Loading...
09 - Appendix G PWQMP and Hydrology StudyD RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT F EBRUARY 2020 C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA P:\CCP1902\Screencheck Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix G Cover.docx (02/03/20) APPENDIX G WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS STUDY C YPRESS C ITY C ENTER P ROJECT C YPRESS, C ALIFORNIA D RAFT E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT F EBRUARY 2020 P:\CCP1902\Screencheck Draft EIR\Appendices\Appendix G Cover.docx (02/03/20) This page intentionally left blank WQ XX-XXXX County of Orange/Santa Ana Region Priority Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Project Name: Cypress Mixed Use 4961 KATELLA AVENUE, CYPRESS, CA 241-091-22, 241-091-23, 241-091-24,241-091- 25,241-091-26 Prepared for: Shea Properties 130 Vantis, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 949-389-7286 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn 765 The City Drive South Orange, Ca 92868 714-786-6275, Brian.Gillis@kimley-horn.com July 2019 Revised August 21, 2019 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section I 2019.08.20 - Preliminary WQMP.docx Page i This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Shea Properties by Kimley-Horn. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the County of Orange NPDES Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of the plan. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan , including the ongoing operation and maintenance of all best management practices (BMPs), and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the intent of the non-point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region . Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors-in-interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. Owner: Title Elizabeth Cobb Company Shea Properties Address 130 Vantis, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, Ca 92656 Email Elizabeth.cobb@sheaproperties.com Telephone # 949-389-7286 I understand my responsibility to implement the provisions of this WQMP including the ongoing operation and maintenance of the best management practices (BMPs) described herein. Owner Signature Date Project Owner’s Certification Planning Application No. (If applicable) Grading Permit No. Tract/Parcel Map and Lot(s) No. 96-121 Building Permit No. Address of Project Site and APN (If no address, specify Tract/Parcel Map and Lot Numbers) 4961 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA 241-091- 22, 241-091-23, 241-091- 24,241-091-25,241-091- 26 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section I 2019.08.20 - Preliminary WQMP.docx Page ii Preparer (Engineer): Title Brian Gillis PE Registration # 63021 Company Kimley-Horn and Associates Address 765 The City Drive South Orange Ca 92868 Email Brian.gillis@kimley-horn.com Telephone # 714-786-6275 I hereby certify that this Water Quality Management Plan is in compliance with, and meets the requirements set forth in, Order No. R8-2009-0030/NPDES No. CAS618030, of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Preparer Signature Date Place Stamp Here Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Table of Contents Preliminary WQMP Page iii Contents Section I Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance ....................... 1 Section II Project Description ........................................................................................... 3 Section III Site Description .............................................................................................. 10 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................................... 13 Section V Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs ........................................... 30 Section VI BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) ................................................................................... 35 Section VII Educational Materials ..................................................................................... 36 Appendices Attachment A .................................................................... 303d List Of Impaired Water Bodies Attachment B .......................................................................... County Soils And Rainfall Maps Attachment C ........................................................................................... Geotechnical Report Attachment D ..................................................................................... Groundwater Feasibility Attachment E ........................................................................................................ Calculations Attachment F ........................................................................................... Education Materials Attachment G .......................................................................................................... O&M Plan Attachment H ............................................................................... Conceptual WQMP Site Plan Attachment I ................................................................................... Transfer of Responsibility Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section I 2019.08.20 - Preliminary WQMP.docx Page 1 Section I Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance Project Infomation Permit/Application No. (If applicable) Grading or Building Permit No. (If applicable) Address of Project Site (or Tract Map and Lot Number if no address) and APN 4961 Katella Ave, Cypress, CA 241-091-22, 241-091-25 241-091-23, 241-091-26 241-091-24 Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance Water Quality Conditions of Approval or Issuance applied to this project. (Please list verbatim.) Currently there are no Water Quality Conditions of Approval applied to this Project. Conceptual WQMP Was a Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan previously approved for this project? Yes, a previously approved WQMP was prepared by Development Resource Consultants, Inc. in July 13, 2007. The project has changed in nature from retail-only to a mixed-use development including retail, hotel, and multi-family residential uses. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section I 2019.08.20 - Preliminary WQMP.docx Page 2 Watershed-Based Plan Conditions Provide applicable conditions from watershed - based plans including WIHMPs and TMDLS. The Project falls within the San Gabriel – Coyote Creek Watershed. The are no applicable TMDLS for the receiving water body Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section II Preliminary WQMP Page 3 Section II Project Description II.1 Project Description Description of Proposed Project Development Category (From Model WQMP, Table 7.11-2; or -3): Redevelopment Project, Higher Density, In-Fill and Mixed Use Project Area (ft2): 580,619 Number of Dwelling Units: 251 SIC Code: 5900, 7011, 7830, 5812, Project Area Pervious Impervious Area (acres or sq ft) Percentage Area (acres or sq ft) Percentage Pre-Project Conditions 1.33 10% 12.00 90% Post-Project Conditions 1.33 10% 12.00 90% Drainage Patterns/Connections Existing Conditions: In the existing condition, the site is a portion of an existing asphalt parking lot serving LARC that extends to the without a visible demarcation of the property line. The overall parking lot area drains to two separate concrete ribbon gutters that flow from north to south. The parking lot pavement sheet flows in east/west orientations to the two ribbon gutters along the length of each gutter. Each gutter terminates at separate existing catch basins that connect to an existing City 48” storm drain that runs on the north edge Katella Avenue from east to west. These catch basins are located in within the proposed Project site boundary. Run-off in excess of the capacity of inlets ponds up in the parking lot before ultimately overflowing and discharging overland at an existing driveway into the Katella Avenue curb and gutter. The on-site ponding is limited to 12 to 18 inches. The ponding has little to no detention effects during large storm events – the 100-year peak will essentially pass through the driveway into the street in the existing condition. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section II Preliminary WQMP Page 4 The on-site portion of the existing parking lot is approximately 13.3 acres in area. The off-site area tributary to the ribbon gutters upstream of the site is approximately 11.8 acres. The 13.3-acre Project site area is relatively flat generally sloping from the north to the south with approximately 2 feet of fall across the site. An existing storm drain in Winner’s Circle accommodates street drainage. The approved storm drain plan for the Winner’s Circle storm drain depicts a proposed extension to the north, past the end of the cul- de sac, and then west across the existing parking lot. Th drain would be located just north of the Project site. Only the portion of the drain in Winner’s Circle was actually constructed. The proposed drain extension is designed to accommodate the restricted flows (0.3 cfs/acre) from the property north of the Project site. Proposed Conditions: In the proposed condition, drainage will flow away from the proposed buildings and into one of several low points across the site, as depicted on the water quality site plan. Runoff will be collected into an on-site private underground storm drain system. The allowable discharge from the site is restricted to 0.3 cfs/acre per City requirements. To accommodate developed peak flows that exceeds the allowable discharge, the project storm water management system incorporates on- site underground detention basins. These detention basins have been designed to attenuate the 100-year storm event peak flow difference between the developed flow from the project and allowable discharge flow. See the proposed water quality site plan for the conceptual locations of the basins. A storm drain pump will be used to drain the detention systems and meet the 0.3 cfs/acre runoff restriction by limiting the pump discharge to 4.0 cfs. The site will ultimately discharge via a new storm drain connection to the existing 48” Katella storm drain. A hydrodynamic separator will be installed upstream of the detention system to remove trash and debris prior to entering into the system. In addition to the site high-flow detention system, a low-flow detention system will be installed to capture and treat the “first flush” storm event. A bifurcation manhole will be placed upstream of the first flush detention system and divert the first flush volume into a separate detention system. This system will be pumped separately and the runoff will slowly discharge through a manufactured bioretention system over a 48-hour period. The outlet pipe from the biofiltration Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section II Preliminary WQMP Page 5 system will connect separately to the existing 48” Katella Avenue storm drain. The existing off site flows draining toward the site will be captured by extending the Winner’s Circle drain, per the approved plans, to two proposed catch basins along the north property line and routed through a proposed 18” storm drain running east, ultimately connecting to the existing 24” storm drain in Winners Circle. In the event run-off from the area north of the site exceeds the capacity of the catch basins and drain, proposed curb and gutter and an approximately 2’ high berm installed north of the property line will block offsite flow from entering the site. The off-site flows will pond approximately 1.25’ along the north property line before discharging to the west, into Siboney Street, ultimately flowing overland to the south into Katella Avenue. This will be a temporary condition until the area to the north has been developed and a storm water management and detention system is constructed for the future development. The storm water management system for the future site will likely connect to the extended Winner’s Circle storm drain. The runoff diverted around the site in the proposed condition would have reached Katella Avenue in the existing condition at a similar location. Instead of overflowing at the existing catch basins and running off through the existing project driveway, the overflows will instead flow into Katella Avenue at Siboney Street. Since the on-sit portion of the area tributary to Katella Avenue is limited to 4.0 cfs connecting directly into the storm drain, the amount of flows that will reach the Katella Avenue curb and gutter is greatly reduced compared to the existing condition. Narrative Project Description: (Use as much space as necessary.) This development is a is a proposed retail, theater, multi-family, and hotel site. The site is bounded by an existing parking lot to the north, Winner’s Circle on the east, Katella Avenue to the south, and Siboney Street to the west. This development is comprised of approximately 63,795 SF of general commercial, 96,800 SF (120 keys) of hotel, and 251 multi-family apartments. The surface parking field within the interior of the site will serve the hotel, retail and restaurant customers; while and above ground parking structure will accommodate the parking needs of the residential units. The site consists of approximately 13.3 acres. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section II Preliminary WQMP Page 6 The Site includes several buildings, interconnected parking lots and drive aisles, pedestrian hardscape improvements, and typical commercial landscaping throughout, including the site perimeter and within parking lot islands. Parking stalls and drive aisles typically consist of asphalt pavement with limited areas of decorative interlocking pavers at the site entrances. Hardscape typically consists of concrete with area of pedestrian interlocking pavers. The landscaped areas within the parking lot areas include typical commercial-style landscape. The perimeter landscape along all four sides also consists of typical commercial landscape. These areas are relatively flat. No depressed loading docks are proposed, though at-grade loading areas will be present throughout the site. Outdoor trash enclosures are proposed for the non-residential uses and the residential trash will be internal to the residential parking structure area. For preparation area are anticipated in the commercial buildings (tenant spaces are not yet conformed), the theater building, and the hotel building. Material and outdoor storage areas are not anticipated. Outdoor activities generally include parking, outdoor dining areas, common areas and seated areas; no outdoor storage area, vehicle maintenance, washing or repair areas, or fuel stations are proposed. II.2 Potential Stormwater Pollutants Pollutants of Concern Pollutant Check One for each: E=Expected to be of concern N=Not Expected to be of concern Additional Information and Comments Suspended-Solid/ Sediment E N Due to landscape. Nutrients E N Due to landscape. Heavy Metals E N Due to parking lots. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section II Preliminary WQMP Page 7 Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus) E N Due to parking lots and food uses. Pesticides E N Due to landscape. Oil and Grease E N Due to parking lots. Toxic Organic Compounds E N Due to parking lots and commercial development type. Trash and Debris E N II.3 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern No – Show map Yes – Describe applicable hydrologic conditions of concern below. Refer to Section 2.2.3 in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD). The site is located at the edge of the hydromodification boundary line as defined the in Orange County Technical Guidance Document. The area just east of the site drains easterly toward a hydromodification-susceptible watershed. The site connects to a storm drain system that drains westerly toward the Coyote Creek/San Gabriel River water shed that is not susceptible to hydromodification. The site not in a hydromodification zone; therefore, only the 100-year storm is analyzed. See Appendix B for Map II.4 Post Development Drainage Characteristics In the proposed condition, drainage will flow away from the proposed buildings and into one of several low points across the site, as depicted on the water quality site plan. Runoff will be collected into an on-site private underground storm drain system. The allowable discharge from the site is restricted to 0.3 cfs/acre per City requirements. To accommodate developed peak flows that exceeds the allowable discharge, the project storm water management system incorporates on- site underground detention basins. These detention basins have been designed to attenuate the 100-year storm event peak flow difference between the developed flow from the project and allowable discharge flow. See the proposed water quality site plan for the conceptual locations of the basins. A storm drain pump will be used to drain the detention systems and meet the 0.3 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section II Preliminary WQMP Page 8 cfs/acre runoff restriction by limiting the pump discharge to 4.0 cfs. The site will ultimately discharge via a new storm drain connection to the existing 48” Katella storm drain. A hydrodynamic separator will be installed upstream of the detention system to remove trash and debris prior to entering into the system. In the event of pump failure, the overflows will drain into the Katella Avenue street section, as in the existing condition, with a maximum of 18 inches of ponded depth before flows break over into the street. In addition to the site high-flow detention system, a low-flow detention system will be installed to capture and treat the “first flush” storm event. A bifurcation manhole will be placed upstream of the first flush detention system and divert the first flush volume into a separate detention system. This system will be pumped separately and the runoff will slowly discharge through a manufactured bioretention system over a 48-hour period. The outlet pipe from the biofiltration system will connect separately to the existing 48” Katella Avenue storm drain. The existing off site flows draining toward the site will be captured by extending the Winner’s Circle drain, per the approved plans, to two proposed catch basins along the north property line and routed through a proposed 18” storm drain running east, ultimately connecting to the existing 24” storm drain in Winners Circle. In the event run-off from the area north of the site exceeds the capacity of the catch basins and drain, proposed curb and gutter and an approximately 2’ high berm installed north of the property line will block offsite flow from entering the site. The off-site flows will pond approximately 1.25’ along the north property line before discharging to the west, into Siboney Street, ultimately flowing overland to the south into Katella Avenue. This will be a temporary condition until the area to the north has been developed and a storm water management and detention system is constructed for the future development. The storm water management system for the future site will likely connect to the extended Winner’s Circle storm drain. The runoff diverted around the site in the proposed condition would have reached Katella Avenue in the existing condition at a similar location. Instead of overflowing at the existing catch basins and running off through the existing project driveway, the overflows will instead flow into Katella Avenue at Siboney Street. Since the on-sit portion of the area tributary to Katella Avenue is limited to 4.0 cfs connecting directly into the storm drain, the amount of flows that will reach the Katella Avenue curb and gutter is greatly reduced compared to the existing condition. The site LID requirement, for the 85th percentile, 24-hour strom, will be met through the installation of a Modular Wetlands proprietary biofiltration unit. The DCV will be diverted and detained in a separate detention system and discharged over 48 hours to the proposed Modular Wetland Unit. Due to the shallow groundwater at the site, infiltration is infeasible. II.5 Property Ownership/Management Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section II Preliminary WQMP Page 9 Shea Properties will be the owner, builder and manager of the proposed retail and residential, which is being designed as a “Class A” apartment. The proposed hotel site will be sold to hotel developer/operator. A CC&R or REOA document and property owner’s association (POA) will be established for common area maintenance and operations. The POA will fund and be responsible for maintenance. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section III Preliminary WQMP Page 10 Section III Site Description III.1 Physical Setting Name of Planned Community/Planning Area (if applicable) Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC-SP) Location/Address North East corner of Siboney Street and Katella Avenue. 4961 Katella Avenue, Cypress CA General Plan Land Use Designation Professional Office Zoning Mixed Use Commercial/Residential Acreage of Project Site 13.33 Predominant Soil Type Hydrologic Soil Group D (per geotechnical report) III.2 Site Characteristics Site Characteristics Precipitation Zone Design Capture Storm Depth 0.85” (24 Hr, 85th Percentile Rainfall) Topography The existing site topography is very flat with an average slope in the north-south direction of 0.1% and a fall of approximately one foot. Drainage Patterns/Connections In the existing condition, the site drains to two ribbon gutters that run in a north/south orientation. Both gutters convey drainage from the parking lot area to the north of the Project. Each gutter terminates at an existing catch basin that connected to an existing City 48” storm drain that runs on the north edge Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section III Preliminary WQMP Page 11 Katella Avenue from east to west. The existing storm drain system discharges into a Bolsa Chica Channel. Soil Type, Geology, and Infiltration Properties Hydrologic Soil Group D. It has a minimal infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted. Hydrogeologic (Groundwater) Conditions The historic high groundwater is less than 5 feet below ground surface. The depth to seasonal high groundwater table beneath the project falls within the normal high range and precludes infiltration. Geotechnical Conditions (relevant to infiltration) Infiltration is not recommended due to high ground water levels. Off-Site Drainage The project site will intercept off-site drainage from the parking lot to the north and will be conveyed through a separate offsite storm drain pipe that will be diverted around the proposed BMPs so that it is not treated. The offsite pipe will discharge into an existing storm drain pipe in Winner’s Circle. The off-site flows will not be detained or treated. Utility and Infrastructure Information There are existing public water mains in Katella Avenue, Winner’s Circle and private Siboney Street along the project frontages. The City has an 18-inch VCP sewer main in Katella Avenue sloping from east to west along the Project frontage and an 8- inch sewer in Winner’s Circle sloping from north to south that connects into the Katella sewer. Implementation of the proposed Mixed-Use development is not anticipated to create any new impacts or require additional wastewater treatment beyond what has already been anticipated in the General Plan and the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan EIR. There is a 39-inch RCP storm drain in Katella Ave that slopes from east to west. Two on-site catch basins connect to this storm pipe. The City also has a 24-inch storm drain in Winner’s Circle. In total, flows from the site into the City storm drain system will be limited to a maximum of 0.3 cfs/acre of on-site area. III.3 Watershed Description Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section III Preliminary WQMP Page 12 Receiving Waters San Gabriel River, Reach 1, Estuary 303(d) Listed Impairments Copper, Dioxin, Indicator Bacteria, Nickel, Dissolved Oxygen. pH, Temperature Applicable TMDLs Metals (Copper) Pollutants of Concern for the Project Suspended-Solid/ Sediment, Nutrients, Heavy Metals, Oil and Grease, Pesticides, Pathogens (Bacteria/Virus), Toxic Organic Compounds and Trash and Debris. Environmentally Sensitive and Special Biological Significant Areas Not applicable Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 13 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) IV. 1 Project Performance Criteria (NOC Permit Area only) Is there an approved WIHMP or equivalent for the project area that includes more stringent LID feasibility criteria or if there are opportunities identified for implementing LID on regional or sub-regional basis? YES NO If yes, describe WIHMP feasibility criteria or regional/sub-regional LID opportunities. N/A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 14 Project Performance Criteria If HCOC exists, list applicable hydromodification control performance criteria (Section 7.II-2.4.2.2 in MWQMP) N/A List applicable LID performance criteria (Section 7.II-2.4.3 from MWQMP) Infiltrate, harvest and reuse, evapotranspiration, or biotreat/biofilter the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event (DCV). List applicable treatment control BMP performance criteria (Section 7.II-3.2.2 from MWQMP) N/A Calculate LID design storm capture volume for Project. C = (0.90x0.75+.15)=0.825 D=0.85” A=13.33 V=34,000 After 50% reduction (see below for credits): V=17,000 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 15 IV.2. Site Design and Drainage DMA Number Area (AC) DCV (CF) Q (CF S) Treatment Device Device Capacity (CFS) 1 13.33 17,000 Modular Wetland Model No. MWS-L-8-16 (discharged over a 48-hour period) 0.052 1 13.33 1.43 Hydrodynamic Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 16 IV.3 LID BMP Selection and Project Conformance Analysis IV.3.1 Hydrologic Source Controls (HSCs) If required HSCs are included, fill out applicable check box forms. If the retention criteria are otherwise met with other LID BMPs, include a statement indicating HSCs not required. Name Included? Localized on-lot infiltration Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top disconnection) Street trees (canopy interception) Residential rain barrels (not actively managed) Green roofs/Brown roofs Blue roofs Impervious area reduction (e.g. permeable pavers, site design) Localized on-lot infiltration: Due to the multiple constraints to infiltration, localized on- lot infiltration is not proposed. Impervious area dispersion (e.g. roof top disconnection): Due to the multiple constraints to infiltration, localized impervious area dispersion is not proposed. However, proprietary biofiltration BMPs with some evapotranspiration benefits are proposed. Street trees (canopy interception) Significant canopy coverage is proposed on-site. Parking lot and perimeter trees are proposed throughout the Project. Residential rain barrels (not actively managed): This does not apply to large commercial sites. Also, reclaimed water will be used for irrigation. Green roofs/Brown roofs: Green roofs are not proposed due to cost and maintenance concerns and the arid environment of Southern California that does not lend itself to their use. Blue roofs: In lieu of blue roofs, which have limited use in retail and hotel architecture, a vault and pump system is used to control project outflows. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 17 Impervious area reduction (e.g. permeable pavers, site design): The overall site substantially exceeds existing landscape ratio and unit pavers are proposed in certain locations on- site. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 18 IV.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Identify infiltration BMPs to be used in project. If design volume cannot be met, state why. Name Included? Bioretention without underdrains Rain gardens Porous landscaping Infiltration planters Retention swales Infiltration trenches Infiltration basins Drywells Subsurface infiltration galleries French drains Permeable asphalt Permeable concrete Permeable concrete pavers Other: Other: No infiltration BMPs are to be used in this project. Infiltration is not feasible due to high ground water table. The proposed underground detention systems will be designed to resist buoyant forces caused by high ground water. Permanent dewatering is not anticipated at this time. A proprietary Modular Wetland biofiltration system will treat the site DCV. See WQMP site plan for size. IV.3.3 Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMPs Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 19 If the full Design Storm Capture Volume cannot be met with infiltration BMPs, describe any evapotranspiration and/or rainwater harvesting BMPs included. Name Included? All HSCs; See Section IV.3.1 Surface-based infiltration BMPs Biotreatment BMPs Above-ground cisterns and basins Underground detention Other: Other: Other: Evapotranspiration and rainwater harvesting BMPs are not feasible. See calculations in Attachment E. A proprietary Modular Wetland biofiltration system will treat the site DCV. An underground detention and pump system upstream of the modular wetland will control the flow into the device and allow the device to be sized on a volume basis. The underground detention system volume corresponds to the adjusted DCV. See WQMP site plan for size. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 20 IV.3.4 Biotreatment BMPs If the full Design Storm Capture Volume cannot be met with infiltration BMPs, and/or evapotranspiration and rainwater harvesting BMPs, describe biotreatment BMPs included. Include sections for selection, suitability, sizing, and infeasibility, as applicable. Name Included? Bioretention with underdrains Stormwater planter boxes with underdrains Rain gardens with underdrains Constructed wetlands Vegetated swales Vegetated filter strips Proprietary vegetated biotreatment systems Wet extended detention basin Dry extended detention basins Other: Other: The on-site storm drain system will include parallel detention systems and pumps. The low flows will be diverted to a low flow storage tank that is sized for the adjusted DCV. The outlet pump for the low flow storage tank will be sized and designed to drain the tank in 48 hours. The pump will discharge stormwater into a single high-efficiency Modular Wetland biofiltration BMP. The flows in excess of the adjusted DCV will enter a second tank with a separate discharge pump. The high flow pump will be sized and designed to discharge up to a maximum of 4.0 cfs. The outlet pipe from the high flow pump and the outlet pipe from the Modular Wetland unit will join and connect to the existing Katella Avenue storm drain at a single point. The Modular Wetland system has been independently tested by the State of Washington DOT and treats a wide range of pollutants at a high efficiency level through biological and chemical processes. See calculation in attachment E IV.3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPs Not applicable. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 21 IV.3.6 Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs Describe regional/sub-regional LID BMPs in which the project will participate. Refer to Section 7.II-2.4.3.2 of the Model WQMP. Regional/Sub-Regional LID BMPs N/A IV.3.7 Treatment Control BMPs Not applicable due to the use of biofiltration BMPs. The hydrodynamic separator is used to remove trash and debris prior to entering the detention system. For the purposes of this report the hydrodynamic separator is intended to be for maintenance benefit purposes only and is not counted as stormwater treatment. The entire DCV is treated by the Modular Wetland System. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 22 IV.3.8 Non-structural Source Control BMPs Fill out non-structural source control check box forms or provide a brief narrative explaining if non-structural source controls were not used. Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One If not applicable, state brief reason Included Not Applicable N1 Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants N2 Activity Restrictions N3 Common Area Landscape Management N4 BMP Maintenance N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) No hazardous waste will be handled onsite. N6 Local Industrial Permit Compliance Industrial uses are not present on-site. N7 Spill Contingency Plan N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance No USTs proposed. N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance No hazardous material will be handled onsite. N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation N11 Common Area Litter Control N12 Employee Training N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks No depressed loading docks are proposed. N14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 23 N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots N16 Retail Gasoline Outlets Fueling stations are not proposed. Implementation of Non-Structural BMPS N1. Education of Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants. Responsible Party for Implementation of BMP: Property Owner’s Association. Implementation Frequency: Ongoing. Orientation shall be given to new owners, tenants, and occupants within 30 days of startup. Educational material and information shall be provided by the property owner to new owners/tenants/occupants on general good housekeeping BMPs and other practices that contribute to protection of storm water quality. This WQMP shall be provided with emphasis placed on the materials included in, but not limited to, Sections N, V, VI and VII of this report. For additional information, see the BMP Maintenance Responsibility /Frequency Matrix in Section V. Educational Materials to be used include, but are not limited to, SC-10, Non-Stormwater Discharges, SC- 30, Outdoor Loading/Unloading, SC-34, Waste Handling & Disposal, SC-41, Building & Grounds Maintenance, SC-43, Parking/Storage Area Maintenance, The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door, After the Storm, Protecting Water Quality from Urban Runoff, Preventing Pollution Through Efficient Water Use, and Your Business and the County- Partners in Protecting the Ocean. In addition to the attachments, the following resource can be contacted to obtain updated educational information free of charge http://ocwatersheds.com/PublicEd. See Table V-1 in Section V for inspection and maintenance activity requirements. N2. Activity Restrictions. Responsible Party for Implementation of BMP: Property Owner’s Association. Implementation Frequency: Daily management of operation. Orientation shall be given to new owners, tenants, and occupants within 30 days of startup. Refreshing orientation shall be given annually. Onsite activities shall be restricted to those currently granted by the City of Cypress and as stated in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CCRs), which will be available in the near future. Parking restrictions include, but are not limited to, provisions regulating vehicle and truck deliveries, vehicle and truck parking, loading and unloading activities, etc. Some other common restrictions to be adhered to are as follows: • No discharges of fertilizer, pesticides, and wastes to streets or storm drains • No blowing or sweeping of debris into streets or storm drains Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 24 • No hosing down of paved surfaces • No vehicle washing or maintenance. • Do not perform paint cleanup activities in paved areas or allow rinse water from these activities to enter the storm drain system. Clean brushes containing water-based paint in a sink that is connected to the sanitary sewer system. • Do not use detergents or other chemical additives when washing concrete sidewalks or building exteriors, use potable water only and collect wash water runoff using a vacuum truck, for proper offsite disposal. • Keep premises, as well as trash container areas, free of litter. See Table V -1 in Section V for inspection and maintenance activity requirements. In addition, onsite activities shall be limited to the requirements of this WQMP as described herein. N3. Common Area Landscape Management. Responsible Party for Implementation of BMP: Property Owner’s Association. Implementation Frequency: Landscape areas shall be maintained on a weekly basis through Grounds and Maintenance personnel. All maintenance shall be consistent with the City of Cypress Water Quality Ordinance and Cypress Municipal Code General guidelines include the following: Plant vegetation that reduces water, fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide use. Waste shall be disposed of by composting or at a permitted landfill and shall not be raked or blown into the street, gutter, or storm drains. Irrigation systems shall be inspected monthly for leaks. Leaks shall be repaired as soon as they are observed. A void over-watering of vegetation. If excessive runoff is observed, automatic timers shall be adjusted. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides shall be used as directed on the label. If fertilizer is spilled on a paved surface it should be swept up immediately and placed in its container. Water shall not be used to clean fertilizer spills unless necessary and only after the area has been thoroughly cleaned using dry cleaning methods. Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers shall not be applied within 48 hours prior to rain or if wind speeds exceed 5 mph. For additional information, see Help Prevent Ocean Pollution - Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business included in Section VII of this report. Also refer to BMP SC-41, Building & Grounds Maintenance, included in Section VII and the BMP Maintenance Responsibility /Frequency Matrix in Section V for details. N4. BMP Maintenance. Responsible Party for Implementation of BMP: Property Owner’s Association. Implementation Frequency: Individual BMPs shall be inspected based on the required frequency of each BMP as suggested in the Maintenance Responsibility /Frequency Matrix. See the BMP Maintenance Responsibility /Frequency Matrix in Section V for details. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 25 N11. Common Area Litter Control Responsible Party for Implementation of BMP: Property Owner’s Association. Implementation Frequency: On a weekly basis through a maintenance firm. To reduce the likelihood of polluting storm water runoff, regular maintenance will be conducted. This will consist of, at a minimum, site-wide litter control, emptying of trash receptacles in common areas, sweeping of dumpster enclosure areas, and reporting trash disposal violations to the owner or POA for investigation. The landscape maintenance may be contracted for common area litter control as well. See Table V-1 in Section V for inspection and maintenance activity requirements. Trash enclosures will include roofs. N12 Employee Training Responsible Party for Implementation of BMP: Property Owner’s Association. Implementation Frequency: Education of applicable employees for the tenants shall continue an ongoing basis and shall be done within 30 days of startup. Each new applicable onsite employee shall be given a water quality orientation within 30 days of hire using this WQMP Report as a reference. At a minimum, each applicable onsite employee shall have an annual review of the provisions of the WQMP Report for this project See Table V -1 in Section V for inspection and maintenance activity requirements. N14. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection. Responsible Party for Implementation of BMP: Property Owner’s Association. Implementation Frequency: Twice a month to remove debris and after every major storm event. The site's proposed drainage is picked up in catch basins at various places and is transported underground to the main storm drain. These catch basins are to be maintained a at the frequency N15. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots. Responsible Party for Implementation of BMP: Property Owner’s Association. Implementation Frequency: Twice a month to remove debris. The Property Owners' Association shall be responsible for sweeping the surrounding parking lot on a regular basis to remove debris. At minimum, the streets and parking lots will be required to be swept prior to the storm season, in late summer or early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season, or equivalent as required by the governing jurisdiction. For additional information, see BMP SC-34, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 26 Waste Handling and· Disposal and BMP SC-43, Parking/Storage Area Maintenance, included in Section VII, and the BMP Maintenance Responsibility /Frequency Matrix in Section V. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 27 IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPs Fill out structural source control check box forms or provide a brief narrative explaining if structural source controls were not used. Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One If not applicable, state brief reason Included Not Applicable S1 Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage Catch basins will be stenciled. S2 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Outdoor material storage areas are not proposed. S3 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Trash enclosures will be fully walled and gated S4 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control Efficient irrigation and a drought-resistant plant palette are proposed. S5 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation Katella Ave. roadway embankment will be landscaped to protect the slope from erosion. Incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project categories (from SDRWQCB NPDES Permit) Project is in North Orange County S6 Dock areas No proposed depressed loading dock S7 Maintenance bays Maintenance bays are not proposed. S8 Vehicle wash areas Vehicle wash areas are not proposed. S9 Outdoor processing areas Outdoor processing areas are not proposed. S10 Equipment wash areas Equipment wash areas are not proposed. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 28 S11 Fueling areas Fueling areas are not proposed. S12 Hillside landscaping Hillside landscaping will be provided on the Katella Ave. roadway embankment. S13 Wash water control for food preparation areas Outdoor wash areas are not proposed. S14 Community car wash racks Car wash racks are not proposed. IV.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (If Applicable) IV.4.1 Water Quality Credits Description of Proposed Project Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits (Select all that apply): Redevelopment projects that reduce the overall impervious footprint of the project site. Brownfield redevelopment, meaning redevelopment, expansion, or reuse of real property which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, and which have the potential to contribute to adverse ground or surface WQ if not redeveloped. Higher density development projects which include two distinct categories (credits can only be taken for one category): those with more than seven units per acre of development (lower credit allowance); vertical density developments, for example, those with a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of 2 or those having more than 18 units per acre (greater credit allowance). Mixed use development, such as a combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses which incorporate design principles that can demonstrate environmental benefits that would not be realized through single use projects (e.g. reduced vehicle trip traffic with the potential to reduce sources of water or air pollution). Transit-oriented developments, such as a mixed use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transportation; similar to above criterion, but where the development center is within one half mile of a mass transit center (e.g. bus, rail, light rail or commuter train station). Such projects would not be able to take credit for both categories, but may have greater credit assigned Redevelopment projects in an established historic district, historic preservation area, or similar significant city area including core City Center areas (to be defined through mapping). Developments with dedication of undeveloped portions to parks, preservation areas and other pervious uses. Developments in a city center area. Developments in historic districts or historic preservation areas. Live-work developments, a variety of developments designed to support residential and vocational needs together – similar to criteria to mixed use development; would not be able to take credit for In-fill projects, the conversion of empty lots and other underused spaces into more beneficially used spaces, such as residential or commercial areas. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section IV Preliminary WQMP Page 29 both categories. Calculation of Water Quality Credits (if applicable) The Cypress Mixed Use development is eligible for a 50% reduction in water quality volume because it meets the redevelopment, higher density development, mixed use development, and in-fill development requirements. A 50% credit has been applied to all treatment flow rates and volumes. IV.4.2 Alternative Compliance Plan Information An alternative compliance plan based on water quality credits is proposed based on several factors. In general, reduction of the surface area of the Modular Wetland BMP allows for the greatest density and mix of uses possible on the site. A decription of indiviual water quality credits follows: Redevelopment: The site is currently developed as a fully paved parking lot with no internal landscape and no landscape along the north edge of the property. The proposed site plan includes a new landscae strip alng the north property line and landscape dipersed throughout the proposed parking field. Higher density development projects (20% credit): 251 apartment units are proposed on the 13.33 acres, yielding a density of 18.8 units per acre for the residential density alone. Significant uses in addition to the residential add to the overall project density. Mixed-Use Development (20% credit) : The project includes a true mix of uses including residentail (wrap apartment building, retail and restaurant (multi-tenant buildings), entertainment (theater building), and hospitality (hotel building). All uses will be connected by walkable paths of travel, helping to reduce project trips and provide other mixed-use environmentla benefits. In-Fill Projects (10% credit): The project is proposed on a parking lot the is vacant nearly 100% of the time, but is also nearly 100% impervious. The space is extremely underutilized and will be transformed into a vibrant, mixed-use development. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section V 2019.08.20 - Preliminary WQMP.docx Page 30 Section V Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs The following tables indicate BMP inspection and maintenance responsibility. These tables identify the party responsible for inspection and maintenance, a description of the inspection and/or maintenance activity, and a frequency for the inspection and/or maintenance activity. Records of maintenance and inspections shall be kept for a period of five years and shall be made available for review by government agencies. Responsible party details are to be determined during the final WQMP. At this time a Property Management Association is assumed to take responsibility for the Maintenance of all onsite BMPs. Property Management Association Name: TBD Title: TBD Company: TBD Address: TBD Phone Number: TBD Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section V 2019.08.20 - Preliminary WQMP.docx Page 31 Note: The rainy season occurs from October 1st to April 15th. BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Inspection / Maintenance Activities Required Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Non-Structural Source Control BMPs N1. Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Upon Tenant Occupancy Educational material shall be provided to all employees and tenants. Property Management Association N2. Activity Restriction Monthly The owner shall develop activity restrictions to minimize the threat of hazardous waste or contamination into the storm drainage system. Car washing is not allowed on-site at any time. Property Management Association N3. Common Area Landscape Management Weekly Training on landscape management consistent with County Water Conservation Resolution or City equivalent, plus Management Guidelines for Fertilizers (DAMP Section 5.5) shall be conducted for all new field landscape maintenance personnel. Property Management Association N4. BMP Maintenance Weekly Maintenance of BMPs implemented at the project site shall be performed at the frequency prescribed in this WQMP. Property Management Association N11. Common Area Litter Control Daily Litter patrol, violations investigation, reporting and other litter control activities shall be performed in conjunction with maintenance activities. Property Management Association N12. Employee Training Yearly for all employees and within 6 months of hire date for new employees. Education programs shall be implemented as they apply to future employees and training of current employees. Property Management Association N14. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection Minimum of once a year prior to rainy season. Litter and debris removal, illicit discharge violations investigation and reporting shall be performed in conjunction with maintenance activities. Property Management Association Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section V 2019.08.20 - Preliminary WQMP.docx Page 32 BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Inspection / Maintenance Activities Required Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility N15. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Monthly Private streets and parking area within the project shall be swept at a minimum frequency of once a month. Property Management Association Structural Source Control BMPs S1. Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage Yearly All proposed inlets shall be marked with the appropriate “No Dumping. Drains to Ocean.” Stencil. The stencils must be repainted when they becomes illegible, but at a minimum once every five years. Property Management Association S3. Design and Construct Outdoor Material Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction Weekly Trash receptacles shall be placed on a paved area. Sweep trash area at least once per week. Maintain area clean of trash and debris. Property Management Association S4. Use Efficient Irrigation Systems & Landscape Design Monthly Verify that landscape design continues to function properly by correctly adjusting to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, and to verify that irrigation timing and cycle lengths are adjusted in accordance with water demands, given time of year, and day or night time temperatures. Property Management Association S5. Protect Slopes and Channels Monthly Maintain area and clear any accumulated sediment or trash during the summer, or early fall, before October 1st. Property Management Association Medium Term Erosion Control BMPs EC5. Soil Stabilization Monthly and after large storms. Inspect graded building pads and reapply stabilization if signs of erosion are present. Property Management Association Low Impact Development (LID) and Treatment Control BMPs Modular Wetland Bi- annual Inspect and remove trash and debris from outlet pipe and vault twice a year. Property Management Association Hydrodynamic Separator Bi-annual Inspect and remove trash and debris from the collection chamber twice a year. Property Management Association Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section V 2019.08.20 - Preliminary WQMP.docx Page 33 BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Inspection / Maintenance Activities Required Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Diversion Structure Every two months Inspect and remove trash and debris as necessary from the diversion box every two months. Property Management Association Underground Detention System Bi-annual Inspect and remove trash and debris from the detention system twice a year. Property Management Association Strom Drain Pump Systems TBD TBD Property Management Association Vector note: Vector control is provided through the proper sizing of BMPs. BMPs are designed to drain completely within 48 hours. Any ponded water on-site in excess of a 24-hour period is an indication that storm drain system maintenance and inspection is required. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section VI Preliminary WQMP Page 34 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section VI Preliminary WQMP Page 35 Section VI BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) VI.1 BMP Exhibit (Site Plan) See attachedment H for the Preliminary WQMP Exhibit VI.2 Submittal and Recordation of Water Quality Management Plan A PDF of the full report is included with the submittal. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Cypress Mixed Use SHEA PROPERTIES Section VII 2019.08.20 - Preliminary WQMP.docx Page 36 Section VII Educational Materials Education Materials Residential Material (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Applicable Business Material (http://www.ocwatersheds.com) Check If Applicable The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Tips for the Automotive Industry Tips for Car Wash Fund-raisers Tips for Using Concrete and Mortar Tips for the Home Mechanic Tips for the Food Service Industry Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Water Use Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business Household Tips Other Material Check If Attached Proper Disposal of Household Hazardous Waste Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (North County) Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (Central County) Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center (South County) Tips for Maintaining a Septic Tank System Responsible Pest Control Sewer Spill Tips for the Home Improvement Projects Tips for Horse Care Tips for Landscaping and Gardening Tips for Pet Care Tips for Pool Maintenance Tips for Residential Pool, Landscape and Hardscape Drains Tips for Projects Using Paint ATTACHMENT A 303d LIST OF IMPAIRED WATER BODIES 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 1/23 Final California 2014 and 2016 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report) Supporting Information Regional Board 8 - Santa Ana Region Water Body Name:Los Alamitos Channel Water Body ID:CAR8456100020161109050078 Water Body Type:River & Stream DECISION ID 65265 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Arsenic Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65265, Arsenic Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95772 Pollutant:Arsenic LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 2/23 DECISION ID 65266 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Bifenthrin Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One (1) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65266, Bifenthrin Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95779 Pollutant:Bifenthrin LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:1 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). Guideline Reference:Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65267 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Cadmium Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 3/23 Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65267, Cadmium Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95780 Pollutant:Cadmium LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65268 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Chlorpyrifos Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 4/23 State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65268, Chlorpyrifos Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95790 Pollutant:Chlorpyrifos LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). Guideline Reference:Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65269 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Chromium Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65269, Chromium Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95791 Pollutant:Chromium LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 5/23 Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65270 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Copper Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65270, Copper Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95792 Pollutant:Copper LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 6/23 Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65271 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Cyfluthrin Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65271, Cyfluthrin Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95793 Pollutant:Cyfluthrin LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). Guideline Reference:Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65272 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 7/23 Pollutant:Cyhalothrin, Lambda Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65272, Cyhalothrin, Lambda Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95794 Pollutant:Cyhalothrin, Lambda LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). Guideline Reference:Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65273 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Cypermethrin Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 8/23 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65273, Cypermethrin Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95768 Pollutant:Cypermethrin LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). Guideline Reference:Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65274 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 9/23 Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65274, DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95769 Pollutant:DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDD. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDD is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65275 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One (1) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65275, DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95770 Pollutant:DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 10/23 Number of Exceedances:1 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDE. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65276 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion for DDT and Total DDT. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion for DDT and Total DDT and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65276, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95786 Pollutant:Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for total DDTs is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 11/23 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65276, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95773 Pollutant:DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65277 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Deltamethrin Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65277, Deltamethrin Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95771 Pollutant:Deltamethrin LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 12/23 Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). Guideline Reference:Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65278 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Diazinon Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65278, Diazinon Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95774 Pollutant:Diazinon LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 13/23 Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011). Guideline Reference:Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83?92. Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65279 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Dieldrin Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65279, Dieldrin Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95775 Pollutant:Dieldrin LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 14/23 DECISION ID 65280 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Endrin Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65280, Endrin Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95778 Pollutant:Endrin LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65281 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 15/23 Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65281, Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95776 Pollutant:Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). Guideline Reference:Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65282 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Fenpropathrin Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 16/23 State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65282, Fenpropathrin Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95777 Pollutant:Fenpropathrin LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). Guideline Reference:Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83?92. Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65283 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Lead Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65283, Lead Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95781 Pollutant:Lead LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 17/23 Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65284 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65284, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95782 Pollutant:Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 18/23 Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65285 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Mercury Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65285, Mercury Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95783 Pollutant:Mercury LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65286 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 19/23 Pollutant:Methyl Parathion Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65286, Methyl Parathion Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95784 Pollutant:Methyl Parathion LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011). Guideline Reference:Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83?92. Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65287 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Nickel Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 20/23 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65287, Nickel Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95785 Pollutant:Nickel LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65288 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Permethrin, total Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 21/23 Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65288, Permethrin, total Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95788 Pollutant:Permethrin, total LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). Guideline Reference:Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65549 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Toxicity Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status for toxicity, and waters may be placed on the CWA section 303(d) List for toxicity alone. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess sediment toxicity. One of the one samples exhibited sediment toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of the one samples exhibited sediment toxicity, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65549, Toxicity Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95787 Pollutant:Toxicity LOE Subgroup:Toxicity Matrix:Sediment Fraction:None Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:1 Data and Information Type:TOXICITY TESTING 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 22/23 Data Used to Assess Water Quality:One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 4 Basin Plan. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. Guideline Reference:Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 Spatial Representation:The samples were collected at station 845SGRDRE. Temporal Representation:The samples were collected in May 2008. Environmental Conditions: QAPP Information:All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) DECISION ID 65290 Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel Pollutant:Zinc Final Listing Decision:Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:New Decision Revision Status Revised Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:Pollutant Regional Board Conclusion:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board Decision Recommendation:After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: State Board Decision Recommendation:After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 65290, Zinc Region 8 Los Alamitos Channel LOE ID:95789 Pollutant:Zinc LOE Subgroup:Pollutant-Sediment Matrix:Sediment Fraction:Total Beneficial Use:Warm Freshwater Habitat Number of Samples:1 Number of Exceedances:0 Data and Information Type:PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING Data Used to Assess Water Quality:Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Los Alamitos Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. Data Reference:Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 SWAMP Data:SWAMP Water Quality Objective/Criterion:Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (SDRWQCB 2007): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Objective/Criterion Reference:Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin Evaluation Guideline:In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). Guideline Reference:Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 Spatial Representation:Data for this line of evidence for Los Alamitos Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Drainage East of San Gabriel River at Hgwy22 station (845SGRDRE).] 7/26/2019 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2014_16state_ir_reports/03353.shtml#65265 23/23 Temporal Representation:Data was collected on a single day 5/20/2008. Environmental Conditions:Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. QAPP Information:SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA. QAPP Information Reference(s):Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) ATTACHMENT B COUNTY SOILS, HYDROMODIFICATION SUSCEPTIBILITY, AND RAINFALL MAPS O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y RI V E R S I D E C O U N T Y RI V E R S I D E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y SA N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SA N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYP:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Reports\InfiltrationFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-2a_HydroSoils_20110215.mxdFIGURE XVI-2aJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 milesDESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP02/09/11DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYINFILTRATION STUDYORANGE CO.CANRCS HYDROLOGICSOILS GROUPSSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION Source: Soils: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey - soil_ca678, Orange County & Western Riverside Date of publication: 2006-02-08 !I 0 3.6 7.21.8 Miles 0 5 102.5 Kilometers LEGEND City Boundaries Hydrologic Soil Groups A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm P:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\SuceptabilityMaps_20100505\9526E_SanGabrielCoyoteCreekSusceptibility_20100430.mxdAnaheim Bay-Huntington Harbor Watershed Newport Bay- Newport Coastal Streams Watershed Santa River Watershed Los Angeles County Channel in Retarding Basin Los AlamitosNaval AirStation Seal BeachNaval WeaponsStation FullertonAirport HillcrestParkReservoir OrangeCounty La JollaRechargeBasin KraemerBasin FullertonReservoir FullertonReservoirBrea CreekReservior HumbleReservoir ValenciaReservoir FullertonReservoir MillerRetardingBasin CypressRetardingBasin Los AlamitosRetardingBasin PlacentiaRetardingBasin RaymondRetardingBasin GilbertRetardingBasin CrescentRetardingBasin Loftus DiversionChannelDesilting Basin RossmoorRetardingBasin 1JOBTITLESCALE1" = 8000'DESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP04/30/10DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYWATERSHEDMASTER PLANNINGORANGE CO.CASUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYISSAN GABRIEL-COYOTE CREEK!I 0 8,000 16,000 Feet Susceptibility Potential Areas of Erosion, Habitat, & Physical Structure Susceptibility Channel Type Earth (Unstable) Earth (Stabilized) Stabilized Tidel Influence <= Mean High Water Line (4.28') Water Body Basin Lake Reservoir Other Lands Airport/Military SUSCEPTIBILITY MAP UPATE (FEB 2013) O R A N G E C O U N T Y O R A N G E C O U N T Y RI V E R S I D E C O U N T Y RI V E R S I D E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y OR A N G E C O U N T Y SA N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y SA N B E R N A R D I N O C O U N T Y ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTYORANGE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTY1.05 0.7 1 0 . 9 50.90.850.80.750 . 70.65 0.9 5 0.70.90.9 0.7 5 P:\9526E\6-GIS\Mxds\Reports\InfiltrationFeasability_20110215\9526E_FigureXVI-1_RainfallZones_20110215.mxdFIGUREJOBTITLESCALE1" = 1.8 milesDESIGNEDDRAWINGCHECKEDBMP04/22/10DATEJOB NO.9526-ETHTHORANGE COUNTYTECHNICAL GUIDANCEDOCUMENTORANGE CO.CARAINFALL ZONESSUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION 0 3.6 7.21.8 Miles 0 6 123 Kilometers LEGEND Orange County Precipitation Stations 24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches) 24 Hour, 85th Percentile Rainfall (Inches) - Extrapolated City Boundaries Rainfall Zones Design Capture Storm Depth (inches) 0.65" 0.7 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.10" Note: Events defined as 24-hour periods (calendar days) with greater than 0.1 inches of rainfall. For areas outside of available data coverage, professional judgment shall be applied. XVI-1 ATTACHMENT C GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 17991 Fitch • Irvine, California 92614 • PHONE (949) 442-2442 • FAX (949) 476-8322 • www.nmggeotechnical.com June 13, 2019 Project No. 19046-01 To: Shea Properties 130 Vantis, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, California, 92656 Attention: Mr. Rick Rutecki, Vice President of Commercial Construction Subject: Geotechnical Due Diligence Study for Proposed Mixed-Use Development at NE Quadrant of Siboney Street and Katella Avenue, City of Cypress, California INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization, NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG) has performed a geotechnical feasibility study for the subject mixed-use development site in the City of Cypress , California. The approximately 13-acre site, located on the northeastern corner of Siboney Street and Katella Avenue, is currently a vacant lot covered primarily with mature asphalt pavement. The primary purpose of our study was to provide a summary of the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the site, along with an evaluation of the feasibility of the project with respect to geotechnical constraints. From these data, this report provides preliminary design recommendations to be used for your development cost estimating. The site geologic conditions include the following: • Predominantly silty and sandy soils in the upper 2 to 10 feet with relatively low expansion potentials; • Compressible clayey and silty alluvium with some sand layers below 10 feet; • Shallow groundwater; • Located in a mapped liquefaction hazard zone; • Not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone; • No mapped faults in the immediate site area; and • Subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes produced by nearby active faults. Seismic shaking, potential liquefaction induced ground settlement/deformation, shallow groundwater, and settlement of the heavier structures planned at the site are the primary geotechnical design constraints. Some type of ground improvement, such as rammed aggregate piers or stone columns, will significantly mitigate these constraints. Groundwater and wet soil conditions will require proactive measures during grading and construction of underground infrastructure. Based on our review, we conclude that the subject property is feasible for the planned development from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the recommendations herein are utilized during design and implemented during grading and construction. 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 2 NMG ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 - Site Location Map – Rear of Text Figure 2 - Boring, Well and CPT Location Map – Rear of Text Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring and CPT Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results Appendix D - Liquefaction Analysis SCOPE OF SERVICES Our scope of services for this study included the following: • Research and review of in-house data (referenced in Appendix A) and our recent experience of this locale pertaining to the geologic conditions in the vicinity of the project, including underlying soil types, recent and historic groundwater levels, and grading impacts of saturated soil; • Review of historic, site-specific project geotechnical reports related to prior studies at the site (referenced in Appendix A); • Archive search for prior geotechnical reports through the City of Cypress; • Site reconnaissance to observe existing conditions, locate existing groundwater observation wells and obtain current groundwater data; • Observation and measurement of groundwater level in open excavation at construction site on the south side of Katella across from the subject site; • Review of available online historic aerial photographs and topographic maps dating back to 1927; • Obtaining a groundwater well permit from the County of Orange; • Excavation of 5 small-diameter borings (one hollow-stem-auger boring to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) and four hand-augered borings to 5 feet bgs). Disturbed bulk soil samples were collected from the upper 5 feet of each boring. After hand-augering the upper 5 feet, the deeper boring (OW-1) was excavated with a truck-mounted drill rig. Soil was sampled at select intervals using a California-type, split-spoon sampler with 2.5-inch- diameter brass rings, driven with a 140-pound automatic hammer dropping 30 inches. Resistance to driving was recorded in blows per foot and is shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. The drill rig was also used to collect ring samples from the bottom of the four hand-excavated borings. • Collection of bulk soil samples and relatively undisturbed soil samples in the five borings; • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples for classification and engineering properties; • Conversion of the 20 foot boring (OW-1) to a groundwater observation well; • Evaluation of site seismicity; 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 3 NMG • Liquefaction analyses using cone penetrometer (CPT) data from a prior study (Leighton, 2017); • Seismic settlement analysis; • Static settlement analysis of planned major structures using the above mentioned CPT test results, along with assumed typical foundation loads; • Review of ground improvement alternatives, including proposal from Western Ground Improvement; • Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions and recommendations. The approximate location of the borings excavated for this study and the three groundwater observation wells are shown on Figure 2, Boring, Well and CPT Location Map, at rear of text. The CPT soundings used in our settlement and liquefaction analyses are also shown on that figure. The CPT logs are included in Appendix B and the liquefaction analysis and settlement analyses from the CPT data are included in Appendix D. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located just south of the Los Alamitos Race Track in the city of Cypress, California. Specifically, the site is bounded by Winners Circle street on the east, a large asphalt parking area to the north, Siboney Street on the west and Katella Avenue on the south. The site location is shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. The site is currently vacant and used for event parking. Temporary parking of trucks and trailers for a commercial business on a portion of the site (southwestern quadrant) was also observed during this study. Most of the site is covered by older degraded asphalt, with a small unpaved dirt area adjacent to the terminus of Winners Circle (cul-du-sac). The south and southwestern boundaries of the site along Katella Avenue consist of some landscaping, including mature eucalyptus trees, shrubs, and turf. There are existing light poles and various electrical utility boxes and lines within the site. The site is drained by two sets of drainage ditches that flow south toward storm drain grates that flow into underground storm drain pipes. A water main valve is present along Siboney Street near the southwest corner of the site. There are two groundwater observation wells which were installed by an unknown party sometime before 2008, during a previous investigation (GPI, 2008). Also, NMG recently installed a groundwater observation well in the southwest quadrant of the site. 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 4 NMG PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The conceptual site plan (Option 1) by Architects Orange shows a mixed-use development with the following: • A rectangular-shaped four-story hotel approximately 50 to 60 feet wide by 300 feet long at the southwest corner; • Three stand-alone retail buildings ranging from 5,000 to 7,000 square feet each at the southeast corner; a 842-seat theater at the northeast corner; • A four-story multi-family residential wrap-type structure roughly 380 feet by 370 feet, including an internal five-story parking structure, pool and two open court yard areas. These proposed buildings are connected with pedestrian walkways and parking areas. Vehicular access to the site will be from multiple entry points off Katella Avenue (one), Siboney Street (two), and Winner's Circle (two off the cul-du-sac). The preliminary grading plan by the project civil engineer, Kimley-Horn, shows large areas of fill on the order of 1 to 1.5 feet thick above existing elevations. Existing 4- to 5-foot-high berms along Katella Avenue and Siboney Street will be removed during grading. We understand that an onsite below-ground storm water retention system, such as a Contech corrugated metal pipe system (8-foot-diameter pipes), will be required. The preliminary sizing of this system is on the order of 90 feet wide and over 300 feet long. SITE HISTORY Historic aerial photographs of the vicinity show that the subject site was used for agriculture prior to 1962. A ranch house, approximately ¼ mile to the west, was constructed in 1931. Plow rows can also be seen within the site as early as 1927. In 1947, a small horse-racing track was constructed near the ranch house. In 1953, a large horse-racing track was being constructed just north of the site. In 1963, the racetrack was completed, and the site was paved and used as a parking area for the track. During this time, residential neighborhoods were also constructed south of the site. By 1972, the horse race track had moved slightly to its current location. By 1994, Siboney Street was extended toward the race track and marked the western boundary of the site. The existing landscaped areas were also present by this time. By 2002, Winner's Circle was constructed, marking the eastern boundary of the site. By 2005, the retail buildings on the west of the subject site were constructed. The Costco store on the east was also being constructed in 2005. Since 2005, the site has remained in the same condition as present day. 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 5 NMG PRIOR GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES Available reports of prior geotechnical investigations of the subject site include those by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc., in 2008, and later by Leighton and Associates for potential commercial land developers in 2017 and 2019. A summary of these studies is provided below: • The 2008 study evaluated the site for a potential retail development. It included subsurface exploration consisting of 10 CPTs to 50 feet and 8 hollow-stem borings up to 31.5 feet deep. Laboratory testing was performed on samples collected from the borings. They also measured groundwater levels in the borings and reported the existence of two previously installed groundwater monitoring wells (no origin given). The report provided recommendations for the retail development planned at that time (GPI, 2008). • The 2017 study was performed to assist in a due diligence review for a different commercial development. The subsurface exploration consisted of 12 CPTs to 50 feet and shallow hand excavations for near-surface soil sampling. Limited laboratory testing was performed on those bulk soil samples. The report provided recommendations for the commercial development planned at that time (Leighton, 2017). • The geotechnical study in 2019 was performed to evaluate a different potential retail development. This study included 8 new CPTs to 50 feet and 9 hollow-stem borings up to 53 feet deep. Laboratory testing was performed on samples collected from the borings. They also measured groundwater levels in the borings. The report provided recommendations for the retail development planned at that time (Leighton, 2019). Additional studies and associated reports may exist but they were not discovered during this study. NMG explored and graded the Lyon Homes project currently being constructed near the subject site (NMG, 2017a, 2017b, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). A list of these and other references are included in Appendix A. SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Regional Geologic Setting: The subject site is located within the Downey Plain, a sub-basin of the larger Los Angeles basin. The site is underlain by approximately 100 feet of Holocene sediments and a total of approximately 2,600 feet of Quaternary sediments (CDMG, 1980). Earth Units and Soil Characteristics: Below the asphalt pavement, prior studies reported between 2 to 9 feet of undocumented artificial fill consisting of moist to wet, moderately to poorly compacted sand, silty to clayey sands and silty clays. Borings across the site indicate the undocumented fill is generally 2 to 5 feet thick with dry densities in the upper 5 feet over 100 pcf (only one test of 98 pcf and one as high as 114 pcf). The deepest undocumented fill appears to be in the southeast corner of the site where two borings encountered 7 to 9 feet of fill. The boring logs reported fragments of fabric, asphalt, brick, concrete and clay pipe (GPI, 2008 and Leighton, 2019). The underlying alluvium consists of similar materials: sands, and silts to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs), and silty clays and clay with thin sand layers from 10 to 30 feet. The alluvial material was described as moist to wet and medium dense/stiff to firm. Significant sand 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 6 NMG layers were observed below 30 feet interlayered with the silty clay and clay. The near-surface soil (undocumented fill) is predominantly silty and sandy. Moisture contents of soil at 5 feet bgs ranged from ranged from 20.8 to 26.9 percent. Dry densities ranged from 92.0 to 102.7 pcf. Four expansion index tests for this study resulted in "very low" potentials. Soluble sulfate contents were in the "S0" category (negligible). Two R- value tests had R-values of 16 and 60. Test results are included and summarized in Appendix C and the boring logs are included in Appendix B. Settlement analyses using prior CPT data resulted in static settlements on the order of 2 to 3 inches for shallow foundations with assumed typical structural loads for the proposed buildings. In addition, seismically induced settlements were calculated to be on the order of 1 to 3 inches. Existing Asphalt Section: Existing asphalt concrete (AC) and aggregate base (AB) was observed in three of the five borings for this study. AC thicknesses ranged from 2 to 3 inches and the AB layer was approximately 2 inches thick. At the two other boring locations, the existing pavement was so deteriorated that there were no distinct AC or AB sections. Prior borings by others did not report any AC or AB thicknesses. Groundwater: Groundwater at the site is very shallow, ranging from approximately 4½ to 6 feet bgs as measured on April 16, 2019 in two groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1 and MW-2) located onsite (Figure 1). In addition, we measured groundwater at approximately 6 feet BGS in an open trench at the construction site on the southwest corner of Katella Avenue and Winners Circle on April 16, 2019. These measured levels are consistent with the prior study by GPI in 2008, where they measured very similar depths, and NMG's recent subsurface exploration and grading experience (2017 through 2019) at the Ovation Flora Park development located ¼ mile to the west, where we encountered groundwater as shallow as 3½ feet bgs. Also, Geotracker data from sites near the subject property have reported groundwater anywhere from 1 to 7 feet bgs in recent years. These recent data indicate that historic high groundwater reported by CGS (approximately 10 feet bgs) is obsolete. Groundwater level readings for our study from the two existing wells and the newly installed well are summarized below: Well No. Approximate Ground Elevation in Feet Above msl Depth to Groundwater (Below Ground Surface) April 16, 2019 May 21, 2019 OW-1 31 -- 4.75 MW-1 32 4.6' 4.55' MW-2 32 5.92' 5.8' The direction of groundwater flow appears to have a slight gradient toward the south to southwest. 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 7 NMG Seismicity, Faulting, and Seismic Hazards: Based on background review, no known active faults are located within or immediately adjacent to the subject site, nor is it located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (CGS, 2007). Therefore, the potential for primary ground rupture is considered very low at the site. The site is mapped by the State of California as having potentially liquefiable soil (CGS, 1998). Leighton reported a PGA of 0.55 at the site with a seismic category of D according to their draft report. The primary seismic hazard at the subject site is ground shaking due to a future earthquake on one of the major regional active faults and potential ground deformation due to liquefaction. Using the USGS de-aggregation computer program (USGS, 2017) and the site coordinates of 33.804 degrees north latitude and 118.042 degrees west longitude, the closest major active faults to the site are the Newport-Inglewood Fault, approximately 4.6 miles southwest of the site, and the Puente Hills Blind-Thrust Fault (Coyote Hills) located 6.1 miles northeast of the site, at depth. The site is not located within a zone of earthquake induced landslide as mapped by the (CGS, 1998). Tsunami and seiche are not considered secondary seismic hazards at this site due to the elevation and location. Historic Seismicity: Based on the Environmental Geology of Orange County California (CDMG, 1976), there were reports of water/sand boils, earth and pavement cracks in the city of Cypress and surrounding cities during the March 10, 1933, Long Beach earthquake. Seismic settlement (induced subsidence) from this earthquake was measured to be approximately 0.5 inch through Los Alamitos, Cypress, and La Habra (CDMG, 1976). This earthquake occurred along the Newport-Inglewood Fault system. Storm Water Treatment/Storage: The subject site is underlain by relatively fine sands, silts and clays in the upper 20 feet, with low permeabilities and shallow groundwater ranging from 4½ to 6 feet bgs. Therefore, the site is not suitable for storm water infiltration systems. Underground treatment and/or storage systems must account for hydrostatic uplift (buoyant) forces due to the shallow groundwater. 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 8 NMG CONCLUSIONS AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our feasibility-level study, the proposed development is feasible provided the main geotechnical constraints of compressible soils, seismically induced settlement, and seismic shaking are mitigated. The primary grading and construction phase issue will be the presence of shallow groundwater and associated saturated soil conditions which will be encountered during excavations for remedial removals and underground improvements. These and other conditions are discussed below. 1. Site Demolition Aggregate derived from crushing existing AC and the existing AB may be suitable for stabilizing saturated excavation bottoms or as bedding under pipelines. These materials often can be tested and classified for use as crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which can also be used for future pavements and below structural slabs-on-grade. Existing buried structures, foundations, utilities and pipelines and prior backfill should be removed, with resulting excavations backfilled with engineered fill. 2. Foundation Types and Remedial Measures Compressible and liquefiable soils at the site will require either deep foundations or some type of ground improvement for the larger buildings. The best suited ground improvement to mitigate settlement of the large structures should be stone columns or rammed aggregate piers (RAP) on the order of 15 feet deep. For the RAP method, we concur with the preliminary design values provided to you by a RAP specialty contractor using Geopier brand RAPs: bearing value of 7,000 psf; a coefficient of sliding resistance of 0.40; and total static and differential settlements limited to less than 1 inch and 1/2 inch in 30 feet, respectively. Additional differential seismic settlement on the order of 1 to 1.5 inches may be expected with RAPs. Building areas where ground is improved with RAPs or stone columns should be provided with a minimum 2-foot-thick layer of newly compacted fill. Commonly, a surface layer of aggregate is recommended with RAPs or stone columns. This layer may be counted toward the 2-foot-thick layer recommendation. In other words, building pads may be graded with a 1-foot-thick layer of fill, left low by one foot, then capped with one foot of aggregate following RAP installation. The smaller retail buildings may be supported on a combination of newly compacted fill and shallower ground improvement, such as aggregate and geogrid reinforcement. The fill material, including aggregate, should be a minimum of 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below bottom of foundations, whichever is deeper. The bottom of the excavation should have a layer of geogrid, such as Tensar 130 or BX1515 and a minimum of 2 feet of aggregate base. The remaining fill may be compacted native soil. The deeper undocumented fill in the southeast corner of the site (future retail shops area) as described in the Summary of Geotechnical Conditions, should be completely removed and replaced with engineered fill. Significant amounts of debris and/or larger sized debris should be culled from the removed soil prior to it being placed as compacted fill. These removals and replacement operations very likely will be below the groundwater table. Therefore, local dewatering and excavation bottom stabilization should be anticipated. With the 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 9 NMG aforementioned remedial measures, total and differential settlements of the smaller retail buildings should be less than 1-inch and ½-inch over a 30-foot span. RAPs or the above described geogrid and aggregate system is also recommended for larger walls, monuments, signs, etc. if designed with shallow spread footings. 3. Remedial Grading of Non-structural Areas All other areas of the site which may have vehicular paving or hardscape improvements should be provided with a minimum of 2 feet of newly compacted fill below the bottom of pavements and slabs-on-grade. This grading should not be impacted by groundwater or wet soil conditions unless it is during the rainy season. 4. Shallow Groundwater and Wet Soil Excavations deeper than 3 feet in some areas and 4 feet in others are likely to encounter shallow groundwater and/or soft, wet soil. Grading in these conditions will require some type of ground stabilization, such as cement treatment or aggregate or a combination of both. (Onsite soils are not suitable for lime treatment due to the primarily sandy composition.) Geofabric or geogrid is recommended in combination with aggregate to reduce the required depth of treatment, amount of aggregate and time required to backfill the excavations. Excavations and grading from existing ground surface to within 2 feet of the groundwater table, such as the grading for parking lot areas, will likely not require soft ground stabilization. From our experience, 1.5 to 2 feet of cement-treated soil mixed at 6 percent cement content by weight was sufficient to stabilize wet excavation bottoms. For aggregate method, a geogrid, such as Tensar 130 placed on the bottom with approximately 1 to 2 feet aggregate, was sufficient to stabilize the bottoms enough to place native soil as compacted fill. Success factors for these methods included experienced contractor/operators for excavating wet ground without getting equipment mired; placement and spreading of stabilization materials; skilled soil treatment contractors using proper equipment and techniques; and good planning/staging for timely excavation and stabilization/fill placement. Site soil conditions are not suited for pre-construction dewatering using a well point system; while there are abundant sandy soils, many of the sands have high silt and some clay content, which result in low permeabilities. Local sump pumps should be sufficient for areas where groundwater rises in an excavation. At the nearby Lyon Homes (Ovation) site, smaller excavation areas allowed for more rapid stabilization and backfilling without the need for significant use of sumps. Deeper excavations left open for longer periods or overnight will be prone to filling with standing groundwater. Larger underground structures may require extra thickness of aggregate bedding due to the shallow groundwater and saturated soils. Cement-treated soil stabilization is also a viable option. Buried structures, such as storm water retention/treatment systems, must consider potential hydrostatic uplift forces in their design. 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 10 NMG 5. Slabs-on-Grade for Structures Concrete slabs-on-grade under the structures should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and may be constructed over the aggregate layer above the RAPs or stone columns. The smaller retail building slabs may be constructed over the anticipated sandy subgrade fill. 6. Vehicular Pavements Prior studies did not perform any R-value tests of onsite soil for vehicular paving design but assumed R-values are in the 40 to 60 range, owing to the near-surface soil being predominantly sandy. We believe these assumptions to be overly optimistic based on our local experience. The sands at the site are predominantly fine sands with significant amounts of silt and some clay. From our very limited testing (two R-value tests), we used a design R-value of 25 and assumed traffic indices (TIs) in order to arrive at the following preliminary pavement sections: • Parking Stalls (little or no potential for heavier truck traffic): 3.5" AC/6" AB. • Drive Aisles/Secondary Loop Roads (passenger cars, light duty trucks): 3.5" AC/ 7" AB. • Main Entry Drives with Some Truck Traffic: 4" AC over 10" AB. Final sections may change depending on postgrading soil testing for R-values and site specific traffic index values, which should be calculated by a traffic engineer. Truck ramps and loading docks will require thicker AC/AB sections or PCC pavements. 7. Earthwork Bulking and Shrinkage Factors For estimating grading quantities, the following shrinkage factors are provided: • Existing Fill: 0 to 2 percent shrinkage • Native Alluvium: 10 to 15 percent shrinkage Ground subsidence due to grading operations should be less than 0.1 inch due to the age and prior use of the site. 8. Cement Type and Corrosivity Soluble sulfate contents of soil at this and adjacent sites are in the "S0" category (negligible) and soil corrosivity is in the "moderately corrosive" category. Other soil chemical constituent contents, such as chlorides, were not particularly high as reported by others (Leighton, 2019 and GPI, 2008). 9. Exterior Hardscape Following site grading, near-surface fills are expected to have "very low" to "low" expansion potential, though some occurrences of "medium" expansive soils cannot be completely ruled out. For estimating purposes, you may assume concrete hardscape designed and constructed for "low" expansion potentials, overall. Final hardscape design should be based on soil sampling and laboratory testing following the completion of site grading. 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 11 NMG Concrete flatwork for people spaces, walkways, sidewalk, etc., may be 4 inches thick with appropriate control and expansion joints, as specified by a landscape architect to mitigate concrete shrinkage cracking. No reinforcement, subbase or AB is required from an expansive soil standpoint. 10. Additional Exploration, Testing, and Analyses • The need for additional exploration (borings, test pits or CPTs) and laboratory testing of soil should be evaluated once the development plan is finalized, especially the structural characteristics and structure locations. • Exploration with a backhoe is recommended to further investigate the extent and depths of the undocumented fill. • Settlement analyses should be refined once actual rather than the assumed structural foundation loads are available. • The final grading plan should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant and the remedial grading recommendations in this report should be re-evaluated in light of the planned cuts and fills and extent of ground improvement measures. • Pavement designs should be finalized based on TIs provided by a traffic engineer and R- value testing of near-surface soil following grading of the site. • The groundwater monitoring wells should be read periodically leading up to the start of grading. We recommend two readings during the summer months and two in the fall and winter. • The design parameters and recommendations herein are based on the anticipated engineering properties of the onsite soil. Import soils, if required, should be evaluated and tested as necessary to verify their engineering properties are similar or better than the onsite soils. 11. Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client, Shea Properties, within the specific scope of services requested by them for the Cypress mixed use project. This report or its contents should not be used or relied upon for other projects or purposes or by other parties without the written consent of Shea Properties and NMG. Our methodology for this study is based on local geotechnical standards of practice, care, and requirements of governing agencies for a given time. No warranty or guarantee, express or implied is given. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations are professional opinions based on interpretations and inferences made from geologic and engineering data from specific locations and depths, observed or collected at a given time. By nature, geologic conditions can be very different in between data points, and can also change over time. Our conclusions and recommendations are subject to verification and/or modification with more exploration and/or during grading and construction when more subsurface conditions are exposed. NMG's expertise and scope of services did not include assessment of potential subsurface environmental contaminants or environmental health hazards. 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report 12 NMG If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Respectfully submitted, NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ted Miyake, RCE 44864 William Goodman, CEG 1577 Principal Engineer Principal Geologist ZKH/TM/WG/grd Distribution: (1) Addressee (E-Mail) (1)Mr. Sean McEachern, Shea Properties (E-Mail) (1)Mr. Kevin McCook, Shea Properties (E-Mail) (1) Ms. Elizabeth Cobb, Shea Properties (E-Mail) (1) Mr. Jon Stephani, Shea Properties (E-Mail) (1) Mr. Jeff Cunningham, Shea Properties (E-Mail) (1) Mr. Joe Hall, CSI (E-Mail) (1) Mr. Greg Harlock, Snyder-Langston (E-Mail) (1) Mr. Jason Marechal, Kimley-Horn (E-Mail) SHEA PROPERTIES CITY OF CYPRESS COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA Project Number: 19046-01 Project Name: Shea Properties / Cypress Date: 6/13/2019 By: TM Figure 1 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributorsSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community SITE LOCATION MAP 0 375 750Feet 1 inch = 750 feet ± Subject Site P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\Drafting\ArcGIS\SiteLocation.mxd NMGGeotechnical, Inc.HA-4BORING, WELL AND CPT LOCATION MAPPROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTSIBONEY STREET AND KATELLA AVENUE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIAProject Number: 19046-01Project Name: Shea Prop / CypressDate: 6/13/19Figure 2HAHAAAAAA-4Auger BoringHA-4LEGENDLOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATECPT-12Previous Cone Penetration Test (Leighton, 2017)Boring and New Groundwater WellOW-1Existing Groundwater WellMW-2CPT-2CPT-3CPT-4CPT-5CPT-12CPT-6CPT-7CPT-8CPT-9CPT-10CPT-11CPT-1OW-1MW-1MW-2HA-1HA-3HA-4HA-2 APPENDIX A 19046-01 June 13, 2019 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report A-1 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., 2016, Rough Grading Plan Review Report, Proposed Senior Residential Community (Barton Place) and Commercial/Retail Development, Northeast of Katella Avenue and Enterprise Drive, City of Cypress, California, Job No. 2469.00, dated March 18, 2016. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1976, Environmental Geology of Orange County, California Open-File Report 79-8 LA. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1980, Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin, Orange County California, Annual Technical Report, F.Y. Sept. 19, 1979 - Sept. 18, 1980, Open File Report 81-966 O.F. R 80-19L.A. Plate No. 1, Map Nos. 1 through 4, Authored by Davis, J. F. California Geological Survey, Department of Conservation 1998, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for The Los Alamitos 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 019. California Geological Survey, Department of Conservation, 1999, Seismic Hazard Zones Los Alamitos Quadrangle, Orange County California, Seismic Hazard Zone, Released; March 25, 1997. Geotechnical Professionals Inc. (GPI), 2008, Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cypress Retail Center, NWC of Winners Circle and Katella Avenue, Cypress, California, Project No. 2241.1, dated August 26, 2008. Hart, E. W. and Bryant, W.A., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault zones Maps, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Revised 1997, Interim Revision 2007. Jennings, Charles W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6. Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2017, Due Diligence Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Commercial Development Northeast Corner of Katella Avenue and Siboney Street, Cypress, California, Project No. 11829.001, dated November 14, 2017. Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2019, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Retail Development, Northeast of Katella Avenue and Siboney Street, City of Cypress, California, Project No. 11829.005, Draft Report dated February 18, 2019. NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2017a, Preliminary Summary of Findings from Geotechnical Due Diligence Study, Barton Place Project, County of Orange, Cypress, California, Project No. 17020-01, draft memorandum dated March 7, 2017. 19046-01 June 13, 2019 APPENDIX A REFERENCES (Continued) 190613 Final Cypress Feasibility Report A-2 NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2017b, Geotechnical Due Diligence Study, Barton Place Project, 4921 Katella Avenue, Northeast Corner of Enterprise and Katella Avenues, City of Cypress, County of Orange, California, Project No. 17007-01, dated March 13, 2017. NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2018a, Geotechnical Report of Observation and Testing during Rough Grading and Construction of Sanitary Sewer, Storm Trap System and Associated Storm Drain for the Commercial/Retail portion of Ovation at Flora Park, City of Cypress, California, Project No. 17007-02, dated March 6, 2018. NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2018b, Geotechnical Review of Production Precise Grading Plan, Ovation at Flora Park, 4701 Katella Avenue, City of Cypress, California, Project No. 17007-02, dated April 12, 2018. NMG Geotechnical, Inc., 2018c, Geotechnical Report of Observation and Testing during Rough Grading of the Ovation Residential Development at Flora Park, City of Cypress, California, Project No. 17007-02, dated May 8, 2018. U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, dated 2004, CGS Open File Report 99-172. U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, Unified Hazard Tool, Dynamic: Conterminous US 2008 (v3.3.1) Deaggregation Program; web site address: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED Date Flight Photo No. Scale (1"=) Source 12/31/1927 C-300 M-256 1,500' U. C. Santa Barbara 9/26/1931 C-1700 92 1,500' U. C. Santa Barbara 5/23/1938 AXK-1938 28-56 1,666' U. C. Santa Barbara 6/17/1947 C-11351 7-62 2,000' U. C. Santa Barbara 11/17/1952 AXK-1953 1K-33 1,666' U. C. Santa Barbara Aerial Photos from 1952 to present were reviewed using the following online source: Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC., 2018, Historic Aerials by NETR Online, Version 0.2.4, website address: https://www.historicaerials.com APPENDIX B Unconsolidated Shear StrengthUU COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS CLEAN GRAVELS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Dual symbols are used to indicate gravels or sand with 5-12% fines and soils with fines classifying as CL-ML. Symbols separated by a slash indicate borderline soil classifications. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Template: NMGKEY; Prj ID: 19046-01.GPJ; Printed: 5/22/19 KEY TO LOG OF BORING Shea Properties/Cypress Mixed-Use PROJECT NO. 19046-01 Cypress, California Geotechnical, Inc. Sampler and Symbol Descriptions Laboratory and Field Test Abbreviations GS GENERAL NOTES AL Atterberg limits DS Direct shear test CN Consolidation test CC Chemical Testing incl. Soluble Sulfate RV 1. Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil System and include color, moisture, and relative density or consistency. Field descriptions have been modified to reflect results of laboratory tests where deemed appropriate. Bedrock descriptions are based on visual classification and include rock type, moisture, color, grain size, strength, and weathering. MD Compaction test SE Sand Equivalent EI Expansion Index 2. Descriptions on these boring logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were made. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. Modified California sample (D-#) Standard Penetration Test (S-#) Undisturbed pushed tube sample (U-#) Large bulk sample (B-#) Small bulk sample (b-#) Resistance Value (R-Value) Grain Size Analysis (Sieve, Hydro. and/or -No. 200)Approximate depth of groundwater during drilling Approximate depth of static groundwater Note: Number of blows required to advance driven sample 12 inches (or length noted) is recorded. 22.8 23.8 22.0 22.5 98.6 92.0 102.7 102.4 B-1 @ 1'-5' EI, CC B-2 @ 7.5'-15' ML-CL SM SM-SC SM ML CL 17 12 12 9 11 B-1 D-1 D-2 D-3 B-2 D-4 D-5 Surface: 2" AC over 2" AB. Parking Lot. Alluvium (Qal) @ 1'-5': Dark brown clayey SILT/silty CLAY, moist. @ 5': Olive gray silty fine SAND, very moist, medium dense, some silty layers, trace root hairs, micaceous. @ 7.5': Brown to dark brown silty clayey very fine SAND, wet to saturated, loose, micaceous, trace silty clay layer. @ 10': No Recovery. Cuttings showed silty fine SAND, saturated, loose. @ 15': Grayish brown clayey/sandy SILT, saturated, medium stiff, micaceous. @ 18.5': Dark brown silty/sandy CLAY, saturated, medium stiff, trace root hairs, pinhole pores, micaceous. Notes: Total Depth: 20.0 Feet. Groundwater Encountered at 12.05 Feet After Drilling. Groundwater 7.80 Feet After Well Construction. Screened Pipe From 4 to 20 Feet, With Monterey #3 In Annulus. Solid Pipe from 0 to 4 Feet, With Annular Seal at 2 to 4 Feet. Concrete Flush Mount Well Cover from 0 to 2 Feet.Graphic LogBlows perfootSAMPLES NumberMATERIAL DESCRIPTION MoistureContent (%)Depth (ft)DryDensity (pcf)USCSOTHER TESTS and REMARKSElevation (ft)Type OW-1 Sheet 1 of 1 20.07.8 Feet CME 95 Drill BitSize/Type Total DepthDrilled (ft) 31.0 mslApproximate GroundSurface Elevation (ft) Drill RigType Date(s)Drilled DrillingCompany Comments 5/13/19 ZKH 10" SamplingMethod(s) LoggedBy Bulk, Modified California Approximate Groundwater Depth: BC2 Environmental HammerData 140lb @ 30" Drop 30 20 10 LOG OF BORING Shea Properties/Cypress Mixed-Use 0 5 10 15 20 25 Cypress, California PROJECT NO. 19046-01Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 19046-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 5/22/19 20.8 99.4 B-1 @ 1'-5' RV, EI, CC CL SC CL SM 12 B-1 D-1 Surface: 3" AC over 2" AB. Parking Lot. Alluvium (Qal) @ 0.5'-3': Brown to dark brown silty CLAY, very moist. @ 3'-5': Brown clayey fine SAND, wet, micaceous. @ 5': Upper: Dark brown sandy CLAY, saturated, stiff. Lower: Grayish brown silty fine to medium SAND, saturated, loose, micaceous. Notes: Total Depth: 6.5 Feet. No Groundwater Encountered. Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped. Capped with Concrete and Black Dye.Graphic LogBlows perfootSAMPLES NumberMATERIAL DESCRIPTION MoistureContent (%)Depth (ft)DryDensity (pcf)USCSOTHER TESTS and REMARKSElevation (ft)Type HA-1 Sheet 1 of 1 6.5N/A CME 95 Drill BitSize/Type Total DepthDrilled (ft) 31.5 mslApproximate GroundSurface Elevation (ft) Drill RigType Date(s)Drilled DrillingCompany Comments 5/13/19 ZKH 10" SamplingMethod(s) LoggedBy Bulk, Modified California Approximate Groundwater Depth: BC2 Environmental HammerData 140lb @ 30" Drop 30 20 10 LOG OF BORING Shea Properties/Cypress Mixed-Use 0 5 10 15 20 25 Cypress, California PROJECT NO. 19046-01Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 19046-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 5/22/19 21.5 97.1 B-1 @ 1'-5' EI, CC CL SM-SC SM 12 B-1 D-1 Surface: 2.5" AC over 2" AB. Parking Lot. Alluvium (Qal) @ 0.5'-1': Dark brown silty CLAY, very moist. @ 1'-5': Grayish brown silty/clayey fine SAND, saturated, micaceous. @ 5': Grayish brown silty fine to medium SAND, saturated, loose, micaceous. Notes: Total Depth: 6.5 Feet. Groundwater at 4.75 Feet After Drilling. Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped. Capped with Concrete and Black Dye.Graphic LogBlows perfootSAMPLES NumberMATERIAL DESCRIPTION MoistureContent (%)Depth (ft)DryDensity (pcf)USCSOTHER TESTS and REMARKSElevation (ft)Type HA-2 Sheet 1 of 1 6.54.75 Feet CME 95 Drill BitSize/Type Total DepthDrilled (ft) 31.5 mslApproximate GroundSurface Elevation (ft) Drill RigType Date(s)Drilled DrillingCompany Comments 5/13/19 ZKH 10" SamplingMethod(s) LoggedBy Bulk, Modified California Approximate Groundwater Depth: BC2 Environmental HammerData 140lb @ 30" Drop 30 20 10 LOG OF BORING Shea Properties/Cypress Mixed-Use 0 5 10 15 20 25 Cypress, California PROJECT NO. 19046-01Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 19046-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 5/22/19 26.9 B-1 @ 1'-5'SM-SC SM 8 B-1 D-1 Surface: Dirt/damaged asphalt parking lot. Some gravel and asphalt fragments in upper foot. Very weathered old asphalt parking lot. Alluvium (Qal) @ 1'-5': Olive brown silty fine to medium SAND, saturated, loose, micaceous. @ 5': Olive brown silty fine to medium SAND, saturated, loose, micaceous. Notes: Total Depth: 6.5 Feet. No Groundwater Encountered. Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.Graphic LogBlows perfootSAMPLES NumberMATERIAL DESCRIPTION MoistureContent (%)Depth (ft)DryDensity (pcf)USCSOTHER TESTS and REMARKSElevation (ft)Type HA-3 Sheet 1 of 1 6.5N/A CME 95 Drill BitSize/Type Total DepthDrilled (ft) 32.0 mslApproximate GroundSurface Elevation (ft) Drill RigType Date(s)Drilled DrillingCompany Comments 5/13/19 ZKH 10" SamplingMethod(s) LoggedBy Bulk, Modified California Approximate Groundwater Depth: BC2 Environmental HammerData 140lb @ 30" Drop 30 20 10 LOG OF BORING Shea Properties/Cypress Mixed-Use 0 5 10 15 20 25 Cypress, California PROJECT NO. 19046-01Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 19046-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 5/22/19 B-1 @ 1'-5' RV, EI, CC SM 5 B-1 D-1 Surface: Dirt/damaged asphalt parking lot. Some gravel and asphalt fragments in upper foot. Very weathered old asphalt parking lot. Alluvium (Qal) @ 0'-5': Olive brown to light olive brown silty fine SAND, very moist to wet. @ 5': No Recovery. Notes: Total Depth: 6.5 Feet. Groundwater 4.5 Feet After Drilling. Backfilled with Cuttings and Tamped.Graphic LogBlows perfootSAMPLES NumberMATERIAL DESCRIPTION MoistureContent (%)Depth (ft)DryDensity (pcf)USCSOTHER TESTS and REMARKSElevation (ft)Type HA-4 Sheet 1 of 1 6.54.5 Feet CME 95 Drill BitSize/Type Total DepthDrilled (ft) 32.0 mslApproximate GroundSurface Elevation (ft) Drill RigType Date(s)Drilled DrillingCompany Comments 5/13/19 ZKH 10" SamplingMethod(s) LoggedBy Bulk, Modified California Approximate Groundwater Depth: BC2 Environmental HammerData 140lb @ 30" Drop 30 20 10 LOG OF BORING Shea Properties/Cypress Mixed-Use 0 5 10 15 20 25 Cypress, California PROJECT NO. 19046-01Report: HOLLOW STEM; Project: 19046-01.GPJ; Data Template: NMG_GINT_2016.GDT; Printed: 5/22/19 APPENDIX C APPENDIX D NMG Geotechnical, Inc.17991 FitchIrvine, CA 92614Overall vertical settlements reportProject title : Shea Properties/CypressLocation : Cypress, CaliforniaCPTu NameCPT- 1CPT- 2CPT- 3CPT- 4CPT- 5CPT- 6CPT- 7CPT- 8CPT- 9CPT-10CPT-11CPT-12Vertical settlement (in)3.203.103.002.902.802.702.602.502.402.302.202.102.001.901.801.701.601.501.401.301.201.101.000.900.800.700.600.500.400.300.200.101.7881.3681.1911.0881.6042.6830.5061.1091.0892.5192.8672.524CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software1Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 1 5 6 10 11 15 16 20 21 25 26 30 31 35 36 40 41 45 46 50 51 55 56 60 CPT- 1 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT- 2 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT- 3 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT- 4 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT- 5 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT- 6 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT- 7 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT- 8 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT- 9 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT-10 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT-11 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CPT-12 results Summary data report Vertical settlements summary report CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:03 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT- 1 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 10050Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:52 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 1 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 1Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClaySand & silty sandClay & silty claySand & silty sandClayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:52 PM2Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 1CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)1.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:52 PM3Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 1Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT- 1 (9.40)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:52 PM4Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 1Cone resistanceqt (tsf)10050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)5048464442403836343230282624222018161412108642SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)1.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:52 PM5Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT- 2 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 300200100Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:53 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 6 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 2Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:53 PM7Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 2CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)10.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:53 PM8Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 2Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT- 2 (6.99)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:53 PM9Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 2Cone resistanceqt (tsf)300200100Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)10.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:53 PM10Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT- 3 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 100Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:54 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 11 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 3Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:54 PM12Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 3CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)1.210.80.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:54 PM13Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 3Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT- 3 (5.56)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:54 PM14Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 3Cone resistanceqt (tsf)15010050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)1.210.80.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:54 PM15Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT- 4 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 200100Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:55 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 16 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 4Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:55 PM17Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 4CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)10.80.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:55 PM18Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 4Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT- 4 (4.60)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:55 PM19Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 4Cone resistanceqt (tsf)20015010050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)10.80.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:55 PM20Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT- 5 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 200100Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:56 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 21 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 5Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClaySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:56 PM22Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 5CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)1.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:56 PM23Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 5Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT- 5 (8.55)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:56 PM24Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 5Cone resistanceqt (tsf)25020015010050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)1.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:56 PM25Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT- 6 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 200100Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:57 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 26 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 6Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:57 PM27Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 6CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)2.521.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:57 PM28Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 6Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT- 6 (13.88)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:57 PM29Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 6Cone resistanceqt (tsf)20015010050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)2.521.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:57 PM30Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT- 7 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 200100Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:57 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 31 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 7Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:57 PM32Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 7CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:57 PM33Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 7Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT- 7 (2.07)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:57 PM34Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 7Cone resistanceqt (tsf)200100Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:57 PM35Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT- 8 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 200100Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:58 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 36 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 8Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:58 PM37Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 8CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)10.80.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:58 PM38Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 8Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT- 8 (5.77)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:58 PM39Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 8Cone resistanceqt (tsf)20015010050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)10.80.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:58 PM40Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT- 9 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 200100Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:59 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 41 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 9Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClayClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:59 PM42Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 9CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)10.80.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:59 PM43Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 9Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT- 9 (5.46)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:59 PM44Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT- 9Cone resistanceqt (tsf)20015010050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)10.80.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:50:59 PM45Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT-10 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 200100Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:00 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 46 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-10Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:00 PM47Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-10CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)2.521.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:00 PM48Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-10Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT-10 (11.81)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:00 PM49Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-10Cone resistanceqt (tsf)20015010050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)2.521.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:00 PM50Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT-11 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 10050Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:01 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 51 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-11Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:01 PM52Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-11CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)2.521.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:01 PM53Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-11Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT-11 (16.80)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:01 PM54Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-11Cone resistanceqt (tsf)10050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)2.521.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:01 PM55Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT Input parameters and analysis data Analysis method: Fines correction method: Points to test: Earthquake magnitude Mw: Peak ground acceleration: NCEER (1998) NCEER (1998) Based on Ic value 6.70 0.55 . G.W.T. (in-situ): G.W.T. (earthq.): Average results interval: Ic cut-off value: Unit weight calculation: Project title : Shea Properties/Cypress Location : Cypress, California NMG Geotechnical, Inc. 17991 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 CPT file : CPT-12 5.00 ft 5.00 ft 3 2.60 Based on SBT Use fill: Fill height: Fill weight: Trans. detect. applied: K applied: No N/A N/A Yes Yes Clay like behavior applied: Limit depth applied: Limit depth: MSF method: Sands only No N/A Method based Cone resistance qt (tsf) 10050Depth (ft)50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot Ic (Robertson 1990) 4321 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SBTn Plot CRR plot CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 CRR plot During earthq. Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Liquefaction No Liquefaction Normalized friction ratio (%) 0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1 10 100 1,000 Friction Ratio Rf (%) 1086420 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction Ratio Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot Factor of safety 21.510.50 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 FS Plot During earthq. Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:02 PM Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clq 56 This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-12Norm. cone resistanceQtn200150100500Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. cone resistanceC P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r m a l i z e d )Norm. friction ratioFr (%)1086420Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. friction ratioNom. pore pressure ratioBq10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Nom. pore pressure ratioSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotNorm. Soil Behaviour TypeSBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Norm. Soil Behaviour TypeSensitive fine grainedSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClayClayClay & silty clayCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:02 PM57Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to siltyclay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand toclayey sand9. Very stiff fine grainedInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-12CRR plotCRR & CSR0.60.40.20Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420CRR plotDuring earthq.L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t sFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.LPILiquefaction potential20151050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420LPIVertical settlementsSettlement (in)2.521.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsLateral displacementsDisplacement (in)0Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Lateral displacementsCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:02 PM58Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqF.S. color schemeLPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/AAlmost certain it will liquefyVery likely to liquefyLiquefaction and no liq. are equally likelyUnlike to liquefyAlmost certain it will not liquefyVery high riskHigh riskLow risk This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-12Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1101001,000L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s s u m m a r y p l o t sQtn,cs200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10LiquefactionNo LiquefactionThickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.011.010.09.08.07.06.05.04.03.02.01.00.0CPT-12 (14.33)Analysis PGA: 0.55PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:02 PM59Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.555.00 ftDepth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:5.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/AFill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:N/AYesYesSands onlyNoN/A This software is licensed to: NMG Geotechnical, Inc.CPT name: CPT-12Cone resistanceqt (tsf)10050Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistanceSBTn PlotIc (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SBTn PlotFS PlotFactor of safety21.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420FS PlotDuring earthq.Vertical settlementsSettlement (in)2.521.510.50Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Vertical settlementsE s t i m a t i o n o f p o s t - e a r t h q u a k e s e t t l e m e n t sStrain plotVolumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)50484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Strain plotCLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 5/22/2019, 1:51:02 PM60Project file: P:\2019\19046-01 Shea Properties Cypress\CLiq\19046-01.clqAbbreviationsqt:Ic:FS:Volumentric strain:Total cone resistance (cone resistance qc corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type IndexCalculated Factor of Safety against liquefactionPost-liquefaction volumentric strain Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance, NCEER (1998) Calculation of soil resistance against liquefaction is performed according to the Robertson & Wride (1998) procedure. The procedure used in the software, slightly differs from the one originally published in NCEER-97-0022 (Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils). The revised procedure is presented below in the form of a flowchart1: 1 "Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground", G. Zhang, P.K. Robertson, and R.W.I. Brachman CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 61 Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance (all soils), Robertson (2010) Calculation of soil resistance against liquefaction is performed according to the Robertson & Wride (1998) procedure. This procedure used in the software, slightly differs from the one originally published in NCEER-97-0022 (Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils). The revised procedure is presented below in the form of a flowchart1: 1 P.K. Robertson, 2009. “Performance based earthquake design using the CPT”, Keynote Lecture, International Conference on Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering – from case history to practice, IS-Tokyo, June 2009 CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 62 Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance, Idriss & Boulanger (2008) CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 63 Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance (sandy soils), Moss et al. (2006) CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 64 Procedure for the evaluation of soil liquefaction resistance, Boulanger & Idriss(2014)CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software65 Procedure for the evaluation of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading displacements Site investigation with SPT or CPT Design earthquake Ground geometry SPT data with fines content measurements or CPT data Moment magnitude of earthquake (M w ) and peak surface acceleration ( a max ) Geometric parameters for each of different zones in level (or gently sloping) ground with (or without) a free face Liquefaction potential analysis to calculate FS, (N 1 ) 60cs or (q c1N ) cs ( using the NCEER SPT- or CPT-based method ( Youd et al. 2001)) Calculation of the lateral displacement index (LDI) ( using Figure 1 and Equation [3]) Zones with three major geometric parameters or less - free face height (H), the distance to a free face (L), or/and slope (S) Zones with more than three major geometric parameters L/H or/and S Estimated lateral displacement, LD For gently sloping ground without a free face, LD = (S + 0.20) · LDI (for 0.2% < S < 3.5%) For level ground with a free face, LD = 6 · (L/H)-0.8 · LDI (for 5 < L/H < 40) Evaluation of lateral displacements based on other approaches and engineering judgment If (N 1 ) 60cs < 14 or ( q c1N ) cs < 70 evaluate potential of flow liquefaction 1 Flow chart illustrating major steps in estimating liquefaction-induced lateral spreading displacements using the proposed approach 1 Figure 1 1 Equation [3] CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 66 1 "Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground", G. Zhang, P.K. Robertson, and R.W.I. Brachman Procedure for the estimation of seismic induced settlements in dry sands Robertson, P.K. and Lisheng, S., 2010, “Estimation of seismic compression in dry soils using the CPT” FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RECENT ADVANCES IN GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS, Symposium in honor of professor I. M. Idriss, San Diego, CA CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 67 Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) calculation procedure Graphical presentation of the LPI calculation procedure Calculation of the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) is used to interpret the liquefaction assessment calculations in terms of severity over depth. The calculation procedure is based on the methology developed by Iwasaki (1982) and is adopted by AFPS. To estimate the severity of liquefaction extent at a given site, LPI is calculated based on the following equation: LPI = where: FL = 1 - F.S. when F.S. less than 1 FL = 0 when F.S. greater than 1 z depth of measurment in meters Values of LPI range between zero (0) when no test point is characterized as liquefiable and 100 when all points are characterized as susceptible to liquefaction. Iwasaki proposed four (4) discrete categories based on the numeric value of LPI: • LPI = 0 : Liquefaction risk is very low • 0 < LPI <= 5 : Liquefaction risk is low • 5 < LPI <= 15 : Liquefaction risk is high • LPI > 15 : Liquefaction risk is very high CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 68 Shear-Induced Building Settlement (Ds) calculation procedure The shear-induced building settlement (Ds) due to liquefaction below the building can be estimated using the relationship developed by Bray and Macedo (2017): where Ds is in the units of mm, c1= -8.35 and c2= 0.072 for LBS 16, and c1= -7.48 and c2= 0.014 othe rwise. Q is the building contact pressure in units of kPa, HL is the cumulative thickness of the liquefiable layers in the units of m, B is the building width in the units of m, CAVdp is a standardized version of the cumulative absolute velocity in the units of g-s, Sa1 is 5%-damped pseudo-acceleration response spectral value at a period of 1 s in the units of g, and is a normal random variable with zero mean and 0.50 standard deviation in Ln units. The liquefaction-induced building settlement index (LBS) is: where z (m) is the depth measured from the ground surface > 0, W is a foundation-weighting factor wherein W = 0.0 for z less than Df, which is the embedment depth of the foundation, and W = 1.0 otherwise. The shear strain parameter (_shear) is the liquefaction-induced free-field shear strain (in %) estimated using Zhang et al. (2004). It is calculated based on the estimated Dr of the liquefied soil layer and the calculated safety factor against liquefaction triggering (FSL). CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 69 References • Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M 1997. Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice, E & FN Spon Routledge, 352 p, ISBN 0-7514-0393-8. • Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2007. Evaluation of Cyclic Softening in Silts and Clays. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering June, Vol. 133, No. 6 pp 641-652 • Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I. M., 2014. CPT AND SPT BASED LIQUEFACTION TRIGGERING PROCEDURES. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS • Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., 2007, Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Available at no cost at http://www.geologismiki.gr/ • Robertson, P.K. 1990. Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 27 (1), 151-8. • Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1998. Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation based on the CPT Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1998, Vol. 35, August. • Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson III, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R., and Stokoe, K.H., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, October, pp 817-833 • Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2002, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180 • Zhang, G., Robertson. P.K., Brachman, R., 2004, Estimating Liquefaction Induced Lateral Displacements using the SPT and CPT, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8, 861-871 • Pradel, D., 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 4, 364-368 • Iwasaki, T., 1986, Soil liquefaction studies in Japan: state-of-the-art, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2-70 • Papathanassiou G., 2008, LPI-based approach for calibrating the severity of liquefaction-induced failures and for assessing the probability of liquefaction surface evidence, Eng. Geol. 96:94–104 • P.K. Robertson, 2009, Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests - a unified approach., Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 46, No. 11, pp 1337-1355 • P.K. Robertson, 2009. “Performance based earthquake design using the CPT”, Keynote Lecture, International Conference on Performance-based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering - from case history to practice, IS-Tokyo, June 2009 • Robertson, P.K. and Lisheng, S., 2010, “Estimation of seismic compression in dry soils using the CPT” FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RECENT ADVANCES IN GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND SOIL DYNAMICS, Symposium in honor of professor I. M. Idriss, SAN diego, CA • R. E. S. Moss, R. B. Seed, R. E. Kayen, J. P. Stewart, A. Der Kiureghian, K. O. Cetin, CPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 8, August 1, 2006 • I. M. Idriss and R. W. Boulanger, 2008. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute MNO- 12 • Jonathan D. Bray & Jorge Macedo, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, Simplified procedure for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Seoul 201 CLiq v.2.2.1.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 70 ATTACHMENT D GROUNDWATER FEASIBILITY TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES VIII-13 December 20, 2013 Worksheet I: Summary of Groundwater-related Feasibility Criteria 1 Is project large or small? (as defined by Table VIII.2) circle one Large Small 2 W hat is the tributary area to the BMP? A acres 3 What type of BMP is proposed? 4 What is the infiltrating surface area of the proposed BMP? ABMP sq-ft 5 What land use activities are present in the tributary area (list all) 6 What land use-based risk category is applicable? L M H 7 If M or H, what pretreatment and source isolation BMPs have been considered and are proposed (describe all): 8 What minimum separation to mounded seasonally high groundwater applies to the proposed BMP? See Section VIII.2 (circle one) 5 ft 10 ft 9 Provide rationale for selection of applicable minimum separation to seasonally high mounded groundwater: 10 What is separation from the infiltrating surface to seasonally high groundwater? SHGWT ft 11 What is separation from the infiltrating surface to mounded seasonally high groundwater? Mounded SHGWT ft 12 Describe assumptions and methods used for mounding analysis: 13 Is the site within a plume protection boundary (See Figure Y N N/A TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES VIII-14 December 20, 2013 Worksheet I: Summary of Groundwater-related Feasibility Criteria VIII.2)? 14 Is the site within a selenium source area or other natural plume area (See Figure VIII.2)? Y N N/A 15 Is the site within 250 feet of a contaminated site? Y N N/A 16 If site-specific study has been prepared, provide citation and briefly summarize relevant findings: 17 Is the site within 100 feet of a water supply well, spring, septic system? Y N N/A 18 Is infiltration feasible on the site relative to groundwater- related criteria? Y N Provide rationale for feasibility determination: Note: if a single criterion or group of criteria would render infiltration infeasible, it is not necessary to evaluate every question in this worksheet. ATTACHMENT E CALCULATIONS TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES III-16 December 20, 2013 Worksheet B: Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method Step 1: Determine the design capture storm depth used for calculating volume 1 Enter design capture storm depth from Figure III.1, d (inches) d= inches 2 Enter the effect of provided HSCs, dHSC (inches) (Worksheet A) dHSC= inches 3 Calculate the remainder of the design capture storm depth, dremainder (inches) (Line 1 – Line 2) dremainder= inches Step 2: Calculate the DCV 1 Enter Project area tributary to BMP (s), A (acres) A= acres 2 Enter Project Imperviousness, imp (unitless) imp= 3 Calculate runoff coefficient, C= (0.75 x imp) + 0.15 C= 4 Calculate runoff volume, Vdesign= (C x dremainder x A x 43560 x (1/12)) Vdesign= cu-ft Step 3: Design BMPs to ensure full retention of the DCV Step 3a: Determine design infiltration rate 1 Enter measured infiltration rate, Kobserved 1 (in/hr) (Appendix VII) Kobserved= In/hr 2 Enter combined safety factor from Worksheet H, Stotal (unitless) Stotal= 3 Calculate design infiltration rate, Kdesign = Kobserved / Stotal Kdesign= In/hr Step 3b: Determine minimum BMP footprint 4 Enter drawdown time, T (max 48 hours) T= Hours 5 Calculate max retention depth that can be drawn down within the drawdown time (feet), Dmax = Kdesign x T x (1/12) Dmax= feet 6 Calculate minimum area required for BMP (sq-ft), Amin = Vdesign/ dmax Amin= sq-ft 1Kobserved is the vertical infiltration measured in the field, before applying a factor of safety. If field testing measures a rate that is different than the vertical infiltration rate (for example, three-dimensional borehole percolation rate), then this rate must be adjusted by an acceptable method (for example, Porchet method) to yield the field estimate of vertical infiltration rate, K observed. See Appendix VII. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES X-13 December 20, 2013 Table X.8: Minimum Irrigated Area for Potential Partial Capture Feasibility General Landscape Type Conservation Design: KL = 0.35 Active Turf Areas: KL = 0.7 Closest ET Station Irvine Santa Ana Laguna Irvine Santa Ana Laguna Design Capture Storm Depth, inches Minimum Required Irrigated Area per Tributary Impervious Acre for Potential Partial Capture, ac/ac 0.60 0.66 0.68 0.72 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.65 0.72 0.73 0.78 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.70 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.75 0.83 0.84 0.90 0.41 0.42 0.45 0.80 0.88 0.90 0.96 0.44 0.45 0.48 0.85 0.93 0.95 1.02 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.90 0.99 1.01 1.08 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.95 1.04 1.07 1.14 0.52 0.53 0.57 1.00 1.10 1.12 1.20 0.55 0.56 0.60 Worksheet J: Summary of Harvested Water Demand and Feasibility 1 What demands for harvested water exist in the tributary area (check all that apply): 2 Toilet and urinal flushing □ 3 Landscape irrigation □ 4 Other:_______________________________________________________ □ 5 What is the design capture storm depth? (Figure III.1) d inches 6 What is the project size? A ac 7 What is the acreage of impervious area? IA ac For projects with multiple types of demand ( toilet flushing, indoor demand, and/or other demand) 8 What is the minimum use required for partial capture? (Table X.6) gpd 9 What is the project estimated wet season total daily use? gpd 10 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 9 > Line 8?) For projects with only toilet flushing demand 11 What is the minimum TUTIA for partial capture? (Table X.7) 12 What is the project estimated TUTIA? TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES X-14 December 20, 2013 Worksheet J: Summary of Harvested Water Demand and Feasibility 13 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 12 > Line 11?) For projects with only irrigation demand 14 What is the minimum irrigation area required based on conservation landscape design? ( Table X.8) ac 15 What is the proposed project irrigated area? (multiply conservation landscaping by 1; multiply active turf by 2) ac 16 Is partial capture potentially feasible? (Line 15 > Line 14?) Provide supporting assumptions and citations for controlling demand calculation: Cypress Mixed Use WQMP Flow Rate and Volume Calculations DMA ID % Impervious A (acres) C I (in/hr) Adj Volume (cubic feet)Selected Modular Wetland Modular Wetland Treatment Voulme DMA 1 90%13.33 0.83 0.26 17,000 MWS-L-8-16 20,145 Note: The Cypress Mixed used development is eligible for a water quality Credit of 50%, per the Model WQMP pg. 7.II 3-5-3-5. This development meets the higher density development, mixed use development, and in-fill development requirments. KHA/ML 05/24/2018 VOLUME-BASED Many states require treatment of a water quality volume and do not offer the option of flow-based design. The MWS Linear and its unique horizontal flow makes it the only biofilter that can be used in volume-based design installed downstream of ponds, detention basins, and underground storage systems. MODEL #TREATMENT CAPACITY (cu. ft.) @ 24-HOUR DRAINDOWN TREATMENT CAPACITY (cu. ft.) @ 48-HOUR DRAINDOWN MWS-L-4-4 1140 2280 MWS-L-4-6 1600 3200 MWS-L-4-8 2518 5036 MWS-L-4-13 3131 6261 MWS-L-4-15 3811 7623 MWS-L-4-17 4492 8984 MWS-L-4-19 5172 10345 MWS-L-4-21 5853 11706 MWS-L-6-8 3191 6382 MWS-L-8-8 5036 10072 MWS-L-8-12 7554 15109 MWS-L-8-16 10073 20145 MWS-L-8-20 12560 25120 MWS-L-8-24 15108 30216 SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHMENT F EDUCATION MATERIALS LIST OF EDUCATION MATERIALS PROVIDED 1. THE OCEAN BEGINS AT YOUR FRONT DOOR 2. PROPER MAINTENANCE PRACTICES FOR YOUR BUSINESS 3. TIPS FOR LANDSCAPE & GARDENING 4. TIPS FOR PEST CONTROL 5. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 6. SC-10: NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE 7. SC-30: OUTDOOR LOADING/UNLOADING 8. SC-34: WASTE HANDLING & DISPOSAL 9. SC-41: BUILDING & GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 10. SC-43: PARKING/STORAGE AREA MAINTENANCE 11. SC-44: DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 12. SC-70: ROAD AND STREET MAINTENANCE 13. SD-10: SITE DESIGN & LANDSCAPE PLANNING 14. SD-12: EFFICIENT IRRIGATION 15. SD-13: STORM DRAIN SIGNAGE 16. SD-32: TRASH STORAGE AREAS 17. SD-34: OUTDOOR MATERIAL STORAGE AREAS 18. FILTERRA PRODUCT INFORMATION For More Information Aliso Viejo (949) 425-2535 Anaheim Public Works Operations (714) 765-6860 Brea Engineering (714) 990-7666 Buena Park Public Works (714) 562-3655 Costa Mesa Public Services (714) 754-5323 Cypress Public Works (714) 229-6740 Dana Point Public Works (949) 248-3584 Fountain Valley Public Works (714) 593-4441 Fullerton Engineering Dept (714) 738-6853 Garden Grove Public Works (714) 741-5956 Huntington Beach Public Works (714) 536-5431 Irvine Public Works (949) 724-6315 La Habra Public Services (562) 905-9792 La Palma Public Works (714) 690-3310 Laguna Beach Water Quality (949) 497-0378 Laguna Hills Public Services (949) 707-2650 Laguna Niguel Public Works (949) 362-4337 Laguna Woods Public Works (949) 639-0500 Lake Forest Public Works (949) 461-3480 Los Alamitos Community Dev (562) 431-3538 Mission Viejo Public Works (949) 470-3056 Newport Beach, Code & Water Quality Enforcement (949) 644-3215 Orange Public Works (714) 532-6480 Placentia Public Works (714) 993-8245 Rancho Santa Margarita (949) 635-1800 San Clemente Environmental Programs (949) 361-6143 San Juan Capistrano Engineering (949) 234-4413 Santa Ana Public Works (714) 647-3380 Seal Beach Engineering (562) 431-2527 x317 Stanton Public Works (714) 379-9222 x204 Tustin Public Works/Engineering (714) 573-3150 Villa Park Engineering (714) 998-1500 Westminster Public Works/Engineering (714) 898-3311 x446 Yorba Linda Engineering (714) 961-7138 Orange County Stormwater Program (877) 897-7455 Orange County 24-Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455) On-line Water Pollution Problem Reporting Form w w w o c w a t e r s h e d s c o m The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door California Environmental Protection Agency www calepa ca gov • Air Resources Board www arb ca gov • Department of Pesticide Regulation www cdpr ca gov • Department of Toxic Substances Control www dtsc ca gov • Integrated Waste Management Board www ciwmb ca gov • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment www oehha ca gov • State Water Resources Control Board www waterboards ca gov Earth 911 - Community-Specific Environmental Information 1-800-cleanup or visit www 1800cleanup org Health Care Agency’s Ocean and Bay Water Closure and Posting Hotline (714) 433-6400 or visit www ocbeachinfo com Integrated Waste Management Dept. of Orange County (714) 834-6752 or visit www oclandfills com for information on household hazardous waste collection centers, recycling centers and solid waste collection O.C. Agriculture Commissioner (714) 447-7100 or visit www ocagcomm com Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook Visit www cabmphandbooks com UC Master Gardener Hotline (714) 708-1646 or visit www uccemg com Did You Know? Most people believe that the largest source of water pollution in urban areas comes from specific sources such as factories and sewage treatment plants In fact, the largest source of water pollution comes from city streets, neighborhoods, construction sites and parking lots This type of pollution is sometimes called “non-point source” pollution There are two types of non-point source pollution: stormwater and urban runoff pollution Stormwater runoff results from rainfall When rainstorms cause large volumes of water to rinse the urban landscape, picking up pollutants along the way Urban runoff can happen any time of the year when excessive water use from irrigation, vehicle washing and other sources carries trash, lawn clippings and other urban pollutants into storm drains Where Does It Go? Anything we use outside homes, vehicles and businesses – like motor oil, paint, pesticides, fertilizers and cleaners – can be blown or washed into storm drains A little water from a garden hose or rain can also send materials into storm drains Storm drains are separate from our sanitary sewer systems; unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks or toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways Printed on Recycled Paper The Orange County Stormwater Program has created and moderates an electronic mailing list to facilitate communications, take questions and exchange ideas among its users about issues and topics related to stormwater and urban runoff and the implementation of program elements To join the list, please send an email to ocstormwaterinfo-join@list ocwatersheds com Orange County Stormwater Program Even if you live miles from the Pacific Ocean, you may be unknowingly polluting it.Sources of Non-Point Source Pollution Automotive leaks and spills Improper disposal of used oil and other engine fluids Metals found in vehicle exhaust, weathered paint, rust, metal plating and tires Pesticides and fertilizers from lawns, gardens and farms Improper disposal of cleaners, paint and paint removers Soil erosion and dust debris from landscape and construction activities Litter, lawn clippings, animal waste, and other organic matter Oil stains on parking lots and paved surfaces The Effect on the OceanNon-point source pollution can have a serious impact on water quality in Orange County Pollutants from the storm drain system can harm marine life as well as coastal and wetland habitats They can also degrade recreation areas such as beaches, harbors and bays Stormwater quality management programs have been developed throughout Orange County to educate and encourage the public to protect water quality, monitor runoff in the storm drain system, investigate illegal dumping and maintain storm drains Support from Orange County residents and businesses is needed to improve water quality and reduce urban runoff pollution Proper use and disposal of materials will help stop pollution before it reaches the storm drain and the ocean Dumping one quart of motor oil into a storm drain can contaminate 250,000 gallons of water. Follow these simple steps to help reduce water pollution: Household Activities Do not rinse spills with water Use dry cleanup methods such as applying cat litter or another absorbent material, sweep and dispose of in the trash Take items such as used or excess batteries, oven cleaners, automotive fluids, painting products and cathode ray tubes, like TVs and computer monitors, to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center (HHWCC) For a HHWCC near you call (714) 834-6752 or visit www oclandfills com Do not hose down your driveway, sidewalk or patio to the street, gutter or storm drain Sweep up debris and dispose of it in the trash Automotive Take your vehicle to a commercial car wash whenever possible If you wash your vehicle at home, choose soaps, cleaners, or detergents labeled non-toxic, phosphate- free or biodegradable Vegetable and citrus-based products are typically safest for the environment Do not allow washwater from vehicle washing to drain into the street, gutter or storm drain Excess washwater should be disposed of in the sanitary sewer (through a sink or toilet) or onto an absorbent surface like your lawn Monitor your vehicles for leaks and place a pan under leaks Keep your vehicles well maintained to stop and prevent leaks Never pour oil or antifreeze in the street, gutter or storm drain Recycle these substances at a service station, a waste oil collection center or used oil recycling center For the nearest Used Oil Collection Center call 1-800-CLEANUP or visit www 1800cleanup org Never allow pollutants to enter the street, gutter or storm drain! Lawn and Garden Pet and animal waste Pesticides Clippings, leaves and soil Fertilizer Common Pollutants Automobile Oil and grease Radiator fluids and antifreeze Cleaning chemicals Brake pad dust Home Maintenance Detergents, cleaners and solvents Oil and latex paint Swimming pool chemicals Outdoor trash and litter The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Trash Place trash and litter that cannot be recycled in securely covered trash cans Whenever possible, buy recycled products Remember: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Pet Care Always pick up after your pet Flush waste down the toilet or dispose of it in the trash Pet waste, if left outdoors, can wash into the street, gutter or storm drain If possible, bathe your pets indoors If you must bathe your pet outside, wash it on your lawn or another absorbent/permeable surface to keep the washwater from entering the street, gutter or storm drain Follow directions for use of pet care products and dispose of any unused products at a HHWCC Pool Maintenance Pool and spa water must be dechlorinated and free of excess acid, alkali or color to be allowed in the street, gutter or storm drain When it is not raining, drain dechlorinated pool and spa water directly into the sanitary sewer Some cities may have ordinances that do not allow pool water to be disposed of in the storm drain Check with your city Landscape and Gardening Do not over-water Water your lawn and garden by hand to control the amount of water you use or set irrigation systems to reflect seasonal water needs If water flows off your yard onto your driveway or sidewalk, your system is over-watering Periodically inspect and fix leaks and misdirected sprinklers Do not rake or blow leaves, clippings or pruning waste into the street, gutter or storm drain Instead, dispose of waste by composting, hauling it to a permitted landfill, or as green waste through your city’s recycling program Follow directions on pesticides and fertilizer, (measure, do not estimate amounts) and do not use if rain is predicted within 48 hours Take unwanted pesticides to a HHWCC to be recycled For locations and hours of HHWCC, call (714) 834-6752 or visit www oclandfills com Follow these simple steps to help reduce water pollution: Household Activities Do not rinse spills with water Use dry cleanup methods such as applying cat litter or another absorbent material, sweep and dispose of in the trash Take items such as used or excess batteries, oven cleaners, automotive fluids, painting products and cathode ray tubes, like TVs and computer monitors, to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center (HHWCC) For a HHWCC near you call (714) 834-6752 or visit www oclandfills com Do not hose down your driveway, sidewalk or patio to the street, gutter or storm drain Sweep up debris and dispose of it in the trash Automotive Take your vehicle to a commercial car wash whenever possible If you wash your vehicle at home, choose soaps, cleaners, or detergents labeled non-toxic, phosphate- free or biodegradable Vegetable and citrus-based products are typically safest for the environment Do not allow washwater from vehicle washing to drain into the street, gutter or storm drain Excess washwater should be disposed of in the sanitary sewer (through a sink or toilet) or onto an absorbent surface like your lawn Monitor your vehicles for leaks and place a pan under leaks Keep your vehicles well maintained to stop and prevent leaks Never pour oil or antifreeze in the street, gutter or storm drain Recycle these substances at a service station, a waste oil collection center or used oil recycling center For the nearest Used Oil Collection Center call 1-800-CLEANUP or visit www 1800cleanup org Never allow pollutants to enter the street, gutter or storm drain! Lawn and Garden Pet and animal waste Pesticides Clippings, leaves and soil Fertilizer Common Pollutants Automobile Oil and grease Radiator fluids and antifreeze Cleaning chemicals Brake pad dust Home Maintenance Detergents, cleaners and solvents Oil and latex paint Swimming pool chemicals Outdoor trash and litter The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Trash Place trash and litter that cannot be recycled in securely covered trash cans Whenever possible, buy recycled products Remember: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Pet Care Always pick up after your pet Flush waste down the toilet or dispose of it in the trash Pet waste, if left outdoors, can wash into the street, gutter or storm drain If possible, bathe your pets indoors If you must bathe your pet outside, wash it on your lawn or another absorbent/permeable surface to keep the washwater from entering the street, gutter or storm drain Follow directions for use of pet care products and dispose of any unused products at a HHWCC Pool Maintenance Pool and spa water must be dechlorinated and free of excess acid, alkali or color to be allowed in the street, gutter or storm drain When it is not raining, drain dechlorinated pool and spa water directly into the sanitary sewer Some cities may have ordinances that do not allow pool water to be disposed of in the storm drain Check with your city Landscape and Gardening Do not over-water Water your lawn and garden by hand to control the amount of water you use or set irrigation systems to reflect seasonal water needs If water flows off your yard onto your driveway or sidewalk, your system is over-watering Periodically inspect and fix leaks and misdirected sprinklers Do not rake or blow leaves, clippings or pruning waste into the street, gutter or storm drain Instead, dispose of waste by composting, hauling it to a permitted landfill, or as green waste through your city’s recycling program Follow directions on pesticides and fertilizer, (measure, do not estimate amounts) and do not use if rain is predicted within 48 hours Take unwanted pesticides to a HHWCC to be recycled For locations and hours of HHWCC, call (714) 834-6752 or visit www oclandfills com For More Information Aliso Viejo (949) 425-2535 Anaheim Public Works Operations (714) 765-6860 Brea Engineering (714) 990-7666 Buena Park Public Works (714) 562-3655 Costa Mesa Public Services (714) 754-5323 Cypress Public Works (714) 229-6740 Dana Point Public Works (949) 248-3584 Fountain Valley Public Works (714) 593-4441 Fullerton Engineering Dept (714) 738-6853 Garden Grove Public Works (714) 741-5956 Huntington Beach Public Works (714) 536-5431 Irvine Public Works (949) 724-6315 La Habra Public Services (562) 905-9792 La Palma Public Works (714) 690-3310 Laguna Beach Water Quality (949) 497-0378 Laguna Hills Public Services (949) 707-2650 Laguna Niguel Public Works (949) 362-4337 Laguna Woods Public Works (949) 639-0500 Lake Forest Public Works (949) 461-3480 Los Alamitos Community Dev (562) 431-3538 Mission Viejo Public Works (949) 470-3056 Newport Beach, Code & Water Quality Enforcement (949) 644-3215 Orange Public Works (714) 532-6480 Placentia Public Works (714) 993-8245 Rancho Santa Margarita (949) 635-1800 San Clemente Environmental Programs (949) 361-6143 San Juan Capistrano Engineering (949) 234-4413 Santa Ana Public Works (714) 647-3380 Seal Beach Engineering (562) 431-2527 x317 Stanton Public Works (714) 379-9222 x204 Tustin Public Works/Engineering (714) 573-3150 Villa Park Engineering (714) 998-1500 Westminster Public Works/Engineering (714) 898-3311 x446 Yorba Linda Engineering (714) 961-7138 Orange County Stormwater Program (877) 897-7455 Orange County 24-Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455) On-line Water Pollution Problem Reporting Form w w w o c w a t e r s h e d s c o m The Ocean Begins at Your Front DoorCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency www calepa ca gov • Air Resources Board www arb ca gov • Department of Pesticide Regulation www cdpr ca gov • Department of Toxic Substances Control www dtsc ca gov • Integrated Waste Management Board www ciwmb ca gov • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment www oehha ca gov • State Water Resources Control Board www waterboards ca gov Earth 911 - Community-Specific Environmental Information 1-800-cleanup or visit www 1800cleanup org Health Care Agency’s Ocean and Bay Water Closure and Posting Hotline (714) 433-6400 or visit www ocbeachinfo com Integrated Waste Management Dept. of Orange County (714) 834-6752 or visit www oclandfills com for information on household hazardous waste collection centers, recycling centers and solid waste collection O.C. Agriculture Commissioner (714) 447-7100 or visit www ocagcomm com Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook Visit www cabmphandbooks com UC Master Gardener Hotline (714) 708-1646 or visit www uccemg com Did You Know? Most people believe that the largest source of water pollution in urban areas comes from specific sources such as factories and sewage treatment plants In fact, the largest source of water pollution comes from city streets, neighborhoods, construction sites and parking lots This type of pollution is sometimes called “non-point source” pollution There are two types of non-point source pollution: stormwater and urban runoff pollution Stormwater runoff results from rainfall When rainstorms cause large volumes of water to rinse the urban landscape, picking up pollutants along the way Urban runoff can happen any time of the year when excessive water use from irrigation, vehicle washing and other sources carries trash, lawn clippings and other urban pollutants into storm drains Where Does It Go? Anything we use outside homes, vehicles and businesses – like motor oil, paint, pesticides, fertilizers and cleaners – can be blown or washed into storm drains A little water from a garden hose or rain can also send materials into storm drains Storm drains are separate from our sanitary sewer systems; unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks or toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways Printed on Recycled Paper The Orange County Stormwater Program has created and moderates an electronic mailing list to facilitate communications, take questions and exchange ideas among its users about issues and topics related to stormwater and urban runoff and the implementation of program elements To join the list, please send an email to ocstormwaterinfo-join@list ocwatersheds com Orange County Stormwater Program Even if you live miles from the Pacific Ocean, you may be unknowingly polluting it.Sources of Non-Point Source Pollution Automotive leaks and spills Improper disposal of used oil and other engine fluids Metals found in vehicle exhaust, weathered paint, rust, metal plating and tires Pesticides and fertilizers from lawns, gardens and farms Improper disposal of cleaners, paint and paint removers Soil erosion and dust debris from landscape and construction activities Litter, lawn clippings, animal waste, and other organic matter Oil stains on parking lots and paved surfaces The Effect on the OceanNon-point source pollution can have a serious impact on water quality in Orange County Pollutants from the storm drain system can harm marine life as well as coastal and wetland habitats They can also degrade recreation areas such as beaches, harbors and bays Stormwater quality management programs have been developed throughout Orange County to educate and encourage the public to protect water quality, monitor runoff in the storm drain system, investigate illegal dumping and maintain storm drains Support from Orange County residents and businesses is needed to improve water quality and reduce urban runoff pollution Proper use and disposal of materials will help stop pollution before it reaches the storm drain and the ocean Dumping one quart of motor oil into a storm drain can contaminate 250,000 gallons of water. For More Information Aliso Viejo (949) 425-2535 Anaheim Public Works Operations (714) 765-6860 Brea Engineering (714) 990-7666 Buena Park Public Works (714) 562-3655 Costa Mesa Public Services (714) 754-5323 Cypress Public Works (714) 229-6740 Dana Point Public Works (949) 248-3584 Fountain Valley Public Works (714) 593-4441 Fullerton Engineering Dept (714) 738-6853 Garden Grove Public Works (714) 741-5956 Huntington Beach Public Works (714) 536-5431 Irvine Public Works (949) 724-6315 La Habra Public Services (562) 905-9792 La Palma Public Works (714) 690-3310 Laguna Beach Water Quality (949) 497-0378 Laguna Hills Public Services (949) 707-2650 Laguna Niguel Public Works (949) 362-4337 Laguna Woods Public Works (949) 639-0500 Lake Forest Public Works (949) 461-3480 Los Alamitos Community Dev (562) 431-3538 Mission Viejo Public Works (949) 470-3056 Newport Beach, Code & Water Quality Enforcement (949) 644-3215 Orange Public Works (714) 532-6480 Placentia Public Works (714) 993-8245 Rancho Santa Margarita (949) 635-1800 San Clemente Environmental Programs (949) 361-6143 San Juan Capistrano Engineering (949) 234-4413 Santa Ana Public Works (714) 647-3380 Seal Beach Engineering (562) 431-2527 x317 Stanton Public Works (714) 379-9222 x204 Tustin Public Works/Engineering (714) 573-3150 Villa Park Engineering (714) 998-1500 Westminster Public Works/Engineering (714) 898-3311 x446 Yorba Linda Engineering (714) 961-7138 Orange County Stormwater Program (877) 897-7455 Orange County 24-Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455) On-line Water Pollution Problem Reporting Form w w w o c w a t e r s h e d s c o m The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door California Environmental Protection Agency www calepa ca gov • Air Resources Board www arb ca gov • Department of Pesticide Regulation www cdpr ca gov • Department of Toxic Substances Control www dtsc ca gov • Integrated Waste Management Board www ciwmb ca gov • Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment www oehha ca gov • State Water Resources Control Board www waterboards ca gov Earth 911 - Community-Specific Environmental Information 1-800-cleanup or visit www 1800cleanup org Health Care Agency’s Ocean and Bay Water Closure and Posting Hotline (714) 433-6400 or visit www ocbeachinfo com Integrated Waste Management Dept. of Orange County (714) 834-6752 or visit www oclandfills com for information on household hazardous waste collection centers, recycling centers and solid waste collection O.C. Agriculture Commissioner (714) 447-7100 or visit www ocagcomm com Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook Visit www cabmphandbooks com UC Master Gardener Hotline (714) 708-1646 or visit www uccemg com Did You Know? Most people believe that the largest source of water pollution in urban areas comes from specific sources such as factories and sewage treatment plants In fact, the largest source of water pollution comes from city streets, neighborhoods, construction sites and parking lots This type of pollution is sometimes called “non-point source” pollution There are two types of non-point source pollution: stormwater and urban runoff pollution Stormwater runoff results from rainfall When rainstorms cause large volumes of water to rinse the urban landscape, picking up pollutants along the way Urban runoff can happen any time of the year when excessive water use from irrigation, vehicle washing and other sources carries trash, lawn clippings and other urban pollutants into storm drains Where Does It Go? Anything we use outside homes, vehicles and businesses – like motor oil, paint, pesticides, fertilizers and cleaners – can be blown or washed into storm drains A little water from a garden hose or rain can also send materials into storm drains Storm drains are separate from our sanitary sewer systems; unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks or toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways Printed on Recycled Paper The Orange County Stormwater Program has created and moderates an electronic mailing list to facilitate communications, take questions and exchange ideas among its users about issues and topics related to stormwater and urban runoff and the implementation of program elements To join the list, please send an email to ocstormwaterinfo-join@list ocwatersheds com Orange County Stormwater Program Even if you live miles from the Pacific Ocean, you may be unknowingly polluting it.Sources of Non-Point Source Pollution Automotive leaks and spills Improper disposal of used oil and other engine fluids Metals found in vehicle exhaust, weathered paint, rust, metal plating and tires Pesticides and fertilizers from lawns, gardens and farms Improper disposal of cleaners, paint and paint removers Soil erosion and dust debris from landscape and construction activities Litter, lawn clippings, animal waste, and other organic matter Oil stains on parking lots and paved surfaces The Effect on the OceanNon-point source pollution can have a serious impact on water quality in Orange County Pollutants from the storm drain system can harm marine life as well as coastal and wetland habitats They can also degrade recreation areas such as beaches, harbors and bays Stormwater quality management programs have been developed throughout Orange County to educate and encourage the public to protect water quality, monitor runoff in the storm drain system, investigate illegal dumping and maintain storm drains Support from Orange County residents and businesses is needed to improve water quality and reduce urban runoff pollution Proper use and disposal of materials will help stop pollution before it reaches the storm drain and the ocean Dumping one quart of motor oil into a storm drain can contaminate 250,000 gallons of water. For more information, please call the Orange County Stormwater Program at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455) or visit www.ocwatersheds.com To report a spill, call the Orange County 24-Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455). For emergencies, dial 911. Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door PROJECT PREVENTION Help Prevent Ocean Pollution: Preventing water pollution at your commercial/industrial site Clean beaches and healthy creeks, rivers, bays and ocean are important to Orange County. However, many landscape and building maintenance activities can lead to water pollution if you’re not careful. Paint, chemicals, plant clippings and other materials can be blown or washed into storm drains that flow to the ocean. Unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks and toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways. You would never pour soap or fertilizers into the ocean, so why would you let them enter the storm drains? Follow these easy tips to help prevent water pollution. Some types of industrial facilities are required to obtain coverage under the State General Industrial Permit. For more information visit: www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwater/industrial.html Printed on Recycled Paper Tips for Pool Maintenance Call your trash hauler to replace leaking dumpsters. Do not dump any toxic substance or liquid waste on the pavement, the ground, or near a storm drain. Even materials that seem harmless such as latex paint or biodegradable cleaners can damage the environment. Recycle paints, solvents and other materials. For more information about recycling and collection centers, visit www.oclandfills.com. Store materials indoors or under cover and away from storm drains. Use a construction and demolition recycling company to recycle lumber, paper, cardboard, metals, masonry, carpet, plastic, pipes, drywall, rocks, dirt, and green waste. For a listing of construction and demolition recycling locations in your area, visit www.ciwmb.ca.gov/recycle. Properly label materials. Familiarize employees with Material Safety Data Sheets. Landscape Maintenance Compost grass clippings, leaves, sticks and other vegetation, or dispose of it at a permitted landfill or in green waste containers. Do not dispose of these materials in the street, gutter or storm drain. Irrigate slowly and inspect the system for leaks, overspraying and runoff. Adjust automatic timers to avoid overwatering. Follow label directions for the use and disposal of fertilizers and pesticides. Do not apply pesticides or fertilizers if rain is expected within 48 hours or if wind speeds are above 5 mph. Do not spray pesticides within 100 feet of waterways. Fertilizers should be worked into the soil rather than dumped onto the surface. If fertilizer is spilled on the pavement or sidewalk, sweep it up immediately and place it back in the container. Building Maintenance Never allow washwater, sweepings or sediment to enter the storm drain. Sweep up dry spills and use cat litter, towels or similar materials to absorb wet spills. Dispose of it in the trash. If you wash your building, sidewalk or parking lot, you must contain the water. Use a shop vac to collect the water and contact your city or sanitation agency for proper disposal information. Do not let water enter the street, gutter or storm drain. Use drop cloths underneath outdoor painting, scraping, and sandblasting work, and properly dispose of materials in the trash. Use a ground cloth or oversized tub for mixing paint and cleaning tools. Use a damp mop or broom to clean floors. Cover dumpsters to keep insects, animals, rainwater and sand from entering. Keep the area around the dumpster clear of trash and debris. Do not overfill the dumpster. PROJECT PREVENTION Proper Maintenance Practices for your Business Never Dispose of Anything in the Storm Drain. For more information, please call the Orange County Stormwater Program at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455) or visit www.ocwatersheds.com UCCE Master Gardener Hotline: (714) 708-1646 To report a spill, call the Orange County 24-Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455). For emergencies, dial 911. The tips contained in this brochure provide useful information to help prevent water pollution while landscaping or gardening. If you have other suggestions, please contact your city’s stormwater representatives or call the Orange County Stormwater Program. C lean beaches and healthy creeks, rivers, bays and ocean are important to Orange County. However, many common activities can lead to water pollution if you’re not careful. Fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals that are left on yards or driveways can be blown or washed into storm drains that flow to the ocean. Overwatering lawns can also send materials into storm drains. Unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks and toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways. You would never pour gardening products into the ocean, so don’t let them enter the storm drains. Follow these easy tips to help prevent water pollution. Printed on Recycled Paper Tips for Landscape and GardeningTips for Landscape & Gardening Never allow gardening products or polluted water to enter the street, gutter or storm drain. General Landscaping Tips Protect stockpiles and materials from wind and rain by storing them under tarps or secured plastic sheeting. Prevent erosion of slopes by planting fast-growing, dense ground covering plants. These will shield and bind the soil. Plant native vegetation to reduce the amount of water, fertilizers, and pesticide applied to the landscape. Never apply pesticides or fertilizers when rain is predicted within the next 48 hours. Garden & Lawn Maintenance Do not overwater. Use irrigation practices such as drip irrigation, soaker hoses or micro spray systems. Periodically inspect and fix leaks and misdirected sprinklers. Do not rake or blow leaves, clippings or pruning waste into the street, gutter or storm drain. Instead, dispose of green waste by composting, hauling it to a permitted landfill, or recycling it through your city’s program. Use slow-release fertilizers to minimize leaching, and use organic fertilizers. Read labels and use only as directed. Do not over-apply pesticides or fertilizers. Apply to spots as needed, rather than blanketing an entire area. Store pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals in a dry covered area to prevent exposure that may result in the deterioration of containers and packaging. Rinse empty pesticide containers and re-use rinse water as you would use the product. Do not dump rinse water down storm drains. Dispose of empty containers in the trash. When available, use non-toxic alternatives to traditional pesticides, and use pesticides specifically designed to control the pest you are targeting. For more information, visit www.ipm.ucdavis.edu. If fertilizer is spilled, sweep up the spill before irrigating. If the spill is liquid, apply an absorbent material such as cat litter, and then sweep it up and dispose of it in the trash. Take unwanted pesticides to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center to be recycled. Locations are provided below. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Centers Anaheim: 1071 N. Blue Gum St. Huntington Beach: 17121 Nichols St. Irvine: 6411 Oak Canyon San Juan Capistrano: 32250 La Pata Ave. For more information, call (714) 834-6752 or visit www.oclandfills.com Clean beaches and healthy creeks, rivers, bays and ocean are important to Orange County. However, many common activities such as pest control can lead to water pollution if you’re not careful. Pesticide treatments must be planned and applied properly to ensure that pesticides do not enter the street, gutter or storm drain. Unlike water in sanitary sewers (from sinks and toilets), water in storm drains is not treated before entering our waterways. You would never dump pesticides into the ocean, so don’t let it enter the storm drains. Pesticides can cause significant damage to our environment if used improperly. If you are thinking of using a pesticide to control a pest, there are some important things to consider. For more information, please call University of California Cooperative Extension Master Gardeners at (714) 708-1646 or visit these Web sites: www.uccemg.org www.ipm.ucdavis.edu For instructions on collecting a specimen sample visit the Orange County Agriculture Commissioner’s website at: http://www.ocagcomm.com/ser_lab.asp To report a spill, call the Orange County 24-Hour Water Pollution Problem Reporting Hotline at 1-877-89-SPILL (1-877-897-7455). For emergencies, dial 911. Information From: Cheryl Wilen, Area IPM Advisor; Darren Haver, Watershed Management Advisor; Mary Louise Flint, IPM Education and Publication Director; Pamela M. Geisel, Environmental Horticulture Advisor; Carolyn L. Unruh, University of California Cooperative Extension staff writer. Photos courtesy of the UC Statewide IPM Program and Darren Haver. Funding for this brochure has been provided in full or in part through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) pursuant to the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000 (Prop. 13). Help Prevent Ocean Pollution: The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door Responsible Pest Control Printed on Recycled Paper Key Steps to Follow: Step 1: Correctly identify the pest (insect, weed, rodent, or disease) and verify that it is actually causing the problem. This is important because beneficial insects are often mistaken for pests and sprayed with pesticides needlessly. Consult with a Certified Nursery Professional at a local nursery or garden center or send a sample of the pest to the Orange County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. Determine if the pest is still present – even though you see damage, the pest may have left. Step 2: Determine how many pests are present and causing damage. Small pest populations may be controlled more safely using non- pesticide techniques. These include removing food sources, washing off leaves with a strong stream of water, blocking entry into the home using caulking and replacing problem plants with ones less susceptible to pests. Step 3: If a pesticide must be used, choose the least toxic chemical. Obtain information on the least toxic pesticides that are effective at controlling the target pest from the UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program’s Web site at www.ipm.ucdavis.edu. Seek out the assistance of a Certified Nursery Professional at a local nursery or garden center when selecting a pesticide. Purchase the smallest amount of pesticide available. Apply the pesticide to the pest during its most vulnerable life stage. This information can be found on the pesticide label. Step 4: Wear appropriate protective clothing. Follow pesticide labels regarding specific types of protective equipment you should wear. Protective clothing should always be washed separately from other clothing. Step 5: Continuously monitor external conditions when applying pesticides such as weather, irrigation, and the presence of children and animals. Never apply pesticides when rain is predicted within the next 48 hours. Also, do not water after applying pesticides unless the directions say it is necessary. Apply pesticides when the air is still; breezy conditions may cause the spray or dust to drift away from your targeted area. In case of an emergency call 911 and/or the regional poison control number at (714) 634-5988 or (800) 544-4404 (CA only). For general questions you may also visit www.calpoison.org. Step 6: In the event of accidental spills, sweep up or use an absorbent agent to remove any excess pesticides. Avoid the use of water. Be prepared. Have a broom, dust pan, or dry absorbent material, such as cat litter, newspapers or paper towels, ready to assist in cleaning up spills. Contain and clean up the spill right away. Place contaminated materials in a doubled plastic bag. All materials used to clean up the spill should be properly disposed of according to your local Household Hazardous Waste Disposal site. Step 7: Properly store and dispose of unused pesticides. Purchase Ready-To- Use (RTU) products to avoid storing large concentrated quantities of pesticides. Store unused chemicals in a locked cabinet. Unused pesticide chemicals may be disposed of at a Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center. Empty pesticide containers should be triple rinsed prior to disposing of them in the trash. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Center(714) 834-6752www.oclandfills.com Integrated Pest Management (IPM) usually combines several least toxic pest control methods for long-term prevention and management of pest problems without harming you, your family, or the environment. Three life stages of the common lady beetle, a beneficial insect. Tips for Pest Control -'0%2(7'%4)1%-28)2%2') 1-2-191&)781%2%+)1)2846%'8-')7 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Properly store and dispose of gardening wastes. Use mulch or other erosion control measures on exposed soils. Properly manage irrigation and runoff. Properly store and dispose of chemicals. Properly manage pesticide and herbicide use. Properly manage fertilizer use. Stencil storm drains Training Train employees on these BMPs, storm water discharge prohibitions, and wastewater discharge requirements. Provide on-going employee training in pollution prevention. &IWX1EREKIQIRX4VEGXMGIW &14W  A BMP is a technique, measure or structural control that is used for a given set of conditions to improve the quality of the stormwater runoff in a cost effective manner1. The minimum required BMPs for this activity are outlined in the box to the right. Implementation of pollution prevention/good housekeeping measures may reduce or eliminate the need to implement other more costly or complicated procedures. Proper employee training is key to the success of BMP implementation. The BMPs outlined in this fact sheet target the following pollutants: 8EVKIXIH'SRWXMXYIRXW Sediment x Nutrients x Floatable Materials x Metals Bacteria x Oil & Grease Organics & Toxicants Pesticides x Oxygen Demanding x Provided below are specific procedures associated with each of the minimum BMPs along with procedures for additional BMPs that should be considered if this activity takes place at a facility located near a sensitive waterbody. In order to meet the requirements for medium and high priority facilities, the owners/operators must select, install and maintain appropriate BMPs on site. Since the selection of the appropriate BMPs is a site- specific process, the types and numbers of additional BMPs will vary for each facility.  8EOIWXITWXSVIHYGIPERHWGETIQEMRXIRERGIVIUYMVIQIRXW Where feasible, retain and/or plant native vegetation with features that are determined to be beneficial. Native vegetation usually requires less maintenance than planting new vegetation. When planting or replanting consider using low water use flowers, trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. Consider alternative landscaping techniques such as naturescaping and xeriscaping.  4VSTIVP]WXSVIERHHMWTSWISJKEVHIRMRK[EWXIW Dispose of grass clippings, leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation as garbage at a permitted landfill or by composting. Do not dispose of gardening wastes in streets, waterways, or storm drainage systems. Place temporarily stockpiled material away from watercourses and storm drain inlets, and berm and/or cover.  9WIQYPGLSVSXLIVIVSWMSRGSRXVSPQIEWYVIWSRI\TSWIHWSMPW 1 EPA "Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices” IC7 Landscape Maintenance 1  4VSTIVP]QEREKIMVVMKEXMSRERHVYRSJJ Irrigate slowly or pulse irrigate so the infiltration rate of the soil is not exceeded. Inspect irrigation system regularly for leaks and to ensure that excessive runoff is not occurring. If re-claimed water is used for irrigation, ensure that there is no runoff from the landscaped area(s). If bailing of muddy water is required (e.g. when repairing a water line leak), do not put it in the storm drain; pour over landscaped areas. Use automatic timers to minimize runoff. Use popup sprinkler heads in areas with a lot of activity or where pipes may be broken. Consider the use of mechanisms that reduce water flow to broken sprinkler heads.  4VSTIVP]WXSVIERHHMWTSWISJGLIQMGEPW Implement storage requirements for pesticide products with guidance from the local fire department and/or County Agricultural Commissioner. Provide secondary containment for chemical storage. Dispose of empty containers according to the instructions on the container label. Triple rinse containers and use rinse water as product.  4VSTIVP]QEREKITIWXMGMHIERHLIVFMGMHIYWI Follow all federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and disposal of pesticides and herbicides and training of applicators and pest control advisors. Follow manufacturers’ recommendations and label directions. Use pesticides only if there is an actual pest problem (not on a regular preventative schedule). When applicable use less toxic pesticides that will do the job. Avoid use of copper-based pesticides if possible. Use the minimum amount of chemicals needed for the job. Do not apply pesticides if rain is expected or if wind speeds are above 5 mph. Do not mix or prepare pesticides for application near storm drains. Prepare the minimum amount of pesticide needed for the job and use the lowest rate that will effectively control the targeted pest. Whenever possible, use mechanical methods of vegetation removal rather than applying herbicides. Use hand weeding where practical. Do not apply any chemicals directly to surface waters, unless the application is approved and permitted by the state. Do not spray pesticides within 100 feet of open waters. Employ techniques to minimize off-target application (e.g. spray drift) of pesticides, including consideration of alternative application techniques. When conducting mechanical or manual weed control, avoid loosening the soil, which could lead to erosion. Purchase only the amount of pesticide that you can reasonably use in a given time period. Careful soil mixing and layering techniques using a topsoil mix or composted organic material can be used as an effective measure to reduce herbicide use and watering.  4VSTIVP]QEREKIJIVXMPM^IVYWI Follow all federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and disposal of fertilizers. Follow manufacturers’ recommendations and label directions. Employ techniques to minimize off-target application (e.g. spray drift) of fertilizer, including consideration of alternative application techniques. Calibrate fertilizer distributors to avoid excessive application. Periodically test soils for determining proper fertilizer use. Fertilizers should be worked into the soil rather than dumped or broadcast onto the surface. Sweep pavement and sidewalk if fertilizer is spilled on these surfaces before applying irrigation water. Use slow release fertilizers whenever possible to minimize leaching IC7 Landscape Maintenance 2  -RGSVTSVEXIXLIJSPPS[MRKMRXIKVEXIHTIWXQEREKIQIRXXIGLRMUYIW[LIVIETTVSTVMEXI Mulching can be used to prevent weeds where turf is absent. Remove insects by hand and place in soapy water or vegetable oil. Alternatively, remove insects with water or vacuum them off the plants. Use species-specific traps (e.g. pheromone-based traps or colored sticky cards). Sprinkle the ground surface with abrasive diatomaceous earth to prevent infestations by soft-bodied insects and slugs. Slugs also can be trapped in small cups filled with beer that are set in the ground so the slugs can get in easily. In cases where microscopic parasites, such as bacteria and fungi, are causing damage to plants, the affected plant material can be removed and disposed of (pruning equipment should be disinfected with bleach to prevent spreading the disease organism). Small mammals and birds can be excluded using fences, netting, and tree trunk guards. Promote beneficial organisms, such as bats, birds, green lacewings, ladybugs, praying mantis, ground beetles, parasitic nematodes, trichogramma wasps, seedhead weevils, and spiders that prey on detrimental pest species. 8VEMRMRK  8VEMRIQTPS]IIWSRXLIWI&14WWXSVQ[EXIVHMWGLEVKITVSLMFMXMSRWERH[EWXI[EXIVHMWGLEVKI VIUYMVIQIRXW  )HYGEXIERHXVEMRIQTPS]IIWSRXLIYWISJTIWXMGMHIWERHTIWXMGMHIETTPMGEXMSRXIGLRMUYIW 3RP]IQTPS]IIWTVSTIVP]XVEMRIHXSYWITIWXMGMHIWGERETTP]XLIQ  8VEMRERHIRGSYVEKIIQTPS]IIWXSYWIMRXIKVEXIHTIWXQEREKIQIRXXIGLRMUYIW  8VEMRIQTPS]IIWSRTVSTIVWTMPPGSRXEMRQIRXERHGPIERYT Establish training that provides employees with the proper tools and knowledge to immediately begin cleaning up a spill. Ensure that employees are familiar with the site’s spill control plan and/or proper spill cleanup procedures. Fact sheet IC17 discusses Spill Prevention and Control in detail.  )WXEFPMWLEVIKYPEVXVEMRMRKWGLIHYPIXVEMREPPRI[IQTPS]IIWERHGSRHYGXERRYEPVIJVIWLIV XVEMRMRK  9WIEXVEMRMRKPSKSVWMQMPEVQIXLSHXSHSGYQIRXXVEMRMRK 7XIRGMPWXSVQHVEMRW Storm drain system signs act as highly visible source controls that are typically stenciled directly adjacent to storm drain inlets. Stencils should read “No Dumping Drains to Ocean”. 6IJIVIRGIW California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook. Industrial and Commercial. 2003. www.cabmphandbooks.com California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks. Industrial/Commercial Best Management Practice Handbook. Prepared by Camp Dresser& McKee, Larry Walker Associates, Uribe and Associates, Resources Planning Associates for Stormwater Quality Task Force. March 1993. King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual. Best Management Practices for Businesses. King County Surface Water Management. July 1995. On-line:http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Volume IV Source Control BMPs. Prepared by Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. Publication No. 99-14. August 2001. IC7 Landscape Maintenance 3 Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Oklahoma State University. E-951. September 1999. *SVEHHMXMSREPMRJSVQEXMSRGSRXEGX 'SYRX]SJ3VERKI3';EXIVWLIHW Main: (714) 955-0600 24 hr Water Pollution Hotline: 1-877-89-SPILL or visit our website at www.ocwatersheds.com IC7 Landscape Maintenance 4 Non-Stormwater Discharges SC-10 Objectives Cover Contain Educate Reduce/Minimize Product Substitution Targeted Constituents Sediment Nutrients Trash Metals Bacteria Oil and Grease Organics Description Non-stormwater discharges are those flows that do not consist entirely of stormwater. Some non-stormwater discharges do not include pollutants and may be discharged to the storm drain. These include uncontaminated groundwater and natural springs. There are also some non-stormwater discharges that typically do not contain pollutants and may be discharged to the storm drain with conditions. These include car washing, air conditioner condensate, etc. However there are certain non-stormwater discharges that pose environmental concern. These discharges may originate from illegal dumping or from internal floor drains, appliances, industrial processes, sinks, and toilets that are connected to the nearby storm drainage system. These discharges (which may include: process waste waters, cooling waters, wash waters, and sanitary wastewater) can carry substances such as paint, oil, fuel and other automotive fluids, chemicals and other pollutants into storm drains. They can generally be detected through a combination of detection and elimination. The ultimate goal is to effectively eliminate non- stormwater discharges to the stormwater drainage system through implementation of measures to detect, correct, and enforce against illicit connections and illegal discharges of pollutants on streets and into the storm drain system and creeks. Approach Initially the industry must make an assessment of non- stormwater discharges to determine which types must be eliminated or addressed through BMPs. The focus of the following approach is in the elimination of non-stormwater discharges. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 6 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges Pollution Prevention Ensure that used oil, used antifreeze, and hazardous chemical recycling programs are being implemented. Encourage litter control. Suggested Protocols Recommended Complaint Investigation Equipment Field Screening Analysis -pH paper or meter -Commercial stormwater pollutant screening kit that can detect for reactive phosphorus, nitrate nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, specific conductance, and turbidity -Sample jars -Sample collection pole -A tool to remove access hole covers Laboratory Analysis -Sample cooler -Ice -Sample jars and labels -Chain of custody forms Documentation -Camera -Notebook -Pens -Notice of Violation forms -Educational materials General Develop clear protocols and lines of communication for effectively prohibiting non- stormwater discharges, especially those that are not classified as hazardous. These are often not responded to as effectively as they need to be. Stencil or demarcate storm drains, where applicable, to prevent illegal disposal of pollutants. Storm drain inlets should have messages such as³Dump No Waste Drains to Stream´ stenciled or demarcated next to them to warn against ignorant or intentional dumping of pollutants into the storm drainage system. 2 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Non-Stormwater Discharges SC-10 See SC44 Stormwater Drainage System Maintenance for additional information. Illicit Connections Locate discharges from the industrial storm drainage system to the municipal storm drain system through review of ³as-built´ piping schematics. Isolate problem areas and plug illicit discharge points. Locate and evaluate all discharges to the industrial storm drain system. Visual Inspection and Inventory Inventory and inspect each discharge point during dry weather. Keep in mind that drainage from a storm event can continue for a day or two following the end of a storm and groundwater may infiltrate the underground stormwater collection system. Also, non-stormwater discharges are often intermittent and may require periodic inspections. Review Infield Piping A review of the ³as-built´ piping schematic is a way to determine if there are any connections to the stormwater collection system. Inspect the path of floor drains in older buildings. Smoke Testing Smoke testing of wastewater and stormwater collection systems is used to detect connections between the two systems. During dry weather the stormwater collection system is filled with smoke and then traced to sources. The appearance of smoke at the base of a toilet indicates that there may be a connection between the sanitary and the stormwater system. Dye Testing A dye test can be performed by simply releasing a dye into either your sanitary or process wastewater system and examining the discharge points from the stormwater collection system for discoloration. TV Inspection of Drainage System TV Cameras can be employed to visually identify illicit connections to the industrial storm drainage system. Illegal Dumping Regularly inspect and clean up hot spots and other storm drainage areas where illegal dumping and disposal occurs. On paved surfaces, clean up spills with as little water as possible. Use a rag for small spills, a damp mop for general cleanup, and absorbent material for larger spills. If the spilled material is hazardous, then the used cleanup materials are also hazardous and must be sent to a certified laundry (rags) or disposed of as hazardous waste. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 6 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges Never hose down or bury dry material spills. Sweep up the material and dispose of properly. Use adsorbent materials on small spills rather than hosing down the spill. Remove the adsorbent materials promptly and dispose of properly. For larger spills, a private spill cleanup company or Hazmat team may be necessary. Once a site has been cleaned: Post ³No Dumping´ signs with a phone number for reporting dumping and disposal. Landscaping and beautification efforts of hot spots may also discourage future dumping, as well as provide open space and increase property values. Lighting or barriers may also be needed to discourage future dumping. See fact sheet SC11 Spill Prevention, Control, and Cleanup. Inspection Regularly inspect and clean up hot spots and other storm drainage areas where illegal dumping and disposal occurs. Conduct field investigations of the industrial storm drain system for potential sources of non-stormwater discharges. Pro-actively conduct investigations of high priority areas. Based on historical data, prioritize specific geographic areas and/or incident type for pro-active investigations. Reporting A database is useful for defining and tracking the magnitude and location of the problem. Report prohibited non-stormwater discharges observed during the course of normal daily activities so they can be investigated, contained, and cleaned up or eliminated. Document that non-stormwater discharges have been eliminated by recording tests performed, methods used, dates of testing, and any on-site drainage points observed. Document and report annually the results of the program. Maintain documentation of illicit connection and illegal dumping incidents, including significant conditionally exempt discharges that are not properly managed. Training Training of technical staff in identifying and documenting illegal dumping incidents is required. Consider posting the quick reference table near storm drains to reinforce training. Train employees to identify non-stormwater discharges and report discharges to the appropriate departments. 4 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Non-Stormwater Discharges SC-10 Educate employees about spill prevention and cleanup. Well-trained employees can reduce human errors that lead to accidental releases or spills. The employee should have the tools and knowledge to immediately begin cleaning up a spill should one occur. Employees should be familiar with the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. Determine and implement appropriate outreach efforts to reduce non-permissible non- stormwater discharges. Conduct spill response drills annually (if no events occurred to evaluate your plan) in cooperation with other industries. When a responsible party is identified, educate the party on the impacts of his or her actions. Spill Response and Prevention See SC11 Spill Prevention Control and Cleanup. Other Considerations Many facilities do not have accurate, up-to-date schematic drawings. Requirements Costs (including capital and operation & maintenance) The primary cost is for staff time and depends on how aggressively a program is implemented. Cost for containment and disposal is borne by the discharger. Illicit connections can be difficult to locate especially if there is groundwater infiltration. Indoor floor drains may require re-plumbing if cross-connections to storm drains are detected. Maintenance (including administrative and staffing) Illegal dumping and illicit connection violations requires technical staff to detect and investigate them. Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Illegal Dumping Substances illegally dumped on streets and into the storm drain systems and creeks include paints, used oil and other automotive fluids, construction debris, chemicals, fresh concrete, leaves, grass clippings, and pet wastes. All of these wastes cause stormwater and receiving water quality problems as well as clog the storm drain system itself. Establish a system for tracking incidents. The system should be designed to identify the following: -Illegal dumping hot spots January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 6 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges 6 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com -Types and quantities (in some cases) of wastes -Patterns in time of occurrence (time of day/night, month, or year) -Mode of dumping (abandoned containers, ³midnight dumping´ from moving vehicles, direct dumping of materials, accidents/spills) -Responsible parties One of the keys to success of reducing or eliminating illegal dumping is increasing the number of people at the facility who are aware of the problem and who have the tools to at least identify the incident, if not correct it. Therefore, train field staff to recognize and report the incidents. What constitutes a ³non-stormwater´ discharge? Non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater collection system may include any water used directly in the manufacturing process (process wastewater), air conditioning condensate and coolant, non-contact cooling water, cooling equipment condensate, outdoor secondary containment water, vehicle and equipment wash water, sink and drinking fountain wastewater, sanitary wastes, or other wastewaters. Permit Requirements Facilities subject to stormwater permit requirements must include a certification that the stormwater collection system has been tested or evaluated for the presence of non- stormwater discharges. The State¶s General Industrial Stormwater Permit requires that non- stormwater discharges be eliminated prior to implementation of the facility¶s SWPPP. Performance Evaluation Review annually internal investigation results; assess whether goals were met and what changes or improvements are necessary. Obtain feedback from personnel assigned to respond to, or inspect for, illicit connections and illegal dumping incidents. References and Resources California¶s Nonpoint Source Program Plan http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/index.html Clark County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://www.co.clark.wa.us/pubworks/bmpman.pdf King County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program http://www.scvurppp.org The Storm Water Managers Resource Center http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ Outdoor Loading/Unloading SC-30 Objectives „ Cover „ Contain „ Educate „ Reduce/Minimize „ Product Substitution Targeted Constituents Sediment  Nutrients  Trash Metals  Bacteria Oil and Grease  Organics  Description The loading/unloading of materials usually takes place outside on docks or terminals; therefore, materials spilled, leaked, or lost during loading/unloading may collect in the soil or on other surfaces and have the potential to be carried away by stormwater runoff or when the area is cleaned. Additionally, rainfall may wash pollutants from machinery used to unload or move materials. Implementation of the following protocols will prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater from outdoor loading/unloading of materials. Approach Reduce potential for pollutant discharge through source control pollution prevention and BMP implementation. Successful implementation depends on effective training of employees on applicable BMPs and general pollution prevention strategies and objectives. Pollution Prevention „ Keep accurate maintenance logs to evaluate materials removed and improvements made. „ Park tank trucks or delivery vehicles in designated areas so that spills or leaks can be contained. „ Limit exposure of material to rainfall whenever possible. „ Prevent stormwater run-on. „ Check equipment regularly for leaks. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 4 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-30 Outdoor Loading/Unloading Suggested Protocols Loading and Unloading – General Guidelines „ Develop an operations plan that describes procedures for loading and/or unloading. „ Conduct loading and unloading in dry weather if possible. „ Cover designated loading/unloading areas to reduce exposure of materials to rain. „ Consider placing a seal or door skirt between delivery vehicles and building to prevent exposure to rain. „ Design loading/unloading area to prevent stormwater run-on, which would include grading or berming the area, and position roof downspouts so they direct stormwater away from the loading/unloading areas. „ Have employees load and unload all materials and equipment in covered areas such as building overhangs at loading docks if feasible. „ Load/unload only at designated loading areas. „ Use drip pans underneath hose and pipe connections and other leak-prone spots during liquid transfer operations, and when making and breaking connections. Several drip pans should be stored in a covered location near the liquid transfer area so that they are always available, yet protected from precipitation when not in use. Drip pans can be made specifically for railroad tracks. Drip pans must be cleaned periodically, and drip collected materials must be disposed of properly. „ Pave loading areas with concrete instead of asphalt. „ Avoid placing storm drains in the area. „ Grade and/or berm the loading/unloading area to a drain that is connected to a deadend. Inspection „ Check loading and unloading equipment regularly for leaks, including valves, pumps, flanges and connections. „ Look for dust or fumes during loading or unloading operations. Training „ Train employees (e.g., fork lift operators) and contractors on proper spill containment and cleanup. „ Have employees trained in spill containment and cleanup present during loading/unloading. „ Train employees in proper handling techniques during liquid transfers to avoid spills. „ Make sure forklift operators are properly trained on loading and unloading procedures. 2 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Outdoor Loading/Unloading SC-30 Spill Response and Prevention „ Keep your Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan up-to-date. „ Contain leaks during transfer. „ Store and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in a location that is readily accessible and known to all and ensure that employees are familiar with the site’s spill control plan and proper spill cleanup procedures. „ Have an emergency spill cleanup plan readily available. „ Use drip pans or comparable devices when transferring oils, solvents, and paints. Other Considerations (Limitations and Regulations) „ Space and time limitations may preclude all transfers from being performed indoors or under cover. „ It may not be possible to conduct transfers only during dry weather. Requirements Costs Costs should be low except when covering a large loading/unloading area. Maintenance „ Conduct regular inspections and make repairs as necessary. The frequency of repairs will depend on the age of the facility. „ Check loading and unloading equipment regularly for leaks. „ Conduct regular broom dry-sweeping of area. Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Special Circumstances for Indoor Loading/Unloading of Materials Loading or unloading of liquids should occur in the manufacturing building so that any spills that are not completely retained can be discharged to the sanitary sewer, treatment plant, or treated in a manner consistent with local sewer authorities and permit requirements. „ For loading and unloading tank trucks to above and below ground storage tanks, the following procedures should be used: - The area where the transfer takes place should be paved. If the liquid is reactive with the asphalt, Portland cement should be used to pave the area. - The transfer area should be designed to prevent run-on of stormwater from adjacent areas. Sloping the pad and using a curb, like a speed bump, around the uphill side of the transfer area should reduce run-on. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 4 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-30 Outdoor Loading/Unloading 4 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com - The transfer area should be designed to prevent runoff of spilled liquids from the area. Sloping the area to a drain should prevent runoff. The drain should be connected to a dead-end sump or to the sanitary sewer. A positive control valve should be installed on the drain. „ For transfer from rail cars to storage tanks that must occur outside, use the following procedures: - Drip pans should be placed at locations where spillage may occur, such as hose connections, hose reels, and filler nozzles. Use drip pans when making and breaking connections. - Drip pan systems should be installed between the rails to collect spillage from tank cars. References and Resources California’s Nonpoint Source Program Plan http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/index.html Clark County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://www.co.clark.wa.us/pubworks/bmpman.pdf King County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program http://www.scvurppp.org The Storm Water Managers Resource Center http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ Waste Handling & Disposal SC-34 Objectives „ Cover „ Contain „ Educate „ Reduce/Minimize „ Product Substitution Targeted Constituents Sediment Nutrients Trash Metals  Bacteria  Oil and Grease  Organics  Description Improper storage and handling of solid wastes can allow toxic compounds, oils and greases, heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids, and other pollutants to enter stormwater runoff. The discharge of pollutants to stormwater from waste handling and disposal can be prevented and reduced by tracking waste generation, storage, and disposal; reducing waste generation and disposal through source reduction, reuse, and recycling; and preventing run-on and runoff. Approach Pollution Prevention „ Accomplish reduction in the amount of waste generated using the following source controls: - Production planning and sequencing - Process or equipment modification - Raw material substitution or elimination - Loss prevention and housekeeping - Waste segregation and separation - Close loop recycling „ Establish a material tracking system to increase awareness about material usage. This may reduce spills and minimize contamination, thus reducing the amount of waste produced. „ Recycle materials whenever possible. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-34 Waste Handling & Disposal Suggested Protocols General „ Cover storage containers with leak proof lids or some other means. If waste is not in containers, cover all waste piles (plastic tarps are acceptable coverage) and prevent stormwater run-on and runoff with a berm. The waste containers or piles must be covered except when in use. „ Use drip pans or absorbent materials whenever grease containers are emptied by vacuum trucks or other means. Grease cannot be left on the ground. Collected grease must be properly disposed of as garbage. „ Check storage containers weekly for leaks and to ensure that lids are on tightly. Replace any that are leaking, corroded, or otherwise deteriorating. „ Sweep and clean the storage area regularly. If it is paved, do not hose down the area to a storm drain. „ Dispose of rinse and wash water from cleaning waste containers into a sanitary sewer if allowed by the local sewer authority. Do not discharge wash water to the street or storm drain. „ Transfer waste from damaged containers into safe containers. „ Take special care when loading or unloading wastes to minimize losses. Loading systems can be used to minimize spills and fugitive emission losses such as dust or mist. Vacuum transfer systems can minimize waste loss. Controlling Litter „ Post “No Littering” signs and enforce anti-litter laws. „ Provide a sufficient number of litter receptacles for the facility. „ Clean out and cover litter receptacles frequently to prevent spillage. Waste Collection „ Keep waste collection areas clean. „ Inspect solid waste containers for structural damage regularly. Repair or replace damaged containers as necessary. „ Secure solid waste containers; containers must be closed tightly when not in use. „ Do not fill waste containers with washout water or any other liquid. „ Ensure that only appropriate solid wastes are added to the solid waste container. Certain wastes such as hazardous wastes, appliances, fluorescent lamps, pesticides, etc., may not be disposed of in solid waste containers (see chemical/ hazardous waste collection section below). 2 of 5 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Waste Handling & Disposal SC-34 „ Do not mix wastes; this can cause chemical reactions, make recycling impossible, and complicate disposal. Good Housekeeping „ Use all of the product before disposing of the container. „ Keep the waste management area clean at all times by sweeping and cleaning up spills immediately. „ Use dry methods when possible (e.g., sweeping, use of absorbents) when cleaning around restaurant/food handling dumpster areas. If water must be used after sweeping/using absorbents, collect water and discharge through grease interceptor to the sewer. Chemical/Hazardous Wastes „ Select designated hazardous waste collection areas on-site. „ Store hazardous materials and wastes in covered containers and protect them from vandalism. „ Place hazardous waste containers in secondary containment. „ Make sure that hazardous waste is collected, removed, and disposed of only at authorized disposal areas. „ Stencil or demarcate storm drains on the facility’s property with prohibitive message regarding waste disposal. Run-on/Runoff Prevention „ Prevent stormwater run-on from entering the waste management area by enclosing the area or building a berm around the area. „ Prevent waste materials from directly contacting rain. „ Cover waste piles with temporary covering material such as reinforced tarpaulin, polyethylene, polyurethane, polypropyleneor hypalon. „ Cover the area with a permanent roof if feasible. „ Cover dumpsters to prevent rain from washing waste out of holes or cracks in the bottom of the dumpster. „ Move the activity indoor after ensuring all safety concerns such as fire hazard and ventilation are addressed. Inspection „ Inspect and replace faulty pumps or hoses regularly to minimize the potential of releases and spills. „ Check waste management areas for leaking containers or spills. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-34 Waste Handling & Disposal „ Repair leaking equipment including valves, lines, seals, or pumps promptly. Training „ Train staff in pollution prevention measures and proper disposal methods. „ Train employees and contractors in proper spill containment and cleanup. The employee should have the tools and knowledge to immediately begin cleaning up a spill should one occur. „ Train employees and subcontractors in proper hazardous waste management. Spill Response and Prevention „ Keep your Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan up-to-date. „ Have an emergency plan, equipment and trained personnel ready at all times to deal immediately with major spills „ Collect all spilled liquids and properly dispose of them. „ Store and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in a location known to all near the designated wash area. „ Ensure that vehicles transporting waste have spill prevention equipment that can prevent spills during transport. Spill prevention equipment includes: - Vehicles equipped with baffles for liquid waste - Trucks with sealed gates and spill guards for solid waste Other Considerations (Limitations and Regulations) Hazardous waste cannot be reused or recycled; it must be disposed of by a licensed hazardous waste hauler. Requirements Costs Capital and O&M costs for these programs will vary substantially depending on the size of the facility and the types of waste handled. Costs should be low if there is an inventory program in place. Maintenance „ None except for maintaining equipment for material tracking program. Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Land Treatment System Minimize runoff of polluted stormwater from land application by: „ Choosing a site where slopes are under 6%, the soil is permeable, there is a low water table, it is located away from wetlands or marshes, and there is a closed drainage system 4 of 5 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Waste Handling & Disposal SC-34 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com „ Avoiding application of waste to the site when it is raining or when the ground is saturated with water „ Growing vegetation on land disposal areas to stabilize soils and reduce the volume of surface water runoff from the site „ Maintaining adequate barriers between the land application site and the receiving waters (planted strips are particularly good) „ Using erosion control techniques such as mulching and matting, filter fences, straw bales, diversion terracing, and sediment basins „ Performing routine maintenance to ensure the erosion control or site stabilization measures are working Examples The port of Long Beach has a state-of-the-art database for identifying potential pollutant sources, documenting facility management practices, and tracking pollutants. References and Resources California’s Nonpoint Source Program Plan http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/index.html Clark County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://www.co.clark.wa.us/pubworks/bmpman.pdf Solid Waste Container Best Management Practices – Fact Sheet On-Line Resources – Environmental Health and Safety. Harvard University. 2002. King County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Pollution from Surface Cleaning Folder. 1996. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). http://www.basmaa.org Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program http://www.scvurppp.org The Storm Water Managers Resource Center http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ Building & Grounds Maintenance SC-41 Objectives „ Cover „ Contain „ Educate „ Reduce/Minimize „ Product Substitution Targeted Constituents Sediment  Nutrients  Trash Metals  Bacteria  Oil and Grease Organics Description Stormwater runoff from building and grounds maintenance activities can be contaminated with toxic hydrocarbons in solvents, fertilizers and pesticides, suspended solids, heavy metals, abnormal pH, and oils and greases. Utilizing the protocols in this fact sheet will prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater from building and grounds maintenance activities by washing and cleaning up with as little water as possible, following good landscape management practices, preventing and cleaning up spills immediately, keeping debris from entering the storm drains, and maintaining the stormwater collection system. Approach Reduce potential for pollutant discharge through source control pollution prevention and BMP implementation. Successful implementation depends on effective training of employees on applicable BMPs and general pollution prevention strategies and objectives. Pollution Prevention „ Switch to non-toxic chemicals for maintenance when possible. „ Choose cleaning agents that can be recycled. „ Encourage proper lawn management and landscaping, including use of native vegetation. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-41 Building & Grounds Maintenance „ Encourage use of Integrated Pest Management techniques for pest control. „ Encourage proper onsite recycling of yard trimmings. „ Recycle residual paints, solvents, lumber, and other material as much as possible. Suggested Protocols Pressure Washing of Buildings, Rooftops, and Other Large Objects „ In situations where soaps or detergents are used and the surrounding area is paved, pressure washers must use a water collection device that enables collection of wash water and associated solids. A sump pump, wet vacuum or similarly effective device must be used to collect the runoff and loose materials. The collected runoff and solids must be disposed of properly. „ If soaps or detergents are not used, and the surrounding area is paved, wash runoff does not have to be collected but must be screened. Pressure washers must use filter fabric or some other type of screen on the ground and/or in the catch basin to trap the particles in wash water runoff. „ If you are pressure washing on a grassed area (with or without soap), runoff must be dispersed as sheet flow as much as possible, rather than as a concentrated stream. The wash runoff must remain on the grass and not drain to pavement. Landscaping Activities „ Dispose of grass clippings, leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation as garbage, or by composting. Do not dispose of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems. „ Use mulch or other erosion control measures on exposed soils. Building Repair, Remodeling, and Construction „ Do not dump any toxic substance or liquid waste on the pavement, the ground, or toward a storm drain. „ Use ground or drop cloths underneath outdoor painting, scraping, and sandblasting work, and properly dispose of collected material daily. „ Use a ground cloth or oversized tub for activities such as paint mixing and tool cleaning. „ Clean paintbrushes and tools covered with water-based paints in sinks connected to sanitary sewers or in portable containers that can be dumped into a sanitary sewer drain. Brushes and tools covered with non-water-based paints, finishes, or other materials must be cleaned in a manner that enables collection of used solvents (e.g., paint thinner, turpentine, etc.) for recycling or proper disposal. „ Use a storm drain cover, filter fabric, or similarly effective runoff control mechanism if dust, grit, wash water, or other pollutants may escape the work area and enter a catch basin. This is particularly necessary on rainy days. The containment device(s) must be in place at the beginning of the work day, and accumulated dirty runoff and solids must be collected and disposed of before removing the containment device(s) at the end of the work day. 2 of 5 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Building & Grounds Maintenance SC-41 „ If you need to de-water an excavation site, you may need to filter the water before discharging to a catch basin or off-site. If directed off-site, you should direct the water through hay bales and filter fabric or use other sediment filters or traps. „ Store toxic material under cover during precipitation events and when not in use. A cover would include tarps or other temporary cover material. Mowing, Trimming, and Planting „ Dispose of leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation as garbage, by composting or at a permitted landfill. Do not dispose of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems. „ Use mulch or other erosion control measures when soils are exposed. „ Place temporarily stockpiled material away from watercourses and drain inlets, and berm or cover stockpiles to prevent material releases to the storm drain system. „ Consider an alternative approach when bailing out muddy water: do not put it in the storm drain; pour over landscaped areas. „ Use hand weeding where practical. Fertilizer and Pesticide Management „ Follow all federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and disposal of fertilizers and pesticides and training of applicators and pest control advisors. „ Use less toxic pesticides that will do the job when applicable. Avoid use of copper-based pesticides if possible. „ Do not use pesticides if rain is expected. „ Do not mix or prepare pesticides for application near storm drains. „ Use the minimum amount needed for the job. „ Calibrate fertilizer distributors to avoid excessive application. „ Employ techniques to minimize off-target application (e.g., spray drift) of pesticides, including consideration of alternative application techniques. „ Apply pesticides only when wind speeds are low. „ Fertilizers should be worked into the soil rather than dumped or broadcast onto the surface. „ Irrigate slowly to prevent runoff and then only as much as is needed. „ Clean pavement and sidewalk if fertilizer is spilled on these surfaces before applying irrigation water. „ Dispose of empty pesticide containers according to the instructions on the container label. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-41 Building & Grounds Maintenance „ Use up the pesticides. Rinse containers, and use rinse water as product. Dispose of unused pesticide as hazardous waste. „ Implement storage requirements for pesticide products with guidance from the local fire department and County Agricultural Commissioner. Provide secondary containment for pesticides. Inspection „ Inspect irrigation system periodically to ensure that the right amount of water is being applied and that excessive runoff is not occurring. Minimize excess watering and repair leaks in the irrigation system as soon as they are observed. Training „ Educate and train employees on pesticide use and in pesticide application techniques to prevent pollution. „ Train employees and contractors in proper techniques for spill containment and cleanup. „ Be sure the frequency of training takes into account the complexity of the operations and the nature of the staff. Spill Response and Prevention „ Keep your Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan up-to-date. „ Place a stockpile of spill cleanup materials, such as brooms, dustpans, and vacuum sweepers (if desired) near the storage area where it will be readily accessible. „ Have employees trained in spill containment and cleanup present during the loading/unloading of dangerous wastes, liquid chemicals, or other materials. „ Familiarize employees with the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. „ Clean up spills immediately. Other Considerations Alternative pest/weed controls may not be available, suitable, or effective in many cases. Requirements Costs „ Cost will vary depending on the type and size of facility. „ Overall costs should be low in comparison to other BMPs. Maintenance Sweep paved areas regularly to collect loose particles. Wipe up spills with rags and other absorbent material immediately, do not hose down the area to a storm drain. 4 of 5 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Building & Grounds Maintenance SC-41 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 5 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Fire Sprinkler Line Flushing Building fire sprinkler line flushing may be a source of non-stormwater runoff pollution. The water entering the system is usually potable water, though in some areas it may be non-potable reclaimed wastewater. There are subsequent factors that may drastically reduce the quality of the water in such systems. Black iron pipe is usually used since it is cheaper than potable piping, but it is subject to rusting and results in lower quality water. Initially, the black iron pipe has an oil coating to protect it from rusting between manufacture and installation; this will contaminate the water from the first flush but not from subsequent flushes. Nitrates, poly- phosphates and other corrosion inhibitors, as well as fire suppressants and antifreeze may be added to the sprinkler water system. Water generally remains in the sprinkler system a long time (typically a year) and between flushes may accumulate iron, manganese, lead, copper, nickel, and zinc. The water generally becomes anoxic and contains living and dead bacteria and breakdown products from chlorination. This may result in a significant BOD problem and the water often smells. Consequently dispose fire sprinkler line flush water into the sanitary sewer. Do not allow discharge to storm drain or infiltration due to potential high levels of pollutants in fire sprinkler line water. References and Resources California’s Nonpoint Source Program Plan http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/index.html Clark County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://www.co.clark.wa.us/pubworks/bmpman.pdf King County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Mobile Cleaners Pilot Program: Final Report. 1997. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). http://www.basmaa.org/ Pollution from Surface Cleaning Folder. 1996. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). http://www.basmaa.org/ Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program http://www.scvurppp.org The Storm Water Managers Resource Center http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ Drainage System Maintenance SC-44 Objectives Cover Contain Educate Reduce/Minimize Targeted Constituents Sediment Nutrients Trash Metals Bacteria Oil and Grease Organics Description As a consequence of its function, the stormwater conveyance system collects and transports urban runoff and stormwater that may contain certain pollutants. The protocols in this fact sheet are intended to reduce pollutants reaching receiving waters through proper conveyance system operation and maintenance. Approach Pollution Prevention Maintain catch basins, stormwater inlets, and other stormwater conveyance structures on a regular basis to remove pollutants, reduce high pollutant concentrations during the first flush of storms, prevent clogging of the downstream conveyance system, restore catch basins¶ sediment trapping capacity, and ensure the system functions properly hydraulically to avoid flooding. Suggested Protocols Catch Basins/Inlet Structures Staff should regularly inspect facilities to ensure compliance with the following: -Immediate repair of any deterioration threatening structural integrity. -Cleaning before the sump is 40% full. Catch basins should be cleaned as frequently as needed to meet this standard. -Stenciling of catch basins and inlets (see SC34 Waste Handling and Disposal). January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 6 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-44 Drainage System Maintenance Clean catch basins, storm drain inlets, and other conveyance structures before the wet season to remove sediments and debris accumulated during the summer. Conduct inspections more frequently during the wet season for problem areas where sediment or trash accumulates more often. Clean and repair as needed. Keep accurate logs of the number of catch basins cleaned. Store wastes collected from cleaning activities of the drainage system in appropriate containers or temporary storage sites in a manner that prevents discharge to the storm drain. Dewater the wastes if necessary with outflow into the sanitary sewer if permitted. Water should be treated with an appropriate filtering device prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. If discharge to the sanitary sewer is not allowed, water should be pumped or vacuumed to a tank and properly disposed. Do not dewater near a storm drain or stream. Storm Drain Conveyance System Locate reaches of storm drain with deposit problems and develop a flushing schedule that keeps the pipe clear of excessive buildup. Collect and pump flushed effluent to the sanitary sewer for treatment whenever possible. Pump Stations Clean all storm drain pump stations prior to the wet season to remove silt and trash. Do not allow discharge to reach the storm drain system when cleaning a storm drain pump station or other facility. Conduct routine maintenance at each pump station. Inspect, clean, and repair as necessary all outlet structures prior to the wet season. Open Channel Modify storm channel characteristics to improve channel hydraulics, increase pollutant removals, and enhance channel/creek aesthetic and habitat value. Conduct channel modification/improvement in accordance with existing laws. Any person, government agency, or public utility proposing an activity that will change the natural (emphasis added) state of any river, stream, or lake in California, must enter into a Steam or Lake Alteration Agreement with the Department of Fish and Game. The developer-applicant should also contact local governments (city, county, special districts), other state agencies (SWRCB, RWQCB, Department of Forestry, Department of Water Resources), and Federal Corps of Engineers and USFWS. Illicit Connections and Discharges Look for evidence of illegal discharges or illicit connections during routine maintenance of conveyance system and drainage structures: -Is there evidence of spills such as paints, discoloring, etc? 2 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Drainage System Maintenance SC-44 -Are there any odors associated with the drainage system? -Record locations of apparent illegal discharges/illicit connections? -Track flows back to potential dischargers and conduct aboveground inspections. This can be done through visual inspection of upgradient manholes or alternate techniques including zinc chloride smoke testing, fluorometric dye testing, physical inspection testing, or television camera inspection. -Eliminate the discharge once the origin of flow is established. Stencil or demarcate storm drains, where applicable, to prevent illegal disposal of pollutants. Storm drain inlets should have messages such as³Dump No Waste Drains to Stream´ stenciled next to them to warn against ignorant or intentional dumping of pollutants into the storm drainage system. Refer to fact sheet SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges. Illegal Dumping Inspect and clean up hot spots and other storm drainage areas regularly where illegal dumping and disposal occurs. Establish a system for tracking incidents. The system should be designed to identify the following: -Illegal dumping hot spots -Types and quantities (in some cases) of wastes -Patterns in time of occurrence (time of day/night, month, or year) -Mode of dumping (abandoned containers, ³midnight dumping´ from moving vehicles, direct dumping of materials, accidents/spills) -Responsible parties Post ³No Dumping´ signs in problem areas with a phone number for reporting dumping and disposal. Signs should also indicate fines and penalties for illegal dumping. Refer to fact sheet SC-10 Non-Stormwater Discharges. Training Train crews in proper maintenance activities, including record keeping and disposal. Allow only properly trained individuals to handle hazardous materials/wastes. Have staff involved in detection and removal of illicit connections trained in the following: -OSHA-required Health and Safety Training (29 CFR 1910.120) plus annual refresher training (as needed). January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 6 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-44 Drainage System Maintenance -OSHA Confined Space Entry training (Cal-OSHA Confined Space, Title 8 and Federal OSHA 29 CFR 1910.146). -Procedural training (field screening, sampling, smoke/dye testing, TV inspection). Spill Response and Prevention Investigate all reports of spills, leaks, and/or illegal dumping promptly. Clean up all spills and leaks using ³dry´ methods (with absorbent materials and/or rags) or dig up, remove, and properly dispose of contaminated soil. Refer to fact sheet SC-11 Spill Prevention, Control, and Cleanup. Other Considerations (Limitations and Regulations) Clean-up activities may create a slight disturbance for local aquatic species. Access to items and material on private property may be limited. Trade-offs may exist between channel hydraulics and water quality/riparian habitat. If storm channels or basins are recognized as wetlands, many activities, including maintenance, may be subject to regulation and permitting. Storm drain flushing is most effective in small diameter pipes (36-inch diameter pipe or less, depending on water supply and sediment collection capacity). Other considerations associated with storm drain flushing may include the availability of a water source, finding a downstream area to collect sediments, liquid/sediment disposal, and prohibition against disposal of flushed effluent to sanitary sewer in some areas. Regulations may include adoption of substantial penalties for illegal dumping and disposal. Local municipal codes may include sections prohibiting discharge of soil, debris, refuse, hazardous wastes, and other pollutants into the storm drain system. Requirements Costs An aggressive catch basin cleaning program could require a significant capital and O&M budget. The elimination of illegal dumping is dependent on the availability, convenience, and cost of alternative means of disposal. The primary cost is for staff time. Cost depends on how aggressively a program is implemented. Other cost considerations for an illegal dumping program include: -Purchase and installation of signs. -Rental of vehicle(s) to haul illegally-disposed items and material to landfills. -Rental of heavy equipment to remove larger items (e.g., car bodies) from channels. -Purchase of landfill space to dispose of illegally-dumped items and material. 4 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com Drainage System Maintenance SC-44 Methods used for illicit connection detection (smoke testing, dye testing, visual inspection, and flow monitoring) can be costly and time-consuming. Site-specific factors, such as the level of impervious area, the density and ages of buildings, and type of land use will determine the level of investigation necessary. Maintenance Two-person teams may be required to clean catch basins with vactor trucks. Teams of at least two people plus administrative personnel are required to identify illicit discharges, depending on the complexity of the storm sewer system. Arrangements must be made for proper disposal of collected wastes. Technical staff are required to detect and investigate illegal dumping violations. Supplemental Information Further Detail of the BMP Storm Drain Flushing Flushing is a common maintenance activity used to improve pipe hydraulics and to remove pollutants in storm drainage systems. Flushing may be designed to hydraulically convey accumulated material to strategic locations, such as an open channel, another point where flushing will be initiated, or the sanitary sewer and the treatment facilities,thus preventing resuspension and overflow of a portion of the solids during storm events. Flushing prevents ³plug flow´discharges of concentrated pollutant loadings and sediments. Deposits can hinder the designed conveyance capacity of the storm drain system and potentially cause backwater conditions in severe cases of clogging. Storm drain flushing usually takes place along segments of pipe with grades that are too flat to maintain adequate velocity to keep particles in suspension. An upstream manhole is selected to place an inflatable device that temporarily plugs the pipe. Further upstream, water is pumped into the line to create a flushing wave. When the upstream reach of pipe is sufficiently full to cause a flushing wave, the inflated device is rapidly deflated with the assistance of a vacuum pump, thereby releasing the backed up water and resulting in the cleaning of the storm drain segment. To further reduce impacts of stormwater pollution, a second inflatable device placed well downstream may be used to recollect the water after the force of the flushing wave has dissipated. A pump may then be used to transfer the water and accumulated material to the sanitary sewer for treatment. In some cases, an interceptor structure may be more practical or required to recollect the flushed waters. It has been found that cleansing efficiency of periodic flush waves is dependent upon flush volume, flush discharge rate, sewer slope, sewer length, sewer flow rate, sewer diameter, and population density. As a rule of thumb, the length of line to be flushed should not exceed 700 feet. At this maximum recommended length, the percent removal efficiency ranges between 65- 75% for organics and 55-65% for dry weather grit/inorganic material. The percent removal efficiency drops rapidly beyond that. Water is commonly supplied by a water truck, but fire hydrants can also supply water. To make the best use of water, it is recommended that reclaimed water be used or that fire hydrant line flushing coincide with storm sewer flushing. January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 5 of 6 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com SC-44 Drainage System Maintenance 6 of 6 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 Industrial and Commercial www.cabmphandbooks.com References and Resources California¶s Nonpoint Source Program Plan http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/nps/index.html Clark County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://www.co.clark.wa.us/pubworks/bmpman.pdf Ferguson, B.K. 1991. Urban Stream Reclamation, p. 324-322, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. King County Storm Water Pollution Control Manual http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/dss/spcm.htm Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies. Oregon Municipal Stormwater Toolbox for Maintenance Practices. June 1998. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program http://www.scvurppp.org The Storm Water Managers Resource Center http://www.stormwatercenter.net United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Storm Drain System Cleaning. On line: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/poll_16.htm Site Design & Landscape Planning SD-10 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 4 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Description Each project site possesses unique topographic, hydrologic, and vegetative features, some of which are more suitable for development than others. Integrating and incorporating appropriate landscape planning methodologies into the project design is the most effective action that can be done to minimize surface and groundwater contamination from stormwater. Approach Landscape planning should couple consideration of land suitability for urban uses with consideration of community goals and projected growth. Project plan designs should conserve natural areas to the extent possible, maximize natural water storage and infiltration opportunities, and protect slopes and channels. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. Design Considerations Design requirements for site design and landscapes planning should conform to applicable standards and specifications of agencies with jurisdiction and be consistent with applicable General Plan and Local Area Plan policies. Design Objectives ; Maximize Infiltration ; Provide Retention ; Slow Runoff ; Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning 2 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Designing New Installations Begin the development of a plan for the landscape unit with attention to the following general principles: „ Formulate the plan on the basis of clearly articulated community goals. Carefully identify conflicts and choices between retaining and protecting desired resources and community growth. „ Map and assess land suitability for urban uses. Include the following landscape features in the assessment: wooded land, open unwooded land, steep slopes, erosion-prone soils, foundation suitability, soil suitability for waste disposal, aquifers, aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, floodplains, surface waters, agricultural lands, and various categories of urban land use. When appropriate, the assessment can highlight outstanding local or regional resources that the community determines should be protected (e.g., a scenic area, recreational area, threatened species habitat, farmland, fish run). Mapping and assessment should recognize not only these resources but also additional areas needed for their sustenance. Project plan designs should conserve natural areas to the extent possible, maximize natural water storage and infiltration opportunities, and protect slopes and channels. Conserve Natural Areas during Landscape Planning If applicable, the following items are required and must be implemented in the site layout during the subdivision design and approval process, consistent with applicable General Plan and Local Area Plan policies: „ Cluster development on least-sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural undisturbed condition. „ Limit clearing and grading of native vegetation at a site to the minimum amount needed to build lots, allow access, and provide fire protection. „ Maximize trees and other vegetation at each site by planting additional vegetation, clustering tree areas, and promoting the use of native and/or drought tolerant plants. „ Promote natural vegetation by using parking lot islands and other landscaped areas. „ Preserve riparian areas and wetlands. Maximize Natural Water Storage and Infiltration Opportunities Within the Landscape Unit „ Promote the conservation of forest cover. Building on land that is already deforested affects basin hydrology to a lesser extent than converting forested land. Loss of forest cover reduces interception storage, detention in the organic forest floor layer, and water losses by evapotranspiration, resulting in large peak runoff increases and either their negative effects or the expense of countering them with structural solutions. „ Maintain natural storage reservoirs and drainage corridors, including depressions, areas of permeable soils, swales, and intermittent streams. Develop and implement policies and Site Design & Landscape Planning SD-10 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 4 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com regulations to discourage the clearing, filling, and channelization of these features. Utilize them in drainage networks in preference to pipes, culverts, and engineered ditches. „ Evaluating infiltration opportunities by referring to the stormwater management manual for the jurisdiction and pay particular attention to the selection criteria for avoiding groundwater contamination, poor soils, and hydrogeological conditions that cause these facilities to fail. If necessary, locate developments with large amounts of impervious surfaces or a potential to produce relatively contaminated runoff away from groundwater recharge areas. Protection of Slopes and Channels during Landscape Design „ Convey runoff safely from the tops of slopes. „ Avoid disturbing steep or unstable slopes. „ Avoid disturbing natural channels. „ Stabilize disturbed slopes as quickly as possible. „ Vegetate slopes with native or drought tolerant vegetation. „ Control and treat flows in landscaping and/or other controls prior to reaching existing natural drainage systems. „ Stabilize temporary and permanent channel crossings as quickly as possible, and ensure that increases in run-off velocity and frequency caused by the project do not erode the channel. „ Install energy dissipaters, such as riprap, at the outlets of new storm drains, culverts, conduits, or channels that enter unlined channels in accordance with applicable specifications to minimize erosion. Energy dissipaters shall be installed in such a way as to minimize impacts to receiving waters. „ Line on-site conveyance channels where appropriate, to reduce erosion caused by increased flow velocity due to increases in tributary impervious area. The first choice for linings should be grass or some other vegetative surface, since these materials not only reduce runoff velocities, but also provide water quality benefits from filtration and infiltration. If velocities in the channel are high enough to erode grass or other vegetative linings, riprap, concrete, soil cement, or geo-grid stabilization are other alternatives. „ Consider other design principles that are comparable and equally effective. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define “redevelopment” in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of “ redevelopment” must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under “designing new installations” above should be followed. SD-10 Site Design & Landscape Planning 4 of 4 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Redevelopment may present significant opportunity to add features which had not previously been implemented. Examples include incorporation of depressions, areas of permeable soils, and swales in newly redeveloped areas. While some site constraints may exist due to the status of already existing infrastructure, opportunities should not be missed to maximize infiltration, slow runoff, reduce impervious areas, disconnect directly connected impervious areas. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Washington State Department of Ecology, August 2001. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. Efficient Irrigation SD-12 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Description Irrigation water provided to landscaped areas may result in excess irrigation water being conveyed into stormwater drainage systems. Approach Project plan designs for development and redevelopment should include application methods of irrigation water that minimize runoff of excess irrigation water into the stormwater conveyance system. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single-family homes are typically excluded from this requirement.) Design Considerations Designing New Installations The following methods to reduce excessive irrigation runoff should be considered, and incorporated and implemented where determined applicable and feasible by the Permittee: „ Employ rain-triggered shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after precipitation. „ Design irrigation systems to each landscape area’s specific water requirements. „ Include design featuring flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines. „ Implement landscape plans consistent with County or City water conservation resolutions, which may include provision of water sensors, programmable irrigation times (for short cycles), etc. Design Objectives ; Maximize Infiltration ; Provide Retention ; Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey SD-12 Efficient Irrigation 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com „ Design timing and application methods of irrigation water to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the storm water drainage system. „ Group plants with similar water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. Choose plants with low irrigation requirements (for example, native or drought tolerant species). Consider design features such as: - Using mulches (such as wood chips or bar) in planter areas without ground cover to minimize sediment in runoff - Installing appropriate plant materials for the location, in accordance with amount of sunlight and climate, and use native plant materials where possible and/or as recommended by the landscape architect - Leaving a vegetative barrier along the property boundary and interior watercourses, to act as a pollutant filter, where appropriate and feasible - Choosing plants that minimize or eliminate the use of fertilizer or pesticides to sustain growth „ Employ other comparable, equally effective methods to reduce irrigation water runoff. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define “redevelopment” in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of “ redevelopment” must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under “designing new installations” above should be followed. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. Storm Drain Signage SD-13 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Description Waste materials dumped into storm drain inlets can have severe impacts on receiving and ground waters. Posting notices regarding discharge prohibitions at storm drain inlets can prevent waste dumping. Storm drain signs and stencils are highly visible source controls that are typically placed directly adjacent to storm drain inlets. Approach The stencil or affixed sign contains a brief statement that prohibits dumping of improper materials into the urban runoff conveyance system. Storm drain messages have become a popular method of alerting the public about the effects of and the prohibitions against waste disposal. Suitable Applications Stencils and signs alert the public to the destination of pollutants discharged to the storm drain. Signs are appropriate in residential, commercial, and industrial areas, as well as any other area where contributions or dumping to storm drains is likely. Design Considerations Storm drain message markers or placards are recommended at all storm drain inlets within the boundary of a development project. The marker should be placed in clear sight facing toward anyone approaching the inlet from either side. All storm drain inlet locations should be identified on the development site map. Designing New Installations The following methods should be considered for inclusion in the project design and show on project plans: „ Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language. Examples include “NO DUMPING Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage ; Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey SD-13 Storm Drain Signage 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com – DRAINS TO OCEAN” and/or other graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping. „ Post signs with prohibitive language and/or graphical icons, which prohibit illegal dumping at public access points along channels and creeks within the project area. Note - Some local agencies have approved specific signage and/or storm drain message placards for use. Consult local agency stormwater staff to determine specific requirements for placard types and methods of application. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define “redevelopment” in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. If the project meets the definition of “redevelopment”, then the requirements stated under “ designing new installations” above should be included in all project design plans. Additional Information Maintenance Considerations „ Legibility of markers and signs should be maintained. If required by the agency with jurisdiction over the project, the owner/operator or homeowner’s association should enter into a maintenance agreement with the agency or record a deed restriction upon the property title to maintain the legibility of placards or signs. Placement „ Signage on top of curbs tends to weather and fade. „ Signage on face of curbs tends to be worn by contact with vehicle tires and sweeper brooms. Supplemental Information Examples „ Most MS4 programs have storm drain signage programs. Some MS4 programs will provide stencils, or arrange for volunteers to stencil storm drains as part of their outreach program. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. Trash Storage Areas SD-32 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 2 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Description Trash storage areas are areas where a trash receptacle (s) are located for use as a repository for solid wastes. Stormwater runoff from areas where trash is stored or disposed of can be polluted. In addition, loose trash and debris can be easily transported by water or wind into nearby storm drain inlets, channels, and/or creeks. Waste handling operations that may be sources of stormwater pollution include dumpsters, litter control, and waste piles. Approach This fact sheet contains details on the specific measures required to prevent or reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff associated with trash storage and handling. Preventative measures including enclosures, containment structures, and impervious pavements to mitigate spills, should be used to reduce the likelihood of contamination. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. (Detached residential single-family homes are typically excluded from this requirement.) Design Considerations Design requirements for waste handling areas are governed by Building and Fire Codes, and by current local agency ordinances and zoning requirements. The design criteria described in this fact sheet are meant to enhance and be consistent with these code and ordinance requirements. Hazardous waste should be handled in accordance with legal requirements established in Title 22, California Code of Regulation. Wastes from commercial and industrial sites are typically hauled by either public or commercial carriers that may have design or access requirements for waste storage areas. The design criteria in this fact sheet are recommendations and are not intended to be in conflict with requirements established by the waste hauler. The waste hauler should be contacted prior to the design of your site trash collection areas. Conflicts or issues should be discussed with the local agency. Designing New Installations Trash storage areas should be designed to consider the following structural or treatment control BMPs: „ Design trash container areas so that drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement is diverted around the area(s) to avoid run-on. This might include berming or grading the waste handling area to prevent run-on of stormwater. „ Make sure trash container areas are screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash. Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials ; Contain Pollutants Collect and Convey SD-32 Trash Storage Areas 2 of 2 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com „ Use lined bins or dumpsters to reduce leaking of liquid waste. „ Provide roofs, awnings, or attached lids on all trash containers to minimize direct precipitation and prevent rainfall from entering containers. „ Pave trash storage areas with an impervious surface to mitigate spills. „ Do not locate storm drains in immediate vicinity of the trash storage area. „ Post signs on all dumpsters informing users that hazardous materials are not to be disposed of therein. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define “redevelopment” in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of “ redevelopment” must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under “designing new installations” above should be followed. Additional Information Maintenance Considerations The integrity of structural elements that are subject to damage (i.e., screens, covers, and signs) must be maintained by the owner/operator. Maintenance agreements between the local agency and the owner/operator may be required. Some agencies will require maintenance deed restrictions to be recorded of the property title. If required by the local agency, maintenance agreements or deed restrictions must be executed by the owner/operator before improvement plans are approved. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. Outdoor Material Storage Areas SD-34 Design Objectives Maximize Infiltration Provide Retention Slow Runoff Minimize Impervious Land Coverage Prohibit Dumping of Improper Materials  Contain Pollutant Collect and Convey Description Proper design of outdoor storage areas for materials reduces opportunity for toxic compounds, oil and grease, heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids, and other pollutants to enter the stormwater conveyance system. Materials may be in the form of raw products, by-products, finished products, and waste products. The type of pollutants associated with the materials will vary depending on the type of commercial or industrial activity. Approach Outdoor storage areas require a drainage approach different from the typical infiltration/detention strategy. In outdoor storage areas, infiltration is discouraged. Containment is encouraged. Preventative measures include enclosures, secondary containment structures and impervious surfaces. Suitable Applications Appropriate applications include residential, commercial and industrial areas planned for development or redevelopment. Design Considerations Some materials are more of a concern than others. Toxic and hazardous materials must be prevented from coming in contact with stormwater. Non-toxic or non-hazardous materials do not have to be prevented from stormwater contact. However, these materials may have toxic effects on receiving waters if allowed to be discharged with stormwater in significant quantities. Accumulated material on an impervious surface could result in significant impact on the rivers or streams that receive the runoff. Material may be stored in a variety of ways, including bulk piles, containers, shelving, stacking, and tanks. Stormwater contamination may be prevented by eliminating the possibility of stormwater contact with the material storage areas either through diversion, cover, or capture of the stormwater. Control measures may also include minimizing the storage area. Design requirements January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 1 of 3 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com SD-34 Outdoor Material Storage Areas for material storage areas are governed by Building and Fire Codes, and by current City or County ordinances and zoning requirements. Control measures are site specific, and must meet local agency requirements. Designing New Installations Where proposed project plans include outdoor areas for storage of materials that may contribute pollutants to the stormwater conveyance system, the following structural or treatment BMPS should be considered: „ Materials with the potential to contaminate stormwater should be: (1) placed in an enclosure such as, but not limited to, a cabinet, shed, or similar structure that prevents contact with runoff or spillage to the stormwater conveyance system, or (2) protected by secondary containment structures such as berms, dikes, or curbs. „ The storage area should be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills. „ The storage area should slope towards a dead-end sump to contain spills and direct runoff from downspouts/roofs should be directed away from storage areas. „ The storage area should have a roof or awning that extends beyond the storage area to minimize collection of stormwater within the secondary containment area. A manufactured storage shed may be used for small containers. Note that the location(s) of installations of where these preventative measures will be employed must be included on the map or plans identifying BMPs. Redeveloping Existing Installations Various jurisdictional stormwater management and mitigation plans (SUSMP, WQMP, etc.) define “redevelopment” in terms of amounts of additional impervious area, increases in gross floor area and/or exterior construction, and land disturbing activities with structural or impervious surfaces. The definition of “ redevelopment” must be consulted to determine whether or not the requirements for new development apply to areas intended for redevelopment. If the definition applies, the steps outlined under “designing new installations” above should be followed. Additional Information Stormwater and non-stormwater will accumulate in containment areas and sumps with impervious surfaces. Contaminated accumulated water must be disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and cannot be discharged directly to the storm drain or sanitary sewer system without the appropriate permits. Other Resources A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, May 2002. Model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for San Diego County, Port of San Diego, and Cities in San Diego County, February 14, 2002. 2 of 3 California Stormwater BMP Handbook January 2003 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Outdoor Material Storage Areas SD-34 January 2003 California Stormwater BMP Handbook 3 of 3 New Development and Redevelopment www.cabmphandbooks.com Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County, Draft February 2003. Ventura Countywide Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures, July 2002. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-69 December 20, 2013 BIO-7: Proprietary Biotreatment Proprietary biotreatment devices are devices that are manufactured to mimic natural systems such as bioretention areas by incorporating plants, soil, and microbes engineered to provide treatment at higher flow rates or volumes and with smaller footprints than their natural counterparts. Incoming flows are typically filtered through a planting media (mulch, compost, soil, plants, microbes, etc.) and either infiltrated or collected by an underdrain and delivered to the storm water conveyance system. Tree box filters are an increasingly common type of proprietary biotreatment device that are installed at curb level and filled with a bioretention type soil. For low to moderate flows they operate similarly to bioretention systems and are bypassed during high flows. Tree box filters are highly adaptable solutions that can be used in all types of development and in all types of soils but are especially applicable to dense urban parking lots, street, and roadways. Feasibility Screening Considerations  Proprietary biotreatment devices that are unlined may cause incidental infiltration. Therefore, an evaluation of site conditions should be conducted to evaluate whether the BMP should include an impermeable liner to avoid infiltration into the subsurface. Opportunity Criteria  Drainage areas of 0.25 to 1.0 acres.  Land use may include commercial, residential, mixed use, institutional, and subdivisions. Proprietary biotreatment facilities may also be applied in parking lot is lands, traffic circles, road shoulders, and road medians.  Must not adversely affect the level of flood protection provided by the drainage system. OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations □ Frequent maintenance and the use of screens and grates to kee p trash out may decrease the likelihood of clogging and prevent obstruction and bypass of incoming flows. □ Consult proprietors for specific criteria concerning the design and performance. □ Proprietary biotreatment may include specific media to address pollutants of concern. However, for proprietary device to be considered a biotreatment device the media must be capable of supporting rigorous growth of vegetation. □ Proprietary systems must be acceptable to the reviewing agency. Reviewing agencies shall have the discretion to request performance information. Reviewing agencies shall have the discretion to deny the use of a proprietary BMP on the grounds of performance, maintenance considerations, or other relevant factors. Also known as: Catch basin planter box Bioretention vault Tree box filter Proprietary biotreatment Source: http://www.americastusa.com /index.php/filterra/ TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-70 December 20, 2013 □ In right of way areas, plant selection should not impair traffic lines of site. Local jurisdictions may also limit plant selection in keeping with landscaping themes. Computing Sizing Criteria for Proprietary Biotreatment Device  Proprietary biotreatment devices can be volume based or flow-based BMPs.  Volume-based proprietary devices should be sized using the Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method described in Appendix III.3.1 or the Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs described in Appendix III.3.2.  The required design flowrate for flow-based proprietary devices should be computed using the Capture Efficiency Method for Flow-based BMPs described in Appendix III.3.3). In South Orange County, the provided ponding plus pore volume must be checked to demonstrate that it is greater than 0.75 of the remaining DCV that this BMP is designed to address. Many propretary biotreatment BMPs will not be able to meet the definition of “biofiltration” that applies in South Orange County. See Section III.7 and Worksheet SOC-1. Additional References for Design Guidance  Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Stormwater Technical Manual, Chapter 4: http://www.laschools.org/employee/design/fs-studies-and- reports/download/white_paper_report_material/Storm_Water_Technical_Manual_2009 -opt- red.pdf?version_id=76975850  Los Angeles County Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual, Chapter 9: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/DES/design_manuals/StormwaterBMPDesignandMaintenance.pdf  Santa Barbara BMP Guidance Manual, Chapter 6: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/91D1FA75 -C185-491E-A882- 49EE17789DF8/0/Manual_071008_Final.pdf TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-76 December 20, 2013 XIV.7. Pretreatment/Gross Solids Removal BMP Fact Sheets (PRE) PRE-1: Hydrodynamic Separation Device Hydrodynamic separation devices are inline pretreatment units designed to remove trash, debris, and coarse sediment using screening, gravity settling, and centrifugal forces generated by forcing the influent into a circular motion. Several companies manufacture units with a variety of design components including separate chambers, baffles, sorbent media, screens, and flow control orifices. Therefore, additional constituents may be targeted depending on the design; however, the short residence time and potential for captured materials to be released during high flows limits the acceptable use of this BMP type as a standalone treatment control BMP. Opportunity Criteria  Hydrodynamic separation devices are effective for the removal of coarse sediment, trash, and debris, and are useful as pretreatment in combination with other BMP types that target smaller particle sizes. They are most effective in urban areas where coarse sediment, trash, and debris are pollutants of concern.  Hydrodynamic devices represent a wide range of device types that have different unit processes and design elements (e.g., storage versus flow-through designs, inclusion of media filtration, etc.) that vary significantly within the category. These design features likely have significant effects on BMP performance; therefore, generalized performance data for hydrodynamic devices is not practical. OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations □ Proprietary hydrodynamic device BMP vendors are constantly updating and expanding their product lines so refer to the latest design guidance from each of the vendors. General guidelines on the performance, operations and maintenance of proprietary devices are provided by the vendors. □ Operations and maintenance requirements include: clearing trash, debris, and sediment around insert grate and inside chamber, and repairing screens and media if damaged or severely clogged. Computing Sizing Criteria for Hydrodynamic Devices  Hydrodynamic separation devices should be adequately sized to pretreat the entire design volume or design flow rate of the downstream BMP.  The required design flowrate should be calculated based on the Capture Efficie ncy Method for Flow-based BMPs (See Appendix III) to achieve 80 percent capture of the average annual stormwater runoff volume. Hydrodynamic Separation Device Source: Contech Stormwater Solution, Inc. Also known as: Vortex Separators Swirl Concentrators Gross solids removal devices (GSRDs) TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-77 December 20, 2013 Proprietary Hydrodynamic Device Manufacturer Websites  Table XIV.1 is a list of manufacturers that provide hydrodynamic separation devices. The inclusion of these manufacturers does not represent an endorse of their products. Other devices and manufacturers may be acceptable for pretreatment. Table XIV.1: Proprietary Hydrodynamic Device Manufacturer Websites Device Manufacturer Website Rinker In-Line Stormceptor® Rinker Materials™ www.rinkerstormceptor.com FloGard® Dual-Vortex Hydrodynamic Separator KriStar Enterprises Inc. www.kristar.com Contech® CDSa™ Contech® Construction Products Inc. www.contech-cpi.com Contech® Vortechs™ Contech® Construction Products Inc. www.contech-cpi.com Contech® Vorsentry™ Contech® Construction Products Inc. www.contech-cpi.com Contech® Vorsentry™ HS Contech® Construction Products Inc. www.contech-cpi.com BaySaver BaySeparator Baysaver Technologies Inc. www.baysaver.com Additional References for Design Guidance  CASQA BMP Handbook for New and Redevelopment: http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/MP -51.pdf  Los Angeles County Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual, Chapter 9: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/DES/design_manuals/StormwaterBMPDesignandMaintenance.pdf ATTACHMENT G OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PLAN EXHIBIT B – INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE FORM Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan Water Quality Management Plan for Cypress City Center Cypress, CA Exhibit A, Operations and Maintenance Plan BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Inspection / Maintenance Activities Required Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Y N1. Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants UPON NEW LEASE N/A Property Owner Association N N2. Activity Restriction The owner shall develop activity restrictions to minimize the threat of hazardous waste or contamination into the storm drainage system. Car washing is not allowed on-site at any time. Y N3. Common Area Landscape Management WEEKLY WITH ROUTINE LANDSCAPING ACTIVITY YES, STANDARD LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT Property Owner Association Y N4. BMP Maintenance SEE BELOW Property Owner Association N N5. Title 22 CCR Compliance Y N7. Spill Contingency Plan AS NEEDED OWNER TO KEEP SPILL KIT ON-SITE Property Owner Association N N8. Underground Storage Tank Compliance N N9. Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance N N10. Uniform Fire Code Implementation Y N11. Common Area Litter Control WEEKLY WITH STANDARD MAINTENANCE KEEP RECEPTICLES IN WORKING ORDER, PICK-UP LOOSE TRASH Property Owner Association Y N12. Employee Training NEW MAINTENANCE HIRES TO RECEIVE THIS DOCUMENT N/A Property Owner Association Y N13. Housekeeping of Loading Docks Weekly with standard maintenance. Pick up loose trach, maintain spill control kit in loading area. Property Owner Association Y N14. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection QUATERLY AND AFTER STORMS IN EXCESS OF 1” REMOVE DEBRIS AND TRASH Property Owner Association Y N15. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots MONTHLY N/A Property Owner Association N N17. Retail Gasoline Outlets Structural Source Control BMPs Y Provide Storm Drain System Stenciling and Signage ANNUAL REPAINT AS NECESSARY Property Owner Association Y Design and Construct Outdoor Material Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction N/A DONE AT DESIGN Property Owner Association Exhibit A, Operations and Maintenance Plan BMP Applicable? Yes/No BMP Name and BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Procedures Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Frequency and Schedule Inspection / Maintenance Activities Required Person or Entity with Operation & Maintenance Responsibility Y Design and Construct Trash and Waste Storage Areas to Reduce Pollutant Introduction N/A DONE AT DESIGN Property Owner Association Y Use Efficient Irrigation Systems & Landscape Design Weekly Landscape maintenance company to inspect irrigation system for leaks and repair as necessary. Property Owner Association N Protect Slopes and Channels and Provide Energy Dissipation Y Loading Docks Property Owner Association N Maintenance Bays N Vehicle Wash Areas N Outdoor Processing Areas N Equipment Wash Areas N Fueling Areas Y Hillside Landscaping Quarterly. Inspect planting and replace plants as necessary. Property Owner Association N Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas N Community Car Wash Racks Low Impact Development (LID) and Treatment Control BMPs LID and Treatment Control BMP # 1 Modular Wetlands Twice Annually (October and April). Also see information in Attachment C. Remove debris, replace soil and plant materials as necessary per manufacturer’s standards. Also see information in Attachment C. Property Owner Association LID and Treatment Control BMP # 1 Contech CDS Unit Twice Annually (October and April). Also see information in Attachment C. Remove debris from chamber. Replace media filter. Property Owner Association Exhibit A, Operations and Maintenance Plan Today’s Date: Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed): Signature: BMP Name (As Shown in O&M Plan) Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection Activity Performed Exhibit B Inspection and Maintenance Form BMP DEVICE INSPECTION ITEMS MAINTENANCE ITEMS NOTES: Filterra Unit Inspection Date Inspector's Name Debris, Trash, & Mulch at surface (list if any) Inspect Filterra Unit and internal components for damage and obstructions (list below) Filter Media Evaluation Replace Mulch Evaluate Healthiness of Plant Manufacturer's Rec. Inspection Rate (2 times/year) Modular Wetlands Note: Refer to manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule. Contact Kristar or Drainage Protection Service (888)950-8826 Modular Wetlands MWS Trained Contractor and Personnel Log Stormwater Management Training Log and Documentation Project Name: WDID #: Stormwater Management Topic: (check as appropriate) Erosion Control Sediment Control Wind Erosion Control Tracking Control Non-Stormwater Management Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control Stormwater Sampling Other (explain) Specific Training Objective: Location:Date: _ Instructor:Telephone: Course Length (hours): Attendee Roster (Attach additional forms if necessary) Name Company Phone As needed, add proof of external training (e.g., course completion certificates, credentials for QSP, QSD). www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Guidelines for Modular Wetland System - Linear Maintenance Summary o Remove Trash from Screening Device – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months.  (5 minute average service time). o Remove Sediment from Separation Chamber – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months.  (10 minute average service time). o Replace Cartridge Filter Media – average maintenance interval 12 to 24 months.  (10-15 minute per cartridge average service time). o Replace Drain Down Filter Media – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months.  (5 minute average service time). o Trim Vegetation – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months.  (Service time varies). System Diagram Access to screening device, separation chamber and cartridge filter Access to drain down filter Pre-Treatment Chamber Biofiltration Chamber Discharge Chamber Outflow Pipe Inflow Pipe (optional) www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedures Screening Device 1. Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the Pre- Treatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance can be performed without entry. 2. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screening device. 3. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole cover when completed. Separation Chamber 1. Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before maintaining the separation chamber. 2. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters. 3. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Cartridge Filters 1. Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber before maintaining cartridge filters. 2. Enter separation chamber. 3. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid. 4. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place. 5. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants. 6. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants. 7. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase. 8. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed. Drain Down Filter 1. Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber. 2. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place. 3. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Notes 1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms. 2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time. 3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements. 4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations. 5. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber. 6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may require irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Procedure Illustration Screening Device The screening device is located directly under the manhole or grate over the Pre-Treatment Chamber. It’s mounted directly underneath for easy access and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by hand or with a vacuum truck. Separation Chamber The separation chamber is located directly beneath the screening device. It can be quickly cleaned using a vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure washer is useful to assist in the cleaning process. www.modularwetlands.com Cartridge Filters The cartridge filters are located in the Pre-Treatment chamber connected to the wall adjacent to the biofiltration chamber. The cartridges have removable tops to access the individual media filters. Once the cartridge is open media can be easily removed and replaced by hand or a vacuum truck. Drain Down Filter The drain down filter is located in the Discharge Chamber. The drain filter unlocks from the wall mount and hinges up. Remove filter block and replace with new block. www.modularwetlands.com Trim Vegetation Vegetation should be maintained in the same manner as surrounding vegetation and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall be used on the plants. Irrigation per the recommendation of the manufacturer and or landscape architect. Different types of vegetation requires different amounts of irrigation. www.modularwetlands.com Inspection Form Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. Info@modularwetlands.com For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Yes Depth: Yes No Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault):Size (22', 14' or etc.): Other Inspection Items: Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Office personnel to complete section to the left. 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 Inspection Report Modular Wetlands System Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section. Chamber: Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? Structural Integrity: Working Condition: Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging the unit? Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure? Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Project Name Project Address Inspection Checklist CommentsNo Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes, specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber. Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below. Sediment / Silt / Clay Trash / Bags / Bottles Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage Waste:Plant Information No Cleaning Needed Recommended Maintenance Additional Notes: Damage to Plants Plant Replacement Plant Trimming Schedule Maintenance as Planned Needs Immediate Maintenance www.modularwetlands.com Maintenance Report Modular Wetland System, Inc. P. 760.433-7640 F. 760-433-3176 E. Info@modularwetlands.com For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Site Map # Comments: 2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 Inlet and Outlet Pipe Condition Drain Down Pipe Condition Discharge Chamber Condition Drain Down Media Condition Plant Condition Media Filter Condition Long: MWS Sedimentation Basin Total Debris Accumulation Condition of Media 25/50/75/100 (will be changed @ 75%) Operational Per Manufactures' Specifications (If not, why?) Lat:MWS Catch Basins GPS Coordinates of Insert Manufacturer / Description / Sizing Trash Accumulation Foliage Accumulation Sediment Accumulation Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to the left. Project Address Project Name Cleaning and Maintenance Report Modular Wetlands System April 2014 GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC, ENHANCED, AND PHOSPHORUS TREATMENT For the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Ecology’s Decision: Based on Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. application submissions, including the Technical Evaluation Report, dated April 1, 2014, Ecology hereby issues the following use level designation: 1. General use level designation (GULD) for the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System for Basic treatment  Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of wetland cell surface area. For moderate pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential basins), size the Prefilters at 3.0 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. For high loading rates (commercial and industrial basins), size the Prefilters at 2.1 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. 2. General use level designation (GULD) for the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System for Phosphorus treatment  Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of wetland cell surface area. For moderate pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential basins), size the Prefilters at 3.0 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. For high loading rates (commercial and industrial basins), size the Prefilters at 2.1 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. 3. General use level designation (GULD) for the MWS-Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System for Enhanced treatment  Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gallon per minute (gpm) per square foot (sq ft) of wetland cell surface area. For moderate pollutant loading rates (low to medium density residential basins), size the Prefilters at 3.0 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. For high loading rates (commercial and industrial basins), size the Prefilters at 2.1 gpm/sq ft of cartridge surface area. 4. Ecology approves the MWS - Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment at the hydraulic loading rate listed above. Designers shall calculate the water quality design flow rates using the following procedures:  Western Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology-approved continuous runoff model.  Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using one of the three methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW) or local manual.  Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility. 5. These use level designations have no expiration date but may be revoked or amended by Ecology, and are subject to the conditions specified below. Ecology’s Conditions of Use: Applicants shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Design, assemble, install, operate, and maintain the MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units, in accordance with Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. applicable manuals and documents and the Ecology Decision. 2. Each site plan must undergo Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. review and approval before site installation. This ensures that site grading and slope are appropriate for use of a MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System unit. 3. MWS – Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System media shall conform to the specifications submitted to, and approved by, Ecology. 4. Maintenance: The required maintenance interval for stormwater treatment devices is often dependent upon the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore, Ecology does not endorse or recommend a “one size fits all” maintenance cycle for a particular model/size of manufactured filter treatment device.  Typically, Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. designs MWS - Linear Modular Wetland systems for a target prefilter media life of 6 to 12 months.  Indications of the need for maintenance include effluent flow decreasing to below the design flow rate or decrease in treatment below required levels.  Owners/operators must inspect MWS - Linear Modular Wetland systems for a minimum of twelve months from the start of post-construction operation to determine site-specific maintenance schedules and requirements. You must conduct inspections monthly during the wet season, and every other month during the dry season. (According to the SWMMWW, the wet season in western Washington is October 1 to April 30. According to SWMMEW, the wet season in eastern Washington is October 1 to June 30). After the first year of operation, owners/operators must conduct inspections based on the findings during the first year of inspections.  Conduct inspections by qualified personnel, follow manufacturer’s guidelines, and use methods capable of determining either a decrease in treated effluent flowrate and/or a decrease in pollutant removal ability.  When inspections are performed, the following findings typically serve as maintenance triggers:  Standing water remains in the vault between rain events, or  Bypass occurs during storms smaller than the design storm.  If excessive floatables (trash and debris) are present (but no standing water or excessive sedimentation), perform a minor maintenance consisting of gross solids removal, not prefilter media replacement.  Additional data collection will be used to create a correlation between pretreatment chamber sediment depth and pre-filter clogging (see Issues to be Addressed by the Company section below) 6. Discharges from the MWS - Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System units shall not cause or contribute to water quality standards violations in receiving waters. Applicant: Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. Applicant's Address: PO. Box 869 Oceanside, CA 92054 Application Documents:  Original Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, Modular Wetland System, Linear Stormwater Filtration System Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., January 2011  Quality Assurance Project Plan: Modular Wetland system – Linear Treatment System performance Monitoring Project, draft, January 2011.  Revised Application for Conditional Use Level Designation, Modular Wetland System, Linear Stormwater Filtration System Modular Wetland Systems, Inc., May 2011  Memorandum: Modular Wetland System-Linear GULD Application Supplementary Data, April 2014  Technical Evaluation Report: Modular Wetland System Stormwater Treatment System Performance Monitoring, April 2014. Applicant's Use Level Request: General use level designation as a Basic, Enhanced, and Phosphorus treatment device in accordance with Ecology’s Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE) January 2011 Revision. Applicant's Performance Claims:  The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 80-percent of TSS from stormwater with influent concentrations between 100 and 200 mg/l.  The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 50-percent of Total Phosphorus from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.1 and 0.5 mg/l.  The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 30-percent of dissolved Copper from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.005 and 0.020 mg/l.  The MWS – Linear Modular wetland is capable of removing a minimum of 60-percent of dissolved Zinc from stormwater with influent concentrations between 0.02 and 0.30 mg/l. Ecology Recommendations:  Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. has shown Ecology, through laboratory and field- testing, that the MWS - Linear Modular Wetland Stormwater Treatment System filter system is capable of attaining Ecology's Basic, Total phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment goals. Findings of Fact: Laboratory Testing The MWS-Linear Modular wetland has the:  Capability to remove 99 percent of total suspended solids (using Sil-Co-Sil 106) in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 270 mg/L.  Capability to remove 91 percent of total suspended solids (using Sil-Co-Sil 106) in laboratory conditions with influent concentrations of 84.6 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media.  Capability to remove 93 percent of dissolved Copper in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 0.757 mg/L.  Capability to remove 79 percent of dissolved Copper in laboratory conditions with influent concentrations of 0.567 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media.  Capability to remove 80.5-percent of dissolved Zinc in a quarter-scale model with influent concentrations of 0.95 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media.  Capability to remove 78-percent of dissolved Zinc in laboratory conditions with influent concentrations of 0.75 mg/L at a flow rate of 3.0 gpm per square foot of media. Field Testing  Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. conducted monitoring of an MWS-Linear (Model # MWS-L-4-13) from April 2012 through May 2013, at a transportation maintenance facility in Portland, Oregon. The manufacturer collected flow-weighted composite samples of the system’s influent and effluent during 28 separate storm events. The system treated approximately 75 percent of the runoff from 53.5 inches of rainfall during the monitoring period. The applicant sized the system at 1 gpm/sq ft. (wetland media) and 3gpm/sq ft. (prefilter).  Influent TSS concentrations for qualifying sampled storm events ranged from 20 to 339 mg/L. Average TSS removal for influent concentrations greater than 100 mg/L (n=7) averaged 85 percent. For influent concentrations in the range of 20-100 mg/L (n=18), the upper 95 percent confidence interval about the mean effluent concentration was 12.8 mg/L.  Total phosphorus removal for 17 events with influent TP concentrations in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L averaged 65 percent. A bootstrap estimate of the lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL95) of the mean total phosphorus reduction was 58 percent.  The lower 95 percent confidence limit of the mean percent removal was 60.5 percent for dissolved zinc for influent concentrations in the range of 0.02 to 0.3 mg/L (n=11). The lower 95 percent confidence limit of the mean percent removal was 32.5 percent for dissolved copper for influent concentrations in the range of 0.005 to 0.02 mg/L (n=14) at flow rates up to 28 gpm (design flow rate 41 gpm). Laboratory test data augmented the data set, showing dissolved copper removal at the design flow rate of 41 gpm (93 percent reduction in influent dissolved copper of 0.757 mg/L). Issues to be addressed by the Company: 1. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should collect maintenance and inspection data for the first year on all installations in the Northwest in order to assess standard maintenance requirements for various land uses in the region. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should use these data to establish required maintenance cycles. 2. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. should collect pre-treatment chamber sediment depth data for the first year of operation for all installations in the Northwest. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. will use these data to create a correlation between sediment depth and pre-filter clogging. Technology Description: Download at http://www.modularwetlands.com/ Contact Information: Applicant: Greg Kent Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 869 Oceanside, CA 92054 gkent@biocleanenvironmental.net Applicant website: http://www.modularwetlands.com/ Ecology web link: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wg/stormwater/newtech/index.html Ecology: Douglas C. Howie, P.E. Department of Ecology Water Quality Program (360) 407-6444 douglas.howie@ecy.wa.gov Revision History Date Revision June 2011 Original use-level-designation document September 2012 Revised dates for TER and expiration January 2013 Modified Design Storm Description, added Revision Table, added maintenance discussion, modified format in accordance with Ecology standard December 2013 Updated name of Applicant April 2014 Approved GULD designation for Basic, Phosphorus, and Enhanced treatment Stormwater Solutions from Contech® www.ContechES.com/stormwater 800-338-1122 © 2013 Contech Engineered Solutions Page 1 ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS OperatiOn and Maintenance catchBasin StormFilter™ Important: These guidelines should be used as a part of your site stormwater plan. Overview The CatchBasin StormFilter™ (CBSF) consists of a multi-chamber steel, concrete, or plastic catch basin unit that can contain up to four StormFilter cartridges. The steel CBSF is offered both as a standard and as a deep unit. The CBSF is installed flush with the finished grade and is applicable for both constrained lot and retrofit applications. It can also be fitted with an inlet pipe for roof leaders or similar applications. The CBSF unit treats peak water quality design flows up to 0.13 cfs, coupled with an internal weir overflow capacity of 1.0 cfs for the standard unit, and 1.8 cfs for the deep steel and concrete units. Plastic units have an internal weir overflow capacity of 0.5 cfs. Design Operation The CBSF is installed as the primary receiver of runoff, similar to a standard, grated catch basin. The steel and concrete CBSF units have an H-20 rated, traffic bearing lid that allows the filter to be installed in parking lots, and for all practical purposes, takes up no land area. Plastic units can be used in landscaped areas and for other non-traffic-bearing applications. The CBSF consists of a sumped inlet chamber and a cartridge chamber(s). Runoff enters the sumped inlet chamber either by sheet flow from a paved surface or from an inlet pipe discharging directly to the unit vault. The inlet chamber is equipped with an internal baffle, which traps debris and floating oil and grease, and an overflow weir. While in the inlet chamber, heavier solids are allowed to settle into the deep sump, while lighter solids and soluble pollutants are directed under the baffle and into the cartridge chamber through a port between the baffle and the overflow weir. Once in the cartridge chamber, polluted water ponds and percolates horizontally through the media in the filter cartridges. Treated water collects in the cartridge’s center tube from where it is directed by an under-drain manifold to the outlet pipe on the downstream side of the overflow weir and discharged. When flows into the CBSF exceed the water quality design value, excess water spills over the overflow weir, bypassing the cartridge bay, and discharges to the outlet pipe. Applications The CBSF is particularly useful where small flows are being treated or for sites that are flat and have little available hydraulic head to spare. The unit is ideal for applications in which standard catch basins are to be used. Both water quality and catchment issues can be resolved with the use of the CBSF. Retro-Fit The retrofit market has many possible applications for the CBSF. The CBSF can be installed by replacing an existing catch basin without having to “chase the grade,” thus reducing the high cost of re piping the storm system. Stormwater Solutions from Contech® www.ContechES.com/stormwater 800-338-1122 © 2013 Contech Engineered Solutions Page 2 ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS OperatiOn and Maintenance catchBasin StormFilter™ Maintenance Guidelines Maintenance procedures for typical catch basins can be applied to the CatchBasin StormFilter (CBSF). The filter cartridges contained in the CBSF are easily removed and replaced during maintenance activities according to the following guidelines. 1. Establish a safe working area as per typical catch basin service activity. 2. Remove steel grate and diamond plate cover (weight 100 lbs. each). 3. Turn cartridge(s) counter-clockwise to disconnect from pipe manifold. 4. Remove 4” center cap from cartridge and replace with lifting cap. 5. Remove cartridge(s) from catch basin by hand or with vactor truck boom. 6. Remove accumulated sediment via vactor truck (min. clearance 13” x 24”). 7. Remove accumulated sediment from cartridge bay. (min. clearance 9.25” x 11”). 8. Rinse interior of both bays and vactor remaining water and sediment. 9. Install fresh cartridge(s) threading clockwise to pipe manifold. 10. Replace cover and grate. 11. Return original cartridges to Contech for cleaning. Media may be removed from the filter cartridges using the vactor truck before the cartridges are removed from the catch basin structure. Empty cartridges can be easily removed from the catch basin structure by hand. Empty cartridges should be reassembled and returned to Contech as appropriate. Materials required include a lifting cap, vactor truck and fresh filter cartridges. Contact Contech for specifications and availability of the lifting cap. The vactor truck must be equipped with a hose capable of reaching areas of restricted clearance. the owner may refresh spent cartridges. Refreshed cartridges are also available from Contech on an exchange basis. Contact the maintenance department of Contech at 503-258-3157 for more information. Maintenance is estimated at 26 minutes of site time. For units with more than one cartridge, add approximately 5 minutes for each additional cartridge. Add travel time as required. Mosquito Abatement In certain areas of the United States, mosquito abatement is desirable to reduce the incidence of vectors. In BMPs with standing water, which could provide mosquito breeding habitat, certain abatement measures can be taken. 1. Periodic observation of the standing water to determine if the facility is harboring mosquito larvae. 2. Regular catch basin maintenance. 3. Use of larvicides containing Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (BTI). BTI is a bacterium toxic to mosquito and black fly larvae. In some cases, the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons may interrupt the mosquito growth cycle. Using Larvicides in the CatchBasin StormFilter Larvicides should be used according to manufacturer’s recommendations. Two widely available products are Mosquito Dunks and Summit B.t.i. Briquets. For more information, visit http://www. summitchemical.com/mos_ctrl/d efault.htm. The larvicide must be in contact with the permanent pool. The larvicide should also be fastened to the CatchBasin StormFilter by string or wire to prevent displacement by high flows. A magnet can be used with a steel catch basin. For more information on mosquito abatement in stormwater BMPs, refer to the following: http://www.ucmrp.ucdavis.edu/ publications/managingmosquitoesstormwater8125.pdf CDS Guide Operation, Design, Performance and Maintenance ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS 2 CDS® Using patented continuous deflective separation technology, the CDS system screens, separates and traps debris, sediment, and oil and grease from stormwater runoff. The indirect screening capability of the system allows for 100% removal of floatables and neutrally buoyant material without blinding. Flow and screening controls physically separate captured solids, and minimize the re-suspension and release of previously trapped pollutants. Inline units can treat up to 6 cfs, and internally bypass flows in excess of 50 cfs (1416 L/s). Available precast or cast-in- place, offline units can treat flows from 1 to 300 cfs (28.3 to 8495 L/s). The pollutant removal capacity of the CDS system has been proven in lab and field testing. Operation Overview Stormwater enters the diversion chamber where the diversion weir guides the flow into the unit’s separation chamber and pollutants are removed from the flow. All flows up to the system’s treatment design capacity enter the separation chamber and are treated. Swirl concentration and screen deflection force floatables and solids to the center of the separation chamber where 100% of floatables and neutrally buoyant debris larger than the screen apertures are trapped. Stormwater then moves through the separation screen, under the oil baffle and exits the system. The separation screen remains clog free due to continuous deflection. During the flow events exceeding the treatment design capacity, the diversion weir bypasses excessive flows around the separation chamber, so captured pollutants are retained in the separation cylinder. Design Basics There are three primary methods of sizing a CDS system. The Water Quality Flow Rate Method determines which model size provides the desired removal efficiency at a given flow rate for a defined particle size. The Rational Rainfall Method™ or the and Probabilistic Method is used when a specific removal efficiency of the net annual sediment load is required. Typically in the Unites States, CDS systems are designed to achieve an 80% annual solids load reduction based on lab generated performance curves for a gradation with an average particle size (d50) of 125 microns (μm). For some regulatory environments, CDS systems can also be designed to achieve an 80% annual solids load reduction based on an average particle size (d50) of 75 microns (μm) or 50 microns (μm). Water Quality Flow Rate Method In some cases, regulations require that a specific treatment rate, often referred to as the water quality design flow (WQQ), be treated. This WQQ represents the peak flow rate from either an event with a specific recurrence interval, e.g. the six-month storm, or a water quality depth, e.g. 1/2-inch (13 mm) of rainfall. The CDS is designed to treat all flows up to the WQQ. At influent rates higher than the WQQ, the diversion weir will direct most flow exceeding the WQQ around the separation chamber. This allows removal efficiency to remain relatively constant in the separation chamber and eliminates the risk of washout during bypass flows regardless of influent flow rates. Treatment flow rates are defined as the rate at which the CDS will remove a specific gradation of sediment at a specific removal efficiency. Therefore the treatment flow rate is variable, based on the gradation and removal efficiency specified by the design engineer. Rational Rainfall Method™ Differences in local climate, topography and scale make every site hydraulically unique. It is important to take these factors into consideration when estimating the long-term performance of any stormwater treatment system. The Rational Rainfall Method combines site-specific information with laboratory generated performance data, and local historical precipitation records to estimate removal efficiencies as accurately as possible. Short duration rain gauge records from across the United States and Canada were analyzed to determine the percent of the total annual rainfall that fell at a range of intensities. US stations’ depths were totaled every 15 minutes, or hourly, and recorded in 0.01-inch increments. Depths were recorded hourly with 1-mm resolution at Canadian stations. One trend was consistent at all sites; the vast majority of precipitation fell at low intensities and high intensity storms contributed relatively little to the total annual depth. These intensities, along with the total drainage area and runoff coefficient for each specific site, are translated into flow rates using the Rational Rainfall Method. Since most sites are relatively small and highly impervious, the Rational Rainfall Method is appropriate. Based on the runoff flow rates calculated for each intensity, operating rates within a proposed CDS system are GRATE INLET (CAST IRON HOOD FOR CURB INLET OPENING) CREST OF BYPASS WEIR (ONE EACH SIDE) INLET (MULTIPLE PIPES POSSIBLE) OIL BAFFLE SUMP STORAGESEPARATION SLAB TREATMENT SCREEN OUTLET INLET FLUME SEPARATION CYLINDER CLEAN OUT (REQUIRED) DEFLECTION PAN, 3 SIDED (GRATE INLET DESIGN) 3 determined. Performance efficiency curve determined from full scale laboratory tests on defined sediment PSDs is applied to calculate solids removal efficiency. The relative removal efficiency at each operating rate is added to produce a net annual pollutant removal efficiency estimate. Probabilistic Rational Method The Probabilistic Rational Method is a sizing program Contech developed to estimate a net annual sediment load reduction for a particular CDS model based on site size, site runoff coefficient, regional rainfall intensity distribution, and anticipated pollutant characteristics. The Probabilistic Method is an extension of the Rational Method used to estimate peak discharge rates generated by storm events of varying statistical return frequencies (e.g. 2-year storm event). Under the Rational Method, an adjustment factor is used to adjust the runoff coefficient estimated for the 10-year event, correlating a known hydrologic parameter with the target storm event. The rainfall intensities vary depending on the return frequency of the storm event under consideration. In general, these two frequency dependent parameters (rainfall intensity and runoff coefficient) increase as the return frequency increases while the drainage area remains constant. These intensities, along with the total drainage area and runoff coefficient for each specific site, are translated into flow rates using the Rational Method. Since most sites are relatively small and highly impervious, the Rational Method is appropriate. Based on the runoff flow rates calculated for each intensity, operating rates within a proposed CDS are determined. Performance efficiency curve on defined sediment PSDs is applied to calculate solids removal efficiency. The relative removal efficiency at each operating rate is added to produce a net annual pollutant removal efficiency estimate. Treatment Flow Rate The inlet throat area is sized to ensure that the WQQ passes through the separation chamber at a water surface elevation equal to the crest of the diversion weir. The diversion weir bypasses excessive flows around the separation chamber, thus preventing re-suspension or re-entrainment of previously captured particles. Hydraulic Capacity The hydraulic capacity of a CDS system is determined by the length and height of the diversion weir and by the maximum allowable head in the system. Typical configurations allow hydraulic capacities of up to ten times the treatment flow rate. The crest of the diversion weir may be lowered and the inlet throat may be widened to increase the capacity of the system at a given water surface elevation. The unit is designed to meet project specific hydraulic requirements. Performance Full-Scale Laboratory Test Results A full-scale CDS system (Model CDS2020-5B) was tested at the facility of University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. This CDS unit was evaluated under controlled laboratory conditions of influent flow rate and addition of sediment. Two different gradations of silica sand material (UF Sediment & OK-110) were used in the CDS performance evaluation. The particle size distributions (PSDs) of the test materials were analyzed using standard method “Gradation ASTM D-422 “Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils” by a certified laboratory. UF Sediment is a mixture of three different products produced by the U.S. Silica Company: “Sil-Co-Sil 106”, “#1 DRY” and “20/40 Oil Frac”. Particle size distribution analysis shows that the UF Sediment has a very fine gradation (d50 = 20 to 30 μm) covering a wide size range (Coefficient of Uniformity, C averaged at 10.6). In comparison with the hypothetical TSS gradation specified in the NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) and NJCAT (New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology) protocol for lab testing, the UF Sediment covers a similar range of particle size but with a finer d50 (d50 for NJDEP is approximately 50 μm) (NJDEP, 2003). The OK-110 silica sand is a commercial product of U.S. Silica Sand. The particle size distribution analysis of this material, also included in Figure 1, shows that 99.9% of the OK-110 sand is finer than 250 microns, with a mean particle size (d50) of 106 microns. The PSDs for the test material are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Particle size distributions Tests were conducted to quantify the performance of a specific CDS unit (1.1 cfs (31.3-L/s) design capacity) at various flow rates, ranging from 1% up to 125% of the treatment design capacity of the unit, using the 2400 micron screen. All tests were conducted with controlled influent concentrations of approximately 200 mg/L. Effluent samples were taken at equal time intervals across the entire duration of each test run. These samples were then processed with a Dekaport Cone sample splitter to obtain representative sub-samples for Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) testing using ASTM D3977-97 “Standard Test Methods for Determining Sediment Concentration in Water Samples”, and particle size distribution analysis. Results and Modeling Based on the data from the University of Florida, a performance model was developed for the CDS system. A regression analysis was used to develop a fitting curve representative of the scattered data points at various design flow rates. This model, which demonstrated good agreement with the laboratory data, can then be used to predict CDS system performance with respect 4 to SSC removal for any particle size gradation, assuming the particles are inorganic sandy-silt. Figure 2 shows CDS predictive performance for two typical particle size gradations (NJCAT gradation and OK-110 sand) as a function of operating rate. Figure 2. CDS stormwater treatment predictive performance for various particle gradations as a function of operating rate. Many regulatory jurisdictions set a performance standard for hydrodynamic devices by stating that the devices shall be capable of achieving an 80% removal efficiency for particles having a mean particle size (d50) of 125 microns (e.g. Washington State Department of Ecology — WASDOE - 2008). The model can be used to calculate the expected performance of such a PSD (shown in Figure 3). The model indicates (Figure 4) that the CDS system with 2400 micron screen achieves approximately 80% removal at the design (100%) flow rate, for this particle size distribution (d50 = 125 μm). Figure 3. WASDOE PSD Figure 4. Modeled performance for WASDOE PSD. Maintenance The CDS system should be inspected at regular intervals and maintained when necessary to ensure optimum performance. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more heavily on site activities than the size of the unit. For example, unstable soils or heavy winter sanding will cause the grit chamber to fill more quickly but regular sweeping of paved surfaces will slow accumulation. Inspection Inspection is the key to effective maintenance and is easily performed. Pollutant transport and deposition may vary from year to year and regular inspections will help ensure that the system is cleaned out at the appropriate time. At a minimum, inspections should be performed twice per year (e.g. spring and fall) however more frequent inspections may be necessary in climates where winter sanding operations may lead to rapid accumulations, or in equipment washdown areas. Installations should also be inspected more frequently where excessive amounts of trash are expected. The visual inspection should ascertain that the system components are in working order and that there are no blockages or obstructions in the inlet and separation screen. The inspection should also quantify the accumulation of hydrocarbons, trash, and sediment in the system. Measuring pollutant accumulation can be done with a calibrated dipstick, tape measure or other measuring instrument. If absorbent material is used for enhanced removal of hydrocarbons, the level of discoloration of the sorbent material should also be identified 5 during inspection. It is useful and often required as part of an operating permit to keep a record of each inspection. A simple form for doing so is provided. Access to the CDS unit is typically achieved through two manhole access covers. One opening allows for inspection and cleanout of the separation chamber (cylinder and screen) and isolated sump. The other allows for inspection and cleanout of sediment captured and retained outside the screen. For deep units, a single manhole access point would allows both sump cleanout and access outside the screen. The CDS system should be cleaned when the level of sediment has reached 75% of capacity in the isolated sump or when an appreciable level of hydrocarbons and trash has accumulated. If absorbent material is used, it should be replaced when significant discoloration has occurred. Performance will not be impacted until 100% of the sump capacity is exceeded however it is recommended that the system be cleaned prior to that for easier removal of sediment. The level of sediment is easily determined by measuring from finished grade down to the top of the sediment pile. To avoid underestimating the level of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be lowered to the top of the sediment pile carefully. Particles at the top of the pile typically offer less resistance to the end of the rod than consolidated particles toward the bottom of the pile. Once this measurement is recorded, it should be compared to the as-built drawing for the unit to determine weather the height of the sediment pile off the bottom of the sump floor exceeds 75% of the total height of isolated sump. Cleaning Cleaning of a CDS systems should be done during dry weather conditions when no flow is entering the system. The use of a vacuum truck is generally the most effective and convenient method of removing pollutants from the system. Simply remove the manhole covers and insert the vacuum hose into the sump. The system should be completely drained down and the sump fully evacuated of sediment. The area outside the screen should also be cleaned out if pollutant build-up exists in this area. In installations where the risk of petroleum spills is small, liquid contaminants may not accumulate as quickly as sediment. However, the system should be cleaned out immediately in the event of an oil or gasoline spill. Motor oil and other hydrocarbons that accumulate on a more routine basis should be removed when an appreciable layer has been captured. To remove these pollutants, it may be preferable to use absorbent pads since they are usually less expensive to dispose than the oil/water emulsion that may be created by vacuuming the oily layer. Trash and debris can be netted out to separate it from the other pollutants. The screen should be cleaned to ensure it is free of trash and debris. Manhole covers should be securely seated following cleaning activities to prevent leakage of runoff into the system from above and also to ensure that proper safety precautions have been followed. Confined space entry procedures need to be followed if physical access is required. Disposal of all material removed from the CDS system should be done in accordance with local regulations. In many jurisdictions, disposal of the sediments may be handled in the same manner as the disposal of sediments removed from catch basins or deep sump manholes. Check your local regulations for specific requirements on disposal. 6 Note: To avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the chamber, carefully lower the measuring device to the top of the sediment pile. Finer silty particles at the top of the pile may be more difficult to feel with a measuring stick. These finer particles typically offer less resistance to the end of the rod than larger particles toward the bottom of the pile. CDS Model Diameter Distance from Water Surface to Top of Sediment Pile Sediment Storage Capacity ft m ft m y3 m3 CDS1515 3 0.9 3.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 CDS2015 4 1.2 3.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 CDS2015 5 1.5 3.0 0.9 1.3 1.0 CDS2020 5 1.5 3.5 1.1 1.3 1.0 CDS2025 5 1.5 4.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 CDS3020 6 1.8 4.0 1.2 2.1 1.6 CDS3025 6 1.8 4.0 1.2 2.1 1.6 CDS3030 6 1.8 4.6 1.4 2.1 1.6 CDS3035 6 1.8 5.0 1.5 2.1 1.6 CDS4030 8 2.4 4.6 1.4 5.6 4.3 CDS4040 8 2.4 5.7 1.7 5.6 4.3 CDS4045 8 2.4 6.2 1.9 5.6 4.3 CDS5640 10 3.0 6.3 1.9 8.7 6.7 CDS5653 10 3.0 7.7 2.3 8.7 6.7 CDS5668 10 3.0 9.3 2.8 8.7 6.7 CDS5678 10 3.0 10.3 3.1 8.7 6.7 Table 1: CDS Maintenance Indicators and Sediment Storage Capacities 7 CDS Inspection & Maintenance Log CDS Model: Location: Water Floatable Describe Maintenance Date depth to Layer Maintenance Personnel Comments sediment1 Thickness2 Performed —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1. The water depth to sediment is determined by taking two measurements with a stadia rod: one measurement from the manhole opening to the top of the sediment pile and the other from the manhole opening to the water surface. If the difference between these measurements is less than the values listed in table 1 the system should be cleaned out. Note: to avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be carefully lowered to the top of the sediment pile. 2. For optimum performance, the system should be cleaned out when the floating hydrocarbon layer accumulates to an appreciable thickness. In the event of an oil spill, the system should be cleaned immediately. SUPPORT • Drawings and specifications are available at www.ContechES.com. • Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. ©2017 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC, a QUIKRETE Company Contech Engineered Solutions provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. Contech’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, earth stabilization and stormwater treatment products. For information on other Contech division offerings, visit www.ContechES.com or call 800.338.1122 NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY. APPLICATIONS SUGGESTED HEREIN ARE DESCRIBED ONLY TO HELP READERS MAKE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS AND DECISIONS, AND ARE NEITHER GUARANTEES NOR WARRANTIES OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY APPLICATION. CONTECH MAKES NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS, COATINGS, OR PRODUCTS DISCUSSED HEREIN. ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED BY CONTECH. SEE CONTECH’S CONDITIONS OF SALE (AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION. The product(s) described may be protected by one or more of the following US patents: 5,322,629; 5,624,576; 5,707,527; 5,759,415; 5,788,848; 5,985,157; 6,027,639; 6,350,374; 6,406,218; 6,641,720; 6,511,595; 6,649,048; 6,991,114; 6,998,038; 7,186,058; 7,296,692; 7,297,266; related foreign patents or other patents pending. 800-338-1122 www.ContechES.com cds_manual 3/17 PDF ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CDS ® Hydrodynamic Separator Your Contech Team Contech is the leader in stormwater management solutions, helping engineers, contractors and owners with infrastructure and land development projects throughout North America. With our responsive team of stormwater experts, local regulatory expertise and flexible solutions, Contech is the trusted partner you can count on for stormwater management solutions. STORMWATER CONSULTANT It’s my job to recommend the best solution to meet permitting requirements. STORMWATER DESIGN ENGINEER I work with consultants to design the best approved solution to meet your project’s needs. REGULATORY MANAGER I understand the local stormwater regulations and what solutions will be approved. SALES ENGINEER I make sure our solutions meet the needs of the contractor during construction. The experts you need to solve your stormwater management challenges Contech is your partner in stormwater management solutions Your Contech Team Contech is your partner in stormwater management solutions ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS The CDS hydrodynamic separator uses swirl concentration and continuous deflective separation to screen, separate and trap trash, debris, sediment, and hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff. At the heart of the CDS system is a unique screening technology used to capture and retain trash and debris. The screen face is louvered so that it is smooth in the downstream direction. The effect created is called “Continuous Deflective Separation.” The power of the incoming flow is harnessed to continually shear debris off the screen and to direct trash and sediment toward the center of the separation cylinder. This results in a screen that is self-cleaning and provides 100% removal of floatables and neutrally buoyant material debris 4.7 mm or larger, without blinding. CDS is used to meet trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements, for stormwater quality control, inlet and outlet pollution control, and as pretreatment for filtration, detention/infiltration, bioretention, rainwater harvesting systems, and a variety of green infrastructure practices. Unique screening technology for stormwater runoff – CDS® Setting new standards in Stormwater Treatment CDS® Features and Benefits FEATURE BENEFIT Captures and retains 100% of floatables and neutrally buoyant debris 4.7mm or larger Superior pollutant removal Self-cleaning screen Ease of maintenance Isolated storage sump eliminates scour potential Excellent pollutant retention Internal bypass Eliminates the need for additional structures Multiple pipe inlets and 90-180º angles Design flexibility Clear access to sump and stored pollutants Fast, easy maintenance A fundamentally different approach to trash control ... Traditional approaches to trash control typically involve “direct screening” that can easily become clogged, as trash is pinned to the screen as water passes through. Clogged screens can lead to flooding as water backs up. The design of the CDS screen is fundamentally different. Flow is introduced to the screen face which is louvered so that it is smooth in the downstream direction. The effect created is called “Continuous Deflective Separation.” The power of the incoming flow is harnessed to continually shear debris off the screen and to direct trash and sediment toward the center of the separation cylinder. The CDS® Screen APPLICATION TIPS • Because of its internal peak bypass weirs, CDS systems can provide cost savings by eliminating the need for additional structures. • Pretreating detention, infiltration, and green infrastructure practices with CDS can protect downstream structures and provide for easy maintenance. • The CDS an ideal solution for retrofit applications due to its compact footprint and configuration flexibility. Setting new standards in Stormwater Treatment ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Traditional stormwater treatment site design Why use traditional stormwater design when ONE system can do it all ... The CDS effectively treats stormwater runoff while reducing the number of structures on your site. Inline, offline, grate inlet, and drop inlet configurations available. Internal and external peak bypass options also available. CDS® Design Configuration • Grate inlet option available • Internal bypass weir • Accepts multiple inlets at a variety of angles • Advanced hydrodynamic separator • Captures and retains 100% of floatables and neutrally buoyant debris 4.7 mm or larger • Indirect screening capability keeps screen from clogging • Retention of all captured pollutants, even at high flows • Performance verified by NJCAT, WA Ecology, and ETV Canada CDS® Advantages Learn More: www.ContechES.com/cds INLET JUNCTION BYPASS STRUCTURE TREATMENTUNIT A Traditional Stormwater Treatment Site Design would require several structures on your site. With CDS, one system can do it all! GRATE INLET (CAST IRON HOOD FOR CURB INLET OPENING) CREST OF BYPASS WEIR (ONE EACH SIDE) INLET (MULTIPLE PIPES POSSIBLE) OIL BAFFLE SUMP STORAGE SEPARATION SLAB TREATMENT SCREEN OUTLET INLET FLUME SEPARATION CYLINDER CLEAN OUT (REQUIRED) DEFLECTION PAN, 3 SIDED (GRATE INLET DESIGN) Save time, space and money with CDS CDS® Applications CDS is commonly used in the following stormwater applications: • Stormwater quality control – trash, debris, sediment, and hydrocarbon removal • Urban retrofit and redevelopment • Inlet and outlet protection • Pretreatment for filtration, detention/infiltration, bioretention, rainwater harvesting systems, and Low Impact Development designs CDS has been verified by some of the most stringent stormwater technology evaluation organizations in North America, including: • Washington State Department of Ecology (GULD) - Pretreatment • New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) • Canadian Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) • California Statewide Trash Amendments Full Capture System Certified* Select CDS® Certifications and Verifications *The CDS System has been certified by the California State Water Resources Control Board as a Full Capture System provided that it is sized to treat the peak flow rate from the region specific 1-year, 1-hour design storm, or the peak flow capacity of the corresponding storm drain, whichever is less. CDS® pretreats a bioswaleCDS® provides trash control Save time, space and money with CDS CDS® Maintenance Select a cost-effective and easy-to-access treatment system ... Systems vary in their maintenance needs, and the selection of a cost-effective and easy-to-access treatment system can mean a huge difference in maintenance expenses for years to come. A CDS unit is designed to minimize maintenance and make it as easy and inexpensive as possible to keep our systems working properly. INSPECTION Inspection is the key to effective maintenance. Pollutant deposition and transport may vary from year to year and site to site. Semi-annual inspections will help ensure that the system is cleaned out at the appropriate time. Inspections should be performed more frequently where site conditions may cause rapid accumulation of pollutants. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CDS MAINTENANCE The recommended cleanout of solids within the CDS unit’s sump should occur at 75% of the sump capacity. Access to the CDS unit is typically achieved through two manhole access covers – one allows inspection and cleanout of the separation chamber and sump, and another allows inspection and cleanout of sediment captured and retained behind the screen. A vacuum truck is recommended for cleanout of the CDS unit and can be easily accomplished in less than 30 minutes for most installations. ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Most CDS® units can easily be cleaned within thirty minutes. Our in-house team of engineers can support you through the entire permitting process - and the first step is sending us your project information by filling out one of the Project Design Worksheets. We will forward your information to an in-house engineer who will contact you with specific recommendations for your project. The free tool is available at www.ContechES.com/pdw-treatment HDS Product Design Worksheets Learn More: www.ContechES.com/pdw-treatment Few companies offer the wide range of high- quality stormwater resources you can find with us — state-of-the-art products, decades of expertise, and all the maintenance support you need to operate your system cost-effectively. Get social with us: 800-338-1122 | www.ContechES.com NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY. APPLICATIONS SUGGESTED HEREIN ARE DESCRIBED ONLY TO HELP READERS MAKE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS AND DECISIONS, AND ARE NEITHER GUARANTEES NOR WARRANTIES OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY APPLICATION. CONTECH MAKES NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS, COATINGS, OR PRODUCTS DISCUSSED HEREIN. ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED BY CONTECH. SEE CONTECH’S CONDITIONS OF SALE (AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION. © 2019 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC, a QUIKRETE Company All Rights Reserved. Printed in the USA. ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS A partner you can rely on THE CONTECH WAY Contech® Engineered Solutions provides innovative, cost-effective site solutions to engineers, contractors, and developers on projects across North America. Our portfolio includes bridges, drainage, erosion control, retaining wall, sanitary sewer and stormwater management products. TAKE THE NEXT STEP For more information: www.ContechES.com STORMWATER SOLUTIONS PIPE SOLUTIONS STRUCTURES SOLUTIONS UrbanPond™ A Stormwater Storage Solution A Forterra Company MAINTENANCE Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. 398 Via El Centro Oceanside, CA 92058 www.BioCleanEnvironmental.com p: 760.433.7640 f: 760.433.3176 STORMWATER STORAGE SOLUTIONS UrbanPond™ A Breakthrough System for Managing Stormwater Runoff Double UrbanPond Module Sidewall Outflow Pipe Access Manhole and Riser LinkUP Slab Inflow Pipe 1 | Page  URBAN POND INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE   Inspection and maintenance of the Urban Pond underground detention, retention, or infiltration  system is vital for the performance and life cycle of the stormwater management system. All local,  state, and federal permits and regulations must be followed for system compliance. Manway access  locations are provided on each system for ease of ingress and egress for routine inspection and  maintenance activities. Stormwater regulations require that all BMPs be inspected and maintained  to ensure they are operating as designed and providing protection to receiving water bodies. It is  recommended that inspections be performed multiple times during the first year to assess the site  specific conditions. Inspection after the first significant rainfall event and at quarterly intervals is  typical. This is recommended because pollutant loading and pollutant characteristics can vary  greatly from site to site. Variables such as nearby soil erosion or construction sites, winter sanding  on roads, amount of daily traffic and land use can increase pollutant loading on the system. The first  year of inspections can be used to set inspection and maintenance intervals for subsequent years to  ensure appropriate maintenance is provided. Without appropriate maintenance a BMP can exceed  its storage capacity, become blocked, or damaged, which can negatively affect its continued  performance.    Inspection Equipment  Following is a list of equipment to allow for simple and effective inspection of the underground  detention, retention, or infiltration system:     Bio Clean Environmental Inspection and Maintenance Report Form   Flashlight   Manhole hook or appropriate tools to access hatches and covers   Appropriate traffic control signage and procedures   Measuring pole and/or tape measure   Protective clothing and eye protection   Note: Entering a confined space requires appropriate safety and certification. It is generally  not required for routine inspections of the system.             Inspection Steps   The key to any successful stormwater BMP maintenance program is routine inspections. The  inspection steps required on the Urban Pond underground detention, retention, or infiltration  system are quick and easy. As mentioned above, the first year should be seen as the maintenance  interval establishment phase. During the first year more frequent inspections should occur in order  2 | Page  to gather loading data and maintenance requirements for that specific site. This information can be  used to establish a base for long term inspection and maintenance interval requirements.     The Urban Pond underground detention, retention, or infiltration system can be inspected though  visual observation without entry into the system. All necessary pre‐inspection steps must be carried  out before inspection occurs, especially traffic control and other safety measures to protect the  inspector and nearby pedestrians from any dangers associated with an open access hatch or  manhole. Once these access covers have been safely opened the inspection process can proceed:     Prepare the inspection form by writing in the necessary information including project name,  location, date & time, unit number and other information (see inspection form).    Observe the upstream drainage area and look for sources of pollution, sediment, trash and  debris.   Observe the inside of the system through the access manholes. If minimal light is available  and vision into the unit is impaired, utilize a flashlight to see inside the system and all of its  modules.    Look for any out of the ordinary obstructions in the inflow and outflow pipes. Check pipes  for movement or leakage. Write down any observations on the inspection form.    Observe any movement of modules.    Observe concrete for cracks and signs of deterioration.    In detention and retention systems inspect for any signs of leakage.   In infiltration systems inspect for any signs of blockage or reasons that the soils are not  infiltrating.    Through observation and/or digital photographs, estimate the amount of floatable debris  accumulated in the system. Record this information on the inspection form. Next, utilizing a  tape measure or measuring stick, estimate the amount of sediment accumulated in the  system. Sediment depth may vary throughout the system, depending on the flow path.  Record this depth on the inspection form.    Finalize inspection report for analysis by the maintenance manager to determine if  maintenance is required.     Maintenance Indicators     Based upon observations made during inspection, maintenance of the system may be required  based on the following indicators:      Damaged inlet and outlet pipes.    Obstructions in the system or its inlet or outlet.    Excessive accumulation of floatables.    Excessive accumulation of sediment of more than 6” in depth.   3 | Page   Damaged joint sealant.    Maintenance Equipment    While maintenance can be done fully by hand it is recommended that a vacuum truck be utilized to  minimize time requirements required to maintain the Urban Pond underground detention,  retention, or infiltration system:     Bio Clean Environmental Inspection and Maintenance Report Form   Flashlight   Manhole hook or appropriate tools to access hatches and covers   Appropriate traffic control signage and procedures   Measuring pole and/or tape measure   Protective clothing and eye protection    Vacuum truck   Trash can   Pressure washer    Note: Entering a confined space requires appropriate safety and certification. It is generally  not required for routine inspections of the system. Entry into the system will be required if  maintenance is required.     Maintenance Procedures    It is recommended that maintenance occurs at least three days after the most recent rain event to  allow for drain down of the system and any upstream detention systems designed to drain down  over an extended period of time. Maintaining the system while flows are still entering it will  increase the time and complexity required for maintenance. Once all safety measures have been set  up cleaning of the system can proceed as follows:      Using an extension on a boom on the vacuum truck, position the hose over the opened  manway and lower into the system. Remove all floating debris, standing water (as needed)  and sediment from the system. A power washer can be used to assist if sediments have  become hardened and stuck to the walls and columns. Repeat the same procedure at each  manway until the system has been fully maintained. Be sure not to pressure wash the  infiltration area as it may scour.   If maintenance requires entry into the vault:      Following rules for confined space entry use a gas meter to detect the presence of any  hazardous gases. If hazardous gases are present do not enter the vault. Follow appropriate  confined space procedures, such as utilizing venting system, to address the hazard. Once it  4 | Page  is determined to be safe, enter utilizing appropriate entry equipment such as a ladder and  tripod with harness.    The last step is to close up and replace all manhole covers and remove all traffic control.    All removed debris and pollutants shall be disposed of following local and state  requirements.   For Maintenance Services please contact Bio Clean at 760‐433‐7640, or email  info@biocleanenvironmental.com.  For Office Use Only (city) (Zip Code)(Reviewed By) Owner / Management Company (Date) Contact Phone ( )_ Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM Weather Condition Additional Notes Site Map # Inspection of Inlet and Outlet Pipes, Joints, and Connections Between Modules Office personnel to complete section to the left. Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Structural Notes Trash or Sediment Accumulation (lbs) & Depth (inches) Project Name Project Address Lat: Inspection and Maintenance Report Underground Detention, Retention, or Infiltration Long: Comments: GPS Coordinates of Vault Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Operational Per Manufacturer's Specifications (If not, why?) Model # Long: Lat: Lat: Long: 398 Via El Centro, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 OVERVIEW The Bio Clean UrbanPondTM is a technological breakthrough in underground stormwater management. Its unique square tessellation assembly provides superior strength and material efficiency over traditional rectangular modules. Each module utilizes an offset 3-legged design with two narrow legs running parallel and one wider leg running perpendicular. This unique geometry allows for maximum strength and minimum material usage. The standard design is rated for H-20 loading. UrbanPond has high void percentages to maximize stormwater volume, and its robust precast form allows systems to be buried deeper without the need for specialized backfill, increased wall thicknesses, or extra rebar reinforcement. ADVANTAGES • HIGHER VOID PERCENTAGES AND INCREASED MATERIAL EFFICIENCY FOR BEST IN CLASS COST PER CUBIC FOOT STORAGE • LIGHTER WEIGHT, EASIER TO INSTALL • A LINKUP SLAB ALLOWS ELIMINATION OF SOME MODULES, FURTHER DECREASING COST AND INSTALLATION TIME • THE SQUARE TESSELLATION PROVIDES SUPERIOR STRENGTH AND LOAD CAPACITY • DESIGNED TO MEET H-20 LOADING REQUIREMENTS • CAN BE INSTALLED DEEPER WITHOUT THE NEED TO INCREASE WALL THICKNESS OR ADD ADDITIONAL REBAR • EVERY MODULE DRAINS DOWN FULLY APPLICATIONS UrbanPond is engineered specifically for: A BREAKTHROUGH SYSTEM FOR MANAGING STORMWATER RUNOFF SPECIFICATIONS UrbanPond is available from heights of 2 ft. (I.D.) to up to 14 ft. Single UrbanPond modules are available up to 7 ft. height, and the Double UrbanPond modules are available up to 14 ft. The system’s internal offset leg configuration provides channel-less water distribution for stormwater entering and exiting the system. DOUBLE URBANPONDSINGLE URBANPOND I.D. Module Height (ft.) Module Storage Capacity (cu. ft.) 4 238 5 298 6 357 7 417 8 477 9 536 10 596 11 655 12 715 13 775 14 834 I.D. Module Height (ft.) Module Storage Capacity (cu. ft.) 2 119 3 179 4 238 5 298 6 357 7 417 Detention with controlled discharge utilizing built- in outlet orifice structures. Retention for long-term retention of runoff onsite to meet strict stormwater requirements. Harvesting self-contained treatment and reuse of stormwater for irrigation and grey water needs. Capture & Infiltration of runoff back into underlying native soils for recharge needs. Treatment utilized as an underground extended detention basin or pond for advanced treatment of stormwater - integrates well with treatment train components (biofiltration, separation, etc.). Flood Control of peak storm events to minimize downstream flooding and erosion. Low Impact Development to maximize land use with underground storage - construct an urban infill without a pond at grade. Double UrbanPond Module Sidewall Outflow Pipe Access Manhole & Riser LinkUP Slab Inflow Pipe CONFIGURATIONS UrbanPond is a modular precast concrete structure which can be assembled from one to several hundred modules in various shapes and configurations to meet site specific constraints and volume requirements. Each UrbanPond module is 8 ft. wide x 8 ft. long (O.D.) - specifically designed to fit on a standard flatbed truck. UrbanPond can be configured in a combination of modules from as low as 2 ft. to as high as 14 ft. inside height. SINGLE URBANPOND MODULE Available in heights from 2 ft. to 7 ft. SIDE MODULE Built-in perimeter wall DOUBLE URBANPOND MODULE Available in heights from 4 ft. to 14 ft. LINKUP SLAB LinkUP Slabs span the open cavities in a 9-module array. UrbanPond can be engineered with optional infiltration openings. URBANPOND ASSEMBLY The UrbanPond is based on a square tessellation. A tessellation is created when a shape is repeated over and over again covering a plane without any gaps or overlaps. Because of the self-supporting characteristic of tessellated-shaped structures, Bio Clean has been able to further reduce material usage and costs up to 20% without sacrificing structural strength. As shown in the image to the right, the offset leg configuration of the modules creates a very open and channel-less internal space. Each module offers access walkways of greater than 3 ft. in each module and between modules for easy inspection and maintenance. View looking down with top slabs removed. Each Single UrbanPond module is 8 ft. wide by 8 ft. long (O.D.) and easily fits onto a flatbed truck. This size maximizes the space on each truck load. A 10 ft. Double UrbanPond module (two pieces) weighs only 17,000 lbs. total or only 8,500 lbs. per piece. At least 4 individual pieces can be delivered on a single truckload to reduce shipping costs and minimize crane requirements during install. Most units can be installed using a simple backhoe due to low weights. UrbanPond is designed to be easily accessed and maintained from finished surface via multiple access ports. Using a standard vacuum truck, each access point is convenient located, as ports are strategically placed throughout the assembly. Modules can be modified to act as clear wells or pretreatment chambers for capturing trash, debris, and sediment. This consolidates maintenance requirements to a select few modules. Standard manholes, hinged manholes, and other access hatches are available. INSTALLATION MAINTENANCE A Forterra Company 011519R1A 5796 Armada Drive Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 855.566.3938 stormwater@forterrabp.com biocleanenvironmental.com ATTACHMENT H CONCEPTUAL WQMP SITE PLAN WINNERS CIRCLEBUILDING D HOTEL BUILDING E MOVIE THEATER BUILDING B LOADINGPATIO BUILDING A BUILDING C CBCB L.ELCBCBL.ELCBCBL.ELUP18RELUP18RELELTHYSSENKRUPPHYDRAULIC'SYNERGY'SELF SUPPORTED3500 LB / 150 FPM5'-0" PIT13'-10" OVERRUN7'-3" CAB HEIGHT85' MAX. TRAVEL5' D IA.5' DIA.THYSSENKRUPPHYDRAULIC'SYNERGY'SELF SUPPORTED3500 LB / 150 FPM5'-0" PIT13'-10" OVERRUN7'-3" CAB HEIGHT85' MAX. TRAVELELELELELEL ELEL EL EL EL EL ELELEL ELELEL ELCBCBL.ELELEL EL EL ELELELELUP 18REL ELELELELTHYSSEN-KRUPPSYNERGYSELF-SUPPORTED3500LBELELELELEL ELEL EL EL33.50 FF 34.00 FF 34.00 FF 34.00 FF 34.00 FF 34.00 FF KATELLA AVESIBONEY STREETALL UTILITY AND DRAINAGE LINE LOCATIONS, DEPTHS, AND SIZES ARE APPROXIMATE. NORTH FLOOD ZONE LEGEND © CYPRESS CITY CENTER PROPOSED WQMP EXHIBIT 07/26/2019 N O D U M P I N G D R A I N S T O O C E A N ASTENCIL DETAIL STANDARD DETAILSTORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEMMWS-L-8-16-V PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW LEFT END VIEW GENERAL NOTES INSTALLATION NOTES SITE SPECIFIC DATA ATTACHMENT I TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY Exhibit D Water Quality Management Plan Notice of Transfer of Responsibility Tracking No. Assigned by the City of Anaheim: ____________ Submission of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility constitutes notice to the City of Anaheim that responsibility for the Water Quality Management Plan (“WQMP”) for the subject property identified below, and implementation of that plan, is being transferred from the Previous Owner (and his/her agent) of the site (or a portion thereof) to the New Owner, as further described below. I. Previous Owner/Previous Responsible Party Information Company/Individual Name Contact Person Street Address Title City State ZIP Phone II. Information about Site Transferred Name of Project (if applicable) Title of WQMP Applicable to site: Street Address of Site (if applicable) Planning Area (PA) and/or Tract Number(s) for Site Lot Numbers (if Site is a portion of a tract) Date WQMP Prepared (and revised if applicable) III. New Owner/New Responsible Party Information Company/Individual Name Contact Person Street Address Title City State ZIP Phone IV. Ownership Transfer Information General Description of Site Transferred to New Owner General Description of Portion of Project/Parcel Subject to WQMP Retained by Owner (if any) Lot/Tract Numbers of SiteTransferred to New Owner Remaining Lot/Tract Numbers Subject to WQMP Still Held by Owner (if any) Date of Ownership Transfer Note: When the Previous Owner is transferring a Site that is a portion of a larger project/parcel addressed by the WQMP, as opposed to the entire project/parcel addressed by the WQMP, the General Description of the Site transferred and the remainder of the project/parcel not transferred shall be set forth as maps attached to this notice. These maps shall show those Exhibit D portions of a project/parcel addressed by the WQMP that are transferred to the New Owner (the Transferred Site), those portions retained by the Previous Owner, and those portions previously transferred by Previous Owner. Those portions retained by Previous Owner shall be labeled “Previous Owner,” and those portions previously transferred by Previous Owner shall be labeled as “Previously Transferred.” V. Purpose of Notice of Transfer The purposes of this Notice of Transfer of Responsibility are: 1) to track transfer of responsibility for implementation and amendment of the WQMP when property to which the WQMP is transferred from the Previous Owner to the New Owner, and 2) to facilitate notification to a transferee of property subject to a WQMP that such New Owner is now the Responsible Party of record for the WQMP for those portions of the site that it owns. VI. Certifications A. Previous Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am no longer the owner of the Transferred Site as described in Section II above. I have provided the New Owner with a copy of the WQMP applicable to the Transferred Site that the New Owner is acquiring from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of Previous Owner Representative Title Signature of Previous Owner Representative Date B. New Owner I certify under penalty of law that I am the owner of the Transferred Site, as described in Section II above, that I have been provided a copy of the WQMP, and that I have informed myself and understand the New Owner’s responsibilities related to the WQMP, its implementation, and Best Management Practices associated with it. I understand that by signing this notice, the New Owner is accepting all ongoing responsibilities for implementation and amendment of the WQMP for the Transferred Site, which the New Owner has acquired from the Previous Owner. Printed Name of New Owner Representative Title Signature Date PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS STUDY for Cypress Mixed Use, Cypress, CA 4961 Katella Ave., Cypress, CA PM 96-121 Cypress, CA July 29, 2019 Revised August 21, 2019 Revised January 27, 2020 Prepared for: Shea Properties 130 Vantis Dr., Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 (949) 389-7286 KHA Project # 094810014 © 2020 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Cypress Mixed Use Shea Properties Cypress Section VII Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Narrative Sections 1. Background 2. Existing (Predevelopment) Conditions 3. Proposed (Post-development) Conditions 4. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Design Criteria 5. Conclusions Appendix Sections A. Hydrology Exhibits 1. Hydrology Map – Existing Condition 2. Hydrology Map – Proposed Condition B. Drainage Calculations 1. Rational Method Proposed 100-year off-Site Peak Flow Calculations (AES) 2. On-Site 100-Year Loss Rates (AES) 3. On-site 100-year Hydrographs (AES) 4. 100-year Detention Routing 5. On-Site Storm Drain Capacity Calculations 6. Scenario 1 Off-Site Overflow Hydraulic Calculations 7. Scenario 1 Hydrograph for Ponding Timing 8. Scenario 2 Overflow Pipe Hydraulics Caculations C. Storm Drain Record Drawings D. Hydrologic Design Criteria 1. Los Alamitos Race Course Interim Drainage Criteria 2. Hydromodification Susceptibility Map Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Cypress Mixed Use Shea Properties Cypress Section VII Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Page 3 1. Background The Cypress Mixed Use development (the “Project”) is a proposed retail, theater, multi-family, and hotel site located in Cypress, CA. The site is bounded by an existing parking lot to the north, Winners Circle on the east, Katella Avenue to the south, and Siboney Street to the west. This development is comprised of approximately 63,975 SF of general commercial, 96,800 SF (120 keys) of hotel, and 251 multi-family apartments. The surface parking field within the interior of the site will serve the hotel, retail and restaurant customers; while and above ground parking structure will accommodate the parking needs of the residential units. The site consists of approximately 13.3 acres. The site is part of the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan (CBPC), which was originally approved in 1990 and amended and restated in 2012. The site is located in Area 5 of the CBPC, which is designated for professional offices. A portion of Area 5, east of the Project site, was built out as a Costco-anchored shopping center. The CBPC covers the entire Los Alamitos Race Course (LARC) property and adjacent properties. A Specific Plan Amendment is proposed to allow the multi-family residential use on the proposed Project site. The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan (CTC), approved in December 2017, overwrote a portion of the CBPC. While the CTC limits do not include the Project site, the area directly north of the Project site is included in the CTC as a Town Center District. Previous drainage studies related to the CBPC indicate that the downstream storm drain system is significantly under-capacity and that peak discharges from the Project site and the surrounding areas must be restricted to 0.3 cfs per acre. 2. Existing (Predevelopment) Conditions In the existing condition, the site is a portion of an existing asphalt parking lot serving LARC that extends to the without a visible demarcation of the property line. The overall parking lot area drains to two separate concrete ribbon gutters that flow from north to south. The parking lot pavement sheet flows in east/west orientations to the two ribbon gutters along the length of each gutter. The flow depths in the gutters vary up to 4.5 inches at the northerly site property line. Each gutter terminates at separate existing catch basins that connect to an existing City 48” storm drain that runs on the north edge Katella Avenue from east to west. These catch basins are located in within the proposed Project site boundary. Run-off in excess of the capacity of inlets ponds up in the parking lot before ultimately overflowing and discharging overland at an existing driveway into the Katella Avenue curb and gutter. The on-site ponding is limited to 12 to 18 inches. The ponding has little to no detention effects during large storm events – the 100-year peak will essentially pass through the driveway into the street in the existing condition. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Cypress Mixed Use Shea Properties Cypress Section VII Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Page 4 The on-site portion of the existing parking lot is approximately 13.3 acres in area. The off-site area tributary to the ribbon gutters upstream of the site is approximately 11.8 acres. The 13.3-acre Project site area is relatively flat generally sloping from the north to the south with approximately 2 feet of fall across the site. An existing storm drain in Winners Circle accommodates street drainage and extends north along the Costco property frontage and accommodates drainage from the north side of the Costco property. The approved storm drain plan for the Winners Circle storm drain depicts a proposed extension to the west across the existing parking lot. Th drain would be located just north of the Project site. Only the portions of the drain in Winners Circle and adjacent to Costco were actually constructed. The proposed drain extension is designed to accommodate the restricted flows (0.3 cfs/acre) from the property north of the Project site. 3. Proposed (Post-development) Conditions The proposed hydrology analysis includes an evaluation of the on-site hydrology and two different scenarios for the conveyance of off-site flows that drain toward the site. The on-site drainage system is considered a permanent improvement that will exist as long as the Project exists unless replaced by an equivalent system. The off-site flow conveyances include some components that are assumed to be permanent along with temporary improvements that will remain in place until such time that the off-site tributary areas are developed in the future. On-Site Hydrology In the proposed condition, drainage will flow away from the proposed buildings and into one of several low points across the site, as depicted on the proposed hydrology map. Runoff will be collected into an on-site private underground storm drain system. The allowable discharge from the site is restricted to 0.3 cfs/acre per City requirements. To accommodate developed peak flows that exceeds the allowable discharge, the project storm water management system incorporates on-site underground detention basins. These detention basins have been designed to attenuate the 100- year storm event peak flow difference between the developed flow from the project and allowable discharge flow. See the proposed hydrology map for the conceptual locations of the basins. A storm drain pump will be used to drain the detention systems and meet the 0.3 cfs/acre runoff restriction by limiting the pump discharge to 4.0 cfs. The site will ultimately discharge via a new storm drain connection to the existing 48” Katella storm drain. In addition to the site high-flow detention system, a low-flow detention system will be installed to capture and treat the “first flush” storm event. A bifurcation manhole will be placed upstream of the first flush detention system and divert the first flush volume into a separate detention system. This system will be pumped separately and the runoff will slowly discharge through a manufactured bioretention system over a 48-hour period. The outlet pipe from the biofiltration system will connect separately to the existing 48” Katella Avenue storm drain. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Cypress Mixed Use Shea Properties Cypress Section VII Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Page 5 Off-Site Hydrology Design Scenario 1-Pipe and Surface Conveyance Scenario 1 would consist of a combination of an extension of the Winners Circle storm drain to the west that would convey off-site flows with a capacity of up to 0.3 cfs per acre (3.53 cfs total). An overland flow path would direct flows in excess of 0.3 cfs per acre to the west toward Siboney Avenue. The existing off-site flows draining toward the site would be captured by extending the Winners Circle drain, per the approved plans, to two proposed catch basins along the north property line and routed through a proposed 18” storm drain draining to the east, ultimately connecting to the existing 24” storm drain in Winners Circle. The existing flow depth in the existing ribbon gutters reached 4.5 inches during the 100-year storm. Corresponding depths during the 2-year and 10-year storm were not analyzed. In the event run-off from the area north of the site exceeds the capacity of the catch basins and drain, proposed curb and gutter and an approximately 2 foot-high berm installed north of the property line would block offsite flow from entering the site and direct flows toward the two catch basins proposed on the Winners Circle Strom drain extension. The off-site flows would pond by variable depths along the north property line before discharging to the west, into Siboney Street. The maximum instantaneous depth ranges for multiple storm events is listed below. These depths do not threaten structures. Table 1: Overflow Depths Storm Event Maximum Overflow (cfs) Maximum Instantaneous Overflow Depth Range Existing Condition Flow Depth at PL 2 9.38 2.5” – 10” N/A 10 19.78 3.5” – 11.5” N/A 100 31.55 4” – 13” 0”-4.5” Some regrading of the existing off-site parking lot along the proposed curb and gutter would be proposed. This would keep the ponding to the levels described in the table above. The ponding would occur only during storms that produce more runoff that 0.3 cfs per acre and only during the peak intensity of the storm event. For the 100-year storm, the runoff exceeds the proposed storm drain capacity of 0.3 cfs per acre for approximately 3-4 hours (from hour 13.75 to hour 17.50 of the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Cypress Mixed Use Shea Properties Cypress Section VII Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Page 6 storm event.) In addition, the off-site hydrograph peak is very sharp. The overflow rate exceeds 25% of the maximum overflow flow rate for approximately 30 minutes, with timing centered around the time of the maximum overflow rate. For the 100-year strom, the maximum overflow rate is 31.55 cfs. For all but 30 minutes of the 100-year storm event, the overflow rate is less than 8 cfs. Once the overflows reach Siboney Street, they would ultimately flow overland to the south into Katella Avenue. Siboney Street would be reconstructed with a crown that will contain the overflows on the east side of the street section, adjacent to the site, and convey the fows to the south, decreasing the burden on the existing trench drains on the west side of Siboney Street. This overflow pattern would be an interim condition until the area to the north has been developed and a storm water management and detention system is constructed for the future development. The storm water management system for the future site would likely connect to the extended Winners Circle storm drain that would be extended as part of Scenario 1. The runoff diverted around the site in Scenario 1 would have reached Katella Avenue in the existing condition at a similar location. Instead of overflowing at the existing catch basins and running off through the existing project driveway, the overflows would instead flow into Katella Avenue at Siboney Street. Off-Site Hydrology Design Scenario 2-Pipe Conveyance Only Scenario 2 consists of the same curb and gutter, 2 foot-high berm, and catch basins along the northerly property line as the one proposed in scenario 1. Rather than an off-site overflow drainage pattern for storms that exceed 0.3 cfs per acre, the overflows will be conveyed in an underground storm drain across the project site and discharged through a proposed catch basin in Katella Avenue close to the existing driveway location. The overflow drain would act as a reverse siphon under the site. No on-site flows would commingle with the off-site flows. A small diameter connection to the Katella storm drain, allowing approximaltey 0.3 cfs per acre (3.53 cfs total). The remaining 31.55 cfs during the 100-year storm event would discharge through the Katella Avenue catch basin into the Katella Avenue curb and gutter. The overflow pipe system would include a 48-inch diameter pipe in a noth-south alignment across the site, a 24-inch diameter storm drain extended west to the west overflow catch basin, and a 36-inch diameter storm drain extended east to the east overflow catch basin. The storm drain sizes are based on an assumed water surface at the top of curb elevation on Katella Avenue. This overflow pattern would also be an interim condition until the area to the north has been developed and a storm water management and detention system is constructed for the future development. The storm water management system for the future site would likely connect to the extended Winners Circle storm drain that the adjacenet owner would have to install. The overflow system proposed in Scenario 2 would be abandoned. The runoff diverted under the site in Scenario 2 would have reached Katella Avenue in the existing condition at a similar location. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Cypress Mixed Use Shea Properties Cypress Section VII Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Page 7 Proposed Condition Hydrology Summary Since the on-site portion of the area tributary to Katella Avenue is limited to 4.0 cfs connecting directly into the storm drain, the amount of flows that will reach the Katella Avenue curb and gutter is greatly reduced compared to the existing condition. Additionally, both off-site hydrology deisgn scenarios allow for passage of the allowable off-site flow rate (3.53 cfs) into the City’s underground strom drain location with overflows in excees of 3.53 cfs contained an directed to the Katella Avenue curb and gutter in a similar location to the existing condition. 4. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Design Criteria Hydrologic Design Criteria A 100-year storm event was used to model the peak flow rates since the existing storm drain systems are modeled using the 100-year storm as a design criteria. Soil type D underlies the Site based on input form the soils engineer. The developed site was modeled as 100% impervious conservatively. AES software was used to determine the proposed condition peak flow rates. The site was modeled as a single area with an assumed 10-minute time of concentration. This time of concentration is a reasonable assumption for a 13-acre site. The site plan is conceptual in nature at this stage; therefore, a more generalized single area is more appropriate than detailed subarea delineations. The final hydrology study will analyze the ultimate site plan with multiple subareas. For the preliminary study, the primary goal is to size the on-site detention system and design the temporary diversion for the off-site tributary flows. The site is located at the edge of the hydromodification boundary line as defined the in Orange County Technical Guidance Document. The area just east of the site drains easterly toward a hydromodification-susceptible watershed. The site connects to a storm drain system that drains westerly toward the Coyote Creek/San Gabriel River water shed that is not susceptible to hydromodification. The site not in a hydromodification zone; therefore, only the 100-year storm is analyzed. Software and Methodology AES RATSC rational method software was used to calculate the peak off-site tributary flow rates. AES computational hydrology software is used to calculate the on-site loss rates and on-site hydrograph. A 10-minute time of concentration was assumed for the on-site hydrograph along with a 100% impervious site, which is a conservative assumption. PondPack was used to route the on-site hydrograph through the proposed detention system with a pump modeled that discharges up to 4.0 cfs. Pipe Hydraulic Design Criteria Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Cypress Mixed Use Shea Properties Cypress Section VII Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Page 8 Hydraulic calculations were performed for the main storm drain pipes utilizing Flowmaster, developed by Bentley. The software utilizes Manning’s equation to determine acceptable friction slopes for design. An allowable friction slope of 0.3% was used to keep the hydraulic grades below ground surface. Catch basins will be sized to accommodate the 100-year storm at the time of final design Allowable Connection Flow Rates The proposed flow rate at the connection point will not exceed the allowable Q100 flow rate of 0.3 cfs/acre. The Project site is 13.3 acres; therefore, the allowable discharge rate is 4.0 cfs. In lieu of an existing hydrology calculation setting the allowable flow rate for discharge, the more stringent restricted drain capacity criteria is applied. 5. Conclusions A comparison table of the allowable and proposed flow rates follows: Table 2: Hydrologic Comparison Table – Proposed Site Drainage Condition 100-Year Storm Developed Undetained 49.8 cfs Developed Detained 4.0 cfs Allowable On-Site Discharge* 4.0 cfs Difference 0.0 cfs Required Detention Volume 64,000 Cubic Ft. Total On-Site Runoff Volume 5.57 ac-ft Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Cypress Mixed Use Shea Properties Cypress Section VII Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Page 9 Table 3: Hydrologic Comparison Table – Upstream Tributary Area Drainage Condition 100-Year Storm Off-Site Peak Flow Rate 34.96 cfs Off-Site Drain Capacity – Winners Circle Extension 3.54 cfs Off-Site Surface Overflow – West toward Siboney 31.42 cfs *Note: Allowable 100-year storm is based on the City requirement of 0.3 cfs/acre discharge. Since the proposed, detained on-site flow rates (4.0 cfs) are equal to the allowable flow rate (4.0 cfs) during the 100-year storm event, the site complies with the hydrologic design requirement. The detention basin is able to accommodate the 100-year storms without exceeding the detention basin capacity or the allowable connection flow rate. An examination of the undetained inflow hydrograph shoes that the undetained discharge would exceed the 4.0 cfs allowable discharge from hour 13.67 to hour 17.50. The detention system will fill for an approximate 4-hour period during the 100-year storm. In addition, the pipes will be sized according to the table below based on the pipe hydraulic calculations. The flowrate tributary to a pipe size will not exceed the tabulated values listed below: Table 2: Pipe Hydraulics Table Pipe Size Material Capacity at 0.3% Friction Slope 12” HDPE (n=0.011) 2.3 CFS 18” HDPE (n=0.011) 6.8 CFS 24” HDPE (n=0.011) 14.6 CFS Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Cypress Mixed Use Shea Properties Cypress Section VII Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Page 10 30” HDPE (n=0.011) 26.6 CFS 36” HDPE (n=0.011) 43.2 CFS 42” HDPE (n=0.011) 65.1 CFS 48” HDPE (n=0.011) 93.0 CFS CEQA Drainage Criteria: An existing hydrology analysis was not prepared due to the more restrictive restricted drainage criteria based on the limited storm drain capacity. The existing flow rate can be approximated by adding the 49.8 cfs on-site undetained flow rate to the 34.96 cfs off- site flow rate, for an existing total of approximately 84.9 cfs. In the proposed condition, the collective discharge can be approximated by adding the 4.0 cfs on-site detained flow rate to the 34.96 cfs off-site flow rate for a proposed total of approximately 39.0 cfs. This is a significant decrease in runoff from the existing condition, and the site will reduce the amount of runoff reaching the Katella Avenue storm drain and street section. ATTACHMENT A Hydrology Exhibits SIBONEY STREETWINNERS CIRCLEKATELLA AVE LEGEND NORTH © CYPRESS MIXED-USE EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP 07/03/2019 BUILDING D HOTEL BUILDING E MOVIE THEATER BUILDING B LOADINGPATIO BUILDING A BUILDING C CBCB L.ELCBCBL.ELCBCBL.ELUP18RELUP18RELELTHYSSENKRUPPHYDRAULIC'SYNERGY'SELF SUPPORTED3500 LB / 150 FPM5'-0" PIT13'-10" OVERRUN7'-3" CAB HE IGHT85' MAX . TRAVEL 5' D IA.5' DIA.THYSSENKRUPPHYDRAULIC'SYNERGY'SELF SUPPORTED3500 LB / 150 FPM5'-0" PIT13'-10" OVERRUN7'-3" CAB HEIGHT85' MAX. TRAVELELELELELEL ELEL EL EL EL EL ELELEL ELELEL ELCBCBL.ELELEL EL EL ELELELELCOURTYARD LEASING 3274 SQ. FT. FITNESS 3364 SQ. FT. CLUBHOUSE 3882 SQ. FT. UP 18REL ELELELELTHYSSEN-KRUPPSYNERGYSELF-SUPPORTED3500LBELMAIL 1016 SQ. FT.ELELELEL WOMENMEN SHOWERS C1 C1 A1 A1 B1 A1 A1 A1 B1 A1 A1 A1 B1 ABV A1 A1 A1 A1 B1 B1 ABV B1 B1 B1 B1 A1 B1 ABV A1 A1 B1 ABV A1 A1A1 B1 ABV A1 B1 ABV A1 B1 ABV A1 B1 ABV A1 A1 B1 B1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 B1 ABV A1 B1 ABV A1 A1 A2 A2 B2 B2 A2 A2 B1 ABV B1 ABV A4 ABV A4 ABV B2 ABV B2 ABV B2 ABV B2 ABV A4 ABV A1 ABV A2 ABV B2 ABV B1 ABV PET SPA PassagePassagePassage PassagePassagePassagePassage PassageMETERS METERS METERS PassageMOTOR COURT ELELA1 ############# EL A1 B1 ABV METERS MOVE ROOM C1 EL A1 KATELLA AVESIBONEY STREETWINNERS CIRCLEC C FLOOD ZONE LEGEND NORTH © CYPRESS MIXED-USE PROPOSED HYDROLOGY MAP SCENARIO 1 01/27/2020 A A SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE BUILDING D HOTEL BUILDING E MOVIE THEATER BUILDING B LOADINGPATIO BUILDING A BUILDING C CBCB L.ELCBCBL.ELCBCBL.ELUP18RELUP18RELELTHYSSENKRUPPHYDRAULIC'SYNERGY'SELF SUPPORTED3500 LB / 150 FPM5'-0" PIT13'-10" OVERRUN7'-3" CAB HE IGHT85' MAX . TRAVEL 5' D IA.5' DIA.THYSSENKRUPPHYDRAULIC'SYNERGY'SELF SUPPORTED3500 LB / 150 FPM5'-0" PIT13'-10" OVERRUN7'-3" CAB HEIGHT85' MAX. TRAVELELELELELEL ELEL EL EL EL EL ELELEL ELELEL ELCBCBL.ELELEL EL EL ELELELELCOURTYARD LEASING 3274 SQ. FT. FITNESS 3364 SQ. FT. CLUBHOUSE 3882 SQ. FT. UP 18REL ELELELELTHYSSEN-KRUPPSYNERGYSELF-SUPPORTED3500LBELMAIL 1016 SQ. FT.ELELELEL WOMENMEN SHOWERS C1 C1 A1 A1 B1 A1 A1 A1 B1 A1 A1 A1 B1 ABV A1 A1 A1 A1 B1 B1 ABV B1 B1 B1 B1 A1 B1 ABV A1 A1 B1 ABV A1 A1A1 B1 ABV A1 B1 ABV A1 B1 ABV A1 B1 ABV A1 A1 B1 B1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 B1 ABV A1 B1 ABV A1 A1 A2 A2 B2 B2 A2 A2 B1 ABV B1 ABV A4 ABV A4 ABV B2 ABV B2 ABV B2 ABV B2 ABV A4 ABV A1 ABV A2 ABV B2 ABV B1 ABV PET SPA PassagePassagePassage PassagePassagePassagePassage PassageMETERS METERS METERS PassageMOTOR COURT ELELA1 ############# EL A1 B1 ABV METERS MOVE ROOM C1 EL A1 KATELLA AVESIBONEY STREETWINNERS CIRCLEC C FLOOD ZONE LEGEND NORTH © CYPRESS MIXED-USE PROPOSED HYDROLOGY MAP SCENARIO 2 01/27/2020 A A SECTION A-A NOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT B Drainage Calculations CYPR_O1.RES ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2011 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 18.0 Release Date: 07/01/2011 License ID 1499 Analysis prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive Suite 200 Orange, CA 92868 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * SHEA CYPRESS * * OFFSITE HYDROLOGY ONLY: DM: OFF1 * * PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: CYPR_O1.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:36 07/25/2019 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** Page 1 CYPR_O1.RES FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 36.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 35.70 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 11.850 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.774 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.40 0.20 0.100 91 11.85 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.40 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.35 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 35.70 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 31.99 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 665.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 4.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.125 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.400 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.01000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.254 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 7.89 0.20 0.100 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 13.13 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.17 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.66 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 30.53 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.50 Tc(MIN.) = 15.35 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 7.89 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 22.97 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 8.29 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.3 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.13 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: Page 2 CYPR_O1.RES DEPTH(FEET) = 0.76 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 50.94 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.91 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 2.21 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 102.00 = 965.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 8.3 TC(MIN.) = 15.35 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 8.29 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.13 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 3 CYPR_O2.RES ____________________________________________________________________________ **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 ORANGE COUNTY HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-2011 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 18.0 Release Date: 07/01/2011 License ID 1499 Analysis prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive Suite 200 Orange, CA 92868 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * SHEA CYPRESS * * OFFSITE HYDROLOGY ONLY: OFFSITE DM:OFF2 * * PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: CYPR_O2.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:43 07/25/2019 ============================================================================ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ============================================================================ --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 *DATA BANK RAINFALL USED* *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (AMC) III ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) === ===== ========= ================= ====== ===== ====== ===== ======= 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* *USER-SPECIFIED MINIMUM TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE ADJUSTMENT NOT SELECTED **************************************************************************** Page 1 CYPR_O2.RES FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ============================================================================ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 300.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 34.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 33.70 Tc = K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**0.20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) = 11.850 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.774 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) COMMERCIAL D 0.98 0.20 0.100 91 11.85 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.31 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.98 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 3.31 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 91 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< ============================================================================ UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 33.70 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) = 31.88 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 365.00 "V" GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 4.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) = 0.125 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = 0.400 MANNING'S N = .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECIMAL NOTATION) = 0.01000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.505 SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC III): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN COMMERCIAL D 2.51 0.20 0.100 91 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap = 0.100 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 7.24 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.74 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.54 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.15 "V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.63 Tc(MIN.) = 13.48 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.51 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.87 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.49 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) = 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.10 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.5 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.95 END OF SUBAREA "V" GUTTER HYDRAULICS: Page 2 CYPR_O2.RES DEPTH(FEET) = 0.63 FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 25.71 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.16 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC) = 2.00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 665.00 FEET. ============================================================================ END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.5 TC(MIN.) = 13.48 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) = 3.49 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)= 0.02 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) = 0.20 AREA-AVERAGED Ap = 0.100 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 10.95 ============================================================================ ============================================================================ END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS Page 3 2019.07.25 - Onsite DMA 3 Proposed 100 yr.txt ============================================================================ *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC III: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 5.63 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 13.31 10.00 56.(AMC II) 0.300 0.916 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 13.31 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.030 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.084 ============================================================================ Page 1 2019.07.25 - Onsite DMA 3 Proposed 100 yr.txt ============================================================================ *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC III: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 5.63 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 13.31 10.00 56.(AMC II) 0.300 0.916 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 13.31 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.030 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.084 ============================================================================-------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Shea Cypress * * Onsite Proposed Unit Hydrograph – DM 3 * * Preliminary Hydrology * ************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.90 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 13.31 SOIL-LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH/HR) = 0.030 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.084 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.00 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 100 5-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.52 30-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.09 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.45 3-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.43 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 3.36 24-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 5.63 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 5.22 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 1.03 **************************************************************************** TIME VOLUME Q 0. 12.5 25.0 37.5 50.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) Page 1 2019.07.25 - Onsite DMA 3 Proposed 100 yr.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.17 0.0066 0.96 Q . . . . 0.33 0.0199 0.96 Q . . . . 0.50 0.0332 0.97 Q . . . . 0.67 0.0467 0.98 Q . . . . 0.83 0.0602 0.99 Q . . . . 1.00 0.0738 0.99 Q . . . . 1.17 0.0875 1.00 Q . . . . 1.33 0.1013 1.01 Q . . . . 1.50 0.1152 1.01 Q . . . . 1.67 0.1293 1.02 Q . . . . 1.83 0.1434 1.03 Q . . . . 2.00 0.1576 1.03 Q . . . . 2.17 0.1719 1.04 Q . . . . 2.33 0.1863 1.05 Q . . . . 2.50 0.2009 1.06 Q . . . . 2.67 0.2155 1.07 Q . . . . 2.83 0.2303 1.08 Q . . . . 3.00 0.2452 1.08 Q . . . . 3.17 0.2602 1.09 Q . . . . 3.33 0.2753 1.10 Q . . . . 3.50 0.2905 1.11 Q . . . . 3.67 0.3059 1.12 Q . . . . 3.83 0.3214 1.13 Q . . . . 4.00 0.3370 1.14 Q . . . . 4.17 0.3528 1.15 Q . . . . 4.33 0.3687 1.16 Q . . . . 4.50 0.3847 1.17 Q . . . . 4.67 0.4009 1.18 Q . . . . 4.83 0.4173 1.19 Q . . . . 5.00 0.4338 1.20 Q . . . . 5.17 0.4504 1.22 Q . . . . 5.33 0.4672 1.22 Q . . . . 5.50 0.4842 1.24 Q . . . . 5.67 0.5013 1.25 Q . . . . 5.83 0.5187 1.27 .Q . . . . 6.00 0.5361 1.27 .Q . . . . 6.17 0.5538 1.29 .Q . . . . 6.33 0.5717 1.30 .Q . . . . 6.50 0.5897 1.32 .Q . . . . 6.67 0.6080 1.33 .Q . . . . 6.83 0.6264 1.35 .Q . . . . 7.00 0.6451 1.36 .Q . . . . 7.17 0.6639 1.38 .Q . . . . 7.33 0.6830 1.39 .Q . . . . 7.50 0.7024 1.41 .Q . . . . 7.67 0.7219 1.43 .Q . . . . 7.83 0.7417 1.45 .Q . . . . 8.00 0.7618 1.46 .Q . . . . Page 2 2019.07.25 - Onsite DMA 3 Proposed 100 yr.txt 8.17 0.7821 1.49 .Q . . . . 8.33 0.8026 1.50 .Q . . . . 8.50 0.8235 1.53 .Q . . . . 8.67 0.8446 1.54 .Q . . . . 8.83 0.8661 1.57 .Q . . . . 9.00 0.8878 1.59 .Q . . . . 9.17 0.9099 1.62 .Q . . . . 9.33 0.9323 1.63 .Q . . . . 9.50 0.9551 1.67 .Q . . . . 9.67 0.9782 1.69 .Q . . . . 9.83 1.0017 1.72 .Q . . . . 10.00 1.0256 1.74 .Q . . . . 10.17 1.0499 1.78 .Q . . . . 10.33 1.0746 1.81 .Q . . . . 10.50 1.0998 1.85 .Q . . . . 10.67 1.1254 1.87 .Q . . . . 10.83 1.1515 1.92 .Q . . . . 11.00 1.1782 1.95 .Q . . . . 11.17 1.2054 2.00 .Q . . . . 11.33 1.2332 2.03 .Q . . . . 11.50 1.2616 2.09 .Q . . . . 11.67 1.2907 2.12 .Q . . . . 11.83 1.3204 2.19 .Q . . . . 12.00 1.3509 2.23 .Q . . . . 12.17 1.3862 2.89 . Q . . . . 12.33 1.4263 2.94 . Q . . . . 12.50 1.4675 3.03 . Q . . . . 12.67 1.5096 3.08 . Q . . . . 12.83 1.5528 3.19 . Q . . . . 13.00 1.5972 3.25 . Q . . . . 13.17 1.6429 3.38 . Q . . . . 13.33 1.6900 3.45 . Q . . . . 13.50 1.7386 3.61 . Q . . . . 13.67 1.7888 3.69 . Q . . . . 13.83 1.8410 3.88 . Q . . . . 14.00 1.8951 3.99 . Q . . . . 14.17 1.9520 4.27 . Q . . . . 14.33 2.0118 4.42 . Q . . . . 14.50 2.0750 4.76 . Q . . . . 14.67 2.1419 4.95 . Q . . . . 14.83 2.2133 5.42 . Q . . . . 15.00 2.2900 5.71 . Q . . . . 15.17 2.3736 6.43 . Q . . . . 15.33 2.4654 6.90 . Q . . . . 15.50 2.5624 7.18 . Q . . . . 15.67 2.6678 8.13 . Q . . . . 15.83 2.8045 11.72 . Q. . . . 16.00 2.9964 16.14 . . Q . . . 16.17 3.4477 49.41 . . . . Q. Page 3 2019.07.25 - Onsite DMA 3 Proposed 100 yr.txt 16.33 3.8534 9.49 . Q . . . . 16.50 3.9702 7.47 . Q . . . . 16.67 4.0633 6.04 . Q . . . . 16.83 4.1405 5.17 . Q . . . . 17.00 4.2077 4.58 . Q . . . . 17.17 4.2675 4.11 . Q . . . . 17.33 4.3219 3.78 . Q . . . . 17.50 4.3722 3.53 . Q . . . . 17.67 4.4193 3.32 . Q . . . . 17.83 4.4638 3.14 . Q . . . . 18.00 4.5059 2.99 . Q . . . . 18.17 4.5421 2.27 .Q . . . . 18.33 4.5726 2.16 .Q . . . . 18.50 4.6017 2.06 .Q . . . . 18.67 4.6295 1.98 .Q . . . . 18.83 4.6561 1.90 .Q . . . . 19.00 4.6818 1.83 .Q . . . . 19.17 4.7065 1.76 .Q . . . . 19.33 4.7304 1.71 .Q . . . . 19.50 4.7535 1.65 .Q . . . . 19.67 4.7759 1.60 .Q . . . . 19.83 4.7977 1.56 .Q . . . . 20.00 4.8188 1.51 .Q . . . . 20.17 4.8394 1.47 .Q . . . . 20.33 4.8595 1.44 .Q . . . . 20.50 4.8790 1.40 .Q . . . . 20.67 4.8981 1.37 .Q . . . . 20.83 4.9168 1.34 .Q . . . . 21.00 4.9350 1.31 .Q . . . . 21.17 4.9529 1.28 .Q . . . . 21.33 4.9704 1.26 .Q . . . . 21.50 4.9875 1.23 Q . . . . 21.67 5.0043 1.21 Q . . . . 21.83 5.0208 1.19 Q . . . . 22.00 5.0370 1.17 Q . . . . 22.17 5.0529 1.14 Q . . . . 22.33 5.0686 1.13 Q . . . . 22.50 5.0839 1.11 Q . . . . 22.67 5.0991 1.09 Q . . . . 22.83 5.1139 1.07 Q . . . . 23.00 5.1286 1.06 Q . . . . 23.17 5.1430 1.04 Q . . . . 23.33 5.1572 1.02 Q . . . . 23.50 5.1712 1.01 Q . . . . 23.67 5.1851 1.00 Q . . . . 23.83 5.1987 0.98 Q . . . . 24.00 5.2121 0.97 Q . . . . 24.17 5.2188 0.00 Q . . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 4 2019.07.25 - Onsite DMA 3 Proposed 100 yr.txt -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) ======================= ========= 0% 1440.0 10% 140.0 20% 30.0 30% 20.0 40% 10.0 50% 10.0 60% 10.0 70% 10.0 80% 10.0 90% 10.0 Page 5 Table of Contents 26Pond Inflow Summary PO-1 (IN) 23Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) PO-1 (OUT) 22Level Pool Pond Routing Summary PO-1 (IN) 21Elevation-Volume-Flow Table (Pond) PO-1 18Diverted Hydrograph Outlet-1 17Composite Rating Curve 16Individual Outlet Curves 14Outlet Input Data Composite Outlet Structure - 1 13Volume Equations 12Elevation-Area Volume Curve PO-1 9Time vs. VolumePO-1 6Time vs. ElevationPO-1 (OUT) 5Addition SummaryO-1 4Read HydrographDM-3 3Master Network Summary 2User Notifications Subsection: User Notifications User Notifications WarningSource Outflow > 0 for first rating table elevation.Message (N/A)Time PO-1Label 15Element Id PondElement Type BaseScenario 43Message Id Page 2 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Subsection: Master Network Summary Catchments Summary Peak Flow (ft³/s) Time to Peak (hours) Hydrograph Volume (ft³) Return Event (years) ScenarioLabel 49.4116.167227,734.0000BaseDM-3 Node Summary Peak Flow (ft³/s) Time to Peak (hours) Hydrograph Volume (ft³) Return Event (years) ScenarioLabel 4.0014.050226,739.0000BaseO-1 Pond Summary Maximum Pond Storage (ft³) Maximum Water Surface Elevation (ft) Peak Flow (ft³/s) Time to Peak (hours) Hydrograph Volume (ft³) Return Event (years) ScenarioLabel (N/A)(N/A)46.0816.150227,253.0000BasePO-1 (IN) 57,927.0006.004.0014.050227,266.0000BasePO-1 (OUT) Page 3 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: DM-3 Subsection: Read Hydrograph ft³/s49.41Peak Discharge hours16.167Time to Peak ft³227,733.765Hydrograph Volume HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s) Output Time Increment = 0.167 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Time (hours) 0.980.970.960.960.000.000 1.011.011.000.990.990.833 1.051.041.031.031.021.667 1.091.081.081.071.062.500 1.141.131.121.111.103.333 1.191.181.171.161.154.167 1.251.141.221.221.205.000 1.321.301.291.271.275.833 1.391.381.361.351.336.667 1.491.461.451.431.417.500 1.711.571.541.531.508.333 1.841.811.781.771.739.167 1.871.851.811.781.8710.000 2.092.032.001.951.9210.833 2.942.892.232.192.1211.667 3.303.253.193.083.0312.500 3.993.883.693.613.4513.333 5.424.954.764.424.2714.167 8.137.186.906.435.7115.000 7.479.4949.4116.1411.7215.833 3.784.114.585.176.0416.667 2.272.993.143.333.5317.500 1.831.901.982.062.1618.333 1.561.601.651.711.7619.167 1.371.401.441.471.5120.000 1.231.261.281.311.3420.833 1.131.141.171.191.2121.667 1.041.061.071.091.1122.500 0.970.981.001.011.0223.333 (N/A)(N/A)(N/A)(N/A)0.0024.167 Page 4 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: O-1 Subsection: Addition Summary Summary for Hydrograph Addition at 'O-1' Upstream NodeUpstream Link PO-1Outlet-1 Node Inflows Flow (Peak) (ft³/s) Time to Peak (hours) Volume (ft³) ElementInflow Type 4.0014.050226,738.747Outlet-1Flow (From) 4.0014.050226,738.747O-1Flow (In) Page 5 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 (OUT) Subsection: Time vs. Elevation Time vs. Elevation (ft) Output Time increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Time (hours) 0.000.000.000.000.000.000 0.000.000.000.000.000.250 0.000.000.000.000.000.500 0.000.000.000.000.000.750 0.000.000.000.000.001.000 0.000.000.000.000.001.250 0.000.000.000.000.001.500 0.000.000.000.000.001.750 0.000.000.000.000.002.000 0.000.000.000.000.002.250 0.000.000.000.000.002.500 0.000.000.000.000.002.750 0.000.000.000.000.003.000 0.000.000.000.000.003.250 0.000.000.000.000.003.500 0.000.000.000.000.003.750 0.000.000.000.000.004.000 0.000.000.000.000.004.250 0.000.000.000.000.004.500 0.000.000.000.000.004.750 0.000.000.000.000.005.000 0.000.000.000.000.005.250 0.000.000.000.000.005.500 0.000.000.000.000.005.750 0.000.000.000.000.006.000 0.000.000.000.000.006.250 0.000.000.000.000.006.500 0.000.000.000.000.006.750 0.000.000.000.000.007.000 0.000.000.000.000.007.250 0.000.000.000.000.007.500 0.000.000.000.000.007.750 0.000.000.000.000.008.000 0.000.000.000.000.008.250 0.000.000.000.000.008.500 0.000.000.000.000.008.750 0.000.000.000.000.009.000 0.000.000.000.000.009.250 0.000.000.000.000.009.500 0.000.000.000.000.009.750 0.000.000.000.000.0010.000 0.000.000.000.000.0010.250 0.000.000.000.000.0010.500 Page 6 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 (OUT) Subsection: Time vs. Elevation Time vs. Elevation (ft) Output Time increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Time (hours) 0.000.000.000.000.0010.750 0.000.000.000.000.0011.000 0.000.000.000.000.0011.250 0.000.000.000.000.0011.500 0.000.000.000.000.0011.750 0.000.000.000.000.0012.000 0.000.000.000.000.0012.250 0.000.000.000.000.0012.500 0.000.000.000.000.0012.750 0.000.000.000.000.0013.000 0.000.000.000.000.0013.250 0.000.000.000.000.0013.500 0.000.000.000.000.0013.750 0.050.040.040.040.0014.000 0.090.080.070.060.0514.250 0.170.150.130.120.1014.500 0.300.270.240.210.1914.750 0.490.440.400.360.3315.000 0.750.700.640.590.5415.250 1.101.010.940.870.8115.500 1.811.621.461.321.2015.750 4.283.542.852.352.0316.000 5.585.505.415.234.8716.250 5.855.815.775.715.6516.500 5.975.955.935.915.8816.750 6.006.006.005.995.9817.000 5.995.996.006.006.0017.250 5.935.955.965.975.9817.500 5.855.875.895.905.9217.750 5.735.765.795.825.8418.000 5.565.595.635.665.7018.250 5.375.415.455.495.5218.500 5.185.225.265.305.3418.750 4.975.025.065.105.1419.000 4.764.804.854.894.9319.250 4.544.584.634.674.7219.500 4.314.364.404.454.4919.750 4.084.124.174.224.2720.000 3.843.893.933.984.0320.250 3.603.643.693.743.7920.500 3.353.403.453.503.5520.750 3.093.153.203.253.3021.000 2.842.892.942.993.0421.250 Page 7 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 (OUT) Subsection: Time vs. Elevation Time vs. Elevation (ft) Output Time increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Elevation (ft) Time (hours) 2.582.632.682.742.7921.500 2.322.372.422.482.5321.750 2.052.112.162.212.2722.000 1.791.841.891.952.0022.250 1.511.571.621.681.7322.500 1.241.301.351.411.4622.750 0.971.021.081.131.1923.000 0.690.740.800.860.9123.250 0.410.470.520.580.6323.500 0.130.180.240.300.3523.750 (N/A)(N/A)(N/A)(N/A)0.0724.000 Page 8 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 Subsection: Time vs. Volume Time vs. Volume (ft³) Output Time increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Time (hours) 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0001.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0002.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0002.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0002.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0002.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0003.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0003.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0003.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0003.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0004.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0004.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0004.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0004.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0005.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0005.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0005.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0005.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0006.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0006.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0006.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0006.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0007.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0007.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0007.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0007.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0008.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0008.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0008.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0008.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0009.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0009.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0009.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0009.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00010.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00010.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00010.500 Page 9 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 Subsection: Time vs. Volume Time vs. Volume (ft³) Output Time increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Time (hours) 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00010.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00011.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00011.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00011.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00011.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00012.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00012.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00012.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00012.750 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00013.000 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00013.250 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00013.500 0.0000.0000.0000.0000.00013.750 471.000423.000387.000366.0000.00014.000 872.000762.000672.000596.000529.00014.250 1,634.0001,456.0001,293.0001,141.000999.00014.500 2,863.0002,579.0002,310.0002,060.0001,834.00014.750 4,701.0004,261.0003,856.0003,490.0003,163.00015.000 7,260.0006,711.0006,176.0005,660.0005,168.00015.250 10,573.0009,773.0009,073.0008,423.0007,825.00015.500 17,486.00015,659.00014,071.00012,706.00011,542.00015.750 41,348.00034,192.00027,516.00022,636.00019,552.00016.000 53,884.00053,096.00052,199.00050,510.00047,007.00016.250 56,454.00056,090.00055,658.00055,149.00054,563.00016.500 57,589.00057,437.00057,253.00057,032.00056,767.00016.750 57,927.00057,908.00057,867.00057,801.00057,709.00017.000 57,756.00057,820.00057,871.00057,907.00057,926.00017.250 57,253.00057,375.00057,487.00057,588.00057,678.00017.500 56,494.00056,663.00056,825.00056,978.00057,121.00017.750 55,289.00055,596.00055,875.00056,115.00056,316.00018.000 53,639.00053,980.00054,316.00054,646.00054,970.00018.250 51,861.00052,226.00052,586.00052,941.00053,293.00018.500 49,977.00050,361.00050,743.00051,120.00051,493.00018.750 47,996.00048,399.00048,799.00049,195.00049,588.00019.000 45,935.00046,353.00046,768.00047,180.00047,589.00019.250 43,800.00044,233.00044,663.00045,090.00045,514.00019.500 41,605.00042,049.00042,490.00042,929.00043,366.00019.750 39,348.00039,804.00040,257.00040,709.00041,158.00020.000 37,044.00037,509.00037,971.00038,432.00038,891.00020.250 34,692.00035,166.00035,638.00036,108.00036,577.00020.500 32,299.00032,781.00033,261.00033,740.00034,217.00020.750 29,866.00030,356.00030,844.00031,331.00031,816.00021.000 27,400.00027,896.00028,390.00028,884.00029,375.00021.250 Page 10 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 Subsection: Time vs. Volume Time vs. Volume (ft³) Output Time increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Volume (ft³) Time (hours) 24,899.00025,401.00025,903.00026,403.00026,902.00021.500 22,371.00022,879.00023,385.00023,891.00024,395.00021.750 19,812.00020,326.00020,840.00021,352.00021,862.00022.000 17,228.00017,746.00018,264.00018,780.00019,296.00022.250 14,619.00015,143.00015,665.00016,187.00016,708.00022.500 11,984.00012,512.00013,040.00013,567.00014,093.00022.750 9,330.0009,863.00010,394.00010,925.00011,455.00023.000 6,650.0007,187.0007,724.0008,260.0008,796.00023.250 3,955.0004,495.0005,035.0005,574.0006,112.00023.500 1,239.0001,784.0002,328.0002,871.0003,414.00023.750 (N/A)(N/A)(N/A)(N/A)694.00024.000 Page 11 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 Subsection: Elevation-Area Volume Curve Volume (Total) (ft³) Volume (ft³) A1+A2+sqr (A1*A2) (ft²) Area (ft²) Planimeter (ft²) Elevation (ft) 0.0000.0000.0009,650.0000.00.00 9,650.0009,650.00028,950.0009,650.0000.01.00 19,300.0009,650.00028,950.0009,650.0000.02.00 28,950.0009,650.00028,950.0009,650.0000.03.00 38,600.0009,650.00028,950.0009,650.0000.04.00 48,250.0009,650.00028,950.0009,650.0000.05.00 57,900.0009,650.00028,950.0009,650.0000.06.00 67,550.0009,650.00028,950.0009,650.0000.07.00 Page 12 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 Subsection: Volume Equations Pond Volume Equations * Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes. Volume = (1/3) * (EL2 - El1) * (Area1 + Area2 + sqr(Area1 * Area2)) Lower and upper elevations of the incrementwhere:EL1, EL2 Areas computed for EL1, EL2, respectivelyArea1, Area2 Incremental volume between EL1 and EL2Volume Page 13 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1 Subsection: Outlet Input Data Requested Pond Water Surface Elevations ft0.00Minimum (Headwater) ft0.50Increment (Headwater) ft7.00Maximum (Headwater) Outlet Connectivity E2 (ft) E1 (ft) OutfallDirectionOutlet IDStructure Type 7.000.00TWForwardUser Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Table (N/A)(N/A)TailwaterTailwater Settings Page 14 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1 Subsection: Outlet Input Data Structure ID: User Defined Rating Table - 1 Structure Type: User Defined Table Flow (ft³/s) Elevation (ft) 4.000.00 4.001.00 4.002.00 4.003.00 4.004.00 4.005.00 4.006.00 4.007.00 Structure ID: TW Structure Type: TW Setup, DS Channel Free OutfallTailwater Type Convergence Tolerances 30Maximum Iterations ft0.01Tailwater Tolerance (Minimum) ft0.50Tailwater Tolerance (Maximum) ft0.01Headwater Tolerance (Minimum) ft0.50Headwater Tolerance (Maximum) ft³/s0.001Flow Tolerance (Minimum) ft³/s10.000Flow Tolerance (Maximum) Page 15 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1 Subsection: Individual Outlet Curves RATING TABLE FOR ONE OUTLET TYPE Structure ID = User Defined Rating Table - 1 (User Defined Table) --------------------------------------- Upstream ID = (Pond Water Surface) Downstream ID = Tailwater (Pond Outfall) Convergence Error (ft) Tailwater Elevation (ft) Flow (ft³/s) Water Surface Elevation (ft) 0.00(N/A)4.000.00 0.00(N/A)4.000.50 0.00(N/A)4.001.00 0.00(N/A)4.001.50 0.00(N/A)4.002.00 0.00(N/A)4.002.50 0.00(N/A)4.003.00 0.00(N/A)4.003.50 0.00(N/A)4.004.00 0.00(N/A)4.004.50 0.00(N/A)4.005.00 0.00(N/A)4.005.50 0.00(N/A)4.006.00 0.00(N/A)4.006.50 0.00(N/A)4.007.00 Computation Messages Interpolated from input table Interpolated from input table Interpolated from input table Interpolated from input table Interpolated from input table Interpolated from input table Interpolated from input table Page 16 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: Composite Outlet Structure - 1 Subsection: Composite Rating Curve Composite Outflow Summary Convergence Error (ft) Tailwater Elevation (ft) Flow (ft³/s) Water Surface Elevation (ft) 0.00(N/A)4.000.00 0.00(N/A)4.000.50 0.00(N/A)4.001.00 0.00(N/A)4.001.50 0.00(N/A)4.002.00 0.00(N/A)4.002.50 0.00(N/A)4.003.00 0.00(N/A)4.003.50 0.00(N/A)4.004.00 0.00(N/A)4.004.50 0.00(N/A)4.005.00 0.00(N/A)4.005.50 0.00(N/A)4.006.00 0.00(N/A)4.006.50 0.00(N/A)4.007.00 Contributing Structures User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 User Defined Rating Table - 1 Page 17 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: Outlet-1 Subsection: Diverted Hydrograph ft³/s4.00Peak Discharge hours17.350Time to Peak ft³226,738.747Hydrograph Volume HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s) Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Time (hours) 0.910.720.430.142.000.000 0.970.960.960.960.960.250 0.980.980.970.970.970.500 0.990.990.990.990.980.750 1.001.000.990.990.991.000 1.011.011.011.011.001.250 1.021.021.011.011.011.500 1.031.031.031.031.021.750 1.041.041.031.031.032.000 1.061.051.051.051.042.250 1.071.071.061.061.062.500 1.081.081.081.081.072.750 1.091.091.081.081.083.000 1.111.101.101.101.093.250 1.121.121.111.111.113.500 1.141.131.131.131.123.750 1.151.151.141.141.144.000 1.171.161.161.161.154.250 1.181.181.171.171.174.500 1.201.191.191.191.184.750 1.221.221.211.201.205.000 1.181.201.221.221.225.250 1.251.221.191.161.155.500 1.271.271.271.261.265.750 1.291.291.281.271.276.000 1.311.301.301.301.306.250 1.331.331.321.321.326.500 1.361.351.351.341.346.750 1.381.381.371.371.367.000 1.401.401.391.391.397.250 1.431.431.421.421.417.500 1.461.451.451.441.447.750 1.491.481.471.471.468.000 1.521.511.501.501.498.250 1.541.541.531.531.538.500 1.651.601.571.561.558.750 1.731.721.721.711.699.000 1.771.771.761.751.749.250 1.811.811.791.781.789.500 Page 18 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: Outlet-1 Subsection: Diverted Hydrograph HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s) Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Time (hours) 1.861.851.841.831.829.750 1.791.801.831.861.8710.000 1.831.821.811.801.7910.250 1.871.871.861.851.8410.500 1.941.931.921.901.8910.750 2.001.991.971.961.9511.000 2.062.052.032.022.0111.250 2.132.112.102.092.0811.500 2.212.202.182.172.1411.750 2.862.722.532.332.2212.000 2.992.962.942.922.9112.250 3.093.073.053.043.0212.500 3.223.203.183.153.1212.750 3.313.293.273.263.2413.000 3.543.493.443.403.3513.250 3.703.673.653.623.5913.500 3.943.913.873.813.7613.750 4.004.004.004.003.9714.000 4.004.004.004.004.0014.250 4.004.004.004.004.0014.500 4.004.004.004.004.0014.750 4.004.004.004.004.0015.000 4.004.004.004.004.0015.250 4.004.004.004.004.0015.500 4.004.004.004.004.0015.750 4.004.004.004.004.0016.000 4.004.004.004.004.0016.250 4.004.004.004.004.0016.500 4.004.004.004.004.0016.750 4.004.004.004.004.0017.000 4.004.004.004.004.0017.250 4.004.004.004.004.0017.500 4.004.004.004.004.0017.750 4.004.004.004.004.0018.000 4.004.004.004.004.0018.250 4.004.004.004.004.0018.500 4.004.004.004.004.0018.750 4.004.004.004.004.0019.000 4.004.004.004.004.0019.250 4.004.004.004.004.0019.500 4.004.004.004.004.0019.750 4.004.004.004.004.0020.000 4.004.004.004.004.0020.250 4.004.004.004.004.0020.500 Page 19 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: Outlet-1 Subsection: Diverted Hydrograph HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s) Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Time (hours) 4.004.004.004.004.0020.750 4.004.004.004.004.0021.000 4.004.004.004.004.0021.250 4.004.004.004.004.0021.500 4.004.004.004.004.0021.750 4.004.004.004.004.0022.000 4.004.004.004.004.0022.250 4.004.004.004.004.0022.500 4.004.004.004.004.0022.750 4.004.004.004.004.0023.000 4.004.004.004.004.0023.250 4.004.004.004.004.0023.500 4.004.004.004.004.0023.750 (N/A)(N/A)(N/A)(N/A)4.0024.000 Page 20 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 Subsection: Elevation-Volume-Flow Table (Pond) Infiltration No InfiltrationInfiltration Method (Computed) Initial Conditions ft0.00Elevation (Water Surface, Initial) ft³0.000Volume (Initial) ft³/s4.00Flow (Initial Outlet) ft³/s0.00Flow (Initial Infiltration) ft³/s4.00Flow (Initial, Total) hours0.050Time Increment 2S/t + O (ft³/s) Flow (Total) (ft³/s) Infiltration (ft³/s) Area (ft²) Storage (ft³) Outflow (ft³/s) Elevation (ft) 4.004.000.009,650.0000.0004.000.00 57.614.000.009,650.0004,825.0004.000.50 111.224.000.009,650.0009,650.0004.001.00 164.834.000.009,650.00014,475.0004.001.50 218.444.000.009,650.00019,300.0004.002.00 272.064.000.009,650.00024,125.0004.002.50 325.674.000.009,650.00028,950.0004.003.00 379.284.000.009,650.00033,775.0004.003.50 432.894.000.009,650.00038,600.0004.004.00 486.504.000.009,650.00043,425.0004.004.50 540.114.000.009,650.00048,250.0004.005.00 593.724.000.009,650.00053,075.0004.005.50 647.334.000.009,650.00057,900.0004.006.00 700.944.000.009,650.00062,725.0004.006.50 754.564.000.009,650.00067,550.0004.007.00 Page 21 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 (IN) Subsection: Level Pool Pond Routing Summary Infiltration No InfiltrationInfiltration Method (Computed) Initial Conditions ft0.00Elevation (Water Surface, Initial) ft³0.000Volume (Initial) ft³/s4.00Flow (Initial Outlet) ft³/s0.00Flow (Initial Infiltration) ft³/s4.00Flow (Initial, Total) hours0.050Time Increment Inflow/Outflow Hydrograph Summary ft³/s46.08Flow (Peak In)hours16.150Time to Peak (Flow, In) ft³/s4.00Flow (Peak Outlet)hours14.050Time to Peak (Flow, Outlet) ft6.00Elevation (Water Surface, Peak) ft³57,926.520Volume (Peak) Mass Balance (ft³) ft³0.000Volume (Initial) ft³227,253.000Volume (Total Inflow) ft³0.000Volume (Total Infiltration) ft³227,266.000Volume (Total Outlet Outflow) ft³0.000Volume (Retained) ft³13.000Volume (Unrouted) %0.0Error (Mass Balance) Page 22 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 (OUT) Subsection: Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) ft³/s4.00Peak Discharge hours17.350Time to Peak ft³226,738.747Hydrograph Volume HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s) Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Time (hours) 0.910.720.430.142.000.000 0.970.960.960.960.960.250 0.980.980.970.970.970.500 0.990.990.990.990.980.750 1.001.000.990.990.991.000 1.011.011.011.011.001.250 1.021.021.011.011.011.500 1.031.031.031.031.021.750 1.041.041.031.031.032.000 1.061.051.051.051.042.250 1.071.071.061.061.062.500 1.081.081.081.081.072.750 1.091.091.081.081.083.000 1.111.101.101.101.093.250 1.121.121.111.111.113.500 1.141.131.131.131.123.750 1.151.151.141.141.144.000 1.171.161.161.161.154.250 1.181.181.171.171.174.500 1.201.191.191.191.184.750 1.221.221.211.201.205.000 1.181.201.221.221.225.250 1.251.221.191.161.155.500 1.271.271.271.261.265.750 1.291.291.281.271.276.000 1.311.301.301.301.306.250 1.331.331.321.321.326.500 1.361.351.351.341.346.750 1.381.381.371.371.367.000 1.401.401.391.391.397.250 1.431.431.421.421.417.500 1.461.451.451.441.447.750 1.491.481.471.471.468.000 1.521.511.501.501.498.250 1.541.541.531.531.538.500 1.651.601.571.561.558.750 1.731.721.721.711.699.000 1.771.771.761.751.749.250 1.811.811.791.781.789.500 Page 23 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 (OUT) Subsection: Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s) Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Time (hours) 1.861.851.841.831.829.750 1.791.801.831.861.8710.000 1.831.821.811.801.7910.250 1.871.871.861.851.8410.500 1.941.931.921.901.8910.750 2.001.991.971.961.9511.000 2.062.052.032.022.0111.250 2.132.112.102.092.0811.500 2.212.202.182.172.1411.750 2.862.722.532.332.2212.000 2.992.962.942.922.9112.250 3.093.073.053.043.0212.500 3.223.203.183.153.1212.750 3.313.293.273.263.2413.000 3.543.493.443.403.3513.250 3.703.673.653.623.5913.500 3.943.913.873.813.7613.750 4.004.004.004.003.9714.000 4.004.004.004.004.0014.250 4.004.004.004.004.0014.500 4.004.004.004.004.0014.750 4.004.004.004.004.0015.000 4.004.004.004.004.0015.250 4.004.004.004.004.0015.500 4.004.004.004.004.0015.750 4.004.004.004.004.0016.000 4.004.004.004.004.0016.250 4.004.004.004.004.0016.500 4.004.004.004.004.0016.750 4.004.004.004.004.0017.000 4.004.004.004.004.0017.250 4.004.004.004.004.0017.500 4.004.004.004.004.0017.750 4.004.004.004.004.0018.000 4.004.004.004.004.0018.250 4.004.004.004.004.0018.500 4.004.004.004.004.0018.750 4.004.004.004.004.0019.000 4.004.004.004.004.0019.250 4.004.004.004.004.0019.500 4.004.004.004.004.0019.750 4.004.004.004.004.0020.000 4.004.004.004.004.0020.250 4.004.004.004.004.0020.500 Page 24 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 (OUT) Subsection: Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out) HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (ft³/s) Output Time Increment = 0.050 hours Time on left represents time for first value in each row. Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Flow (ft³/s) Time (hours) 4.004.004.004.004.0020.750 4.004.004.004.004.0021.000 4.004.004.004.004.0021.250 4.004.004.004.004.0021.500 4.004.004.004.004.0021.750 4.004.004.004.004.0022.000 4.004.004.004.004.0022.250 4.004.004.004.004.0022.500 4.004.004.004.004.0022.750 4.004.004.004.004.0023.000 4.004.004.004.004.0023.250 4.004.004.004.004.0023.500 4.004.004.004.004.0023.750 (N/A)(N/A)(N/A)(N/A)4.0024.000 Page 25 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Label: PO-1 (IN) Subsection: Pond Inflow Summary Summary for Hydrograph Addition at 'PO-1' Upstream NodeUpstream Link DM-3<Catchment to Outflow Node> Node Inflows Flow (Peak) (ft³/s) Time to Peak (hours) Volume (ft³) ElementInflow Type 49.4116.167227,733.765DM-3Flow (From) 46.0816.150227,252.827PO-1Flow (In) Page 26 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Index User Notifications...2 U PO-1 (Volume Equations)...13 PO-1 (Time vs. Volume)...9, 10, 11 PO-1 (OUT) (Time vs. Elevation)...6, 7, 8 PO-1 (OUT) (Pond Routed Hydrograph (total out))...23, 24, 25 PO-1 (IN) (Pond Inflow Summary)...26 PO-1 (IN) (Level Pool Pond Routing Summary)...22 PO-1 (Elevation-Volume-Flow Table (Pond))...21 PO-1 (Elevation-Area Volume Curve)...12 P Outlet-1 (Diverted Hydrograph)...18, 19, 20 O-1 (Addition Summary)...5 O Master Network Summary...3 M DM-3 (Read Hydrograph)...4 D Composite Outlet Structure - 1 (Outlet Input Data)...14, 15 Composite Outlet Structure - 1 (Individual Outlet Curves)...16 Composite Outlet Structure - 1 (Composite Rating Curve)...17 C Page 27 of 2727 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/26/2019 Bentley PondPack V8i [08.11.01.56] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterShea-Cypress_PR_100_Year.ppc Cross Section for Overflow at East Release Point-Q2 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft0.52Normal Depth cfs6.46Discharge Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at East Release Point-Q2 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope cfs6.46Discharge Section Definitions Elevation (ft) Station (ft) 34.550+10 32.970+16 32.970+17 32.300+17 32.460+19 33.250+62 Roughness Segment Definitions Roughness CoefficientEnding StationStart Station 0.030(0+16, 32.97)(0+10, 34.55) 0.013(0+19, 32.46)(0+16, 32.97) 0.016(0+62, 33.25)(0+19, 32.46) Options Pavlovskii's Method Current Roughness Weighted Method Pavlovskii's Method Open Channel Weighting Method Pavlovskii's Method Closed Channel Weighting Method Results ft0.52Normal Depth 32.3 to 34.6 ftElevation Range ft²4.5Flow Area ft22.4Wetted Perimeter ft0.20Hydraulic Radius ft21.87Top Width ft0.52Normal Depth ft0.44Critical Depth ft/ft0.00679Critical Slope ft/s1.45Velocity ft0.03Velocity Head ft0.55Specific Energy 0.564Froude Number Page 1 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at East Release Point-Q2 Results SubcriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data ft0.00Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data ft0.00Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity ft0.52Normal Depth ft0.44Critical Depth ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft/ft0.00679Critical Slope Page 2 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Cross Section for Overflow at East Release Point-Q10 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft0.65Normal Depth cfs13.66Discharge Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at East Release Point-Q10 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope cfs13.66Discharge Section Definitions Elevation (ft) Station (ft) 34.550+10 32.970+16 32.970+17 32.300+17 32.460+19 33.250+62 Roughness Segment Definitions Roughness CoefficientEnding StationStart Station 0.030(0+16, 32.97)(0+10, 34.55) 0.013(0+19, 32.46)(0+16, 32.97) 0.016(0+62, 33.25)(0+19, 32.46) Options Pavlovskii's Method Current Roughness Weighted Method Pavlovskii's Method Open Channel Weighting Method Pavlovskii's Method Closed Channel Weighting Method Results ft0.65Normal Depth 32.3 to 34.6 ftElevation Range ft²7.9Flow Area ft29.9Wetted Perimeter ft0.26Hydraulic Radius ft29.22Top Width ft0.65Normal Depth ft0.55Critical Depth ft/ft0.00619Critical Slope ft/s1.73Velocity ft0.05Velocity Head ft0.70Specific Energy 0.589Froude Number Page 1 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at East Release Point-Q10 Results SubcriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data ft0.00Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data ft0.00Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity ft0.65Normal Depth ft0.55Critical Depth ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft/ft0.00619Critical Slope Page 2 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Cross Section for Overflow at East Release Point-Q100 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft0.76Normal Depth cfs21.64Discharge Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at East Release Point-Q100 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope cfs21.64Discharge Section Definitions Elevation (ft) Station (ft) 34.550+10 32.970+16 32.970+17 32.300+17 32.460+19 33.250+62 Roughness Segment Definitions Roughness CoefficientEnding StationStart Station 0.030(0+16, 32.97)(0+10, 34.55) 0.013(0+19, 32.46)(0+16, 32.97) 0.016(0+62, 33.25)(0+19, 32.46) Options Pavlovskii's Method Current Roughness Weighted Method Pavlovskii's Method Open Channel Weighting Method Pavlovskii's Method Closed Channel Weighting Method Results ft0.76Normal Depth 32.3 to 34.6 ftElevation Range ft²11.3Flow Area ft36.6Wetted Perimeter ft0.31Hydraulic Radius ft35.90Top Width ft0.76Normal Depth ft0.64Critical Depth ft/ft0.00598Critical Slope ft/s1.91Velocity ft0.06Velocity Head ft0.82Specific Energy 0.598Froude Number Page 1 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at East Release Point-Q100 Results SubcriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data ft0.00Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data ft0.00Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity ft0.76Normal Depth ft0.64Critical Depth ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft/ft0.00598Critical Slope Page 2 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Cross Section for Overflow at West Release Point-Q2 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft0.39Normal Depth cfs9.38Discharge Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at West Release Point-Q2 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope cfs9.38Discharge Section Definitions Elevation (ft) Station (ft) 34.550+10 32.780+16 32.780+17 32.110+17 32.270+19 32.571+19 Roughness Segment Definitions Roughness CoefficientEnding StationStart Station 0.030(0+16, 32.78)(0+10, 34.55) 0.013(0+19, 32.27)(0+16, 32.78) 0.016(1+19, 32.57)(0+19, 32.27) Options Pavlovskii's Method Current Roughness Weighted Method Pavlovskii's Method Open Channel Weighting Method Pavlovskii's Method Closed Channel Weighting Method Results ft0.39Normal Depth 32.1 to 34.6 ftElevation Range ft²9.3Flow Area ft78.7Wetted Perimeter ft0.12Hydraulic Radius ft78.29Top Width ft0.39Normal Depth ft0.33Critical Depth ft/ft0.00825Critical Slope ft/s1.01Velocity ft0.02Velocity Head ft0.40Specific Energy 0.516Froude Number Page 1 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at West Release Point-Q2 Results SubcriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data ft0.00Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data ft0.00Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity ft0.39Normal Depth ft0.33Critical Depth ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft/ft0.00825Critical Slope Page 2 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at West Release Point-Q10 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope cfs19.78Discharge Section Definitions Elevation (ft) Station (ft) 34.550+10 32.780+16 32.780+17 32.110+17 32.270+19 32.571+19 Roughness Segment Definitions Roughness CoefficientEnding StationStart Station 0.030(0+16, 32.78)(0+10, 34.55) 0.013(0+19, 32.27)(0+16, 32.78) 0.016(1+19, 32.57)(0+19, 32.27) Options Pavlovskii's Method Current Roughness Weighted Method Pavlovskii's Method Open Channel Weighting Method Pavlovskii's Method Closed Channel Weighting Method Results ft0.46Normal Depth 32.1 to 34.6 ftElevation Range ft²16.3Flow Area ft103.0Wetted Perimeter ft0.16Hydraulic Radius ft102.50Top Width ft0.46Normal Depth ft0.40Critical Depth ft/ft0.00749Critical Slope ft/s1.22Velocity ft0.02Velocity Head ft0.49Specific Energy 0.538Froude Number Page 1 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at West Release Point-Q10 Results SubcriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data ft0.00Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data ft0.00Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity ft0.46Normal Depth ft0.40Critical Depth ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft/ft0.00749Critical Slope Messages Water Surface Elevation exceeds lowest end station by 0.004217053 76188442ft. Messages Page 2 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Cross Section for Overflow at West Release Point-Q10 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft0.46Normal Depth cfs19.78Discharge Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Cross Section for Overflow at West Release Point-Q100 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft0.52Normal Depth cfs31.55Discharge Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at West Release Point-Q100 Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope cfs31.55Discharge Section Definitions Elevation (ft) Station (ft) 34.550+10 32.780+16 32.780+17 32.110+17 32.270+19 32.571+19 Roughness Segment Definitions Roughness CoefficientEnding StationStart Station 0.030(0+16, 32.78)(0+10, 34.55) 0.013(0+19, 32.27)(0+16, 32.78) 0.016(1+19, 32.57)(0+19, 32.27) Options Pavlovskii's Method Current Roughness Weighted Method Pavlovskii's Method Open Channel Weighting Method Pavlovskii's Method Closed Channel Weighting Method Results ft0.52Normal Depth 32.1 to 34.6 ftElevation Range ft²21.5Flow Area ft103.1Wetted Perimeter ft0.21Hydraulic Radius ft102.50Top Width ft0.52Normal Depth ft0.45Critical Depth ft/ft0.00704Critical Slope ft/s1.47Velocity ft0.03Velocity Head ft0.55Specific Energy 0.565Froude Number Page 1 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Overflow at West Release Point-Q100 Results SubcriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data ft0.00Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data ft0.00Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity ft0.52Normal Depth ft0.45Critical Depth ft/ft0.00200Channel Slope ft/ft0.00704Critical Slope Messages Water Surface Elevation exceeds lowest end station by 0.055353652 4242588ft. Messages Page 2 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Cross Section for Siboney Half Street - Capacity Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method DischargeSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00140Channel Slope ft0.90Normal Depth cfs29.14Discharge Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Siboney Half Street - Capacity Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method DischargeSolve For Input Data ft/ft0.00140Channel Slope ft0.90Normal Depth Section Definitions Elevation (ft) Station (ft) 100.000+10 99.800+20 99.130+20 99.290+22 100.030+59 Roughness Segment Definitions Roughness CoefficientEnding StationStart Station 0.013(0+22, 99.29)(0+10, 100.00) 0.016(0+59, 100.03)(0+22, 99.29) Options Pavlovskii's Method Current Roughness Weighted Method Pavlovskii's Method Open Channel Weighting Method Pavlovskii's Method Closed Channel Weighting Method Results cfs29.14Discharge 99.1 to 100.0 ftElevation Range ft²16.6Flow Area ft49.7Wetted Perimeter ft0.33Hydraulic Radius ft49.00Top Width ft0.90Normal Depth ft0.73Critical Depth ft/ft0.00532Critical Slope ft/s1.75Velocity ft0.05Velocity Head ft0.95Specific Energy 0.530Froude Number SubcriticalFlow Type Page 1 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Worksheet for Siboney Half Street - Capacity GVF Input Data ft0.00Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data ft0.00Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity ft0.90Normal Depth ft0.73Critical Depth ft/ft0.00140Channel Slope ft/ft0.00532Critical Slope Messages Water Surface Elevation exceeds lowest end station by 0.030000000 0000011ft. Messages Page 2 of 227 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 1/27/2020 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterOff-site Overflow.fm8 Off-site DM Area O2 100-Year Storm Analysis Allowable Q at 0.3 cfs/AC = 2.5 cfs ============================================================================ *** NON-HOMOGENEOUS WATERSHED AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE (Fm) AND LOW LOSS FRACTION ESTIMATIONS FOR AMC III: TOTAL 24-HOUR DURATION RAINFALL DEPTH = 5.63 (inches) SOIL-COVER AREA PERCENT OF SCS CURVE LOSS RATE TYPE (Acres) PERVIOUS AREA NUMBER Fp(in./hr.) YIELD 1 8.29 0.00 98.(AMC II) 0.300 0.958 TOTAL AREA (Acres) = 8.29 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOSS RATE, Fm (in./hr.) = 0.000 _ AREA-AVERAGED LOW LOSS FRACTION, Y = 0.042 ============================================================================ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RATIONAL METHOD CALIBRATION COEFFICIENT = 0.90 TOTAL CATCHMENT AREA(ACRES) = 8.30 SOIL-LOSS RATE, Fm,(INCH/HR) = 0.000 LOW LOSS FRACTION = 0.042 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 15.00 SMALL AREA PEAK Q COMPUTED USING PEAK FLOW RATE FORMULA ORANGE COUNTY "VALLEY" RAINFALL VALUES ARE USED RETURN FREQUENCY(YEARS) = 100 5-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 0.52 30-MINUTE POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.09 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 1.45 3-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 2.43 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 3.36 24-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUE(INCHES) = 5.63 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL CATCHMENT RUNOFF VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 3.48 TOTAL CATCHMENT SOIL-LOSS VOLUME(ACRE-FEET) = 0.42 **************************************************************************** TIME VOLUME Q 0. 7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 (HOURS) (AF) (CFS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.25 0.0068 0.65 Q . . . . 0.50 0.0203 0.66 Q . . . . 0.75 0.0340 0.67 Q . . . . 1.00 0.0479 0.67 Q . . . . 1.25 0.0619 0.68 Q . . . . 1.50 0.0760 0.69 Q . . . . 1.75 0.0903 0.70 Q . . . . 2.00 0.1047 0.70 Q . . . . 2.25 0.1194 0.71 Q . . . . 2.50 0.1341 0.72 Q . . . . 2.75 0.1491 0.73 Q . . . . 3.00 0.1642 0.73 Q . . . . 3.25 0.1795 0.75 Q . . . . 3.50 0.1950 0.75 .Q . . . . 3.75 0.2106 0.77 .Q . . . . 4.00 0.2265 0.77 .Q . . . . 4.25 0.2426 0.79 .Q . . . . 4.50 0.2589 0.79 .Q . . . . 4.75 0.2754 0.81 .Q . . . . 5.00 0.2921 0.81 .Q . . . . 5.25 0.3091 0.83 .Q . . . . 5.50 0.3263 0.84 .Q . . . . 5.75 0.3438 0.85 .Q . . . . 6.00 0.3615 0.86 .Q . . . . 6.25 0.3796 0.88 .Q . . . . 6.50 0.3979 0.89 .Q . . . . 6.75 0.4165 0.91 .Q . . . . 7.00 0.4354 0.92 .Q . . . . 7.25 0.4546 0.94 .Q . . . . 7.50 0.4742 0.95 .Q . . . . 7.75 0.4941 0.98 .Q . . . . 8.00 0.5144 0.99 .Q . . . . 8.25 0.5351 1.01 .Q . . . . 8.50 0.5562 1.03 .Q . . . . 8.75 0.5778 1.06 .Q . . . . 9.00 0.5998 1.07 .Q . . . . 9.25 0.6222 1.10 .Q . . . . 9.50 0.6452 1.12 .Q . . . . 9.75 0.6688 1.16 .Q . . . . 10.00 0.6929 1.18 .Q . . . . 10.25 0.7177 1.22 .Q . . . . 10.50 0.7431 1.24 .Q . . . . 10.75 0.7692 1.29 .Q . . . . 11.00 0.7960 1.31 .Q . . . . 11.25 0.8237 1.37 .Q . . . . 11.50 0.8523 1.40 .Q . . . . 11.75 0.8819 1.46 .Q . . . . 12.00 0.9125 1.50 .Q . . . . 12.25 0.9484 1.98 . Q . . . . 12.50 0.9898 2.02 . Q . . . . 12.75 1.0327 2.13 . Q . . . . 13.00 1.0772 2.18 . Q . . . . 13.25 1.1237 2.31 . Q . . . . 13.50 1.1722 2.39 . Q . . . . 13.75 1.2233 2.56 . Q . . . . 14.00 1.2772 2.66 . Q . . . . 14.25 1.3347 2.91 . Q . . . . 14.50 1.3963 3.05 . Q . . . . 14.75 1.4631 3.42 . Q . . . . 15.00 1.5361 3.65 . Q . . . . 15.25 1.6183 4.30 . Q . . . . 15.50 1.7123 4.79 . Q . . . . 15.75 1.8229 5.92 . Q . . . . 16.00 1.9678 8.11 . Q . . . 16.25 2.3043 24.46 . . . . Q . 16.50 2.6069 4.84 . Q . . . . 16.75 2.6976 3.94 . Q . . . . 17.00 2.7716 3.22 . Q . . . . 17.25 2.8334 2.77 . Q . . . . 17.50 2.8875 2.47 . Q . . . . 17.75 2.9363 2.25 . Q . . . . 18.00 2.9809 2.07 . Q . . . . 18.25 3.0182 1.54 . Q . . . . 18.50 3.0489 1.43 .Q . . . . 18.75 3.0775 1.34 .Q . . . . 19.00 3.1044 1.26 .Q . . . . 19.25 3.1298 1.20 .Q . . . . 19.50 3.1539 1.14 .Q . . . . 19.75 3.1769 1.09 .Q . . . . 20.00 3.1989 1.04 .Q . . . . 20.25 3.2201 1.00 .Q . . . . 20.50 3.2404 0.96 .Q . . . . 20.75 3.2600 0.93 .Q . . . . 21.00 3.2789 0.90 .Q . . . . 21.25 3.2972 0.87 .Q . . . . 21.50 3.3149 0.85 .Q . . . . 21.75 3.3321 0.82 .Q . . . . 22.00 3.3489 0.80 .Q . . . . 22.25 3.3652 0.78 .Q . . . . 22.50 3.3810 0.76 .Q . . . . 22.75 3.3965 0.74 Q . . . . 23.00 3.4117 0.72 Q . . . . 23.25 3.4264 0.71 Q . . . . 23.50 3.4409 0.69 Q . . . . 23.75 3.4550 0.68 Q . . . . 24.00 3.4689 0.66 Q . . . . 24.25 3.4757 0.00 Q . . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIME DURATION(minutes) OF PERCENTILES OF ESTIMATED PEAK FLOW RATE: (Note: 100% of Peak Flow Rate estimate assumed to have an instantaneous time duration) Percentile of Estimated Duration Peak Flow Rate (minutes) ======================= ========= 0% 1440.0 10% 240.0 20% 45.0 30% 30.0 40% 15.0 50% 15.0 60% 15.0 70% 15.0 80% 15.0 90% 15.0 Cypress - 12" Pipe Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Full Flow CapacitySolve For Input Data 0.011Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.003Channel Slope in12.0Normal Depth in12.0Diameter cfs2.3Discharge Results cfs2.3Discharge in12.0Normal Depth ft²0.8Flow Area ft3.1Wetted Perimeter in3.0Hydraulic Radius ft0.00Top Width in7.8Critical Depth %100.0Percent Full ft/ft0.005Critical Slope ft/s2.94Velocity ft0.13Velocity Head ft1.13Specific Energy (N/A)Froude Number cfs2.5Maximum Discharge cfs2.3Discharge Full ft/ft0.003Slope Full UndefinedFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %0.0Normal Depth Over Rise ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity in12.0Normal Depth in7.8Critical Depth ft/ft0.003Channel Slope ft/ft0.005Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/25/2019 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterSD Pipe sizing.fm8 Cypress - 18" Pipe Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Full Flow CapacitySolve For Input Data 0.011Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.003Channel Slope in18.0Normal Depth in18.0Diameter cfs6.8Discharge Results cfs6.8Discharge in18.0Normal Depth ft²1.8Flow Area ft4.7Wetted Perimeter in4.5Hydraulic Radius ft0.00Top Width in12.1Critical Depth %100.0Percent Full ft/ft0.005Critical Slope ft/s3.85Velocity ft0.23Velocity Head ft1.73Specific Energy (N/A)Froude Number cfs7.3Maximum Discharge cfs6.8Discharge Full ft/ft0.003Slope Full UndefinedFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %0.0Normal Depth Over Rise ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity in18.0Normal Depth in12.1Critical Depth ft/ft0.003Channel Slope ft/ft0.005Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/25/2019 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterSD Pipe sizing.fm8 Cypress - 24" Pipe Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Full Flow CapacitySolve For Input Data 0.011Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.003Channel Slope in24.0Normal Depth in24.0Diameter cfs14.6Discharge Results cfs14.6Discharge in24.0Normal Depth ft²3.1Flow Area ft6.3Wetted Perimeter in6.0Hydraulic Radius ft0.00Top Width in16.5Critical Depth %100.0Percent Full ft/ft0.004Critical Slope ft/s4.66Velocity ft0.34Velocity Head ft2.34Specific Energy (N/A)Froude Number cfs15.8Maximum Discharge cfs14.6Discharge Full ft/ft0.003Slope Full UndefinedFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %0.0Normal Depth Over Rise ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity in24.0Normal Depth in16.5Critical Depth ft/ft0.003Channel Slope ft/ft0.004Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/25/2019 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterSD Pipe sizing.fm8 Cypress - 30" Pipe Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Full Flow CapacitySolve For Input Data 0.011Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.003Channel Slope in30.0Normal Depth in30.0Diameter cfs26.5Discharge Results cfs26.5Discharge in30.0Normal Depth ft²4.9Flow Area ft7.9Wetted Perimeter in7.5Hydraulic Radius ft0.00Top Width in21.1Critical Depth %100.0Percent Full ft/ft0.004Critical Slope ft/s5.41Velocity ft0.45Velocity Head ft2.95Specific Energy (N/A)Froude Number cfs28.6Maximum Discharge cfs26.5Discharge Full ft/ft0.003Slope Full UndefinedFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %0.0Normal Depth Over Rise ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity in30.0Normal Depth in21.1Critical Depth ft/ft0.003Channel Slope ft/ft0.004Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/25/2019 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterSD Pipe sizing.fm8 Cypress - 36" Pipe Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Full Flow CapacitySolve For Input Data 0.011Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.003Channel Slope in36.0Normal Depth in36.0Diameter cfs43.2Discharge Results cfs43.2Discharge in36.0Normal Depth ft²7.1Flow Area ft9.4Wetted Perimeter in9.0Hydraulic Radius ft0.00Top Width in25.7Critical Depth %100.0Percent Full ft/ft0.004Critical Slope ft/s6.11Velocity ft0.58Velocity Head ft3.58Specific Energy (N/A)Froude Number cfs46.4Maximum Discharge cfs43.2Discharge Full ft/ft0.003Slope Full UndefinedFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %0.0Normal Depth Over Rise ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity in36.0Normal Depth in25.7Critical Depth ft/ft0.003Channel Slope ft/ft0.004Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/25/2019 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterSD Pipe sizing.fm8 Cypress - 42" Pipe Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Full Flow CapacitySolve For Input Data 0.011Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.003Channel Slope in42.0Normal Depth in42.0Diameter cfs65.1Discharge Results cfs65.1Discharge in42.0Normal Depth ft²9.6Flow Area ft11.0Wetted Perimeter in10.5Hydraulic Radius ft0.00Top Width in30.4Critical Depth %100.0Percent Full ft/ft0.004Critical Slope ft/s6.77Velocity ft0.71Velocity Head ft4.21Specific Energy (N/A)Froude Number cfs70.1Maximum Discharge cfs65.1Discharge Full ft/ft0.003Slope Full UndefinedFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %0.0Normal Depth Over Rise ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity in42.0Normal Depth in30.4Critical Depth ft/ft0.003Channel Slope ft/ft0.004Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/25/2019 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterSD Pipe sizing.fm8 Cypress - 48" Pipe Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Full Flow CapacitySolve For Input Data 0.011Roughness Coefficient ft/ft0.003Channel Slope in48.0Normal Depth in48.0Diameter cfs93.0Discharge Results cfs93.0Discharge in48.0Normal Depth ft²12.6Flow Area ft12.6Wetted Perimeter in12.0Hydraulic Radius ft0.00Top Width in35.1Critical Depth %100.0Percent Full ft/ft0.004Critical Slope ft/s7.40Velocity ft0.85Velocity Head ft4.85Specific Energy (N/A)Froude Number cfs100.0Maximum Discharge cfs93.0Discharge Full ft/ft0.003Slope Full UndefinedFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %0.0Normal Depth Over Rise ft/s0.00Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00Upstream Velocity in48.0Normal Depth in35.1Critical Depth ft/ft0.003Channel Slope ft/ft0.004Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 7/25/2019 FlowMaster [10.02.00.01] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterSD Pipe sizing.fm8 ATTACHMENT C Storm Drain Record Drawings ATTACHMENT D Hydrologic Design Criteria