SAMPLE ID SAMPLE TIME MATRIX LAB ID DATE S17,1 - 114 '3cp l ..... -- 16 ,Z5 -- _IO3O_ O, :ii __ 1111111 4+1 ——ii- " PROJECT NUMBER j7 tqç - Oyi [TOTANU?flBEI?OPX*JTNNERSjI Ppature Time Signature Time Signature Time PROJECT NAME.-&o,pIiee..... Printed Name Date Printed Name Date Printed Name Date PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER ISE(tIff1$7VIL1(A1Vf$VI NP' VIA JEflEDraQODCONOCOW$1PJI \/'/ CompanL Company. Company. == o Disposal @ $5.00 each 0 Return 0 Pickup ShWatwe: Time: Signature: Time: Signature: Time: Comments:PrInted Name: Date: Printed Name: Date: Printed Name: Date: LL)J, hi/i, Company: Company: CEIMIC Corporation 1e1!Vr) 4.o0 I . DISTRIBUTION: Whit., Canary - CEIMiC Corporation • Pink - ORIGINATOR CLIENT AND SITE LOCATIQN A I I I / / / I I / / CALL & SEND RESULTS TO: I LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ( rk .1 / /1 /1/ / / ?ASz /A fr&4+r SApIGNAIURE) Lu I.- cy ui PHONE NO..: 70 SAMPLE DATE TIME SAMPLE NUMBER BELOW GRADE (FT) TYPE REMARKS AI -I ' )3.4t I3(o 5A I__ ____ 557 '-V" jg'o (o ' lb SAMPLES INTACT: (YE3) NO RELJNQUISHED BY: L------- DATE/TIME ''1'_______ RECEIVED BY: SAMPLES PROPERLY :: RELINQUISHED BY: DATE/TIME...- --RECEIVED BY: IF NOT, WHY: - SAMPLES PLACED IN LAB REFRIGERATOR 0 RELINQUISHED BY__< ' DATE/TIME RECEIVED FOR LAB BY: DATE TIME LAB REP. INITIALS LABORATORY NAME: ( CERTIFICATION NO: Project No. 7(oL4 c.c -6G1 II CHAIN -OF-CUSTODY RECORD Project Name d Date 4010390 cY? (0 II 12 I T 18 IfflITE - FILE COPY v YELLOW - LAB COPY PINK - PROJECT MANAGER COPY 4S -t, ) .94 — — — — — — — — — — — = — — — — — — — 5550 MOREl-lOUSE DRIVE COMIC Corporation SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-1709 Chain of Custody DATE7– Jo t'0 PAGE-1— OF____ Tel: (619) 458-9141 Fax: (619) 558-2389 PROJECT MANAGER: ,44; 4 _57- eYV417 - Recommended Quantity and Preservative (Provide triple volume on QC Samples) - COMPANY: ADDRESS: No 8:11 C21, BILL TO: COMPANY: . ADDRESS: 44 Iflili 2 SAMPLERS: (Signature) PHONE NUMBER CU . cts SAMPLE SAMPLE ID TIME MATRIX LAB ID , OSLO -f7 051g5_/c' c.cf55-/g o51S5-z0 605 6c5,55-IVi5 Th RELINQUISHED U çme PROJECT NUMBER TQTAL NUMBER OFCO!UAI??S Signature Time Signature Time PROJECT NAME CUTObYAL Y,NWA 1Jed PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: SEALS N7A? YIflWA Name Date Company LAB NUMBER ______________ Printed Name Date Printed Name Date VIA RECE*D4QOD COiWCGLD Company. Company. TATD24HR 13 48HRS 0 72HRS 0 IWK02WK piz inspos,srm,c,',o,s RECEIVED BY 1 RECEIVED Y 2 RECEIVED B a5ure:. Time: Signature: Time: 0 Disposal C $5.00 each 0 Return 0 Pickup Comments: Printed Name: Date: Printed Name! I Date Printed Name: Date: M44/c ?/1' Company: Company: CEIMIC Corporation "•1 - - .JnflflI.n,,n -r) - -ci -I -II -L — = — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5550 MOREHOUSE DRIVE C SAND/EGO, CA 92121-1709 Chain of Custody DATE7COMIC IO(. PAGE - OF____ MIC Corporation Tel:(619)458-9141 Fax: (619) 558-2389 PROJECT MANAGER: fr'\ , Preservative (Provide triple volume onQCSamples) COMPANY: c 4 2 2 #4LJIJfl.. __ -- BILLTO: COMPANY: 2 10 ADDRESS: o flflhj to fl L s. • . SAMPLERS: (Signature) PHONE NUMBER ( • Lr) kI:, I U fl SAMPLE SAMPLE ID DATE TIME MATRIX LAB ID . 12 WN OOZ O' (D OS iss-o, 0 57 6 - 03 051 55 05155pf os-s-os 6 as 1 55 (,oSLs-07 J F oJEc7NOnMArION - -' SAMPLE — — RflUQWNED1Y1 RtNQUZStED8 2r RELINQUISHEDBfl . -. PROJECT NUMBER Stu e Signature Time Signature Time PROJECT NA ME: Date: E41!TY1NM Printed Name: Date: Printed Name: Date: PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: VIA REIVD CoNP/CIv ____ Cojmpavy LAB NUMBER Company. Company TAT: 0 24H 0 48HRS 0 72HRS [1 1 WK 0 2WK REØIVED OW 1 RECEiVEDRZ * RECEIVED BY - siQSAç1k17WonoNs o DIsposal C $5.00 each 0 Return 0 Pickup Signature: Time: LtdiCcutZiu Zc SMw,: %.3') Tiiip: / i/f5V'V f/I i',it42 Signature: - Time: • Comments. Printed Name: Date: Printed Nam Date: Printed Name: Date: Company: Company: CEIM/C Corporation nLcrpIR,n-,ON. WhIt (,rn.,, - fPiMIt • - flIltMArflD — — = — — — — — = — -. — — — — — — — — 5550 MOREHOUSE DRIVE COMIC Corporation SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-1709 Chain of Custody DATEF-O-L PAGE --3— OF____ Tel: (619) 458-9141 Fax.(61 9 55 389 PROJECT MANAGER: 41' - - Recommended Quantity and Preservative (Provide triple volume on QC Samples) - - COMPANY: lz~b~ C131 104 00, ADDRESS: BILL TO: COMPANY: ADDRESS: 0 cs c Co rz c) UA SAMPLERS: (Signature) PHONE NUMBER Q cc 0 Uj—O . SAMPLE TIME SAMPLE ID MATRIX LAB ID , II H I H OS75-/o 051YS -6/fl5 0.c15 -O/fl5D O5155-/l 605155-f.Z 6o5155-13 ) ( IEUNQWSHED EY POJECT INFORMATION, ',c' SAMpi RECEIPT REUNQWSHEDEY' & REINQZcHEDBY a \Time PROJECT NUMBER Signature Time Signature Time PROJECT NAME 1(AI PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: fJ 'Np,e Late' Printed Name Date Printed Name Date Company a ØI LAB NUMBER Company. Company TAT: 0 24HR 0 48HRS 0 72HRS 01 WK 0 2WK $ipEiSpos iNsmUctiops ... 771,11- flECEIVED E ..... .. . .......... RECEIVED BV RECEIVEOB Time: 0 Disposal C $5.00 each 0 Return 0 Pickup /fl'4.I<1ime: Signature: Time: Comments: Printed Name: Date: Printed Name: / ) Date Printed Name: Date: Company: Company: CEIMIC Corporation - ....r..... ..wpurarIu,, • rink - Uhh(iiN1U UK 0 ON -~ — ; — — — = — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5550 MOREHOUSE DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-1709 Chain of Custody DATE?—lO 9 PAGE -A— ____ COMIC Corporation Tel: (619) 458-9141 Fax: (619) 558-2389 PROJECT MANAGER: ,Af ik - - Recommended Quantity and Preservative (Provide triple volume on QC Samples) - COMPANY: Lj44r *50'. 2 - 2 81 0 811 . () C21 . 0 "I . Coll ,. 0 (J ADDRESS: BILL TO: COMPANY: , 110 to ca Ihi CO Cq i! J) CU 2-1 IU ADDRESS: SAMPLERS (Signature) PHONENUMBER SAMPLE ID SAMPLE DATE TIME MATRIX LAB ID f'/,A18S522'ê IUA prni8sDc252 ?'8 -- PROJECT NUMBER TOtAL VUMEI oFccwrAwERs I igna T me Signature Time Signature Time PROJECT NAME: PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER: "] PdrWed Date: Printed Name: Date: Printed Name: Date: VIA: øE?vE. ] . m any: " Company: Company: TAT: 024HR 0 48HRS 0 72HRS 0 1 W 0 2WK LAB NUMBER , uvsiucuoss REcEIVED V t REE$VED flW 2 Time: .. RCEWEDDY Signature: Time: 0 Disposal $5.00 each 0 Return 0 Pickup tjtuJe, Time: Comments: .. Printed Name: Date: Printed Nam4: I Date i/to Printed Name: Date: Company: rCompany: CEIMIC Corporation DITRIR,mON, Whit. (,nrn,, - (FtMIt f,,.. • DI.,L. - DYII,rfl olin Minch iuu19tssociates, Inc. NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMEN T A L ASSESSMENTS - PLANNING - MANAGEMENT July 15, 1996 Mr. Tom Banks Lennar Homes 27432 Calle Arroyo San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Subject: Proposal for complying with City of Carlsbad Paleontological Resource Guidelines for the grading of the Mariner's Point Tract, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The City of Carlsbad does not have written Paleontological Resource Guidelines. They follow the recommendations of the specific project EIR and depend on the qualified Paleontologist to develop the Mitigation Plan. This can be interpreted that a qualified paleontological monitor be present half-time on the development site when grading in bedrock units such as the Torrey Sandstone and Quaternary Terrace Deposits. The significant fossils recovered on the site need to be prepared to the point of identification, identified and placed in a recognized museum. A report needs to be prepared to adequately document the significance of the recovered fossil specimens. The San Diego Natural History Museum collects a fee from the developer for the accession and storage of fossil specimens. The paleontological monitoring of the grading includes removal of normal concentrations of significant paleontological resources. If an unusual concentration of fossils is encountered on the site, additional salvage work may be necessary. You will be informed and the work will be justified if any salvage operations or additional work is initiated beyond the normal monitoring. All salvage operations, if initiated, will be coordinated with the grading supervisor and the developer to minimize any impact on the grading operations. I have attached a proposal for the Paleontological monitoring of the Mariner's Point Tract for 12 weeks, equaling 60 monitoring days. The following is an estimate based on a 40 hour contractor work week and will change based on any inconsistencies in weather, the amount of spreads, equipment and/or any change in scope of work. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at your convenience. Sincerely, yohii 17v&icli aiu1iLcsociates, Inc. Jo ?Minch, Ph.D Principal/Certified Paleontologist 26461 Crown Valley Parkway, Suite 200, Mission Viejo, CA 92691- Phone (714) 367-1000, Fax (714) 367-0117 COST ESTIMATE Task 1 Supervised Field Monitoring (Possibly will change based on fossils found.) • Includes 60 days of monitoring and supervision. • Monitoring - 60 days (half-time average) x 4 hours/day @ $30.00/hour $7,200.00 • Supervision - 60 days x 1/2 hour/day @ $50.00/hour $1,500.00 $8,700.00 $2,500.00 Subtotal Task 2 Identification, Curation and Report Preparation • Includes fossil stabilization, curation, identification, and report writing for minor amounts of collected fossils. Subtotal Task 3 Accession to Museum This is a museum assessed fee that is billed directly to the developer. Amount to be determined by the museum Directs • Photocopies - $0.15/pg. • Fax - $0.30/pg. As incurred As incurred Subtotal TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 100.00 10.00 $110.00 $11,310.00 If necessary, services required beyond the scope of this contract will be performed in accordance with the below rates. Fossil Curation If/as necessary $35/hour Salvage Operations for Significant Fossils If/as necessary $35/hour Accessioning to Museum (determined by the County Repository) If/as necessary $35/hour Additional Report Time (dependent upon fossils collected) If/as necessary $55/hour LH-96-119.06216 1 JMA EXPLANATION OF PALEONTOLOGIC SERVICES Monitoring Schedule The City of Carlsbad does not have written Paleontological Resource Guidelines. They follow the recommendations of the specific project BIR and depend on the qualified Paleontologist to develop the Mitigation Plan. This can be interpreted that a qualified paleontological monitor be present half- time on the development site when grading in bedrock units such as the Torrey Sandstone and Quaternary Terrace Deposits. The occurrence of fossiliferous bedrock units of the Torrey Sandstone and Quaternary Terrace Deposits on the site requires that a Paleontologist be present during the rough grading. This schedule should enable the Paleontologist to salvage a percentage of the significant specimens which may be uncovered during the grading operations. Salvage and Microscreen Washing The Paleontological Monitoring of the grading includes removal of normal concentrations of significant paleontological resources. If an unusual concentration of fossils is encountered on the site additional salvage work may be necessary. Also, if concentrations of small fossils are encountered the county may require that some of the fossiliferous sediments be washed and screened for the small vertebrates (It is difficult to estimate the cost of this work. It is very doubtful that we would encounter an area which would require extensive washing. I estimate that we might need to expend 1-2 days in investigating an area of suspected concentration). You will be informed and the work will be justified if any salvage operations or additional work is initiated beyond the normal monitoring. All salvage operations, if initiated, will be coordinated with the grading supervisor and the developer to minimize any impact on the grading operations. Curation and Identification The fossils recovered on sites need to be prepared and identified. This work depends on the number of fossils collected. LH-96-119.07156 2 5!7vL S SCOPE OF WORK John Minch and Associates, Inc. will: PROVIDE the necessary qualified personnel, equipment, and material to conduct paleontological monitoring during grading for the Mariner's Point project. The project director will be Dr. John A, Minch, Principal/Certified Paleontologist. CONDUCT salvage operations to recover fossil remains unearthed during grading. CARRY OUT a limited screen washing program (where necessary) to recover microfossil remains. CONDUCT geologic mapping to develop stratigraphic control for fossil producing strata. WEAR orange vests and hard hats at all times during field work. PROVIDE a certificate of liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 and workman's compensation. TRANSPORT all fossil material collected on the project to the San Diego Natural History Museum. CARRY-OUT initial preparation (including heavy-liquid processing) and sorting of collected fossil material. CATALOG & ARRANGE TO STORE all collected and prepared fossil material. ATTEND any meetings or conferences concerning the findings with representatives of Bramalea California. SUBMIT a copy of the final report outlining findings and results to Bramalea California. COMPLETE the project in a timely manner. Bramalea California will: PROVIDE necessary permission and access to the property. PROVIDE base maps of subject property suitable for field locating of fossil finds and for the final report. LH-96-119.07156 3 yi7vL9L NATURAL RESOURCES- ENVIRONMENTAL : ow a ---.- --= - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PALEONTOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE MARINERS POINT PROJECT, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Lennar Homes 27432 Calle Arroyo San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Contact person: Mr. Ken McMichael Prepared by: Dr. John A. Minch Contact person: John A. Minch, R.G., R.B.A. June 24, 1996 26461 Crown. '1"ciCley T1c?vy, Ste 200, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 - Phone (714) 367-1000, FaX (714)367-0117 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................2 SITEDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................2 Figure 1 - Site Location Map ....................................................................3 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................4 PERTINENTLITERATURE ............................................................................4 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE............................................................................4 GEOLOGIC SETTING...................................................................................4 Figure2: Geologic Map .........................................................................5 BIOSTRATIGRAPHY....................................................................................6 FOSSILSON THE SITE.................................................................................6 SIGNIFICANCE OF FOSSILS .........................................................................6 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ...........................................................7 IMPACTS.......................................................................................... CUMULATIVEIMPACTS......................................................................7 MITIGATIONMEASURES .............................................................................7 RESIDUAL IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION (IF ANY)..........................................8 ALTERNATIVESANALYSIS ..........................................................................8 REFERENCES.............................................................................................9 I I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following report has been prepared by John Minch and Associates, Inc. (JMA) at the request of Mr. Ken McMichael of Lennar Homes. Presented within are the results of a paleontologic I mitigation survey for the Mariners Point Project, located in Carlsbad, California. The field survey and report were prepared using currently accepted paleontologic methods. The reconnaissance walkover survey was performed by JMA on Saturday, June 22, 1993. The field survey has been completed. No fossil specimens were identified during the field survey. Known sedimentary units of Eocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene ages at the site indicate that there is a potential for significant I paleontological resources on the site. The Torrey Sandstone is considered to be of moderate to high paleontologic sensitivity and is I known to contain significant fossils adjacent to the proposed development area. The Quaternary Terrace deposits are considered to be of moderate paleontologic sensitivity. Holocene sediments are considered to be of low paleontologic sensitivity. Careful development of this area may increase our knowledge and collections of the fossil I assemblages and environment of deposition of the rock units in this area. All impacts to the paleontological resources of the area can be mitigated to the point of insignificance if the mitigation measures are followed. I I I I I I I LH-96-119.06246 1 .flM9t I INTRODUCTION I In accordance with the authorization of Lennar Homes a Paleontological Resources Survey of the Mariners Point Project, located in Carlsbad, California was performed. This survey was I performed to evaluate the existing paleontological resources of the area, to determine if the development of the Mariners Point project would have any significant adverse impact on paleontological resources, and to determine appropriate mitigation measures to minimize adverse I impacts (if any). I SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located within an undeveloped area of southern Carlsbad, north of Batiquitos Lagoon (Figure 1). The site is situated on the boundary between two relatively fiat terraces in a gently sloped valley floor. The site consists of a gently westward sloping terrace in the western part I which rises moderately through central part of the site to a relatively gentle bill top in the eastern portion of the site. Camino De Las Ondas borders the site on the south. Several unimproved dirt I roads provide access to individual parts of the site. Grass and sparse low bushes cover most of the site. Exposures on the adjacent properties provide access to the underlying geologic units. LI I I I I I I I I I LH-96.-119.06246 2 YMA I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I If. I 1• !b1clo-1- elo ±- I I V 0 Scale I - - Miles 5hIv N Inc. NATURAL RESOURCES thENWRONMENTAL Assessments - Planning - Management L cLP SE i BO$(W000CT 2 FIR TREE PL 3 HH(ORYCT 4 APMCT 5 3ARDENIACT S MAGUEFJTE1N 7 LAURELW000 ST 8 MAJLBERYCT 9 GINGER AV ØJ . The Thomas Guide, San Diego County, Carlsbad, California, 1992, page 19 Figure 1 Site Location Lennar Homes Mariners Point Project I I . METHODOLOGY The following was included in the investigation: 1. Walkover and inspection of exposures of each geologic unit mapped on the site. 2. Review of the available geologic literature pertinent to the geologic units and fossils including paleontological localities. 3. Review of available EIR reports deemed pertinent to the site development. PERTINENT LITERATURE The literature search involved a check of available published and unpublished literature pertinent to the site. There is no complete summary of the geological and paleontological literature on the area. The Geotechnical map of the site (1992) delineates Quaternary Terrace deposits and the Eocene Torrey Sandstone on the site. Ellis and Lee (1919) and Weber (1963) published regional geologic maps of the area. These maps are very general and predate the modern formational names. FIELD RECONNAISSANCE I A reconnaissance walkover survey of the site was conducted by John Minch & Associates, Inc. on Saturday, June 22, 1996. The walkover and inspection of exposures and slopes of the geologic I units on the site did not result in the discovery of any fossils. GEOLOGIC SETTING I The sediments and sedimentary rock units at the site range in age from Eocene to Holocene (Figure 2). The moderate hill slopes and hilltop are predominantly underlain by Quaternary Terrace I deposits. The steeper hill slopes are underlain by Eocene sedimentary rocks comprised of the Torrey Sandstone. A small gully is covered by Holocene alluvial sediments. I I I I LH-96-119.06246 4 917vL41 I I I I I I I I I I 1 p I I I I I I I J >'c \ f1( (rD / p LL I N \\ ( Q) \ TI 'I - FQ _ Qttt I I 2I1:32 / \ I Qal \ / N \- L \\ Q \L. N I fl )4 V-) ) \ '\ \ Legend I \ \ \ Qa' - Alluvium Qt - Terrace deposits North ' c Tt - Torrey Sandstone Scale 01 1/2 USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map, Miles I Encinitas , California, 1968, Photorevised 1975 5a mincfi And ASSOCM,W, Inc. Figure 2 NA TURAL PESO URCES & ENVIRONMENTAL Geologic Map Lennar Homes Assessments - Planning - Management Mariners Point Project I I BIOSTRATIGRAPHY The area is underlain by Eocene and Quaternary sedimentary rocks and Holocene sediments. The sedimentary rock units consist of the Torrey Sandstone and Quaternary Terrace deposits. They are not adequately mapable as separate units on the surface of the site The Eocene Torrey Sandstone (Tt on Figure 2) consists of light gray to yellowish brown, poorly to well sorted, friable to indurated, massive to channeled and cross bedded sandstone with minor conglomerate and silty lenses. The Quaternary Terrace deposits (Qt on Figure 2) of light gray to yellowish brown, poorly sorted, friable to indurated, massive, matrix supported conglomerate and sandstone derived from I underlying bedrock sources. A soil derived from decomposed bedrock sources mantle the slopes on the project. I FOSSILS ON THE SITE I The Torrey Sandstone and the Quaternary Terrace deposits are the two sedimentary rock units which outcrop on the site. Published and unpublished literature indicates that both the Torrey Sandstone and the Quaternary Terrace deposits contain fossil localities in the northern San Diego I areas adjacent to the site. Vertebrate fossil remains have been recovered from numerous localities within the Torrey Sandstone. Fossils are fairly rare in the Quaternary Terrace deposits and are I usually found in the finer parts of the unit. Fossils in the unconsolidated Holocene sediments are rare. SIGNIFICANCE OF FOSSILS I The fossils contained in these units elsewhere in the San Diego Area have proven to be of significant scientific value. The Torrey Sandstone fossils are from the Uintian Land Mammal Stage of the Eocene with a probable age of 45 million years before present. We know little about I the fauna of the Uintian Land Mammal Stage in this area, and any new localities need to be carefully collected. Very little is also known about the fauna of the Quaternary Terrace deposits due to the low numbers of known fossil localities. I CONCLUSIONS The subject area may contain Paleontological Resources from Eocene and Quaternary sedimentary I units. The Torrey Sandstone is considered to be of moderate to high paleontologic sensitivity and are known to contain significant fossils adjacent to the proposed development area. Quaternary Terrace deposits are considered to be of moderate paleontologic sensitivity. Holocene sediments LH-96-119.06246 6 994121. I are considered to be of low paleontologic sensitivity. Careful development of this area may increase our knowledge and collections of the fossil assemblages and environment of deposition of the rock units in this area. The site can be developed and still protect the paleontological resources ofthe area if the following mitigation measures are followed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS I IMPACTS I Significant Impact which cannot be Avoided (Section 15126(b) of CEQA Guidelines). I The development of the area may have a significant impact on the paleontological resources of the area which cannot be avoided. I Significant Impact which can be Avoided or Mitigated. The development of the area may have a significant impact on the paleontological resources of the I area which cannot be avoided. However, the significant impacts on the paleontological resources of the area can be mitigated. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS I All impacts to the paleontological resources of the area are considered to be non-Cumulative. MITIGATION MEASURES No additional mitigation measures are necessary prior to the initiation of grading operations. 2. A paleontological resource monitoring plan should be developed by a Certified Paleontologist. This plan should include a grading observation schedule to be maintained when grading in bedrock units to further evaluate the fossil resources of the site. 3. Salvage operations should be initiated and coordinated with the developer if significant concentrations of fossils are encountered. I L LH-96.-119.06246 7 I I I [H I I I RESIDUAL IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION (IF ANY) I There will be no Residual Impacts after Mitigation. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS I There is no necessity for alternatives due to the mitigation of impacts on the paleontological i resources. II I I I F Ej 111 El I I I I LH-96-1 19.06246 8 YMA I REFERENCES I Eisenberg, L., 1983, Pleistocene Marine Terrace and Eocene Geology, Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, San Diego County, California. Ellis, A. J., 1919, Geology of the western part of San Diego County, California, in Geology and ground waters of the western part of San Diego County, California: U.S. Geol. Surv., Water • Sup. Pap. 446, pp. 50-76. U Fairbanks, H. W., 1893, Geology of San Diego County; also of portions of Orange and San I Bernardino counties: Cal. Div. Mines and Geology, Rept. of the State Mineral., v. 11, pp. 76- 120. I Kennedy, M. P., and Lillegraven, J. A., 1973, Terrestrial Eocene vertebrates from San Diego County, California, in Ross, A., and Dowlen, R. J. (eds.), Studies on the geology and I geologic hazards of the greater San Diego area, California: San Diego Assoc. Geol. Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 27-32. I Kennedy, M. P., and Peterson, G. L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan area: Calif. Div. Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. I MV Engineering, 1989, Preliminary Soil and Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 22-lot Subdivision, La Costa Avenue, Encinitas, California. I San Diego Natural History Museum's vertebrate paleontological records. Weber, F. H., Jr., 1963. Geology and mineral resources of San Diego County, California: Calif. I Div. Mines and Geology County Rept. 3, 309 p. Wilson, K. L., 1972, Eocene and related geology of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas quadrangles, H San Diego County, California: M. A. thesis, Univ. California (Riverside), 135 p. Weber, F.H., 1982, Openfile, Geologic Map of North-Central Coastal Area of San Diego County, H: California: California Division of Mines and Geology, pp. 82-12. I LI I I LH-96-1 19.06246 9 YMA I- . : • . \\ \ \ N /SEE SHE ( NO . • . ••• \ D• so /I -cç\ '. \ - / I • . . . . MALE;['-4W 0 I/K.-'• .. .LOS SCALE 1'. 4ir I r : c • - -- . tø . 4 62 .' o6gI 3 )o €L9 -:: /jl , 1/ / .J 0 • Il••_ ; - -. ' - ' , : t/ i ••\/\\\ A j - 63 65 I • / , - 'a: :/ ••-4 .' ,74". .-,' \ s' il0 , 595.0 I il' I - 00SFI i° 381 73 37 36 IM, WOO SF _ _T00SFI 0600 SF ' I 1. I 105005F 3\ d oo 25 \\\ I3 SF I - - ____ - - .1 \ '- -- .• - - . - - -_--- - ------ - - - - ' AS BUILT" -- - ---+ I I3 - -r - _-_-_ - MARINERS POINT Fc 1crOABI 4 1 _rt TENTATIVE MAP, 3CALC 4O CM 1 -4ft Val B oçt ' P t. 73 r.W . 'T I '. : • ,1 ITIT 541 5 SF : D -57 Al C 58 59 • - \ / 'ç,. V// iiE • ' ffuvflY N 60 - •12100 F. ______ \•. • - j400S r: G9D Lj 78 sa - . • II142000I1I 1 1 7 "AS BUIL-r DAit I0OOSFI \/ 'i / 0 \_R!NERPOI , cthD 43 $ • - ___________12 SE \ lisFlIIo00sFI \ 12F5 - j TENTATIVEMAP " 74•' or6 ( - \ J.N I0-l02 I 'V tL flN ' fl---. - - - --- - -- - - - . \ . d \ ! • • -- - - . - - . TO 280 I ' \ . I N - T:_: -- \ , \ • \:: :-rcz-.- —--- z.. • •- •_.- . -:••_ - -a \. ••.. \) t;'•• .- -- - - - -I,--- : ' — — /. --- - - - - dg9 3-_:000 3F - —— T1i-- - -- -- --rT4 0 : -\- • • - OW SF — - - - L - -- -_000 - -, - ---- -- I400S-- 000 SF.._%) _ ,c---4 - - - - — -i ------- 9 4 E - - --- a 0 2 \ SF I — I - ---- ---. - - 000 SF-!— - oo - _s- 1oo005Fi - O 9i-ç T. T - - - — -- — 4-- — -- - - -- 1 Y SF -- __ -2I 400 SF -7 . - -: r Ii00SFI ___ - - BfThAMOOD - 9 EX —' - - - - - --- ,RIVE c1I A[Q - - — - - 1 L'soosU- - E--SHE ' I 0 \ N 6 AS BUILT' ' I-- icf \7b__ - T'---- A1 ---. H- ,- -D 1 102d MARINERS POINT .C . HEET io \. E TENTATIVE MAP 107 I -. - - I I • -.-- S - - —S-------.-----' . .---- — -- -- - - - .--,- ---- .-I I - -4 J14,133-102 I - -. + --- - 0_ II 5 loa r 13 k I 0 / --&jrros (\ t•1i O*;; I 0 I\f " -, - c 1.000sl\ I 900 10 / Ag III! 190 I% \ IIN MARINERS POINT :: uur skit — — 0 - — - - 1IC1TY OF CARLSBAD TENTATIVE MAP 0 - =i' U SEEEErL I Efi :SAI OSF 90 900 SF 0 4 \ IIj c4 co ?oosFI 00 _____ 4 r& • 8 59 • - 7r_ C=D goo SF I –I,,eosFl 1$ OOSF OW 949"3 I 4. a- -22%'N 75 71 \ \ it0 \I I Itsoo 0,1 -fL \ 7900SF c) \ \ \ / _____ sy • toosri 81 •6j ___or Cim) Isoos 44 t1o'goo SF 63 00 Rd 11 iz.00s,i _L-k- \\\ I 0 EE I " :Ei I / U ,1.N. 135-102 ,j0 J MULTI-FAMILY "AS BUILr ic.._.____ or._ ot "clolm sr. MARINERS P O-INT_ CI_TY - _OC_R_ TENTATIVE MAP! (INDEX SEET) RE.IDDN OESP I NOTES: I1SEE SHEET 8 FOR PROFILES OF AlGA HOAD AND CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS 21 SEE SHEET 9 FOR EXISTING EASEMENT LOCATIONS. iN. I43IO r. - a •.'•.•."'•...•.:; .-.A... r _ •'.. . .c - - p : b. flfl 1flfl'fl tHLLuLJLJ 3 MARINERS POINT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA BRAMALEA HOMES D Sm MARINERS POINT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA BRAMALEA HOMES / (OBCRNI E'S' IF / SI U(CO FASCIA 12ABOVEFG ii E2 MI-IAL RAIl ISIS s OCT11 BUILDING 11111 FRONT AND REAR BUILDING 1110 LEFT AND RIGHT CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS 91250 4:14-92 Ill VlSI 1)4,2292 0 8 16 BUILDING 200 FRONT S5UILUINU LULl RIUII 1 SlUR BUILDING 200 LEFT SIDE - PI pg hIi1 ir - àI!!uI.U. IIuuI IIIIIHIlIIIHIIHII/,, ________ IOU ILUINU ZUU KI4AR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS 0 0 16 91250 4 1492 CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. BUILDING 205A FRONT ir = 11iJ!1 __•jqi IU 1ii1 I! k\ kin- METAL RAII INGS STUCCO IIUILDING 200A RFAR U1J tI)IN(i 200A RiSill I I)I BUILDING 200A I NFl SI ON DORIUS ARCHITECTS 0 8 16 10 AYTCZUNL( SXCAVCAA 7E'rGCURE IW2'IWXCS CAMRIO OK LAS ORCAS CUL-DE-SAC STREETS LOCAL STREETS 68'.8O TYPICAL STREET SECTION 110 SCALE aw - R/W or 007 KW I S€ V 4VCO1EI7 J%C050AAAO TrlrrcuAA (7IYDIIIIXCI) 1717? 601?! Sf1277 CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS TYPICAL STREET SECTION NO SCALE IP18010P 30100 C IIF&L0B P/NINA A ELSE (.AE'M) TENTATIVE MAP NO. It SHEETS CITY OF CARLSBAD TENTATIVE MAP DF C T 91 - 12 MARINER B PDINT VICINITY MAP NO SCALE GENERAL NOTES 1. TOTAL ACREAGE, 88.00 - 2. EXISTING ZONING, ROMO. R-I-10-O 3. PROPOSED ZONING: R'I-IO,OOD;R).Z5oO; R-3 4. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, RN. RLM. 0,STREET RIGHT,OP WAY WIDTHS ARE SHOWN ON MAP. 6. CUT I FILL SLOPES 00 NOT EXCEED 2:1. 7. PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT DATED 8-23-88 PREPARED BY LEIGATON & ASSOCIATES 0421 AVENIDA ENCINAS . SUITE C.CARLS8AO. CALIF.22008 8.EXISTING GROUND CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2'FOOT U.S.L. B. LOTA' IS OPEN SPACE AND N.Y. STORAGE. 10. PUBLIC SERVICES AND DISTRICTS: GAS & ELECTRIC ..... ..SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY TELEPHONE .........PACIFIC BELL WATER ............ CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SEWER ............ CITY OF CARLSBAD STORM DRAIN .........EASEMENTS I IMPROVEMENTS AS REOUIRED BY CITY OF CARLEBAD FIRE D€MRTUENT..........CITY OF CARLSBAD SCHOOL DISTRICT. ..........CERLS8AD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT II. 050ITIONAL EASEMENTS MAY BE RESURED BY CITY OF CARLSBAD Ia ALL PROPOSED UT1UT1ES TO RE UNDERGROUND /3. STREET LIGHTS AS REQUIRED BY CITY ENGINEER 14. FIRE HYDRANTS AS SECURED BY CITY ENGINEER B FIRE MARSAALL ID. EXISTING UTILITIES ON-SITE TO BE RELOCATED AS SECURED 1€PROJECT SIGNAGE TO BE ESTABLISHED INN.ANNED CUR PROGRAM IT.TYPICAL LOT DRAINAGE PER CITY OF CARLSBAD 570. NO. GS-I5 IS LOTS BREAK D0WN 05 lillY A LOTS I - 80110.000 SF) 27.9 AC '2.9 DU/ AC DI C) UNIT 'C' LOTS I (MULTI- FUlLY - IRS UNITS) 8JAC • SCI QU/C It AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC UNIT 'A' BOO ADT UNIT 'B' '1070 ADT UNIT 'C' • 1092 ADT TOTAL • 5962 ADT I 070130W 17/11" 20.EMTNWOIII( QUANTITIES N EEL/I (MAR) CUT '5200500 Cr. FILL. 520'000'r-Y.KISS At GRADED '8,410 CT/Ac A1i '€0.40 • 0244/CY 1.00,11C CAMARO 0€ LAS 08005 '73,419 C.Y'3.06 A. IIDOENVALLEY AC ' 3.228 C20.36A3. 2I.EXGITING ZONING DENSITY (LLM.) - IA! A0.-3ILOTS- 2.TDU/Ac. (R.M4 -452 A.-149 LOTS -3.3 00/Ac, (LU.) ..JLI0I52 UNITS- 2o.9 DWAA(*B.TI FUlLY) S&OAc. 22. OPEN SPACE €6.0 Ac- B.TAc MULTIFAIDI.Y. 593 At. cR 15% At LI SO LOTS- I40cO5F 18.4 At 22107 LOTS-7,50OSF • ILA At 3.) ROADWAY. SIDEWALK. I2.5 At 49301 59.3 At - 49.3 Ac. • 10.0 At OPEN SPACE • •J1AI 4't1# TYPICAL STREET SEC11ON NOGC.7I.E LEGEND SANITARY SER W,MKNH0tES:. . . WATER WUPPURTENANCES ......-B'- STORM DRAIN WIAPPURTENANCES . r$LoPEBANK1MAx2:i).. .. . . V ____ PAD ELEVATION ........... LOT NUMBER .............I60 ICO$S GUTTgR TYPICAL LOT DRAINAGE DETAIL NO SCALE OWNER/DEVELOPER BRAHALEA CALIFORNIA, INC ONE PARK PLAZA SUITE 1100 IRVINE, CA. 82714 'M4).851-3131' LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION OF THE S. E. 114 SECTION 21. T. 125., RAW. S.B.M. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 214-140-OS JOB JA 135-10 /__ 71 E_T7 :TfT I i L T L I / 77 NET 211; t ts". V TO CITY O.F1,C FUeIIc FOAD A$IflNI imNT - A/G&tASI$U A FflOTo '. \. D' D.AINAO%UlENT. tILE NO/ 4O71• 7Z4$ I FIL )IItZ&IL TO COUNTY OF SAN.DIEaO 7ED -DERD AEC. 10-12784, 12 i4 71i 1CAt.t: V.100 CROSBY -' -• MEAD BENTON - a enacu - MARINERS POIN %-I:IiilW L...- - -- ME== t.."..-...'. -- ---- TENTATIVE MAP' --- -- ---- __ -. fil SEE SHEET 6 DES 49 ' 113= SF I \ ( I 100 GD — 1 com k It agog \ /j F •Ie.400$Fl 1 900 SF ryoo SP rzaposF1 58.1 - ' - I 53 54 55 36 4v dr FAi1 ILY 182 u sn j -- - \ I . I - / -- J /f•-•• SLOT IT "C' —--- •-- - M ftAq5VE If I —AC.I AS BUILT' > -' -- - • ____________________ .1 mARINEAS POINT: i- - I •--••'••' -- ---- -- V - ----------- _______ 111111 --— c,- sALE, .40 l ••1. STREET C/L DATA -. IXA/11A40 R*S tESTS ov -'ii'. — ® 4 .J4l75 ® S9.CU' -. 4 • sS•OTOE 00' fI EE''Ô .- z11& ±tT1r LEI _....L. .._PROILI hit ENVALLEY ROAb_________ Ta *0 82 as so as so *4 sos ------------- apNo-o7 tr EWMILD NOW API! ZU,040-32 J. sct1_ lao-' -: •/ 2f . . .. . - •1 Th . . . . • / ! - 4 - - • - r S - ( I _____ 4• 'dr • - —. . -. - EARIHWOPK LAN: HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD V fri . OFF-SIT zo ;I .4V7: .O7)74TMUC . — TYPICAL STREET SECTION CROSBY MEAD .... BENTO'4 aSSOQ)TTh tus ... S7 ' I 'zr-r_-f.. t E SEWER ONLY -I- I 1 AS BUILT" — OF CARLSBAD fl CITY S C44S 047MThC47 —4-- — — — — FINAL ALIGNMENT STUDY FOR HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD ETA. 75+77.41 TO ETA. 99+90.58 4 - — • ftMSION DESCRIPTION DAIS ASIa. ST ____ Mt fl•. ODD TVOD NEST 4)4. I3*Ut LEGEND: PROJECT OUNOARV SLOPE lANK the..' 2"1 SEWER RAIN WI. MAAHOIIS -...._.... WATER MAIN STORM DRAIN W/. CLKAMOIJT - SNOW DITCHR$ NW NAP LIMIT Of SIMIlAR AREA i. AVO (APN 22-040-35 1(1/fl ,36.39,48 & 49) o LI. ?z 'I : CROSBY PIm* IP7AN VIEAD ..n 51 Cala. S1. Sell. SN. BENO d.SI.e.. C.11Jl.el. •..e. & ASSOCL'O&S CAIN eu-tel. - SCALE.- 1*=1001 . . ar 71~' / II) • / / I - —------- ) ---- F .I cy atc PRELIMINARYSTREET ( ALIGNMENT PLAN .OFFSITE SEWER ONLY / FOR HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD PRELIMINARY STREET ALIGNMENT PLAN FOR: - • HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD - - • SCALE: 1'=100' - i/•' AIR kw 051*106 .2A.O OH 608 B NIH CAMINO IDE LAS ONDAS TYPICAL STREET SECTION NO SCALE H FRIBr OP £6cE 6 S7 6 /16654 08 01.04(6.) 1006AM 714154 B £051 (') TYPICAL LOT DRAINAGE DETAIL NO SCALE FBI MAP 6O, VICINITY MAP NO SCALE 28.30 >-;< CAMBIO EM LAS ONOAS CUL-DE-SAC STREETS LOCAL STREETS 56,60 TYPICAL STREET SECTION 50 SCALE 665751 578 ewvw ALGA ,OAD. TYPICAL STREET SECTION IS 5041.0 LEGEND SANITARY SEWER 66/MANHOLES . . WATER WAPPUATENANCES STORM DRAIN WIAPPURTENANCES . SLOPE BANK (MAX. 2I) FOJISM P550* LOT NUMBER ............. II CROSS GUTTER - rs.E*1 a64.1.4 SITE PLAN FOR MARINERS RcDINT GENERAL NOTES 1. TOTAL ACREAGE; 68.00 2. EXISTING ZONINGrRDMQ. R-I-lO-O 3. PROPOSED ZONING: N-I-ID,ODO;W1-5OO;g-3 4. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. RM.RLM. S. STREET RIGHT-OF WA? WIDTHS RHO SHOWN ON MAP. 6. CUT A FILL SLOPES DO NOT EXCEED 2:1. 7. PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT DATED 8-23-88 PREPARED BY LEIGHTON S ASSOCIATES 5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS . SUITE C.CARLSBAD CALIF. 92008 S. EXISTING GROUND CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2 -FOOT M.S.L. 9. LOT A' IS OPEN SPACE AND R.V. STORAGE. 10. PUBLIC SERVICES AND DISTRICTS: GAS & ELECTRIC.......SAN DIEGO GAS It ELECTRIC COMPANY TELEPHONE .........PACIFIC BELL WATER. ........... cARLsBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SEWER...........CITY OF CARLSBAD STORM DRAIN ... ...... EAEEMENTS,/ IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT ...... CITY OF CARL SBAD SCHOOL DISTRICT ..... .... .CAALGRAS UNIFIED 501001. DISTRICT IL 4001110981. EASEMENTS MAY BE REQUIRED BY CITY OF CARLSBAD IS. ALL PROPOSED UTILITIES TO BE UNDERGROUND 13. STREET LIGHTS AS REOUIRED BY CITY ENGINEER 4. FIRE HYDRANTS AS REOURED BY OTT ENGINEER ft FIRE MARSHALL ID.EOIISTONG UTILITIES ON-SITE TO RE RELOCATES ASRESURED IS. FBO,.ECT SIGNASE TO RE ES1A66J5IIED IN-PLANNED.SISN PROGRAM IT. TYPICAL LOT DRAINAGE PER CITY OF 0281.5580 STD. NO. SD-IS IS LOTS BREAK DOWN: 0306IITA'LOT5 1.80110.000 SF.I27.9AC '19 01.1/AC LRIIT 'B LOTS 1-107(7.500 SF)28.9 AC. 3.7 EU/AC CI UNIT CLOTSI (MULTI -FAMILY - 182 UNITS) 8.580.009 EU/AC - 13.AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC UNIT A • 600 AR1 UNIT 'B' • 1070 ROT U$ITC' 1092 AOl TOTAL' 0982 ADT 2O.EMThB( q48,rrruEs WE •52OQ00 P8.1. • $00000 CX 81.95 AS 06*082 '11.4100.0/AR .4CA411840 CR21950€ LAS 09563 TR,4I9 ET-3.0S As. 1800511 VAlLEY • 3.525C.X036A.. 21.52511116 2061116 DENSITY (8.LN.) -14.1 As.-S8LDTS - 2.TDU/A,. (.) .45k A- 149 LOiS -5.3 DU/Ac. - (lULl ,..5.NçIezWT3..2o.9 00/Mt 188.11 PROW?) 68.0*8. 22. OPEN SPACE - 46.0*11 - S.7M182..TI 7*4W? • 59.3*6.116 15% • 69 AC 1.) IOLGTS-IA009SF'6.4*6 8.3 lOT LOTS-ZSOOSF • 16.4 A 5.3 IIOIDWAY, SIDEWALK. I2.S As 463 As N9.3 *6 - 493A. 110 A. OPEN SPACE C T 91 - 12 OWNER/DEVELOPER BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA. INC ONE PARK PLAZA SUITE 1100 I1VINE CA. 92714 714I 8513131 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTON OF THE S. E. 114 SECTION 2*. T. 12S.. R4W. S.B.M. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL FLAT THEREOF. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 214-140-08 -t I_ 1' Mom CUM MINE .IuIctz!_ 1 SITE PLAN Iv- . i1ri IN C __ '1Ii_j•• __ -- ______==== Jw nc-c, SCALE 1.40 0 40 00 120 tiC C0Lt00 IL \\\\ \\\\\\J/.. :1/ ,'////// ,' / •f f \\ > un •i. '[ ' !/ /; / / .cugI7hJy44' ,) U;' I • ) I/1JMJYFir4tw'4q - - ----- 7j 2i1Ii 5N . ot 57 oul F -- 58 59 ! -.•• ¼. . ww,qy 1- '- •- . -. .. . .. - ac G,4'21 -- '& •. •. I ON AW Ma - --,---- -- ILIJ!I1 Iit4iVk1 rill _ _ PI 1 MARINERS PO ____I I.öJIflt:ThI == ==== __l-- -• <•• . ... -. . 7 *j "1 •• a' LIJIr, I WdZ rl ME MUM II '-'----- — \) T _ I ______ CITY OF CARLSBAD - D.0 D SI'TEPLA?4 - 4~1 - I-.- -. - J1 SEE SHEET INO. 6 cor TTJTTT i b H 1 H - I-. \ MULTI—FAMILYi 183 UNITS I.C. 00 Drl 8.-7± Ac. —MI - - It - -• - ZzL -z) _/iij•.____.. - -. HEETNO. -6 OFBFOR ADDITIONALINFORM N) I - - - - - I - / / :- --- .----- J I I As BUILT' DAY- MARINERS POINT SCALE, 1'-40' DAY cffY0FCAB1SBAD SITE PLAN th ocs - - J.N35IO2 W7 LLJ LLI S HI \ SEE tt: 6 L \ \ _-t • - - I \ ' \ •. - : too SF A F () (D 22.2J - .T.900 SF1 (] 500 I7,S005FI 58 52 53 541 1 II . . \.S S '- -i----- •0•, 11/ S \ 5- •1.1 •. . 900 . _-S - 'I.: .• S. CII) j -5' J _H- I00SF G4J '1 F / rr5SF .\. 4lI00SFI I LLS Sj' c 410.0. 0 S • LOW 751- S :FSrSo - ft.4R*'/h'G RSQMr50lEk: . $5 15 0) AS • IM 5' SCALE I•.40 t5. (4 SC • - 0 00 l 100 $AS5.Z.0SS.40I5/a0 ? -. - 44RA(/NG FO00D: Am - f- 4W I/f 3momoro Q xJ00 MARINERS POINT S 01, — A • .1 ---- 0 ---- .0 0 -, - ---- -- -- ---- / I IL ; L Nil - 0. lz Ia * • 4 iIt l I I: : E - 'MARINERS POINT Th;U:1UJIl - - -- ---- k L9J -- ---- _I•_I__________ CROSBY \IEAD BENTON - 4 *4TU -. Li - - C. 4-21-63 FILE NO. 13147 TAe C UNLIC NOAD A$!MCN \ - 2 lObat E\IEU. - TO CITY OF CANLSNAR I /1 GRID NEC 4.-Il-Il FiLL No I - TO' DRAINAGE 0*31111? DEED NEC. i2-.17$3. ILR NO. 410?? . . -- TO Co ITT OF SAN DIEGO. FILE NO. 04-387042 -- 11'EXIS'TtNä TON LINE,—., (T DEErilIEO..!-2N-S1. II.E 10. t4l131 IIIC, l,i7.?N. FILET .75 I& J . DIED NEC. 7-21-98. 920K 7174, PG SON. NEC. 11-i-$iILE NO. 11014$ • /' GLlE EASZ$U. FPO 4' TO W. koE1.097j FILf Asi.& 10 i_•___ SCAt.: i.jôo' 0 8 16 CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS 0 91250 0-10.92 BUILDING 200 FRONT BUILDING 200 REAR BUILDING 200 LEFT SIDE 3 3 411 4 3 1 BDRM, 1 BA 797SF 3 BUILDING 100 SECOND FLOOR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS 10 0 4 8 91250 4.14-92 3 3 3 1 BDRM, 1 BA 797 SF 3 BUILDING 100 FIRST FLOOR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS 0 0 4 8 91290 4.14.92 REVISED 012202 IN Iml BUILDING 100 FRONT AND REAR BUILDING 100 LEFT AND RIGHT CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS 10 0 8 16 91250 4-14-92 REVISED 6122/92 2 1 BDRM, 1 BA 716 SF 1 1 BDRM, 1 BA 650 SF I .9,4•l_ ,ll I 4 2 BDRM, 2 BA, 962 SF 5 2 BDRM, 2 BA 1025 SF BUILDING 200 SECOND FLOOR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS I D 048 91250 4-54.92 - 2 1 BDRM, 1 BA 716 SF 1 1 BDRM, 1 BA 650 SF I. .R,1_l_ I R'6 I 4 2 BDRM, 2 BA, 962 SF 5 2 BDRM, 2 BA 1025 SF BUILDING 200 FIRST FLOOR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS '4 4 I 0 4 8 D 91250 4.1492 REVISED 6/2192 5 2 BDRM, 2 BA 1025 SF 4 2 BDRM, 2 BA, 962 SF 2 1BDRM,1BA 716 SF 1 1BDRM,1BA 650 SF BUILDING 200 THIRD FLOOR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. 0 DORIUS ARCHITECTS 0 0 4 8 91250 4-14.92 ONC "S' TILE . .. 4 ,.sSo 0 4 4,11 l• •4 4 •4 • •. ••• 4 , S S •4 • • , •• •,, I • • •. •. . .S•# •,..,.• • 1 '14'5' •,. • • , I • •S •% • •, • I o. 00 • I.. • • •4 4. • I 4S•• S •5 • • • V j4 •S 44 % I, j• •5 •'• •• •'':.,:. •' • • 4 5 •••. .fie 14 '. •4' •4 VA6. a. • .• • • S • •• • • •, •1 ..4 •".: • . I • . . I• 5.2 5' . S . t • •.r. •• • %. • • •S •• • • 4' :;• b 1. • ••• . i 4, a. Ie•" : I'4 • •%4 • 9• •5 • •• ,• ••,••, • I •V . I •.1' • 5' I. •• $ • I • •l • a S • .2 eS • • sicI% •. •I •4 4 •"1 .q- :' ••••.• S. 4 • •.'%+,.' % I •• •e.flk'.. I 141 4I • 54, !1a 4 4 •.'•% I • •e V 44. •0 tow • 1% • 1$I•4, u•l. vt..' . - - )t • . •' - 4,- •,I q S : • •4 0 m a 0 0 a a) a) - -- •0 • S • •.. •* •. • •. •. • •• • . I .. • I •• S • •s•• :, • ' • . S. • •• .1- ••• . • •. : . • ,,. #.s. •' '. a , • ••• ' •..4. •• •. •,• •. • '4 a •• _ • • I • s --- ••*%!:9 goo • ••• .% • •go 4 • •. :. .1 :. •:1r. : • $1•8. . . . •'. V #1a ••s. 55 • •••4 S • j't S. IIII1j1tJIi to •• •" :. •5 • • p it'. • t ••S • •e• tIS : • • • "S . •• •' : • • •,.. .' ••S. .. • 0 'a .,4 • •: ' %1 e • p • •'. •5 •S • S S • •S S '. •.. •• : . •.g' • •5 ''p. • . 0 • • l.a Is •. •jPS • •55 • S • 555 • p. "I s _s.'. .._ •s 555, j •S • a,!' .'e p hO :' . • • . . • ' •% .: •. 4 •. • ,p , • .4. .5. •5 ••i?• • a , _____ :•' "I _____ •e •5 ___ 0 • • I -- •.a• Iip ' S • • S S _________ • I', _____ ••, a I.. a , 5, • a, S • • - •4, . . • • I --- •,• g • , _______ 5• ••••a a •. • I •. 5$ •5 .5 *110 r .• . .5 • . . •551• :,.• .• • S • • &'4 •. . •;i •. • S • •".'•' ••S S. 5;... . S.. •. .5. S S • •. •. •• • :.'., .'. p• 5I• p,• S •.. S c40• I • 4k. ik • — . ...•.It..,• S •5 • • • . q . • •• ••s• • •S S • IS. S•. •• • I 'p' ;ir4•;' •5 S •.. : e ..': • •. S •, •e •. •.9•. a •. •• ... •% .• • S • • •i ••t•• a • S • S• • ..S • • •• C. •.'; •.:,•• •. •.° • • .4.aSe •. • .5 5 •. • • . b S • • t•%•*S :'. S 'S $ • Is • i. : • 0 • ,.,.• • • —. %. S 5 • 'p • • • I 5•• II,. • Ar .5...,, ;•.• • p 5 • ?. •i •. • • STUCCO(FLOAT FINISH) 5, 5 • 5 5 -__-_ • .' • • • • • S S * , . •r 'T ••_ •$ do • '. •• 1/ 5. a ' - C ••• • • ' S • •• •:' I. •• •5 • • • : .5 • r' (5 I • • . .5_._.;._ S' • .s•, .• : .__•. - 5$ CS. a. C rA WOOD GARAGE DOORS ONC '5' TILE • .. • .• * • • •t I • • t. •.•. S • S to •; :• . :... ••• •: to A 444 • . '.4 ••• :'- r- S • • .•':' '._' S • • • . . : :.. . • :•• . r:: t*:* t.i'tg : • • :: ..pd• '•' $ t oo • :. : : : '. 01 oo so Tr ml !7 • -S •• 4 • to • k::. Lr*t'1 ..&' •if• . '• • •1:. S. • 1... •..t, L 4S* :r WOOD GARAGE DOORS • •. a. •• • * • • ,• •. .•• 'S. • .• - S • • • ••• S 1. • • • • • • . . . . • S • • S •.• •e •.• S.• •a* - t • . •'.. • . _ S S • • • • ••• S. • , •. . . •, •: •. •' S. • • • f..% • -. . •,s.•. .4. S. • • :.• • . : '' ' qb .•'ii • . (f_/I V. _,•;; :1'. i" . •_% • - .1. _; .. • .S . • . . . • I • •eS***• . •• • • • lb • •• •• •s?- •. •.S • . • :•. •J f •. ' •..' •:;•: .: • d . . • •. . : :'..• ). VVUJL VU I LIJJIF% STUCCO (FLOAT FINISH) • a a •• % •• • a. •;. •' • a.. • • • .$ ' $ a ' I I. •.. a ,. '?• • ________ • ,. • • •• ' a•• • F •:. ••; . • b• •: •• :• . :'A: • '••• • •1; I £ •.••• \\\'c a • • .S •. •• • • a •% 44. •. ••••••• ••s% .. •..I • •$f•• I• 1% a 'JJ!II a:...,. •.Ia. I. U) 'I) 0 0 LU co 0 LU 50'—O' NOOK FAMILY ROOMFo~rR BA MASTER BEDROOM 0 1011. 2 fl. ID ' hff KITCHEN LE-R DINING ROOM r8EDROOM 0 LO 1 )IIIIJ21 ENTRY LIINM J HIN j 1~ mlla 1A , qA 19 3 CAR GARAGE - I FLOOR PLAN PLAN 1 221B5F ILJ 7500 SF LOT 0. 4 R 16 - 1 ij- 911 zo IJ (-I —J Cl) Lu c5 Zoi cc -- CI) PLAN2 23B0 SF 7600 SF LOT 4O'—O FIRST FLOOR L__ - SECOND FLOOR • V 130 oc z - IL 00 C/) Zcn - C!) cr PLAN3 2625 2F 7500 SF LOT ol 4-8 16 ' ! : H z I- fr f_. _J Q-o C,) LU 1 L 1 L - - - - 4O'-O -1-- SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR z IL Q-o C,) Z - (I) FLOOR PLAN PLAN1 2455 SF ol 4-8'16 FIRST FLOOR PLAN2 2755 SF 10,000 SF LOT [ll SECOND FLOOR z -i 4: C-) 4: C') -j 4: C) F— z 0 C,) ct w z cr PLAN3 3025 SF 10.000 SF LOT FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR p Asig 14 u1 12 U- r i a. c) (I) 72 - CI) 3 3 41'-4 3 1 BDRM, I BA 797 SF 3 BUILDING 100 FIRST Ft OUR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS 0 4 8 10 91250 4.54.92 REVISED 4122)52 2 11 4 4d 3 IBDRM,1BA 797 SF 3 3 3 BUILDING 100 SECOND FLOOR C.ARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS 10 0 4 8 3 2 1BDRM,1BA 716 SF 1 1BDRM,1BA 650 SF 4 2 BDRM, 2 BA, 962 SF 5 2 BDRM, 2 BA 1025 SF BUILDING 200 FIRST FLOOR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS D 03250 4.14.02 RFVISbO 012202 REVISED 9120/92 0 4 8 11 4 2 BDRM, 2 BA, 962 SF 5 2 BDRM, 2 BA 1025 SF S j 2 1 BDRM,1 BA 716 SF 1 1 BDRM,1 BA 650 SF BUILDING 200 SECOND FLOOR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS 91 5D 4.14-92 0 4 8 5 I. 0I 50 2 i BDRM, 1 BA 716 SF 1 i BDRM, I BA 650 SF 4 2 BDRM, 2 BA, 962 SF 5 2 BDRM, 2 BA 1025 SF BUILDING 200 THIRD FLOOR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS 0 0 4 8 95250 4 5492 nOV/SOD 012502 70, 2 1BDRM,1BA 716 SF 1 1BDRM,1BA 650 SF 54 4 2 BDRM, 2 BA, 962 SF 6 3 BDRM, 2 BA 1219 SF BUILDING 200A FIRST FLOOR CARLSBAD APARTMENTS BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA INC. DORIUS ARCHITECTS D REVISED 6/22/92 REVISED 6125/92 REVISED 114/92 0 4 8 7 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF NEAR- SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES FOR POTENTIAL INSECTICIDE AND PESTICIDE RESIDUE, MARINERS POINT, CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA (619) 292-8030 • (800) 447-2626 FAX (619) 292-0771 September 4, 1992 Project No. 4871045-05 Prepared For: BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. One Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, California 92714 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants l~ I September 4, 1992 Project No. 4871045-05 To: Bramalea California, Inc. One Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, California 92714 Attention: Mr. Jack Reimer Subject: Results and Analysis of Near-Surface Soil Samples for Potential Insecticide and Pesticide Residue, Mariners Point, Camino de las Ondas, Carlsbad, California Introduction In accordance with your request and authorization, we have conducted a preliminary investigation into the presence of potential pesticide and insecticide residue in the near surface soils at the subject site. Based on an historical review of pesticide use at the site conducted by this firm and the project draft Environment Impact Report (Brian F. Mooney & Associates, 1991), there is a probability that currently banned organochlorine pesticides (i.e., DDT and toxaphene) as well as controlled organophosphorus pesticides (i.e., lanate, vydate, and cygon) may have been used during previous agricultural use of the site. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the possible presence/potential for soil contamination of these potentially hazardous chemicals, evaluate the risk from residential exposure, and provide appropriate recommendations. Accompany Figures, Table, and Appendices Figure 1 - Site Location Map - Page 2 Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map - Rear of Text Figure 3 - Sample Location Map - Rear of Text Table 1 - Summary of Near Surface Soil Sample Analysis - Rear of Text Table 2 - Summary of Risk From Residential Exposure to DDT in Soil - Rear of Text Appendix A - References Appendix B - Laboratory Test Results and Chain-of-Custody Form U [1 I 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 (619) 292-8030 • (800) 447-2626 1 FAX (619) 292-0771 L I I I LI I I I I U I U I [1 4 0t v S12 60 900n PAInUAO~ op \ CA TO 24' isbad Beech tate Park 29 ' ----- 9 \rTh - It II •'. \ \\ b CT \ I Ponto I / 28 32 I . ..;T \ 0.•! \ 1 27 1 300 10~ 50t i _ _ " _ H ___ F L 112S 00- 34 c\I \ TESAN DIEGO CI CARLSBAD C \\\\\ ARLSBAD CITY AN IMEO ..........Co / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) L t SITE LOCATION MAP 0 2000 4000 Base Map: Aerial Graphics, 1986-87, Aerial Foto-Map scale feet' Book, San Diego, County, Page 81) BRAMALEA/MARINERS POINT Project No. 4871045-05 flH Date 9492 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA '1041 889 Figure No.1 4871045-05 I Existing Site Conditions I The roughly rectangular-shaped property is located on Camino de las Ondas, northwest of the proposed intersection of College Boulevard and Poinsettia Lane in Carlsbad, California (Site Location Map, page 2). Topographically, the site is characterized by two gently sloping mesas on the western I and eastern portions of the site separated by a moderately steep, west-facing, natural slope. The maximum relief on the site is approximately 158 feet (Hunsaker, 1992). I Our background research (Appendix A) indicates the site was last farmed in 1984. At the time of our field investigation, the site was observed to have been recently tilled as part of an apparent weed abatement measure. Geological and Ground Water Conditions I A detailed discussion of the geologic conditions of the site is presented in the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 1988). Briefly stated here, the site is underlain by bedrock units consisting of the I Tertiary Torrey Sandstone and Quaternary Terrace Deposits. Surficial units noted mantling these bedrock units are comprised of alluvium, topsoil/colluvium, and existing agricultural fill soils. The approximate areal distribution of these units (excluding topsoil/colluvium and fill soils) is depicted on I the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). Ground water was not encountered during our previous subsurface exploration conducted during the geotechnical investigation of the site nor is a shallow ground water table anticipated. I Soil Sampling To avoid the introduction of bias into field sample collection, the approximately 68-acre site was divided into seven, equal area (approximately 10 acres each) plots. Each of these seven plots were I subdivided into 100-square areas. Each square was assigned an identification number of 1 through 100. Utilizing a random numbers table, five squares were selected for soil sampling from each of the seven plots. Each of the 35 pre-identified sample locations (seven plots at five samples per plot) I were located in the field by representatives of Hunsaker & Associates. The purpose of collecting five random soil samples at each of the selected areas is to obtain a more representative,statistically significant number of samples to characterize possible near soil contamination. In addition, two additional sampling locations were selected in areas of the site where storage and/or equipment areas may have been located. The approximate location of the soil samples is illustrated on Figure 3. The soil samples were collected on July 13, 1992. At each sample location, surface brush and weeds I were cleaned away to expose an approximately 2-foot diameter circle of soil. The depth of the soil sampling ranged between the surface and 6 inches. The soil samples collected included accumulations of agricultural fill and topsoil and consisted of brown to red-brown silty, fine- to medium-grained i sand. I I 0 -3- I 4871045-05 In order to avoid possible cross-contamination between individual samples, the hand trowel used for collection was washed with tn-sodium phosphate (TSP), doubled rinsed with distilled water, and dried with clean paper towels. The soil samples were placed into separate, clean 16 ounce glass jars and immediately labeled, placed into an ice-cooled container, a transported immediately to the testing laboratory (Analytical Technologies, Inc). The glass jars and cooler were supplied by the testing laboratory. Laboratory Testing Program I Initial Screening As an initial screening for pesticide/insecticide residue in the near surface soils, five soil samples collected from each plot were consolidated into one composite sample by the testing laboratory. The seven composite soil samples plus the two soil samples collected in suspected storage/equipment areas were tested for the presence of banned organochlorine pesticides (including toxaphene and DDT and it's decay products) by EPA Test Method 8080. Toxaphene and DDT OWI have a relatively slow rate of decomposition and are known animal carcinogens, which prompts the concern for human health. Therefore, the detection of these potentially hazardous agricultural chemical compounds were the focus of our laboratory testing program. DDT. refers to DDT and its metabolic degradation byproducts, DDD and DDE. An overall composite soil sample was formed from each of the previously mentioned seven composite soil samples by the testing laboratory. This sample was tested for the presence of controlled organophosphorus pesticides (lanate, vydate, and cygon) by EPA Test Methods 632 and 8140. These materials posses a relatively rapid rate of decomposition and therefore; generally pose a lower risk to public health. The laboratory results are presented in Appendix B, and the results are summarized on Table 1. • Discrete Laboratory Testing Program Based on the results of our initial laboratory screening, a potential area of higher DDT,.,,,, and toxaphene contamination was identified in the composite sample collected within Area 2 (See Figure 3). To assess that actual level of soil contamination, the discrete soil samples collected within Area 2 were tested individually by EPA Test Method 8080. The laboratory results are presented in Appendix B, and the results are summarized on Table 1. Findings and Conclusions • Vertical Contamination The suspected contaminants readily adhere to soil particles and do not lend themselves to vertical migration (usually within the zone of agricultural tilled soils). As such, these contaminants are typically of higher concentration in the near surface soils and tend to decrease rapidly in I I -4- I I I I I El I I I I I 1 I [1 1 1 4871045-05 concentration with depth. Laboratory testing of soil samples taken on an adjoining property within Zone 20 taken at depths of 1.5 to 2.0 feet below the surface resulted in non-detectable I concentrations (1992, Pacific Soils Environmental). Since the highest contamination levels are expected in the near surface soils, vertical environmental sampling for pesticide residue is considered unwarranted for this property. I • Toxaphene I As summarized on Table 1, toxaphene was detected in all of the soil samples with the exception of the discrete soil sample 8-2. The concentrations ranged between <1.0 mg/kg (below reportable detection limits) for sample 8-2 and 3.1 mg/kg (Composite Area 2). As discussed in a preceding I section of this report, the discrete soil samples collected within Area 2 were tested individually by EPA Test Method 8080. All toxaphene levels determined by the laboratory testing program, including the discrete samples, are below the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) of 1 5.0 mg/kg listed in the current California Administration Code, Title 22, Section 66700. • Organophosphorus Pesticides I As indicated in Appendix B, controlled organophosphorus pesticides (lanate, vydate, and cygon) were not detected in the overall composite soil sample. This non-detectable value is consistent with the fact these compounds possess a relatively rapid rate of decomposition and the site was I last farmed in 1984. I . DDT Soil Contamination DDT., was also detected in all the soil samples tested. The concentrations ranged between 0.038 mg/kg (discrete sample 8-1) and 2.17 mg/kg (Composite Area 2). The detected I concentrations of these pesticides measured in Composite Soil Samples No. 1. and No. 2 and discrete soil samples 2-1 through 2-5 and 8-2 exceed the Title 22 TTLC of 1.0 mg/kg. I . Soil Remediation Levels A guidance document, prepared by the California Environmental Protection Agency - I Department of Toxic Substances Control (California EPA, 1992), states "TTLC's are intended to provide a legal basis in deciding whether waste is hazardous in order to determine disposal procedures. The TTLC for DDT is not health-based and is therefore inappropriate for use as I a generic remediation goal for DDT in soil." Since the site is to be converted from its past agricultural use to residential, it is more pertinent to establish appropriate Soil Remediation Levels (SRL) based upon various exposure scenario(s) with respect to the intended residential I use of the site. One approach to develop meaningful SRL's is outlined in the guidance document prepared by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, within the California Environmental Protection Agency entitled 'DDT in Soil: Guidance For the Assessment of Health Risk to I Humans (California EPA, 1992)." This guidance document provides guidance for site-specific risk determinations, as well as calculation of remediation values (SRL's) appropriate for several individual situations. Li I -5- I I 4871045-05 I As indicated in the aforementioned guidance document (1992, California EPA), calculation of a SRL can be calculated by the following formula: AcceptableRisk I CalculatedRisk Calculation of a Site-Specific SRL for DDT I Acceptable Risk: The guidance document indicates that other California Regulatory processes consider a risk level of 1x10 5 as being acceptable. Proposition 65 - the Clean Water Act of I 1988 (Title 22, CCR) is an example (California EPA, 1992). Utilization of a risk level of less than 1x10 5 would require the preparation of a Site Risk Assessment Document which is beyond the scope of this investigation. I Calculated Risk: The guidance document summarizes the risk from the residential exposure to DDT 1 in soil for various exposure scenarios and are tabulated on Table 2. These values were developed on the assumption that DDT,.,., was present in the soil at a concentration of Ii mg DDTJkg soil. As indicated on Table 2, the "worst case" calculated risk value for the planned residential use of the site is via the "high exposure" scenario for residential children, ages 1 through 17. Based on a concentration of 1 mg DDTJkg soil, the calculated risk value I is 7.0x10 7. To calculate risk values based on other DDT.,, soil concentrations, the values in Table 2 can be multiplied by the concentration of detected DDT,.,,, expressed in mg DDT./kg soil, found in soil (1992, California EPA). As indicated in Table 1, the highest level I of DDT total contamination detected in the discrete samples is 1.68 mg/kg (Sample No. 2-5). Therefore: Calculated Risk = Risk From Exposure to Children (Table 2) x Concentration I of DDT,.,,,, expressed in mg/kg Calculated Risk = 7.0x10 7 x 1.68 = 1.18x10 I Therefore, a conservative, site-specific SRL can be calculated using the following formula: I SRL = Acceptable Risk 1 x 10 8.5 mg DDT/kg soil Calculated Risk 1.18 x 10 • General Conclusion I Based on our investigation, laboratory testing, and statistical analyses of the chemical data, as of the date of our field investigation (July 13, 1992), federally banned organochlorine pesticide I toxaphene is not present in the near-surface soil at the site above 1TLC's established in the current California Adminsitration Code, Title 22, Section 66700. Controlled organophosphorus pesticides (lanate, vydate, and cygon) were not detected in the overall composite samples. I I I F1 4871045-05 Based on calculations assuming conservative parameters, the levels of DDT,,,, concentration detected in the near-surface soils is below the calculated, site-specific Soil Remediation Level I (SRL). Therefore, it is our opinion that the levels of DDT,.,., in the near-surface soils do not pose a health risk to the planned residential development of the site. I Recommendations I The following recommendations are provided: 1) During future site development, observations should be made for areas of possible contamination such as the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, stained soil, waste, and drums. I Should such material be encountered further investigation and analysis may be recommended. 2) Since levels of soil contamination (DDT,,,,,,, and toxaphene) are generally confined to the near- surface soils, we recommend that these surficial soils be stripped across the site and placed as compacted fill in the deeper fill areas proposed as part of the planned development of the site. From a geotechnical standpoint, the surficial soils on the site are considered potentially I compressible and the recommended treatment is for the removal and recompaction of these soils (Leighton, 1992). I 3) From an exposure standpoint, construction personnel working during grading operations will be exposed to dust and soil that contains DDT,.,,,,. Therefore, we recommend appropriate engineering controls (i.e., dust control) be implemented during grading. We suggest the grading I contractor be made aware of this condition and inform his employees. A specific-site safety plan should be prepared prior to the commencement of grading. I I I I I I fl I I -7- I 4871045-05 If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. C~/'. "~-' - / Thomas E. Mill, RG 4439 Director of Environmental Services Stan Helenschmidt, GE 2064 (Exp. 6/30/96) Managing Principal, San Diego Region RLWITM/SRH/jss Distribution: (4) Addressee (2) Hunsaker and Associates Attention: Mr. Dan Reim I I I I I I I I [j I I I I I I I I I / SH7 // /88.0 - -t Qt q 0 '25A0. (c 1/i1Z. _\ I \ - - - -! K /I 10 H' \\ ( ( \ t\ L B-3 \\\ ) B4 /88.0 \ / ___ /9/5X I It x 203.5 's 3-98- L2 16652 - LZ- - r- .i' -1--—T CAMINO DE LAS ONDS V., 1' \ J L. \\\ \ \\\ H \ •-i- ( I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 ii I . I I LEGEND . Fda-111- Alluvium Approximate location of geologic contact, 0000 queried where uncertain B-4 TerraceTerrace deposits Approximate location of exploratory boring, V TD 20' With total depth (TD) Torrey Sandstone Approximate location of exploratory trench T-15 -- ,, 4, - \\ 302.0 \,'2r9g /04 --\==v / 309.0 T-5 TREES +02~0 Q t *V0 3. 0 C LIIfATED 312.0 \ Ix TD 31 1 Qt 3065 \V 3060 T-6 Ht' (ROCK 2/ / -S Base map taken from County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheets 346-1677 and 342-1677, 1960 edition I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2-4 ® :. - 4-1 DDTtotai 0.90 Táphene- 2.9 3.3 4-2 ®3-4 22 4-4 () DDT 1.13 3-5 Toxaphene - 2.7 4-5 - 2.17 (A) Toxaphene - 3.1 3-2 DDT, - 0.82 DDTtotai - 0.56 2-1 Toxaphene - 2.0 Toxaphene - 1.4 DDTtotai - 1.29 Toxaphene - 2.5 4-3 2-5 3-1 ® DDTtotai1•68 Toxaphene - 2.8 2-3 DDTtotai - 1.56 Toxaphene-1.56 I 1-40 1-5 1-2 1-1 DDTtotai - 1.34 Toxaphene -1.6 1-3 6-2 DDTtotai - 0.79 Toxaphene - 1 .8 6-1 8-1 DDTtotai - 0.038 Toxaphene - 1.2 6-4 -I .1 DDTtotai - 0.337 Toxaphene - 1.4 5-2 DDTtotai - 1.34 Toxaphene - <1 .0 7-1 7-3 8-2 5-3 7-2 5-4® 7-4 7-5 DDTtotai - 0.399 Toxaphene -1.8 5-1 SYMBOLS 8-2 Approximate location of near-surface soil sample DOTtOtI - 2.17 Summation of individual concentrations of DDT, DDD, and DDE in mg/kg 7 Composite area designation; samples within this area (excluding Toxaphene - 2.9 Concentration of Toxaphene in mg/kg samples 8-1 and 8-2) where composited by the laboratory prior to testing NOTES: (1) Please refer to Site Plan (Figure 3) for sample locations. (2) Sample locations taken where equipment/storage areas may have been located in the past. (3) "DDT,,,,," refers to the summation of the individual concentrations of the isomeric forms of DDT, DDD, and DDE tested by EPA Test Method 8080 (see Appendix B). SYMBOLS: Symbol indicates that the sample was analyzed for the indicated chemical constituent and that the results were below the posted laboratory detection limits. mg/kg milligrams per kilogram 4871045-05 Table 1 SUMMARY OF NEAR SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS - MARINERS POINT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sample Identification Number(l) Toxaphene (mg/kg) Chlordane (mg/kg) DDT OI 3 (mg/kg) Composite Area 1 1.6 <0.50 1.34 Composite Area 2 3.1 <1.0 2.17 2-1 2.5 <1.0 1.29 2-2 2.7 <1.0 1.13 2-3 3.0 <1.0 1.56 2-4 2.9 <1.0 0.90 2-5 2.8 <1.0 1.68 Composite Area 3 2.0 <1.0 0.82 Composite Area 4 1.4 <0.50 0.56 Composite Area 5 1.4 <0.25 0.337 Composite Area 6 1.8 <0.25 0.79 Composite Area 7 1.8 <0.25 0.399 8-1 (Storage Area)2 1.2 <0.15 0.038 8-2 (Storage Area)() <0.50 1.34 1.lz10' 6.0x10' 6.4104 1.7x10' i.0x10 7 2.8xi0 7 2.8x10 4.6x10 7 N/A 2.1x10' N/A 2.9x104 9.2x104 4.9x10 7 1.5x10 7 5.5x10 7 3.0x10 7 7.0x10 7 2.2x104 6.6404 4.2x10' 4.10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I From: California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 1992, DDT in Soil: Guidance For Assessment of Health Risk to Humans (Draft), in Guidance for Site Characterization and Vole 7 Multimedia Risk Assessment for Hazardous Substances Release Sites, sptcrt DDT IN SOIL Volume 7, Chapter 6, page 22, dated April, 1992. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF RISK FROM RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE TO DDT IN SOIL' Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk Scenario Ingestion Dermal Total RESIDENTIAL ADULT Seventy Year (Default) 4.9x10 7 Thirty Year. Works Away From Home 1.1x10 7 Thirty Year - Homemaker or Works at Home 1.8x10 7 Typical Case Thirty Year. Homemaker or Works at Home 1.8x10 7 "High Exposure Level" Inhalation of Soil N/A" Ingestion of Home-grown N/A Produce RESIDENTIAL CHILDREN, AGES 1 THROUGH 17 Typical Case 4.0x10 7 "High Exposure" Scenario 4.0x10' Case One "High Exposure" Scenario 4.0x10 7 Case Two COMMUNITY PARK AGES 1 THROUGH 17 4.4x10 SCHOOL, AGES 6 THROUGH 17 3.8x104 Assumes that concentration of DDT., in soil is 1 mg DDTjkg soil (I ppm) "N/A = Not applicable April 1992 Review Draft 1 4871045-05 I APPENDIX A I References California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, 1992, DDT I in Soil: Guidance For Assessment of Health Risk to Humans (Draft), in Guidance for Site Characterization and Multimedia Risk Assessment for Hazardous Substances Release Sites, Volume 7, Chapter 6. I California State Water Resources Control Board, 1982, Toxaphene, Toxic Substances Control Program, Special Projects Report No. 82-45P. I Hunskaer and Associates, 1992, Tentative Map for Mariners Point, 8 Sheets, Scale 1"=40', W.O. No. 890-5, dated September 24, 1992. I Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1988, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 68-Acre Parcel, Camino de las Ondas, Carlsbad Area, County of San Diego, California, Project No. 8871045-03, I dated August 23, 1988. Brian F. Mooney Associates, 1991, Screencheck Draft Program, Environmental Impact Report for I Zone 20, Specific Plan Project, Carlsbad, California, p. 85-92, dated February 1991. Pacific Soils Environmental, 1992, Soil Testing For Pesticide Residue For Sambi, Portion of Section 21 T12S, R4W, City of Carlsbad, California, Work Order 600013, dated July 30, 1992. I I L I I I I I I I 4871045-05 I APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS I 1 LI 11 I I 1 1 I I I LI I I I I' AnalyticalTechnologies,inc. Corporate Offices: 5550 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA 92121 (619)458-9141 I ATI I.D.: 207151 July 27, 1992 I I LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 3934 MURPHY CYN RD ., SUITE 3205 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS Project I : 4971045-05 Attention: TOM MILLS I Analytical Technologies, Inc. has received the following sample(s): Date Received Quantity Matrix 1 July 13, 1992 9 SOIL I The sample(s) were analyzed with EPA methodology or equivalent methods as specified in the enclosed analytical. schedule. The symbol for "less than" indicates a value below the reportable detection limit. Please see the attached sheet for the sample cross reference table. The results of these analyses and the quality control data are enclosed. 1- LESLIE GETMAN PROJECT MANAGER Iii I I i I I /(~~ ~tJ4 KENNETH WAHL LABORATORY MANAGER I I 4 AnalyflcalTechnologies,I I SAMPLE CROSS REFERENCE Page 1 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Project # : 4971045-05 Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS Report Date: July 27, 1992 ATI I.D. : 207151 ------------- ATI # Client Description M atrix Date Collected AREA 1,1-1,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 2 I iCOMPOSITE COMPOSITE AREA 2,1-2,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 3 COMPOSITE AREA 3,1-3,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 4 COMPOSITE AREA 4,1-4,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 COMPOSITE AREA 5,1-5,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 I 5 6 COMPOSITE AREA 6,1-6,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 7 COMPOSITE AREA 7,1-7,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 8 COMPOSITE AREA 8,1 SOIL 13-JUL-92 I 9 COMPOSITE AREA 8,2 SOIL 13-JUL-92 10 COMP OF 01-07 SOIL 13-JUL-92 I ---TOTALS--- Matrix # Samples SOIL 10 I 1 I I [1 I F -1 ATI STANDARD DISPOSAL PRACTICE The sample(s) from this project will be disposed of in twenty-one (21) days this report. If an extended storage period is required, please contact department before the scheduled disposal date. from the date of our sample control I I Analytica!Technologies,Inc. I ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE Page 2 Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I Project # : 4971045-05 ATI I.D.: 207151 Project Name: BR.AMALEA/ MARINERS Analysis Technique/Description I EPA 8080 (ORGANOCORINE PESTICIDES & PCB-S) GC/ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTOR EPA 8140 (ORGANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDES) GC/FLAME PHOTOMETRIC DETECTOR MOD EPA 632 (CARBANATES AND UREA PESTICIDES) HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY I I I 1 Li I I LI I I Li I I I I JL\ AnaiyticatTechnologies,Jnc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY RESULTS Test : MOD EPA 632 (CARBAMATES AND UREA PESTICIDES) Page 3 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ATI I.D. : 207151 Project # : 4971045-05 Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS I Sample Client ID Matrix Date Date Date Dii. Sampled Extracted Analyzed Factor I 10 COMP OF 01-07 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JUL-92 16-JUL-92 1.00 Parameter Units 10 I BAYGON MG/KG <0.83 BROMACIL MG/KG <0.17 CARBARYL MG/KG <0.17 CARBOFURAN MG/KG <0.83 I CHLORPROPHAM (CIPC) MG/KG <0.17 DIURON MG/KG <0.083 LINURON MG/KG <0.083 - METBOMYL MG/KG <0.42 NEBURON MG/KG <0.083 • O!PIMYL (VYDATE) MG/KG <0.42 PROPHAM MG/KG <0.17 I I I I Li I I I I Li --------------------------- Units Results MG/KG <0.83 MG/KG <0.17 MG/KG <0.17 MG/KG <0.83 MG/KG <0.17 MG/KG <0.083 MG/KG <0.083 MG/KG <0.42 MG/KG <0.083 MG/KG <0.42 MG/KG <0.17 I )~ AnalyficalTechnologies,Inc. GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL REAGENT BLANK Page 4 Test : EPA 632 (CARBAMATES AND UREA PESTICIDES) ATI I.D. : 207151 Blank I.D. : 20160 Date Extracted: 14-JUL-92 I Client : Project # : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 4971045-05 Date Analyzed : Dii. Factor : 16-JUL-92 1.00 Project Name: BRAI4ALEA/MARINERS Parameters BAYGON I BROMACIL CARBARYL CARBOFTJRAN CELORPROPHAM (CIPC) I DIURON LINURON METHOMYL I NEBURON OXAMYL (VYDATE) PROPEAM I I I I I I [I I I I I I )L Analyficolechnologies,lnc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL MSMSD ITest Pa9e 5 : EPA 632 (CARBAMATES AND UREA PESTICIDES) ATI I.D. : 207151 MSMSD # : 36064 Date Extracted: 14-JUL-92 Client LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date Analyzed : 16-JUL-92 troject Sample Matrix : SOIL # : 4971045-05 REF I.D. : 207151-10 Project Name: BRAI4ALEA/ MARINERS I arameters Units --- Sample Conc Spiked % Dup Dup RFD Result Spike Sample Rec Spike % Rec ROHACIL MG/KG <0.17 1.7 1.3 76 1.3 76 0 ARYL MG/KG <0.17 1.7 1.3 76 1.4 82 7 INURON MG/KG <0.083 0.42 0.35 83 0.36 86 3 NEBTJRON MG/KG <0.083 0.42 0.36 86 0.36 86 0 I % Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result)*100/Spike Concentration RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Spiked Sample Result - Duplicate Spike Resu].t)*100/Average Result Li I I 1 I I I I Eli I I I AnaIyticaITechflOIogies,nc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL BLANK SPIKE I ge 6 Test : EPA 632 (CARBAMATES AND UREA PESTICIDES) ATI I.D.I.]). 207151 Blank Spike #: 26640 Date Extracted: 14-JUL-92 I Client LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date Analyzed : 16-JUL-92 Project # : 4971045-05 Sample Matrix : SOIL Project Name BRANALEA/MARINERS ' Parameters Units Blank Spiked Spike Result Sample Conc. Rec MG/KG <0.17 1.7 1.7 100 I BROMACIL CARBARYL MG/KG <0.17 1.5 1.7 88 LINURON MG/KG <0.083 0.37 0.42 88 NEBURON MG/KG <0.083 0.37 0.42 88 % Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result)*lOO/Spike Concentration RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Spiked Sample - Blank Result)*100/Average Result C I I L I I I I I I U I Analyfica!Technologies,Inc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY RESULTS Test : EPA 8080 (ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PCB'S) Page 7 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ATI I.D. 207151 Project # : 4971045-05 Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS I Sample Client ID Matrix Date Date Date Dii. Sampled Extracted Analyzed Factor I iCOMPOSITE AREA 1,1-1,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JUL-92 15-JIM-92 10.00 2 COMPOSITE AREA 2,1-2,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JUL-92 15-JUL-92 20.00 3 COMPOSITE AREA 3,1-3,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JUL-92 15-JUL-92 20.00 I Parameter Units 1 2 3 ALDRIN MG/KG <0.050 <0.10 <0.10 ALPHA-BHC MG/KG <0.050 <0.10 <0.10 I BETA-BRC MG/KG <0.050 <0.10 <0.10 I GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE) MG/KG <0.050 <0.10 <0.10 DELTA-BHC MG/KG <0.050 <0.10 <0.10 I CHLORDANE MG/KG <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 2,4 1 -DDD MG/KG <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 2,4-DDE MG/KG <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 2,4-DDT MG/KG <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 I 4,4 1 -DDD MG/KG <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 4,4 1 -DDE MG/KG 0.24 0.37 0.20 4,4 1 -DDT MG/KG 1.1 1.8 0.62 DIELDRIN MG/KG <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 I ENDOSULFAN I MG/KG <0.050 <0.10 <0.10 ENDOSULFAN II MG/KG <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 ENDOSULFAN SULFATE MG/KG <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 ENDRIN MG/KG <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 I ENDRIN KETONE MG/KG <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 HEPTACHLOR MG/KG <0.050 <0.10 <0.10 HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE MG/KG <0.050 <0.10 <0.10 I METHOXYCHLOR MG/KG <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 TOXAPHENE MG/KG 1.6 3.1 2.0 AROcLOR-1016 MG/KG <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 AROcLOR-1221 MG/KG <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 I AROcLOR-1232 MG/KG <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 AROCLOR-1242 MG/KG <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 AROCLOR-1248 MG/KG <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 AROCLOR-1254 MG/KG <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 I AROCLOR-1260 MG/KG <0.50 <1.0 <1.0 SURROGATES I DBC 73 NA*K NA*K *K DUE TO THE NECESSARY DILUTION OF THE SAMPLE, RESULT WAS NOT ATTAINABLE. I I Li I I AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc. 1 GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY RESULTS Page 8 Test : EPA 8080 (ORGPINOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PCB'S) : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ATI I.D. 207151 I Client Project # : 4971045-05 Project Name: SRAMALEA/HARINERS I Sample Client ID Matrix Date Date Date Dii. Sampled Extracted Analyzed Factor COMPOSITE4 AREAAREA 4,1-4,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JUL-92 15-JUL-92 10.00 5 COMPOSITE AREA 5,1-5,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JUL-92 16-JUL-92 5.00 6 COMPOSITE AREA 6,1-6,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JUL-92 16-JUL-92 5.00 ' Parameter Units 4 5 6 ALDRIN MG/KG <0.050 <0.025 <0.025 ALPHA-BHC MG/KG <0.050 <0.025 <0.025 I BETA-BHC MG/KG <0.050 <0.025 <0.025 GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE) MG/KG <0.050 <0.025 <0.025 DELTA-SEC MG/KG <0.050 <0.025 <0.025 I 2,4'-DDD CHLORDANE MG/KG MG/KG <0.50 <0.10 <0.25 <0.050 <0.25 <0.050 2,4 1 -DDE MG/KG <0.10 <0.050 <0.050 2,4-DDT MG/KG <0.10 <0.050 <0.050 MG/KG <0.10 <0.050 <0.050 I 4,4 1 -DDD 4,4 1 -DDE MG/KG 0.10 0.067 0.10 4,4 1 -DDT MG/KG 0.46 0.27 0.69 DIELDRIN MG/KG <0.10 <0.050 <0.050 I MG/KG <0.050 <0.025 <0.025 I ENDOSULFAN ENDOSULFAN II MG/KG <0.10 <0.050 <0.050 ENDOSULFAN SULFATE MG/KG <0.10 <0.050 <0.050 ENDRIN MG/KG <0.10 <0.050 <0.050 I ENDRIN KETONE MG/KG <0.10 <0.050 <0.050 HEPTACHLOR MG/KG <0.050 <0.025 <0.025 HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE MG/KG <0.050 <0.025 <0.025 I METHOXYCHLOR TOXAPHENE MG/KG MG/KG <0.50 1.4 <0.25 1.4 <0.25 1.8 AROCLOR-1016 MG/KG <0.50 <0.25 <0.25 AROCLOR-1221 MG/KG <0.50 <0.25 <0.25 •AROCLOR-1232 MG/KG <0.50 <0.25 <0.25 I AROCLOR-1242 MG/KG <0.50 <0.25 <0.25 AROCLOR-1248 MG/KG <0.50 <0.25 <0.25 P.ROcLOR-1254 MG/KG <0.50 <0.25 <0.25 AROCLOR-1260 MG/KG <0.50 <0.25 <0.25 SURROGATES I DBC 88 80 102 I I I I I AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY RESULTS Test : EPA 8080 (ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PCB'S) Page 9 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ATI I.D. 207151 Project # : 4971045-05 Project Name: ERAMALEA/MARINERS I Sample Client ID Matrix Date Date Date Dii. Sampled Extracted Analyzed Factor 7 I COMPOSITE AREA 7,1-7,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JUL-92 16-MM-92 5.00 8 COMPOSITE AREA 8,1 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JtJL-92 16-JUL-92 3.00 9 COMPOSITE AREA 8,2 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JUL-92 16-JUL-92 10.00 I Parameter Units 7 8 9 ALDRIN MG/KG ALPHA-BHC MG/KG BETA-EEC MG/KG • GAMMA-EEC (LINDANE) MG/KG DELTA-EEC MG/KG 1 2 ,4-DDD CHLORDANE MG/KG MG/KG 2,4-DDE MG/KG 2,4'.-DDT MG/KG •4 ,4-DDD MG/KG 4,4'-DDE MG/KG 4,4'-DDT MG/KG DIELDRIN MG/KG ENDOSULFAN I MG/KG ENDOSULFAN II MG/KG ENDOSULFAN SULFATE MG/KG ENDRIN ENDRIN KETONE MG/KG MG/KG • HEPTACHLOR MG/KG HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE MG/KG • METHOXYCELOR MG/KG TOXAPHENE MG/KG • AROcLOR-1016 MG/KG AROCLOR- 1221 MG/KG • AROCLOR-1232 MG/KG AROCLOR- 1242 MG/KG AROCLOR- 1248 MG/KG AROcLOR-1254 MG/KG I AROCLOR-1260 MG/KG SURROGATES I DBC I I n1 <0.025 <0;015 <0.050 <0.025 <0.015 <0.050 <0.025 <0.015 <0.050 <0.025 <0.015 <0.050 <0.025 <0.015 <0.050 <0.25 <0.15 <0.50 <0.050 <0.030 <0.10 <0.050 <0.030 <0.10 <0.050 <0.030 0,10 <0.050 <0.030 <0.10 0.079 0.038 0.14 0.32 <0.030 1.1 <0.050 <0.030 <0.10 <0.025 <0.015 <0.050 <0.050 <0.030 <0.10 <0.050 <0.030 <0.10 <0.050 <0.030 <0.10 <0.050 <0.030 <0.10 <0.025 <0.015 <0.050 <0.025 <0.015 <0.050 <0.25 <0.15 <0.50 1.8 1.2 <1.0 <0.25 <0.15 <0.50 <0.25 <0.15 <0.50 <0.25 <0.15 <0.50 <0.25 <0.15 <0.50 <0.25 <0.15 <0.50 <0.25 <0.15 <0.50 <0.25 <0.15 <0.50 80 66 117 I I )L Ana!yticalTechnologies,I I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL REAGENT BLANK I Page 10 Test : EPA 8080 (ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PCB'S) ATI I.D. : 207151 Blank I.D. : 20162 Date Extracted: 14-JUL-92 : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date Analyzed : 15-JUL-92 I Client Project # : 4971045-05 Dii. Factor : 1.00 Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS ------------------- I Parameters Units Results ------------------------ i ALDRIN MG/KG <0.0050 ALPHA-BHC MG/KG I <0.0050 BETA-EEC MG/KG <0.0050 GAMMA-BEC (LINDANE) MG/KG <0.0050 DELTA-BEC MG/KG <0.0050 CHLORDANE MG/KG I <0.050 2,4-DDD MG/KG <0.010 2,4'-DDE MG/KG <0.010 I 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDD MG/KG MG/KG <0.010 <0.010 4,4'-DDE MG/KG <0.010 4,4-DDT MG/KG <0.010 MG/KG <0.010 I DIELDRIN ENDOSULFAN I MG/KG <0.0050 ENDOSULFAN II MG/KG <0.010 ENDOSULFAM SULFATE MG/KG <0.010 MG/KG <0.010 I ENDRIN ENDRIN KETONE MG/KG <0.010 HEPTACHLOR, MG/KG <0.0050 EEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE MG/KG <0.0050 I METHOXYCOR MG/KG <0.050 TOXAPHENE MG/KG <0.10 AROCLOR-1016 MG/KG <0.050 I AROCLOR-1221 AROcLOR-1232 MG/KG MG/KG <0.050 <0.050 AROLOR-1242 MG/KG <0.050 AROCLOR-1248 MG/KG <0.050 MG/KG <0.050 l AROCLOR-1254 AROCLOR-1260 MG/KG <0.050 SURROGATES DEC 92 11 I I I I AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL MSMSD I Page 11 Test : EPA 8080 (ORGANOCRLORINE PESTICIDES & PCB'S) ATI I.D. : 207151 MSMSD # : 36066 Date Extracted: 14-JUL-92 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date Analyzed : 16-JUL-92 Sample Matrix : SOIL Project # : 4971045-05 REF I.D. : 207151-01 Project Name: BRAZ4ALEA/MARINERS I Parameters Units Sample Cone Spiked % Dup Dup RPD Result Spike Sample Rec Spike % Rec I ALDRIN MG/KG <0.050 0.027 NA NA*K NA NA*K NA*K GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE) MG/KG <0.050 0.027 NA NA*K NA NA*K NA*K 4,4 1 -DDT MG/KG 1.1 0.067 1.4 NA*K 1.2 NA*K 15 DIELDRIN MG/KG <0.10 0.067 NA NA*K NA NA*K NA*K I I ENDRIN MG/KG <0.10 0.067 NA NA*K NA NA*K NA*K HEPTACHLOR MG/KG <0.050 0.027 NA NA*K NA NA*K NA*K Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result)*100/Spike Concentration RFD (Relative % Difference) = (Spiked Sample Result - Duplicate Spike Result)*lOO/Average Result *X DUE TO THE NECESSARY DILUTION OF THE SAMPLE, RESULT WAS NOT ATTAINABLE. 17 I F I I I I LI I I I AnaIytica!Technoogies,inc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL BLANK SPIKE 12 Test I Page EPA 8080 (ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PCB'S) ATI I.D. 207151 Blank Spike #: 26642 Date Extracted: 14-JIM-92 Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date Analyzed : 15-JUL-92 # : 4971045-05 Sample Matrix : SOIL I Project Project Name : BRAMALEA/MARINERS I Parameters Units Blank Spiked Spike % Result Sample Conc. Rec I ALDRIN GAMMA-EHC (LINDANE) MG/KG MG/KG <0.0050 <0.0050 0.018 0.023 0.027 0.027 67 85 4,4'-DDT MG/KG <0.010 0.077 0.067 115 DIELDRIN MG/KG <0.010 0.061 0.067 91 HG/KG <0.010 0.070 0.067 104 I ENDRIN HEPTACHLOR MG/KG <0.0050 0.021 0.027 78 % Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result)*100/Spike Concentration RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Spiked Sample - Blank Result)*100/Average Result I I [I 71 I I I r L. H U I AnayticalTechflOIOgies,inc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY RESULTS Page 13 Test : EPA 8140 (ORGANOPROSPHORUS PESTICIDES) : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ATI I.D. : 207151 I Client Project # : 4971045-05 Project Name: BRAI4ALEA/MARINERS I sample client ID Matrix Date Date Date Dii. Sampled Extracted Analyzed Factor I 10 COMP OF 01-07 SOIL 13-JUL-92 14-JUL-92 21-JUL-92 1.00 Parameter Units 10 (GUTHION) MG/KG <0.067 I AZINPHOS-METHYL BOLSTAR (SULPROFOS) MG/KG <0.017 CELORPYRIFOS (DURSBAN) MG/KG <0.017 COUMAPHOS MG/KG <0.033 (TOTAL) MG/KG <0.033 I DEMETON DIAZINON MG/KG <0.017 DICHLORVOS MG/KG <0.017 DIMETHOATE MG/KG <0.067 I DISULFOTON MG/KG <0.033 EPN MG/KG <0.017 ETHION MG/KG <0.017 I ETHOPROP FENSULFOTHION MG/KG MG/KG <0.017 <0.033 FENTHION MG/KG <0.017 MALATHION MG/KG <0.017 MG/KG <0.033 I MERPHOS METHYL CELORPYRIFOS MG/KG <0.017 METHYL PARATHION MG/KG <0.017 MEVINPHOS MG/KG <0.017 MG/KG <0.17 I NALEJ) ETHYL PARATHION (PARATHION) MG/KG <0.017 PRORATE MG/KG <0.017 MG/KG <0.017 , RONNEL STIROFOS (TETRACHLORVINPHOS) MG/KG <0.017 SULFOTEPP MG/KG <0.017 TOKUTHION (PROTHIOFOS) MG/KG <0.033 TRICHLORONATE MG/KG <0.017 I I I I I I it AnalyticalTechnologies,inc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL REAGENT BLANK I Page 14 Test : EPA 8140 (ORGANOPEOSPHORUS PESTICIDES) ATI I.D. : 207151 Blank I.D. : 20269 Date Extracted: 14-JUL-92 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date Analyzed : 21-JUL-92 Project I : 4971045-05 Di!. Factor : 1.00 Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS Parameters Units Results AZINPROS-METHYL (GUTBION) MG/KG <0.067 (SULPROFOS) MG/KG <0.017 I BOLSTAR CHLORPYRIFOS (DURSBAN) MG/KG <0.017 COUMAPHOS MG/KG <0.033 DEMETON (TOTAL) MG/KG <0.033 I DIAZINON MG/KG <0.017 DICKLORVOS MG/KG <0.017 DIMETHOATE MG/KG <0.067 I DISULFOTON EPN MG/KG MG/KG <0.033 <0.017 ETHION MG/KG <0.017 ETHOPROP MG/KG <0.017 MG/KG <0.033 I FENSULFOTHION FENTHION MG/KG <0.017 MALATHION MG/KG <0.017 MERPHOS MG/KG <0.033 CHLORPYRIFOS MG/KG <0.017 I METHYL METHYL PARATHION MG/KG <0.017 MEVINPROS MG/KG <0.017 NALED MG/KG <0.17 I ETHYL PARATHION (PARATHION) MG/KG <0.017 PRORATE MG/KG <0.017 RONNEL MG/KG <0.017 I STIROFOS (TETRACHLORVINPHOS) SULFOTEPP MG/KG MG/KG <0.017 <0.017 TOKUTHION (PROTHIOFOS) MG/KG <0.033 TRICHLORONATE MG/KG <0.017 I I I I I I U Analytical Technologies,lnc. 1 GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL MSMSD I Test : EPA 8140 (ORGANOPROSPRORUS PESTICIDES) ATI I.D. : 207151 Page 1E MSMSD # : 36453 Date Extracted: 14-JUL-92 Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date Analyzed : 21-JUL-92 I Sample Matrix : SOIL Project # : 4971045-05 REF I.D. REAGENT SOIL Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS I Parameters Units Sample Conc Spiked % Dup Dup RPD Result Spike Sample Rec Spike % Ric I AZINPROS-METHYL (GUTHION) MG/KG <0.13 0.667 0.659 99 0.759 114 14 DIAZINON MG/KG <0.033 0.400 0.153 38 0.145 36 5 ETHION MG/KG <0.033 0.333 0.179 54 0.189 57 5 METHYL PARATHION MG/KG <0.033 0.333 0.280 84 0.292 88 4 ETHYL PARATHION (PARATHION) MG/KG <0.033 0.333 0.262 79 0.274 82 4 % Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result)*100/Spike Concentration I RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Spiked Sample Result - Duplicate Spike Result)*100/Average Result I I I 1 I I I I I I nfl AnalyticaiTechnologies,Inc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL MSMSD I Page 16 Test : EPA 8140 (ORGANOPHOSPRORUS PESTICIDES) ATI I.D. : 20715]. MSMSD # : 36402 Date Extracted: 14-JUL-92 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date Analyzed : 21-JUL-92 Sample Matrix : SOIL Project # : 4971045-05 REF I.D. : 207151-10 Project Name: BRANALEA/MARINERS I Parameters Units Sample Conc Spiked % Dup Dup RPD Result Spike Sample Rec Spike % Rec l AZINPHOS-METHYL (GUTHION) MG/KG <0.067 0.667 0.464 69 0.499 74 7 DIAZINON MG/KG <0.017 0.400 0.107 27*F 0.117 29 9 ETHION MG/KG <0.017 0.333 0.148 45 0.163 49 10 METHYL PARATHION MG/KG <0.017 0.333 0.236 72 0.246 75 4 ETHYL PARATHION (PARATHION) MG/KG <0.017 0.333 0.215 65 0.232 70 8 % Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Resu].t)*100/Spike Concentration RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Spiked Sample Result - Duplicate Spike Result)*100/Average Result *F RESULT OUTSIDE OF ATI'S QUALITY CONTROL LIMITS I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ana lytica Technologies, Inc. Corporate Offices: 5550 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 458-9141 I ATI I.D.: 207338 August 04, 1992 I I ' LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES 3934 MURPHY CYN RD., SUITE B205 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 Project Name: BRANALEA/ MARINERS Project # : 4971045-05 Attention: TOM MILLS Analytical Technologies, Inc. has received the following sample(s): I Date Received Quantity Matrix July 27, 1992 5 SOIL I The sample(s) were analyzed with EPA methodology or equivalent methods as specified in the enclosed analytical schedule. The symbol for "less than" indicates a value below the reportable detection limit. Please see the attached sheet for the sample cross reference table. The results of these analyses and the quality control data are enclosed. LESLIE GETMAN KENNETH WAHL PROJECT MANAGER LABORATORY MANAGER I I I I I I 1 AnalyticaiTechnologies,!nc. I SAMPLE CROSS REFERENCE Page 1 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Project # : 4971045-05 Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS Report Date: August 04, 1992 ATI I.D. : 207338 ------------- ATI # Client Description Matrix Date Collected AREA 2,1 SOIL 13-MM-92 2 I lCOMPOSITE COMPOSITE AREA 2,2 SOIL 13-JUL-92 3 COMPOSITE AREA 2,3 SOIL 13-JIM-92 4 COMPOSITE AREA 2,4 SOIL 13-JUL-92 5 COMPOSITE AREA 2,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 I Matrix ---TOTALS--- # samples I SOIL 5 ATI STANDARD DISPOSAL PRACTICE I The sample(s) from this project will be disposed of in twenty-one (21) days from the date of this report. If an extended storage period is required, please contact our sample control department before the scheduled disposal date. 1 I I I I I 11 I] II .1 I I 4 AnalyncalTechnologies,Inc. I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I Project # : 4971045-05 Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE Page 2 ATI I.D.: 207338 Analysis Technique/Description EPA 8080 (ORGANOCELORINE PESTICIDES & PCB -S) GC/ELECTRON CAPTURE DETECTOR Ii I I I 1 I I El I I I I I I Page 3 ATI I.D. : 207338 I AnalyticalTechnologies,!nc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY RESULTS Test EPA 8080 (ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PCBS) I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Project # : 4971045-05 Project Name: BRAI4ALEA/MARINERS I Sample Client ID Matrix # AREA 2,1 SOIL I iCOMPOSITE 2 COMPOSITE AREA 2,2 SOIL 3 COMPOSITE AREA 2,3 SOIL ' Parameter Units ALDRIN MG/KG ALPHA-BEC MG/KG I BETA-SEC MG/KG GAMMA-SEC (LINDANE) MG/KG DELTA-SEC MG/KG I CHLORDANE 2,4-DDD MG/KG MG/KG 2,4 1 -DDE MG/KG 2,4-DDT MG/KG •4 ,41-DDD MG/KG 4,4'-DDE MG/KG 4,4 1 -DDT MG/KG DIELDRIN MG/KG I MG/KG I ENDOSULFAN ENDOSULFAN II MG/KG ENDOSULFAN SULFATE MG/KG MG/KG I ENDRIN ENDRIN KETONE MG/KG HEPTACHLOR MG/KG HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE MG/KG MG/KG I METHOXYCELOR TOXAPHENE MG/KG AROCLOR-1016 MG/KG AROcLOR-1221 MG/KG MG/KG I AROCLOR-1232 AROCLOR-1242 MG/KG AROCLOR-1248 MG/KG AROCLOR-1254 MG/KG AROCLOR-12 60 MG/KG Date Date Date Dil. Sampled Extracted Analyzed Factor 13-JUL-92 27-JUL-92 30-JUL-92 20.00 13-MM-92 27-JUL-92 30-JUL-92 20.00 13-MM-92 27-JUL-92 30-JUL-92 20.00 1 2 3 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.29 0.26 0.36 1.0 0.87 1.2 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.5 2.7 3.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 I DBC N/A*K N/A*K *K DUE TO THE NECESSARY DILUTION OF THE SAMPLE, RESULT WAS NOT ATTAINABLE. I I I N/A*K I 1 AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY RESULTS Page 4 Test : EPA 8080 (ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PCB'S) : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES ATI I.D. 207338 I Client Project # : 4971045-05 Project Name: BRA14ALEA/MARINERS I Sample Client ID Matrix Date Date Date Dii. Sampled Extracted Analyzed Factor COMPOSITE AREA 2,4 SOIL 13-JUL-92 27-JUL-92 03-AUG-92 20.00 I 4 5 COMPOSITE AREA 2,5 SOIL 13-JUL-92 27-JUL-92 30-JUL-92 20.00 Units 4 5 ' Parameter ALDRIN MG/KG <0.10 <0.10 ALPHA-SEC MG/KG <0.10 <0.10 BETA-BEC MG/KG <0.10 <0.10 I GAMMA-BEC (LIND2&NE) MG/KG <0.10 <0.10 DELTA-SEC MG/KG <0.10 <0.10 CHLORDANE MG/KG <1.0 <1.0 MG/KG <0.20 <0.20 I 2,4-DDD 2,4-DDE MG/KG <0.20 <0.20 2,4-DDT MG/KG <0.20 <0.20 4,4-DDD MG/KG <0.20 <0.20 MG/KG 0.21 0.38 I 4,4-DDE 4,4-DDT MG/KG 0.69 1.3 DIELDRIN MG/KG <0.20 <0.20 ENDOSULFAN I MG/KG <0.10 <0.10 ENDOSULFAN II MG/KG <0.20 <0.20 1 ENDOSULFAN SULFATE MG/KG <0.20 <0.20 ENDRIN MG/KG <0.20 <0.20 ENDRIN KETONE MG/KG <0.20 <0.20 I HEPTACHLOR MG/KG <0.10 <0.10 HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE MG/KG <0.10 <0.10 METHOXYCHLOR MG/KG <1.0 <1.0 MG/KG 2.9 2.8 I TOXAPHENE AROCLOR-1016 MG/KG <1.0 <1.0 AROCLOR-1221 MG/KG <1.0 <10 AROcLOR-1232 MG/KG <1.0 <1.0 MG/KG <1.0 <1.0 I AROcLOR-1242 AROCLOR-1248 MG/KG <1.0 <1.0 AROL0R-1254 MG/KG <1.0 <1.0 AROCLOR-1260 MG/KG <1.0 <1.0 I SURROGATES DBC N/A*K N/A*K *K DUE TO THE NECESSARY DILUTION OF THE SAMPLE, RESULT WAS NOT ATTAINABLE. I I I I I Ana yticaiTechnoIogies,Inc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL REAGENT BLANK I Page 5 Test : EPA 8080 (ORGPINOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PCBS) ATI I.D. : 207338 Blank I.D. : 20327 Date Extracted: 27-JUL-92 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Project # : 4971045-05 Date Dii. Analyzed : 30-JUL-92 Factor : 1.00 Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS Parameters Units Results ALDRIN MG/KG <0.0050 MG/KG <0.0050 I ALPHA-BHC BETA-BHC MG/KG <0.0050 GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE) MG/KG <0.0050 DELTA-BEC MG/KG <0.0050 I CHLORDANE MG/KG <0.050 2,4'-DDD MG/KG <0.010 2,4-DDE MG/KG <0.010 MG/KG <0.010 I 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDD MG/KG <0.010 4,4-DDE MG/KG <0.010 4,4 1 -DDT MG/KG <0.010 MG/KG <0.010 I DIELDRIN ENDOSULFAN I MG/KG <0.0050 ENDOSULFAN II MG/KG <0.010 ENDOSULFAN SULFATE MG/KG <0.010 MG/KG <0.010 I ENDRIN ENDRIN KETONE MG/KG <0.010 HEPTACHLOR MG/KG <0.0050 HEPTACHLOR EPDXIDE MG/KG <0.0050 I METHOXYCELOR MG/KG <0.050 TOXAPRENE MG/KG <0.10 AROCLOR-1016 MG/KG <0.050 I AROcLOR-1221 AROcLOR-1232 MG/KG MG/KG <0.050 <0.050 AROCLOR-1242 MG/KG <0.050 AROCLOR-1248 MG/KG <0.050 MG/KG <0.050 I AROCLOR-1254 AROCLOR-1260 MG/KG <0.050 SURROGATES DEC 108 Ii] I U I I I AnaJyticaITechnoIogies,nc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL MSMSD I Page 6 Test : EPA 8080 (ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES & PCBS) ATI I.D. : 207338 MSMSD # : 36568 Date Extracted: 27-JIM-92 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date Analyzed : 30-JUL-92 Sample Matrix : SOIL Project # : 4971045-05 REF I.D. : 207338-03 Project Name: BRAMALEA/MARINERS I Parameters Units Sample Conc Spiked % Dup Dup RPD Result Spike Sample Rec Spike % Rec ALDRIN MG/KG <0.10 0.027 N/A N/A*K N/A N/A*K N/A*K GAIO4A-BHC (LINDANE) MG/KG <0.10 0.027 N/A N/A*K N/A N/A*K N/A*K 4,4'-DDT MG/KG 1.2 0.067 1.4 N/A*K 1.3 N/A*K 7 I I DIELDRIN MG/KG <0.20 0.067 N/A N/A*K N/A N/A*K N/A*K ENDRIN MG/KG <0.20 0.067 N/A N/A*K N/A N/A*K N/A*K HEPTACHLOR MG/KG <0.10 0.027 N/A N/A*K N/A N/A*K N/A*K % Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result)*100/Spike Concentration RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Spiked Sample Result - Duplicate Spike Result)*100/Average Result *K DUE TO THE NECESSARY DILUTION OF THE SAMPLE, RESULT WAS NOT ATTAINABLE. I I I I I I I I I I I AnalyficalTechnologies,Inc. I GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY - QUALITY CONTROL BLANK SPIKE I Page 7 Test : EPA 8080 (ORGANOCBLORINE PESTICIDES & PCB'S) ATI I.D. : 207338 Blank Spike #: 27014 Date Extracted: 27-7M-92 I Client : LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date Analyzed : 30-JUL-92 Project # : 4971045-05 Sample Matrix : SOIL Project Name : BRAMALEA/MARINERS I Parameters Units Blank Spiked Spike Result Sample Conc. Rec 1 ALDRIN MG/KG <0.0050 0.020 0.027 74 GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE) MG/KG <0.0050 0.022 0.027 81 4,4 1 -DDT MG/KG <0.010 0.073 0.067 109 DIELDRIN MG/KG <0.010 0.071 0.067 106 I I ENDRIN MG/KG <0.010 0.070 0.067 104 HEPTACHLOR MG/KG <0.0050 0.021 0.027 78 % Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result)*100/Spike Concentration RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Spiked Sample - Blank Result)*100/Average Result I I I U I I U I I I I RELINQUISHED BY: , 1.. Time., Printed Name: Date: Company. Lr: RECEIVED BY . 1. -;i • Signature: Time: Printed Name: Date: Company: RELINQUISHED BY: 2. Signature: Tirn&' Printed Name: Date: Company: RECEIVED BY.' , 2,, '4 '.'. ••• Signature: Time: Printed Name: Date: Company: RELINQUISHED BY 3. Signature: Time: Printed Name: Date: Company: RECEIVED BY- (LAB) ,3. SicaabjrdA* Time: Analytical Technologies, Inc. DISTRIBUTION: While, Canary ANALYTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC • PInk- ORIGINATOR ±--- ai 5550 MOREHOUSE DRIVE - AnaIyticaITechnoIogies,Inc. 921214709 Chain of Custody DATE_______ PAGE____ OF____ PROJECT MANAGER: — — Recommended Quantity and Preservative (Provide triple volume on QC Samples) — _07 COMPANY: ADDRESS: 393 "1 ...4fiirflAj Cisp IJ) --z5 ' ) ) ) ) 63 IQ Irz (. ,. — - •— c - c C — U) (1) 0) CU 1'-.. I SAMPLEFic (Signature) ' PHONE NUMBER .- U) i5 SAMPLEI I I SAMPLE ID DATE TIME IMATRIXI LAB ID c . . . . I) L QQ()Q.. I fl__J__A fiAMWEAW No -PROJECT 4ORMATiON '44 : ' SAMPLE RECEIPT'. PROJECT NUMBER: 13 71c4'- — ç TOTAL N1JMBR OF CONTAINERS I mT? PROJECT NAME: CHAIN b CUSTODY SEA LS Y/!J/NA PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER:')971Oyc_g,l 'SEALS INTACT? Y/N1NA VIA: /4 RECEIVED GOOD COND./COLD. 'I ' TAT 024HR O48HRS 072HRS D1WKK LAB NUMBER I S MMIL?DSAL IfSTpCTIdN—). -ATI9'D!sposaI 0 $5.00 bach 0 Rtum li Pickup) Comments: '.L çOcj) : I/u- I F I MARINERS POINT TENTATIVE TRACT 91-12 I NOISE STUDY (Revised May 29, 1992) City of Carlsbad, California I I U I El L U •..if.' • ? ' t: • • •••. • -.. .••. •.. • d/Jfifl' tih • :-• ';• . .: :'.... - . a! -• .• wr . •: •::. 'i• •• . •.•- .1's III I El U .s. e*.. h Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. n Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning Traffic /Acoustical Engineering May 29, 1992 Mr. Jack Reimer BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92714 Subject: Mariners Point Tentative Tract 91-12, Revised Acoustical Analysis Dear Mr. Reimer: ROBERT KAHN AND ASSOCIATES is pleased to provide BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. the attached revised acoustical study for the Mariners Point Tentative Tract 91-12 residential project located in the City of Carlsbad, California. This study is a revision of the previous noise report for the project, dated January 24, 1992, to reflect the new grading and development concept along Alga Road. The attached report indicates that the proposed uses within the site are compatible from an acoustical standpoint. The project will meet the required exterior and interior noise standards as specified by the City of Carlsbad if the recommended noise mitigation measures as noted in this study are implemented. The recommended mitigation measures include a 6.0 foot high noise barrier along the backyards of lots adjacent to Alga Road and a mechanical ventilation system with fresh air provisions for the homes on Lots 52 through 56. ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. is pleased to assist BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. on the Mariners Point Tentative Tract 91- 12 project and look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, El I I H ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCI Cornelis H. Overweg, INCE Mem Senior Engineer . I CHO:RK:nad/2261 EXP. 9/yQ/93 J JN:34-92-001 Attachments Reviewed by: k— -L---- bert Kahn, P.E. incipal H I U I I E I I I- I I I I I 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX (714) 474-0902 El Ii I I REVISED ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS FOR MARINERS POINT TENTATIVE TRACT 91-12 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I I Prepared for: I BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92714 I I I I Prepared by: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. I 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I I May 29, 1992 JN: 3 4-92-001 I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 SUMMARY OFRECOMMENDATIONS ................. 2 Exterior Area - Noise Exposure Control ......... 2 Noise Control Barrier Construction Materials ....... 2 Interior Area - Noise Exposure Control .......... 4 Unit Ventilation INTRODUCTION ....................... 6 Conditions of Approval .................. 6 EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............ 8 EXTERIOR AREA NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL ...... 11 Receiver Assumptions ................... 12 source Assumptions .................... 12 INTERIOR AREA NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL ......15 CONCLUSIONS .........................17 APPENDICES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. 17 A TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT COMPUTER PRINTOUTS I I I I I I I I F' I I I I [1 I El I I H I I LIST OF EXHIBITS I EXHIBIT PAGE A RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ............3 I B LOCATION MAP .....................7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 FUTURE ROADWAY AND SITE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR ANALYTICAL PROJECTION OF FUTURE ROADWAY NOISE IMPACTS 10 2 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ................14 3 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ................16 I REVISED ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS FOR I MARINERS POINT TENTATIVE TRACT 91-12 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An acoustical analysis has been completed to determine the exterior and interior noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for Mariners Point Tentative Tract 91-12 located in the City of Carlsbad. The results of this analysis indicate that I future motor vehicle noise from Alga Road is the principal source of community noise that will impact the tract. However, noise I levels on the project site will meet the exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL and the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL, if the recommended mitigation measures as noted in this study are I implemented. The recommended noise mitigation measures include a 6.0 foot high noise barrier along the backyards of lots adjacent to I Alga Road, and a "windows closed" condition for Lots 52 through 56. The "windows closed" condition for Lots 52 through 56 requires a I mechanical ventilation system for the homes on these lots, with fresh air provisions in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. The noise control analysis in this report is intended to meet the Carlsbad's Administrative Policy No. 17 noise standards, and should be sufficient to obtain acoustical approval for building permits of this project. I 1 I 1 1 I 1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Exterior Area - Noise Exposure Control The Administrative Policy No. 17 noise standard for residential development requires noise levels in exterior areas to meet 60 I CNEL. Those areas in Tract 91-12 that are considered to be exterior areas are the backyards. The 60 CNEL exterior noise I standard will be met with a 6.0 foot high noise barrier constructed on the top of slope along the backyards of Lots 48 through 56. The I location and running length of this noise barrier is shown on Exhibit A. Noise Control Barrier Construction Materials The necessary noise barrier mitigation will be accomplished if the noise barrier construction materials have a weight of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot of face area. The recommended barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom, and no openings or ' decorative cutouts should be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled grout or caulking. The required noise I control barriers may be constructed using one of the following alternative materials: 1. masonry block; 2. stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1 inch thick tongue and groove wood of sufficient weight per square 1 foot; I 3. 1/4 inch thick glass, acrylic plastic, or other transparent materials with sufficient weight per square foot may be used to provide views; I 1 2 I '1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES = MECHANICAL VENTILATION = 6.0 FT. HIGH NOISE BARRIER ALONG TOP OF SLOPE . TENTATIVE TRACT 91-12 o Mariners Point, Carlsbad EXHIBIT A FRobert K a h7John Kai n - & Associates, Inc. I rJ I 4. earthen berm; 5. any combination of these materials or other construction I materials with a minimum weight of 3.5 pounds per square foot of face area. Interior Area - Noise Exposure Control To determine the interior noise exposure, noise levels at the building facade have been computed assuxnxning hard site conditions and observers located on the 2nd floor, to reflect "worse-case" conditions. The calculations indicate that noise levels at the I building facade of homes directly adjacent to Alga Road will range between 53.5 and 60.5 CNEL. Typical California residential building constructions will provide a minimum of 12 dBA noise I reduction with "windows open" and a minimum of 20 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." To obtain a interior noise level of 45 CNEL, the homes on Lots 52 through 56 will require a mechanical ventilation system with fresh air provisions in I accordance with the Uniform Building Code to permit a "windows closed" condition. I Unit Ventilation When the operable doors and windows are open for homes on Lots 52 through 56, it is expected that the 45 CNEL interior noise standard for these homes may be exceeded. Therefore, a "windows closed" condition is applicable to these homes to meet the interior noise standard, and a means of mechanical ventilation with fresh air provisions in accordance with the Uniform Building Code is required I for these homes. This mechanical ventilation system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room, including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outdoors. 1 4 1 I The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction I and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct or six feet plus one sharp 90 0 bend. I I I 1 I I I I I F I I I 5 1 I INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a noise impact study for Tract I 91-12 located within the City of Carlsbad, California. Included in this report is a discussion of expected exterior and interior community noise environment. This report will address the I mitigation requirements to meet the exterior and interior noise standards for new residential developments in the City of Carlsbad. I The location of the proposed site is shown on the location map, I Exhibit B. The project is located in the City of Carlsbad on the west side of Alga Road, north of Camino de las Ondas. I I In the following planned site are standards. sections, noise exposures expected within the reviewed and compared to the applicable noise Conditions of Approval The acoustical conditions of approval for this site reference Administrative Policy No. 17. In accordance with Administrative Policy No. 17, the interior noise standard for residential developments is 45 CNEL, and the exterior noise standard is 60 CNEL. ii I I I I I I LOCATION MAP I P I I I I 1 I TI I Li P I TI I I I I I EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Exhibit B shows the location of Tract 91-12 within the City of Carlsbad. It is expected that the primary source of noise impact to the site will be traffic noise from Alga Road. The San Diego Freeway (1-5) is not expected to impact the site due to its distance to the site and mitigation by intervening development. Camino de Las Ondas and other local collector streets are not expected to contribute significantly to the site's noise impacts due to their low traffic volumes and travel speed. Railroad lines do not exist and are not planned near the project site. It is expected that railroad noise will make no contribution to the overall noise environment. The site is not impacted by aircraft noise from any established military or civilian aircraft pattern. The Carlsbad Zone 20 Specific Plan Aircraft Noise Contour Map Year 1995 shows the site located well outside the 60 CNEL noise contour of McLellan - Palomar Airport. It is expected that aircraft noise will make no contribution to the overall noise environment. The expected roadway noise impacts were projected using a version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), together with several key roadway site parameters. The key input parameters, which determine the projected impact of vehicular traffic noise, include the roadway classification, the roadway active width, the total vehicle count per day (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks in the roadway volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view, the site conditions ("hard" or "soft ") and the percentage of total average daily traffic (ADT), which flows each hour throughout a 24 hour period. Expected future roadway parameter information for the percentages of automobile, medium trucks and heavy trucks along with the 24 I I 8 I I I E [ I I I L U U [1 I I I I I I hourly percentage of traffic flow breakdown were taken from a study I of 31 major intersections in Southern California. The roadway and site parameter values used to project future roadway noise impacts are presented in Table 1. I I h Ii I U I I I I I I I I 1 I I TABLE 1 FUTURE ROADWAY AND SITE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR ANALYTICAL PROJECTION OF FUTURE ROADWAY NOISE IMPACTS I YEAR-2010 SPEED ROADWAY SITE I HIGHWAY WIDTH ADT1 (MPH) GRADE(%) CONDI- (FT) TION Alga Road 102 23,500 45 >2% Soft/Hard2 HOURLY TRAFFIC FLOW DISTRIBUTION PERCENT TRAFFIC FLOW BY TIME PERIOD MOTOR-VEHICLE DAY EVENING NIGHT TOTAL % TYPE (7AM TO 7PM) (7PM TO 10PM) (10PM TO 7AM) TRAFFIC I FLOW Automobiles 77.5 12.9 9.6 100.0 I Medium Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 100.0 Heavy Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 100.0 I TRAFFIC VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION (%) HIGHWAY AUTOMOBILES MEDIUM TRUCKS HEAVY TRUCKS Alga Road 97.42 1.84 0.74 I 1 Source: Zone 20 Traffic Analysis, prepared by Wiliden Associates, June 13, 1991. 2 All second floor observer locations are computed with hard-site conditions. I 10 H I I EXTERIOR AREA NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL The City's Administrative Policy No. 17 noise standards for I residential homes require noise levels in exterior areas to meet 60 CNEL. Tract 91-12 does not have balconies facing Alga Road and the only area considered as exterior areas are the backyards. Analysis I and recommendations for control of vehicle noise impacts in outdoor areas are presented in this section. I Using a computer analysis model based upon the FHWA traffic noise I prediction model and the parameters outlined in Table 1, calculations of the potential worse case vehicle noise impacts were I completed. The computer printouts for the specific site locations are included in Appendix "B". I Determination of the potential worse-case future vehicle noise impacts upon the project were computed using the roadway noise I assumptions in Table 1, and data from the site plan for the project, prepared by Crosby Mead Benton & Associates, dated April I 14, 1992. The site noise analysis indicates future unmitigated exterior noise exposure over 60 CNEL for all lots directly adjacent I to Alga Road. However, the exterior noise levels will be sufficiently mitigated to meet the 60 CNEL exterior noise standard with the planned 6.0 foot high block wall constructed along the I backyards of these lots. An acoustical analysis has been performed to determine the acoustical shielding from vehicle noise necessary to meet the City's 60 CNEL exterior noise standard in the backyard areas. The barrier analysis was completed using a version of the FHWA-RD-77- I 108 Noise Model. Key input data for these barrier performance equations include the relative source-barrier-receiver horizontal separations, the relative source-barrier-receiver vertical 1 11 I separations, the typical noise source spectra and the barrier transmission loss. Following are the general assumption used in determination the source and receiver geometry: Receiver Assumptions Horizontal Geometry: Vertical Geometry: Location outdoor receiver: 5 feet behind noise control barrier. Location interior receiver: building facade Height above pad for ground level receivers: • Exterior noise: 6 feet • Interior noise: 16 feet Source Assumptions Horizontal Geometry: Grades of Alga Road are no greater than 2%, and all vehicles are located at the single lane equivalent acoustic center of the full roadway. Vertical Geometry: Height above road grade: • Autos = 0.0 feet • Medium Trucks = 2.3 feet • Heavy Trucks = 8.0 feet These assumptions, together with elevations and distances shown on the project's tentative map, were used to determine the horizontal 12 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I and vertical geometry used in the barrier analysis. For the purpose of this study, the FHWA traffic noise spectra assumptions were used in the barrier analysis. The exterior noise environment is dominated by traffic noise from Alga Road. Table 2 shows the exterior noise impacts from Alga Road to the site, with and without mitigation. Table 2 shows that a 6.0 foot high noise barrier is required along the backyards of units facing Alga Road to meet the City's 60 CNEL exterior noise standard. The mitigated exterior noise level for Lot 50 exceeds slightly (0.3 dBA) the 60.0 CNEL with the recommended 6.0 foot high noise barrier, however this difference will not be audible for the human ear and can be considered insignificant in terms of community noise assessment criteria. Increase of the noise barrier along the backyard of Lot 5 with 0.5 foot up to 6.5 foot high, would reduce the exterior noise level on this lot to 59.3 CNEL. Detailed recommendations for construction and placement of the noise barrier are presented in the Summary of Recommendations. Once the recommended noise barriers are constructed, it is expected that the outdoor noise-exposure levels will meet 60 CNEL in the backyard areas on the site. El I El I I I 13 I I I I 1l I I I [ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I TABLE 2 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS LOT NO. UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVEL (CNEL) RECOMMENDED BARRIER HEIGHT MITIGATED NOISE LEVEL (CNEL) 48 66.9 6.0 59.4 49 65.8 6.0 59.0 50 66.6 6.0 (6.5)' 60.3 (59.3) 51 65.9 6.0 59.9 52 65.9 6.0 59.8 53 65.9 6.0 59.8 54 65.9 6.0 59.6 55 66.5 6.0 59.9 56 65.7 6.0 58.6 Required to not to exceed the 60 CNEL exterior standard. 14 INTERIOR AREA NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL The interior noise exposure is the difference between the projected exterior CNEL exposure at the building facade and the noise reduction of the building. Typical building construction will provide a minimum 12 dBA noise reduction with "windows open" and a minimum 20 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed". To determine the interior noise exposure, noise levels at the building facade have been computed assumming hard site conditions and observers located on the 2nd floor, to reflect "worse-case" conditions. The calculations indicate that noise levels at the building facade of homes directly adjacent to Alga Road will range between 53.5 and 60.5 CNEL. Based upon this study, it is anticipated that all units will meet the 45 CNEL interior standard with windows open except Lots 52 through 56 which require a "windows closed" condition. A summary of the anticipated interior noise levels for all dwelling units adjacent to Alga Road is presented in Table 3. A mechanical ventilation system with fresh air provisions is required for the homes on Lots 52 through 56, to permit a "windows closed" condition for these homes. I I I I I I 15 I I I I I I 11 I I I I I P I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I TABLE 3 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS 48 55.7 43.7 35.7 49 56.1 44.1 36.1 50 53.5 41.5 33.5 51 56.2 44.2 36.2 52 58.6 46.6 38.6 53 59.3 47.3 39.3 54 60.5 48.5 40.5 55 59.2 47.2 39.2 56 57.3 45.3 37.3 Based upon a 12 cIBA exterior/interior noise reduction. 2 Based upon a 20 dBA exterior/interior noise reduction. 16 NOISE LEVEL INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL AT FACADE WINDOWS OPEN' WINDOWS CLOSED2 LOT (CNEL) (CNEL) (CNEL) CONCLUSIONS An acoustical analysis has been completed for the proposed Tract 91-12. The analysis indicates that the future noise environment is expected to be dominated by traffic noise exposure from Alga Road. The noise control findings show that the exterior noise exposure will not be excessive and that the planned 6.0 foot blockwall on the top of slope along the backyards of the lots directly adjacent to Alga Road will sufficiently mitigate vehicle noise levels from Alga Road to meet the City's 60 CNEL exterior noise standard. Compliance with the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard is met for all units with a windows open condition except Lots 52 through 56, which require a "windows closed" condition and a mechanical ventilation with fresh air provisions for the homes on these lots. The analysis presented in this report complies with the applicable City of Carlsbad requirements for control of community noise impacts. I I I I El Li El I U I I I I 111 Li I I 17 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. 17 1 I I I I I I Li I I POUCY NO: 17 EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1990 PAGE 1 OF 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE CF- UELI I ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY JAN 1 1)1992 A K J K I According to the Noise Control Act of 1973 Health & Safety Code 46000 et.seq., the Planning and Zoning Law Government Code 65302(f) and CEQA Public Resources Code 2100 et.seq., and until the City of Carlsbad's Noise Element is updated and amended a 'Noise' Study shall I be submitted with all discretionary applications for residential projects of five or more dwelling units within: 1 1. 2,000 feet from the right-of-way of Interstate 5 I 2. 1,000 feet from the right-of-way of Highway 76 3. 500 feet from the railroad right-of-way I 4. 500 feet from the right-of-way of an existing or future Circulation Element Roadway as identified on the Carlsbad General Plan I s. Within the McClellan Palomar Airport influence area as depicted on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan Palomar Airport. I This study shall be prepared by an acoustical professional and document the projected noise level at buildout of Carlsbad's General Plan and mitigate the projected buildout noise level to a maximum of 60 dBA CNEL at: I1. Five feet inside the proposed project's property line at six feet above finished grade level, and I2. Above the first floor/story if usable exterior space is provided. Interior noise levels shall be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when openings to the exterior of the I residence are closed. If openings are provided, mechanical ventilation shall be provided. If the acoustical study shows that exterior noise levels cannot be mitigated to 60 dBA CNEL I or less, the development should not be approved without the following findings: 1. It shall be the responsibility of the developer of the project to prove to the satisfaction I of the Planning Commission or Design Review Board why it is not feasible to comply with the 60 dBA CNEL standard. 1 2. No interior CNEL shall exceed 45 dBA when openings to the exterior are closed. I I I 3. The Planning Commission or Design Review Board must find that there are specifically I identified Overriding Social and economic considerations which warrant approval of the development even though it does not meet the noise standard. I 4. All purchasers of the impacted property shall be notified in writing prior to purchase, and by deed disclosure in writing, that the property they are purchasing is noise impacted and does not meet Carlsbad noise standards for residential property. I 5. If the acoustical study shows that the exterior mitigated noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL, the development should not be approved. I In addition, the following appropriate mitigations and/or conditions of approval shall be incorporated into projects: I1. For residential projects near existing or future transportation corridors - Prior to recordation of the first final tract/parcel map or issuance of building permits, whichever I is first, the owner shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise, Form #1 attached). I2. For residential projects within 3 miles of McClellan-Palomar Airport as shown on the August 1988 County of San Diego Noise Control Plan for Palomar Airport - Prior to the recordation of the first final tract/parcel map or the issuance of residential building I permits, whichever is first, the owner of record of the property within the boundaries of this tentative tract/parcel map shall prepare and record a notice (see Noise, Form #2 attached) that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating I from Palomar Airport in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney. I The applicant shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall I be approved by the Planning Director. (See Noise, Form # 3 attached.) 3. For potential noise generating projects - Prior to approval of any permits, an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans shall be submitted describing the noise generation I potential of the proposed project and proposed attenuation measures to assure that an environment which is free from excessive or harmful noise is achieved and maintained. The report shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The I approved attenuation features shall be incorporated into the plans and specifications of the proposed project. I APPROVED BY: I MICHAEL J. Planning Director I arb I I 1 I I I I F~ I APPENDIX B I TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT COMPUTER PRINTOUTS I I I I E L I I I HARD/SOFT SITE CONDITIONS EVALUATION I PROJECT: MARINERS POINT, CARLSBAD ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD JN: 34-92-001 LOCATION: EXTERIOR BY: C.H..Overweg I LOT DISTANCE TO CTL ELEVATION OBSV CONDITIONS OBS WALL SLOPE FLOOR ROAD HT A MT HT I 48 --106 --101 51 308.5 280 6 --Soft--Hard-Hard 49 106 101 51 303.5 283 6 Soft Soft Soft 50 106 101 51 298.5 284 6 Soft Soft Hard I 51 106 101 51 296.0 286 6 Soft Soft Soft 52 106 101 51 296.8 286 6 Soft Soft Soft 53 106 101 51 297.5 286 6 Soft Soft Soft I 54 106 101 51 299.0 286 6 Soft Soft Soft 55 106 101 51 303.8 285 6 Soft Soft Hard 56 106 101 51 308.5 284 6 Soft Soft Soft I Li Li 1 F] L I I I I I I I I I I LI I I I 1 Backyard I I I Li I I I I 1 FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL --------------------------------------------------------------------- ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 48 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 106 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 110.20 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 109.47 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 107.85 HTH WALL= 6.0 OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 63.77 61.87 60.10 54.04 63.27 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 60.50 58.99 52.63 51.08 59.78 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.41 59.99 50.95 52.20 60.68 VEHICULAR NOISE 66.89 65.22 61.24 57.39 66.28 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.04 58.37 54.39 50.53 59.43 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.89 66.89 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.04 60.04 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.28 66.28 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.43 59.43 I I I I 111 I I I I I I I I I I I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) 15 10 10 (0=WALL, 1=BERM) I SITE CONDITIONS AUTOMOBILES = MEDIUM TRUCKS = HEAVY TRUCKS = BARRIER = 0 PAD EL = 308.5 ROAD EL = 280 GRADE = 2 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) EL AUTOMOBILES = 280.000 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 282.297 EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 288.006 FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 49 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 106 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 107.86 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 107.29 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 106.09 HTH WALL-- 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 303.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 283.000 ROAD EL = 283.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 285.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 291.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 63.91 62.01 60.24 54.18 63.41 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.69 56.19 49.82 48.28 56.97 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 58.61 57.19 48.16 49.41 57.89 VEHICULAR NOISE 65.77 64.03 60.86 56.19 65.19 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 59.54 57.80 54.63 49.97 58.97 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 65.77 65.77 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.55 59.55 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.19 65.19 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 58.97 58.97 I Li I I III I I I I I I I Iii I I I 1 I 1 I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:? ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 50 BY: C.. Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 - I PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 106 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 106.48 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 106.04 I DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 105.17 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 0 I AMBIENT= ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 I SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) I BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BEPN) PAD EL = 298.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 284.000 ROAD EL = 284.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 286.297 I GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 292.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY 1 AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 63.99 62.09 60.33 54.26 63.50 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.77 56.26 49.90 48.36 57.05 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.52 60.10 51.06 52.31 60.79 VEHICULAR NOISE 66.56 64.87 61.15 57.04 65.96 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.87 59.18 55.46 51.35 60.27 1 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.56 66.56 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.87 60.87 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.96 65.96 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.27 60.27 I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 50 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 106 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 106.60 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 106.15 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 105.25 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 298.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 284.000 ROAD EL = 284.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 286.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 292.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 63.98 62.09 60.32 54.26 63.49 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.76 56.25 49.89 48.35 57.04 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.52 60.09 51.06 52.31 60.79 VEHICULAR NOISE 66.55 64.86 61.14 57.03 65.95 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 59.93 58.24 54.52 50.41 59.33 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.55 66.55 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.93 59.93 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.95 65.95 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.33 ******* 59.33 I Li I I Li I Li I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 51 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 I PKHR% 10 CTL DIST= 106 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 105.66 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 105.32 I DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 104.70 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 0 I AMBIENT= ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 I SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) I BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 296 EL AUTOMOBILES = 286.000 ROAD EL = 286 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 288.297 I GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 294.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.04 62.14 60.38 54.31 63.55 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.81 56.31 49.94 48.40 57.09 I HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 58.70 57.28 48.24 49.49 57.97 VEHICULAR NOISE 65.89 64.15 60.99 56.32 65.32 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.48 58.74 55.58 50.90 59.90 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 65.89 65.89 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.48 60.48 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.32 65.32 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.90 59.90 I I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL I ROADWAY:-ALGA-ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 52 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 (EXISTING PLUS PROJECT) PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 106 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 105.79 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 105.44 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 104.77 I HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 I ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 I MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) I PAD EL = 296.8 EL AUTOMOBILES = 286.000 ROAD EL = 286.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 288.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 294.006 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.03 62.14 60.37 54.31 63.54 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.81 56.30 49.94 48.39 57.09 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 58.70 57.27 48.24 49.49 57.97 I VEHICULAR NOISE 65.88 64.14 60.98 56.31 65.31 I NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.40 58.66 55.50 50.83 59.83 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 65.88 65.88 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.41 60.41 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.31 65.31 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.83 59.83 I I I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY:-ALGA-ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 53 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 (EXISTING PLUS PROJECT) PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 106 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 105.91 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 105.54 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 104.84 I HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 I MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) I PAD EL = 297.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 286.000 ROAD EL = 286.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 288.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 294.006 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 I MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.03 62.13 60.36 54.30 63.53 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.80 56.29 49.93 48.39 57.08 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 58.69 57.27 48.23 49.48 57.96 I VEHICULAR NOISE 65.88 64.14 60.98 56.30 65.30 I NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.36 58.62 55.46 50.79 59.79 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 65.88 65.88 I MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.36 65.30 60.36 65.30 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.79 59.79 I I I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL I ROADWAY:-ALGA-ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 54 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 106 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 106.18 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 105.78 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 104.99 I HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 I ROADWAY VIEW: IF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 I MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERN) I PAD EL = 299.0 EL AUTOMOBILES = 286.000 ROAD EL = 286.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 288.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 294.006 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.01 62.11 60.34 54.28 63.51 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.79 56.28 49.92 48.37 57.06 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 58.68 57.26 48.22 49.47 57.96 I VEHICULAR NOISE 65.86 64.12 60.96 56.29 65.29 l NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.21 58.47 55.30 50.63 59.63 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 65.86 65.86 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.21 60.21 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.29 65.29 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.63 59.63 I I I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL I ROADWAY:-ALGA-ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:]. ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 55 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 ' CTL DIST= 106 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 107.43 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 106.90 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 105.79 I HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 I ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 I MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) I PAD EL = 303.8 EL AUTOMOBILES = 285.000 ROAD EL = 285.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 287.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 293.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT - DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 63.93 62.04 60.27 54.21 63.44 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.72 56.21 49.85 48.30 57.00 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.49 60.07 51.04 52.29 60.77 I VEHICULAR NOISE 66.51 64.82 61.10 56.99 65.91 ' NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.49 58.80 55.08 50.97 59.89 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.51 66.51 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.50 60.50 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.91 65.91 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.89 59.89 I I I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL I ROADWAY:-ALGA-ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:1ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 56 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 106 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 108.96 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 108.31 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 106.90 I HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 I MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) I PAD EL = 308.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 284.000 ROAD EL = 284.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 286.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 292.006 1 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 63.84 61.94 60.18 54.11 63.35 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.63 56.12 49.76 48.22 56.91 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 58.56 57.14 48.11 49.36 57.84 I VEHICULAR NOISE 65.71 -- 63:9; 60.80 56.13 65.13 ' NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 59.14 57.40 54.23 49.57 58.57 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 65.71 65.71 I MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.14 65.13 59.14 65.13 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 58.57 58.57 I I I I 1 I I I I I Building Facade I El I Li I I I El I I I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 48 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 (EXISTING PLUS PROJECT) PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 126 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 133.89 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 132.97 DT W/OB= 25 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 130.87 I HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) I AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERN) I PAD EL = 318.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 280.000 ROAD EL = 280.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 282.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 288.006 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT TIL I AUTOMOBILES MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.775 0.848 0.129 0.096 0.049 0.103 0.9742 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 ----------------------------------------------- NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL I AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.87 63.98 62.21 56.14 65.38 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.65 58.15 51.78 50.24 58.93 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.57 59.15 50.11 51.36 59.84 I VEHICULAR NOISE 67.73 - 65.99 62.82 58.16 67.16 I NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL I VEHICULAR NOISE 56.30 54.56 51.39 46.73 55.73 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.73 67.73 ' MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 56.31 56.31 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 67.16 67.16 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 55.73 ******* 55.73 I I I FHWA --RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 49 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 134 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 138.87 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 138.10 DT W/OB= 33 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 136.39 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 313.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 283.000 ROAD EL = 283.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 285.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 291.006 2 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.71 63.82 62.05 55.99 65.22 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.49 57.98 51.62 50.07 58.77 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.39 58.97 49.93 51.18 59.66 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.57 65.83 62.66 57.99 66.99 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 56.66 54.92 51.76 47.08 56.09 PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = I MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = I H I I I [1 I 1 1 I . I I I I I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT 67.57 67.57 56.67 56.67 66.99 66.99 56.09 56.09 I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 50 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 198 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 200.96 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 200.31 I DT W/OB= 97 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 198.90 OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) ' AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0WALL,1BERM) I PAD EL = 308.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 284.000 ROAD EL = 284.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 286.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 292.006 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.775 0.848 0.129 0.096 0.049 0.103 0.9742 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 ----------------------------------------------- NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL I AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.11 62.21 60.44 54.38 63.61 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.87 56.37 50.00 48.46 57.15 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 58.75 57.33 48.29 49.54 58.03 VEHICULAR NOISE 65.95 64.21 61.06 56.38 65.38 I NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 54.02 52.28 49.12 44.44 53.45 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 65.95 65.95 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 54.03 54.03 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.38 65.38 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 53.45 ******* 53.45 I El I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL - - ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD -- - DATE: 28-May-92 I LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 51 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 I PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 161 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) DT WALL= 101 AUTO SLE DISTANCE = MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 162.73 162.17 DT W/OB= 60 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 161.00 HTH WALL= 6.0 **** HTH= 6 l OBS AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 I DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 I HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 306.0 EL AUTOMOBILES = 286.000 ROAD EL = 286.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 288.297 I GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 294.006 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.03 63.13 61.36 55.30 64.53 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 58.79 57.28 50.92 49.38 58.07 I HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 59.67 58.25 49.21 50.46 58.94 VEHICULAR NOISE 66.87 65.13 61.97 57.30 66.30 1 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 56.72 54.98 51.82 47.14 56.15 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT I PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.87 66.87 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 56.74 56.74 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.30 66.30 I MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 56.15 56.15 I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 52 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 126 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 127.93 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 127.36 DT W/OB= 25 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 126.14 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERN) PAD EL = 306.8 EL AUTOMOBILES = 286.000 ROAD EL = 286.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 288.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 294.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 - 0.129 - 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ - DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 66.07 64.17 62.41 56.34 65.58 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.84 58.33 51.97 50.43 59.12 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.73 59.31 50.27 51.52 60.00 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.92 66.18 63.02 - 58.34 67.35 ' NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 59.20 57.46 54.30 49.62 58.62 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.92 67.92 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.21 59.21 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 67.35 67.35 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 58.62 58.62 U Li 71 El 1 I I El 1 I ci U U 1 I I I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 53 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIsT= 119 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 121.12 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 120.53 DT W/OB= 18 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 119.28 I HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) I AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1BERM) I PAD EL = 307.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 286.000 ROAD EL = 286.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 288.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 294.006 I DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE I AUTOMOBILES MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.775 0.848 0.129 0.096 0.049 0.103 0.9742 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 ----------------------------------------------- NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL I AUTOMOBILES LEQ 66.31 64.41 62.64 56.58 65.81 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 60.08 58.57 52.21 50.67 59.36 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.97 59.55 50.52 51.76 60.25 I VEHICULAR NOISE 68.16 -- - 66.42 - 63.26 58.58 67.58 I NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL I VEHICULAR NOISE 59.89 58.15 54.99 50.31 59.31 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 68.16 68.16 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.90 59.90 l CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 67.58 67.58 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.31 59.31 H I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:2 ND FLOOR FACADE, LOT 54 BY: C.Overweg ' ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 50 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIsT= 117 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 119.53 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 118.91 I DT W/OB= 16 HTH WALL= 6.0 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 117.58 OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) ' AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) I PAD EL = 309.0 EL AUTOMOBILES = 286.000 ROAD EL = 286.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 288.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 294.006 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.775 0.848 0.129 0.096 0.049 0.103 0.9742 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 ----------------------------------------------- NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL I AUTOMOBILES LEQ 67.65 65.75 63.99 57.92 67.16 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 61.23 59.72 53.36 51.82 60.51 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.70 60.28 51.25 52.50 60.98 VEHICULAR NOISE 69.36 67.61 64.55 59.77 68.79 1 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 61.06 59.31 56.26 51.48 60.49 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 69.36 69.36 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 61.07 61.07 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 68.79 68.79 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.49 60.49 Li 11 LI I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: ALGA ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION:2 ND FLOOR FACADE, LOT 55 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 50 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 119 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 123.30 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 122.56 DT W/OB= 18 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 120.93 I HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) I AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1BERN) I PAD EL = 313.8 EL AUTOMOBILES = 285.000 ROAD EL = 285.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 287.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 293.006 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.775 0.848 0.129 0.096 0.049 0.103 0.9742 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL I AUTOMOBILES LEQ 67.52 65.62 63.85 57.79 67.02 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 61.10 59.59 53.23 51.69 60.38 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.58 60.16 51.12 52.37 60.85 I VEHICULAR NOISE 69.23 6;.48 64.42 -- 59.64 68.66 I NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL I VEHICULAR NOISE 59.81 58.06 55.00 50.22 59.24 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 69.23 69.23 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.82 59.82 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 68.66 68.66 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.24 59.24 I I n I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL I ROADWAY:-ALGA-ROAD DATE: 28-May-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 56 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 119 I DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 125.32 DT WALL= 101 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 124.47 DT W/OB= 18 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 122.56 I HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 I MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) I BARRIER = 0 PAD EL = 318.5 (0=WALL,1=BERN) EL AUTOMOBILES = 284.000 ROAD EL = 284.0 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 286.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 292.006 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 66.16 64.26 62.50 56.43 65.66 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.94 58.43 52.07 50.53 59.22 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.86 59.43 50.40 51.65 60.13 I VEHICULAR NOISE 68.02 66.28 63.11 58.44 67.44 ' NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 57.87 56.13 52.97 48.30 57.30 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 68.02 68.02 I MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 57.88 67.44 57.88 67.44 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 57.30 57.30 LI I APR 2 11992 CITY OF CMILSHAD PLANNING DLapT, MARINERS POINT CITY OF CARLSBAD PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS REPORT J.N. 135-102 OCTOBER 10, 1991 REVISED APRIL 16, 1992 PE L ( No.44875 1 Exp. 3/31/94 1 Ivi OF CAO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PREPARED BY: CROSBY MEAD BENTON & ASSOCIATES 5650 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008-7128 (619) 438-1210 ENGINEER OF WORK: MICHAEL W. NG te RCE 44875 EXP. 3/31/94 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE VICINITY MAP .....................................1 INTRODUCTION .....................................2 METHODOLOGY ....................................... 3 DESIGN CRITERIA............. . . . . ............ . . . . . . . 4 HYDROLOGY: Q100 STORM FREQUENCY - EXISTING CONDITION ................ 12 - PROPOSED CONDITION ......... . . .16 HYDRAULIC: ONSITE DETENTION (BASIN C) .........79 SUMMARY........................................... MAPS: EXHIBIT 'A' - 400 SCALE OFFSITE HYDROLOGY MAP (EXISTING CONDITION) EXHIBIT 'B' - 400 SCALE OFFSITE HYDROLOGY MAP (PROPOSED CONDITION) EXHIBIT 'C' - 100 SCALE ONSITE HYDROLOGY MAP (PROPOSED CONDITION) EXHIBIT 'D' - 100 SCALE ONSITE HYDROLOGY MAP (PROPOSED CONDITION) EXHIBIT 'E' - 40 SCALE ONSITE HYDROLOGY MAP (PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY) PALOMAR AIRPORT R (p 01- 1(60) I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I / CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS ALDERWOOD RD.- BATIQUITOS DR. t4s -~, I VICINITY MAP NO SCALE SITE IARWOOD DR. jik NORTH I I INTRODUCTION I THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT IS A PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGICAL AND I HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF THE ONE HUNDRED (Q100) YEAR STORM FREQUENCY TO DETERMINE THE STORM RUNOFF FOR THE DESIGN OF THE STORM DRAIN I SYSTEMS WITHIN THE MARINERS POINT PROJECT IN CARLSBAD. THE ANALYSIS WILL ALSO PROVIDE PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGICAL AND I HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS. THE PROPOSED SYSTEMS WILL BE DESIGNED TO CARRY THE Q100 YEAR STORM I FREQUENCY FROM THE STREET AND THE ADJACENT TRIBUTARY AREAS. THE I CULVERTS ARE DESIGNED FOR THE Q100 YEAR STORM FREQUENCY ULTIMATE RUNOFF WHICH RELIEVES THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS WITHIN THE STREETS. I BASIN A CONSISTS OF A TRIBUTARY AREA FROM THE SOUTHERLY PORTION OF I THE PROJECT SITE. THE RUNOFF IS CONVEYED TO THE EXISTING STORM I DRAIN SYSTEM ALONG CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS AND ALDERWOOD DRIVE. MANITOU ENGINEERING COMPANY HAS CALCULATED 42.5 CFS IN THIS SYSTEM FOR THE SEA PINES PROJECT (C.T. NO. 83-2, DWG. NO. 230-6). BASIN B CONSISTS OF A TRIBUTARY AREA FROM THE WESTERLY PORTION OF I THE PROJECT SITE. THE RUNOFF IS CONVEYED TO THE EXISTING STORM DRAIN SYSTEM ALONG CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS AND SEASCAPE DRIVE. O'DAY CONSULTANTS HAS CALCULATED 67.5 CFS IN THIS SYSTEM FOR THE SEASCAPE PROJECT (M.S. 661, DWG. NO. 252.5). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 24- BASIN C CONSISTS OF A TRIBUTARY AREA FROM THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE. THE RUNOFF IS CONVEYED TO FUTURE STREETS AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS PORPOSED BY SAMBI AND COSTA DO SOL PROJECTS. BASIN D CONSISTS OF A TRIBUTARY AREA FROM THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE. THE RUNOFF IS MOSTLY CONVEYED INTO THE NATURAL WATER COURSE WITHIN TABATA'S PROPERTY. A PORTION OF THE RUNOFF IS CARRIED BY THE PROPOSED COLLEGE BOULEVARD TOWARD POINSETTIA LANE. BASIN E CONSISTS OF A TRIBUTARY AREA FROM THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROJECT SITE. THE RUNOFF IS CONVEYED BY THE PROPOSED COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND ITS EXTENSION NORTHERLY. I 3 I. I I METHODOLOGY: THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DESIGN AND PROCEDURE I MANUALAND THE HYDROLOGY MANUAL WERE THE REFERENCES USED IN THIS REPORT. ADDITIONAL CRITERIA WAS ADOPTED FROM THE CITY OF CARLSBAD'S STANDARD DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGN OF PUBLIC WORKS I IMPROVEMENTS. THE COMPUTER PROGRAMS UTILIZED FOR THE STUDY WERE DEVELOPED FOR I CIVILCADD / CIVIL DESIGN BY JOSEPH E. BONADIMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGION. CULVERTS ARE DESIGNED FOR THE ONE HUNDRED (100) YEAR ULTIMATE I RUNOFF. 1 I 1 I I I I U U I DESIGN CRITERIA U I I I I I •1 I I I I I I 4. 3. ,2 11 15 20 30 40 50 1 2 . 3 4 5 6 Minutes Flours Duration 10. 9. :-a U •r. 1 1 '4 .3 01, 0 •1 •0 1 (0 0 -4. .t3 S. 0J • r1 5 -4. r S, • S .-. .0 " r ( vo D .5 U .5 IE — — IUTEHStTYDUMTION DESIGN CHART March 1922 Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequenc'. These maps are printed in the County Flydrology Manual (10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it Is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not applicable to Desert) 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the right side of the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the plotted lines. 5) This line is the Intensity-duration curve for the location being analyzed. Application Form: 0) Selected Frequency /00 r. 1) P 6 2. in. P24 45 * 24 2) Adjusted *P 6= 2 In. 3) t rain. 4) 1= in/hr. *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI-A - I- 'p - _ a - - •i COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION & FLOOD CONTROL "5 • 100-YEAR 6-HOUR PECPTAT '20' ISOPIIJVIALS OF 100-YEAR 6-11OWl PIECIPiT!tTW1 IN ,iETflS OF !1 IC 30' 15' 330 p15' Prepiij.id k U.S. DEPARTMENII C p. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT4OSI i SPECIAL STUDIES BRANCH. OFFICE OF IF DR 30' I—I 118' 115 1 30' 15' 1170 115' 30' 15' 116° APPENDIX XT-D COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO . j'u g' DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION & 100-YEAR L-'BJ( rI(U FLOOD CONTROL '2O'IS0PLU 1JIALS OF 100 -YEAR 24-11OtJR PRECIPITATION III TENTHS OF All IIICIi 100 1 IN c6f(Al 70 5 41 :i>&\AG I 4A 0 X1 00 :;5. . -_ uiI 1 1 0 u iT L- - 50 JU - ' i1( IFL MA' 70 445U 16'°r } 6 - )54 1170 ' SI0 V; I I Vi" N APPENDIX XI— G 30 1 15 1 •33 0 11 51 SAN CLIM(NIE 10 4 Prpo dby U.S. OEPARTMEN I' OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT: OSI')IERIC ADMINISTRATION IIi(:IAL SI hOlES UEANCII• OFFICE OF II I)ROLOY, NATIONAL WEATIIEN SERVICE 30' 1,4 11110 ,a 301 .30 .35 .40 .45 .45 .50 .45 .50 .70 .75 .40 .45 .50 .55 .60 .70 .55 .65 .80 .35 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METhOD) Coefficient, C Soil Group (1) .30 .33 .40 .45 LAND USE Undeveloped - Residential: Rural Single Family Multi-Units Mobile Homes (2) Caercial (2) 80% Imverrious Industrial (2) 90% Impervious .80 .85 .90 :•93 NOTES: (1) Obtain soil group from macs on file with the Depzrent of Suit=--'on and Flood ControL C2) Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated mDervcusness values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by multi -plying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual imoerviousness to the tabulated iini,erviousness. However, in no case shall the €5t7 coefficient be less than 0.50. For examole: Consider ccmmeroial property on D soil group. Aca.l imerviousiiess = 50% - Tabulated imperviousness = 30% so Revised C = - I 0.85 = 0.53 APPENDIX IX H 477lCiV •7F z I d Ifr,hd IL H' D//c / hr sJoc ff,i. t•J c , - I - Miks I . - Jo- - I - sar I lov 4 . 7,0 \ . I ... -40 0 SAO • - . . 0 -2,00 2- -0 - - • • . - :-° —20 -. -. a.5— — Ar .12 I • \ — • : 1 —J I FOR NATURAL WASS — B -20 ADD TEN MINUTES TO J — JD00 • .. COMPUTED TIME OF CON-! 500 1 CEN . _ -800 . •. SIM -700 5 • - I .___3• —5 - H I SAN DIEGO COUNTY NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINI1ON I DPARTM8.,IT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION (T c) FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS DESIGN MANUAL APPROVED // DATE /2114 Y I APPENDIX XA 1 • . I . i OVE,t'Ld9/Vj.7 TIAIE A fZW cu,e vEc I ,,... — III !IciIIJ ,.r ,u ,.,, 111111; I/.lr.ti.jitif. p,.lJ' • ,,,II,,I, ij.i •1'i1j ___________________________________ ,.yl •Li...,., .•,,_I Fl 1, .l.. I I F 44*V go 73 '" ..') j .Eipi I itt, 7 7 — j I 1— I : j /7/ p' V' / • -) ry1 J . •Ne ft ?' // / 7 i 7. 1 W. • - . ... I I I I • . I . • III ,II ,,I,III I I I I fl 7 .V•. • . — I • • .j ,,. . 7c...,..,. I . 'I,_-,•' ________0 ______•• __. _• . -.,,• _________________ .4_,. _II _I '7_•_•_•' _•_••I _d"_I i , I 2-4 _/- •..._._.. __, II _• •II _•III•I • I_-, --pe - ............. -. - •1 I y7: 7a,,, 3Z jf pj- SAN DIEGO COUNTY , URBAN AREAS OVERLAND TIME DEPARTMT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES OF FLOW CURVES DESIGN MANUAL — APPROVED ///_ 1211 j ppqoix X-C Iv-M 2 . .-..... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - % OF STREET SLOPE 0 Ut cm o -.iwwö to II t1 1! Ii -"-4- f. H Cl) I I 'p UI 0 H m -T rn C)) Z - (n . (•) 111 • (I) (11 1) U) (3 111 LD pi P1 Z ro 0 > P1 c) - o :4) >( Q \It I p o t) zrn mU) rn.4 r ('1 II N N Fl /2 I I I HYDROLOGY: Q100 STORM FREQUENCY (EXISTING CONDITION) Fl I I Fl I I Li I I I Li I I I H I "3 San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program I CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1990 Version 2.3 Rational method hydrology program based on I San Diego County Flood Control Division 1985 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 10/10/91 MARINERS POINT T.M. I EXISTING CONDITION FILE: MP I ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ********* Hydrology Study Control Information ********** Rational hydrology study storm event year is 10010 I Map data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation(inches) 2.800 24 hour precipitation(inches) = 4.500 I Adjusted 6 hour precipitation (inches) 2,800 P6/P24 = 62.2% San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used Runoff coefficients by rational method I Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 11,000 ** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ****A4,5/A/':4' I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0,000 I Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [RURAL (greater than 1/2 acre) area type I Time of concentration computed by the I natural watersheds nomograph (App X-A) TC = [11.9*length(Mi)"3)/(elevation change)].385 *60(min/hr) + 10 mm. Initial subarea flow distance = 1750.00(Ft. Highest elevation = 313.00(Ft. I Lowest elevation = 180.00(Ft. Elevation difference = 133,00(Ft. TC={(11,9*0.3314"3)/(133.00)1 ^.385 6.62 + 10 mm. = 16.62 mm. I Rainfall intensity (I) = 3,400 for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA) is C = 0.450 Subarea runoff = 32,635(CFS) Total initial stream area = 21.330(Ac.) I Process from Point/Station 20.000 to Point/Station 21.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** 24s,,.a/ I Decimal fraction soil group A.= 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0,000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [RURAL (greater than 1/2 acre) area type Time of concentration computed by the natural watersheds nomograph (App X-A) TC = [11.9*length(Mi)^3)/(elevation change)]" Initial subarea flow distance = 2200.00(Ft. Highest elevation = 311.00(Ft. Lowest elevation = 167.00(Ft. Elevation difference = 144.00(Ft. TC=[(11.9*0.4167"3)/(144.00)1".385 8.36 + 10 mm, Rainfall intensity (I) = 3.188 for a 100.0 year Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) Subarea runoff = 40.359(CFS) Total initial stream area = 28.130(Ac, I I I Eli /1 .385 *60(mjn/hr) + 10 mm. = 18.36 mm. storm is C = 0.450 +++++++++++++++++++++++.++++..+++++++++++++.++++++++++.+++++++++.+++++ I Process from Point/Station 21.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME **** I Upstream point elevation = 167.00(Ft. Downstream point elevation = 148.70(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea = 535.00(Ft. Channel base width = 5.000(Ft. I Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank = 20.000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank = 20.000 Manning's 'N' = 0.035 I Maximum depth of channel = 2.000(Ft. Flow(q) thru subarea = 40.359(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.603(Ft.) I Average velocity = 3.922(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 29.125(Ft. Flow Velocity = 3.92(Ft/s) Travel time = 2.27 mm. I Time of concentration = 20.63 mm. Critical depth = 0.648(Ft. Process from Point/Station 21.000 to Point/Station 22.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [RURAL (greater than 1/2 acre) area type Time of concentration = 20.63 mm. Rainfall intensity = 2.957(In/Hr) f Runoff coefficient used for sub-area! Ra Subarea runoff = 19.614(CFS) for 1 Total runoff = 59.973(CFS) Total ar Process from Point/Station 30.000 to Point/Station 31.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION *** Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 I I I U I I I ri or a 100.0 year storm tional rnethod,QKCIA, C = 0.450 4.740(Ac. ea = 42.87(Ac.) I Decimal fraction fraction soil group D = 1.000 I [RURAL (greater than 1/2 acre) area type J Time of concentration computed by the natural watersheds nomograph (App X-A) I TC = [11.9*length(Mi)'3)/(ele7ati0fl change)].385 *60(min/hr) + 10 mm. Initial subarea flow distance = 2200.00(Ft. Highest elevation = 311.00(Ft. Lowest elevation = 167.00(Ft. I Elevation difference = 144.00(Ft. TC[(11.9*0.4167'3)/(144.00)I'.385 8.36+10min. = 18.36 min. Rainfall intensity (I) = 3.188 for a 100.0 year storm I Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q=KCIA) is C = 0.450 Subarea runoff = 7.991(CFS) Total initial stream area = 5.570(Ac. Process from Point/Station 40.000 to Point/Station 41.000 I **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** 641,4f Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [RURAL (greater than 1/2 acre) area type } I Time of concentration computed by the natural watersheds nomograph (App X-A) TC = [11.9*length(Mi)'3)/(elevation change))-385 *60(min/hr) + 10 mm. I Initial subarea flow distance = 850.00(Ft. Highest elevation = 320.00(Ft. Lowest elevation = 260.00(Ft. I Elevation difference = 60.00(Ft. TC={(11.9*0.1610"3)/( 60.00)]".38 5 3.90 + 10 mm. = 13.90 mm. Rainfall intensity (I) = 3.814 for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA) is C = 0.450 I Subarea runoff = 11.929(CFS) Total initial stream area = 6.950(Ac.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 50.000 to Point/Station 51.000 I **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [RURAL (greater than 1/2 acre) area type J I Time of concentration computed by the natural watersheds nomograph (App X-A) TC = [11.9*length(Mi)"3)/(elevation change)]-.385 *60(min/hr) + 10 mm. I Initial subarea flow distance = 1000.00(Ft. Highest elevation = 319.00(Ft. Lowest elevation = 284.00(Ft. Elevation difference = 35.00(Ft. I TC=[(11.9*0.18943)/( 35.00)].385 5.80 + 10 mm. = 15.80 mm, Rainfall intensity (I) = 3.513 for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA) is C = 0.450 I Subarea runoff = 16.725(CFS) Total initial stream area = 10.580(Ac.) I P'll I I I HYDROLOGY: Q100 STORM FREQUENCY (PROPOSED CONDITION) I [1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 11 Li San Dieno County Rational Hvdrolonv Prooram CIVILCADD/CIVI LDESJ GN Enci nee - ng SottL'Iare. (c.1 Vs rsi on 2. Rational method hvdrolociy nroor'-am based on I San Diego County Flood Control D 1 sa or I hydroioov manuai Rational Hydrolocy Study Dats 4120/2 I MARINERS POINT T.11. S/'V PROPOSED CONDITION EAST I A A FILE: MP1 I )** Hydrology Study Cont rol Information *1* I Rational hydrology study storm event year is 1000 I Mao data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation(inches) 2.800 24 hour precipitation(inches) 4.500 I Adjusted 6 hour precipitation (inches) 2800 P6/P24 = 62.25' San Diego hydrology manual '0' values used Runoff coefficients by rational method I ++±++++±+++++++++++++++±+++±++±±+++±+++±±+4'+++±+++±+"IH"f++4 ±++++±±+ Process from Point/Station 12.000 to Point/Station 12,100 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION I I 1 I I I Decimal fraction soil group A 0.000 Decimal fraction soil grouc B 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil grouc D 1.000 (SINGLE FAMILY area tve Initial subarea flow distance 200.00(Ft) Highest elevation z 288.50(Ft. Lowest elevation 286,5O(Ft. Elevation difference = 2CO(Ft. Time of concentration calcuat.ed by the urban areas overland f1oi'j method (App >(-'C) 14.00 mini. TO slopeHl/3)J TO = [1.8*(1,10.5500)*(200.00'.5)/( 1.00'(1/3)j Rainfall intensity (I) = 3,797 for a 100.0 year Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q}OIA) Subarea runoff = 1.358(OFS) Total initial stream area = 0.650t'Ac. 14.00 storm is C = 0.550 Process from Point/Station 12.100 to Point/Station 11,000 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Top of street segment elevation 286.500(Ft. End of street segment elevation 281.700(Ft. Length of street segment = 480.000(Ft. Height of curb above gutter flolirie = 6.0(In. /7 I I I I /B Width of half street (curb to crown) = 18000(Ft. ) Distance from crown to crossfali grade break 7 10.000(Ft) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.020 I Slope from grade break to crown (\'/hz) = 0.020 Street flow is on [11 side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line z 10.000( Ft. I Slone from curb to property line (v/hz) = CO20 Gutter width = 1500(Ft. Gutter hike from flovline = 1500(In. Manning's N in gutter = 00150 I Manning's N from gutter to grade creak = 00180 Manning's N from grade break to crown 0.0180 I Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street Depth of flow 0327 Ft. 3498(CFS) Average velocity 2..463(Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: I Halfstreet flow width Flow velocity 2..46(Ft/s) Travel time = 325 mm. TO = 17,25 mm. Adding area flow to street I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group D w 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type Rainfall intensity = 3..319(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm I Runoff coefficient used for subarea Rational method.QKCIA, C 0.550 Subarea runoff 3.742(CFS) for 2.050(Ac. Total runoff = 5.100(CFS) Total area = 2.70(Ac,) Street flow at end of street = 5.100(CFS) I Half street flow at end of street 5.200(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.366(Ft. • Average velocity = 2671(Ft/s) (from curb towards crown) 13.557(Ft width I Flow I Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 13.000 *** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) Upstream point/station elevation = 276.00(Ft. Downstream point/station elevation 275.00(Ft. Pipe length = 40.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 No, of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 5.100(CFS) Given pipe size 18.00(In. Calculated individual Pipe flow = 5100(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 6,54(In. Flow top width inside pipe 17.48(In..) Critical Depth = 10,42(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 8.27(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0,03 mm. Time of concentration (TO) = 17.33 mm. ......................... 4' ............................................ Process from Point/Station 11.000 to Point/Station 13.000 *** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ** Along Main Stream number: I in normal stream number I Stream flow area = 2..700(Ac. 1 U I I I I I WA Runoff from this stream 5.300(CFS) Time of concentrati on 17.33 mm. Rainfall intensity = 3309(In/Hr) Process from Point/Station j4 .000 to Point/Station 14 .100 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION I I I I I [1 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0 .000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0 . 000 Decimal traction soil group C = 0 .000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1 .000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type Initial subarea flow distance 20000(Ft) Highest elevation 28850(Ft. Lowest elevation 28650(Ft. Elevation difference = 2.00(Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X"-C) !4.00 min. TO =[1S*(11"Cdistance5)/(6 s)ooe(1/3)1 TC 100(1/3)1 Rainfall intensity (I) = 3 .797 for a 1000 year Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA) Subarea runoff = 1337(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0640(Ac) 14.00 storm 1s C = 0,.550 +++++ ±±± ±±+ + ++++++-4 . ++ + + + + + + +++ ± + ++++ ±±±±4 4-4-++ ±±+±++++ +1-+++++++4 +++ + +4-4- I Process from Point/Station 14 .100 to Point/Station 13 .000 K* STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ** Top of street segment elevation = 286,500(Ft..) End of street segment elevation = 28160 0(.Ft ,) Length of street segment = 490000(Ft) Height of curb above gutter floline = 60( In Width of half street (curb to croNn) 1B000(FtJ Distance from crown to crossfall orade break = 10. 000( Ft Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) 0 .020 Slope from grade break to cro w n (v/hz) 0020 Street flow is on 111 side(s) of the street Distance from curb to oroperty line = 10000(Ft, S l ope from curb to property line (v/nz) = 0 .020 Gutter width = 1500(Ft. Gutter hike from floline = 1.S00(In Mannings N in gutter = 00150 Mannings N from gutter to grade break = 0.0150 Mannings N from grade break to crown 0.0180 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of st r eet 3. 300(CFS) Depth of flow 0,.322(Ft. ) Average velocity = 2.432(Ft/s) StreetfloN hydraulics at midpoint of street travel : Halfetreet flow width = 11.339(Ft.. Flow velocity 2.43(Ft/s) Travel time 3.36 mm. TO 17.36 mm. Addino area flow to street Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 I I I I I I I I I I I F~l 211) [SINGLE FAMILY area type Rainfall intensity = 3306(IniHr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-area. Rational method, Q=KCIA C = 0.550 Subarea runoff 3418CFS) for 1 88O(Ac. Total runoff = 4755(CFS) Total area = 252(Ac) Street flow at end of street = 4..755(CFS) Half street flow at end of street 4755(CFS) Depth of flow = 0358(Et) Average velocity = 2631(rt/s) Flow width (from curb towards crown) 13174(Ft. Process from Point/Station I4100 to Point/Station 1300O ** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS *I Along Main Stream number: I in normal stream number 2 Stream flow area = 252OtAc, Runoff from this stream 4755(CFS) Time of concentration 17.36 man. Rainfall intensity = 3306( In/Hr) Summary of stream data: Stream Flow rate TO Rainfall Intensity No. (CFS) (mm) (In/Hr) 1 5100 17. 33 3.309 2 4.755 1736 3.306 Qmax(1) 1.000 * 1.000 * 5.100) + 1.000 4( 0.998 4.755 ± = 9.846 Qmax(2) 0,999 * 1.000 1 5.100) -f 1.000 1.000 4.755) + Total of 2 streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence ooint: 5.100 4.755 Maximum flow rates at confluence using aoove data: 9.846 9.849 Area of streams before confluence: 2.700 2.520 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = P.849(CFS) Time of concentration = 17.359 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 5.2201'Ac. ±+++++±+++++++++++++++++++++++±+++ Process from Point/Station 17.000 to Point/Station 15.000 **** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User secitied size) ** Upstream point/station elevation 27500(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 27200(Ft.) Pipe length = 45.00(Ft.) Mannings N 7 0.013 No. of pipes = i Reauired oipe flow 9.849(CFS) Given Pipe size 18.00(ln.) Calculated individual pipe flow 9849(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 7,50(ln. I I I I I I I I I [ I 'Ii] 1 I I I Iii I I 2/ Flow top width inside pipe z. 17.75(1n. Critical Depth = 14.53(Iri.) Pipe flow velocity = 1413i.Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.05 mm, Time of concentration (TO) 17.41 man. ±.++++++±+±++++±'++±+'±++++++++±++++++'F++±'H ±+'f++'4'+++'f++±++++±++±+++ Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 15000 I **** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User soecified size) Upstream point/station elevation 272.00(Ft. • Downstream point/station elevation 247.00çFt. I Pipe length = 285.00( Ft.) Mannings N = 0.013 No. of pipes = I. Required pine flow 9.849(CFS) I Given pipe size 13.00(2n.) Calculated individual pipe flow = . 84( OF'S) Normal flow depth in pipe = 6.96(In, Flow top width inside pipe 17.53(In. I Critical Depth = 14,S3 (In.) Pipe flow velocity = 15,62(Ft/s) Travel time through pine = 0, 30 mm. Time of concentration (TO) 17.72 mm. ++++++++++±+++±++±++±+++++±++++ I Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 16.000 ** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS I The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number 1 Stream flow area = 5.220(Ac. • Runoff from this stream 9.8(CFS) I Time of concentration = 17.72 mm. Rainfall intensity = 3,262(in/Hr) Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2 +++++±'} +++++++++±•+++++±++± I Process from Point/Station 20,000 to Point/Station 20.100 I INITIAL AREA EVALUATION I Decimal traction soil group A = 0.000 * Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type Initial subarea flow distance 220.00(Ft.) Highest elevation = 263.50(Ft. I Lowest elevation = 261.30(Ft.) Elevation difference = 2.20( Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urban I areas overland flow method (App X -C) = 14,68 mm. TO = [1,8K(1.1-C)*distance.5)/(9- slopeTh1/3)1 TO = [1,8(1.1'0,55O0(220.00'.5)/C 1.0c((1/3)1 14.68 Rainfall intensity (I) = 3.682 for a 100.0 year storm 1 Effective runoff coefficient usen for area (QKCIA) is C 0.550 I Subarea runoff = 1.215(CFS) Total initial stream area 0,600Ac.) I I 22 I Process from Point/Station 20.100 to Point/Station 19.000 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ** Top of street segment elevation = 261300(Ft. I End of street segment elevation = 255.000(Ft. Length of street segment = 740.000(Ft.) Height of curb above gutter fiok'line = 6.0(In, I I Width of half street (curb to crown) = 18,000(Ft. Distance from crown to crossfail grade break = 10.000(Ft) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.020 • Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) = 0.020 I Street flow is on [11 side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line = 10.000(Ft Slope from curb to prooerty line (v/hz) 0.020 I Gutter width 1500(Ft.) Gutter hike from floline = 1500(In.) Manning's N in gutter = 00150 I Manning's N from gutter to grade break 0.0180 Manning's N from grade break to crown 0.0180 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street 4415(CFS( I Depth of flow 0.359(Ft.) Average velocity = 2431(Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width = 13.208(Ft I Flow velocity = 2..43(Ft,/s) Travel time = 5.07 mm. TC 1976 mm. Adding area flow to street I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group 8 = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group D z 1.000 MINGLE FAMILY area type Rainfall intensity = 3.041(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub'-srea. Rational rnethodQzKCIA. C 0.550 I Subarea runoff = 5.285(CFS) for 3..160(Ac, Total runoff = 6.500(CFS) Total area = 3.760c) Street flow at end of street = 6.500(c.FS) ' Half street flow at end of street 6.500(CFS) Death of flow 0.404(Ft.) Average velocity = 2, 640( Ft/s) Flow width (from curb towards cron) 15.463(Ft. ++++++±+++++++++++++++++++++++++++4 A +±'f++i ++++++++++++++++±++++++ I Process from point/Station 19.000 to Paint/Station 18.000 )K**) PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User secitied size) I Upstream point/station elevation = 24900(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 248.00(Ft. Pipe length = 45.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0.013 - No, of pipes = 1 Reauared pipe flow 6.500(CFS) I Given pipe size = 18.00Cm. Calculated individual pipe flow = 6..500(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 809( In. l Flow top width inside pipe 17.91(In. Critical Death = 1183(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 8.45(Ft/E) Travel time through pine = 0.09 mm. 23 Time of concentration (TC) 1ç55 man. I + + ++ + + +± +± +± + ++++ ++ ± ++ + ± + + + + ++ + + ±+ + + ± ++ + + + ± ± ++ + ± + + + + + ± + + + + + + + + ±+ + Process from Point/Station 15.000 to Point/Station 18 000 I CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number I Stream flow area = 3..760(Ac. I Runoff from this stream 6.500(CFS) Time of concentration 19.85 mm. Rainfall intensity = 3.032(In/Hr) Process from Point/Station 17.000 to Point/Station 17.100 I ** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** ----------------_._•_•-.- Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil grouo B = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil grouc 0 = 1.000 I [SINGLE FAMILY area type 1 Initial subarea flow distance 240.00(Ft.) Highest elevation 263.50(Ft.) Lowest elevation 261.10(Ft.) I Elevation difference z 2.40(Ft. U Time of concentration calcu:iated by the urban areas overland flow method (Apo X-C) 15.34 mm. TC = [l.8*(1.l"C)*distarice5)/(% slope( l/3)] I TC = [1.8*(l.i-0.5500)(240.00''.5)/( 1.00(1/3)j 15.34 Rainfall intensity (I) 3.580 for a 100.0 year storm I Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA) is C 0.550 Subarea runoff 1.418(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.720(Ac. + + 4-++++4-4-++++4-4-++1-4,+++1-+-1 ++ + + ++ ± + + + + + ± + + + + + + + + + + + ± ± ++ +± ++ + + + +++++++++ Process from Point/Station :17.100 to Point/Station 19.000 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION *-** Top of street segment elevation = 261 .lOO(Ft.) End of street segment elevation = 255.000(Ft. ) Length of street segment 700,000(Ft, Height of curb above gutter f:Lc1mne 6O(In.) Width of half street (curb to crown) 18,000(Ft. Distance from crown to crossfall grade break = 10. •D00( Ft. Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) 0.020 Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) 0.020 Street flow is on [1] side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line 10.000(Ft, Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) = 0.020 Gutter width = 1.500(Ft. Gutter hike from fiovline 1.500(In. Manning's N in gutter 0.0150 Manning's N from gutter to grade break = 0.0180 Manning's N from grade break to crown 00lS0 Estimated mean flow rate at midnoint of street 4 ,637( OFS Depth of flow = 0,363(Ft) Average velocity = 2.480(Ft/s) I I I I I I I I I 24 Streetfiow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width = 13,413)Ft.) I Flow velocity 2.48(Ft/s) Travel time = 4.70 mm. TO 20.04 mm. Adding area flow to street I Decimal fraction soil group A 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B 0,0(0 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 I [SINGLE FAMILY area type Rainfall intensity = 3,013(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for subarea Rational method.QKC1A C 0.550 • Subarea runoff 5.'19(CFS) for 3.270(Ac. Total runoff = 6.836(CFS) Total area Street flow at end of street = 6.836(CFS) I Half street flow at end of street 6..836(CFS Depth of flow 0.09( Ft. Average velocity 2,63(Ft/E.) Flow width (from curb towards crown) 15.708(.Ft. I +~+++++++++++++++±+±±'F+++++±++ • Process from Point/Station 17.100 to Point/Station 16.000 CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 2 Stream flow area = .3.990) Ac.) Runoff from this stream 6,836(CFS) Time of concentration 20.04 mm. I Rainfall intensity = 3,013(In/Hr) Summary of stream data: • Stream Flow rate IC Rai nfa.L1 Intensity I No. (CFS) (mm) (Iri/Hr) I i 6,500 19.85 3.032 2 6.836 20.04 3.013 Qmax(i) I 1.000 * 1.000 6.500) + 1.000 * 0.990 * 6.836) + = 13.270 Qmax(2) I 0,994 1.000 6.500) + 1.000 * 1.000 t< 6.836) + = 13.295 I Total of 2 streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point: 6,500 6.836 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: I 13.270 13.295 Area of streams before confluence: 3,760 3,990 I Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 13.295)CFS) Time of concentration = 20.042 mm, Effective stream area after confluence 7.750(Ac.) +++++±++++++++++++++++++±++++4±+4 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 18.000 to Point/Station 16 000 I 2c *** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User specifj.ed size) Upstream point/station elevation = 248.00 Ft. Downstream point/station elevation 247.00' Ft.) Pipe length 45.00(Ft.) Mannings N 0.013 No. of pipes 1 Required pine flow 13295(CFS) Given pipe size 1E.00(In, ) Calculated individual pipe flow 13.295(CFS) Normal flow depth in pine 12.74(In.) Flow top width inside pipe 16.57(In. Critical Depth = 16.33(In. Pine flow velocity = 9.95Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.08 mm. Time of concentration (TC) 20.12 mm. Process from Point/Station 18.000 to Point/Station 16.000 ** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS The following data inside Main Stream is listed; In Main Stream number; 2 Stream flow area = 7.75O(Ac. Runoff from this stream 13.295(CFS) Time of concentration 20.12 mm. Rainfall intensity = 3,006(In/Hr) Summary of stream data; Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity No. (Cr8) (mm) (In/Hr) 1 9.349 17,72 3.262 2 13.295 20.12 3.006 Qmax(1) 1.000 1.000 K 9.849) + 1.000 )K 0.881 13,295) + 21.557 Qmax(2) 0.921 1.000 9.849) + 1.000 * 1.000 * 13.295) + 22.369 Total of 2 main streams to confluence; Flow rates before confluence point: 9.849 13,295 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data - 21.557 22,369 Area of streams before confluence: 5,220 7.750 Results of confluence; Total flow rate = 22.369(CFS) Time of concentration z 20.117 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 12.970(Ac.) I Process from Point/Station 16.000 to Point/Station 21.000 *** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) II I] I I IT I II Ii I Ii I 111 ill I I I IT I 2 Upstream point/station elevation 24700(Ft.. Downstream point/station elevation 237.00(Ft, I Pipelength w 330.00(Ft. ) Mannings N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow = 22369CFS) Given pipe size 24.00(In..) I Calculated individual pipe flow = 22.369(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 12..6(In.) Flow top width inside pipe 2392(In.) Critical Depth = 20.23(In. I Pipe flow velocity = 12.94(Ft/s' Travel time through pipe = 0.43 mm, Time of concentration (TO) 20.54 mm. I Process from Point/Station a6.000 to Point/Station 21.000 I CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number j - I Stream flow area = 12,970(Ac.) • Runoff from this stream = 22,369(CFS) Time of concentration 20.54 mm. Rainfall intensity = 2.965(In/Hr) +''1+++,++±+++±±++.++,4+++.i'±+±++ I Process from Point/Station 22.000 to Point/Station 23.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** User specified W value of 0.600 given for subarea I Initial subarea flow distance = 1050.O0(Ft.) Highest elevation = 294..00(Ft.) I Lowest elevation = 243.00(Ft.) Elevation difference = 51.00(Ft.. Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App .K-C) = 17.22 mm. TO = [l.8(1.1-O)*distance.5)/( siope"(1/3)J TO = [1.8*(1.10,6000)*(1050,00,5)/( 4.36'(1/5)1 17.22 Rainfall intensity (I) = 3.323 for a J000 year storm I Effective runoff coefficient used for area (0KC.IA) is C = 0.60(; Subarea runoff = 3,628(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.52OAc. Process from Point/Station 23,000 to Point/Station 21.000 PIPEFLOJ TRAVEL TIME (User soecitied size) ** Upstream point/station elevation = 238.00(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 237.00(Ft.) Pipe length = 30.00(Ft. ) Mannings N = 0.013 No, of pipes = 1 Reauired pipe flow 3.628(CFS) Given pipe size 18,000n. Calculated individual pipe flow 3.628(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 5.30Cm. Flow top width inside pipe i6.41(Ifl. Critical Depth = 8.73(In. Pipe flow velocity = 8,,34(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.06 min. Time of concentration (TO) = 17.28 min. I 27 ' +±+±+++±++±+++++++++++++++++++++4'4'+++±++ i +++++++++±+++±++4-"f+++++'i+++ Process from Point/Station 23000 to Point./Station 21 000 t** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS I Along Main Stream number: 1 3 n normal stream number 2 Stream flow area = 1 .820(Ac. Runoff from this stream 3.628(CFS) I Time of concentration 17.28 man. Rainfall intensity = 3,315(In/Hr) Summary of stream data: I Stream Flow rate TO Rainfall intensity No. (CFS) (mm) (In./Hr) 1 22.369 20.54 2.965 2 3.628 17,28 335 I 0-max(1) 1.000 * 1.000 * 22369) + 0.894 * 1000 * 3.626) + 25.614 I Qmax(2) 1.000 * 0.841 2236) 4 1.000 1,000 3,626) ± 22445 I Total of 2 streams to confluence: Flow rates before contiuence point.: 22,369 3,626 I Maximum f low rates at confluence using above data: 25.614 22.445 Area of streams before confluence: • 12.970 1.820 I Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 25,.614CFS) Time of concentration = 20.5.43 min. 1 Effective stream area after confluence a4.790( Ac. I +±+±+±+++++±'I-'4-+ Process from Point/Station 21.000 to Point/Station 24.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) I Upstream point./station elevation = 237.00(Ft. Downstream point/station elevation 233.00(Ft.) I Pipe length = 65,00(Ft-. ) Manning >s N = 0.013 No, of pipes = 1 Repuired pipe flow 25.614(C;FS) Given pipe size = 24.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 25.64'CFS) I Normal flow depth in pipe fl.38(In. Flow top width inside pipe = 23.97Cm, Critical Depth 21.32(m.) I Pipe flow velocity 17.46(Ft/) Travel time through pipe = 0.06 min. Time of concentration TC) 20.60 mm, Process from Point/Station 21.000 to Point/Station 24,000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS ** Distance from curb to property line 10.O0O(Ft. Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) = 0.020 Gutter width = 1.500(Ft. Gutter hike from flowline = 1.500(1n. Mannings N in gutter z 0,0150 Mannings N from gutter to grade break = 0.0180 Mannings N from grade break to crown 0.0180 Estimated mean flow rate at midooint of street Depth of flow = 0.212(Ft.) Average velocity = 4.892(Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at mdpomnt of street travel: Halfstreet flow width = 5.830(Ft. Flow velocity 4..89(Ft/s) Travel time = 1.02 mm. TO 16.B mm. I I I I I 2. 011 (CF 5) The following data inside Main Stream is listed: I In Main Stream number: 1 Stream flow area 14.790(Ac, Runoff from this stream 25.614'CFS) Time of concentration 20.60 mm. I Rainfall intensity = 2.96(O1n/Hr) Program is now starting with Main Stream No. 2 Process from Point/Station 25.000 to Point/Station 25.100 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type I Initial subarea flow distance 250.00(Ft.) Highest elevation 301.50(Ft. ) Lowest elevation 299.00(Ft.) Elevation difference = 2.50(Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 15,65 mm. TO =[18(i.1O)*distance'.5)/(% slope(1/3)] TO = [1,8*(1,1-0,5500)(250,00.5)/( 1.00(1/3)I 15.65 Rainfall intensity (I) = 3.534 for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKOIA) is C = 0.550 Subarea runoff 1127(OFS) Total initial stream area O.580(Ac, I Process from Point/Station 25.100 to Pci nt/Stat:.on 26.000 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Top of street segment elevation = 299.00((Ft.) End of street segment elevation = 27S.000( Ft. Length of street segment = 300.000( Ft.) Height of curb above gutter f:lowline = 6.0(ln, Width of half street (curb to crown) = 18.000(Ft. Distance from crown to crossfa].l grade break = 10.000(Ft. Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) 0.020 Slone from arade break to crown (v/hz) = 0.020 Street flow is on [11 side(s) of the street S I I I I Li I I I Iii I 2 Adding area flow to street Decimal fraction soil Q roup A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil aroup B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil arouo D = 1.000 ISINGLE FAMILI area type Rainfall intensity = in/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for subarea. Rational method, Q=KCIA C 0.550 Subarea runoff 1.6'E(C:FS) for 0.910(0c. Total runoff = 2.825(CFS) Total area =l,49(Ac.) Street flow at end of street = 2.825(CFS) Half street flow at end of street. 2.825(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.234(Ft. Average velocity = 5,086(Ft!s) Flow width (from curb towards crown) 6.955( Ft. I Process from Point/Station 25. 100 to Point/Station 26.000 * CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ** Alonq Main Stream number. 2 in normal stream number 1 - Stream flow area = I 490(Ac. I Runoff from this stream = 2,525(CFS) Time of concentration 16.68 rrin. Rainfall intensity 3.392(in/Hr) I ....................................................................+4 ++++++++1 +±++++++41++±++ • Process from Point/Station 27.000 to Point/Station 29.000 • INITIAL AREA EVALUATION *< I 'Ii' I 1 I I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 ISINGLE FAMILY area tye Initial subarea flow distance 250.00(Ft. Highest elevation 301.00(Ft. ) Lowest elevation 298..50Ft.) Elevation difference = 2.50(Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) :5.65 mm. TC = r1,8K(1.1C)*distance.5)/(% slope (1/3)J TO r1,S1.lo,55oo)*(25o,0o.5)/( 1.00 (1/3)1 Rainfall intensity (I) 3.534 for a 100.0 year Effective runoff coeffjcient used for area (QKCIA) Subarea runoff = 0.655(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0,410(Ac, I I I I I 15, 65 St C) r m 1E C = 0.5S() +++++++++++++±.(+++++++±+++++++++±±+±++++++1++'" +++++±++ ++++r±±+i Process from Point/Station 29.000 to Point/Station 2.000 ** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Top of street segment elevation 296.500(Ft. I End of street seoment elevation 275.000( Ft. ) Length of street segment 260.000(Ft.) Height of curb above gutter flowIne 6.0(1.n. Width of half street (curb to crown) IE.000(Ft.) 1 I I H I 3o Distance from crown to crossfall orade break = 10C'OO( Ft. Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) 0020 I Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) 0.020 I Street flow is on [11 side(s) of the street Distance from curb to o rope rty line 7, .10,000( FL. I Slope from curb to crogerty line (v/hz) 0. 020 Gutter width = 1,500(Ft. Gutter hike from flovline = I .S00(In, Mannings N in gutter m, 001,50 I Mannings N from gutter to grade break 00180 Mannings N f rom grade break to crown 00180 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street = 1914(CFS,) I Depth of flow = 0207(Ft, Average velocity z 496(Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at midnoint of street. cravel Halfstreet flow widtn = 5.605(Ft) I Flow velocity 497(Ft/s) • Travel time 094 mm. TO 16.59 mm. Adding area flow to Etreet I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0000 Decimal fraction soil group 5 = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group D = 1C00 [SINGLE FAMILY area type Rainfall intensity 3403( n/Hr for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub --area, Rational methodQKCIA. C 055C) I Subarea runoff = 200(OFS) for 1090(Ac. ) Total runoff = 2895(CFS) Total area = l53(Ac) Street flow at end of street = 2.E95(CFS) I Half street flow at end of street 2895(CFS) • Depth of flow = 0.234(Ft. Average velocity = 5.203(Ft/s) Flow width (from curb towards crowr'.)z 6966(Ft. ++++±++f±±++++±+f+±++++++±+++++1H I Process from Point/Station 29000 to Point/Stati on 25.000 ** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS I Along Main Stream number; 2 in normal stream number 2 Stream flow area = 1.530(Ac.) Runoff from this stream = 2,695(CFS) I Time of concentration = 16.59 mm. Rainfall intensity = 3 , 403 ln,Hr) Summary of stream data - Stream Flow rate TO Rainf.l 1 Intersi tv • No. ( CF 5) (m n ) (, I n / H r ) 1 2.S25 16.8 3 392 2 2.895 16.59 .3.4 01 I Omax(l) = 1.000 * 1.000 1 2.825) - 0997 * 1,000 * 2.895 .) '4- 5,711 I Qmax(2) = 1.000 * 0.0 95 2.825) + 1.000 * 1.000 2.895) + = 5.706 Total of 2 streams to confluence: 3/ I Flok' rates before confluence point: 2.825 2895 I Maximum f1OJ rates at confluence using above data: 5.711 5.706 Area of streams before confluence: 1.490 1.530 .I Results of confluence: Total flow rate 7 .7liCF5 Time of concentration 16.675 mm. Effective stream area after confluence . 020( Ac. I f-I±+-44-+4 4 Process from Point/Station 26.000 to Pci nt/St.ati on 30.000 ** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specitieo size) I Upstream point/station elevation 270.00Ft.) • Downstream point/station elevation z 50.00( Ft. Pipe length 22000(Ft.) Mannings N = 0.013 I No. of pipes = 1 Reauired ppe flow 5.711(CFS' Given pipe size = 18.00(ln. Calculated individual pipe flow 5.711(CFS) I Normal tiok' depth in pipe 5.17(in. Flow top width inside pipe 16.29(1n. Critical Depth = 11.07(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 13,5(Ft/s) I Travel time through pipe = 0.27 mm. • Time of concentration (TC) 1695 mm. ++++++±+++++±+±+f±f+4+++4H+++±+±4 ++4-+++f++++++++++++4+++++++±+±+'++ Process from Point/Station 30.000 to Point/Station 000 **** PIPEFLON TRAVEL IIME (User specified size) **** Upstream poir!t/stot.ion elevation 250. 00( Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 23300(Ft. Pipe length r 150.00(Ft,) Mannings N = 0 013 No. of pipes = 1 Reouired pipe flow 5.711(CF5 Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 5.711((FS) Normal floN deoth in pipe 4.89Cm. Flow top width inside pipe 15.02 In, CriticalDepth = 11.07(In. Pipe flow velocity = 14.70( Ft./s) Travel time through pipe 0.17 min, Time of concentration (TC) 17.12 mm. I +++++++±+++++±+.++++++±+++±++ +++++++++++ ++++ Process from Poi nt/Stati on 29.000 to Point/Statiion 4 .000 K*** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS The following data inside Main Strern is listed: In Main Stream number: 2 Stream tiovJ area = 3.020( Ac.) Runoff from this stream 5.711(CES.' Timeof concentration 17.12 mm. Rainfall intensity 3. 336( .1 n/Hr) Summary of Etrealn data: 1 I I I II 32 Stream Flow rate TO Nainfall intensity No, (CFS) (mm) (ln/Hr) 3. 25.614 20.60 2.60 • 2 5.711 3712 3,336 1 Qmax(l) 1.000 1.000 25.614 '1 I 0.887 Qmax(2) 1.000 5.'7n) + 30.681 1.000 * 0.833 25614) + 1.000 1.000 5.731) + 2.988 I Total of 2 main streams to confluence: Flow rates before c:orifluence point: 25.614 5.711 I Maximu m f ioN rates at confluence u5ing above data: 30.681 26.988 I Area of streams before 14.790 confluence: 3.020 I Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 30,.681(CFS Time of concentration = 20,605 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 17..510(Ac. I ++++++++++±±+++±+4'f++++1 ++++++4+ +±++++++ ++++++±+ ++++++++++++++4-+±+++ Process from Point/Station 24.000 t. Point/Station 31.000 ** PIPEFLOk' TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) I Upstream noint/station elevation = 233,00(Ft.) • Downstream noint/station elevation 210.00(Ft. Pine length 300.00(Ft. ) Manning >s N = 0.013 I No. of pines = 1 Required nipe floN 30.683(CFS) Given pipe size = 24,00(ln.) Calculated :individual pipe flow .30 681(CFS) I Normal flow deoth in pine 11,86Cm. Flow top width inside pipe 2•4.00In. Critical Depth = 22.47(In. Pipe floN velocity = 19.84; Ft/s) I Travel time through pipe = 0.25 mm. • Time of concentration (IC) 23.86 mmn. I ++++++++++++++±++++++++.f.+++++++++±f++++++r++ f+++++++++++++±+4 ++±++++++ Process from Point/Station 24.000 to Point/Station .31 .000 I K** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 1 Stream flow area = 17.810(Ac. I Runoff from this stream 30,681(CFS) Time of concentration 20.86 m:in. Rainfall intensity 2,936(In/Hr) I I Process from Point/Station .32.000 to Point/Station 33.000 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION 34- 30.681 1.344 Maximum flow rates at confluence uaina above data: 31.728 22.162 Area of streams before confluence: 17.810 0.710 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 31.728(CFS) Time of concentration = 20.857 mm. Effective stream area after confluence a8520( Ac. +++++±++++++++±+±f Process from Point/Station 31.000 to Point/Station 34.000 ** PIPEFLOL'J TRAVEL TIME (User soecified size) ** Upstream point/station elevation = 210.00(Ft.) Downstream coint/station elevation 10.00( Ft. Pioe length = 300.00(Ft. ) Mannings N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required cipe flow 31,728(CFS) Given pipe size = 24.00(In.) Calculated individual pice flow 31.728(OFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 12.61 (Tr.) Flow top width inside pioe 23.97(In.) Critical Depth = 22.63(In.) Pipe flow velocity 18.98(Ft./s) Travel time through pipe 0.26 mm, Time of concentration (TO) 21.12 mm. Process from Point/Station 34.000 to Point/Station 35.000 *K* PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) Upstream point/station elevation = 19000(Ft,) Downstream point/station elevation 13( Ft. Pipe length = 280,00(Ft. ) Mannings N 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 31.728(CFS) Given pipe size = 24..00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 31.728(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 12,19(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 24.00(In.) Critical Depth = 22.63(In. Pipe flow velocity = 19.7(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.24 mm. Time of concentration (TO) 21.36 mm. Process from Point/Station 34.000 to Point/Station 35.000 <* CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 1 Stream flow area = 18.520(Ac. Runoff from this stream 31.728(CFS) Time of concentration = 21.36 mm. Rainfall intensity =2.892(In/Hr) Program is now starting with Main Stream No, 2 I I I I I I 1 I LI I I I I I r] I I I I Process from Point/Station 10000 to Point/Station 10.100 ** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION Decimal fraction soil grouc A = 0000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type I Initial subarea flow distance 150.00(Ft. Hiohest elevation 238.00(Ft. Lowest elevation 236.50(Ft.. Elevation difference = 1.50(Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X -C') = 32.12 mm. TO = {1.8*(1.1-C)*distarice'.5)/(% slope'(1/3)] TO =[l.8*(i.l-0.5500)l5O.00.5)/( 00(l/3)II 12.12 Rainfall intensity (I) 4.166 for a 100.0 year st. or m Effective runoff coefficient used for area QKOIA) is C = C. 550 Subarea runoff = 0.825(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0360(Ac. I Process from Point/Station 10.100 to Point/Station 10.200 ** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME ± SUBAREA FLOW ADDIT1ON Top of street segment elevation 236 .500(Ft. End of street segment elevation 215.500(Ft. Length of street segment = 580.000(Ft..) Height of curb above gutter florflne 6.0(In.) Width of half street (curb to crown) 20000(Ft.. Distance from crown to crossfall orade break 10. 000( Ft. Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) 0.020 Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) 0.020 Street flow is on 11] side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line 1.0.000(FL. Slope from curb to ' property line (v/hz) = 0.020 Gutter width = 1.500(Ft. Gutter hike from flojline = 1.500(In. Mannings N in gutter = 0.0150 Mannings N from gutter to grade break= 0.0380 Mannings N from grade break to crown 0,0180 Estimated mean flow rate at midooint of street 3. 128(CFS) Depth of flow 0.266(Ft. Average velocity = 3884(Ft/s) Str -eetfloj hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width = 8.567(Ft. Flow velocity 3,88(Ft./s) Travel time 2.49 mm. TO 14,61 mm, Adding area f)cr' to street Decimal fraction soil grouc A 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B 0.000 Decimal fraction soil grouc 0 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type I I I I I I I El I I I I I L 1 I I Rainfall intensity = 3.694( In/Hr) for a 100,0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for subarea. Rational method,OKCiA. C 0.550 Subarea runoff 4.083(OFS) for 2.010(Ac. Total runoff = 4.908(OFS) Total area = 2.37(c. I Street flow at e Half street flow Depth of flow Average velocity Flow width (from 36 nd of street 4908(CFS) at end of street 4908(CFS) O3O4(Ft, 4234(Ft/s) curb towards crown) 10430(Ft. Process *From Point/Station 1.0.300 to Point/Station 10.2(0 I CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 1 • Stream flow area = 2.370(Ac, Runoff from this stream = 4.908(CFS) Time of concentration 161 min. Rainfall intensity 3..694(in/Hr) ++±++++++++±±++++f±±+±+'+-HHHHHH ++++±± ±±+-F-+±++-f±++±±±+'++±' ±+f I Process from Point/Station 28.000 to Point/Station 28. O0 I *** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION • Decimal fraction soil group A 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group B 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type Initial subarea flow distance 350.00(Ft. Highest elevation 239OO(Ft. I Lowest elevation 223.20(Ft.) Elevation difference = 15.80(Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urban I areas overland flow method (App XC) = 11.21 mm. TC = [1.8*(1.1C)*distance.5)/(6 sope(1/3)1 TC = Fi.8(1.10.5500)1'35Q.00.5)/( 4.5l(1/3)] 11.21 Rainfall intensity (I) 4.383 for a 100.0 year storm I Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q:KCIA) is C 0550 • Subarea runoff = 4.581(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.900(Ac. I Process from Point/Station 28100 to Point/Station 28.203 I **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Top of street segment elevation = 223.200(Ft.) I End of street segment elevation = 213.500(Ft.) Length of street segment = 270.000(Ft.) Height of curb above gutter floine = 6,0(I1,*1. I Width of half street (curb to crown) 20.000(Ft.) Distance from crown to crossfaH orade break 10.000(Ft. Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) 0.020 I Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) 0.020 Street flow is on 111 side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line = 10.000(Ft.) Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) = 0.020 I Gutter width = 1 ,500( Ft. Gutter hike from flo'tline = I .500( In. Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150 Manning's N from gutter to grade break = 0.0180 I 37 Manning's N from grade break to crown 0.080 Estimated mean tlov rate at rnidoint of street 6.401(CFS) • Depth of flow = 0,327(Ft. Average velocity = 4.535(Ft/s) Streetf low hydraulics at midpoint of street travel I Halfstreet flow width = 11.577(Ft. Flo' velocity 4.5( 'Ft/s) Travel time = 0.99 mm. 12.20 mm. Adding area floN to street I Decimal fraction soil grouc A = 0,000 Decimal fraction soil group B 7 0.000 Decimal fraction soil grouc C = 0.000 I Decimal tract on soil group D = 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type 11 Rainfall intensity 4.150(Ifl/Hr) for a 100.0 \'ear storm I Runoff coefficient used for sub-area. Rational method..QKCIA. C 0.550 Subarea runoff 3.447(CFS) for 1.510(Ac. Total runoff = 8,027(CFS) Total area = 3.41(Ac.) Street flow at end of street = 8.027(CFS) I Half street flow at end of street 8.027(CFS) Deoth of flow = 0348(Ft.. Average velocity 4.,802(Ft/s) Flow width (,From curb towards cron) 12650(Ft.) I Process from Point/Station 28.200 to Point/Station 10.2(.'j0 **K* PIPEFLOH TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) I Upstream point/station elevation 307.00(Ft.) n - Downstream point/station elevation 306.00( Ft. Pipe length = 58,00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0,013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 8.027(CFS) Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 8.027(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 9.87(m.) I Flow top width inside pipe 17.92Cm. Critical Depth =13.1B(In.) Pipe flow velocity 8.10(Ft/s) I Travel time through pipe 0.12 mm. Time of concentration (TC) = 12.32 mm. I Process from Point/Station 28.200 to Point/Station 10.4-1 00 I CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number. 2 in normal stream number 2 Stream flow area z 3.410(Ac.) I Runoff from this stream 8,027(CFS) Time of concentration 12.32 mm. Rainfall intensity = 4.124(In/Hr) I Summary of stream data: Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity No. (CFS) (mm) (In/Hr) I 1 4,908 14,61 3.594 2 8.027 12.32 4.124 I Qmax(1) 1.000 * I 0.896 Qmax(2) = * 1.000 1.000 * 38 1.000 4.908) 1 .000 8.027) + 12.098 0.643 4908) + 1.000 * 8.027) + 12.65 Total of 2 streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point: 4 .908 8.027 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: 12.098 12.165 Area of streams before confluence: 2370 3,410 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 12.165(C.FS) Time of concentration 7, 12,318 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 5.700(Ac.) Process from Point/Station 10.200 to Point/Station 10.300 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) *** Upstream point/station elevation 306.00(Ft,) Dow nstream point/station elevation .304.00(Ft) Pie length = 90.00(Ft. ) Mannings N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 12.165(CFS) Given pipe size 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe floi'i 12,165(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe ,11.93(I1-1. ) Flow top width inside pipe 17.02(In. Critical Depth = 15,85(In,) Pipe flow velocity = 9.79(Ft/s Travel time through pipe = 0.15 mm. Time of concentration (TO 12.47 mm. Process f rom Point/Station 10,300 to Point/Station 10.400 * PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) Upstream point/station elevation : 304.00(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 174.00(Ft.) Pipe length 66.00(11t.) Mannings N = 0,013 No. of pipes 1 Required pipe flow 12.165(CFS) Given pipe size 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipc flo\' 12.165(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 3.50(In. ) Flow top width inside pipe 14.24(In.) Critical Depth = 15.85(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 50.42(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.02 mm. Time of concentration (TC) 12.49 mm. +++±++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++±+++++++++++++++±+++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 10.400 to Point/Station 3.000 **** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) I r I I I Eli I I I I U I I I I I 1~ I Upstr'eam point/station elevation 174.00(Ft. Downstream point/station elevation 172.00(Ft. I Pipelength = 60.00(Ft.) Manning >s N = 0,013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe -flow 12.165(CFS) Given pipe size lS.00(In. I Calculated individual pipe flow 12.165CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 10.41(1 In. Flow top width inside pipe 17.78Cm. Critical Depth = 15.85(In. I Pipe flow velocity = 11.4( Ft/c) Travel time through pice = 0.09 mm. Time of concentration (TO) 12,58 mm. I I Process from Point/Station 10.400 to Point/Station 36.000 ** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS ** Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number I I Stream flow area = 5,760(Ac. Runoff from this stream 12.165(CFS) Time of concentration z 12.56 mm. Rainfall intensity 4.068(In/Hr) I '1H F '++++++'++'f++'ff f++++-f+'H +HH + Process from Point/Station 37.000 to Point/Station 36,000 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ** I User specified value of 0.600 given for subarea Initial subarea flow distance = 900.00(Ft.) Highest elevation 241.00(.Ft. I Lowest elevation 181,00(Ft.) Elevation difference = 60.00( Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban I areas overland flow method (Ao X ---C) 14.35 mm. TO slope'(1/3)1 TO = [18*(1,10,60OO)*(90O,OO.5)/(67(/3)]z 14.35 Rainfall intensity (I) 3,738 for a 100.0 year storm I Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q<CIA) is C 0,600 Subarea runoff = 3.162(CFS) Total initial stream area = 1.40(Ac. I +++ - Process from Point/Station 37.000 to Point/Station 36.000 I *** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number: 2 in normal stream number 2 Stream flow area = 1 ,410(Ac. I Runoff from this stream = 3.162(CFS) Time of concentration 14.35 mm. Rainfall intensity = 3.738(In./Hr) I Summary of stream data: Stream Flow rate TO Rainfall Intensity I No. (CFS) (mm) (In/Hr) 1 12165 12.58 4.068 2 3.162 14.35 3 .738 Qmax(1) I 1.000 1.000 12.15) + 1.000 0.877 * 3.162) 14.938 Qrnax(2 I 0.919 1.000 * 12.165) + 1.000 t 1000 * 3.162) -f =14.339 Total of 2 streams to confluence: I Flow rates before confluence coint: 1 12.165 3.162 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: S 14.938 14.339 I Area of streams before confluence: 5.780 1.410 I Results of confluence: Total flow rate 1938(CFS) Time of concentration = 12,580 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 7.190(Ac.) I ±+±+++++++++4-+-4 ,-f++±+±+++±+++++-f+4 ++++++++4+4-f++-f++4++++++±++±4-+++-f++ I Process from Point/Station 36.000 to Point/Station 35.000 **** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User soecified size) *** Upstream point/station elevation 17200(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 169,13(Ft.) Pipe length z 15,00(Ft. ) Mannings N = 0.013 No. of pipes z 1 Required pipe flow 1,4.938(CFS) Given pine size 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pice flow 14.938(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 7.06(ln. Flow top width inside cipe 17,58(m.) Critical Depth 16,85(1n,) Pipe flow velocity 23.23(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe 0,01 mm. Time of concentration (TC) 12.59 mm. Process f rorn Point/Station 36.000 to Point/Station .35.000 *** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS *(* The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 2 Stream flow area = 7.190(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 14.938(CFS) Time of concentration 12.59 min. Rainfall intensity = 4 ,066( In,/Hr Summary of stream data: Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity No. (CFS) (mm) (In/Hr) 1 31.728 21.36 2.892 2 14.938 12.59 4.066 Qmax(l 1.000 1.000 31.728) 4 0.711 * 1.000 * 14.938) + 42.352 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I Qmax(2) I 1.000 4: 0.590 3 31.728 ± 1.000 * 1.000 4 14.938) + 33.644 Total of 2 main streams to confluence I F10N rates before confluence point: 31.728 14.938 miaximurn flov rates at confluence using shove data: • 42.352 33.644 I Area of streams before confluence: 18.520 7.190 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 42.352(CFS) I Time of concentration = 21.356 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 25.710(Ac. I +±±±++++++±+±+±+±++±+±+++±±++±+$ Process from Point/Station 35.000 to Point/Station 38,000 **** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ** 7o 27" • Upstream point/station elevation 169.13 CIF t.) Downstream point/station elevation 167.19(Ft.) I Pipe length = 194,00(Ft.) Manning >s N 0.01.3 No, of pipes 1 Required pipe flow 42.352(CFS) Given pipe size 27.00(In. NOTE: Normal flow is pressure flow in user selected oipe size. The approximate hydraulic grade line above the pice invert is 4.329(Ft.) at the headvorks or inlet of the pipe(s) Pipe friction loss = 3.627( Ft. ) I Minor friction loss = 2.643(Ft.) factor 1.50 Pipe flow velocity = 10.65(Ft/s.) Travel time through oipe = 0.30 mm. I Time of concentration (TO) 21.66 mm. End of computations, total study area 25.71 (pc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 4z San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Enaineerino Software, (c) 1990 Version 2.3 Rational method hydrology proo.ram based on San Diego County Flood Control Division 1985 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 4/21/92 MARINERS PDINT T . M J '8 PROPOSED CONDITION NEST FILE: MP2 ---------------------------------- -------------- ------- **14 Hydrology Study Control Information *t:* Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0 MaD data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation(inches) 2.800 24 hour precipitation(inches) 4.500 Adjusted 6 hour precipitation (inches) 2,800 P6/P24 = 62.29 San Diego hydrology manual C values used Runoff coefficients by rational methoa Process from Point/Station 101.000 to Point/Station 102.000 INITIAL AREA E\/ALUATION Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0,000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type Initial subarea flot distance 450.00(Ft. Highest elevation 253.86) Ft.) Lowest elevation 240.00(Ft. Elevation difference = 13.86) Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X -C) = 14,43 mm. TO = 11,8*(1,1C)*distance.5)/( siope(1/3)J TO = [l,8*(1.1-0.5500)*(450,00 .5)/( 3.08'(1/3)'I= i4,43 Rainfall intensity (I) 3.723 for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area )QKCIA) is C 0.550 Subarea runoff = 1.863(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.910(Ac.) ++ ++"+'+++ ++ ± + + ++ + + +4' 4-+,-"+ ++ -I +4 + 4-+4, + + ++++ + ±±+ ++++++ ±++ +1"4-++" + 'F + + 1-+ 'F ++-+ Process from Point/Station 102.000 to Point/Station 102.100 K** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Tor, of street segment elevation = 240000(Ft. End of street segment elevation 231.500) Ft. Length of street segment = 650.000) Ft. Height of curb above gutter floline = 6.0(In. I Width of half street (curb to crown) 20.000(Ft. Distance from crown to croesfall erade break 7, l0.000(Ft.) I Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.020 Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) z 0.020 Street flow is on 11] side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line 10.000(Ft. I Slope from curb to property ine (v/hz)= 0020 Gutter width = 1.500(Ft. Gutter hike from floline = 1..500(1n. I Mannings N in gutter = 0.0150 Mannings N from gutter tc grade break = 0.0180 Mannings N from grade break to crown 0.0180 I Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street. 5.427(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.374) Ft. Average velocity 2.690(Ft/s) I Streettlow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width = 13,4(Ft.) Flow velocity 2,69(Ft/s) Travel time = 5.27 mm. TO 19.70 mm. I Adding area flow to street Decimal fraction soil grouc A 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group c 0.000 Decimal fraction soil Qrouo D 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type Rainfall intensity = 3046( In/Kr) for a 100.0 year storm I Runoff coefficient used fo subarea. Rational metbodQKCIA. C 0.550 • Subarea runoff .5,831)CFS) for 3.480(Ac, Total runoff 7694(CFS) Total area 4.39(Ac.) I Street flow at end of street I Half street flow at end of street 7,694(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.415(Ft.) I Average velocity = 2.918(Ft/s) Flow width (from curb towards croNn)z 16,017(Ft. Process from point/Station 102.100 to Point/Station 103000 *1* PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) I Upstream point/station elevation 22500(Ft) Downstream point/station elevation 224.00(Ft.) I Pipe length 48.00) Ft. ) Manning's N = 0013 No, of pipes 1 Required pipe flow 7,694(CFS) Given pipe size = 18.00(In.) I Calculated individual pipe flaN 7.694iCFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 9,08(In. :Flow too width inside pipe )8.00( In, Critical Depth = 12,90(In. I Pipe flow velocity = 8,1(Ft/s) Travel time through pioe = 0.09 mm. Time of concentration (TC) 19.79 mm. +++++4++++++++++±±±+++±++++++++4'+++±++±4 +++++++++++++++±++4 Process from point/Station :iO3.000 to Point/Station 1'04.000 ** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User soecified size) Upstream point/station elevation 22400(Ft. Downstream point/station elevation 207.00(Ft.) 77- I Pipe length = 28500(Ft. ) Manning's N = 0 .013 No. of pipes = 1 Required nine flok' 7 . 6 ~--4(CFS) I Given pipe size 1800(In. Calculated individual pipe 11c 7694(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 6,7641n.) Flow top width inside pine i7-43( In, I Critical Depth z 12.90(In) Pipe flow velocity = 12.6(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe 0,37 mm, Time of concentration (IC) 20.17 mm. ++++++++++H+ ' I P rocess from Point/Statio P n 10.3,000 to Point/Station 104.000 SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C. = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group 0 = 1H000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type Time of concentration 20.17 mm. I Rainfall intensity 3.001(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-area. Rational method KCIA. C 0,550 Subarea runoff 1.601(CFS) for 0.970(Ac. Total runoff 9.295CFS) Total area 5,36(Ac.) I + I Process from Point/Station 103.000 to Point/Station 104.000 **K CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 1 * I Stream flow area = 5.360(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 9,295(C'FS) Time of concentration 20.17 mm. Rainfall intensity = 3,001(In/Hr' I +++++++±±f++++++++++++±++±+f++1++±±.1.+±+±++++++++±++ ±++++ Process from Point/Station 105 ,000 to Point/Stailon 105.100 *** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION ** I I I L I I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil groun C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil groun D = 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type .1 Initial subarea flow distance 200.00(Ft. Highest elevation 240.60(Ft. Lowest elevation 23860(Ft,) Elevation difference 2.00( Ft. ) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (Apo X"C) 14.00 min. IC = [1,S*(1,1-C)distance.5)/(% slope (1/3)] TC = [1B(1.1*0.5500)(200.00.5)/( 100'(1/3)1= Rainfall intensity (I) 3.797 for a 100.0 year Effective runoff coefficient used for area (C'KClA) Subarea runoff = 0752(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0360Ac.) 14.00 st to r m is C = 0.550 P L Process from Point/Station 105.100 to Point/Station 100. 000 *** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Top of street segment elevation = 238.600( Ft. End of street segment elevation = 215.000(Ft. Length of street segment = 860.000(Ft. Height of curb above gutter floiline 6,0(In. Width of half street (curb to crown) 20000(Ft.. Distance from crown to crosefail crade break = 10000(Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v!hz) 0.020 Slope from crade break to crown vhz) 0.020 Street flow is on 1 1] side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line J0000(Ft. Slope from curb to o rope rty ) me (v/hz ) 0.020 Gutter width = l.500(Ft.) Gutter hike from floNline = 1. 500( ln. Mann i n g s N in gutter = 0. 015 C' Mannings N from gutter to grade break 0.0180 Mannings N trorn grade break to crown 0.0180 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street 3,289(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.282 Ft. Average velocity .3,483(Ft/s) StreetfioN hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width z 9.344(Ft. Flow velocity .3.48(Ft/s) Travel time 4.11 mm. TO 18.12 mm. Adding area flow to street Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1 ,000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type I Rainfall intensity z 3, 216( :[n/Hr) lor a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-are-a. Rational mnethodQKC1A C 0.550 Subarea runoff 4.290(C.FS) for 2.430(Ac. Total runoff = 5.050(CFS) Total area = 2.79(Ac. Street flow at end of street = 5O5QCFS) Half street tlo&' at end of street 5.050(CFS Depth of flow 0.317(Ft. Average velocity 3,658(Ft/s Flow width (from curb towards crokln) 11.125(Ft.) +±++++±++++++++4 +±+++++++++±+++±+±±++++4 ++±+±++++ +±+±++ ++t + Process from Point/Station 106.000 to Point/Station iO4,000 PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User sneciti.d size) Upstream point/station elevation 208.00(Ft. Downstream point/station elevation = 207.00(Ft. Pine length = 38.00(Ft.) Mannings N = 0.013 No. of pipes = I Reauired pipe tlow 5.050(CFS) Given pine size = 18.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe t10 S 050(CFO) Normal flow depth in pine = t-.71(ln.) Flow too width inside nape z 17.41(Ir, Critical Depth 10.38(In. Pine flow velocity = 8,40( Ft/a) I I I I I I Ii 1 Ii I I I 1 'Ii I I I I I 4' Travel time through pipe 0.06 mm. Time of concentration (TO) 16.19 mm. 1 Process from Point/Station 10.000 to Point/Station 104.000 *** CONFLUENCE OF M1NOP STREAMS I Aiong Main Stream number: Stream flow area = 2 Runoff from this stream Time of concentration Rainfall intensity 1 in normal stream number 790(Ac. 5.050( CFS) 18.19 mm. 3.207( In/Hr I I +++±±±++++++±++.f++±+++4++++±±++++++4H"++4H Process from Point/Station 107,000 to Point/Station 3.08.000 I ** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil grouo B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 • Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 1 [SINGLE FAMILY area type Initial subarea flow distance = 42000(Ft.) Hhest elevation = 226.00(Et. I Lowest elevation 235.50(Ft.) • Elevation difference = 12.50(Ft. Time of concentration calculated y the urban I areas overland flow method (App X-'-C) 14.10 mm. TO = Cl.8(1.l-C)*distance'.S)/( slope(1/3)J TO = [1.8*(1.10.5500)*(420.00'.5)/( 28(1/3)] 14.10 Rainfall intensity (I) 3.779 for a 1000 year storm I Effective runoff coefficient used for area ((-*,KC1A) is C 0650 Subarea runoff = 2.640(CFS) Total initial stream area ±+++ I Process from Point/Station 108000 to Point/Station 304.000 *** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) I Upstream point/station elevation 208.00m' Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 207.00(Ft.) Pipe length = 58.00(Ft.) Manning's N 0.013 No. of pipes 1 Repulred cipe f1cw 2.b40mC.FSJ I Given pipe size = 1800(In.) Calculated individual cipe flow 2.640(CFS) Normal flow deoth in pipe 534(ln. I Flow top width inside pipe l6."4(I11. Critical Depth = 7.38m'In. Pipe flow velocity = 6.02( Ft/a) I Travel time through pipe = 0,16 mm. Time of concentration TO) = i .27 m j n. I +±±+++" +±+±4+4 ±- ++±.-m+~++++++- +±+f++++- -'++±+++' Process from Point/Station 08. 0CC' to Point/Station 104 000 CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS 47 Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 3 Stream flow area = 0(Ac. I Runoff from this stream 2.640(CFS) Time of concentration 14.27 mm. Rainfall intensity = 3.752mini'Hr) I Summary of stream data: Stream Flow rate iC Rainfall Intensi ty No. (C ES) C mi n) (I ri/ H r) I 1 9.295 20,17 3.001 1 2 5.050 13.19 3.207 1 3 2.640 14.27 3'52 C'niax( 1 I 1.000 1.000 -1' 9. 25) 4 0.936 1.000 5.050,) + 0.800 1.000 2.640) + 36.132 Qmax(2) 1 1.000 * 0.902 * 9.295) + • 1.000 1.000 * 5.050) 4- 0.855 1.000 * 2.640) ± 15,691 I Qmax('3) 1.000 0.707 * 9,295) + 1.000 t( 0.784 * 5.050) 4 I 1,000 * 1.000 3, 2..40) + 13,175 Total of 3 streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point.: 1 9,295 5.050 21640 • Maximum f1om' rates at confluence using above data 16.132 15.691 13.175 • Area of streams before confluence: 1 5,360 2.790 1.270 Results of confluence: I Total flow rate 16.132(CFS) Time of concentration 20,'io7 mm. Effective stream area after contluence ++±++++++++++++++++±4 ++1"f++-f++4.......++4'4 +±4±-+++±±'-±++±++-f'44 ++++++4 ±± Process from Point/Station 104. 000 to Pci nt/. tati on 109.000 I ** P1 PEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User speciimeo size) -** Upstream point/station elevation 207.00 Ft. 3 - Downstream point/station elevation 203.00(Ft. ) I Pipe length 274 .00( Ft.) Manning's N =0.01 No, of pipes 1 Required pipe flow 16.132(08) Given pipe size 24.00(m.) I Calculated individual pipe f1om' 16.132(CFS Normal flow depth in pine 13.27(1n.) Flow top width insioe pipe 23.37Cm. I Critical Depth = 17,38( In. Pipe flow velocity = 9,06(Ft/s) Travel time through nine 0,50 mm. Time of concentration (TO) = 20,67 mm. +++++++±++++++++++++++++++++++4 ++++++++++++4 +++++±+++++++++++++++4 Process from from Point/Station 104.000 to Pont/Et.ation 109.000 SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ' Decimal fraction soil group A 0.00 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0,000 Decimal fraction soil group C: = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil rour.) D = 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type .1 Time of concentration 20.67 mm. Rainfall intensity = 2,953(ln/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm I Runoff coefficient used for sub-area. Rational method,QKCIA C C.o50 Subarea runoff 2.355(CFS) for l.4SCUAc. Total runoff z JS.B7(CFS) Total area l08'7Pc. I ++++++++.f++++++++++±+H"+++±++++H .4 ±'++ ±++++++4 ++±+4±++++'+++++±+±+ I Process from Point/Station TRAVEL TIME (User 109.000 to Point/Station 110. 000 specified size PIPEFLOW I Upstream point/station elevation = 203.00'Ft.) Downstream point/ station elevation 202. 00( Ft. Pipe length 80.0O(Ft. ) Marinings N = 0,013 No, of pipes 1 Required pipe flow 18.87(CFS) I Given pipe size 24.00(ln. I Calculated individual pipe tlo,j 18.487(CFS Normal flow depth in pipe 15.23(lri. ) ' F10N top width inside aipe 23.11(In. Critical Depth = 18,58(In. Pipe flow ve!ocitv = 8.79(Ft/s I Travel time through aipe 0,1S nun. Time of concentration (TO) = 20.62 m -in, +1 ++4 ±+±++1++++±+++++H+±±-++++ Process from Point/Station 309.000 to Point/Station 110.0CC *** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION I Decimal fraction soil orouo A 0,000 Decimal fraction sail aroup B 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group C: 0.000 Decimal fraction soil orouc D 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type J Time of concentration 20.62 min, I Rainfall intensit' = 2.939( In/hr) tar a 3.00.0 year storm I Runoff coefficient used for subarea, Rational method.CCiA. c Subarea runoff 2,639((,FS) for i.a20(Ac.) Total runoff 21.106(CFS) Total area = 12.49Ac-.) +±++++++++++±++++++++4+++H +++4H'+ + +++++±+++++.1+++++±±+4±+4++++ I Process from Point/Station 130.000 to Point/Station .1.1 j .000 PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) I Upstream point/station elevation 202,00(Ft. pin ) Downstream ot/station elevation 395.001 Ft ) Pioe length 450,00( Ft.) Manninqs N = 0.013 I No. of pipes .1 Reauired rj.re flcu. 21.306(CFSi Given pipe size = 24.00(1) Calculated individual pipe flou 2i .106CC.FSi Normal flow dept-h in pipe 35.47C m. I Flow top width inside pipe 22.96' In. Ole Critical Depth = 19.7(In. Pipe flow velocity 9.88( Ft's.) Travel time throuqh pipe = 0.76 min. Time of concentration (TC) 2.... 58 m:in. +±+±±±+'f++±-'++++++±++'f++±+' ++-'} Process from Point/Station . .10 0(0 to •oinL/Stat on .11 . (00 CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS The following data inside Main Stream is ii st.ed: In Main Stream number: 1 Stream flow area = 12,490(Ac. Runoff from this stream 21.lOh(CYS) Time of concentration = 21.58 mm. Rainfall intensity = 2.E72(In/Hr) Proram is now starting with Main Stream No. 2 +++±±++++±±f+±±+++±±±+4++±++±+++±++++±++±±++±±'+++'1 +++F ±+±++++-1 +±++++ Process from Point/Station 112.000 to Point/Station 114.000 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION I 1 I I I I Decimal fraction soil cirou A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 (SINGLE FAMILY area type Initial subarea flow distance 450.00(Ft.) Highest elevation 210.50(Ft. ) Lowest elevation 204.40(Ft. Elevation difference = 6. 10 Ft Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App XC 1.8.98 min. TO [18*(1,1C)*distance,51/( slope (l/3) I TO:: [1,8*(1,10,5500)*:(450.00,5)/( 1,3$(1/3)i:: Rainfall intensity (I) 3.121 for a 100,0 year Effective runoff coefficient used for area Q}OIA) Subarea runoff = 4.875(CFS) Total initial stream area = 2.840(Ao.) 18.98 storm is C = 0.550 Process from Point/Station 114,000 to Point/Station I 115.000 **** P1PEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) I Upstream point/station elevation = i98.00(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation = 197.50(Ft.) Pipe length = 35.00(Ft. ) Manmngs N = 0,013 I No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 4.875(CFS) Given pipe size = 1800(In. Calculated individual pipe flow 4.875((-'FS) I Normal flow depth in pipe 7.79(ln. Flow top width inside pipe 17.8't In. Critical Depth 10,20(m) Pipe flow velocity = 6.66(Ft./s) I Travel time through oipe = 0.09 mm. Time of concentration (TO) = l9.0 m.Ln. I I 1 I I I I I Process from Point/Station 114.000 to Point/Station 115.000 ** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number; 2 in normal stream number 1 I Stream flow area 2.E40(Ac, Runoff from this stream 4,875(CFS) Time of concentration 1.06 mm. Rainfall intensity 3,112(IniHr) I ++++++±±++±++++++±±+f++±+''f+'4H+"'1 ±++4-±+±++++++++±+'f±-±+'+4H +++ • Process from Point/Station :16,000 to Point/Station 117.000 I **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION Decimal fraction soil group A 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group B 0.000 Decimal traction soil group C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type l Initial subarea flow distance 420.00(F!,.' Highest elevation 215.80(Ft.) Lowest elevation 205.00(Ft. I Elevation difference = lO.SOCFt. Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App >C) 14.81 mm. I TC =11.8*(l,l-C)distar1ceS)/( slope (1/3)') TC 1.8*(l.l0,5500)*(420.00.5)/( 2.57Cl/3)J Rainfall intensity (I) = 3.662 for a 100.0 year Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKC1A) I Subarea runoff = 2.558(CFS) Total initial stream area 1,270(Ac.) I 1. El stc rrn is C = 0.550 Process from Point/Station 117.000 to Point/Station 115.000 PIPEFLOCJ TRAVEL TIME (User soecified size) Upstream point/station elevation 199.00CFt. Downstream ooint/station elevation 197. SOC Ft. Pine length 55.00(Ft.) Mannings N 0,013 No. of pioes = 1 Required pine flov. 2553(CFS) Given pipe size lB.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe floN Normal flow depth in cine 4.67(In. Flow top width inside pipe j57S(In. Critical Depth 7.27Cm.) Pipe flow velocity = 7,03(Ft/3) Travel time through pipe 0.13 mm. Time of concentration (TO) 14.94 mm. +++++++++++++++f++±+++++++±+'r Process from Point/Station 117.000 to Point/Station 115.000 *** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS I Along Main Stream number Stream flow area Runoff from this stream Time of concentration :2 in normal stream number 2 l,270(AC. 2,558(CFS) 14.94 mm. Eli I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rainfall intensity = 3.641(1n/Hr) SI Summary of stream data: Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity No. (CFS) (mm) InHr 1 4.875 19.06 3,112 2 2 558 14.94 3.641 Qmax(l) 1.000 1.000 4.875) + 0.855 * 1.000 * 2.558) + 7.061 Qmax(2 1,000 * 0.784 4.875) + 1.000 1.000 2,558) + 6.378 Total of 2 streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence c)oant: 4.875 2.558 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: 7.061 6.378 Area of streams before confluence: 2.840 1.270 Results of confluence: Total flow rate Time of concentration = 19.064 mm. Effective stream area after confluence = 4. 11C(Ac. Process from Point/Station 115.000 to Point/Station 111.000 *** PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User secifed size) Upstream point/station elevation 197.50(Ft.) Downstream ooint/station elevation 195.00( Ft. Pipe length = 50.00(Ft) Mannings N = 0,013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 7.06UCFS) Given pioe size 1B..00(In.) Calculated individual cipe flow 7063(CFS) Normal flow depth in ie 6,77In, Flow top width inside cipe 17.44(In. Critical Depth = 12.35(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 1.63(Ft/s) Travel time through ope 0.07 mm. Time of concentration (TC) 19,14 mm. Process from Point /Station 115.000 to Point/Station 1)1.000 ** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 2 Stream flow area = 4.)10(Ac. Runoff from this stream 7.01(CFS) Time of concentration 19,14 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.104( In/Hr) Summary of stream data: Stream Flow rate TO P.a nfall Intensity No, (CFS) (mini (In/Hr IL 21.106 21.58 2.872 2 7.061 19,14 3.104 Qmax(1) I 1.000 1.000 21.106) -F • 0.925 F' 1,000 7.061) - 27,639 Qmax(2) • 1.000 * 0.887 21.106 1, + I 1.000 * 1.000 Ir 7.061) + = 25.772 I Total of 2 main streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point.: 21.106 7.061 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data 27.639 25,772 • Area of streams before confluence: 12.490 4.110 I Results of confluence: I Total flow rate 27.639(CFS) Time of concentration = 21.584 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 16600(Ac. +-4, 4, ++ ±++ ++ +4- 4--4-q- ++ 4-+++ 4-1 , +-4- +++q, ±+±+4-+±±+±+4-4- +4- +-4-+ -4 , ±+4- Process from Point/Station 111.000 to Point/Station 118.00() I ** PIPEFL04 TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) Upstream point/station elevation 19500(Ft. ) I Downstream point/station elevation 185.00(Ft.) Pipe length 275. O0( Ft. ) Manning a N = 0.013 No. of pipes 1 Recuired pipe f low 27.639(CFS) Given pipe size = 24,00(In.) I Calculated individual pipe f10 27,639(CFS • Normal flow depth in pipe 13.97(In.) Flow top width inside pipe 2367(In. I Critical Depth = 21,84(In.) • Pipe flow velocity 14.57(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe 031 mm. Time of concentration (TO) 21.90 mm. I Process from Poi nt/Station 118.000 to Point ' /Statd on 119,000 **** PIPEFLOVJ TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) *** I Upstream point/station elevation 185.00( Ft.)- Downstream point/station elevation = 172.00(Ft, ) Pipe length = 355.,00(Ft.) Manning N = 0.013 I No. of pipes = 1 Reauired pipe flow 27639(CFS) Given pipe size = 24,00(In. Calculated individual pipe flow 27 639(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 13.93(ln.) I Flow t.op widthinside pipe 23,69C1. Critical Depth = 21.84(In. Pipe flow velocity = 14 . .1 (F t/s Travel time through pipe = 0.40 mm. I Time of concentration (TO) 22.30 mm. I Process from Point/Station 115.000 to Point/Station 119.000 I ** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS *) Along Main Stream number.- 1 in normal stream number I Stream flow area = 16.600(.Ac. U Runoff from this stream 27..39(c;FS) Time of concentration 22.30 mm. Rainfall intensity = 2812(In/Hr) +++±+++++±-+++++±±41f++f+++1 ++1++++4H 1f++-41H ++++±±±-f +-+4 +t±++i" 1}"1HH±+ Process from Point/Station 120000 to Point/Station 121000 I INITIAL AREA E\/ALUATIC'N ** Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 I [SINGLE FAMILY area type Initial subarea flow distance 700.00(Ft.) Highest elevation 205.00(Ft. Lowest elevation 179.50(Ft) I Elevation difference = 25.50(Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (Aop i ....C) = 1702 mm, I TO = [1.8*(1.1-C)*distance.5)/(% slope(1/3)1 TO = i1.8(1.10.5500(700.00'.5)/( 3.64:i/3)] 17.02 Rainfall intensity (I) = 3,347 for a 1000 year storm - Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA) is C 0.550 Subarea runoff = 4198(CFS) Total initial stream area = 2. 280(Ac. ±++ Process from Point/Station 121.000 to Point/Station 11°.0C'0 I K* P1PEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User soecified size) **)( Upstream point/station elevation 174.00( Ft. I Downstream point/station elevation = 172.0C(Ft.) Pipe length = 28.00(Ft.) Manning's N = 0,013 No, of pipes = 1 Required pipe tlow L.L9B(CFS) Given pipe size 1800(In. Calculated individual pipe flow = 418(CF8) • Normal flow depth in pipe 471(In.) Flow top width inside pipe = 15,82(In.) I Critical Depth = 91(In. Pipe flow velocity = 1142(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.04 min Time of concentration (TO) = 17.06 min. I Process from Point/Station 321.000 to Point/Station 139,000 • *<* CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 2 I Stream flow area = 2.280(Ac. Runoff from this stream 4.198(CFS) I Time of concentration 17.06 man. Rainfall intensity = 3.342(In/Hr) Summary of stream data: I Stream Flow rate TC Rainfall Intensity No. (CFS) (mm) (In/Hr) 1 1 27.639 2230 2.812 2 4.198 17.06 3.342 I Qmax(l) = 1.000 * 1.000 * 27 639) F 0.841 * 1,000 4,198) + = 31.171 Qmax(2 I a_Coo *z 0.765 * 27.639) + 1.000 * 1.000 4.198) + = 25.543 • Total of 2 streams to confluence: I Flo' rates before confluence point.: 27.639 4.198 l Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: 31.171 25,343 Area of streams before confluence: 16.600 2.280 I Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 31.171CFS) Time of concentration = 22.304 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 18,880Ac.) l Process from Point/Station 119.000 to Point/Station 122.000 *** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User soecified size) *** I Utostream point/station elevation 172.0C(Ft.) - Downstream point/station elevation = 17100(Ft,) Pipe length = 10.00(Ft.) Mannings N = 0.013 I No. of pipes = 1 Reauired doe flow 31.171(CFS) Given pipe size = 24.00(ln. Calculated individual Pipe flow 31, 171(CFS) I Normal flow depth in pipe = 11.0 0 0n.) Flow top width inside pipe = 23.9.3m In. Critical Depth = 22.55(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 21.99(Ft/s) I Travel time through pipe = 001 mm, Time of concentration (TC) = 22.31 mm. I Process from point/Station119.000 to Point/Station 122.000 I *** SUBAREA FLON ADDITION Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B w 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group 0 a 1.000 [SINGLE FAMILY area type Time of concentration = 22.31 mm. Rainfall intensity = 2.811(ln/1-1r) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-area. Rational methodQKCIA, C = 0.550 Subarea runoff 3.247(CFS for 2.100(Ac. Total runoff 34.418(CFS) Total area 20.8(Ac. +-4-+q +++++±4'++ Process from Paint/Station 122 .000 to Point/Statan 23.000 *** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) Upstream point/station elevation = 171.00(Ft..) Downstream paint/station elevation 164.00(Ft. Pipe length = 215.00(Ft. ) Manning's N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 34.41SICFS) Given pipe size = 27.00(In. Calculated individual pipe flow 34.418(0FS) Normal flow depth in pipe 15.33(In.) Flow top width inside pipe 26.75Cm. Critical Depth 23.98(In.) Pipe flaw velocity z 14. 78( Ft.,'s) Travel time through pipe = 0.4 mm. Time of concentration (TO) 22,55 mm. +4++++±±+++++++4.+±+++++++++±+++'++++++++'1' +4'++++++++++±+++±+ ++++-f+++'+++ Process from Point /Station 122.000 to Point/Station 213.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 1 Stream flaw area = 20.980(Ac) Runoff from this stream = 34.418(CFS) Time of concentration 22.55 mm. Rainfall intensity = .792(ln/Hr) Program is now starting with Main Stream No, 2 +++.f++.f'+++++++'+±+++++'1'++±+'H+±+1H F++++++ A-H+'I+++++-{ +±'}±+±+-1-+±++++± Process from Point/Station 211,000 to Point/Station 212.000 ** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION .5E ë%///& 7 'E / Decimal fraction soil rroup A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group 0 = 1.000 IMULTI - UNITS area type Si Initial subarea flow distance lO0,00(Ft.,) Highest elevation 15330(Ft. Lowest elevation = 179,50(Ft. Elevation difference 3.801 Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (Apo X-C 4.61 min. TC = [1,8(1,1-C)*distance'.5)/( slope" ( 1/3)1 TC = [l,8*(1.1_0.7000)*(100,0O.5)/( 3,80'(1/3)1 4.61 Setting time of concentration to 5 minutes Rainfall intensity (I) = 7.377 for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area KCIA) Is C = 0.700 Subarea runoff = 0.981(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.190(Ac.) I 11 I I I I k I I I I I I I I I I L I +±++.f+++±±f+++++}"+±++'+++ + I Process from Point/Station 212.000 to Point/Station 213,000 *: IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL. TIME $ Upstream point elevation = 17950(It" I Downstream point elevation 172.20(Ft. ' Channel length thru subarea 320.00' Ft. Channel base vdth 3.000(Ft. I Slope or 'Z of left channel hank 11..S00 I Slope or of right channel hank 11,500 Mannings W = 0.015 I Maximum depth of channel 1 Q00( Ft. Flow(q) thru subarea = 0.81CFS) Depth of flow = 0.092(Ft. I Average velocity = 2.61(Ft./s) Channel flow top width = 5.124(Ft, Flow Velocity 2.62(Ft/s) Travel time 2.04 mm, I Time of concentration = 7.04 mm. Critical depth = 0.126(Ft.) I I Process from Point/Station **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION 212,000 to Point/Station 213.000 '* Decimal fraction soil group A = - 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0000 I Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 IMULTI - UNITS area type Time of concentration 7.04 mm. I Rainfall intensity = 5,917(In/Hr) icr a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for- sub-are-a, Rational method.QKCIA. C 0.700 Subarea runoff = 6.6o8(CFS) for 1610(Ac. I Total runoff = 7.649(CFS) Total area = 1.80(Ac.) I Process from Point/Station 212.000 to Point/Station 213.000 *** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 2 Stream flow area =l.800(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 7..4(CFS) Time of concentration 7,04 mm. Rainfall intensity = 5,917(In/Hr) Summary of stream data: Stream Flow rate IC Rainfall lntensit'i No. (CFS) (mm) (In/Hr) 1 34.418 I 2 7.649 Qmax( 1 ) 22.55 2.792 7.04 5.917 I I I I 1.000 1.000 34.4a8) + 0.472 1.000 * 7,649 + 38 . 026 I Qmax(2) - 1.000 * 0.312 34.4a8) • I 1.000 1.000 * 7.649) ' 18.391 Total of 2 main streams to confluence: I Flow rates before confluence point: 34.418 7,649 Maximum flow rates at confluence usinc, above data: • 38.028 18.391 I Area of streams before confluence: 20.980 1.600 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 36.026(C:FS) I Time of concentration 22.554 mm, Time stream area after confluence 22.780(Ac. Process from Point/Station 213.000 to Point/Station 216.000 **** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User soecitied size) ** I Upstream point/station elevation Downstream point/station elevation 163.00( Ft. I Pipe length 56.00(Ft.) Mannings N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required cipe flow 38.0281 CFS) Given pipe size z 27.00(In.) I Calculated individual pipe flow 38.023(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 20,39(In) Flow top width inside pipe 23.22(In. Critical Depth = 24.76(m.) I Pipe flow velocity = 11.61(Ft/e) Travel time through pipe = 0.08 mm. Time of concentration (TC) 22.63 mm. 1 .4++++++++f+±++++++++++±++4 +±±++++±+±+++'f .f.f+±+.f+.f++++++++''±+++++'4'+±+'f • Process from Point/Station 213.000 to Point/Station 216.000 I **** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number I I Stream flow area 22. 780(Ac. U Runoff from this stream = 38.028(CFS) Time of concentration = 22,63 man. Rainfall intensity = 2.786(In/Hr) I ++++++.+++++.+.f+.f+.1.+.+++.f+++'.++++'1"f++±+'+'++}"+'f'+'f+'k'++ +H'+++1H +'+±+++'4 •1-3 ±4--'! Process from Point/Station 214.000 to Point/Station 215.000 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION I Decimal fraction soil arouc A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal traction soil grouo D = 1.000 I LMULTI -, UNITS area type Initial subarea flow distance 360.001Ft. - Highest Lowest elevation = 183.60(Ft. elevation z 182.00(Ft. ) I Elevation difference = i El-. - Time of concentration calculated by the urban I areas overland flow method (Ann XC) 9,11 mm. TO = 1l,8*(1,1-C)distance.5)/(% slone(3/3)J TO =[l*(a.l0.7000)*(0.00'.5)/( 00(i/3H I Rainfall intensity (I) 5.011 for a 100.0 year Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA) Subarea runoff = J.052(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.3001. Ac. 9,11 storm is C = 0.700 I Process from Point/Station 215.000 to Point/Station 216.000 U *** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME Covered channel I Upstream noint elevation 182.001. Ft. Downstream point elevation 172.00(Ft.) I Channel Channel length thru subarea 340.C'O(Ft. base width 3,000(Ft.) Slope or Z' of left channel bank 11.500 Slope or of right channel bank 11.500 I Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Maximum depth of channel 1.000(Ft. Flo(a) thru subarea 1.052(CFS) Deoth of flow = 0.089(Ft." I Average velocity = 2..918(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 5.059(Ft. ) Flow Velocity • 2.92(Ft/s) Travel time 1.94 mm. Time of concentration = 11.05 mm. Critical depth 0.131(Ft. I I Process from Point/Station 215.000 to Point/Station 216.000 1 SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Decimal fraction soil group A 0,000 Decimal fraction soil group B 0,000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1.000 [MULTI UNITS area type Time of concentration ±1.05 mm. Rainfall intensity = 4,424(Ir!/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub--area.. Rational method. Q::KC1A. C: = 0.700 Subarea runoff 3.251(CFS) for 1.050(Ac. Total runoff = 4,304(CFS) Total area = 1. 35(AC, ++++++++++±++++±+++.f±±++±±+.+±±+++±++±±++++.f+±+±++++±++++++++±+±++±+++ Process from Point/Station 215.000 to Point/Station 216.000 **< CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS I I Along Main Stream number: Stream f low area Runoff from this stream Time of concentration Rainfall intensity Summary of stream data- 1 in normal stream number 2 3501 Ac 4. 304( ORE) 11.05 mm. 4.424(ln/Hr) I I I I I Stream F10N rate TO Rainfall Intensity No. (CES) (mm) (In/Hr) 1 38.028 22.63 2.786 2 4.304 .11.05 4.424 Qmax(1) 1.000 * 1.000 38.026) + 0.630 1.000 * 4,304) + = 40.738 Qmax(2) 1.000 * 0.468 * 36.026) '4, 1.000 * 1.000 * 4.304) + = 22.869 Total of 2 streams to confluence - Flow rates before confluence point: 38.028 4.304 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: 40.738 22.869 Area of streams before confluence: 22.780 3,350 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 40,738(OFS) Time of concentration = 22.633 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 24.130(Ac.) f.1......... 4 +±++++'f +++++++ Process from Point/Station 216.000 to Point/Station 123.000 PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ** Upstream point/station elevation 163.00(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 161.004t.) Pipe length = 120.00(Ft.) Manning >s N = 0,013 No. of pipes = 1 Recuired pipe flow 40.738(CFS) Given pipe size = 27.00(In.) Calculated individual cice flow 40738(OFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 22,59(ln.) Flow top width inside oipe 19.96(In.) Critical Depth = 25.21(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 1145(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.17 mm. Time of concentration (TO) 22.81 mm. Process from Point/Station 123.000 to Point/Station 124.000 PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) *** Upstream point/station elevation 10.004t.) Downstream point/station elevation 140.83(Ft.) Pipe length = 580.000t.) Mannings N = 0,013 No. of pipes = 1 Repuired pies flow 40.738(CFS) Given pipe size = 27..00(ln.) Calculated individual pipe flow 40.738(OFS) Normal flow depth in Pipe 16.73(In. Flow top width inside pipe 26.21(m.) Critical Depth = 25.21(m.) Pipe flow velocity = 15.74(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0,61 nun. Time of concentration (TO) 2342 m:Ln. U Process from Point/Station 123.000 to Point/Station 120OO *** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION ~e X.I118,T User specified value of 0o00 given for subarea CO'4'EC7 7a X 3"p. Time of concentration 23.42 mn. Rainfall intensity = 2.725(In/Hr) Runoff coefficient used for sub area. for a 1 00.0 year storm Rational rnethod,QKCIA C = 0.00 Subarea runoff 24.098(CFS) 'f o r 14.740(Ac Total runoff 64.836.CFS) Total area 38.87(Ac.) End of computations, total study area = 58.87 (Ac.) I I I Li I Li I El p I I I LI I I San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program I CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Enaineering Software. (c) 1990 Version 23 Rational method hydrology program based on I San Diego County Flood Control Division 1965 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 4/21/92 I MARINERS POINT PROPOSED CONDITION FILE: MP7 I ....... ****)4( Hydrology Study Control Information ***4 I Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0 I Map data orecipitation entered- 6 hour, precipitation(inches.) 2.800 24 hour precioitation(iriches) 4.500 I Adjusted 6 hour precipitation (inches) 2.800 P6/P24 = 62.2 96 San Diego hydrology manual 'C' values used Runoff coefficients by rational method I +++"'"++"++"+++++ + +++++++"-+++++ ± + + ± + 4' + 4' + +4' ++ 4' ±4' ++++ +++ + 4-+±±±± + ++ + +4' ±±±+ Process from Point/Station 130.000 to Point/. Station 131.000 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION 7 öffSi7 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0,000 Decimal fraction soil grouo B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 - [SINGLE FAMILY area type .1 Initial subarea flow distance 200.00i'Ft. I Highest elevation 232.50(Ft. Lowest elevation 230.00(FL.) Elevation difference 2.50( Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urDan areas overland flow method (App X--C) = 13.00 mm. TC = [1.8*(l.1-C)*dIstanc;e,5)/(% slope"( 1/3)] TO = [1,6(1l0,5500)(200.00'.5)/( l,25'(1/3)J 13.00 Rainfall intensity (I) 3,984 for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA) is C = 0.550 Subarea runoff 1.315(CFS( Total initial stream area 0..600(Ac. End of computations, total study area 0.60 (Ac.) I,- •' • / / rAe. C&2e rz 5o4i 8 / 'I /' I I I 11 I El LI I I I San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program I CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Softiare, (c) 1Q90 Version 2.3 Rational method hydrology program based on San Diego County Flood Control Division J 35 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 3/16/92 MARINERS POINT PROPOSED CONDITION I FILE :MP6 ******* Hydrology Study C Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0 I Map data precipitation entered: 6 hour, precipitation(inches) 7, 2.800 24 hour orecipitation(inches) = 4.500 Adjusted $ hour precipitation (inches) 2.800 I P6/P24 = 62.2 96 San Diego hydrology manual C' values used Runoff coefficients by rational method I ' Process from Point./Station 200.000 to Point,/Station 201, 000 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 * I Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D I [MULTI ' UNITS area type I Initial subarea flow distance 145.00(Ft. ) Highest elevation 185,00(Ft,) I Lowest elevation 183,50(Ft,. ) Elevation difference = l,50(Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X(-) 8.57 mi n. TC = [1,8*(1.i'C)distarce".5),/(101-1 slope -(J/---)I U TC = [1,8*(1,H0,7000)*(145..00.5)( 103(1/3)] 8.57 Rainfall intensity (I) 5.20 for a 100.0 year storm I Effective runoff coefficient used for area (Q::KCIA) is C 0.700 Subarea runoff = 0.63$(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0.23CC Ac, I ±++±+++±+±++++++++±+ j +,++++++±+++++++++ ±+±±+'4'f+++++++++++ 4 4+++ Process from Point/Station 201.000 to Point/Station 202.000 Li * IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME Upstream point elevation 183,50(FtH I Downstream point elevation 180.00(Ft. ) • Channel length thru subarea. 20. CC( Ft.) Channel base idth 3.00CCrt. I I Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank 115OO Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank ii 5OO Manning's 'N' = 0015 ' Maximum depth of channel lC'OOFt) Flow(q) thru subarea = 0.83(CFS) Depth of flow = 011l(Ft) Average velocity = 1757(Ft/s) I Channel flow top width = 5564(Ft. Flow Velocity 176(Ft/s) Travel time 398 mm. I Time of concentration = 12,56 mm, Critical depth 0115(Ft) I +++++++±±+++±+±++'4+'f++'++++'+++ '+±' ++ 'f4+ +++++f++4 ±+++4H Process from Point/Station 0(1 OOO to Point/Station 202000 1 SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group S = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 [MULTI UNITS area type J I Time of concentration = 1256 mm, Rainfall intensity = 4,073(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for suh"-area. Rational method,QKCIA. C: = 0700 Subarea runoff = 3678(CFS) for I. 360(Ac. ) I Total runoff = 4.77(CFS) Total area = 1.59(Ac.) I ++++±++++++++++++++++++++++++++++±++++++-'H'1"+'1'4 ++-}4++++++++++1H -I+++++-4 Process from Point/Station 202.000 to Point/Station 205.000 *** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME t(* I Upstream point elevation Downstream point elevation 179.70(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea = 30.00(Ft. ) I Channel base width 10.000(FL.) Slope or U 'Z' of left charnel bark 50,000 Slope or 'Z' of right channel hark 50.000 Manning's 'N' 0015 I Maximum depth of channel 1,000(Ft, Flow(q) thru subarea = 4.717(CFS) I Depth of Average flow = 0135(Ft,) velocity = 2,082(Ft/s) Channel flow top width = 23.5]9(Ft.) Flow Velocity 2.08(Ft/s) I Travel time = 0.24 mm. Time of concentration = 12.80 mm. Critical depth = 0.148(Ft.) I I,+++++++±' ++±44H+++++++++f+ +++ i +++ - Process from Point/Station 202.000 to Point/Station 205.000 I CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 1 I Stream flow area = 1,590(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 4,717C.FS) Time of concentration 12.60 min, I Rainfall intensity 4024(In/Hr) Process from Point/Station 203.000 to Point/Station :04 .000 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 ' Decimal fraction soil group 0 1.000 [MULTI UNITS area type Initial subarea flow distance 205,00(Ft.) I Highest elevation 185,30(Ft,) Lowest elevation 163.20(Ft.) Elevation difference = 2,10(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban • areas overland flow method (Anp >C) = 10.23 mm. I TO = [1,8*(1.1C)distance.5)/(% slope'(1/3)] TO = [1,8*(1.10.7000)(205.00.5)/( 1.C)2'-(1/57)j= 10.23 • Rainfall intensity (I) 4.650 for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA) is C 0.700 Subarea runoff = 1.920(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0,590(Ac.) I Process from Point/Station 204.000 to Point/Station 205.000 IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME I Upstream point elevation = 183. 20(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 179.70(Ft.) Channel length t.hru subarea 445,00(Ft. ) I Channel base width 3.000(Ft,) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank 11.500 Slope or 'Z' of right channel bank 11.500 Manning's 'N' = 0.015 • M<imum depth of channel 1,000(Ft.) • Flow(q) thru subarea 120(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.175(Ft. • Average velocity = 2.11(Ft/s) Channel flow top width 7.023(Ft.) FI0N Velocity 2.19(Ft/s) I Travel time 3.38 min. Time of concentration = 13.61 mm. Critical depth = 0.184(Ft.) Process from Point/Station 204,000 to Point/Station 205.000 **(* SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 7 1.000 [MULTI - UNITS area type J I Time of concentration 13.61 mm, I Rainfall intensity 3.667(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-area, Rational method,OKCIA, C. 0.700 I I 1 I I Subarea runoff 3627(CFS) for 1.340(Ac) I Total runoff 5548(CFS) Total area 193(Ac) Process from Point/Station 20OOO to Point/Station 305000 CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS Along Main Stream number; 1 i n normal stream number 2 Stream flow area = 1930(Ac) Runoff from this stream 5548(CFS) Time of concentration 1361 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.667(In/Hr) Summary of stream data: Stream Flow rate TO Rainfall Intensity No, (CFS) (mm) (In/Hr) 1 4.717 12,80 4O21 2 5548 1361 3B67 Qmax(1) 1000 * 1,000 )K 4.717) + * 0940 * 5.548) + 9.932 Qmax(2) 1.000 0.961 * 1.000 * 4.7.L7) + 1.000 * 1.000 * 558) + 10.080 Total of 2 streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point: 4717 5.548 Maximum flow rates at confluence using above data: 9.932 10.080 Area of streams before confluence: 1,590 1.930 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 10.080(CFS) Time of concentration = 13,611 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 3.520(Ac. ) •f+++++++++ +++++++++ + +++ ++++++ ±±++ + ++ ++ ++ + + 4 + ++ 4, 1, ++++++4 +++ +4 +++++ ++±+ Process from Point/Stat:ion 205.000 to Point/Staton 206 000 ** IMPROVED CHANNEL TRAVEL TIME Upstream point elevation 17970(Ft.) Downstream point elevation 178.70(Ft.) Channel length thru subarea 85,00(Ft.) Channel base width 10,000(Ft.) Slope or 'Z' of left channel bank 50.000 Slope or 'Z of right channel bank 50.000 Manning's 'N' 7 0.015 Maximum depth of channel 1.000(Ft.) Flo(q) thru subarea = 10,080(CFS) Depth of flow = 0,190(Ft.) Average velocity = 2.724(Ft/s) Charnel flow top width = 28,84(Ft, ) Flow Velocity 2.72(Ft/s) Travel time 0.52 min. Time of concentration = 1,13 mm. I I I I I I [1 I I I I I I I I Critical depth 0.21Ft. I ++++++±++±++++++++++++++'f1"f+1 -H -H +++++++++'++++++++-F++±4' ++f++4-++++ Process from Point/Station 205.000 to Point/Station 206.000 SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION 1 Decimal fraction soil group A =0.000 - Decimal fraction soil group B =0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group 0 1.000 I [MULTI UNITS area type I Time of concentration 14.13 mm. • Rainfall intensity = 3,775(InHr) for a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub-area, Rational method.QKOIA, C 0700 Subarea runoff 2.034(CFS) for 0,770(Ac, Total runoff 12.115(CFS) Total area 4,29(Ac.) Process from Point/Station 206.000 to Point/Station 207.000 I G(* PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (Program estimated size) Upstream point/station elevation 174.70(Ft.) Downstream point/station elevation 17.15(Ft.) Pipe length z 110.O0(Ft. ) Mannings N = 0.013 N'o. of pipes .1 Required pipe flow 12.115(CFS) Nearest computed pipe diameter 24.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 12.115(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 15.61(m,) Flow top width inside pipe 22.8(In.) Critical Depth = 15,02(In.) Pipe flow velocity = 5.60(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.33 mm. Time of concentration (TO) 14.46 mm. +++++++.+++++++++ Process from Point/Station 208.000 to Point/Station 20°.000 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION I I I I k I Decimal fraction soil group A = 0,000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1000 [MULTI UNITS area type I Initial subarea flow distance '2140. 0C Ft. Highest elevation 181.00(Et.) Lowest elevation 178.50(Ft. ) Elevation difference = 250(Ft.) Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (App X-C) = 10.23 mm. TO = [1,8*(1,1-C)*distance.5)/(% 1ope(1/3)1 TO = [l,8*(1,10,7000)(220,00,5)/( 1.14(1/3)J Rainfall intensity (I) = 4.648 cir a 300.0 year Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QK('IA) Subarea runoff z 1.54(CFS) Total initial stream area 0.490(Ac.) 10.23 to r in is C = 0.700 [ I I I II FE I Process from Point/Station 20000 to Point/Station 209 .000 SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION I Decimal fraction soil group A O000 Decimal fraction soil group B z 000 Decimal fraction sofl group C 0000 I Decimal fraction soil group D .DOC [MULTI UNITS area ty pe Time of concentration 1023 mm. Rainfall I intensity 448(1n/Hr) for a i000 year storm I Runoff coefficient used for sub-area, Rational methodO1cClA, C 0700 Subarea runoff 0260(CFS) for Q080(Ac) Total runoff 855(CFS) Total area 057(Ac) End of computations total study area = 486 (Ac) /3.78 cS I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I San Diego County Rational Hydrology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software. (c) 190 Versdon 2.3 Rational method hydrology orogram based on I San Diego County Flood Control Division 1955 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Study Date: 4/21/92 MARINERS POINT I PROPOSED CONDITION FILE: MP4 I . **(K* Hvdroloqv Study Control I nfcrrnation Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100,0 Mao data I orecinitation entered: 6 hour. precipitation(inches) 2.80C' 24 hour orecipitation(inches) 4.500 I Adjusted 6 hour orecipitation (inches) 2.500 I P6/P24 = 62.29 San Diego hydrology manual 'C values used Runoff coefficients by rational method 41 ++±±++'4''4,++H"f+4+ I Process from Point/ Station 00.000 to Point/Station 301000 • <**K INITIAL AREA EVALUATION K**( I User specified value of 0,900 given tor subarea I Initial subarea flow distance 300.00( Ft. Highest elevation 286..23(Ft.) Lowest elevation 294,45(Ft.) I Elevation difference = 1.78(Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland flow method (Aoo X"C) = 7,42 min. TO =[l,8(l.l'C)*distance.5)/( slooe(.1/3):J U TC 11,8*(1,10.9000)*(300,00 .5)/i 0.59(,1/3)] 7.42 Rainfall intensity (I) = 5.719 for a 100.0 year storm Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA) s C 0900 I Subarea runoff 4,426(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0860AC. I Process from Point/Station 302.000 to Point/Station 303 000 I INITIAL AREA EVALUATION Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group h = 0.0(0 I Decimal fraction soil orouo C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil grouo D = 1.000 • I (RURAL Time of (greater than concentration 1/2 acre) computed area by toe the natural watersheds nomograoh I Ap A TO = Ill,9*length(Mi)3)/(ele\/atiofl change)J I 365 60 ( m i n / h r ) + 10 min, I it1 subarea flow distance 460 00(Ft. Highest elevation 30600(Ft. Lowest elevation 260.00(Ft) Elevation difference z 4600(Ft. I 4600)Y3S5 213 + 10 mm. 12.13 min. Rainfall intensity (I) = 41$$ for a 100.0 year storm I Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIc) is C = 0.450 Subarea runoff = 7742(C:F5) Total initial stream area = 4.130(o) End of computations, total study area i)9 (c I I I I I I U I I I I I I I Li LI I San Diego County Rat onal Hydrology Proararp I CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 190 Version 2.3 Rational method hvdroloov orooram based on I San Diego County Flood Control ['ivision I85 hydrology manual Rational Hydrology Stuav Date 4/21/92 I MARINERS POINT PROPOSED CONDITION FILE: MPS **** Hydrology Study Control I nI ormat.a on * I Rational hydrology study storm event year is 100.0 Mao data orecipitation entered: 6 hour, orecipitation(inches) 2.800 24hour orecipitation(inches) 4500 Adjusted 6 hour precipitation (inches) 2,800 P6/P24 San Diego hydrology manual values used Runoff coefficients by rational method I +1fIH+++++++++1++++±±+±'+++ Process from Point/Station 401.000 to Point/Station 402.000 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION I Decimal fraction soil group A = D.00'O - Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.0(0 Decimal fraction soil oroup C = 0000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1 .000 I [SINGLE FAMILY area type J Initial subarea flow distance 200. 00( Ft. Highest elevation 308.00(Ft.) I Lowest elevation 305.00(Ft.. Elevation difference = 3,00( Ft. Time of concentration calculated by the uroar, I areas overland flow method (Apo i-C) = 12.23 mri. T 11,8(l,lC)*distance',5),( s1ope(J/3Yl T [1,3*(1,10,5500).(200,00,5)/( 1,50(l/3)] 12.23 Rainfall intensity (1) = 4.143 tor a J00.0 ye a r torm I Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKCIA is C: 0.550 Subarea runoff = j,455(c;f5l Total initial stream area = 0 640Ac. I ++++++±++++ +++++++++++++'f-F+++i"F++4 ++f++-'-+±++-++± Process from Point/Station 02. 0(0 to PoinL/Staticn 40.3.000 STREET FLON TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOk ADDIl ION I Tooof street senment elevat icr 305.000( F t. ) End of Street segment elevaL:' on 296.00CC FL. Length cf street segment 200.00C(Ft. HeighL of curb above gutter f1cn1ine .Q(In. 7/I I Width of half street (curb to crown) I8.000(Ft. Distance from crown to crossfall grade break = .i0000(Ft.) Slope from gutter to arade break (v/hz 0.020 I Slope from grade break to crown v/hz) 0 .020 Street flow is on LI] side(s) of tne street Distance from curb to property line iO,.000( Ft. ) I Slope from curo to property line ivlhz 0.020 Gutter width .L500(Ft, Gutter hike from flowline 1.500(In) • Mannings N in gutter = 00150 I Manning's N from gutter to grade break 00380 Manning's N from crade break to crown 0.0180 Estimated mean flow rate at midpont of street 2..336(CFS) I Deoth of flow = 0.3(Ft. Average velocity 4.094(Ft/s) StreetflovJ hydraulics at midcoint of street travel: I Halfst.reet flow width = 7.066(Ft. I Flow velocity 4.(9( Ft/s) Travel time = 0.81 mm, TC 1 3. 04 mm, I Adding area flow to street D ecimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = (.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group 0 = 1,000 [SINGLE FAF'iILY area ty pe 1 Rainfall intensity = 3.074(In/Hr) for a 1000 year storm I Runoff coefficient used for suarea, Rational met.hod.QKClA, C 0.550 I Subarea runoff 1.663(OFS) for 0. 770(Ac. Total runoff = 3..142(CFS) Fot.al area = 1.41(Ac.) l Street flow at end of street = 3.1.42(C.FS) Half street flow at end of street .142(CFS) Depth of flow 0.258(Ft, Average velocity 4.283(Ft/s) I Flow width (from curb towards crown) B..137(Ft. • ±±+++±+++++±++++1+±+++'+++±+±+++++±+±++++++++'++++++±±+-H++4 I Process from Point/ Sr.atic'n 403.000 to Poirt/Staton 409 . 000 STREET FLOkI TRAVEL TiME ± SUBAREA FLO) ADDITION ** Ton of street segment elevation = 26.000 (Ft.i End of street segment elevation = 285.000) Ft. Length of street segment 240.000(Ft. Height of curb above gutter f!ow.line 60( In. ) Width of half street (curo to crown) 20.000(Ft. Distance from crown to crossfall grade break 10 Slope from gutter to grade break v!/h--,,) 0,020 Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) 0.020 Street flow is on iii side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line 10.000) F t.. Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) 0.020 Gutter width = 1,500(Ft. Gutter hike from fiowline = 1.500tIn. Manning's N in gutter O.O1SC• Manning's N from gutter to grade break C).0JS0 Manning's N from arade break to crown 0.0180 Estimated mean flow rate at midnoi nt of street Depth of flow = o.24(F) Average velocity = 4.611(Ft./s) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: 11 I I I I I 1~ 000) Ft. 4. 9 13(CF3) 71 Halfstreet flow width = 9971(Ft. Flow velocity 4.6a(Ft/s) Travel time = 087 mm, TO 13,91 min. Adding area flow to street Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group S 0.00C' Decimal fraction soil group C C000 Decimal fraction soil group U .C'OO [SINGLE FAMILY area type Rainfall intensity = 3.813(1n/Hr) tor a 100.0 year storm Runoff coefficient used for sub--area. Rational methob.QKCIA. C 0. 550 Subarea runoff 3.334(CFS) for a .550(Ac. Total runoff = 6.476(CFS) Total area = 3.00(Ac.) Street flow at end of street z 6..r76(CFS) Half street flow at end of street. 6.476(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.317(Ft. Average velocity = 4.76(Ft/s) Flow width from curb towards c'on ) ii. (91 Ft. +±+++++±+++++±+F±+±-f+±+f++'H +++4 ++++ ++±±±+++++1+++±±±+±-1 +++++±++ Process from Point/Station 4L09,000 to Poir.t/St.ation 0S.0OO PIPEFLOkt TRAVEL TIME (User specifiedsize) Uostrearn point/station elevation 2 -11 9.00( Ft. . Downstream point/station elevation 278.00( Ft. Pipe length S.oO(Ft.) vhtnnings N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 6.476CFS) Given pipe size = 18.00(In. Calculated individual pipe flow 6.476CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 50(In. Flow top width inside pioe 162A(ln.) Critical Depth = li,SO(In. ) Pipe flow velocity = 15.78(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.01 mm. Time of concentration (T(") 13.2 mm. Process from Point/Station 409.000 to Point/Station OS. 000 CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS I I Alono Main Stream number: Stream flow area = 3 Runoff from this stream = Time of concentration Rainfall intensity 1 in norriaI stream number I 000 Ac . 6, 4'6( CFE' 13.-2 rntn,, l..E11( In/Hr I +++f±±+++++±++±++H±±1H+"I ±++'f±-t-±'1 ......F++'1 + Process from Point/Station 404.000 to Point/Station 405.000 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION I e.cmmal traction soil grouo A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil grouo S = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C. = 0.1)00 I Decimal fraction soil group 1) = 1.000 I [SINGLE FAMiLY area type Initial subarea flow distance = 200.O0(Ft. Highest elevation = 301.40(Fr.. I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I Lost elevation = 299. 40( Ft. Elevation difference = 2.00( Ft.. I Time of concentration calculated by the urban areas overland tloN method (App .-C-) 14.00 mm. TO = 11.8*(11-C)*diSt.aflCe.5)/( slope'(1/3)1 TC = [l.B*(110.5500)*(200.00.5)/( 1 QO(l/3)1z I Rainfall intensity (I) 3.77 for a 100.0 year • Effective runoff coefficient useo tor area (}<CIA) Subarea runoff = 1.107(C.FS) Total initial stream area =O.530(Ac.) IA. 00 storm is C = 0.550 73 ±++++++±+++++±+±++±++++±+±+++±+±++±+±++±++±+ +±±++±±+++++++++±++±+±+++± Process from Point/Station 405.000 to Point/Station 406.000 • ** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Too of street sement elevation = 299,400(Ft. End of street segment elevation = 400(Ft, Length of street segment = 300.000(Ft.) I Height of curb above gutter floNline = 60(In. Width of half street (curb to crown) = 20000(Ft. Distance from crown to crossfall grade break = 10.000(Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.020 I Slone from grade break to crown (v/hz) = 0.020 • Street flow is on side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line 10.0001 Ft. • Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) 0.020 Gutter width = l.500(Ft. Gutter hike from fioline = J.500(1n. I Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150 Manning >s N from gutter to grade break 0.0180 Manning's N from grade break to crown 00180 Estimated mean flow rate at rndooint of street 2.444(CFS) l Death of flow = 0.2991 Ft. Average velocity = 2.191(Ft/s) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street traveb I Halfstreet flow width 10.216(Ft.) Flow velocity 2,19(Ft/s) Travel time = 2.28 mm. TC 1628 min Adding area flow to street Decimal fraction soil grouo A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil grouc C = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil grouo 0 = 1. )00 (SINGLE FAMILY area tyoe Rainfall intensity = 3,44E(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm I Runoff coefficient used tor sub-area. Rational method.QKCIA, C 0. 550 Subarea runoff 2.4257 ('--'FS) for l.260(Ac.) Total runoff 3, 532(CFS) Total area Street flow at end of street = 3,532(C:FS) I Half street flow at end of street 3.532(CFS) Deoth of flak' = 0,3311 Ft. Average velocity z 2420(Ft/s Flow width (from curb towards, crown l = 1,1 781 Ft. ++++++++++'1 + +++++++++±++ Process from Point/Stator, 406,000 to Point/Station 407.000 i STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION I 74- Top of street segment elevation = 296.400(FL) End of street segment elevation = 293000(Ft.. Length of street segment r 260.000(Ft.) Height of curb above gutter flo1ine = o.OIn,) Width of half street (curb to or-own) = 18000(Ft. Distance from crown to crossf all grade break l0.00C( Ft. ) Sloe from gutter to arade break (v,/h-7) 0.020 Slone F mm am.dR break to crown ( 'i/hz ) 0.020 Street flow is on Li] side(s) of the street ' Distance from curb to oroperty aine = 10000(Ft. Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) 0.020 Gutter width = 1.5001 Ft. Gutter hike from flowline = 1.500(ln. I Mannings N in gutter = 0.0150 Manning's N from gutter to grade break 0.0180 Manning's N from grade break to crown 00180 • Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street 5.396(CFS) • Depth of flow 0.3581 Ft. Average velocity 3.004(Ft/s) l Streetfiow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width 13.133(Ft. Flow velocity 3.00(Ft/s Travel time = 1.44 mm. IC 17.72 man. Adding area flow to street Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group D = 11000 [SINGLE FAMILY area tyce J Rainfall intensity = 3.261(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm I Runoff coefficient used for sub'-area. Rational methodQKCIA C 0.550 - Subarea runoff 3.426(CFS) for 1.910(Ac.) Total runoff = 6.958(CFS) Total area = 3..72(Ac, I Street flow at end of street = 6.958(CFS) Half street flow at end of street 6.956(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.386(Ft.) I Average velocity = 3172(Ft/s) • Flow width (from curb towards crown )= 14. 59( Ft. Process from Point/Station 407.000 to Point/Station 410.000 * STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION t* Too of street segment elevation =23.000(Ft.) End of street segment elevation =285.000Ft. Length of street segment = 230.000(Ft. Height of curb above gutter flowline = 6.0(In.) Width of half street (curb to crown) = 20.000(Ft. Distance from crown to crossfall grade break 10.0001 Ft. Slone from gutter to grade break (v/hz) 0.020 Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) 0.020 Street flow is or, [1 -1 side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line l0.000( Ft. Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) 0.020 Gutter width = 115001 Ft.. Gutter hike from tlowline = 1.5C'O( In, ) Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150 Manning's N from gutter to grade break 0,0180 Manning's N from grade break to cro'in u.O'lao U U I I I U I I I Li] I Estimated mean flow rate at midooirit of street 9.025(CFS Depth of flow = 0.32(Ft.) Average velocity = 4.882(Ft/s) I Streetfiow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width = 13.332(Ft..) Flow velocity 4.88(Ft/s) Travel time = 0.79 mm. IC 185i mm, I Adding area flow to street Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil group B = 0,000 Decimal fraction soil grouo C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 (SINGLE FAMILY area type Rainfall intensity = 3.171(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm I Runoff coefficient used for sub-area, Rational method.QKClA. C 0.550 Subarea runoff 3.855(CFS) for "'-10( Ac. • Total runoff = 10.813(CFS) Tc ,tal area 5.93(Ac) I Street flow at end of street = 10.813(CFS) Half street flow at end of street 10.813(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.381(Ft. I Average velocity = 5,097(Ft/s) Flow width (from curb towards crown) 14.319(Ft. Process from Point/Station 410.000 to Point/Station 408.000 ** PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User soecitied size) ** Uostream point/station elevation 279,00(Ft.) Downstream ooint/station elevation 278,00(Ft.) Pipe length = 40.00(Ft. ) Mannings N 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 10.813(CFS) Given pipe size 18.000n.) Calculatedindividual pipe flow 10.813(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 10.58(In. Flow top width inside pipe l772( In. • Critical Depth 15. 13(In. Pipe flow Velocity 10.011t/s) Travel time through pipe = 0.07 mm. Time of concentration (TO) 18.56 man. ++1-1-+4-+1-++4-++1-+++4-4-4-+4--4-++4-+4-+4-4-4-4++++++±+++++++±+++±+++++++±+ +±4-++ Processfrom point/Station 'uO,OOO to Point/Station 408.ti00 ** CONFLUENCE OF MINOR STREAMS I Along Main Stream number: 1 in normal stream number 2 Stream flow area = 5..930(Ac. Runoff from this stream 10.613(CFS) I Time of concentration 18.58 mm. Rainfall intensity = 3,164(In/Hr) Summary of stream data: I Stream Flow rate TO Rainfall Intensity No. (CFS) (mm) (In/Hr) 1 6.476 13.92 3.811 10.813 18.58 3.-',64 Qmnax(1) Wo • 1.000 1.000 .476) + I 1.000 * 0,749 * 10.813) + 14.579 Qmax(2) 0,830 * 1.000 + I 1.000 * 1.000 10.8)3) + 16.189 Total of 2 streams to confluence: I Flow rates before confluence ooirt.: 6.476 10.813 Maximum f low rates at confluence using above data: I 14.579 16.189 Area of streams before contluence. 3.000 5,930 I Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 16,169(CFS) Time of concentration = 18.577 mm. Effective stream area after confluence 8.930(Ac. ±++±+++ I Process from Point/Station 408.000 to Point/Station .411.000 * PIPEFLON TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) *** I Upstream point/station elevation 278.00( Ft.) Downstream coint/station elevation 276. 00( Ft. Pipe length 240.00(Ft.. ) Mannings N = 0,013 I No. of pipes = 1 Required pipe flow 16.189(CFS) Given pipe size 24.00(In.) Calculated individual pipe flow 16.189(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe = 16.01(1n. I Flow top width inside pipe 22.62(.1n.) Critical Depth 17.42(In.) Pipe flow velocity 7.28(Ft/s) I Travel time through pipe 0.55 mm. Time of concentration (TC) = 19.13 mm I 4-++. .+.+ ++++±++ ++++++ Process from Point/Station 412,000 to Point/Station 411.100 *** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION I User soecife C value of 0,650 7en for subarea Time of concentration 19.13 mn. Rainfall intensity = 3.105(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm I Runoff coefficient used for sub-area. Rational method.OzhCIA, C 0.650 Subarea runoff 0.969(CFS) for 0,480(0c. Total runoff 17.158(C F'S ) Total area 9.41( Pic . I I Process from Point/Station 413.000 to Point/Station 411.000 **** SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 I Decimal fraction soil aroup B = 0000 Decimal fraction soil grouc C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 1.000 I I1NDUSTPIAL area type Time of concentration .19.13 mm. Rainfall intensity z 3,105(1n/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm I 77 I Runoff coefficient used for sub--area. Rational methodQKCtA. c 0950 Subarea runoff 1681(CFS) for 0570(Ac) Total runoff 18839(CFS) Total area 99S(Ac) I I Process from Paint/Station 413000 to Paint/Station 411000 1* SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION *)t( Decimal fraction soil group A = 0000 I Decimal fraction soil group B = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group C 0000 Decimal fraction soil aroup D = 1.000 [RURAL (greater than 1/2 acre) area type I Time of concentration = 1913 man. Rainfall intensity = 3105(In/Hr) for a lOQO year storm I Runoff coefficient used for sub'area. Rational methodQKCIA C = C450 Subarea runoff = 0866CFS) lor 0,.620(Ac. Total runoff = 19706(C:FS) Total area 10.60(Ac. Process from Point/Station 411,000 to Point/Station 414000 I *K* PIPEFLOW TRAVEL TIME (User specified size) ** Upstream point/station elevation 2T6.00(Ft) - I Downstream point/station elevation 275.00(FtJ Pipe length lOOOO(Ft. ) Mannings N = 0013 No, of pipes 1 Required pipe flow 19.706(CFS) I Given pipe size = 2400(In. ) Calculated individual pipe flow 19,706(CFS) Normal flow depth in pipe 17.32(In Flow top width Inside pipe 21,51(m.) I Critical Depth l9,.14(ln.) Pipe flow velocity B.11(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe 0.21 mm. Time of concentration (TO) = 1.33 mm. ±+±++++++++++++++ 4-414-++++±+++++±+++++'++4-++4-4-++++'{ ++++-+±++++++++++ I Process from Point/Station 415.000 to Point/Station 416.000 INITIAL AREA EVALUATION Decimal fraction soil grouo A 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B 0.000 Decimal traction soil grouc C 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D 1-000 [RURAL (greater than 1/2 acre) area type Time of concentration computed by the natural watersheds nomograoh (Apo X"A) TC = [ll,9length(Mi) "3)/(ele\/atiOn change)i Initial subarea flov4 distance 40.00(Ft. Highest elevation 296.00(Ft. Lowest elevation 276.00(Ft. ) Elevation difference = 20.00(Ft. TCr(ll.9*0,O076'3)/( 20.00)Y.38 5 = 0.17 + 10 man. 10.17 mm. Rainfall intensity (1) = 4.565 for 8 100,0 year star in Effective runoff coefficient used for area (QKClA) is C 7.450 Subarea runoff = 0,735(CFS) Total initial stream area = 0. 350t Ac. ri I I I I .385 O(n'an/hr) + 10 min. r] I 78 End of comoutations. total study area 1O95 (c. I I I I I I I I I I I 1 111 7,? HYDRAULIC: ONSITE DETENTION THE EXISTING RUNOFF FOR BASIN C IS 7.99 CFS AND THE PROPOSED RUNOFF IS 13.98 CFS. THERE IS 5.99 CFS (13.98 - 7.99 = 5.99) THAT NEEDS TO BE RETAINED ONSITE TO AVOID ANY DOWNSTREAM EROSION PROBLEMS. BY USING THE RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY TO ESTIMATE TIME OF CONCENTRATION (TC), LAG TIME IS THEN CALCULATED AND TO BE USED TO DEVELOP 100 YEAR, 6 HOUR HYDROGRAPH. UPON COMPLETION OF THE HYDROGRAPH, THE FLOOD ROUTING PROGRAM IS USED TO VERIFY THE CAPACITY OF THE PROPOSED DETENTION BASIN. THE OUTFLOW IS 6.20 CFS, AND THE DEPTH OF FLOW IN THE BASIN IS 6.5 FEET (W.S. ELEVATION = 180.5). THE TOTAL OUTFLOW FOR BASIN 'C' IS 8.06 CFS (6.20 + 1.86 = 8.06). I Ii] I 'Ii I I 11 I I I I I [1 I I I I I Unit H y d r o g r a p h Analysis 1 Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1q90, Version 2.2 Study date 3/17/92 +++++++++++44--4 44 4+ I MARINERS POINT T, M. 1A1' T 6'',4'&' U PROPOSED CONDITION BASIN C / FILE: MP1 I ++++++++++++++4H +++++++f++4±+++-++ 4+4 4-1 + 1 -41•++±±+ +4-f ±4+4-1 4 +++-4$++-4-'4+'4-++ Storm Event Year = 100 I Antecedent Moisture Condition = 3 Area averaged rainfall isohystal data: • Sub-Area(Ac.) Rainfall(In) I 4.90 2.50 Rainfall Distribution pattern used in study: I Type B for SOS (small dam) or San Diego 6 hour storms ******** Area-Averaged SCS Curve Number arid Fm Area Area SOS ON SOS CN Fm Soil (Ac.) tract (AMC2) (AMC3) (In/Hr) Group 0.05 0.010 98.0 99.6 0.000 D 4.85 0,990 980 98.0 Area-averaged catchment SOS Curve Number AMc.3) 98.016 Area-averaged Fm \'alue using values listed 0,000(In/Hr) +±++F±+++++4+++++++++++++++4 -f++4+++++f+++4+$+'f+++++++++'f+4 +++++++ User entry of time of concentration 0.241 (hours) Watershed area = 4,90(Ac.) Catchment Lag time 0,145 hours Unit interval 5.000 minutes Unit interval percentage of lag time 576302 Hydrograph baseflo1' 0,.00(CS'i Minimum watershed loss rate(Fmn) 0000(In/Hr) Average adjusted SOS Curve Number = 98,016 Rainfall depth area reduction factors: Using a total area of 4 90(Ao) (Ref: SC:S Sup A Pacific Coastal Climate ratio used Areal factor ratio (rainfall reduction) 1,000 Adjusted rainfall = 2,800(1) The following S-Graph or S--Graph combination i.s used in this suc 1y: VALLEY DEVELOPED SGraph 1 [1 [1 [1 I I 1 I UNIT HYDR0GRcPH Time Ratio Time Discharge 0 Mass Curve (t/Lag) (hrs) Ratios (CFS) Ratios I (0/ 058 0.083 0.14° 3.574 0.060 0.167 0,805 :19.380 0.387 I 1.73 0.250 1.000 24.066 0. 2.31 0.333 0.375 9.024 0.945 2.88 0.417 0,096 2.322 0.984 I 3.46 0.500 0.026 0.629 0.995 I 4,03 0.583 0.012 O295 1.000 I Total soil rain loss 0.23(In) Total effective runoff 257(Tn) I Total soil-loss volume 0.09(c,Ft) Total storm runoff volume = 1.05((c,Ft) Li I 6H 0 U R S T 0 R Runoff Hyd ro M g r a p h I Hydrograph in 5 Minute intervals (CFS) I Time(h±m) Volume c.Ft,0(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 0+ 5 0.0000 0.00 0 • 0+10 0.0000 0,00 0 0+15 0,0000 0.00 0 0±20 0.0001 0.02 0 0+25 0,0006 0.07 Q 0+30 0.0017 0.16 0 0+35 0.0036 0.27 \'Q 0+40 0.0064 0.41 VQ 1 0+45 0.0103 0,56 V 0 1 0+50 0.0150 0.66 V 0 0+55 0.0202 0.76 \/ 0 - 1+ 0 00260 0.83 V 0 1+ 5 0.0322 0.90 V 0 14-10 0.0393 1,03 H' 0 1+15 0,0473 1,16 V 0 I 14-20 0.0358 1.24 V 0 14-23 0.0647 1,29 V 0 1+30 0.0739 1,33 V 0 I 1+35 0.0836 1.40 V 0 1±40 0.0952 1.68 V 0 1+45 0,1091 2.03 V 0 - 1±50 0,1242 2.18 V 0 1+55 0.1396 2.25 V 0 24- 0 0,1554 2.28 V ri I 2± 5 0.1743 2.75 V 0 2+10 0.2100 519 V 0 2+15 02668 8.24 V 0 2+20 0.3320 9.47 V 0 2+25 0.3998 9.85 V 2±30 04686 9.99 V 2±35 0.5349 962 V 0 2+40 0.5647 7.24 V 0. 2+45 0.6140 4.26 0. V 2+50 0.6356 3.14 0. V 2+55 0.6553 2.85 1 0 V 3+ 0 0.6744 2.78 0 V 3+ 5 0.6931 2.71 0 V 3+10 0.7105 2.54 0. \/ 35 0.7266 2.33 0 V 3+20 07421 2.25 0.1 V I 3+25 0.7574 2.23 0 V 3±30 0.7728 2.23 0 3+35 0.7878 2.18 0. V 3+40 0.8011 1.94 0. V 3+45 0.8124 1.64 0 3±50 0.8229 1.52 0 3+55 0.8332 1.50 0. IV 4+ 0 0.8434 1.49 0. V 4+ 5 08536 1.47 Q V 4+10 0.8631 139 0. V 4+15 0.8720 1.29 0 V 4+20 0.8806 1.25 0. V 4+25 0.8891 1.24 0. V 4+30 0.8977 1.24 0. V 4+35 0.9062 1.23 1 V 4+40 0.9146 1.22 0. V 44-45 0.9228 1.19 0. V 4+50 0.9309 119 1 0. V 4+55 0.9391 1.18 0. V 5+ 0 0.9472 1.18 0. V 5+ 5 09553 1.17 0. V 5+10 0.9630 1.12 0. V 5+15 0.9703 1.05 0 V 5+20 0.9774 1.03 0. V 5+25 0.9844 1.02 0 V 5+30 0.9914 1.02 0. V 5+35 0. 99S5 1.02 0. V 5+40 1.0057 1.05 0 V 5 4-45 1 0132 1 .08 0. V 5.f50 1.0207 1.10 1 0 V 5+55 1.0283 1.10 0. VI 6+ 0 1.0359 1.10 0. 6+ 5 10430 104 Q V 6+10 1.0477 0.68 0 V 6+15 1.0492 0.23 0. VI 6+20 1.0496 0.0.6 0. VI 6+25 1.0498 0.02 0. VI 6+30 1.0498 0.01 0 VI 11 I I I I L I I I I I I I I I [1 I 1 I S 83 I FLOOD HYDROGRAPH POUTING PROGRAM Copyright. (C) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN. 1990 Study date: 3/17792 MARINERS POINT T.M. PROPOSED CONDITION BASIN C I FILE: MP **********(*)****i< HYDROGRAPH INFORMATION From study/file name; MP1.rt.e **K**r*HYDRCIGRAPH DATA*** Number of intervals 78 Time interval = 5.0 (Mm.) Maximum/Peak flow rate 10.0 (CFS) Total volume = 1.05 (Ac.Ft) Status of hydrographs being held in storage Stream 3. Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5 Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac..Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 **** *K * * * ** ** * * * * **** * *** * * ** ** ** * * * ** * * ** ** * ** * * * * ** * I Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 *** RETARDING BASIN ROUTING I Program computation of outflow v. depth I CALCULATED OUTFLOW DATA AT DEPTH 2.00(.Ft)) Pipe length 200.00(Ft.) Elevation difference 1.00(Ft.) I Mannings N 0.013 No, of pipes = I I Given pipe size = 12..00(1n. NOTE; Assuming free outlet flow. I NOTE: Normal flow is pressure f IA, The total friction loss through the rJ.ipe is 3.000(Ft,. Pipe friction loss 2,42((Ft.) I Minor friction loss 0.580(Ft.) }-factor 1,50 Calculated flow rate through pipe(s) 3919(CFS) Pipe flow velocity = 4,99(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe 0.67 mm, I Total outflow at this depth 3.92(CFS) I CALCULATED OUTFLOW DATA AT DEPTH 4.00(Ft.)) Pipe length 200.00(Ft.) Elevation difference l,0C(Ft.) I I Mannings N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 Given pipe size = 12.00(In.) NOTE: Assuming free outlet flow. I NOTE: Normal flow is pressure flow. The total friction loss through the pipe. is 5.000(Ft. ) Pipe friction loss 4.033(Ft) Minor friction loss 0.967(Ft. I Kfactor 1.50 I Calculated flow rate through pine(s) 5.059(CFS) I Pipe flow velocity 6.44Ft/s) Travel time through pipe 0.52 mm. I Total outflow at this depth = 5.06(CFS) I CALCULATED OUTFLOW DATA AT DEPTH E.00(Ft.)) Pipe length = 200..00(Ft.) Elevation difference 1.00(Ft.) Mannings N = 0.013 No. of pipes = 1 I Given pipe size = 12.00(In.) NOTE: Assuming free outlet flow. NOTE: Normal flow is pressure flow. I The total friction loss through the pipe is 7.000(Ft.) Pipe friction loss = 5.64(Ft.) Minor friction loss 1,353(Ft.) K-factor 1.50 I Calculated flow rate through pipe(s) 5986(CFS) Pipe flow velocity = 7.62( Ft/c) Travel time through pipe = 0.44 mm. I Total outflow at this depth = 599(CFS) • CALCULATED OUTFLOW DATA AT DEPTH = 7.00(Ft.)) I Pipe length 200.00(Ft.) Elevation difference 1.00(Ft.) Mannings N 0,013 No. of pipes = 1 Given pipe size = 12.00(In.) I NOTE: Assuming free outlet flow. NOTE: Normal flow is pressure flow. The total friction loss through the pipe is B.00C(Ft.) Pipe friction loss 6.453(Ft..) Minor friction loss I .54.(Ft.) Kfact.or 1.50 Calculated flow rate through pine(s) 6.400(CFS) Pipe flow velocity 8.I5(Ft/s) Travel time through pipe 0.11 mm. Total outflow at this depth 6,40(CFS) Total number of inflow hydrograph intervals 78 Hydrograph time unit 5,000 (Mm.) Initial depth in storage basin = 0.00(Ft..) Initial basin depth 0.00 (Ft.) Initial basin storage = 0.0C (A(:,,. Ft) Initial basin outflow = 0.00 (DES) Depth vs. Storage and Depth vs. Discharge data: Basin Depth Storage Outflow (SO ciL/2) (S-1 O-*-d-t/2) (Ft.) (Ac.Ft) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) (Ac—Ft) I I n I I I I P1 / 71P, 0 0,000 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 I 17 .O 2.000 0.020 3.919 0.007 0.033 /7.O 4.000 0.060 5.059 0,043 0,077 /v.0 6.000 0.140 5.986 0.119 0,161 I /g/.0 7.000 0.190 6,400 0.168 0.212 Hydrograph Detent.on Basin Pouting I Graph values unit nfiok' '0out,f1oi' at time shown Time Inflow Outflow Storage Depth Hours) (cFS) (0FS) (c.Ft) .0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 (Ft..) 0.083 0.0 0.0 0.000 0 0 0 I 0.167 0.0 0.0 0.000 0 0.0 0.250 0.0 0.0 0.000 0 0.0 0.333 0.0 0.0 0.000 0 0.0 I 0.417 0.1 0.0 0.000 0 0.0 10,500 0.2 0.1 0.001 0 0.1 0.583 0.3 0.2 0.001 0 0.1 10.750 0.667 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.002 0.002 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.833 0.7 0.6 0.003 01 0.3 0.917 0.8 0.7 0.004 0 : 0.4 11.000 0.8 0,8 0.004 0 0.4 U 1.083 0.9 0,9 0.004 0 0,4 1.167 1.0 0,9 0.005 0 0.5 11.250 1.2 1.1 0.005 0 0.5 • 1.333 1,2 1,2 0.006 0 0.6 1.417 1.3 1.3 0.006 0 0.6 11.583 1.500 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 0,007 0.007 0 Cl 0.7 0.7 1.667 1.7 1.5 0.008 01 0.8 1.750 2.0 1.8 0.009 01 0.9 11.833 2.2 2.0 0.010 0 1.0 • 1.917 2.2 2.2 0.011 0I 1.1 2.000 2.3 2.2 0.011 12.083 2.8 2.5 0.013 DI 1.3 12,167 5.2 3.7 0.019 Ti I 3.9 2.250 8.2 4.4 0.037 0 2.333 9.5 5.1 0,065 0 I 1 2.417 9.8 5,5 0.095 0 4-9 2.500 10.0 5.8 0,125 0 1 5 6 2.583 2,6677,2 9.6 6.1 0.351 0.167 0 I 0 I " 6.2 (80.5" Z , 2.750 4.3 6.2 0.164 1 0 6.5 2.833 3.1 6.0 0,147 i 0 12.917 2.9 5.8 0.327 1 0 5,7 13.00 0 2.8 5.6 0.107 I 0 5.2 3.083 2.7 5.4 0.088 1 0 4.7 13.250 3.167 2.5 2.3 5,2 4.8 0.070 0.052 I 1 0 0 3.6 3,333 2.3 4,4 0.036 3.417 2.2 4.0 0.023 I 0 2.1 2.2 2.8 0.015 io 1.5 I 3,5003.583 2.2 2.3 0.032 3,667 1.9 2.1 0.011 0 1.1 1.6 1,8 0.009 0 (:C) I 3,7503.833 1,5 1,6 0.008 10 0.8 3.917 1.5 1.5 0.008 0 0.8 I 4.000 1,5 1.5 0.008 0 o.s'j 4.083 1,5 1.5 0,008 0 4,167 1,4 1,4 0.007 0 0,7 - 4.250 1,3 1.4 0.007 0 0.7 4.333 1.3 1.3 0.007 0 0.7 4,417 1,2 1.3 0.006 10 0. 4.500 1,2 1.2 0.006 0 0.6 14,583 1.2 1.2 0.006 0 0.6 14.667 1.2 1.2 0,006 0 0.6 4.750 1,2 1.2 0.006 0 1 •4 .833 1.2 1.2 0.006 0 0.6 14.917 1.2 1.2 0.006 U 0,6 5,000 1.2 1.2 0.006 0 : 0,6 5.083 1.2 1.2 0.006 0 0.6 1.1 1.2 0.006 0 5.250 1.1 1.1 0.006 0 0.6 5.333 1,0 1,1 0.005 U 5.417 1.0 1.0 0.005 U 5.500 1.0 1.0 0.005 0 5.583 1.0 1.0 0.005 U 1 1 0.5 .5.667 1.1 1.0 0.005 0 0.5 •5.750 1.1 1.1 0.005 0 0,5 5.833 1.1 1.1 0,006 0 : 0.6 - 5.917 1.1 1.1 0.006 0 0.6 16.000 1,1 1.1 0,006 0 0.6 • 6.083 1.0 1.1 0.005 0 0.5 6.167 0.7 0.9 0.005 0 0.5 • 6.250 0.2 0.5 0,003 10 0.3 • 6.333 0.1 0.2 0,001 0 0.1 6.417 0.0 0.1 0,000 0 0.0 6.500 0.0 0,0 0.000 0 1 0.0 6,583 0.0 0.0 0.000 0 0.0 Number of intervals 79 • Time interval = 5,0 (Mm. Maximum/Peak -flow rate 6.2 (UES) Total volume = 1.05 (c.Ft) I Status of hydrographs being held in storage Stream 1 StrEam 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream S Peak (UES) 0,000 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 I Vol (c.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ) 4*(** _.. ..* 1 " I I [1 p I U I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I U I U 1 SUMMARY EXISTING PROPOSED DOWNSTREAM RUNOFF RUNOFF CAPACITY BASIN (CFS (CFS) (CFS) A 32.64 42.35 *42.5 B 59.97 66.15 *67.5 C 7.99 *** 8.06 ** 7.99 D 11.93 12.17 **11.93 E 16.73 20.45 **16.73 * INDICATES EXISTING STORM DRAIN CAPACITY CALCULATED BY OTHERS ** INDICATES EXISTING RUNOFF AS CONTROL CAPACITY *** INDICATES TOTAL RUNOFF FROM BASIN C (6.20 + 1.86 = 8.06 CFS) K 0 J 4 s4jJ :: " vji![6z J _ // ( —'-. --- I! •i5 : <'' ' — ,' 4f 'k P? h / F ,— . - I. . • I N • • . ---- -- - o 'e . 41 ws TT1 b± i 47t :>L IS . .— . .1rt?L r- rI ç r cm 000 top CQ OD F¼ 4 \1( w ••• 4.J./4'T r! I rA eq Saw- -- -'"k• ) \\ ) . I '%.': :. ' CO J _rA CD to it -JA vl ii V .. ' '• I t:)- ' . I.' • .71 -.—II. I-;-- \ I) • -.::- • f(f) • )itr..t T 2 ' ' . S.,. ' I,•' 4;.._; ( ., \j: . . — — — — , . . ' S ' •1' '. : m ' 41' . • ) ( . : '''< ( :d I rift b 4 . S , • . •J/ ; .. .. , L) Citt ;:t: : 16X L. tA — )44 , I A • _ v-- :: -V- 21 2r : 5j * 7•:7 ••:' •---; . %jJ . JL;:b- 1 c:, _--r Ho 14 ? n~,v 14 mob it , ,f : • iiI : : >—:;• t'1LL ([\P 5)tIt ! I, .. I LJ' \\ i•: :v • )\\ !u.:'\ ... \.%\/,,;;;::_ i I1; rl ik r dl g cd co .. . . \'//.—.;. 1 • — —. . j,•• .$1Q_i.1 K CD 0 Ir C c; N", 1 4j 4 ; . - — . _r • • . — I, J . .. . — . — .. — . — — — I 0 0 Ii I MARINERS POINT TENTATIVE TRACT 91-12 I NOISE STUDY I City of Carlsbad, California I I Fl Fl Fl 1-1 I .. .v'. ." -_*. -, •:•.' •.•;94•. : ;.'•• .: ,••I. I 'i':.': :. .'. ::- : • • •••• • • •- • • • :':: . • • ' 1• • ,/1LrA •.. •1'•. •• •' ' : .: I • S. S. • -. .•.•• •• • :!. J4 : :• .' :. -.— • :. • . : '• • : - •.- •' t3 .• . Is • • • 5..• * ,G.V.• •• •:'. ... •. I ... . : :.. Fl - • Fl I I k [I 1111 Rob Kahn, John Kain I & Associafes, Inc. I . . I P Robert Kahn, John Kain I L & Associates, Inc. • J,, Transportation Planning Traffic /Acoustical Engineers O 1 January 24, 1992 'Ile T i Mr. Jack Reimer I BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92714 I Subject: Mariners Point Tentative Tract 91-12, Acoustical Analysis Dear Mr. Reimer: I ROBERT KAHN AND ASSOCIATES is pleased to provide BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. the attached final acoustical study for the I Mariners Point Tentative Tract 91-12 residential project located in the City of Carlsbad, California. This study has been prepared to meet the City's Planning Department Administrative Policy No. 17 noise standards and should be sufficient to obtain acoustical I approval for building permits for the project. The attached report indicates that the proposed uses within the I site are compatible from an acoustical standpoint. The project will meet the required exterior and interior noise standards as specified by the City of Carlsbad if the recommended noise I mitigation measures are implemented. The recommended mitigation measures consist of an up to 7.0 foot sound barrier for lots facing College Boulevard and a mechanical ventilation system for Lot 55. I ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. is pleased to assist BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. on the Mariners Point Tentative Tract 91- 12 project and look forward to working with you in the future. I Sincerely, ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES INC. Reviewed by: 4!!~ $11--lV11 It., I Cornelis H. Overweg, INCE Kahn, P.E. I Senior Engineer cc \ NO. EXP. 20285 CHO:RX:nad/2261 9130193 *11 1 Attachments 1 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 474-0809 • FAX (714) 474-0902 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 . 0 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS FOR MARINERS POINT TENTATIVE TRACT 91-12 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. 1 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92714 Prepared by: ROBERT KAHN, JOHN KAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4101 Birch Street, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 January 24, 1992 JN: 34-91-004 I . . fl TABLE OF CONTENTS I SECTION PAGE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................1 2 Exterior Area - Noise Exposure Control ..........2 ' Noise Control Barrier Construction Materials .......2 Interior Area - Noise Exposure Control ..........3 Unit Ventilation .....................3 I INTRODUCTION Conditions of Approval ..................5 I EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............7 EXTERIOR AREA NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL .....10 I Receiver Assumptions ....................11 Source Assumptions ....................11 I INTERIOR AREA NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL ......14 CONCLUSIONS .........................16 I APPENDICES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A I TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT COMPUTER PRINTOUTS . . . . . . . . . . . B I I I I I I I . . I LIST OF EXHIBITS I EXHIBIT PAGE I A RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ............3 B LOCATION MAP .....................6 I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 FUTURE ROADWAY AND SITE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR ANALYTICAL PROJECTION OF FUTURE ROADWAY NOISE IMPACTS 9 2 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ................13 3 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ................15 I . . I ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS FOR I MARINERS POINT TENTATIVE TRACT 91-12 I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An acoustical analysis has been completed to determine the exterior I and interior noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for Mariners Point Tentative Tract 91-12 located in the City of Carlsbad. The results of this analysis indicate that I future motor vehicle noise from College Boulevard is the principal source of community noise that will impact the tract, however, 1 noise levels on the project site will not exceed the exterior noise standard of 60 CNEL and the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL, if I the recommended mitigation measures as described in this study are implemented. The recommended noise mitigation measures consists of I a soundwall ranging from 6.0 to 7.0 feet high along the backyards of lots facing College Boulevard, and a "windows closed" condition for Lot 55. The "windows closed" condition for Lot 55 requires a I mechanical ventilation system with fresh air provisions in I accordance with the Uniform Building Code for the home on this lot. The noise control analysis in this report is intended to meet the ' Carlsbad's Administrative Policy No. 17 noise standards, and should be sufficient to obtain acoustical approval for building permits of I this project. I I I 1 . . SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Exterior Area - Noise Exposure Control The Administrative Policy No. 17 noise standard for residential development requires noise levels in exterior areas not to exceed 60 CNEL. Those areas in Tract 91-12 that are considered to be exterior areas are the backyards. The 60 CNEL exterior noise standard will be met with a soundwall ranging between 6.0 and 7.0 feet constructed along the backyards for Lots 48 through 56. The location of this soundwall is presented in Exhibit A. Noise Control Barrier Construction Materials The necessary noise barrier mitigation will be accomplished if the noise barrier construction materials have a weight of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot of face area. The recommended barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom, and no openings or decorative cutouts should be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled grout or caulking. The required noise control barriers may be constructed using one of the following alternative materials: 1. masonry block; 2. stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1 inch thick tongue and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot; 3. 1/4 inch thick glass, acrylic plastic, or other transparent materials with sufficient weight per square foot may be used to provide views; I I I I I I [I I I I Ii I U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I . . RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES = MECHANICAL VENTILATION 6 = NOISE BARRIER, 6 FT. HIGH TENTATIVE TRACT 91-12 ort Mariners Point, Carlsbad EXHIBIT A Kahn, John Kain Sc Associates, Inc. . . 4. earthen berm; 5. any combination of these materials or other construction materials with a minimum weight of 3.5 pounds per square foot of face area. Interior Area - Noise Exposure Control To reflect a "worse-case" situation, noise levels at the 2nd floor building facade have been computed. The calculations indicate that noise levels at the building facade of homes adjacent to College Boulevard will range between 52.9 and 57.6 CNEL. Typical California residential building constructions will provide a minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction with "windows open" and a minimum of 20 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." To obtain a interior noise level of 45 CNEL, Lot 55 requires a mechanical ventilation system with fresh air provisions to permit a "windows closed" condition. Unit Ventilation When the operable doors and windows are open for Lot 55, it is expected that the interior 45 CNEL intrusion limit for this unit may be exceeded. Therefore, a "windows closed" condition is applicable to this unit, and a means of mechanical ventilation is required to meet the interior noise standard. This mechanical ventilation system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room, including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct or six feet plus one sharp 900 bend. I Li 4 I I I I I I I 1 'Ii I I L I I I I Li I I . I INTRODUCTION 1 This report presents the results of a noise impact study for Tract 1 91-12 located within the City of Carlsbad, California. Included in this report is a discussion of expected exterior and interior I community noise environment. This report will address the mitigation requirements to meet the exterior and interior noise standards for new residential developments in the City of Carlsbad. The location of the proposed site is shown on the location map, I Exhibit B. The project is located in the City of Carlsbad on the west side of College Boulevard, north of Camino de las Ondas. In the following sections, noise exposures expected within the I planned site are reviewed and compared to the applicable noise standards. I Conditions of Approval I The acoustical conditions of approval for this site reference Administrative Policy No. 17. In accordance with Administrative I Policy No. 17, the interior noise standard for residential developments is not to exceed 45 CNEL, and the exterior noise standard is not to exceed 60 CNEL. I I 1 1 5 1 I I I i I I El I I P. U LI I I 1 . S p LOCATION MAP I I . 1 EXTERIOR NOISE ENVIRONMENTAL ANklYSIS Exhibit B shows the location of Tract 91-12 within the City of I Carlsbad. It is expected that the primary source of noise impact to the site will be traffic noise from College Boulevard. The San I Diego Freeway (1-5) is not expected to impact the site due to its distance to the site and mitigation by intervening development. I Camino de Las Ondas and other local collector streets are not expected to contribute significantly to the site's noise impacts due to their low traffic volumes and travel speed. Railroad lines do not exist and are not planned near the project site. It is expected that railroad noise will make no contribution to the 1 overall noise environment. The site is not impacted by aircraft noise from any established military or civilian aircraft pattern. I The Carlsbad Zone 20 Specific Plan Aircraft Noise Contour Map Year 1995 shows the site located well outside the 60 CNEL noise contour I of McLellan - Palomar Airport. It is expected that aircraft noise will make no contribution to the overall noise environment. The expected roadway noise impacts were projected using a version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), together with several key roadway site parameters. The key input parameters, which determine ' the projected impact of vehicular traffic noise, include the roadway classification, the roadway active width, the total vehicle I count per day (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks in the roadway volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view, the site conditions ("hard" I or "soft") and the percentage of total average daily traffic (ADT), which flows each hour throughout a 24 hour period. I Expected future roadway parameter information for the percentages I of automobile, medium trucks and heavy trucks along with the 24 1 7 I . . I hourly percentage of traffic flow breakdown were taken from a study I of 31 major intersections in Southern California. The roadway and site parameter values used to project future roadway noise impacts I are presented in Table 1. U I I I I I U I I I I I I 8 17 I L 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . TABLE 1 FUTURE ROADWAY AND SITE ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR ANALYTICAL PROJECTION OF FUTURE ROADWAY NOISE IMPACTS YEAR-2010 SPEED ROADWAY SITE HIGHWAY WIDTH ADT 1 (MPH) GRADE(%) CONDI- (FT) TION College Boulevard 102 23,500 45 >2% Soft/Hard2 HOURLY TRAFFIC FLOW DISTRIBUTION PERCENT TRAFFIC FLOW BY TIME PERIOD MOTOR-VEHICLE DAY EVENING NIGHT TOTAL % TYPE (7AM TO 7PM) (7PM TO 10PM) (10PM TO 7AM) TRAFFIC FLOW Automobiles 77.5 12.9 9.6 100.0 Medium Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 100.0 Heavy Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 100.0 TRAFFIC VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION (%) HIGHWAY AUTOMOBILES MEDIUM TRUCKS HEAVY TRUCKS College Boulevard 97.42 1.84 0.74 1 Source: Zone 20 Traffic Analysis, prepared by Willden Associates, June 13, 1991. 2 All second floor observer locations are computed with hard-site conditions. 11 I . . I EXTERIOR AREA NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL I The City's Administrative Policy No. 17 noise standards for I residential homes require noise levels in exterior areas not to exceed 60 CNEL. Tract 91-12 does not have balconies facing College I Boulevard and the only area considered as exterior areas are the backyards. Analysis and recommendations for control of vehicle noise impacts in outdoor areas are presented in this section. Using a computer analysis model based upon the FHWA traffic noise I prediction model and the parameters outlined in Table 1, calculations of the potential worse case vehicle noise impacts were 1 completed. The computer printouts for the specific site locations are included in Appendix "B". Determination of the potential worse-case future vehicle noise I impacts upon the project were computed using the roadway noise assumptions in Table 1, and data from the tentative tract map for the project, prepared by Crosby Mead Benton & Associates, dated 1 November 15, 1991. The site exposure analysis indicates future expected unmitigated exterior noise exposure over 60 CNEL for all I lots adjacent to College Boulevard. I An acoustical analysis has been performed to determine the acoustical shielding from vehicle noise necessary to meet the I City's 60 CNEL exterior noise standard in the backyard areas. The barrier analysis was completed using a version of the FHWA-RD-77- 108 Noise Model. Key input data for these barrier performance I equations include the relative source-barrier-receiver horizontal separations, the relative source-barrier-receiver vertical I separations, the typical noise source spectra and the barrier transmission loss. Following are the general assumption used in determination the source and receiver geometry: 1 10 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I . . Receiver Assumptions Horizontal Geometry: Location outdoor receiver: 5 feet behind noise control barrier. Location interior receiver: building facade Vertical Geometry: Height above pad for ground level receivers: • Exterior noise: 6 feet • Interior noise: 16 feet Source Assumptions Horizontal Geometry: Grades of College Boulevard are no greater than 2%, and all vehicles are located at the single lane equivalent acoustic center of the full roadway. Vertical Geometry: Height above road grade: • Autos = 0.0 feet • Medium Trucks = 2.3 feet • Heavy Trucks = 8.0 feet These assumptions, together with elevations and distances shown on the project's tentative map, were used to determine the horizontal and vertical geometry used in the barrier analysis. For the purpose of this study, the FHWA traffic noise spectra assumptions were used in the barrier analysis. 11 I . . I The exterior noise environment is dominated by traffic noise from I College Boulevard. Table 2 includes the exterior noise impacts from College Boulevard to the site, with and without soundwalls. I Table 2 shows that a soundwall height up to 7.0 feet is required to meet the City's 60 CNEL exterior noise standard. Table 2 also I shows the resulting exterior noise levels with the planned 6.0 foot high sound wall along the backyards of units facing College I Boulevard. For some lots the exterior noise levels mitigated by the planned 6.0 foot high soundwall exceed the City's 60.0 CNEL standard up to 1.5 dBA, which can be considered insignificant in I terms of community noise assessment criteria. I Detailed recommendations for construction and placement of the noise-control barrier are presented in the Summary of I Recommendations. Once the recommended barriers are constructed, it is expected that the outdoor noise-exposure levels will not exceed 60 CNEL in the backyard areas on the site. I I I I I I I I 12 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I . . TABLE 2 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS LOT NO. UNMITIGATED NOISE LEVEL (CNEL) MITIGATED NOISE REQUIRED BARRIER' HEIGHT CNEL LEVEL (CNEL) PLANNED BARRIER HEIGHT CNEL 48 66.5 6.5 59.1 6.0 60.2 49 66.2 6.0 59.9 6.0 59.0 50 65.7 6.5 59.1 6.0 60.1 51 67.4 7.0 59.5 6.0 61.5 52 66.9 6.5 59.4 6.0 60.9 53 67.6 7.0 59.3 6.0 61.4 54 66.7 6.5 59.3 6.0 60.3 55 66.7 6.5 59.4 6.0 60.4 56 65.7 6.0 59.2 6.0 59.2 1 Required to meet the 60 CNEL exterior standard. 13 I . . I INTERIOR AREA NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND CONTROL I The interior noise exposure is the difference between the projected I exterior CNEL exposure at the building facade and the noise reduction of the building. Typical building construction will I provide a minimum 12 dBA noise reduction with "windows open" and a minimum 20 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed". I Based upon this study, it is anticipated that all units will meet the 45 CNEL interior standard with windows open, except Lot 55 1 which requires a "windows closed" condition. A summary of the anticipated interior noise levels for all dwelling units is I presented in Table 3. A mechanical ventilation system is required for the home on Lot 55, with a "windows closed" condition. I I I I I 1 U I I I 14 I INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL WINDOWS OPEN' (CNEL) INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL WINDOWS CLOSED' (CNEL) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 3 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS 48 55.9 43.9 35.9 49 53.1 41.1 33.1 50 53.5 41.5 33.5 51 52.9 40.9 32.9 52 54.2 42.2 34.2 53 53.5 41.5 33.5 54 53.5 41.5 33.5 55 57.6 45.6 37.6 56 56.9 44.9 36.9 1 Based upon a 12 dBA exterior/interior noise reduction. 2 Based upon a 20 dBA exterior/interior noise reduction. 15 S NOISE LEVEL AT FACADE LOT (CNEL) 1 . . I CONCLUSIONS I An acoustical analysis has been completed for the proposed Tract I 91-12. The analysis indicates that the future noise environment is expected to be dominated by traffic noise exposure from College I Boulevard. The noise control findings show that the exterior noise exposure will not be excessive and that an up to 7.0 foot soundwall will mitigate exterior noise levels below the City's 60 CNEL I exterior noise standard. I Compliance with the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard is met for all units with a windows open condition except Lot 55, which I requires a "windows closed" condition and special mechanical ventilation for the home on Lot 55. The analysis presented in this report complies with the applicable City of Carlsbad requirements for control of community noise I impacts. I I U U [1 I L H I 16 I 1 P Li I 1 I I APPENDIX A ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. 17 I I I I I I I I S . I I . . I POUCY NO: 17 EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1990 PAGE 1 OF 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE CE IV E U ADMINISTRATIVE POUCY JAN 101992 A K J K According to the Noise Control Act of 1973 Health & Safety Code 46000 et.seq., the Planning and Zoning Law Government Code 65302(f) and CEQA Public Resources Code 2100 et.seq., and until the City of Carlsbad's Noise Element is updated and amended a "Noise' Study shall be submitted with all discretionary applications for residential projects of five or more dwelling units within: 1. 2,000 feet from the right-of-way of Interstate 5 2. 1,000 feet from the right-of-way of Highway 78 3. 500 feet from the railroad right-of-way 4. 500 feet from the right-of-way of an existing or future Circulation Element Roadway as identified on the Carlsbad General Plan 5. Within the McClellan Palomar Airport influence area as depicted on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan Palomar Airport. This study shall be prepared by an acoustical professional and document the projected noise level at buildout of Carlsbad's General Plan and mitigate the projected buildout noise level to a maximum of 60 dBA CNEL at: 1. Five feet inside the proposed project's property line at six feet above finished grade level, and 2. Above the first floor/story if usable exterior space is provided. Interior noise levels shall be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when openings to the exterior of the residence are closed. If openings are provided, mechanical ventilation shall be provided. If the acoustical study shows that exterior noise levels cannot be mitigated to 60 dBA CNEL or less, the development should not be approved without the following findings: 1. It shall be the responsibility of the developer of the project to prove to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission or Design Review Board why it is not feasible to comply with the 60 dBA CNEL standard. 2. No interior CNEL shall exceed 45 dBA when openings to the exterior are closed. U U I I I [I 1 I I, I Iii I' I Li ri I U . . 3. The Planning Commission or Design Review Board must find that there are specifically identified overriding social and economic considerations which warrant approval of the development even though it does not meet the noise standard. 4. All purchasers of the impacted property shall be notified in writing prior to purchase, and by deed disclosure in writing, that the property they are purchasing is noise impacted and does not meet Carlsbad noise standards for residential property. 5. If the acoustical study shows that the exterior mitigated noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL, the development should not be approved. In addition, the following appropriate mitigations and/or conditions of approval shalt be incorporated into projects: For residential projects near existina or future transQortation corridors - Prior to recordation of the first final tract/parcel map or issuance of building permits, whichever is first, the owner shall prepare and record a notice that this property may be subject to impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise, Form #1 attached). 2. For residential projects within 3 miles of McClellan-Palomar Airport as shown on the August 1988 County of San Diego Noise Control Plan for Palomar Airport - Prior to the recordation of the first final tract/parcel map or the issuance of residential building permits, whichever is first, the owner of record of the property within the boundaries of this tentative tract/parcel map shall prepare and record a notice (see Noise, Form #2 attached) that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from Palomar Airport in a manner meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney. The applicant shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sates and/or rental offices associated with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the Planning Director. (See Noise, Form # 3 attached.) 3. For potential noise generating projects - Prior to approval of any permits, an acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans shall be submitted describing the noise generation potential of the proposed project and proposed attenuation measures to assure that an environment which is free from excessive or harmful noise is achieved and maintained. The report shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The approved attenuation features shall be incorporated into the plans and specifications of the proposed project. APPROVED BY: Fill A - 0 "I'V J.MICHAEL Planning Director arb I LI I I I 1 I I 1 I I PJ I LI I I I I I I . . I I I I 1 I I APPENDIX B TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT COMPUTER PRINTOUTS I 1 I I [ 1 [1 I Li I I . I I I I I 1 I I I Li 1 I I I I I Li I Backyard I I t S I I I HARD/SOFT SITE CONDITIONS EVALUATION ********************************************************************* PROJECT: MARINERS POIT, CARLSBAD ROADWAY: COLLEGE BLVD JN: 34-91-004 I LOCATION: EXTERIOR BY: C.H.Overweg I LOT DISTANCE OBS WALL TO CTL SLOPE ELEVATION FLOOR ROAD OBSV CONDITIONS HT A MT HT 48 95 90 51 308.5 288 6 Soft Soft Hard I 49 91 86 51 306.5 289 6 Soft Soft Soft 50 111 106 51 304.5 290 6 Soft Soft Hard 51 83 78 51 303.5 291 6 Soft Soft Hard 52 83 78 51 304.5 291.5 6 Soft Soft Soft I 53 80 75 51 305.5 291 6 Soft Soft Hard 54 85 80 51 306.5 290 6 Soft Soft Soft 55 92 87 51 307.5 289 6 Soft Soft Hard I 56 97 92 51 308.5 287 6 Soft Soft Soft r I 1 I I I 1 rl I I 1 I . . FHWA - RD-77--108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 48 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 95 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 97.25 DT WALL= 90 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 96.60 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 95.23 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 308.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 288.000 ROAD EL = 288 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 290.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 296.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.58 62.69 60.92 54.85 64.09 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 58.38 56.87 50.51 48.96 57.66 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.95 60.53 51.49 52.74 61.22 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.10 65.41 61.73 57.58 66.50 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 59.68 57.98 54.31 50.16 59.08 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.10 67.10 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.69 59.69 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.50 66.50 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.08 59.08 I I I I F~ F] I I I L I . . FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 48 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 95 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 97.08 DT WALL= 90 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 96.44 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 95.10 HTH WALL-- 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 308.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 288.000 ROAD EL = 288 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 290.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 296.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING P1< HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.59 62.70 60.93 54.87 64.10 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 58.39 56.88 50.52 48.97 57.67 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.96 60.54 51.50 52.75 61.23 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.11 65.41 61.74 57.59 66.51 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.75 59.06 55.38 51.23 60.16 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.11 67.11 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.76 60.76 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.51 66.51 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.16 60.16 I I I I Fill I r I I I 1 I I I I I I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 49 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 • PKHR%= 10 I CTL DIST= 91 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 92.32 DT WALL= 86 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 91.73 I DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 90.51 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 0 I AMBIENT= ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 I SITE CONDITIONS DF ANGLE=180 (1O=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 I HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 306.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 289.000 ROAD EL = 289 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 291.297 I GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 297.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.92 63.02 61.26 55.19 64.43 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 58.71 57.21 50.84 49.30 57.99 l HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 59.65 58.23 49.19 50.44 58.92 VEHICULAR NOISE 66.79 65.05 61.88 57.21 66.21 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PKHR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.48 58.74 55.57 50.91 59.91 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.79 66.79 I MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.49 66.21 60.49 66.21 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.91 59.91 I I S . FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 50 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 111 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 111.58 DT WALL= 106 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 111.15 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 110.29 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I I I 1 I I I I I El I I 5 El I I I SITE CONDITIONS AUTOMOBILES = MEDIUM TRUCKS = HEAVY TRUCKS = BARRIER = 0 PAD EL = 304.5 ROAD EL = 290 GRADE = 2 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) 15 15 10 (0=WALL, 1=BERM) GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) EL AUTOMOBILES = 290.000 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 292.297 EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 298.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 63.69 61.79 60.02 53.96 63.19 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.46 55.96 49.59 48.05 56.74 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.31 59.89 50.86 52.10 60.59 VEHICULAR NOISE 66.28 64.59 60.86 56.77 65.68 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 59.74 58.05 54.31 50.22 59.14 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.28 66.28 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.74 ******* 59.74 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.68 65.68 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.14 59.14 I I . . FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL --------- ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 50 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 I PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 111 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 111.45 DT WALL= 106 ' MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 111.03 I DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 110.21 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 I ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 I SITE CONDITIONS DF ANGLE=180 (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) I BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 304.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 290.000 I ROAD EL = 290 GRADE = 2 % EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 292.297 298.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 63.69 61.80 60.03 53.97 63.20 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.47 55.96 49.60 48.06 56.75 I HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.32 59.89 50.86 52.11 60.59 VEHICULAR NOISE 66.29 64.60 60.86 56.77 65.69 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.67 58.98 55.24 51.15 60.07 1 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.29 66.29 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.67 60.67 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.69 65.69 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.07 60.07 I F . . FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 51 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 83 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 83.46 DT WALL= 78 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 82.92 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 81.86 HTH WALL= 7.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = U (0=WALL,1=BERN) PAD EL = 303.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 291.000 ROAD EL = 291 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 293.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 299.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.58 63.68 61.91 55.85 65.08 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.37 57.86 51.50 49.96 58.65 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 62.61 61.19 52.15 53.40 61.88 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.99 66.29 62.69 58.47 67.40 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.10 58.40 54.80 50.58 59.51 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.99 67.99 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.11 60.11 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 67.40 67.40 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.51 59.51 I U I I 1 I I I I 1-1 El I 'Ii I I I I I . I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 51 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 83 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 83.12 DT WALL= 78 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 82.61 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 81.62 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BEPM) PAD EL = 303.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 291.000 ROAD EL = 291 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 293.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 299.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.61 63.71 61.94 55.88 65.11 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.40 57.89 51.53 49.98 58.68 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 62.62 61.20 52.16 53.41 61.89 VEHICULAR NOISE 68.02 66.32 62.72 58.49 67.43 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 62.11 60.41 56.82 52.59 61.52 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 68.02 68.02 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 62.12 62.12 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 67.43 67.43 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 61.52 61.52 I n I El I Li I El El I LI I 1-1 El I I I I 9 . FHWA - RD-77--108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 52 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 83 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 83.38 DT WALL= 78 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 82.84 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 81.79 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 304.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 291.500 ROAD EL = 291.5 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 293.797 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 299.506 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.58 63.69 61.92 55.86 65.09 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.38 57.87 51.51 49.96 58.66 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.31 58.89 49.85 51.10 59.58 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.45 65.71 62.54 57.88 66.88 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.41 58.67 55.50 50.84 59.84 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.45 67.45 NIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.42 60.42 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.88 66.88 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.84 59.84 I Fl I I I 11 F F I I El I rl I El I El I I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 52 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 83 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 83.24 DT WALL= 78 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 82.71 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 81.69 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BEPN) PAD EL = 304.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 291.500 ROAD EL = 291.5 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 293.797 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 299.506 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.60 63.70 61.93 55.87 65.10 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.39 57.88 51.52 49.97 58.67 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.32 58.90 49.86 51.11 59.59 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.46 65.72 62.55 57.89 66.89 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 61.42 59.68 56.51 51.85 60.85 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.46 67.46 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 61.43 61.43 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.89 66.89 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.85 60.85 [ I I I I 11 I I 1 I I I I I [1 I I LI I . I I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL -------- ------- --------- --------- ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:]. ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 53 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 I CTL DIST= 80 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 81.02 DT WALL= 75 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 80.40 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 79.15 HTH WALL= 7.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 I ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 I SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD DF ANGLE=180 SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 I HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 305.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 291.000 ' ROAD EL = 291 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 293.297 GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 299.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.77 63.87 62.11 56.04 65.28 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.57 58.06 51.70 50.16 58.85 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 62.75 61.33 52.30 53.55 62.03 VEHICULAR NOISE 68.18 66.47 62.88 58.65 67.58 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 59.92 58.21 54.62 50.39 59.32 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 68.18 68.18 I MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.93 67.58 59.93 67.58 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.32 59.32 I I . . I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL --------------------------------------------------------------------- ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:]. ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 53 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR% 10 I CTL DIST= 80 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 80.64 DT WALL= 75 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 80.05 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 78.87 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** CBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 I ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 I SITE CONDITIONS DF ANGLE=180 (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 I HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERN) PAD EL = 305.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 291.000 ROAD EL = 291 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS 293.297 I GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 299.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.80 63.91 62.14 56.07 65.31 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.60 58.09 51.73 50.19 58.88 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 62.77 61.35 52.31 53.56 62.04 VEHICULAR NOISE 68.20 66.50 62.91 58.67 67.61 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 62.01 60.31 56.72 52.48 61.42 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 68.20 68.20 • I MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 62.02 67.61 62.02 67.61 - MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 61.42 61.42 I I . . FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 54 BY: C.Overweg 1 ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 I CTL DIST= 85 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 86.13 DT WALL= 80 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 85.52 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 84.28 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 0 I AMBIENT= ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 I DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 I HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERN) PAD EL = 306.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 290.000 ROAD EL = 290 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 292.297 I GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 298.006 ' VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.37 63.48 61.71 55.64 64.88 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.17 57.66 51.30 49.76 58.45 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.11 58.69 49.66 50.90 59.39 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.24 65.50 62.33 57.67 66.67 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.86 59.12 55.95 51.29 60.29 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.24 67.24 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.87 60.87 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.67 66.67 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.29 60.29 I I . I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL --------------------------------------------------------------------- ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 54 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 I CTL DIST= 85 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 86.30 I DT WALL= 80 DT W/OB= 5 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 85.68 84.40 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 I AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 I SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 I HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 306.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 290.000 ROAD EL = 290 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 292.297 I GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 298.006 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.36 63.46 61.70 55.63 64.87 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.16 57.65 51.29 49.74 58.44 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.10 58.68 49.65 50.90 59.38 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.23 65.49 62.32 57.66 66.66 I NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 59.88 58.14 54.97 50.31 59.31 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.23 67.23 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.89 59.89 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.66 66.66 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.31 59.31 1 . . FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 55 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 92 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 93.57 DT WALL= 87 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 92.97 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 91.70 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** CBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 307.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 289.000 ROAD EL = 289 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 291.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 297.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.83 62.94 61.17 55.11 64.34 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 58.63 57.12 50.76 49.21 57.91 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 62.11 60.69 51.66 52.91 61.39 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.32 65.63 61.97 57.80 66.73 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 61.01 59.31 55.66 51.49 60.41 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.32 67.32 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 61.02 61.02 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.73 66.73 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.41 60.41 I U I I I I I 1 I I I I I I [j I I I I . I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1 ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 55 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 92 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 93.74 DT WALL= 87 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 93.12 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 91.82 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 307.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 289.000 ROAD EL = 289 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 291.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 297.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.82 62.92 61.16 55.09 64.33 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 58.62 57.11 50.75 49.20 57.90 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 62.11 60.69 51.65 52.90 61.38 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.31 65.62 61.96 57.79 66.72 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 60.02 58.33 54.67 50.50 59.43 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.31 67.31 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 60.03 60.03 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.72 66.72 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.43 59.43 I I I I I I Li 1 I I LI I 1 Li I I I U H . I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION:1ST FLOOR EXTERIOR, LOT 56 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 97 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 99.32 DT WALL= 92 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 98.68 DT W/OB= 5 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 97.30 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 15 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 15 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 15 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 308.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 287.000 ROAD EL = 287 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 289.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 295.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.45 62.55 60.78 54.72 63.95 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 58.24 56.73 50.37 48.82 57.52 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 59.18 57.76 48.72 49.97 58.45 VEHICULAR NOISE 66.31 64.57 61.40 56.74 65.74 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 59.78 58.04 54.87 50.21 59.21 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.31 66.31 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.79 59.79 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.74 65.74 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 59.21 59.21 I I I I I I I I I I I Li I I L I I I I I . I H I LI I I 1 I I Building Facade H n I I I H I I H 11 I . I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL --------- ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 48 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 -(EXISTING-PLUS -PROJECT) PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 I CTL DIST= 119 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 124.63 DT WALL= 90 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 123.77 I DT W/OB= 29 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 121.83 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 I ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 I SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD DF ANGLE=180 SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 I HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERN) PAD EL = 318.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 288.000 ROAD EL = 288 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 290.297 I GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 296.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 66.18 64.29 62.52 56.46 65.69 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.96 58.46 52.10 50.55 59.24 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.88 59.46 50.42 51.67 60.15 VEHICULAR NOISE 68.04 66.30 63.14 58.47 67.47 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 56.46 54.72 51.55 46.88 55.88 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 68.04 68.04 I MIT PK HR LEQ WITH CNEL WITHOUT TOPO TOPO AND BARRIER = AND BARRIER = 56.47 67.47 56.47 67.47 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 55.88 ******* 55.88 I . . FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 49 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR% 10 I CTL DIST= 167 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 171.52 I DT WALL= 86 DT W/OB= 81 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 170.70 168.87 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 I AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE180 I SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 I HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 316.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 289.000 ROAD EL = 289 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 291.297 I GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 297.006 2 I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.80 62.90 61.13 55.07 64.30 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 58.57 57.06 50.70 49.15 57.85 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 59.46 58.04 49.01 50.25 58.74 VEHICULAR NOISE 66.65 64.91 61.75 57.07 66.07 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 53.66 51.92 48.76 44.09 53.09 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.65 66.65 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 53.68 53.68 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.07 66.07 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 53.09 53.09 I I . I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 50 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 198 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 200.96 DT WALL= 106 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 200.33 DT W/OB= 92 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 198.96 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 314.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 290.000 ROAD EL = 290 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 292.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 298.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.11 62.21 60.44 54.38 63.61 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 57.87 56.37 50.00 48.46 57.15 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 58.75 57.33 48.29 49.54 58.02 VEHICULAR NOISE 65.95 64.21 61.06 56.38 65.38 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 54.09 52.35 49.20 44.52 53.52 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 65.95 65.95 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 54.11 54.11 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 65.38 65.38 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 53.52 53.52 I I El I I [ I I I I S . FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 51 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 174 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 177.43 DT WALL= 78 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 176.63 DT W/OB= 96 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 174.88 HTH WALL= 7.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I I I LI LI I I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 313.5 ROAD EL = 291 GRADE = 2% GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) EL AUTOMOBILES = 291.000 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 293.297 EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 299.006 I I I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 64.65 62.75 60.99 54.92 64.15 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 58.42 56.91 50.55 49.01 57.70 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 59.31 57.89 48.85 50.10 58.58 VEHICULAR NOISE 66.50 64.76 61.60 56.92 65.93 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 53.49 51.75 48.59 43.91 52.92 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 66.50 66.50 I MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 53.51 65.93 53.51 65.93 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 52.92 52.92 I . I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 52 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 147 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 150.43 DT WALL= 78 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 149.62 DT W/OB= 69 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 147.88 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 314.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 291.500 ROAD EL = 291.5 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 293.797 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 299.506 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.37 63.47 61.70 55.64 64.87 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.14 57.63 51.27 49.73 58.42 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.04 58.62 49.58 50.83 59.31 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.22 65.48 62.32 57.64 66.65 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 54.79 53.04 49.88 45.21 54.21 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.22 67.22 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 54.80 ******* 54.80 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.65 66.65 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 54.21 54.21 I I I I I I Fl I I I I I . I FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL --------------------------------------------------------------------- ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 53 BY: C.Overweg I ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 I CTL DIST= 145 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 149.34 I DT WALL= 75 DT W/OB= 70 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 148.45 146.51 HTH WALL= 7.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 I AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 I SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 I HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 315.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 291.000 ROAD EL = 291 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 293.297 I GRADE = 2 % EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 299.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.40 63.50 61.73 55.67 64.90 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.18 57.67 51.31 49.76 58.45 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 60.08 58.66 49.62 50.87 59.35 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.25 65.51 62.35 57.68 66.68 I NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 54.09 52.35 49.19 44.52 53.52 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.25 67.25 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 54.11 54.11 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.68 66.68 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 53.52 53.52 I I RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) 10 10 10 (0=WALL, 1=BERM) I I SITE CONDITIONS AUTOMOBILES = MEDIUM TRUCKS = HEAVY TRUCKS = BARRIER = 0 PAD EL = 316.5 ROAD EL = 290 GRADE = 2 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) EL AUTOMOBILES = 290.000 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 292.297 EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 298.006 I S S FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 54 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 150 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 154.65 DT WALL= 80 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 153.78 DT W/OB= 70 IIVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 151.86 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 I I I I L I VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 65.25 63.35 61.58 55.52 64.75 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 59.02 57.51 51.15 49.61 58.30 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 59.92 58.50 49.47 50.72 59.20 VEHICULAR NOISE 67.10 65.36 62.20 57.53 66.53 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 54.10 52.36 49.20 44.53 53.53 W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 67.10 67.10 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 54.12 54.12 CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 66.53 66.53 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 53.53 53.53 El I U I I I I LI Pi I • . FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 55 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 105 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 110.04 DT WALL= 87 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 109.19 DT W/OB= 18 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 107.30 HTH WALL= 6.5 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM) PAD EL = 317.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 289.000 ROAD EL = 289 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 291.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 297.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 I HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 I NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 66.73 64.83 63.06 57.00 66.23 I MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 60.51 59.00 52.64 51.10 59.79 HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.43 60.01 50.97 52.22 60.71 VEHICULAR NOISE 68.59 66.85 63.68 59.01 68.01 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 58.16 56.42 53.25 48.58 57.58 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 68.59 68.59 MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER 58.17 58.17 I CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 68.01 68.01 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 57.58 57.58 I I I I I I I LI I L FHWA - RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL ROADWAY: COLLEGE BOULEVARD DATE: 23-Jan-92 LOCATION: 2nd FLOOR, BUILDING FACADE, LOT 56 BY: C.Overweg ADT = 23,500 PK HR VOL = 2,350 SPEED = 45 PKHR%= 10 CTL DIST= 115 DIST N/F= 36 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE = 120.70 DT WALL= 92 MED TRUCK SLE DIST= 119.85 DT W/OB= 23 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST= 117.92 HTH WALL= 6.0 ******** OBS HTH= 6 AMBIENT= 0 ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE=-90 RT ANGLE= 90 DF ANGLE=180 SITE CONDITIONS (10=HARD SITE, 15=SOFT SITE) AUTOMOBILES = 10 MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT= 0.00 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 (ADJUSTMENT TO HEAVY TRUCKS) BARRIER = 0 (0=WALL,1=BERN) PAD EL = 318.5 EL AUTOMOBILES = 287.000 ROAD EL = 287 EL MEDIUM TRUCKS= 289.297 GRADE = 2% EL HEAVY TRUCKS = 295.006 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT DAILY I AUTOMOBILES 0.775 0.129 0.096 0.9742 MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.848 0.049 0.103 0.0184 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.865 0.027 0.108 0.0074 NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL AUTOMOBILES LEQ 66.32 64.43 62.66 56.59 65.83 MEDIUM TRUCKS LEQ 60.10 58.60 52.24 50.69 59.38 I HEAVY TRUCKS LEQ 61.02 59.60 50.57 51.81 60.30 VEHICULAR NOISE 68.18 66.44 63.27 58.61 67.61 NOISE IMPACTS WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING I PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ CNEL VEHICULAR NOISE 57.47 55.73 52.57 47.90 56.90 I W/O AMBIENT W/ AMBIENT PK HR LEQ WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER = 68.18 68.18 ' MIT PK HR LEQ WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = CNEL WITHOUT TOPO AND BARRIER = 57.48 67.61 57.48 67.61 MIT CNEL WITH TOPO AND BARRIER = 56.90 56.90 I 11 I I El I I I I U .,' I .c_ 4 s- ;;:- 47 HOC gr -43 Of" Mil ;- - -- ;. e - - - :•' ' ) - - -- :- -I- . •;& 34T -- ----• -ø - - -' - - ;ç j - - - -s-- -- - - - • 4IW:' - 1 :! : - -- :L-- ;4- ii;i I -: N AI4D A sSO'CZATES Gec technical and Environmental Engineering Consultants :- LEIGHTOM AND ASSOCIATES Geotedrnkal and Environmental Engineering Consultants PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION, 68-ACRE PARCEL, CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS, CARLSBAD AREA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA August 23, 1988 Project No. 8871045-03 Prepared for: CUSTOM LIVING HOMES, INC. 5100 Campus Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Dick Putnam 5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE C, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 931-9953 FAX (619) 931-9326 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants August 23, 1988 Project No. 8871045-03 TO: Custom Living Homes, Inc. 5100 Campus Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 ATTENTION: Mr. Dick Putnam SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 68-Acre Parcel, Camino De Las Ondas, Carlsbad Area, County of San Diego, California In accordance with your request, we are providing this report of our geotechnical investigation for the 68-acre property located on Camino De Las Ondas in the Carlsbad area of California. This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geotechnical analysis, and our conclusions and recommendations relative to site development at the subject property. If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, C. Michael R. Stewart, CEG 1349 Chief Engineering Geologist Stan Helenschmidt, GE 2064 Chief Geotechnical Engineer/Manager LJP/JB/RLW/MRS /SRH/mw Distribution: (6) Addressee 5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE C, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 931-9953 FAX (619) 931-9326 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Investigation 1 1.2 Site Location and Description 3 1.3 Proposed Development 3 2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 5 3.1 Soil and Geologic Units 5 3.1.1 Torrey Sandstone (Map Symbol - Tt) 5 3.1.2 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) 5 3.1.3 Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) 5 3.1.4 Topsoil/Colluvium/Agricultural Fill (Not a mapped unit) 6 3.2 Geologic Structure 6 3.3 Faulting and Seismicity 6 3.4 Ground Water and Surface Water 6 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 4.1 Earthwork 7 4.1.1 Site Preparation 7 4.1.2 Fills 8 4.1.3 Oversize Materials 8 4.1.4 Removal and Recompaction 9 4.1.5 Grading of Expansive Soils 9 4.1.6 Transition Lots 9 4.1.7 Shrinkage and Bulking 9 4.1.8 Trench Excavations and Backfill 10 4.2 Slope Stability 10 4.2.1 Surficial Slope Stability 10 4.3 Control of Ground Water and Surface Water 11 4.4 Seismic Considerations 11 4.5 Residential Foundation and Slab Design 12 4.5.1 Footings 12 4.5.2 Floor Slabs 13 4.5.3 Foundation Design for Expansive Soil 14 4.5.4 Foundation Setback 14 4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures and Lateral Resistance 14 5.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND PLAN REVIEW 16 7k,0 It1 e j J~,, xm- -,. t&Ni. 401-i LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figu res Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Seismicity Index Map Figure 3 - Geotechnical Map Tables Table 1 - Seismic Parameters for Active Faults Table 2 - Foundation Design Considerations for Expansive Soils Underlying One- and Two-Story Residential Buildings ApPwflrrc Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring and Trench Logs Appendix C - Sampling Procedures and Laboratory Test Results Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix E - Maintenance Guidelines for Homeowners Page 2 Rear of Text Rear of Text Rear of Text Rear of Text LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Investigation The purpose of this investigation was to identify and evaluate the geotech- nical conditions present on the subject site and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for proposed development. Significant geotech- nical conditions that have been evaluated in this study include potential adverse geologic conditions, and depth and extent of alluvium and other potentially compressible soils. Recommendations presented herein are based on review of the 100-scale plans entitled "The Hillebrect Property" Map No. 9578, dated January 10, 1986, prepared by Rick Engineering Company. The subject investigation was conducted during the period of August 11, 1987 to August 28, 1987 and included the following scope of work: • Review of pertinent geotechnical literature and stereoscopic pairs of aerial photographs. • Field reconnaissance mapping of the onsite geologic conditions. • Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of four exploratory borings drilled with a large-diameter bucket drill rig, and fifteen exploratory trenches excavated with a rubber-tired backhoe. The logs of our borings and trenches are presented in Appendix B. • Laboratory testing of representative, relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples obtained from our subsurface exploration program (Appendix C). • Geotechnical analysis of data obtained. • Preparation of this report presenting the results of our field investiga- tion, geotechnical analyses, and conclusions and recommendations with regard to the subject property. I' BRA BASE MAP: Aerial-Foto Map Book, 1986-87, page 80 Original by Aerial Graphics. LNL'NJ CLH/ CARLSBAD $ !4$IOI$ [i • S CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure 1 SITE LOCATION MAP Project No. 8871045-03 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED scale feet 8871045-03 1.2 Site Location and Description The roughly rectangular-shaped property is located on Camino De Las Ondas, northwest of the intersection of proposed College Boulevard and proposed Poinsettia Lane in the Carlsbad area of the County of San Diego (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The 68-acre property is bounded by Camino De Las Ondas (formerly La Costa Boulevard) to the south and agriculturally developed land to the north, east, and west. Topographically, the site is characterized by a westerly-facing slope that descends gently to the property line. Elevations range from 165 feet (mean sea level) at the southwestern portion of the site to 323 feet at the southeastern property corner. The maximum relief on the site is ap- proximately 158 feet. The site has been tilled for agricultural purposes. An equipment storage area was observed in the southeastern portion of the site. Construction and trash debris were observed on the eastern side of the property and in the south-central area. 1.3 Proposed Development Specific grading plans for the site have not yet been developed. We understand that the property has been sold since our field work was per- formed and the plan utilized during our investigation may no longer be in effect. We anticipate that site grading will consist of conventional cut/fill grading techniques to construct relatively level building pads for a residential development. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. -3- j 88/1045-03 2.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our subsurface investigation at the site consisted of drilling four large- diameter borings and excavating fifteen exploratory trenches. The exploratory borings were drilled with a 30-inch diameter bucket auger drill rig to a maximum depth of 45 feet. The exploratory trenches were excavated by a tractor-mounted backhoe to a maximum depth of 7 feet. The borings and trenches were logged by a geologist from our firm who also obtained bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of the soils for laboratory testing. The approximate locations of the borings and trenches are presented on Figure 3 (Geotechnical Map). Logs of the borings and trenches are presented in Appendix B. Subsequent to logging and sampling, all excavations were backfilled. Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples to evaluate their pertinent engineering properties. Laboratory tests included moisture/density determinations, grain size distribution, and direct shear tests. The results of the moisture/density tests are presented on the boring logs (Appendix B). A discussion of the laboratory tests performed and a summary of the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. In-situ moisture and density test results are provided on the trench logs (Appendix B). -4- , ~ 7~'A Flimin F bl' "," FNi' LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, IN 8871045-03 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 3.1 Soil and Geologic Units As encountered in our investigation, the site is underlain by bedrock units consisting of the Torrey Sandstone and Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits and surficial units comprised of alluvium, topsoil/colluvium, and existing agricultural fill soils. The approximate areal distribution of these units is depicted on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 3). Descriptions of these units are presented below. 3.1.1 Torrey Sandstone (Map Symbol - Tt) The Eocene-aged Torrey Sandstone appears to underlie the entire site. As encountered in our investigation, this unit generally consists of gray, dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone. The sandstone is massive and commonly iron oxide stained. Localized pebble lenses and thin siltstone beds exist within the sandstone. This unit typically possesses good foundation bearing characteristics and a low expansion potential. 3.1.2 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) The Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits were encountered over a majority of the site. As encountered in our investigation, these deposits generally consist of orange-brown and gray, massive, dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sand with local, well-cemented, calcium carbonate-rich zones. 3.1.3 Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) Alluvial soils were encountered in the northwest-trending drainage in the southwestern portion of the site. These deposits generally consist of dark brown to orange-brown, clayey, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand. In our exploratory Trench T-9, these alluvial deposits extended to the total depth explored (6.5 feet). These deposits are considered potentially compressible in their present state and are not considered suitable for the support of structural loads. As observed in our trenches, portions of the alluvium appear to have a high potential for expansion. - 5 - hjl U tg LEiGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC A. A LEGEND 0 200. 400 feet Approximate Scale aI1 Alluvium 0 Approximate location of geologic contact, queried where uncertain (t 0000 LQt1 B-4 Terrace deposits Approximate location of exploratory boring, TD 20' with total depth (TD) - -----. - --------- Base Torrey Sandstone T-15 Approximate location of exploratory trench --- map taken from County of San Diego Topographic Survey, Sheets 346-1677 and 342-1677, 1960 edition 3871O45-O3 3.1.4 Topsoil/Colluvium/Agricultural Fill (Not a mapped unit) Relatively thin (0 to 3 feet) accumulations of topsoils, colluvium, and/or agricultural fill mantle the majority of the site. These soils consist primarily of light to medium brown, silty, fine- to medium-grained sands containing rootlets, cobbles, pebbles, caliche, and occasional bits of plastic. These materials are considered potentially compressible in their present state and are not con- sidered suitable for the support of structural loads. The expansion potential of these soils is generally considered low to medium. 3.2 Geologic Structure The Torrey Sandstone, as encountered in our investigation, is generally massive. No major folding or faulting of the onsite units is known or expected at the site. 3.3 Faulting and Seismicity Our review of available geologic literature indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, and evidence for active faulting on site was not encountered during our investigation. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking due to a large earthquake on a major active regional fault. Figure 2 (Seismicity Index Map) shows the location of the subject property in relationship to major known faults in the San Diego region. Table 1 indicates distances to the faults, maximum probable earthquakes, and expected horizontal bedrock accelerations at the site. The nearest active faults are the Elsinore fault, located approximately 24 miles northeast of the site, and the Coronado Banks fault, located offshore approximately 10 miles west of the site. A maximum probable event on the Coronado Banks fault could produce a peak horizontal bedrock acceleration of 0.25g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.16g at the site. The site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the coast and 1.5 miles from the Batiquitos Lagoon backwaters, with site elevations ranging from 165 to 323 feet (mean sea level). Therefore, the risk of damage from tsunami (seismic sea waves) or seiches is very low. The potential for liquefaction at the site is considered very low due to the relatively dense nature of the onsite soils and lack of a high ground water table. 3.4 Ground Water and Surface Water Ground water and surface water were not encountered at the time of our subsurface exploration. Seasonal fluctuations in rainfall and irrigation, variations in ground surface and subsurface topography, and subsurface conditions may affect subsurface and ground water levels. i "No - LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC 8871045-03 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site, it is our opinion that the property development is feasible from a geotech- nical standpoint, provided the following recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. It appears that significant geotechnical constraints on the site can be mitigated by proper planning, design, and sound construction practice. The following is a general summary of the geotechnical factors which may affect development of the site. • Potentially compressible alluvium, colluvium/topsoil, and existing fill soils mantle the site. These soils will require removal and recompaction prior to placement of structural improvements or compacted fill. Portions of the existing alluvium may possess a medium to high expansion potential. • Rilling may occur in the predominately granular materials of the Torrey Sandstone and Terrace Deposits as exposed in cut slopes. 4.1 Earthwork Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix 0 and the following recommendations. The recommendations contained in Appendix 0 are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects. Some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. In the event of conflict, the recommendations contained in the text of this report shall supersede the general recommendations in Appendix D. 4.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of surface and subsur- face obstructions, including any existing man-made fill, debris, buried utilities, and stripped of vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be disposed of off site or used in nonstructural landscape areas. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should be filled with properly compacted soil. / -7- LEiGHTON AND ASSOCIATES 8871045-03 4.1.2 Fills The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material and debris. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compac- tion (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-78). All fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method 01557-78). The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the size and type of construction equipment utilized. In general, fill should be placed in a lift thickness not exceeding 8 inches. The upper 3 feet of fill soils at the building pad grades should be predominantly granular, very low to low expansion potential (less than an expansion index of 50 based on UBC 29-2), and should be evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant. Rocks or concretions (well-cemented zones) with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches should not be placed within the top 3 feet of pad grade. Fills placed on natural slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched into firm formational soils. In general, placement of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix 0. 4.1.3 Oversize Materials Excavations in well-cemented materials will likely produce oversize rock materials. Such materials will require special handling and utilization of sound field construction practice. Rocks less than approximately 3 feet in maximum dimension may be utilized in struc- tural fills if placed in accordance with the recommendations in the oversize rock disposal detail in Appendix D. This figure describes placement of rock in trenches with sand flooding (SE greater than 30) to fill the voids between rocks. No rocks with a dimension greater than 6 inches should be placed in the upper 3 feet of pad grade. Rocks greater than approximately 3 feet in maximum dimension may be brought together and blasted and/or dozer track-walked to reduce their dimensions. These may then be placed in windrows in structural fills as described above. Rocks less than 3 feet in maximum dimen- sion may be placed in fill slopes (windrowed) if placed outside of a projected 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) line from the top of slope and not placed within 15 feet (measured horizontally) of the slope face. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, IN 8871045-03 4.1.4 Removal and Recompaction The existing agricultural fill, alluvium, and colluvium/topsoil on site are potentially compressible in their present state and may settle appreciably under the surcharge of fills or foundation loadings. In areas that will receive fill or other surface improve- ments, these soils should be removed down to formational materials, moisture-conditioned, and recompacted prior to placing any additional fill, provided they are free of organic and construction debris. In general, we estimate that the average alluvial removal in the southwestern portion of the site is on the order of at least 7 feet; however, actual depths and limits of removals may vary. Colluvium, topsoils, and agricultural fill soils across the site are generally on the order of 3 feet in depth. These depths are average estimates and may vary during grading. 4.1.5 Grading of Expansive Soils Expansive soils (typically clayey alluvium) were noted during our investigation. To reduce potential distress to the proposed improve- ments, we recommend that any expansive soils encountered during grading operations be placed in fill areas below a minimum depth of 3 feet measured from the finished grade, and not within 15 feet of the face of fill slopes. Expansive soils exposed at finished pad elevations, as evaluated during grading, should likewise be removed to a depth of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill of very low to low expansion potential unless special foundation design recommenda- tions for expansive soil lots are implemented. 4.1.6 Transition Lots It is recommended that all cut pads exposing unsuitable materials (such as agricultural fill or colluvium/topsoil) and the cut portions of transition lots be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet to provide a uniformly compacted fill layer at least 3 feet thick across the entire building pad. This overexcavation should be accomplished over the entire pad to reduce the potential for differential settle- ment under future additions to structures. 4.1.7 Shrinkage and Bulking The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction is expected to vary with materials and location. The in-place and maximum density of soil and bedrock materials vary, and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. 8871045-03 However, based on our experience with similar materials, the follow- ing shrinkage values are provided as guidelines: • Colluvium/Topsoil or Alluvium: 4 to 8 percent shrinkage • Torrey Sandstone: 2 to 5 percent bulking 4.1.8 Trench Excavations and Backfill Excavations of trenches in the Torrey Sandstone and Terrace Deposits are not anticipated to be difficult for conventional backhoes. The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of organic matter and cobbles over 4 inches in diameter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method 01557-78). Temporary excavations with vertical side slopes within the onsite bedrock soils are expected to be generally stable to a maximum height of 5 feet, provided they are free of adverse geologic conditions. Excavations deeper than 5 feet in bedrock soils should be shored or sloped back to 1:1 or flatter, if construction workers are to enter such excavations. Excavations in alluvium or colluvium/topsoil may need shoring even if these excavations are less than 5 feet in height. All excavations should be constructed in accordance with OSHA requirements. Slope Stability Plans regarding height of proposed fill and cut slopes were not available for our review. Based on our experience with similar units and the results of laboratory tests, cut and fill slopes constructed at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) will have a static factor of safety of greater than 1.5 with respect to potential deep-seated failure. However, it is possible that cut slope excavations may expose adverse conditions which may have a potential for future instability (such as out-of-slope bedding of claystone in the face of slopes). If adverse conditions are encountered, remedial measures including slope flattening or buttressing may be recom- mended. We recommend that cut slopes be geotechnically mapped to evaluate the exposed conditions during grading. 4.2.1 Surficial Slope Stability Erosion, rilling, and/or surficial failure potential of fill and cut slopes may be reduced if the following measures are implemented after construction of the slopes. it 4.2 10 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC 8871045-03 s Slope Landscaping and Drainage Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped with drought-tolerant, slope- stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible after grading to minimize erosion potential. Berms should be provided at the tops of fill slopes, and brow ditches should be provided at the tops of all cut slopes. Lot drainage should be directed such that surface runoff on the slope faces is minimized. . Selective Grading for Fill Slopes We recommend against the exclusive use of sands in the slope faces as these materials are prone to erosive ruling. A well-graded granular material should be utilized within 15 feet of all slope faces. 4.3 Control of Ground Water and Surface Water Our experience indicates that surface or shallow ground water conditions can develop in areas where no such ground water conditions existed prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. In addition, during slope excavation, seepage at the base of cut slopes may be encountered. We recommend that an engineering geologist be present during grading operations to evaluate possible future seepage areas and provide field recommendations for mitigation of existing seepage. Drainage devices for reduction of water accumulation are presented in our details for drainage of slopes in soil or rock included in Appendix D. We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish grade each building area, such that drainage water from the building areas is directed away from building foundations (4 percent minimum grade for a distance of 5 feet), floor slabs, and tops of slopes. Ponding of water should not be permitted, and installation of eave gutters which outlet into a drainage system is considered prudent. Planting areas at grade should be provided with positive drainage directed away from the building. Planters should have closed bottoms and should not be designed below grade unless provisions for drainage such as catch basins and pipe drains are made. Drainage and subdrain design is within the scope of the design civil engineer. Additional information regarding the role of the homeowner in site main- tenance is attached as Appendix E and should be provided to each homeowner in the development by the developer. 4.4 Seismic Considerations The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are surface rupturing of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically induced ground settlement. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal since no active faults are known to cross the site. - 11 - LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC 8871045-03 The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking follow- ing a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The Coronado Banks fault is the closest known active fault to the site. A maximum probable event on the Coronado Banks fault could produce a peak horizontal bedrock acceleration at the site of 0.25g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.16g. Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because of the dense nature of the underlying formation and depth to ground water table in the areas of proposed development, the potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced dynamic settlement is considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be minimized by adhering to the Uniform Building Code or state-of-art design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 4.5 Residential Foundation and Slab Design Residential foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with the following recommendations and the Foundation Design Considerations for Expansive Soils Underlying One- and Two-Story Residential Buildings presented in Table 2. We anticipate that slab subgrade conditions will most likely be of low expansion potential if selective grading is utilized. The following provides the minimum recommended design and reinforcement for foundations and slabs founded on soils of low expansion. We recommend that, as grading progresses, each area or building pad be evaluated on an in- dividual basis with regard to expansion potential. The foundation and slab should be designed for each proposed structure based on the results of that evaluation. These results should be provided in the as-graded report for the development. 4.5.1 Footings The proposed residential buildings founded on soils with very low to low expansion potential may be supported by conventional, continuous, or isolated spread footings at a minimum depth of 12 inches for one- story buildings and 18 inches for two-story buildings below lowest adjacent soil grade. Footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches (15 inches for two-story buildings) and be reinforced top and bottom with a No. 4 rebar. Interior bearing walls may be founded 12 inches below slab swbgrade and should be continuous. - 12 - LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC 8871045-03 At this depth, footings founded in bedrock or compacted fill soils may be designed by using an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one- third for loads of short duration including wind or seismic forces. A 12-inch-deep grade beam reinforced top and bottom with a No. 4 rebar should be placed across the garage door opening. Additional foundation guidelines, as well as a summary of the above recommenda- tions, are presented in Table 2. 4.5.2 Floor Slabs We recommend that floor slabs be underlain by at least 3 feet of soil with very low to low expansion potential. Residential floor slabs founded on soils with very low to low expansion potential should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with 6X6-10/10 welded wire mesh placed at midheight in the slab. Care should be taken by the contractor to insure that the wire mesh is placed at slab midheight. If wire mesh cannot be placed at midheight, we recommend an alternate reinforcement of No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center (each way). We also recommend that a 2-inch sand layer be placed below the slab to aid in concrete curing. This 2-inch layer should have a minimum sand equivalent (S.E.) of 30 and be underlain by a 6-mil Visqueen moisture barrier. The garage floor slab founded on soils with very low to low expansion potential should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be under- lain by a 2-inch layer of clean gravel or sand. Slabs should be reinforced with 6X6-10/10 welded wire mesh placed at midheight in the slab. Slabs should be isolated from stem wall footings. Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will generally reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking should be expected as the concrete cures. The potential for slab cracking may be lessened by the addition of fiber mesh in the concrete and careful control of water/cement ratios. The use of low slump concrete not exceeding 4 inches at the time of placement is recommended. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile or other crack-sensitive flooring (such as marble tile) is planned directly on the concrete slab. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. We recommend that the soils beneath the residence and garage floor slabs be presoaked to near-optimum moisture content within 1 foot of finish grade prior to concrete placement. - 13 - $:l &I 8871045-03 4.5.3 Foundation Design for Expansive Soil We anticipate that the majority of the site will be graded to expose soils of very low to low expansion potential at pad grade. However, if selective grading cannot be accomplished so that slabs are underlain by 3 feet of soils with very low to low expansion poten- tial, foundations should be designed by a qualified structural engineer in accordance with the recommendations of Table 2. The expansion index of the pad grade soils should be evaluated at completion of rough grading. 4.5.4 Foundation Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive struc- tures. This distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally, to the slope face (or to the face of retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 5 feet and need not be greater than 10 feet. We should note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and improve- ments (such as retaining walls, pools, sidewalks, fences, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. 4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures and Lateral Resistance For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level or sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with onsite soils. Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Conditions Level 2:1 Slope Active 40 50 At-Rest 55 90 Passive 300 150 (Sloping Down) Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for an active equivalent pressure value provided above. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (nonyielding), such as basement walls, the at-rest pressures should be used. The above values assume low expansive to non- expansive backfill and free-draining conditions. Should a sloping backfill other than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) be used or a wall be loaded by an adjacent surcharge load, the equivalent fluid pressure values provided above should be evaluated on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical en- gineer. All retaining wall structures should be provided with an appropriate drainage. Typical drainage design is contained in Appendix D. -14- _ LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC 8871045-03 Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considera- tions and the recommendations in Section 4.5.1. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method 01557-78. Soil resistance developed against lateral movement can be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. The passive value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total lateral resis- tance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistances provided that the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. - 15 - 1i 1(11, F, Ill 8871045-03 5.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND PLAN REVIEW The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced borings and trenches. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction. Construction inspection of foundations, subdrains, and field density testing of all compacted fill, including tests to evaluate the expansion index of site soils and R-value testing for pavement design and suitability of slab presoaking, should also be performed by a representative of this office so that construction is in accord- ance with the recommendations of this report. We recommend that cut slopes be geologically mapped by the geotechnical consultant during grading for the presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions. Final project drawings should be reviewed by Leighton and Associates before grading so that the recom- mendations provided in this report are incorporated in the project plans. - 16 - , h-14A LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC am '-I CL3 r.• \.l ,\/ it,, ' 10 42 ROSE CANYON _~~ULT ZONE SITE ft CORONADO BANKS I \ I * P\\N I FAULT ZONE S A a4_.D i c iJ( :ç • S.. 77 %' \ \~ DIEGO.RWA 1A NACION — — — — \\ I FAULT ZONE es.. —— — K I.0$TCR1 U I IC $1 L.ES MAJOR EARTHQUAKES AND RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION EXPLANATION ACTIVE FAULTS EARTHUAXE LOCATIONS Approximate epcentrot area at earthquakes that occurred 1769-1933. Magnitudes not recded a that has hod seismic oCtiv it1. from damage reports assigned on Intensity VU Total length at foufl zone that eaks Holocene deposits $ T+ occurred by instruments prior to I96 were estimated (Mdified Mercoli scoIe)oIthoi4y equivalent to Richter M 6O. 31 moderote" Foult segment with surface rupture during a historic eorthquokes, 7 moy% at at great earthquake r1hquoke, a with aseismic fault creep. (1857) were reported m e $64 -year period (769-1933. Itst _0 Earthquake epicenters since I933 plotted fr improved rstn,yts. 29 no and three 0 Holocene volcanic octivity major tor9qjakes were recorded in IN 40-yeor (,_• p period 1933-1973. • S.. U.., srtt*ld, P?ICW ,.tw bookfir 4I9IICeI 194..t1 C06 w so 5iti E.vx AucIetws of Cifwls I ytø Wt$4W11 C is, *iai.$..it.1s.f 7%wpiw; •s.)irwt*.i7 ?,; • ..4v.tIwrtIWOs 6 b 7. C.mçI,d bT Itkhol J. p p.d p4 ibsK,d data 01 Itt CM/a* 4vi ti tAWs -f Cs' Cb tst - frVr nws k/kim I/6•Z 1964)• wi.ciions from bttthM 01 itt (is*.' irid $cbi& $xrnws a'4..; 1mm C.A. tkm.i7 S/s.. (ISSI); .4 Im ).wi* A*s, p. REGIONAL SEISMICITY Project No 8871045-03 INDEX MAP Project Name _CLH / CARLSB AD Date .J2 2 /88 FIgure No --L— 2095788 8871045-03 TABLE 1 SEISMIC PARAMETERS FOR ACTIVE FAULTS CLH, Carlsbad, California MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE (Functional Basis Earthquake) Fault Distance From Fault To Site (Miles) Max i mum Credible Earthquake Richter Magnitude Richter Magnitude Peak Bedrock! Repeatable Horizontal Ground Acceleration (Gravity)* Coronado Banks 10 6.5 6.0 0.25/0.16 Elsinore 24 7.5 6.7 0.14 San Jacinto 48 7.5 7.2 0.08 San Andreas 64 8.5 8.3 0.09 * For design purposes, the repeatable horizontal ground acceleration may be taken as 65% of the peak acceleration for sites within 20+ miles of the epicenter (after Ploessel and Slosson, 1974). bI LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC TABLE 2 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ONE- AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS UNDERLAIN BY EXPANSIVE SOILS Expansion Index Expansion Index Expansion Index ExflSiOn Index ndex L 0.20 21 - SO 51 -90 91 - 130 Location VERY Loia EXPANSION- LOW EXPANSION* MEDIUM EXPANSION* HIGH EXPANSION- One-Story All footings 12 inches All footings 12 Inches Exterior footings 18 Exterior footings 24 Inches Footings deep. One No. 4 repar deep. One Mo. 4 ryDer Inches seep. Interior deep. Interior footings (See Note 1) top and bottom top and bottom, footings 12 inches deep. 18 Inches deep. Footings One No. 4 ryDer top and continuous. One No. 5 bottom. ryDer tgp and bottom. Two-Story All footings 18 inches All footings 18 inches All footings 18 Inches Exterior 'ootings 24 inches Footings deep. One So. 4 rebar deep. One No. 4 ryDer deep. One 110. 4 rebar deep. interior footirfgs (See Hot. 1) top and bottom, top and bottom, top and bottom. 18 inches seeg. Footings continuous. One Ho. 5 rebar too and bottom, Garage Door 8 inches deep. One 12 inches deep. One 18 inches deep. One 24 inches deep. One No. S Grade Beam Ho. 4 ryoar top and No. 4 rebar top and No. 4 rtbat top and reber top and bottom. bottom, I bottom, bottom. Living Area 4 inches thick. 6x6- 4 inches thick. 6x6- 4 inches thick. 6x6- 4 inches thick. Ho. 4 Floor Slab 10/10 welOeS wire mesh. 10/10 welded wire mesh. 6/6 welded wire mesh. reoar 0 18' on center (See Mote 2) 2-inch sane layer over 2-inch Sand layer over 2-inch sand layer over each way with Mo. 4 dowels 6 elI moisture barrier 6 nil moisture barrier 6 oil moisture barrier # 18' on Center into footings. over 2-incn sand base, over 2-inch sand base, over 4-inch sand base. 2-inch sand layer over 6 cli moisture barrier over 4-inch sane base. Garage Floor 4 Inches :hick. 6x6- 4 inches thick. 6x6- 4 Inches thick. 6x6- 4 Inches thick. Ho. 4 ryDer Slab 10/10 weloed wiry mesh 10/10 welded wire mesh 6/6 welded wire mesh 0 18* on center each way and (See Motes or sawcuc 1quarter) slab, or sawcut (quarter) slab, or sawcut (Quarter) 5iuc (quarter) slab. 4-inch 2. 3, and 4) ''inch sana base. 2-inch sand base, slab. 4-inch sand base, sand base. Presoaking Moisten to near Soak upper 12 inches Soak upper 18 inches to Soak upper 24 inches to at of Living ootioiuni moisture content to at least 4 percentage at least 5 percentage least S percentage points Area and just prior to concrete points above optimum points above optimum above option moisture Garage placement. moisture content. moisture content. Content or 1.4 Z optimum Floor Slab moisture Content, whichever Soils Is greater. (See Mote 5) Expansion Index determined in accordance with Test Method USC 29-2. NOTES: 1. Minimi.c footing width should be 12 inches for one-story buildings, 15 inches for two-story buildings, and 24 inches for isolated spead footings. 2. Wire mesh and rebar should be placed at MIDHEIGHT of slab. 3. Isolate garage slab from stem walls. Slab sawcuts should be a minimum of 1 inch deep. 4. All sand underlying slab and moisture barrier should have a sand equivalent (S.E.) greater than 30. S. It should be noted that presoaking may require an extended period of time to reach tny reconnnenoed moisture content. Moisture barrier or concrete placement should be performed no later than two days after acnlering the recomenoed moisture content. 6. For expansion index over 130, soecial recommendations should be provided by the gcotecnnical consultant (as necessary) based on actual field conditions. 7. All depths are relative to bottom of sand base, or ccwvacted soil grade. whichever is lower. 8. The above embedment and reinforcement recommendations are minimum guidelines which nay be increased at the siscretlon of the structural engineer. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC QUALITY ORIGINAL (S) 8871045-03 APPENDIX A RFFFRFNCFS 1. Abbott, Patrick L., 1985, On the manner of deposition of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologists, San Diego, California. 2. Crouse, C.B., 1979, Probability of earthquake ground accelerations in San Diego, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and Other Perils, San Diego Region: Geological Society of America, Field Trip, November, p. 107-113. 3. Kennedy, M.P., and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego metropolitan area: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200, 56p. 4. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1983, Seismic safety study for the City of San Diego, revised. 5. , Unpublished in-house data. 6. Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable high ground accelerations from earthquakes - important design criteria: California Geology, v. 27, no. 9. 7. Weber, F.H., Jr., 1963, Mines and mineral resources of San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 3, 309p. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953, San Diego County Series AXN, Flight Line 8M, Photographs 98, 99, and 100. A - i LT QUALITY ORIGINAL (S) uiruiI 0 10 20 30 40 - 60 60 70 50 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY CHART Sc X 50 W 0 40 30 20 MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMES GW : Watt graded gravel, or gravel-sand mixture*, itft or no floes GRAVELS GP • Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no floes a 0. (More than 1/2 of GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures coarse fraction > GC clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Oo 00 no. 4 slave size) 0. w o Z C :6 Sw Well graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines SANDS SID Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines DC 62 (More than 1/2 of SM Silty sands, sand-slit mixtures coarse fraction < no. 4 sieve size) sc sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey a ML fine sands or clayey slits with slight plasticity a SILTS & CLAYS Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, a CL 00 LL< 50 sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity C Lu." ii iii inorganic slits, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or <a M silty soils, elastic slits 0 e4 SILTS & CLAYS UJ CH Z . inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays LL > 50 Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silty clays, OH , organic slits HIGHLY = Pt Peat and other highly organic soils ORGANIC SOILS CLASSIFICATION CHART (Unified Soil Classification System) CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES U.S. Standard Grain Size Sieve Size in Millimeters BOULDERS Above 12" Above 306 COBBLES 12" to 3" 305 to 76.2 GRAVEL 3" to No. 4 76.2 to 4.76 coarse 3" to 314" 7e.2 to 19.1 fine 3/4" to No. 4 19.1 to 4.75 SAND No. 4 to No. 200 4.78 to 0.074 coarse No. 4 to No. tO 475 to 2.00 medium No. 10 to No. 40 2.00 to 0.420 fine No. 40 to No.200 0.420 to 0.074 SILT & CLAY Below No. 200 Below 0.074 GRAIN SIZE CHART METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION hX1'LMNP11U U - jLUIU.tlN1L/L OUKINU L'J Date Drill Role No. Sheet of - Project Job No._________________ Drilling Co. Type of Rig________________________ Hole Diameter Drive Weight Drop in. •1'__ cr Datum >.' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 4-4.J 0. 04 0.0 4. ) 0) - O O . ZU)O 44 )Q 0. 4J tn 0 4 00 Logged by_________________________________ 4J 4J U U1 Sampled by — — Attitudes: Strike/Dip SM (b) = Bedding • (c) = Contact • (j) = Joint .MlfltfI J.Liiu/ (4\ t: 'a' I - Fracture - 20E ML (F) = Fault 5--b . (cs) = Clay Seam (s) = Shear zontal I - -Relatively undisturbed drive sample 14 106.2 14.9 CL Ii (Modified California Sampler) — Number to ::N8OW/ iON I (tL _-- left represents Sample Number ..-:.) Bulk Sample (with sampling interval) 10- • ./-... 65W .2 15 15.8 SP Standard Penetration Test (Split-Spoon Sampler) .4 - - - N.R. 18 -Sample not recovered 15- N50E/ Graphic Log : •1 :.: sand CL! -clay 20 CH contact - .cs:N3 DWI ,'fracture • 20E shear/clay seam • . 9 zone with calcareous cement iF:N10E/ roots 25- 70W 9 seep Y. ground water table clast - Total Depth = 28' (depth of hole) 30 - -- SODA (2/7) Leighton & Associates —Bulk Sample Field Density Test in accordance with AST(1 2937-83 Percent of Maximum Density N Single relatively undisturbed ring sample Attitudes: Strike/Dip (B) • Bedding (C) . Contact (J) • Joint (F) • Fracture (Cs) . Clay Seam Gic1ojj Silt sand Clay -_ 0 caliche pods -_- o -- - caliche stringers contact \ fracture a ciast cemented zone root hairs z' d .... clay rip-up chits heavy mineral laminae pocet5 of grand 9 seepage 1!1;* LEIGHTON and ASSOCIAT) IN r r. C C S t EXPLANATION OF GEOTECHNICAL TRENCH LOG 1', C) 3. t,a '0 BC C C B I' C Project Name: Logged By: - ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: Elevation: TRENCH NO. j Equipment: Location: . 0. GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: DESCRIPTION: UNIT FILL Aw desiccation cracks at surface up to 1/4- to 1/2-inch wide Qaf SM (1J' 0-4' Liqht brown, slightly damp, loose to medium dense, silty 0_li K-11 very fine- to medium grained sand;abundant chunks of liqht 3 gray silty/very fine-grained sandy clay, several wood and thin roots, porous, several subangular cobbles T POINT LOMA FORMATION Kp MN/CR J-1 9 c: Sharp @4' Gray, slightly damp, very stiff, fine sandy siltstone/clay 5' stone; with thick interlaminae or very thin lenses of ugh yellow-brown, silty fine-grained sandstone, highly fractured and blocky, several roots along fractures b;N82E/28S ® Light yellowish brown fined grained sandstone, continuous along wall ' j:N5E/62W Tight joint system, spacing 4 to 6 inches, iron oxide along fractures GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION S Wall SCALE: 1" 5 SURFACE SLOPE: 18W TREND: N70W I . .. 0 •.J.•• ). .al ABSa Depth 3' To Lqeencoutered@8' lled 8/23/8 ? GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE August 11, 1987 DRILL HOLE No. B-i SHEET _1_OF_i PROJECT _CLH/Carlsbad/68-Acre Site PROJECT No, 8871045-03 DRILLING Co. Gallagher Drilling TYPE OF RIG Bucket Auger HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 3,087# to 25'/200# to 26'-45'/1.115# to DROP 1Z_ IN, ELEVATION Top OF HOLE 46'-60'_±307' REF. OR DATUM U.S.C. & G.S. U) Lu o U)C) w ci GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Lu W QLL ._j. L)L) :D __J l-O- .J w -I-- .Jv LOGGED RLW BY _ "' SAMPLED BY RLW ___ _____ - ___ ___ ___ PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: - -. - SM Medium brown, dry to damp, dense, silty, fine-grained c:very sand; moderately disturbed by previous agricultural - - undul- grading, numerous root hairs ating SP-SM @ 1.7' Light to medium orange to brown-orange, damp, - - - fine- to medium grained sandstone; slightly • C: grada- - silty; scattered roots and rootlets; locally • tional coarse-grained; very clean SP-SM @ 4' Off-white, mottled brown-orange, damp to moist, 5 - - • over ±6" medium dense to dense, slightly silty to silty, - • • • 1 6 112.3 8.9 fine-grained to fine- to medium-grained sand- - . • • stone; slightly friable; slightly micaceous - • SP @ 9' Medium orange-brown, moist to very moist, - - c:grada- _____ _____ medium dense, fine- to coarse-grained sand- - • . tional stone; very friable; interbedded with typically 10 - 1.5-foot thick to thinner, silty, fine-grained - - 2 5 105.4 13.6 sandstone layers; locally micaceous - • ..Y.:.. ::undula-- ting to 0 14.2' Medium orange to light orange-brown, moist to - _____ SP-SM 15 - N6W/1SW very moist, medium dense, slightly silty to • I 4 108.0 16.7 silty, fine-grained sandstone; very fraible; - :-,- locally very micaceous; local thin interbeds of coarse sand and mica - ••• . 0 16' 0.8-foot thick coarse sand layer - c:erosio - TORREY SANDSTONE: al and - • undul- . SP @ 18' Off-white to light yellow-brown, moist, medium ating dense, slightly silty to silty, fine-grained 20 - • • sandstone; very friable; angular unconformity • . ® 4 4 109.3 9.5 with above lithologic unit; numerous closely - . spaced micaceous layers truncated at contact; • • local rip-up clasts noted above contact; relatively massive to very poorly developed - interbeds - 25— :-.- :horizon tal to @ 25.5' Mottled medium purple, olive-gray, moist, very - - 3J••••• 117 115.5 TT ML 'k undul- stiff, slightly sandy siltstone; overlying sand ating unit is wet near the contact; massive and corn- - :grada- - petent; 0.7 to 1.0 feet thick --.-: tional - SM-ML @ 26.5' Light gray mottled purple and olive-gray, moist, - • 311 over - ______ _____ _____ dense to very dense, very silty, fine-grained - - - :undul- sandstone to very sandy, stiff slltstone; grada- • • •.- ating tional zone between upper and lower units 30 • S05A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE August 11 1987 DRILL HOLE No, B-i SHEET OF 2 PROJECT CLH/Carlsbad/68-Acre Site PROJECT No, 8871045-03 DRILLING Co._ Gallagher Drilling TYPE OF RIG Bucket _Auger HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 3087#to25'/200#to26'-45'/1,115#to DROP - 12 IN ELEVATION Top OF HOLE 1307' REF. OR DATUM _U.S.C.&G.S. 46'-60' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION - w uj u. z U. - -' - W L.L <.J F- Q- LOGGED BY RLW >. .__::. .. SAMPLED BY RLW 30 — - - TORREYSANDSTONE(CONTINUED): SP @ 28.5' Light gray, moist, very dense, slightly silty, f:N5W/ - fine-grained sandstone; very massive; no appar- vert. ent bedding surfaces, relatively homogeneous @ 32' Minor fault observed, apparent offset of approx- imately 0.6 feet based on displaced yellow 35 - • • • • interbed; black manganese oxide stain developed - 6 11 113.6 14.7 on fault surface; fault extends to bottom of - • • boring; possibly secondary texture; strike of - fault curves to the west with increasing depth - - • . c:horiz. - - SM @ 38' Mottled purple and medium gray, moist, very - dense, silty, fine-grained sandstone; very mas- sive; no apparent bedding surfaces; 1/8-inch A - U - f:N2W/ dark purple silt layer offset approximately - • 78SW z 0.6 feet to the west 45 . 7 I U 54 118.21_12.9 -.•-• - - TD=46' _________ _____ - - ______ Total Depth = 46 Feet - - Geologically Logged to 45 Feet No Ground Water Encountered - - No Caving Backfilled 8/11/87 50 - - 55 - - •60. 50SA(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE_ August 11, 1987 DRILL HOLE No. B-2 SHEET __I OF 2 PROJECT-CLH/Carlsbad/68-.p,cre Site PROJECT No. 887104503 - DILLING Co.- Gallagher Drilling TYPE OF RIG Bucket Auger HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 3,087# to 25'/200# to 26'-45'/1,115# to DROP 12 IN, _ ELEVATION To OF HOLE 305' REF, OR DATUM U.S.C. & G.S. 46'-60' -- i— w c,,. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION W 0- LU pauJ - I— ..J. <_ _3 ;:: ,- o- (OW — 1— J(i) - - LOGGED BY RLW C/) Cl- cc O O SAMPLED BY RLW 0 — AGRICULTURAL TOPSOIL: SM Light to medium brown, dry to damp, medium dense to dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; disturbed by previous agricultural grading; scattered rootlets PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: ating • . . SM Ld 3' Medium brown-gray, mottled medium orange-brown, - moist, dense to very dense, silty, fine- to - coarse-grained sandstone; massive; no apparent i 1 5 119.6 10.6 bedding surfaces —. ::erosion 1 and un- @ 7' Medium gray, moist to very moist, dense, silty -' SM-SC - dulatin to clayey, coarse-grained sandstone; micaceous; possibly reworked granitics; increased moisture . • noted above and below this unit • 0 91 Localized granitic cobbles - SM 0 9.5' Medium yellow-brown, moist to very moist, silty, 2 4 121.3 7.8 fine-grained sandstone; micaceous; local lenses of coarse sand noted; massive; no apparent bedding surfaces .'•O ::highly 0 13.5' Localized granitic cobbles 1 TORREY SANDSTONE: erosion 15 - ---. and un- - ML 0 14' Medium purple, mottled olive-gray, moist, very - dulatin - stiff, fine, sandy siltstone; very massive; - - • - :: grada- perched moisture noted above contact • —. tional SP-SM 0 15' Off-white to light gray, moist, very dense, • - slightly silty to silty, fine-grained sandstone; - well indurated; relatively homogeneous with the • - exception of scattered siltstone rip-up clasts; - • massive; no apparent bedding surfaces noted • - with the exception of occasional faint sandstone - • interbeds 20—... • ::.'.i:': 30 3 10 115.8 15.3 ...rip-up - - clast 25—. • - • — . : grada- - @ 26.5' Mottled yellow, purple, and gray, moist, very tional ML ::grada- tional stiff, very sandy siltstone; massive; no — - . - apparent bedding surfaces SP 0 27.5' Light gray, moist, very dense, slightly silty, - - fine-grained sandstone 30— -- 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE August 11, 1987 DRILL HOLE No, 8-2 SHEET 2 OF L. PROJECT CLH/Carlsbad/68-Acre Site PROJECT No. 8871045-03 DRILLING Co. Gallagher Drilling TYPE OF RIG Bucket Auger HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 3,087# to 25'/200# to 26'-45'/1.115# to DROP — 12 IN. ELEVATION Toe OF HOLE 1305' REF. OR DATUM U,S.C, & G.S. 46'-60' U) LU c w . U)• GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Ui nuJ c,(j =)}- I-- z .J-- L)L) 1=4 U I— Q- z in Eli }- - .JC/) — - LOGGED BY RLW SAMPLED BY RLW 30 TORREY SANDSTONE (CONTINUED) - 4 I 21 — 120.6 . 142 Light gray, moist, very dense, slightly silty, fine- — -- ________ _____ TD=31' grained sandstone Total Depth = 31 Feet • Geologically Logged to 28 Feet No Ground Water Encountered - No Caving - Backfilled 8/11/87 35 — 40 - 45 — 50- 55 — - 505A(11177) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE August 11, 1987 DRILL HOLE No, 8-3 SHEET 1 OF?__ POJECT_ CLH/Carlsbad/68-Acre Site - PROJECT No, 887105-03 DRILLING Co__a11agher Drilling TYPE OF RIG &keLAr HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 3.0871 to 25'12001 to 26'-45'J1.115# to DROP 12 IN. ______ ELEVATION To OF HOLE OR DATUM U.S.C. & G.S. 46'-60' -- c/) • >- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Uj U. L)L.) LU Li.. <—' w- '- LOGGED BY RU! SAMPLED BY RLW AGRICULTURAL TOPSOIL: - - - SM Light brown, dry, dense, silty, fine-grained sand; friable; very disturbed c:undulang_... PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: - . SM @ 3 Mottled gray-brown and red-brown, moist, medium dense, very silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; very weathered; potentially compressible - 121.3 11.6 - c:undul- SP-SM ating @ 6' Medium brown, damp to moist, dense to very dense, slightly silty to silty, fine- to - medium-grained sandstone; very irregular and • . .. - erosional contact with above unit, occasional - rip-up clasts; massive; no apparent bedding surfaces 10 Il.uii;Ic:grada @ 10.5' Light gray grading into a very light brown- 4 115.5 10.7 SP-SM tional orange, moist to very moist, slightly silty, • • - fine-grained sandstone; very massive; moderatel, • .. friable; slightly micaceous; homogeneous @ 14.5' Medium brown-red, moist to very moist, slightly - SP 15 - tional - silty, fine-grained sandstone; massive; scattered in-filled voids to 0.3 feet in width; - . •,g: - voids in-filled with medium gray, moist, dense, - silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; slightly - . • friable 20 5 120.6 10.2 • :• - • 8 24' Moderately indurated 25—.- - 30—- --- • - SOSA(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES (3EOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE August 11, 1987 DRILL HOLE No. B-3 SHEET 2 OF 2 PROJECT _CLH/Carlsbad/68-Acre Site PROJECT No, 8871045-03 DRILLING Co. Gallagher Drilling TYPE OF RIG .&ket Auger. HOLE DIAMETER 30 DRIVE WEIGHT 3,087# to 25'J200# to 26'-45'/1,115# to DROP IN. ELEVATION TOPOF HOLE 1190 ' REF, OR DATUM U.S .C. & G.S. 46'-60 ' U) c Lu U). GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION W Lu 0" U. WO :i- .j. CL W L r •- U)UJ - - , Z Lu _ >. QZ -C-- 0 o LOGGED BY RLW SAMPLED BY RLW 30 - 4 7 PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS (CONTINUED): - Medium brown-red, moist to very moist, slightly silty,- TD31' fine-grained sandstone; massive; scattered, in-filled voids up to 0.3 feet in width; voids in-filled with - medium gray, moist, dense, silty, fine- to medium- grained sand; slightly friable - Total Depth = 31 Feet - Geologically Logged to 29 Feet 35 - No Ground Water Encountered - No Caving - Backfilled 8/11/87 - 40— 45 50- 55 - - - 60- SOSA(1I/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DATE August 11, 1987 DRILL HOLE No. B-4 SHEET L__ OF- 1 - PROJECT CLH/Carlsbad/68-Acre Site PROJECT No, 8871045-03 DRILLING C o - _Gallagher Drilling TYPE OF RIG Bucket Auger HOLE DIAMETER 30" DRIVE WEIGHT 3.087#_to_25 1 /200#_to_26'-45'/1.115#_to DROP 12 IN. ELEVATION Top OF HOLE ±223' REF. OR DATUM u.s.c._&_c.s._46'60' Cl, w - 0 - Lu C,). GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Lu ,<, — ° Z LL }_ <C/') _J. - I- -J .J CZ1 a. U)W - Lu 6=1 <J I- 1-0 c > — I- oz .i() — - LOGGED BY RLW Q_ 0 0= '' SAMPLED BY RLW AGRICULTURALTOPSOIL: - : - SM Light brown, dry to slightly damp, medium dense, very silty, fine-grained sand; very friable; numerous - voids, very disturbed - _____ ____ ____ ____ PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS- - ..Z.—Zc :very undul- — - SP-SM @ 3.5' Light to medium orange-brown, mottled light gra ating moist to very moist, dense, slightly silty to 5 — . silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone; very 1 3 114.1 13.1 friable; massive; no apparent bedding; local rip-up clasts - . @ 6' Light to medium brown-orange, moist to very — SP-SM moist, dense, slightly silty to silty, fine- - • grained sandstone - '-i-,• c:undul - @ 8' Medium brown-red, moist to very moist, dense, - _____ _____ _____ _____ SP - • ating - slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sand- stone; massive; moderately indurated with local 10 — friable areas; generally homogeneous 2 5 123.5 10.8 0 11.5' Very mottled orange-brown and light gray, moist - - _____ SM - :.. ating dense to very dense, silty, fine- to medium- - .••. . grained sandstone; massive - ::grada- tional 15 — . 3 5 117.3 13.0 0 16.2' Discontinuous pebble lense; ±0.2 feet thick 20 TD20' Total Depth = 20 Feet - Geologically Logged to 19 Feet No Ground Water Encountered - - No Caving Backfilled 8/11/87 25 - - 30- SOSA(1I/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES CD 0 PE 'I) U, 0 r) I-.. CD U, UI C) -J Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By: BJM!RLW - ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±300' TRENCH NO. T1 Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map 0 CD C-) oe • - n '-., GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT U) C' AGRICULTURAL TOPSOIL: J Light brown, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fine- to Topsoil SM medium-grained sand; moderately cemented with calcium C: very carbonate undulating PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: Mottled brown-orange and light gray, damp to moist, dense Qt SP-SM to very dense, slightly silty to silty, fine- to medium- grained sandstone; upper 6 inches moderately cemented D @ (possibly by migrating ground water); massive; no apparent 4.5'- bedding surface; very scattered pebbles to 3 inches in 5.5' diameter L1\ 13.5 105.8 @ 5.5' Total Depth = 5.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 5 °E TREND: N64E caliche zone liii liii lilt •l j ...l•.j . 0 -TI —3 tJl -4 -4 Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By: - BJM/RLW ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±320' TRENCH NO. 17-2 Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map 0 10(D GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT TOPSOIL: E3 Red-medium brown, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fine- Topsoil SM grained sand; becomes damp at approximately 1 foot; rootlets to 2.5 feet; undulating contact below; moderately well cemented zone above and below contact (caliche approximately 1 foot thick) PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: E1 Brown-orange to gray, damp to moist, very dense, slightly Qt SM-SP D silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone; @ 3.5' one or two 4.5'- discontinuous lenses of dark brown, silty clay; nearly 5.5' horizontal orientation Note: Excavation difficult with backhoe. Total Depth = 5.8 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 2°N TREND: N24E zone caliche I I I I I I I I 2 2 I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C- c,Q rt 0 JCM LIZ 0 •11 -3 C-) 0 CD 0 Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By: BJM ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±295' TRENCH NO. T-3 _ .,. Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map CD c: GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT AGRICULTURAL TOPSOIL: UI Light brown, dry, dense, silty, fine-grained sand; becomes Topsoil SM damp to moist with depth; @ 2' begins to be mottled by pockets and lenses of brown-orange, fine- to medium-grained sand (reworked for agriculture?); gradual contact below; becomes medium dense with depth; occasional rounded cobble up to 3 to 4 inches long; 1.5-foot thick caliche zone (moderately well cemented zone) encountered from 0.3 feet to 1.5 feet PLEISTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: 1.fl Brown-orange, moist, medium dense, slightly silty, fine- Qt SM-SP CD to medium grained sand; homogeneous; unconsolidated 5'- 6.5' Total Depth = 6.5 Feet 8.9 115.2 No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled_8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 5 °W TREND: N50W caliche zone _ - 7. - -- H, 1.11 11iiHUU I 1flifIlIIiII I I I I I I I I I I I I. .1L.. I I 0 11 C) Z 0 74 C.) VI S.- -SI -4 Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By: BJM ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±310' TRENCH NO. T-4 Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map p3 0 CD c_) • - '-.. .•, -, S.-. GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT AGRICULTURAL TOPSOIL: Dark brown, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fine-grained; Topsoil SM a calcite rootlets to 1.5 to 2 feet; moderately well cemented caliche stringer zone from 0.5 to 3 feet N78W/13 °N PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: Mottled brown-orange and gray, dry to damp, very dense to Qt SM-SP Q @ dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone; 5 1 -6' undulating horizontal and vertical hairline to 1/16-inch stringers of calcium carbonate extend through the upper L @ 13.4 103.8 portion of this unit; becomes moist with depth below the 6' caliche zone Total Depth = 6 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: p' = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 4 0 N TREND: N18W calcite -. - ---r liii liii stringers Jill llIl:.11lI liii lilt: CD 0 I, 0 Z 0 V) '-I -.4 —4 CD rt 0 0 r) CD U, Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By:_ 8dM ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±300' TRENCH NO. T-5 I I Equipment:Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map _JC-710 0 10 CD _______________________________________________________________________ • ...d r+ -' GEOLOGIC - GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT • TOPSOIL: LU Light brown, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fine-grained Topsoil SM sand; rootlets throughout; irregular contact below; no appreciable caliche zone noted; some mottling with pockets of brown-orange sand; isolated lenses of brown, sandy, clayey silt noted at east end at 2 feet PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: LU Gray, dry, dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained Qt SM-SP sandstone; massive Mottled brown-orange and gray, damp, dense to very dense, SM silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone LU Mottled brown-orange and gray, damp to moist, dense, slightly SM-SP silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone 5 1 -6 1 Total Depth = 6 Feet z1 @6' 9.3 116.1 No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled_8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" =5' SURFACE SLOPE: 2°E TREND: N87W II -tI IIf liii 1111 1111 tIll 0_1~ 0 -xl Z 0 0, tJI CD '—a Project Name: CLH/Carlsbpd Logged By:_ BJM ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±37' TRENCH NO. T-6 Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map '' 'Xi eo GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT AGRICULTURAL TOPSOIL: [I Light to medium brown, dry to damp, dense to very dense, Topsoil SC/CL clayey, silty, fine-grained sand to sandy, silty clay PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: J Mottled brown-orange and gray, damp to moist, dense to very Qt Q @ dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; 0.5-foot 5.5' thick, well cemented (caliche?) zone noted within this unit @2 to 2.5 feet Note: Difficult excavating with backhoe. Total Depth = 5.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 00 TREND: N20W • -I-- - - ..- cal i c he - zone :• : f2 .1 - . • 0 NZ In U, 0 (D 0 C—) Z 0 VI -4 -4 rt 0 > tn 0 '-I rt (D tn ik Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By: B13M Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±290' TRENCH NO. T-7 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: 1.JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map 0 .-.'-. 10CD GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT v) '1 AGRICULTURAL TOPSOIL: J Brown, dry to damp, dense, clayey, silty, fine-grained sand Topsoil SC/CL to sandy, silty clay PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: Ii Mottled brown-orange and gray, damp to moist, dense to very Qt SM-SP dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone; very dense, moderately well cemented 1.5-foot thick caliche cT @ zone just below contact with topsoil (moist and dense below 4.5'- caliche zone) 55' @ 10.8 105.5 5.5' Total Depth = 5.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 7 0 N TREND: N32W zone Z~caliche It1 liii liii ; - - I Ow 0 •11 C-, 0 TI -.4 U' LI -3 Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged y: BJM ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±205 TRENCH NO. T-8 I91 Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map " - c_) • - rt VI GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC rt ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT AGRICULTURAL FILL: Light brown, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fine- to Fill SM ®GC:N59W/11 °S medium-grained sand; rootlets to 2-112 feet deep; plastic. observed at 1.5 and 2 feet; sharp contact below PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: El Mottled brown-orange and gray, damp to moist, dense, Qt SM-SP slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone Note: No appreciable caliche zone noted. 6 6 -7' @ 14.1 110.8 7' Total Depth = 7 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 00 TREND: N22E I I I I I I I Ct, I-.. r4 0 VI VI 0 CD VI 0 •T1 r) co tJ' -4 -4 Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By: BJM ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±182' TRENCH NO. T9 Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map 0 .,• 10 (D () • — CD _d f .# GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT • (D AGRICULTURAL FILL: Light brown, dry, dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand Fill SM plastic and string noted at 1.5 feet Light to medium brown, damp, dense, silty, fine- to medium- SM grained sand; mottled by occasional pockets to dark brown, clayey, silty sand up to 1 inch in diameter; plastic noted at 2.5 and 3 feet; nearly horizontal contact below ALLUVIUM: Dark to orange-brown, moist, dense, clayey, silty, fine- Qal SC grained sand; gradational change to LIL1 Medium brown, moist, dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine- to Qal D @ medium-grained sand 6'- Total Depth = 6.5 Feet 6.5' No Ground Water Encountered @ 11.4 122.0 No Caving 6.5' Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: l°S TREND: N31E I i i I i i i i i i i i I i i i I I I I (D rt 0 a -Il C.) z 0 C, '.9 D Ln 0 r) '.9 CD Ln Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By: BJM - ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±162' TRENCH NO. T10 I Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map c, 0 ç) • .-' rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT AGRICULTURAL TOPSOIL/FILL: EU Light to medium brown, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fine Topsoil/ SM grained sand; rootlets throughout; plastic and string Fill observed at 1.0 to 1.5 feet deep Disturbed zone of topsoil mixed with or mottled by unit below; very undulating contact below PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: EU Light brown, dry to damp, dense to very dense, silty, fine- Qt SM to medium-grained sandstone; gradational contact to 4 Mottled brown-orange and gray, damp, dense to very dense, SM silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone @ 5'-6' Total Depth = 6 Feet L1. @6' 6.9 123.7 No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 3°S TREND: N12E - r • •. . ___ 01, 0 C-) 0 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near—horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried—back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture— conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifi- cally designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction. D - iii (Il -.4 -4 0 Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged y: BJM PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±176' TRENCH NO. T11 Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map hIENGINEERING O1 ( GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT AGRICULTURAL TOPSOIL/FILL: Light to medium brown, dry to damp, dense, silty, fine- Topsoil! SM grained sand; roots and rootlets throughout; plastic noted Fill at 3 inches deep PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: IjJ Mottled gray and brown-orange, dry to damp, dense to very Qt SM-SP dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone; :D ca roots to 3.3 inches deep; upper 2.5 to 3 feet is well- cemented, caliche zone @ 7.1 109.9 5.8' Total Depth = 5.8 Feet No Ground Water Encountered I No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 1 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 10°W TREND: N59W __1- ;•:tU'-' large root t 2 1 1 1l1t I I I) liii I I I 0 C-) Z 0 - U' -a CD 0 Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By: BJM ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±207' TRENCH NO. T12 Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map • - co rt GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT CD TOPSOIL: W Light brown, dry, dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand Topsoil SM Mottled tan and light brown, dry, dense to very dense, silty, SM fine-grained sand PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: Mottled brown-orange and gray, damp to moist, dense to very Qt SM-SP dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone; thin caliche zone at upper contact Mottled brown-orange and gray, moist, dense, sandy, silty SC-CL claystone to silty, clayey sandstone interfingered with 3 5.5'- 6.5' ZI @ 13.0 114.2 Total Depth = 6.5 Feet 6.5' No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 00 TREND: N49W ti - 0.1 o -n 0 —3 0 -Il C) = z 0 UI -3 -1 Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By: BJM ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±230' TRENCH NO. T-13 Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map 0 10 M r () • - '-' rt '- -. GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: Cl) UNIT COLLUVIUM: Red-brown, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fine-grained Col SP-SM sand; contains 10 to 15 percent rounded cobbles and pebbles up to 6 inches in length; rootlets throughout TORREY SANDSTONE: tiI1 Gray-white, dry to damp, dense to very dense, silty, very Ts SM fine-grained sandstone; becomes slightly mottled by red sand D @ with depth 5 1 -6' L1@ 6' 7.0 111.4 Total Depth = 6 Feet No Ground Water Encountered I No Caving I Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 1 °N TREND: N12W 77 transition zone CD oq rt 0 ZI CM 0 cn UI UI 0 r) I-" C., UI UI -S. S-i -4 Project Name: CLH!Carlsbad Logged By: BJM I ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±246 TRENCH NO. T14 Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT TOPSOIL: Light brown, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fine-grained Topsoil SM sand; scattered, rounded pebbles to 3/4 inch in longest dimension; rootlets throughout TORREY SANDSTONE: Light brown to tan, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fine- Ts SM to medium-grained sandstone; some brown mottling at upper contact; occasional small rounded pebbles GC:N66W/5°W Mottled brown-orange and gray, damp to moist, dense to very SM-SP dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone; cD @ thin caliche zone at upper contact with M2; occasional roots to 3 feet deep Lh @6' 13.4 114.0 Total Depth = 6 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACESLOPE:1-2°N TREND: N14W aliche liii lI zone liii .i,:i:t_.:c_f:i - JIll lilt III liii LIII 0i 0 = Ut 0 Project Name: CLH/Carlsbad Logged By: 8dM ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 8871045-03 Elevation: ±277' TRENCH NO. T-15 - •. -- Equipment: JC-710 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map . c••) • - 0 '-, f4 10(D GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: August 12, 1987 DESCRIPTION: UNIT • TOPSOIL: ED Light brown, dry, dense to very dense, silty, fine-grained Topsoil SM sand; rootlets throughout PLIESTOCENE MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS: Mottled brown-orange, dry to damp, becoming moist with depth, Qt SM-SP dense to very dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; vertical stringers of calcite extend to 4 to 5 feet; becomes finer-grained with depth D @ @ 6' 9.8 115.3 Total Depth = 6 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 8/12/87 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 14 0 TREND: N83W calcite lilt stringers till ____ Itil tilt lilt ;ii - liii lilt 0 .r1 z 0 (J1 QUALITY ORIGINAL (S) 8871045-03 APPENDIX C SAMPLING PROCEDURES Undisturbed Samples: Samples of the subsurface materials are obtained from the exploratory borings and/or trenches in a relatively undisturbed condition. The depths at which the samples are obtained are shown on the boring and/or trench logs. The sampler used to obtain relatively undisturbed samples is generally a split- barrel drive sampler. The Split-Barrel Drive Sampler or Modified California Sampler: The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch-long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of 2.41 inches. The sample barrel is driven into the ground at the bottom of the boring with the weight of a hammer or the kelly bar of the drill rig. The driving weight is permitted to free-fall. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the bar or hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs. Blow counts are recorded on the logs of borings as an index to the relative resistance of the sampled materials. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. Chunk Samples: Chunk samples consist of coherent, hand-sized blocks of undis- turbed material. These samples are obtained from trenches, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. Disturbed Samples: Bulk samples of representative materials are obtained from the borings, trenches, and/or representative locations, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. In-Place Density Testing: In-place moisture and density testing is performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1556 (Sand-Cone Method) and ASTM Test Method D2937-83 (Drive-Cylinder Method). The results of these tests are presented on the trench logs. LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Classification: Soils are classified in general conformance with ASTM Test Methods D2487 and 02488. Moisture and Density Tests: Moisture content (ASTM Test Method D2216) and dry density testing is performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from borings. The results of these tests are presented on the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content is determined. C - i 8871045-03 APPENDIX C (Continued) Grain-Size Distribution: Representative samples are subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis be wet and/or dry sieving utilizing U.S. Standard sieves (ASTM Test Method 0422). The data is evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or rela- tively undisturbed samples which are soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. After transferring the sample to the shear box and reloading, pore pressures are allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples are tested under various normal loads with a different specimen being used for each normal load. The samples are sheared in a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of 0.05 and 0.005 inches per minute. After a travel of approximately 1/4 inch, the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed to "relax" for ap- proximately 15 minutes. Where applicable, the "relaxed" and "peak" shear values are recorded. It is anticipated that in a majority of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be good estimations of effective strength parameters. C - ii 4000 - - - - - 4 3000 - - -- -- -- - - -- --- - -00 r ul 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cl, -- -- - -- -- - ---I - w - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- I - -- -- -- - --- --- --- -- - U) - - - -- -- - -- ---- 000 1000 H 0 0 1000 2000 3000 40O0 5000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) DESCRIPTION SYMBOL NUMBER NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) 1 COHESION (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE SOIL TYPE Undisturbed £ B-4 1 5 700 370 SM Undisturbed I B-i 5 25 [1700 25 0 ML LEIC.HTON .nASSOCIATES Project No. 8871045-03 I • CLH/CARLSBPD DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS r > ) D n 0 n z 0 co00 CD 0 U.S. Standard Sieve3__________ U.S. Stondard Sieve Numbers Microns in nhea j [_ too 90 80 70 - CD CP -' 6C '1 CD 4( (1 2 ) D 0I II LI 1' I S I 50 10 5 I 0.5 03 Q.QO Q.0 I U. U( Grain Size in Millimeter [ OrG,I Sand Casra. Fine Coons odium Fin. Silt or Cloy Symbol Hole No. Sample No. Depth or Elev. Field Moisture J0fl LL (%) P1 (%) Activity Pl/-2u Cu 060/010 Cc I Percent IO°060 Painq Da No.200 Percent Po;nq 2u U.S.C.S. o T-10 1 -5.5' - - - - 4.4 1.4 8.6 - SP-SM • I B-1 1 3 15' - - - - 2.0 1.1 4.8 - SP GRADATION TEST RESULTS to cow Ism K4 . t !WN,I ! :, , . ' :::y: • • .' . : . .. I I ' ON F. J I I ' F • ' ( , rL ; I H t F f F F F F F FF F F' F 4F F Fl F F FF 1. AI 1 ç 5 l;- t • F ySf F F 4dH 2 Mf JF SF F. Sj F : WN I, " fr: F SF FtFF1iSFI $i F1F5 jr- 4F .J.. F F—in lu ky I F F F fFF\ . S F F f F 'i F 51 F 3F F F F QVINT1 08 WOE I ç5 F F :1 r F 100 U-00 0, J F F f 9F I F UI F 2 5 I . F F F F F LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES F _ APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 General Intent These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans. 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testin Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechni- cal report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report, and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASIM D1557. 3.0 Preoaratiori of Areas to-be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbj: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots, and all other deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant. 0-i The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed. 3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overex- cavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining quantities of materials overexcavated, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. 3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture- conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 3.6 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 0 - ii 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near—horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried—back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture— conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifi- cally designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction. D - iii 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by back rolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face should be at least 90 percent. 5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of compaction of the fill soils should be performed by the geotechnical consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the consult- ant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 6.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. 7.0 Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant (as necessary) during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcavation, and refilling of cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be recommended. 8.0 Ouantity Determination For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. 0 - iv 8 MIN. OVER LAP 3/4'-1-1/2 CLEAN GRAVEL (3fL3/ft. MIN.) SEE T-CONNECTION DETAIL 111' MIN. • COVER 4eØ NON-PERFORATED , PIP FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)* PERFORATED PIPE 5 i MIN. 4 MIN. BEDDING SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL STABILITY FILL I BUTTRESS DETAIL OUTLET PIPES -:-------- - - 4 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY BACK CUT 1:1 OR FLATTER lit 1, BENCH --:-2% MIN.--- - SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD / BE SITUATED AS LOW AS - / POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET KEY :z- DEPTH MN t I r KEY WIDTH T lAS NOTED ON GRADING PLANSI IC 1 luLl ,j mlii. / ____ 10' MIN. PERFORATED PIPE EACH SIDE CAP NVN-PERFORATED ' OUTLET PIPE T-CONNECTION DETAIL * IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4-1-1/2 GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing 1" 100 3/411 90-100 3/8's 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent >75 NOTES: For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and subdraln may be changed by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION-Subdrain pipe should be installed with perforations down as depicted. At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant, nonperforated pipe should be installed SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdrain type should be Acrylonitrlle Butadlene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125 SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 feet. Class 200, SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet. TRANSITION LOT DETAILS CUT—FILL LOT EXISTING GROUND SURFACE I 1MIN.] 4 __________ 38" MIN.* 7 (II OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL EVALUATED 7 BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT CUT LOT EXISTING UND SURFACE - - R EMOVE - UNSUABLE 5'H MATERIAL MIN. 36' MIN * -4 OVEREXCAVATE IIAII~ f1 AND RECOMPACT COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT *NOTE: Deeper or laterally more extensive overexcavation and recompaction may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered and locations of proposed improvements -C 0 M PA CTE D-:---:--:--:-- - I FILL - ------ ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE - --1 0' MI N.------ OVERSIZE WINDROW GRANULAR SOIL (S.E.~ 30) TO BE DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING DETAIL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW 1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is greater), and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces. 2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills. 3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the geotechnical consultant. 4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered vertically (as depicted). 5) Rock should be placed in excavated trenches. Granular soil (S.E. greater than or equal to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath rocks. DESIGN FINISH -- SUBDRAIN GRADE TRENCH SEE ABOVE :-:-:C-:O-:-MFPlALLCT-:-E:-D }ç E:- - :- :1 o'±: ---- -- --_ -PERFORATED 15' MIN. 6Ø MIN. PIPE NONPERFORATED 6' 0 MIN. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS - EXISTING GROUND SURFACE nN BENCHING T uII: UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE BELOW SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAILS 6' MIN. OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)* \ 6e MIN. COVER 6' C%IER 4 MIN. BEDDING MIN. OVERLAP 3/4'-1-1/2' CLEAN GR.41E MIN.) L 3/4'-1112' CLEAN GRAVEL (WO/ft. MIN.) —8' 0 MIN. - PERFORATED PIPE DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'-1-112' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing in 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent >75 Subdrain should be constructed only on competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdraln pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted. At locations recommended by the geotechnical consultant, noriperforated pipe should be Installed. SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdrain type should be Acrylonitrlle Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125, SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 36 feet. Class 200,SDR21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE FINISHED SLOPE FACE PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FINISHED CUT PAD FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO - OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY :COM PA cTED:-- FILL -----:-- OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE PAD OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH MATERIAL - AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE :_ RECOMMENDED BY THE -- -- GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BENCH BASED ON ACTUAL FIELD --------- CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. -2% MIN.---=- " MIN. 15 MIN. I —COMPETENT BEDROCK OR LOWEST 7 MATERIAL AS EVALUATED KEY BENCH DEPTH ( BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: Subdrain details and key width recommendations to be provided based on exposed subsurface conditions KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS FILL SLOPE PROJECT I TO 1 LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT MATERIAL EXISTING GROUND -:-:-:-:-:--:-- GROUND SURFACE :--:--I II-it REMOVE UNSUITABLE --:-- MATERIAL - N BENCH ------ 1, 2' M,N. 15' MIN. KEY I LOWEST DEPTH BENCH (KEY) FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE EXISTING - GROUND SURFACEN - ---- p - - /-T-- FILL BEN C H - REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 2 LOWEST MIN. BENCH KEY (KEY) DEPTH CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) EXISTING GROUND CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE / - PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE FROM TOE - OF SLOPE TO COMPETENT - QMPACT-t MATERIAL BENCH 1 '-2% MIN.---. T ( ----15' MIN. 2' MIN. LOWEST KEY, DEPTH BENCH /7 - -CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) REMOVE UNSUITABLE 'MATERIAL NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechniCal consultant based on actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may also be altered based on field conditions encountered. RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* RETAINING WALL VERLAP 2— FILTER FABRIC EQUIVALENT) i MIN-:-____3/4-1-1/2 CLE • A.---- 4 (MIN.) DIAME 0 PVC PIPE (SCI • :--:-- EQUIVALENT) ORIENTED DOW MINIMUM 1 PER I TO SUITABLE 0 - WALL WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECTS SPECIFICATIONS _ FINISH GRADE --:-coMpAcTED FILL -:--:--:- AN GRAVEL** ENVELOPE OR APPROVED ETER PERFORATED IEDULE 40 OR 1ITH PERFORATIONS 'N AS DEPICTED CENT GRADIENT UTLET WALL FOOTING Jz \ 'tt 3 MIN. SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL U.S. Standard Sieve Size % Passing 1" 100 3/4" 90-100 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 Sand Equivalent >75 COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT *BASED ON ASTM D1557 **IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION * NOT TO SCALE JOLI-I! QUALITY ORIGINAL (S) 4 APPENDIX E MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR HOMEOWNERS Homesites, in general, and hillside lots, in particular, need maintenance to continue to function and retain their value. Many homeowners are unaware of this and allow deterioration of their property. It is important to familiarize homeowners with some guidelines for maintenance of their properties and make them aware of the importance of maintenance. Some governing agencies require hillside property developers to utilize specific methods of engineering and construction to protect those investing in improved lots or constructed homes. For example, the developer may be required to grade the property in such a manner that rainwater will be drained away from the lot and to plant slopes so that erosion will be minimized. He may also be required to install permanent drains. However, once the lot is purchased, it is the buyer's responsibility to maintain these safety features by observing a prudent program of lot care and maintenance. Failure to make regular inspection and maintenance of drainage devices and sloping areas may cause severe financial loss. In addition to his own property damage, he may be subject to civil liability for damage occurring to neighboring properties as a result of his negligence. The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the homeowner's investment. a) Care should be taken that slopes, terraces, berms (ridges at crown of slopes), and proper lot drainage are not disturbed. Surface drainage should be conducted from the rear yard to the street through the side yard, or alternative approved devices. b) In general, roof and yard runoff should be conducted to either the street or storm drain by nonerosive devices such as sidewalks, drainage pipes, ground gutters, and driveways. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. c) All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Terrace drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During heavy rain periods, performance of the drainage system should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible. d) Any leakage from pools, waterlines, etc. or bypassing of drains should be repaired as soon as practical. e) Animal burrows should be eliminated since they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow soil flowage. E- i 4 f) Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever a homeowner plans a significant topographic modification of the lot or slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. g) If the homeowner plans modification of cut or natural slopes within his property, an engineering geologist should be consulted. Any oversteepening may result in a need for expensive retaining devices. Undercutting of a toe- of-slope would reduce the safety factor of the slope and should not be undertaken without expert consultation. h) If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the property, the owner should consult a qualified soil engineer or an engineering geologist immediately. i) The most common causes of slope erosion and shallow slope failures are as follows: • Gross neglect of the care and maintenance of the slopes and drainage devices. • Inadequate and/or improper planting. (Barren areas should be replanted as soon as possible.) • Excessive or insufficient irrigation or diversion of runoff over the slope. j) Hillside lot owners should not let conditions on their property create a problem for their neighbors. Cooperation with neighbors could prevent problems, promote slope stability, adequate drainage, proper maintenance, and also increase the aesthetic attractiveness of the community. E - ii