Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appendix G - Preliminary WQMP
Appendix G Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (PRELIMINARY) JEFFERSON FONTANA PM 19061 Ontario, California Prepared For JPI COMPANIES 12250 El Camino Real, Suit380 San Diego, CA 92130 Prepared By Moyenuddin Sirajee, PE Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. 2850 Inland Empire Blvd. Building B Ontario, California, 91764 909.581.0676 www.fuscoe.com Project Manager: Luis Figueroa Date Prepared: October 2022 Date Revised: Job Number: 557.013 Water Quality Management Plan (Preliminary) For: Jefferson Fontana APN: 0251-171-19, 0251-321-27, 18, 24, 21, 25, 26, 19, 20, 22, 23, 02, 15, 16 & PORTION OF 03, 14, 29 Prepared for: JPI Companies 12250 El Camino Real, Suite 380 San Diego, CA 92130 805.748.0107 Prepared by: Fuscoe Engineering 2850 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite B Ontario, CA 91764 909.581.0676 Submittal Date: 10.31.22 Revision Date: Insert Current Revision Date Approval Date:_____________________ Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Owner’s Certification Project Owner’s Certification This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for JPI Companies by Fuscoe Engineering. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program requiring the preparation of a WQMP. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site consistent with San Bernardino County’s Municipal Storm Water Management Program and the intent of the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County and the incorporated cities of San Bernardino County within the Santa Ana Region. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors in interest and the city/county shall be notified of the transfer. The new owner will be informed of its responsibility under this WQMP. A copy of the approved WQMP shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. “I certify under a penalty of law that the provisions (implementation, operation, maintenance, and funding) of the WQMP have been accepted and that the plan will be transferred to future successors.” . Project Data Permit/Application Number(s): TBD Grading Permit Number(s): TBD Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): PM 19061 Building Permit Number(s): TBD CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract): APN: 0251-171-19, 0251-321-27, 18, 24, 21, 25, 26, 19, 20, 22, 23, 02, 15, 16 & portion of 03, 14, 29 Owner’s Signature Owner Name: Jay Adamowitz Title Development Manager Company JPI Companies Address 12250 El Camino Real, Suite 380, San Diego, CA 92130 Email jay.adamowitz@jpi.com Telephone # 858.771.9119 Signature Date Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Contents Preparer’s Certification Project Data Permit/Application Number(s): TBD Grading Permit Number(s): TBD Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): PM 19061 Building Permit Number(s): TBD CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract): APN: 0251-171-19, 0251- 321-27, 18, 24, 21, 25, 26, 19, 20, 22, 23, 02, 15, 16 & portion of 03, 14, 29 “The selection, sizing and design of stormwater treatment and other stormwater quality and quantity control measures in this plan were prepared under my oversight and meet the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2010-0036.” Engineer: Moyenuddin Sirajee PE Stamp Below Title Senior Engineer Company Fuscoe Engineering Address 2850 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite B, Ontario, CA 91764 Email msirajee@fuscoe.com Telephone # 909.581.0676 Signature Date Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Contents ii Table of Contents Section 1 Discretionary Permits ......................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2 Project Description ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Information ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Property Ownership / Management .............................................................. 2-2 2.3 Potential Stormwater Pollutants ................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Water Quality Credits ........ ……………………………………………………………………………. 2-4 Section 3 Site and Watershed Description ......................................................................... 3-1 Section 4 Best Management Practices ................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Source Control BMP ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Pollution Prevention ................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Preventative LID Site Design Practices ....................................................... 4-6 4.2 Project Performance Criteria......................................................................... 4-7 4.3 Project Conformance Analysis ....................................................................... 4-12 4.3.1 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP .............................................. 4-14 4.3.2 Infiltration BMP .......................................................................................... 4-16 4.3.3 Harvest and Use BMP .................................................................................. 4-18 4.3.4 Biotreatment BMP....................................................................................... 4.19 4.3.5 Conformance Summary ............................................................................... 4-23 4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP ............................................................... 4-24 4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable) ................................................. 4-25 Section 5 Inspection & Maintenance Responsibility Post Construction BMPs ................. 5-1 Section 6 Site Plan and Drainage Plan ................................................................................ 6-1 6.1. Site Plan and Drainage Plan.......................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Electronic Data Submittal ............................................................................. 6-1 Forms Form 1-1 Project Information ............................................................................................... 1-1 Form 2.1-1 Description of Proposed Project ......................................................................... 2-1 Form 2.2-1 Property Ownership/Management ..................................................................... 2-2 Form 2.3-1 Pollutants of Concern ......................................................................................... 2-3 Form 2.4-1 Water Quality Credits ......................................................................................... 2-4 Form 3-1 Site Location and Hydrologic Features ................................................................. 3-1 Form 3-2 Hydrologic Characteristics .................................................................................... 3-2 Form 3-3 Watershed Description .......................................................................................... 3-3 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMP ................................................................... 4-2 Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMP .......................................................................... 4-4 Form 4.1-3 Site Design Practices Checklist ........................................................................... 4-6 Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume ............................. 4-7 Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment .......................................................................... 4-8 Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume ............................................................... 4-9 Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration .................................................. 4-10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Contents iii Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff .................................................................... 4-11 Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility ................................................................................ 4-13 Form 4.3-2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP ..................................................... 4-14 Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP ........................................................................................... 4-17 Form 4.3-4 Harvest and Use BMP ......................................................................................... 4-18 Form 4.3-5 Selection and Evaluation of Biotreatment BMP ................................................ 4-19 Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment – Bioretention and Planter Boxes w/Underdrains 4-20 Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment- Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention 4-21 Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment ................................................................................... 4-22 Form 4.3-9 Conformance Summary and Alternative Compliance Volume Estimate .......... 4-23 Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMP ..................................................................... 4-24 Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance ........................................................................ 5-1 Appendix A: Project Location, Vicinity Map Appendix B: Site Plan, WQMP Exhibit, LID Sizing Calc. Appendix C: Flow Calculation (Pre-Treatment BMP) Appendix D: Educational Materials, BMP Fact Sheets Appendix E: Infiltration Test Report Appendix F: WQMP Cert and MOA Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 1-1 Section 1 Discretionary Permit(s) Form 1-1 Project Information Project Name Jefferson Fontana Project Owner Contact Name: Jay Adamowitz Mailing Address: 12250 El Camino Real, Suite 380, San Diego, CA 92130 E-mail Address: jay.adamowitz@jpi.com Telephone: 858.771.9119 Permit/Application Number(s): TBD Tract/Parcel Map Number(s): PM 19061 Additional Information/ Comments: None Description of Project: The proposed mixed used development consists of construction of 464 units residential apartment complex and approximately 4,200 square feet of retail space. It will have necessary drive aisle and parking facilities for the access and parking within the site. The development will also include the widening of the existing Valley Blvd. in the north and Juniper Ave. in the east across the width of the project frontage. Drainage Condition: Storm water runoff will be collected by a network of storm drain conveying run-off from the site to the south-easterly side of the site into an underground Infiltration Chamber. It will then convey through a proposed underground storm drain pipe into an existing 48-inch storm drain pipe on Juniper Ave. which then drain into I-10 concrete channel at the end of Juniper Ave. Project DCV is proposed to remain and infiltrate on site through a properly sized underground infiltration chamber. Per County of San Bernardino stormwater Facility Mapping Tool, the site is HCOC exempt. Provide summary of Conceptual WQMP conditions (if previously submitted and approved). Attach complete copy. N/A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-1 Section 2 Project Description 2.1 Project Information This section of the WQMP should provide the information listed below. The information provided for Conceptual/ Preliminary WQMP should give sufficient detail to identify the major proposed site design and LID BMPs and other anticipated water quality features that impact site planning. Final Project WQMP must specifically identify all BMP incorporated into the final site design and provide other detailed information as described herein. The purpose of this information is to help determine the applicable development category, pollutants of concern, watershed description, and long term maintenance responsibilities for the project, and any applicable water quality credits. This information will be used in conjunction with the information in Section 3, Site Description, to establish the performance criteria and to select the LID BMP or other BMP for the project or other alternative programs that the project will participate in, which are described in Section 4. Form 2.1-1 Description of Proposed Project 1 Development Category (Select all that apply): Significant re-development involving the addition or replacement of 5,000 ft2 or more of impervious surface on an already developed site New development involving the creation of 10,000 ft2 or more of impervious surface collectively over entire site Automotive repair shops with standard industrial classification (SIC) codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532- 7534, 7536-7539 Restaurants (with SIC code 5812) where the land area of development is 5,000 ft2 or more Hillside developments of 5,000 ft2 or more which are located on areas with known erosive soil conditions or where the natural slope is 25 percent or more Developments of 2,500 ft2 of impervious surface or more adjacent to (within 200 ft) or discharging directly into environmentally sensitive areas or waterbodies listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Parking lots of 5,000 ft2 or more exposed to storm water Retail gasoline outlets that are either 5,000 ft2 or more, or have a projected average daily traffic of 100 or more vehicles per day Non-Priority / Non-Category Project May require source control LID BMPs and other LIP requirements. Please consult with local jurisdiction on specific requirements. 2 Project Area (ft2): 489,399 3 Number of Dwelling Units: 464 4 SIC Code: 1521 5 Is Project going to be phased? Yes No If yes, ensure that the WQMP evaluates each phase as a distinct DA, requiring LID BMPs to address runoff at time of completion. 6 Does Project include roads? Yes No If yes, ensure that applicable requirements for transportation projects are addressed (see Appendix A of TGD for WQMP) Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-2 2.2 Property Ownership/Management Describe the ownership/management of all portions of the project and site. State whether any infrastructure will transfer to public agencies (City, County, Caltrans, etc.) after project completion. State if a homeowners or property owners association will be formed and be responsible for the long-term maintenance of project stormwater facilities. Describe any lot-level stormwater features that will be the responsibility of individual property owners. Form 2.2-1 Property Ownership/Management Describe property ownership/management responsible for long-term maintenance of WQMP stormwater facilities: Jefferson Fontana consisits of 464 units of appartment building and 4,200 square feet of retail space. Also includes the construction of widening of the existing streets. The proposed facility with all of its onsite WQMP stormwater facilities will be operated and maintained by JPI Companies. Existing widened streets would be designated as public streets. Public streets and the WQMP stormwater facilities will be maintaned by the City of Fonatana, California. Buildings: JPI Companies Public Streets: City of Fontana Private Lanes and Alleys: JPI Companies Landscaped Areas: JPI Companies Source Control BMPs On-Site: JPI Companies Source Control BMPs on Public Streets: City of Fontana Structural Control BMPs On-Site: JPI Companies Easements: JPI Companies The Owner, JPI Companies shall assume all BMP maintenance and inspection responsibilities for the proposed project as mentioned above. This include BMP maintenance, catch basin inspection, storm drain maintenance, efficient irrigation, landscape maintenance, Hydrodynamic Separator, Underground stormwater storage chamber, Flow Control Structure. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-3 2.3 Potential Stormwater Pollutants Determine and describe expected stormwater pollutants of concern based on land uses and site activities (refer to Table 3-3 in the TGD for WQMP). Form 2.3-1 Pollutants of Concern Pollutant Please check: E=Expected, N=Not Expected Additional Information and Comments Pathogens (Bacterial / Virus) E N Wild birds and pet waste, Garbage Nutrients - Phosphorous E N Fertilizers, Food waste from garbage Nutrients - Nitrogen E N Fertilizers, Food waste from garbage Noxious Aquatic Plants E N N/A Sediment E N Driveway, Rooftop, Sidewalks, Roads and Landscape Areas Metals E N Cars Oil and Grease E N Leaking Vehicles Trash/Debris E N Poorly manage trash containers and vehicle parkin Pesticides / Herbicides E N Landscape Areas Organic Compounds E N Cars, Fertilizers Other: Total Suspended Solids E N Other: Oxigen Demanding Compounds E N Other: Petroleum Hydrocarbons E N Other: E N Other: E N Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 2-4 2.4 Water Quality Credits A water quality credit program is applicable for certain types of development projects if it is not feasible to meet the requirements for on-site LID. Proponents for eligible projects, as described below, can apply for water quality credits that would reduce project obligations for selecting and sizing other treatment BMP or participating in other alternative compliance programs. Refer to Section 6.2 in the TGD for WQMP to determine if water quality credits are applicable for the project. Form 2.4-1 Water Quality Credits 1 Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits: Select all that apply Redevelopment projects that reduce the overall impervious footprint of the project site. [Credit = % impervious reduced] Higher density development projects Vertical density [20%] 7 units/ acre [5%] Mixed use development, (combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses which incorporate design principles that demonstrate environmental benefits not realized through single use projects) [20%] Brownfield redevelopment (redevelop real property complicated by presence or potential of hazardous contaminants) [25%] Redevelopment projects in established historic district, historic preservation area, or similar significant core city center areas [10%] Transit-oriented developments (mixed use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to public transportation) [20%] In-fill projects (conversion of empty lots & other underused spaces < 5 acres, substantially surrounded by urban land uses, into more beneficially used spaces, such as residential or commercial areas) [10%] Live-Work developments (variety of developments designed to support residential and vocational needs) [20%] 2 Total Credit % (Total all credit percentages up to a maximum allowable credit of 50 percent) Description of Water Quality Credit Eligibility (if applicable) N/A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 3-1 Section 3 Site and Watershed Description Describe the project site conditions that will facilitate the selection of BMP through an analysis of the physical conditions and limitations of the site and its receiving waters. Identify distinct drainage areas (DA) that collect flow from a portion of the site and describe how runoff from each DA (and sub-watershed DMAs) is conveyed to the site outlet(s). Refer to Section 3.2 in the TGD for WQMP. The form below is provided as an example. Then complete Forms 3.2 and 3.3 for each DA on the project site. If the project has more than one drainage area for stormwater management, then complete additional versions of these forms for each DA / outlet. Form 3-1 Site Location and Hydrologic Features Site coordinates take GPS measurement at approximate center of site Latitude 34.0695° Longitude -117.4412° Thomas Bros Map page 1 San Bernardino County climatic region: Valley Mountain 2 Does the site have more than one drainage area (DA): Yes No If no, proceed to Form 3-2. If yes, then use this form to show a conceptual schematic describing DMAs and hydrologic feature connecting DMAs to the site outlet(s). An example is provided below that can be modified for proposed project or a drawing clearly showing DMA and flow routing may be attached Example only – modify for project specific WQMP using additional form Conveyance Briefly describe on-site drainage features to convey runoff that is not retained within a DMA DA1 DMA C flows to DA1 DMA A Ex. Bioretention overflow to vegetated bioswale with 4’ bottom width, 5:1 side slopes and bed slope of 0.01. Conveys runoff for 1000’ through DMA 1 to existing catch basin on SE corner of property DA1 DMA A to Outlet 1 The entire site is currently undeveloped and sheet flows to the adjacent property and street. There is no stormwater facilities onsite. DA1 DMA B to Outlet 1 DA2 to Outlet 2 Outlet 1 DA1 Outlet 2 DA2 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 3-2 Form 3-2 Existing Hydrologic Characteristics for Drainage Area 1 For Drainage Area 1’s sub-watershed DMA, provide the following characteristics DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D 1 DMA drainage area (ft2) 149,533 339,866 2 Existing site impervious area (ft2) 0 0 3 Antecedent moisture condition For desert areas, use http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/floodcontrol/pdf/2 0100412_map.pdf 1 1 4 Hydrologic soil group Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ A A 5 Longest flowpath length (ft) 984 712 6 Longest flowpath slope (ft/ft) 0.0147 0.0129 7 Current land cover type(s) Select from Fig C-3 of Hydrology Manual Annual Grass Annual Grass 8 Pre-developed pervious area condition: Based on the extent of wet season vegetated cover good >75%; Fair 50-75%; Poor <50% Attach photos of site to support rating Poor Poor Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 3-3 Form 3-2 Existing Hydrologic Characteristics for Drainage Area 1 (use only as needed for additional DMA w/in DA 1) For Drainage Area 1’s sub-watershed DMA, provide the following characteristics DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H 1 DMA drainage area (ft2) 2 Existing site impervious area (ft2) 3 Antecedent moisture condition For desert areas, use http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/floodcontrol/pdf/2 0100412_map.pdf 4 Hydrologic soil group Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ 5 Longest flowpath length (ft) 6 Longest flowpath slope (ft/ft) 7 Current land cover type(s) Select from Fig C-3 of Hydrology Manual 8 Pre-developed pervious area condition: Based on the extent of wet season vegetated cover good >75%; Fair 50-75%; Poor <50% Attach photos of site to support rating Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 3-4 Form 3-3 Watershed Description for Drainage Area Receiving waters Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool - http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ See ‘Drainage Facilities” link at this website The project is located within Santa Ana River Watershed. The site discharges to I-10 channel and then to San Sevaine Channel ultimately to Santa Ana River and then to Pacific Ocean. San Sevaine Channel is identified as the site's "Proximate Receiving Water". Applicable TMDLs Refer to Local Implementation Plan California 2020-2022 Integrated Report (303(d) List 303(d) listed impairments Refer to Local Implementation Plan and Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ and State Water Resources Control Board website – http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_iss ues/programs/tmdl/index.shtml San Sevaine Channel: Not an impared body, Santa Ana River, Reach 4: Pathogens Santa Ana River, Reach 3: Pathogens , Metals Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ None Unlined Downstream Water Bodies Refer to Watershed Mapping Tool – http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ Santa Ana River at Hidden Valley Wild Life area Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Yes Complete Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Assessment. Include Forms 4.2-2 through Form 4.2-5 and Hydromodification BMP Form 4.3-10 in submittal No Watershed–based BMP included in a RWQCB approved WAP Yes Attach verification of regional BMP evaluation criteria in WAP • More Effective than On-site LID • Remaining Capacity for Project DCV • Upstream of any Water of the US • Operational at Project Completion • Long-Term Maintenance Plan No Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-1 Section 4 Best Management Practices (BMP) 4.1 Source Control BMP 4.1.1 Pollution Prevention Non-structural and structural source control BMP are required to be incorporated into all new development and significant redevelopment projects. Form 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 are used to describe specific source control BMPs used in the WQMP or to explain why a certain BMP is not applicable. Table 7-3 of the TGD for WQMP provides a list of applicable source control BMP for projects with specific types of potential pollutant sources or activities. The source control BMP in this table must be implemented for projects with these specific types of potential pollutant sources or activities. The preparers of this WQMP have reviewed the source control BMP requirements for new development and significant redevelopment projects. The preparers have also reviewed the specific BMP required for project as specified in Forms 4.1-1 and 4.1-2. All applicable non-structural and structural source control BMP shall be implemented in the project. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-2 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, if not applicable, state reason Included Not Applicable N1 Education of Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants on Stormwater BMPs Educational materials will be provided to the Owner/Operator, including brochures and restrictions to reduce pollutants from reaching the storm drain system. Examples include Proper Maintenance Practices for Your Business, and Maintenance, Automobile Parking, etc. Refer to Section VII for a list of materials available and attached to this WQMP. N2 Activity Restrictions Activity restriction shall be developed by the Owner for the protection of water quality. Restrictions include, but are not limited to, prohibiting vehicle repair & washing in parking areas, prohibiting discharge of fertilizer, pesticides, or animal wastes to streets or storm drains, and any other activities that may potentially contribute to water pollution. N3 Landscape Management BMPs Management programs will be designed and implemented by the Owner to maintain all the common areas within the project site. These programs will cover how to reduce the potential pollutant sources of fertilizer and pesticide uses, utilization of water-efficient landscaping practices and proper disposal of landscape wastes by the owner and/or contractors. N4 BMP Maintenance The Owner/Operator will be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of each applicable non-structural BMP, as well as scheduling inspections and maintenance of all applicable structural BMP facilities through its staff, landscape contractor, and/or any other necessary maintenance contractors. Details on BMP maintenance are provided in Section 5 of this WQMP. N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance (How development will comply) Hazardous materials will not be stored on-site. N6 Local Water Quality Ordinances Not Applicable Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-3 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs N7 Spill Contingency Plan No use or storage of large amount of spillable material onsite. N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance No underground storage tanks are proposed. N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure Compliance Hazardous materials will not be stored on-site. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-4 Form 4.1-1 Non-Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, if not applicable, state reason Included Not Applicable N10 Uniform Fire Code Implementation Hazardous materials will not be stored on-site. N11 Litter/Debris Control Program The Owner/Operator will be responsible for performing trash pickup and sweeping of littered common areas on a weekly basis or whenever necessary. Responsibilities will also include noting improper disposal materials by the residence and reporting such violations for investigation N12 Employee Training All employees of the facility operator and any maintenance contractors will require training to ensure that employees are aware of maintenance activities that may result in pollutants reaching the storm drain. Training shall be conducted on an annual basis and include, but not be limited to, spill cleanup procedures, proper waste disposal, housekeeping practices, etc N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks Loading Docks are not proposed for this project. N14 Catch Basin Inspection Program All catch basin inlets shall be inspected and maintained by the Owner/Operator at least once a year, prior to the rainy season, no later than October 1st of each year. N15 Vacuum Sweeping of Private Streets and Parking Lots The Owner/Operator shall be responsible for sweeping all drive aisles and parking areas on a monthly basis. N16 Other Non-structural Measures for Public Agency Projects The City of Fontana shall be responsible for sweeping all public street on a monthly basis N17 Comply with all other applicable NPDES permits Since construction will be greater than 1 acre, project will apply for coverage under the General Construction Permit, SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ prior to start of land disturbing activities. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-5 Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, If not applicable, state reason Included Not Applicable S1 Provide storm drain system stencilling and signage (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-13) The phrase “No Dumping – Flows to Creek,” or an equally effective phrase will be stenciled on any drain inlets or catch basin inlets. Any illegible stencils shall be re- stenciled as soon as possible. S2 Design and construct outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-34) No outdoor material storage areas are proposed. S3 Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-32) The trash storage areas will be situated away from roof runoff and pavement runoff diverted. Dumpsters will be leak proof and covered. Litter control activities shall be performed on a weekly basis. S4 Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control (State-wide Model Landscape Ordinance; CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-12) The Owner/Operator will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all common landscape areas utilizing similar planting materials with similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff. The irrigation systems shall be in conformance with local water use efficiency guidelines. S5 Finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of 1-2 inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or pavement All landscape areas to comply with depressed landscape requirements. S6 Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-10) Slopes or channels are not proposed. S7 Covered dock areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-31) No dock areas are proposed. S8 Covered maintenance bays with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-31) No maintenance bays are proposed. S9 Vehicle wash areas with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) No vehicle wash areas are proposed. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-6 S10 Covered outdoor processing areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-36) No outdoor processing areas are proposed. Form 4.1-2 Structural Source Control BMPs Identifier Name Check One Describe BMP Implementation OR, If not applicable, state reason Included Not Applicable S11 Equipment wash areas with spill containment plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) No equipment wash areas are proposed. S12 Fueling areas (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-30) No fueling areas are proposed. S13 Hillside landscaping (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-10) Project is not located in a hillside area. S14 Wash water control for food preparation areas No food preparation areas are proposed. S15 Community car wash racks (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD-33) No community car wash racks are proposed. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-7 4.1.2 Preventative LID Site Design Practices Site design practices associated with new LID requirements in the MS4 Permit should be considered in the earliest phases of a project. Preventative site design practices can result in smaller DCV for LID BMP and hydromodification control BMP by reducing runoff generation. Describe site design and drainage plan including: Refer to Section 5.2 of the TGD for WQMP for more details. Form 4.1-3 Preventative LID Site Design Practices Checklist Site Design Practices If yes, explain how preventative site design practice is addressed in project site plan. If no, other LID BMPs must be selected to meet targets Minimize impervious areas: Yes No Explanation: Although the project will increase impervious surfaces as compared to existing conditions, runoff will drain to underground on-site Infiltration chamber systems. Also, pervious and landscape areas are proposed. Maximize natural infiltration capacity: Yes No Explanation: The underlying soils for the entire site is highly permeable (2.7 to 3.6-inch/hr) thus the location of the constructed element is not restricted. Thus natural infiltration capacity will be maintained as practically posible. Preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration: Yes No Explanation: General discharge location after construction will remain as it was before construction. Underground storm drain system will increase the time of concentration. Disconnect impervious areas: Yes No Explanation: Due to the type of development impervious disconnect is not achievable. However, the site runoff will drain to underground on-site infiltration chamber system. Protect existing vegetation and sensitive areas: Yes No Explanation: There are no vegetation to preserve. Re-vegetate disturbed areas: Yes No Explanation: All disturbed areas will either be paved or landscaped. Minimize unnecessary compaction in stormwater retention/infiltration basin/trench areas: Yes No Explanation: The bottom of the underground Infiltration chamber will be placed on natural ground. Utilize vegetated drainage swales in place of underground piping or imperviously lined swales: Yes No Explanation: Vegetated swales were not proposed for this project. Stake off areas that will be used for landscaping to minimize compaction during construction : Yes No Explanation: This project will be mass grading operation of the entire site. Thus, practically it is impossible to stake off future landscaped area. A narrative of site design practices utilized or rationale for not using practices A narrative of how site plan incorporates preventive site design practices Include an attached Site Plan layout which shows how preventative site design practices are included in WQMP Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-8 4.2 Project Performance Criteria The purpose of this section of the Project WQMP is to establish targets for post-development hydrology based on performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit. These targets include runoff volume for water quality control (referred to as LID design capture volume), and runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff for protection of any downstream waterbody segments with a HCOC. If the project has more than one outlet for stormwater runoff, then complete additional versions of these forms for each DA / outlet. Methods applied in the following forms include: For LID BMP Design Capture Volume (DCV), the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires use of the P6 method (MS4 Permit Section XI.D.6a.ii) – Form 4.2-1 For HCOC pre- and post-development hydrologic calculation, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program requires the use of the Rational Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section D). Forms 4.2-2 through Form 4.2-5 calculate hydrologic variables including runoff volume, time of concentration, and peak runoff from the project site pre- and post-development using the Hydrology Manual Rational Method approach. For projects greater than 640 acres (1.0 mi2), the Rational Method and these forms should not be used. For such projects, the Unit Hydrograph Method (San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual Section E) shall be applied for hydrologic calculations for HCOC performance criteria. Refer to Section 4 in the TGD for WQMP for detailed guidance and instructions. Form 4.2-1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume (DA 1) 1 Project area DA 1 (ft2): 489,399 2 Imperviousness after applying preventative site design practices (Imp%): 80.0 3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): _0.599 Rc = 0.858(Imp%)^3-0.78(Imp%)^2+0.774(Imp%)+0.04 4 Determine 1-hour rainfall depth for a 2-year return period P2yr-1hr (in): 0.538 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 5 Compute P6, Mean 6-hr Precipitation (inches): 0.797 P6 = Item 4 *C1, where C1 is a function of site climatic region specified in Form 3-1 Item 1 (Valley = 1.4807; Mountain = 1.909; Desert = 1.2371) 6 Drawdown Rate Use 48 hours as the default condition. Selection and use of the 24 hour drawdown time condition is subject to approval by the local jurisdiction. The necessary BMP footprint is a function of drawdown time. While shorter drawdown times reduce the performance criteria for LID BMP design capture volume, the depth of water that can be stored is also reduced. 24-hrs 48-hrs 7 Compute design capture volume, DCV (ft3): 38,220 DCV = 1/12 * [Item 1* Item 3 *Item 5 * C2], where C2 is a function of drawdown rate (24-hr = 1.582; 48-hr = 1.963) Compute separate DCV for each outlet from the project site per schematic drawn in Form 3-1 Item 2 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-9 Form 4.2-2 Summary of HCOC Assessment (DA 1) Does project have the potential to cause or contribute to an HCOC in a downstream channel: Yes No Go to: http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/ If “Yes”, then complete HCOC assessment of site hydrology for 2yr storm event using Forms 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 and insert results below (Forms 4.2-3 through 4.2-5 may be replaced by computer software analysis based on the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual) If “No,” then proceed to Section 4.3 Project Conformance Analysis Condition Runoff Volume (ft3) Time of Concentration (min) Peak Runoff (cfs) Pre-developed 1 Form 4.2-3 Item 12 2 Form 4.2-4 Item 13 3 Form 4.2-5 Item 10 Post-developed 4 Form 4.2-3 Item 13 5 Form 4.2-4 Item 14 6 Form 4.2-5 Item 14 Difference 7 Item 4 – Item 1 8 Item 2 – Item 5 9 Item 6 – Item 3 Difference (as % of pre-developed) 10 % Item 7 / Item 1 11 % Item 8 / Item 2 12 % Item 9 / Item 3 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-10 Form 4.2-3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume (DA 1) N/A Weighted Curve Number Determination for: Pre-developed DA DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H 1a Land Cover type 2a Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) 3a DMA Area, ft2 sum of areas of DMA should equal area of DA 4a Curve Number (CN) use Items 1 and 2 to select the appropriate CN from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for WQMP Weighted Curve Number Determination for: Post-developed DA DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA E DMA F DMA G DMA H 1b Land Cover type 2b Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) 3b DMA Area, ft2 sum of areas of DMA should equal area of DA 4b Curve Number (CN) use Items 5 and 6 to select the appropriate CN from Appendix C-2 of the TGD for WQMP 5 Pre-Developed area-weighted CN: 7 Pre-developed soil storage capacity, S (in): S = (1000 / Item 5) - 10 9 Initial abstraction, Ia (in): Ia = 0.2 * Item 7 6 Post-Developed area-weighted CN: 8 Post-developed soil storage capacity, S (in): S = (1000 / Item 6) - 10 10 Initial abstraction, Ia (in): Ia = 0.2 * Item 8 11 Precipitation for 2 yr, 24 hr storm (in): Go to: http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html 12 Pre-developed Volume (ft3): Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 9)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 9 + Item 7) 13 Post-developed Volume (ft3): Vpre =(1 / 12) * (Item sum of Item 3) * [(Item 11 – Item 10)^2 / ((Item 11 – Item 10 + Item 8) 14 Volume Reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement, (ft3): VHCOC = (Item 13 * 0.95) – Item 12 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-11 Form 4.2-4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration (DA 1) N/A Compute time of concentration for pre and post developed conditions for each DA (For projects using the Hydrology Manual complete the form below) Variables Pre-developed DA1 Use additional forms if there are more than 4 DMA Post-developed DA1 Use additional forms if there are more than 4 DMA DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA D 1 Length of flowpath (ft) Use Form 3-2 Item 5 for pre-developed condition 2 Change in elevation (ft) 3 Slope (ft/ft), So = Item 2 / Item 1 4 Land cover 5 Initial DMA Time of Concentration (min) Appendix C-1 of the TGD for WQMP 6 Length of conveyance from DMA outlet to project site outlet (ft) May be zero if DMA outlet is at project site outlet 7 Cross-sectional area of channel (ft2) 8 Wetted perimeter of channel (ft) 9 Manning’s roughness of channel (n) 10 Channel flow velocity (ft/sec) Vfps = (1.49 / Item 9) * (Item 7/Item 8)^0.67 * (Item 3)^0.5 11 Travel time to outlet (min) Tt = Item 6 / (Item 10 * 60) 12 Total time of concentration (min) Tc = Item 5 + Item 11 13 Pre-developed time of concentration (min): Minimum of Item 12 pre-developed DMA 14 Post-developed time of concentration (min): Minimum of Item 12 post-developed DMA 15 Additional time of concentration needed to meet HCOC requirement (min): TC-HCOC = (Item 13 * 0.95) – Item 14 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-12 Form 4.2-5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff (DA 1) N/A Compute peak runoff for pre- and post-developed conditions Variables Pre-developed DA to Project Outlet (Use additional forms if more than 3 DMA) Post-developed DA to Project Outlet (Use additional forms if more than 3 DMA) DMA A DMA B DMA C DMA A DMA B DMA C 1 Rainfall Intensity for storm duration equal to time of concentration Ipeak = 10^(LOG Form 4.2-1 Item 4 - 0.6 LOG Form 4.2-4 Item 5 /60) 2 Drainage Area of each DMA (Acres) For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 3 Ratio of pervious area to total area For DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 4 Pervious area infiltration rate (in/hr) Use pervious area CN and antecedent moisture condition with Appendix C-3 of the TGD for WQMP 5 Maximum loss rate (in/hr) Fm = Item 3 * Item 4 Use area-weighted Fm from DMA with outlet at project site outlet, include upstream DMA (Using example schematic in Form 3-1, DMA A will include drainage from DMA C) 6 Peak Flow from DMA (cfs) Qp =Item 2 * 0.9 * (Item 1 - Item 5) 7 Time of concentration adjustment factor for other DMA to site discharge point Form 4.2-4 Item 12 DMA / Other DMA upstream of site discharge point (If ratio is greater than 1.0, then use maximum value of 1.0) DMA A n/a n/a DMA B n/a n/a DMA C n/a n/a 8 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A: Qp = Item 6DMAA + [Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAA/2] + [Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAA/3] 9 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B: Qp = Item 6DMAB + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAB/1] + [Item 6DMAC * (Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAC)/(Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAC)* Item 7DMAB/3] 10 Pre-developed Qp at Tc for DMA C: Qp = Item 6DMAC + [Item 6DMAA * (Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAA)/(Item 1DMAA - Item 5DMAA)* Item 7DMAC/1] + [Item 6DMAB * (Item 1DMAC - Item 5DMAB)/(Item 1DMAB - Item 5DMAB)* Item 7DMAC/2] 10 Peak runoff from pre-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs): Maximum of Item 8, 9, and 10 (including additional forms as needed) 11 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA A: Same as Item 8 for post-developed values 12 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA B: Same as Item 9 for post-developed values 13 Post-developed Qp at Tc for DMA C: Same as Item 10 for post-developed values 14 Peak runoff from post-developed condition confluence analysis (cfs): Maximum of Item 11, 12, and 13 (including additional forms as needed) 15 Peak runoff reduction needed to meet HCOC Requirement (cfs): Qp-HCOC = (Item 14 * 0.95) – Item 10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-13 4.3 Project Conformance Analysis Complete the following forms for each project site DA to document that the proposed LID BMPs conform to the project DCV developed to meet performance criteria specified in the MS4 Permit (WQMP Template Section 4.2). For the LID DCV, the forms are ordered according to hierarchy of BMP selection as required by the MS4 Permit (see Section 5.3.1 in the TGD for WQMP). The forms compute the following for on-site LID BMP: Site Design and Hydrologic Source Controls (Form 4.3-2) Retention and Infiltration (Form 4.3-3) Harvested and Use (Form 4.3-4) or Biotreatment (Form 4.3-5). At the end of each form, additional fields facilitate the determination of the extent of mitigation provided by the specific BMP category, allowing for use of the next category of BMP in the hierarchy, if necessary. The first step in the analysis, using Section 5.3.2.1 of the TGD for WQMP, is to complete Forms 4.3-1 and 4.3-3) to determine if retention and infiltration BMPs are infeasible for the project. For each feasibility criterion in Form 4.3-1, if the answer is “Yes,” provide all study findings that includes relevant calculations, maps, data sources, etc. used to make the determination of infeasibility. Next, complete Forms 4.3-2 and 4.3-4 to determine the feasibility of applicable HSC and harvest and use BMPs, and, if their implementation is feasible, the extent of mitigation of the DCV. If no site constraints exist that would limit the type of BMP to be implemented in a DA, evaluate the use of combinations of LID BMPs, including all applicable HSC BMPs to maximize on-site retention of the DCV. If no combination of BMP can mitigate the entire DCV, implement the single BMP type, or combination of BMP types, that maximizes on-site retention of the DCV within the minimum effective area. If the combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs are unable to mitigate the entire DCV, then biotreatment BMPs may be implemented by the project proponent. If biotreatment BMPs are used, then they must be sized to provide sufficient capacity for effective treatment of the remainder of the volume-based performance criteria that cannot be achieved with LID BMPs (TGD for WQMP Section 5.4.4.2). Under no circumstances shall any portion of the DCV be released from the site without effective mitigation and/or treatment. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-14 Form 4.3-1 Infiltration BMP Feasibility (DA 1) Feasibility Criterion – Complete evaluation for each DA on the Project Site 1 Would infiltration BMP pose significant risk for groundwater related concerns? Yes No Refer to Section 5.3.2.1 of the TGD for WQMP If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 2 Would installation of infiltration BMP significantly increase the risk of geotechnical hazards? Yes No (Yes, if the answer to any of the following questions is yes, as established by a geotechnical expert): · The location is less than 50 feet away from slopes steeper than 15 percent · The location is less than eight feet from building foundations or an alternative setback. · A study certified by a geotechnical professional or an available watershed study determines that stormwater infiltration would result in significantly increased risks of geotechnical hazards. If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 3 Would infiltration of runoff on a Project site violate downstream water rights? Yes No If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 4 Is proposed infiltration facility located on hydrologic soil group (HSG) D soils or does the site geotechnical investigation indicate presence of soil characteristics, which support categorization as D soils? Yes No If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 5 Is the design infiltration rate, after accounting for safety factor of 2.0, below proposed facility less than 0.3 in/hr (accounting for soil amendments)? Yes No If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 6 Would on-site infiltration or reduction of runoff over pre-developed conditions be partially or fully inconsistent with watershed management strategies as defined in the WAP, or impair beneficial uses? Yes No See Section 3.5 of the TGD for WQMP and WAP If Yes, Provide basis: (attach) 7 Any answer from Item 1 through Item 3 is “Yes”: Yes No If yes, infiltration of any volume is not feasible onsite. Proceed to Form 4.3-4, Harvest and Use BMP. If no, then proceed to Item 8 below. 8 Any answer from Item 4 through Item 6 is “Yes”: Yes No If yes, infiltration is permissible but is not required to be considered. Proceed to Form 4.3-2, Hydrologic Source Control BMP. If no, then proceed to Item 9, below. 9 All answers to Item 1 through Item 6 are “No”: Infiltration of the full DCV is potentially feasible, LID infiltration BMP must be designed to infiltrate the full DCV to the MEP. Proceed to Form 4.3-2, Hydrologic Source Control BMP. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-15 4.3.1 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP Section XI.E. of the Permit emphasizes the use of LID preventative measures; and the use of LID HSC BMPs reduces the portion of the DCV that must be addressed in downstream BMPs. Therefore, all applicable HSC shall be provided except where they are mutually exclusive with each other, or with other BMPs. Mutual exclusivity may result from overlapping BMP footprints such that either would be potentially feasible by itself, but both could not be implemented. Please note that while there are no numeric standards regarding the use of HSC, if a project cannot feasibly meet BMP sizing requirements or cannot fully address HCOCs, feasibility of all applicable HSC must be part of demonstrating that the BMP system has been designed to retain the maximum feasible portion of the DCV. Complete Form 4.3-2 to identify and calculate estimated retention volume from implementing site design HSC BMP. Refer to Section 5.4.1 in the TGD for more detailed guidance. 1 Implementation of Impervious Area Dispersion BMP (i.e. routing runoff from impervious to pervious areas), excluding impervious areas planned for routing to on-lot infiltration BMP: Yes No If yes, complete Items 2-5; If no, proceed to Item 6 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 2 Total impervious area draining to pervious area (ft2) 0 3 Ratio of pervious area receiving runoff to impervious area 0 4 Retention volume achieved from impervious area dispersion (ft3) V = Item2 * Item 3 * (0.5/12), assuming retention of 0.5 inches of runoff 0 5 Sum of retention volume achieved from impervious area dispersion (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 4 for all BMPs 6 Implementation of Localized On-lot Infiltration BMPs (e.g. on-lot rain gardens): Yes No If yes, complete Items 7- 13 for aggregate of all on-lot infiltration BMP in each DA; If no, proceed to Item 14 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 7 Ponding surface area (ft2) 8 Ponding depth (ft) 9 Surface area of amended soil/gravel (ft2) 10 Average depth of amended soil/gravel (ft) 11 Average porosity of amended soil/gravel 12 Retention volume achieved from on-lot infiltration (ft3) Vretention = (Item 7 *Item 8) + (Item 9 * Item 10 * Item 11) 13 Runoff volume retention from on-lot infiltration (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 12 for all BMPs Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-16 Form 4.3-2 cont. Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1) 14 Implementation of evapotranspiration BMP (green, brown, or blue roofs): Yes No If yes, complete Items 15-20. If no, proceed to Item 21 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 15 Rooftop area planned for ET BMP (ft2) 16 Average wet season ET demand (in/day) Use local values, typical ~ 0.1 17 Daily ET demand (ft3/day) Item 15 * (Item 16 / 12) 18 Drawdown time (hrs) Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1 19 Retention Volume (ft3) Vretention = Item 17 * (Item 18 / 24) 20 Runoff volume retention from evapotranspiration BMPs (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 19 for all BMPs 21 Implementation of Street Trees: Yes No If yes, complete Items 22-25. If no, proceed to Item 26 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 22 Number of Street Trees 23 Average canopy cover over impervious area (ft2) 24 Runoff volume retention from street trees (ft3) Vretention = Item 22 * Item 23 * (0.05/12) assume runoff retention of 0.05 inches 25 Runoff volume retention from street tree BMPs (ft3): Vretention = Sum of Item 24 for all BMPs 26 Implementation of residential rain barrel/cisterns: Yes No If yes, complete Items 27-29; If no, proceed to Item 30 DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 27 Number of rain barrels/cisterns 28 Runoff volume retention from rain barrels/cisterns (ft3) Vretention = Item 27 * 3 29 Runoff volume retention from residential rain barrels/Cisterns (ft3): Vretention =Sum of Item 28 for all BMPs 30 Total Retention Volume from Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs: 0 Sum of Items 5, 13, 20, 25 and 29 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-17 4.3.2 Infiltration BMPs Use Form 4.3-3 to compute on-site retention of runoff from proposed retention and infiltration BMPs. Volume retention estimates are sensitive to the percolation rate used, which determines the amount of runoff that can be infiltrated within the specified drawdown time. The infiltration safety factor reduces field measured percolation to account for potential inaccuracy associated with field measurements, declining BMP performance over time, and compaction during construction. Appendix D of the TGD for WQMP provides guidance on estimating an appropriate safety factor to use in Form 4.3-3. If site constraints limit the use of BMPs to a single type and implementation of retention and infiltration BMPs mitigate no more than 40% of the DCV, then they are considered infeasible and the Project Proponent may evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs lower in the LID hierarchy of use (Section 5.5.1 of the TGD for WQMP) If implementation of infiltrations BMPs is feasible as determined using Form 4.3-1, then LID infiltration BMPs shall be implemented to the MEP (section 4.1 of the TGD for WQMP). . Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-18 Form 4.3-3 Infiltration LID BMP - including underground BMPs (DA 1) 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC BMP (ft3): Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 BMP Type Use columns to the right to compute runoff volume retention from proposed infiltration BMP (select BMP from Table 5-4 in TGD for WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs DA DMA BMP Type Underground Infiltration DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 2 Infiltration rate of underlying soils (in/hr) See Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D of the TGD for WQMP for minimum requirements for assessment methods 3.0 3 Infiltration safety factor See TGD Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D 2.5 4 Design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 1.2 5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2-1 48 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details N/A 7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12*Item 4*Item 5) or Item 6 4.8 8 Infiltrating surface area, SABMP (ft2) the lesser of the area needed for infiltration of full DCV or minimum space requirements from Table 5.7 of the TGD for WQMP 7,963 9 Amended soil depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 in the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details N/A 10 Amended soil porosity N/A 11 Gravel depth, dmedia (ft) Only included in certain BMP types, see Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP for BMP design details N/A 12 Gravel porosity 0.35 13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 3 14 Above Ground Retention Volume (ft3) Vretention = Item 8 * [Item7 + (Item 9 * Item 10) + (Item 11 * Item 12) + (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))] 0 15 Underground Retention Volume (ft3) Volume determined using manufacturer’s specifications and calculations 38,405 16 Total Retention Volume from LID Infiltration BMPs: 38,405 (Sum of Items 14 and 15 for all infiltration BMP included in plan) 17 Fraction of DCV achieved with infiltration BMP: 100% Retention% = Item 16 / Form 4.2-1 Item 7 18 Is full LID DCV retained onsite with combination of hydrologic source control and LID retention/infiltration BMPs? Yes No If yes, demonstrate conformance using Form 4.3-10; If no, then reduce Item 3, Factor of Safety to 2.0 and increase Item 8, Infiltrating Surface Area, such that the portion of the site area used for retention and infiltration BMPs equals or exceeds the minimum effective area thresholds (Table 5-7 of the TGD for WQMP) for the applicable category of development and repeat all above calculations. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-19 4.3.3 Harvest and Use BMP Harvest and use BMP may be considered if the full LID DCV cannot be met by maximizing infiltration BMPs. Use Form 4.3-4 to compute on-site retention of runoff from proposed harvest and use BMPs. Volume retention estimates for harvest and use BMPs are sensitive to the on-site demand for captured stormwater. Since irrigation water demand is low in the wet season, when most rainfall events occur in San Bernardino County, the volume of water that can be used within a specified drawdown period is relatively low. The bottom portion of Form 4.3-4 facilitates the necessary computations to show infeasibility if a minimum incremental benefit of 40 percent of the LID DCV would not be achievable with MEP implementation of on-site harvest and use of stormwater (Section 5.5.4 of the TGD for WQMP). Form 4.3-4 Harvest and Use BMPs (DA 1) N/A 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC or infiltration BMP (ft3): N/A Vunmet = Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16 BMP Type(s) Compute runoff volume retention from proposed harvest and use BMP (Select BMPs from Table 5-4 of the TGD for WQMP) - Use additional forms for more BMPs DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 2 Describe cistern or runoff detention facility 3 Storage volume for proposed detention type (ft3) Volume of cistern 4 Landscaped area planned for use of harvested stormwater (ft2) 5 Average wet season daily irrigation demand (in/day) Use local values, typical ~ 0.1 in/day 6 Daily water demand (ft3/day) Item 4 * (Item 5 / 12) 7 Drawdown time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1 8Retention Volume (ft3) Vretention = Minimum of (Item 3) or (Item 6 * (Item 7 / 24)) 9 Total Retention Volume (ft3) from Harvest and Use BMP Sum of Item 8 for all harvest and use BMP included in plan 10 Is the full DCV retained with a combination of LID HSC, retention and infiltration, and harvest & use BMPs? Yes No If yes, demonstrate conformance using Form 4.3-10. If no, then re-evaluate combinations of all LID BMP and optimize their implementation such that the maximum portion of the DCV is retained on-site (using a single BMP type or combination of BMP types). If the full DCV cannot be mitigated after this optimization process, proceed to Section 4.3.4. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-20 4.3.4 Biotreatment BMP Biotreatment BMPs may be considered if the full LID DCV cannot be met by maximizing retention and infiltration, and harvest and use BMPs. A key consideration when using biotreatment BMP is the effectiveness of the proposed BMP in addressing the pollutants of concern for the project (see Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP). Use Form 4.3-5 to summarize the potential for volume based and/or flow based biotreatment options to biotreat the remaining unmet LID DCV w. Biotreatment computations are included as follows: · Use Form 4.3-6 to compute biotreatment in small volume based biotreatment BMP (e.g. bioretention w/underdrains); · Use Form 4.3-7 to compute biotreatment in large volume based biotreatment BMP (e.g. constructed wetlands); · Use Form 4.3-8 to compute sizing criteria for flow-based biotreatment BMP (e.g. bioswales) Form 4.3-5 Selection and Evaluation of Biotreatment BMP (DA 1) N/A 1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC, infiltration, or harvest and use BMP for potential biotreatment (ft3): N/A Form 4.2-1 Item 7 - Form 4.3-2 Item 30 – Form 4.3-3 Item 16- Form 4.3-4 Item 9 List pollutants of concern Copy from Form 2.3-1. 2 Biotreatment BMP Selected (Select biotreatment BMP(s) necessary to ensure all pollutants of concern are addressed through Unit Operations and Processes, described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP) Volume-based biotreatment Use Forms 4.3-6 and 4.3-7 to compute treated volume Flow-based biotreatment Use Form 4.3-8 to compute treated volume Bioretention with underdrain Planter box with underdrain Constructed wetlands Wet extended detention Dry extended detention Vegetated swale Vegetated filter strip Proprietary biotreatment 3 Volume biotreated in volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): Form 4.3- 6 Item 15 + Form 4.3-7 Item 13 4 Compute remaining LID DCV with implementation of volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): Item 1 – Item 3 5 Remaining fraction of LID DCV for sizing flow based biotreatment BMP: % Item 4 / Item 1 6 Flow-based biotreatment BMP capacity provided (cfs): Use Figure 5-2 of the TGD for WQMP to determine flow capacity required to provide biotreatment of remaining percentage of unmet LID DCV (Item 5), for the project’s precipitation zone (Form 3-1 Item 1) 7 Metrics for MEP determination: · Provided a WQMP with the portion of site area used for suite of LID BMP equal to minimum thresholds in Table 5-7 of the TGD for WQMP for the proposed category of development: If maximized on-site retention BMPs is feasible for partial capture, then LID BMP implementation must be optimized to retain and infiltrate the maximum portion of the DCV possible within the prescribed minimum effective area. The remaining portion of the DCV shall then be mitigated using biotreatment BMP. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-21 Form 4.3-6 Volume Based Biotreatment (DA 1) – Bioretention and Planter Boxes with Underdrains N/A Biotreatment BMP Type (Bioretention w/underdrain, planter box w/underdrain, other comparable BMP) DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 1 Pollutants addressed with BMP List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP 2 Amended soil infiltration rate Typical ~ 5.0 3 Amended soil infiltration safety factor Typical ~ 2.0 4 Amended soil design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 from Form 4.2-1 6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12 * Item 4 * Item 5) or Item 6 8 Amended soil surface area (ft2) 9 Amended soil depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 10 Amended soil porosity, n 11 Gravel depth (ft) see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 12 Gravel porosity, n 13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 14 Biotreated Volume (ft3) Vbiotreated = Item 8 * [(Item 7/2) + (Item 9 * Item 10) +(Item 11 * Item 12) + (Item 13 * (Item 4 / 12))] 15 Total biotreated volume from bioretention and/or planter box with underdrains BMP: Sum of Item 14 for all volume-based BMPs included in this form Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-22 Form 4.3-7 Volume Based Biotreatment (DA 1) – Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention N/A Biotreatment BMP Type Constructed wetlands, extended wet detention, extended dry detention, or other comparable proprietary BMP. If BMP includes multiple modules (e.g. forebay and main basin), provide separate estimates for storage and pollutants treated in each module. DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) Forebay Basin Forebay Basin 1 Pollutants addressed with BMP forebay and basin List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in Table 5-5 of the TGD for WQMP 2 Bottom width (ft) 3 Bottom length (ft) 4 Bottom area (ft2) Abottom = Item 2 * Item 3 5 Side slope (ft/ft) 6 Depth of storage (ft) 7 Water surface area (ft2) Asurface =(Item 2 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) * (Item 3 + (2 * Item 5 * Item 6)) 8 Storage volume (ft3) For BMP with a forebay, ensure fraction of total storage is within ranges specified in BMP specific fact sheets, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details V =Item 6 / 3 * [Item 4 + Item 7 + (Item 4 * Item 7)^0.5] 9 Drawdown Time (hrs) Copy Item 6 from Form 2.1 10 Outflow rate (cfs) QBMP = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) / (Item 9 * 3600) 11 Duration of design storm event (hrs) 12 Biotreated Volume (ft3) Vbiotreated = (Item 8forebay + Item 8basin) +( Item 10 * Item 11 * 3600) 13 Total biotreated volume from constructed wetlands, extended dry detention, or extended wet detention : (Sum of Item 12 for all BMP included in plan) Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-23 Form 4.3-8 Flow Based Biotreatment (DA 1) N/A Biotreatment BMP Type Vegetated swale, vegetated filter strip, or other comparable proprietary BMP DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type DA DMA BMP Type (Use additional forms for more BMPs) 1 Pollutants addressed with BMP List all pollutant of concern that will be effectively reduced through specific Unit Operations and Processes described in TGD Table 5-5 2 Flow depth for water quality treatment (ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 3 Bed slope (ft/ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 4 Manning's roughness coefficient 5 Bottom width (ft) bw = (Form 4.3-5 Item 6 * Item 4) / (1.49 * Item 2^1.67 * Item 3^0.5) 6 Side Slope (ft/ft) BMP specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 7 Cross sectional area (ft2) A = (Item 5 * Item 2) + (Item 6 * Item 2^2) 8 Water quality flow velocity (ft/sec) V = Form 4.3-5 Item 6 / Item 7 9 Hydraulic residence time (min) Pollutant specific, see Table 5-6 of the TGD for WQMP for reference to BMP design details 10 Length of flow based BMP (ft) L = Item 8 * Item 9 * 60 11 Water surface area at water quality flow depth (ft2) SAtop = (Item 5 + (2 * Item 2 * Item 6)) * Item 10 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-24 4.3.5 Conformance Summary Complete Form 4.3-9 to demonstrate how on-site LID DCV is met with proposed site design hydrologic source control, infiltration, harvest and use, and/or biotreatment BMP. The bottom line of the form is used to describe the basis for infeasibility determination for on-site LID BMP to achieve full LID DCV, and provides methods for computing remaining volume to be addressed in an alternative compliance plan. If the project has more than one outlet, then complete additional versions of this form for each outlet. Form 4.3-9 Conformance Summary and Alternative Compliance Volume Estimate (DA 1) 1 Total LID DCV for the Project DA-1 (ft3): 38,220 Copy Item 7 in Form 4.2-1 2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control LID BMP (ft3): 0 Copy Item 30 in Form 4.3-2 3 On-site retention with LID infiltration BMP (ft3): 38,405 Copy Item 16 in Form 4.3-3 4 On-site retention with LID harvest and use BMP (ft3): 0 Copy Item 9 in Form 4.3-4 5 On-site biotreatment with volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): 0 Copy Item 3 in Form 4.3-5 6 Flow capacity provided by flow based biotreatment BMP (cfs): 0 Copy Item 6 in Form 4.3-5 7 LID BMP performance criteria are achieved if answer to any of the following is “Yes”: · Full retention of LID DCV with site design HSC, infiltration, or harvest and use BMP: Yes No If yes, sum of Items 2, 3, and 4 is greater than Item 1 · Combination of on-site retention BMPs for a portion of the LID DCV and volume-based biotreatment BMP that address all pollutants of concern for the remaining LID DCV: Yes No If yes, a) sum of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 is greater than Item 1, and Items 2, 3 and 4 are maximized; or b) Item 6 is greater than Form 4.3--5 Item 6 and Items 2, 3 and 4 are maximized On-site retention and infiltration is determined to be infeasible and biotreatment BMP provide biotreatment for all pollutants of concern for full LID DCV: Yes No If yes, Form 4.3-1 Items 7 and 8 were both checked yes 8 If the LID DCV is not achieved by any of these means, then the project may be allowed to develop an alternative compliance plan. Check box that describes the scenario which caused the need for alternative compliance: · Combination of HSC, retention and infiltration, harvest and use, and biotreatment BMPs provide less than full LID DCV capture: Checked yes for Form 4.3-5 Item 7, Item 6 is zero, and sum of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 is less than Item 1. If so, apply water quality credits and calculate volume for alternative compliance, Valt = (Item 1 – Item 2 – Item 3 – Item 4 – Item 5) * (100 - Form 2.4-1 Item 2)% · An approved Watershed Action Plan (WAP) demonstrates that water quality and hydrologic impacts of urbanization are more effective when managed in at an off-site facility: Attach appropriate WAP section, including technical documentation, showing effectiveness comparisons for the project site and regional watershed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-25 4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP (No HCOC exists for this site) Use Form 4.3-10 to compute the remaining runoff volume retention, after LID BMP are implemented, needed to address HCOC, and the increase in time of concentration and decrease in peak runoff necessary to meet targets for protection of waterbodies with a potential HCOC. Describe hydromodification control BMP that address HCOC, which may include off-site BMP and/or in-stream controls. Section 5.6 of the TGD for WQMP provides additional details on selection and evaluation of hydromodification control BMP. Form 4.3-10 Hydromodification Control BMPs (DA 1) 1 Volume reduction needed for HCOC performance criteria (ft3): 0 (Form 4.2-2 Item 4 * 0.95) – Form 4.2-2 Item 1 2 On-site retention with site design hydrologic source control, infiltration, and harvest and use LID BMP (ft3): Sum of Form 4.3-9 Items 2, 3, and 4 Evaluate option to increase implementation of on-site retention in Forms 4.3-2, 4.3-3, and 4.3-4 in excess of LID DCV toward achieving HCOC volume reduction 3 Remaining volume for HCOC volume capture (ft3): Item 1 – Item 2 4 Volume capture provided by incorporating additional on-site or off-site retention BMPs (ft3): Existing downstream BMP may be used to demonstrate additional volume capture (if so, attach to this WQMP a hydrologic analysis showing how the additional volume would be retained during a 2-yr storm event for the regional watershed) 5 If Item 4 is less than Item 3, incorporate in-stream controls on downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification Attach in-stream control BMP selection and evaluation to this WQMP 6 Is Form 4.2-2 Item 11 less than or equal to 5%: Yes No If yes, HCOC performance criteria is achieved. If no, select one or more mitigation options below: · Demonstrate increase in time of concentration achieved by proposed LID site design, LID BMP, and additional on-site or off-site retention BMP BMP upstream of a waterbody segment with a potential HCOC may be used to demonstrate increased time of concentration through hydrograph attenuation (if so, show that the hydraulic residence time provided in BMP for a 2-year storm event is equal or greater than the addition time of concentration requirement in Form 4.2-4 Item 15) · Increase time of concentration by preserving pre-developed flow path and/or increase travel time by reducing slope and increasing cross-sectional area and roughness for proposed on-site conveyance facilities · Incorporate appropriate in-stream controls for downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification, in a plan approved and signed by a licensed engineer in the State of California 7 Form 4.2-2 Item 12 less than or equal to 5%: Yes No If yes, HCOC performance criteria is achieved. If no, select one or more mitigation options below: · Demonstrate reduction in peak runoff achieved by proposed LID site design, LID BMPs, and additional on-site or off- site retention BMPs BMPs upstream of a waterbody segment with a potential HCOC may be used to demonstrate additional peak runoff reduction through hydrograph attenuation (if so, attach to this WQMP, a hydrograph analysis showing how the peak runoff would be reduced during a 2-yr storm event) · Incorporate appropriate in-stream controls for downstream waterbody segment to prevent impacts due to hydromodification, in a plan approved and signed by a licensed engineer in the State of California Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 4-26 4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable) N/A Describe an alternative compliance plan (if applicable) for projects not fully able to infiltrate, harvest and use, or biotreat the DCV via on-site LID practices. A project proponent must develop an alternative compliance plan to address the remainder of the LID DCV. Depending on project type some projects may qualify for water quality credits that can be applied to reduce the DCV that must be treated prior to development of an alternative compliance plan (see Form 2.4-1, Water Quality Credits). Form 4.3-9 Item 8 includes instructions on how to apply water quality credits when computing the DCV that must be met through alternative compliance. Alternative compliance plans may include one or more of the following elements: · On-site structural treatment control BMP - All treatment control BMP should be located as close to possible to the pollutant sources and should not be located within receiving waters; · Off-site structural treatment control BMP - Pollutant removal should occur prior to discharge of runoff to receiving waters; · Urban runoff fund or In-lieu program, if available Depending upon the proposed alternative compliance plan, approval by the executive officer may or may not be required (see Section 6 of the TGD for WQMP). Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 5-1 Section 5 Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP All BMP included as part of the project WQMP are required to be maintained through regular scheduled inspection and maintenance (refer to Section 8, Post Construction BMP Requirements, in the TGD for WQMP). Fully complete Form 5-1 summarizing all BMP included in the WQMP. Attach additional forms as needed. The WQMP shall also include a detailed Operation and Maintenance Plan for all BMP and may require a Maintenance Agreement (consult the jurisdiction’s LIP). If a Maintenance Agreement is required, it must also be attached to the WQMP. Form 5-1 BMP Inspection and Maintenance (use additional forms as necessary) BMP Reponsible Party(s) Inspection/ Maintenance Activities Required Minimum Frequency of Activities Storm Drain Signage JPI Companies Any illigible stencils shall be restencilled as soon as possible Yearly Trash Storage Area JPI Companies Look for any possible licking from the Dumpsters and make sure the Dumpstars are fully coverd. Litters are dumped properly. Weekly or as necessary Irrigation Systems JPI Companies Make sure Sprinkler heads are in working order and the system is working properly Monthly or as necessary CDC Unit Hydro- dynamic Separator JPI Companies CDS Units shall be inspected to determine the amount of accumulated pollutants and to ensure that the cleanout frequency is adequate to handle the predicted pollutant load. The CDS units shall be cleaned by vacuum whenever the sump is >25% full of debris. Bi-Annually Underground Infiltration System JPI Companies Underground storm water infiltration systems shall be inspected semiannually by October 1st and February 1st and within 48 hours after a significant rain event each year, to determine drawdowns within 48 hrs and maintained by flushing and vacuum of accumulated solids, via access manhole when necessary, to ensure optimum performance. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more on site activities than the size or configuration of the system. Bi-Annually Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 5-2 6-1 Section 6 WQMP Attachments 6.1. Site Plan and Drainage Plan Include a site plan and drainage plan sheet set containing the following minimum information: 6.2 Electronic Data Submittal Minimum requirements include submittal of PDF exhibits in addition to hard copies. Format must not require specialized software to open. If the local jurisdiction requires specialized electronic document formats (as described in their local Local Implementation Plan), this section will describe the contents (e.g., layering, nomenclature, geo-referencing, etc.) of these documents so that they may be interpreted efficiently and accurately. 6.3 Post Construction Attach all O&M Plans and Maintenance Agreements for BMP to the WQMP. 6.4 Other Supporting Documentation BMP Educational Materials Activity Restriction – C, C&R’s & Lease Agreements Project location Site boundary Land uses and land covers, as applicable Suitability/feasibility constraints Structural Source Control BMP locations Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMP locations LID BMP details Drainage delineations and flow information Drainage connections NOTES ON HYDROLOGIC CONDITION OF CONCERN Proposed project located within the area that is HCOC exempt. See HCOC Exemption Criteria Map for additional information. H04 I H02 A U H12 H09 III V H11IV H08 H07 X H05 H03 H06 J VII F H01 VI VIII B E W H10 IX XIII II G C H02BH02A II H12 II I 15 I 10 STATE HWY 60 I 215 S TAT E 91 STATE HWY 210 S T A T E H W Y 7 1 I 10 - I 15 STATE HWY 259 STATE 91 I 15 STATE HWY 210 STATE HWY 60 S T A TE H W Y 71 STATE H W Y 71 Seven Oaks Dam, COE San Antonio Basin #9 Seven Oaks Dam, COE San Antonio Dam Seven Oaks Dam, COE [DSOD] Seven Oaks Dam, COE Waterman Spreading Grounds Seven Oaks Dam, COE Wineville Basin San Sevaine Basin #5 [DSOD] Prado Dam Twin Creek Spreading Grounds Riverside Basin Jurupa Basin [DSOD] Waterman Basin #1 San Antonio Basin #5San Antonio Basin #2 Cucamonga Basin #6 Plunge Creek Spreading Grounds Victoria Basin City Creek Spreading GroundsSan Antonio Basin #8 Devil Basin #7 Rich Basin Potato Creek Spreading Grounds Patton Basin Lytle Creek Gatehouse, COE Cactus Basin #3bCactus Basin #5 Brooks Basin 8th Street Basin #1 Mojave River Forks Dam; COE [DSOD] Linden Basin Wiggins Basin #1 Ely Basin #2 Cactus Basin #2 Declez Basin [DSOD] Turner Basin #1 Banana Basin Day Creek Dam [DSOD] Grove Avenue Basin Etiwanda Conservation Basin Bledsoe Basin Montclair Basin #2 Sycamore Basin Devil Basin #4 Church Street Basin Lower Cucamonga Sprdg Grnds Warm Creek Conservation Basin #4 Ranchero Basin Montclair Basin #1College Heights Basin #4College Heights Basin #1 Bailey Basin Montclair Basin #4 Mountain View Basin Wilson Creek Basin #3San Timoteo Sediment Basin #3 Hillside Basin, COE Wildwood Basin #2 Demens Basin #2 Dynamite Basin San Timoteo Sediment Basin #18 Sand Canyon Basin San Timoteo Sediment Basin #13 Perris Hill Basin 13th Street Basin Cook Canyon Basin Deep Creek Mill Cre ek Cajon Creek Wash Zanja Creek Lytle Creek Wash Santa Ana River Sheep Creek Oak Glen Creek Mojave River C y p r e s s C h a n n el Sawpit Canyon H o r s e C a n y o n L i v e O a k C r e e k Grout Creek Y u c ai p a C r e e k Horsethief Canyon S e el e y C r e e k Cleghorn Canyon Morrey Arroyo Arrowbear Creek Sand Canyon Creek Sawpit Canyon Legend Regional Board Boundary County BoundaryDrainageCourse <all other values> Hydromodification EHM Low Medium High High (Default) Government Land State of California Land United States of America Land City Boundary Freeways Basins and Dams HCOC Exempt Areas None ExemptHCOC Exempt A B C E F G H01 H02 H02A H02B H03 H04 H05 H06 H07 H08 H09 H10 H11 H12 I II III IV IX J U V VI VII VIII W X XIII Figure F-1 1 Hydromodification A.1 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) Analysis HCOC Exemption: 1. Sump Condition: All downstream conveyance channel to an adequate sump (for example, Prado Dam, Santa Ana River, or other Lake, Reservoir or naturally erosion resistant feature) that will receive runoff from the project are engineered and regularly maintained to ensure design flow capacity; no sensitive stream habitat areas will be adversely affected; or are not identified on the Co-Permittees Hydromodification Sensitivity Maps. 2. Pre = Post: The runoff flow rate, volume and velocity for the post-development condition of the Priority Development Project do not exceed the pre-development (i.e, naturally occurring condition for the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event utilizing latest San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual. a. Submit a substantiated hydrologic analysis to justify your request. 3. Diversion to Storage Area: The drainage areas that divert to water storage areas which are considered as control/release point and utilized for water conservation. a. See Appendix F for the HCOC Exemption Map and the on-line Watershed Geodatabase (http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/wap) for reference. 4. Less than One Acre: The Priority Development Project disturbs less than one acre. The Co-permittee has the discretion to require a Project Specific WQMP to address HCOCs on projects less than one acre on a case by case basis. The project disturbs less than one acre and is not part of a common plan of development. 5. Built Out Area: The contributing watershed area to which the project discharges has a developed area percentage greater than 90 percent. a. See Appendix F for the HCOC Exemption Map and the on-line Watershed Geodatabase (http://sbcounty.permitrack.com/wap) for reference. 2 Summary of HCOC Exempted Area HCOC Exemption reasoning 1 2 3 4 5 Area A X X B X C X E X F X G X X H01 X X H02 X X H02A X X H02B X H03 X H04 X X H05 X H06 X H07 X H08 X X H09 X H10 X X H11 X X H12 X J X U X W X I X II X III X IV X X V X* VI X VII X VIII X IX X X X XIII X *Detention/Conservation Basin APPENDIX A PROJECT LOCATION VICINITY MAP NTS VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION APPENDIX B SITE PLAN, WQMP EXHIBIT LID SIZING CALCULATION EXHIBIT-1 SITE PLAN JEFFERSON FONTANA SITE PLAN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT JOB NO. GNIREENEIGN 2850 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite B Ontario, California 91764 tel 909.581.0676 fax 909.581.0696 www.fuscoe.com DRAWN BY: SHEET 1 of 1 JU N I P E R A V E N U E VALLEY BLVD. WASHINGTON DR. LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING STORM DRAIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN INLET PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE FLOW DIRECTION (STREET) FLOW DIRECTION (ON-SITE) CONCRETE/ ASPHALT PAVEMENT PERVIOUS/ LANDSCAPED AREA ROOF TOP INFILTRATION CHAMBER PROPOSED PRE-TREATMENT BMP (CDS BY CONTECH) NTS VICINITY MAP PROJECTLOCATION EXHIBIT-2 WQMP EXHIBIT INFILTRATION CHAMBER JEFFERSON FONTANA WQMP EXHIBIT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT JOB NO. GNIREENEIGN 2850 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite B Ontario, California 91764 tel 909.581.0676 fax 909.581.0696 www.fuscoe.com DRAWN BY: SHEET 1 of 1 PRELIMINARY DETAIL INFILTRATION AND RETARDING BASIN/CHAMBER AND FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE (PRIVATE) NTS A A SECTION A-A B B SECTION B-B FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE JU N I P E R A V E N U E VALLEY BLVD. WASHINGTON DR. LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED STORM DRAIN INLET PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE FLOW DIRECTION (STREET) FLOW DIRECTION (ON-SITE) LANDSCAPED AREA CATCH BASIN STENCILING AND COMMON AREA CATCH BASIN INSPECTION N 15 STREET VACUUMING AND CLEANING S4 EFFICIENT IRRIGATION INFILTRATION CHAMBER PROPOSED PRE-TREATMENT BMP (CDS BY CONTECH) EXHIBIT-3 DETAIL HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR (CDS UNIT) Project Information Project Name Jefferson Fontana Option #A Country UNITED_STATES State California City Fontana Contact Information First Name Moyenuddin Last Name Sirajee Company Fuscoe Engineering Phone #909-581-0676 Email msirajee@fuscoe.com Design Criteria Site Designation Area-1 Sizing Method Treatment Flow Rate Screening Required?Yes Treatment Flow Rate 1.55 Peak Flow (cfs)21.50 Groundwater Depth (ft)>15 Pipe Invert Depth (ft)5 - 10 Bedrock Depth (ft)>15 Multiple Inlets?No Grate Inlet Required?No Pipe Size (in)24.00 Required Particle Size Distribution? No 90° between two inlets? N/A Treatment Selection Treatment Unit CDS System Model CDS2025-5-C Target Removal 80%Particle Size Distribution (PSD) WADOE Hydrodynamic Separation Product Calculator Jefferson Fontana Area-1 CDS CDS2025-5-C Project Information Project Name Jefferson Fontana Option #A Country UNITED_STATES State California City Fontana Contact Information First Name Moyenuddin Last Name Sirajee Company Fuscoe Engineering Phone #909-581-0676 Email msirajee@fuscoe.com Design Criteria Site Designation Area-2 Sizing Method Treatment Flow Rate Screening Required?Yes Treatment Flow Rate 0.49 Peak Flow (cfs)6.80 Groundwater Depth (ft)>15 Pipe Invert Depth (ft)5 - 10 Bedrock Depth (ft)>15 Multiple Inlets?No Grate Inlet Required?No Pipe Size (in)24.00 Required Particle Size Distribution? Yes 90° between two inlets? N/A Treatment Selection Treatment Unit CDS System Model CDS1515-3-C Target Removal 100%Particle Size Distribution (PSD) WADOE Hydrodynamic Separation Product Calculator Jefferson Fontana Area-2 CDS CDS1515-3-C PLAN VIEW B-B N.T.S. FIBERGLASS SEPARATION CYLINDER AND INLET CENTER OF CDS STRUCTURE, SCREEN AND SUMP OPENING PVC HYDRAULIC SHEAR PLATE 1'- 8 " [ 5 0 7 ] (2 ' - 0 " [ 6 1 0 ] ) 1'-4" [406](4 ' - 2 " [ 1 2 6 9 ] ) ELEVATION A-A N.T.S. FIBERGLASS SEPARATION CYLINDER AND INLET SOLIDS STORAGE SUMP SEPARATION SCREEN INLET PIPE (MULTIPLE INLET PIPES MAY BE ACCOMMODATED)OUTLET PIPE PVC HYDRAULIC SHEAR PLATE (4 ' - 0 " [ 1 2 1 9 ] ) MA Y V A R Y FLOW OIL BAFFLE SKIRT CONTRACTOR TO GROUT TO FINISHED GRADE GRADE RINGS/RISERS A A 36" [914] I.D. MANHOLE STRUCTURE TOP SLAB ACCESS (SEE FRAME AND COVER DETAIL) VA R I E S +/ - 1 3 5 ° MA X . FLOW +/-65° MAX. BB PERMANENT POOL ELEV. FRAME AND COVER (DIAMETER VARIES) N.T.S. F O R M AINTENANCE CALL 1.80 0.3 3 8.1122 www.contechES.com TMClean w a t e r starts here ® 800-338-1122 513-645-7000 513-645-7993 FAX 9025 Centre Pointe Dr., Suite 400, West Chester, OH 45069 CDS1515-3-C ONLINE CDS STANDARD DETAIL I: \ S T O R M W A T E R \ C O M M O P S \ 2 2 C D S \ 4 0 S T A N D A R D D R A W I N G S \ O N L I N E ( C D S - C ) \ D W G \ C D S 1 5 1 5 - 3 - C - D T L . D W G 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 8 8 : 1 8 A M THIS PRODUCT MAY BE PROTECTED BY ONE OR MORE OF THEFOLLOWING U.S. PATENTS: 5,788,848; 6,641,720; 6,511,595; 6,581,783;RELATED FOREIGN PATENTS, OR OTHER PATENTS PENDING. STRUCTURE ID WATER QUALITY FLOW RATE (CFS OR L/s) PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS OR L/s) RETURN PERIOD OF PEAK FLOW (YRS) SCREEN APERTURE (2400 OR 4700) PIPE DATA:I.E.MATERIAL DIAMETER INLET PIPE 1 INLET PIPE 2 OUTLET PIPE SITE SPECIFIC DATA REQUIREMENTS WIDTH HEIGHTANTI-FLOTATION BALLAST NOTES/SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: RIM ELEVATION * PER ENGINEER OF RECORD * * * * *** *** *** * ** CDS1515-3-C DESIGN NOTES THE STANDARD CDS1515-3-C CONFIGURATION IS SHOWN. ALTERNATE CONFIGURATIONS ARE AVAILABLE AND ARE LISTED BELOW. SOME CONFIGURATIONS MAY BE COMBINED TO SUIT SITE REQUIREMENTS. GENERAL NOTES 1.CONTECH TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2.FOR SITE SPECIFIC DRAWINGS WITH DETAILED STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC REPRESENTATIVE. www.ContechES.com 3.CDS WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL DESIGN DATA AND INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING. CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM STRUCTURE MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF PROJECT. 4.STRUCTURE SHALL MEET AASHTO HS20 LOAD RATING, ASSUMING EARTH COVER OF 0' - 2', AND GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AT, OR BELOW, THE OUTLET PIPE INVERT ELEVATION. ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CONFIRM ACTUAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION. CASTINGS SHALL MEET AASHTO M306 AND BE CAST WITH THE CONTECH LOGO.. 5.IF REQUIRED, PVC HYDRAULIC SHEAR PLATE IS PLACED ON SHELF AT BOTTOM OF SCREEN CYLINDER. REMOVE AND REPLACE AS NECESSARY DURING MAINTENANCE CLEANING. 6.CDS STRUCTURE SHALL BE PRECAST CONCRETE CONFORMING TO ASTM C-478 AND AASHTO LOAD FACTOR DESIGN METHOD. INSTALLATION NOTES A.ANY SUB-BASE, BACKFILL DEPTH, AND/OR ANTI-FLOTATION PROVISIONS ARE SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER OF RECORD. B.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT WITH SUFFICIENT LIFTING AND REACH CAPACITY TO LIFT AND SET THE CDS MANHOLE STRUCTURE. C.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL JOINT SEALANT BETWEEN ALL STRUCTURE SECTIONS AND ASSEMBLE STRUCTURE. D.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE, INSTALL, AND GROUT INLET AND OUTLET PIPE(S). MATCH PIPE INVERTS WITH ELEVATIONS SHOWN. ALL PIPE CENTERLINES TO MATCH PIPE OPENING CENTERLINES. E.CONTRACTOR TO TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ASSURE UNIT IS WATER TIGHT, HOLDING WATER TO FLOWLINE INVERT MINIMUM. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT ALL JOINTS BELOW PIPE INVERTS ARE GROUTED. www.contechES.com LID SIZING CALCULATION ON-SITE BMP Tributary Area 489399 sf Step 1 Pervious area 97880 sf Site condition Impervious area 391519.2 sf Site condition Percent Imperviousness 80% Runoff coefficient=0.599 Step 2 P2yr-1hr= 0.538 Step 3 (See Attached) C1 Valley =1.4807 Step 4 P6 =0.797 Step 4 Drawdown Time =48 hour Step 5 C2 (For 48 hour)=1.963 Step 5 DCV =38220 cft Step 5 DCV Calculation Entire Site APPENDIX C FLOW CALCULATIONS, PRE-TRETMENT BMP CDS Unit # 1 Area1 =8.6 AC Ibmp=0.150 FS=2 Required Ibmp=0.300 Qbmp = 1.55 cfs Pre-treatment flow calc. Q100 21.5 cfs Peak Flow CDS Unit # 2 Area2 =2.7 AC Ibmp=0.150 FS=2 Required Ibmp=0.300 Qbmp = 0.49 cfs Pre-treatment flow calc. Q100 6.8 cfs Peak Flow Qbmp Calculation JEFFERSON, FONTANA APPENDIX D EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS BMP FACT SHEETS TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-25 May 19, 2011 INF-2: Infiltration Trench Fact Sheet An infiltration trench is a long, narrow, rock-filled trench with no outlet other than an overflow outlet. Runoff is stored in the void space between stones and infiltrates through the bottom and sides of the trench. Infiltration trenches provide the majority of their pollutant removal benefits through volume reduction. Pretreatment is important for limiting amounts of coarse sediment entering the trench which can clog and render the trench ineffective. Note: if an infiltration trench is “deeper than its widest surface dimension,” or includes an assemblage of perforated pipes, drain tiles, or other similar mechanisms intended to distribute runoff below the surface of the ground, it would probably be considered a "Class V Injection Well" under the federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, which is regulated in California by U.S. EPA Region 9. A UIC permit may be required for such a facility (for details see http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/groundwater/uic-classv.html). Feasibility Screening Considerations · Infiltration trenches shall pass infeasibility screening criteria to be considered for use · Infiltration trenches, particularly deeper designs, may not provide significant attenuation of stormwater pollutants if underlying soils have high permeability; potential risk of groundwater contamination. · The potential for groundwater mounding should be evaluated if depth to seasonally high groundwater (unmounded) is less than 15 feet. Opportunity Criteria · Soils are adequate for infiltration or can be amended to provide an adequate infiltration rate. · Drainage area area is ≤ 5 acres and has low to moderate sediment production. · 2-3 percent of drainage area available for infiltration (generally requires less surface area than infiltration basins and bioretention areas without underdrain). · Space available for pretreatment (biotreatment or treatment control BMP as described below). · Potential for groundwater contamination can be mitigated through isolation of pollutant sources, pretreatment of inflow, and/or demonstration of adequate treatment capacity of underlying soils. · Infiltration is into native soil, or depth of engineered fill is ≤ 5 feet from the bottom of the facility to native material and infiltration into shallow fill is approved by a geotechnical professional. · Tributary area land uses include open areas adjacent to parking lots, driveways, and buildings, and roadway medians and shoulders. OC-Specific Design Criteria and Considerations □ Must comply with local, state, and federal UIC regulations if applicable; a permit may be required. Also known as: Ø French Drains Ø Rock Trenches Ø Exfiltration Trenches Ø Soak-aways Ø Soakage Trenches Infiltration Trench Source: www.dot.ca.gov TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-26 May 19, 2011 □ Placement of BMPs should observe geotechnical recommendations with respect to geological hazards (e.g. landslides, liquefaction zones, erosion, etc.) and set-backs (e.g., foundations, utilities, roadways, etc.) □ For facilities with tributary area less than 1 acre and less than 3 foot depth, minimum separation to mounded seasonally high groundwater of 5 feet shall be observed. □ For facilities with tributary area greater than 1 acre or deeper than 3 feet, minimum separation to mounded seasonally high groundwater of 10 feet shall be observed. □ Minimum pretreatment should be provided upstream of the infiltration trench, and water bypassing pretreatment should not be directed to the infiltration trench. □ Infiltration trenches should not be used for drainage areas with high sediment production potential unless preceded by full treatment control with a BMP effective for sediment removal. □ Ponded water should not persist within 1 foot of the surface of the facility for longer than 72 hours following the end of a storm event (observation well is needed to allow observation of drain time). □ Energy dissipators should be provided at inlet and outlet to prevent erosion. □ An overflow device must be provided if basin is on-line. □ A minimum freeboard of one foot should be provided above the overflow device (for an on-line basin) or the outlet (for an off-line basin). □ Longitudinal trench slope should not exceed 3%. □ Side slopes above trench fill should not be steeper than 3:1. Simple Sizing Method for Infiltration Trenches If the Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method is used to size an infiltration trench, the user calculates the DCV and then designs the geometry required to draw down the DCV in 48 hours. The sizing steps are as follows: Step 1: Determine Infiltration Basin DCV Calculate the DCV using the Simple Design Capture Volume Sizing Method described in Appendix III.3.1. Step 2: Determine the 48-hour Effective Depth The depth of water that can be drawn down in 48 hours can be calculated using the following equation: d48 = KDESIGN × SACF × 48 hours Where: d48 = trench effective 48-hour depth, ft KDESIGN = basin design infiltration rate, in/hr (See Appendix VII) SACF = Surface Area Correction Factor = ranges from 1.0 (sides insignificant or not accounted) to 2.0 (sides plus bottom are 2 times the surface area of the bottom at mid depth) to account for the ratio of infiltration through the sides of the trench to the bottom footprint of the trench; should be based on anticipated trench geometry and wetted surface area at mid-depth. This is the maximum effective depth of the trench below the overflow device to achieve drawdown in 48 hours. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-27 May 19, 2011 Step 3: Determine the Trench Ponding Depth and Trench Depth The depth of water stored in the ponding depth (i.e. above the trench fill) and within the trench itself should be equal or less than d48. Determine the ponding depth and the trench fill depth such that: d48 ≥ (nT × dT + dP) Where: d48 = trench effective 48-hour depth, ft (from Step 2) nT = porosity of trench fill; 0.35 may be assumed where other information is not available dT = depth of trench fill, ft dP = ponding depth, ft (should not exceed 1 ft) Step 4: Calculate the Required Infiltrating Area The required footprint area can be calculated using the following equation: A = DCV/ ((nT × dT) + dP) Where: A = required trench footprint area, sq-ft DCV = design capture volume, cu-ft (see Step 1) nT = porosity of trench fill; 0.35 may be assumed where other information is not available dT = depth of trench fill, ft dP = ponding depth, ft Capture Efficiency Method for Infiltration Trenches If BMP geometry has already been defined and deviates from the 48 hour drawdown time, the designer can use the Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs (Appendix III.3.2) to determine the fraction of the DCV that must be provided to manage 80 percent of average annual runoff volume. This method accounts for drawdown time different than 48 hours. Step 1: Determine the drawdown time associated with the selected trench geometry DD = ((nT × dT) + dP) / (KDESIGN × SACF) × 12 Where: DD = time to completely drain infiltration basin ponding depth, hours nT = porosity of trench fill; 0.35 may be assumed where other information is not available dT = depth of trench fill, ft dP = ponding depth, ft SACF = Surface Area Correction Factor = ranges from 1.0 (sides insignificant or not accounted) to 2.0 (sides plus bottom are 2 times the surface area of the bottom at mid depth) to account for the ratio of infiltration through the sides of the trench to the bottom footprint of the trench; should be based on anticipated trench geometry and wetted surface area at mid-depth. KDESIGN = basin design infiltration rate, in/hr (See Appendix VII) Step 2: Determine the Required Adjusted DCV for this Drawdown Time Use the Capture Efficiency Method for Volume-Based, Constant Drawdown BMPs (Appendix III.3.2) to calculate the required fraction of the DCV the basin must hold to achieve 80 percent capture of average annual stormwater runoff volume based on the trench drawdown time calculated above. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES XIV-28 May 19, 2011 Step 3: Determine the Trench Infiltrating Area Needed The required footprint area can be calculated using the following equation: A = DCV / ( (nT × dT) + dP) Where: A = required trench footprint area, sq-ft DCV = design capture volume, cu-ft (see Step 1) nT = porosity of trench fill; 0.35 may be assumed where other information is not available dT = depth of trench fill, ft dP = ponding depth, ft If the area required is greater than the selected trench area, adjust surface area or adjust ponding and/or trench depth and recalculate required area until the required area is achieved. Configuration for Use in a Treatment Train · Infiltration trenches may be preceeded in a treatment train by HSCs in the drainage area, which would reduce the required volume of the trench. · Infiltration trenches must be preceeded by some form of pretreatment which may be biotreatment or a treatment control BMP; if an approved biotreatment BMP is used as pretreatment, the overflow from the infiltration trench may be considered “biotreated” for the purposes of meeting the LID requirments · The overflow or bypass from an infiltration trench can be routed to a downstream biotreatment BMP and/or a treatment control BMP if additional control is required to achieve LID or treatment control requirements Additional References for Design Guidance · CASQA BMP Handbook for New and Redevelopment: http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Documents/Development/TC-10.pdf · SMC LID Manual (pp 141): http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/guest75/pub/All_Projects/SoCal_LID_Manual/SoCalL ID_Manual_FINAL_040910.pdf · Los Angeles County Stormwater BMP Design and Maintenance Manual, Chapter 6: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/DES/design_manuals/StormwaterBMPDesignandrainage areaintenance.pdf · City of Portland Stormwater Management Manual (Soakage Trenches, page 2-82) http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=47954&a=202883 · San Diego County LID Handbook Appendix 4 (Factsheet 1): http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/docs/LID-Appendices.pdf ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Hydrodynamic Separation Your Contech Team Contech is the leader in stormwater 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. The experts you need to solve your stormwater challenges 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. Contech is your partner in stormwater management solutions ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS HDS systems play a vital role in protecting our waterways by removing high levels of sediment, trash, debris, and hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff. Frequently used as end-of-pipe solutions, they are also used to provide stormwater quality treatment in places where space is limited. HDS systems capture and retain a variety of stormwater pollutants and are very easy to maintain. These two key benefits have resulted in new uses for HDS technologies, such as pretreating detention, Low Impact Development, and green infrastructure practices, as well as other land-based stormwater treatment systems. Utilize high-performance hydrodynamic separation to effectively remove finer sediment, oil and grease, and floating and sinking debris. Removing Pollutants using Hydrodynamic Separation Cascade Separator™ Setting new standards in Stormwater Treatment Advanced Sediment Capture Technology ... The Cascade Separator™ is the newest innovation in stormwater treatment from Contech. The Cascade Separator was developed by Contech’s stormwater experts using advanced modeling tools and Contech’s industry leading stormwater laboratory. This innovative hydrodynamic separator excels at sediment capture and retention while also removing hydrocarbons, trash, and debris from stormwater runoff. What makes the Cascade Separator unique is the use of opposing vortices that enhance particle settling and a unique skirt design that allows for sediment transport into the sump while reducing turbulence and resuspension of previously captured material. These two factors allow the Cascade Separator to treat high flow rates in a small footprint, resulting in an efficient and economical solution for any site. The Cascade Separator™ System CASCADE MAINTENANCE Cascade provides unobstructed access to stored pollutants, making it easy to maintain using a vacuum truck, with no requirement to enter the unit. SELECT CASCADE APPROVALS New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Certification (NJDEP) FEATURE BENEFIT Unique skirt design & opposing vortices Superior TSS removal; reduced system size and costs Inlet area accepts wide range of inlet pipe angles Design and installation flexibility Accepts multiple inlet pipes Eliminates the need for separate junction structure Grate inlet option Eliminates the need for a separate grate inlet structure Internal bypass Eliminates the need for a separate bypass structure Clear access to sump and stored pollutants Fast, easy maintenance Learn More: www.ContechES.com/cascade Grate Inlet Center Chamber Flumes Outlet Channel Outlet Deck Outlet Window Drain Down Pipe Outlet Pipe Multiple Inlets Center Cylinder Slanted Skirt Sump Inlet Chamber CDS® ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS SELECT CDS APPROVALS Washington Department of Ecology (GULD) – Pretreatment New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Certification (NJDEP) Canadian Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) California Statewide Trash Amendments Full Capture System Certified* FEATURE BENEFIT Captures and retains 100% of floatables and neutrally buoyant debris 4.7 mm or larger Superior trash 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 Superior Trash Removal ... The CDS is a hybrid technology that uses a combination of swirl concentration and indirect screening to 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. The CDS® System Learn More: www.ContechES.com/cds Clean Out (required) Inlet Flume Outlet Grate Inlet Crest of Bypass Wier (one each side) Sump Storage Oil Baffle Inlet (multiple pipes possible) Deflection Pan, 3-Sided (grate inlet design) Separation Cylinder Treatment Screen Separation Slab * 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. ENGINEERED SOLUTIONSENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Learn More: www.ContechES.com/dyohds A free, online tool to aid in the selection of a hydrodynamic separation solution. Quickly prepare designs for estimates and project meetings ... Engineers are always looking for new ways to quickly prepare designs for estimates and project meetings. Contech has developed an online tool to help with the hydrodynamic separation product selection process… the Design Your Own Hydrodynamic Separator (DYOHDS™) tool. This free, online tool fully automates the layout process for identifying the proper hydrodynamic separator for your site. You can create multiple systems for each project while saving all project information for future use. Multiple sizing methods available. Site-specific questions ensure the selected unit will comply with site constraints. Multiple treatment options may be available based on regulations and site parameters. Follow up reports contain a site-specific design, sizing summary, standard detail, and specification. Design Your Own Hydrodynamic Separator (DYOHDS™) 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.) Revision 10/19 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 APPENDIX E INFILTRATION TEST REPORT October 19, 2022 Project No. 13584.003 JPI Companies 12250 El Camino Real, Suite 380 San Diego, California 92130 Attention: Mr. Jay Adamowitz Subject: Results of Supplemental Infiltration Testing Proposed Jefferson Fontana, Mixed-Use Development, Southwest of the Intersection of Juniper Avenue and Valley Boulevard, City of Fontana, California In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has conducted supplemental infiltration testing in support of the proposed Jefferson Fontana mixed-use development, located southwest of the intersection of Juniper Avenue and Valley Boulevard, in the City of Fontana, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). Leighton previously performed a geotechnical due-diligence and phase I environmental site assessment for the proposed development (dated June 24, 2022 and July 14, 2022, respectively). Infiltration testing was not conducted during our due-diligence but was previously conducted by SPC at depths of approximately 3 feet below existing ground surface. We understand that revised infiltration facilities and depths have been proposed and additional infiltration testing was requested. Our understanding of the project is based on our correspondence with Fuscoe Engineering and the provided marked up Site Plan, Sheet A1.0 dated September 14, 2022 showing the requested locations and depths of the proposed onsite infiltration facilities. We understand that two infiltration locations are currently proposed with invert depths of approximately 8 feet below ground surface on the southern end of the site within the parking lot area south of the proposed building pads. Jefferson Fontana Infiltration Testing 13584.003 -2 - Based on our infiltration test results, the tested onsite soils yielded low infiltration rates within the soils encountered at depths of approximately 5 to 10 feet bgs. The soils encountered at the site down to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) were generally sands with silt (SW-SM) and silty sands (SM) with relatively high percentage of fines (39 to 47%). Based on our infiltration tests, we recommend an unfactored (small-scale) incremental infiltration rate of 3 inches per hour. The rate should only be applied to granular layers encountered in our current exploration; fine grained layers (silt and clay) should not be relied upon. The following summarizes our field exploration and testing, and presents our conclusions. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of our study has included the following tasks: Background Review: We reviewed available, relevant geotechnical geologic maps, reports, and aerial photographs available in our in-house library. Reviewed reports included those previously conducted by Leighton and SPC at the project site. Reviewed reports are listed under References. Utility Coordination: We contacted Dig Alert (811) prior to excavating borings so that utility companies could mark their utilities onsite. Field Exploration: We excavated, logged, and sampled two (2) hollow-stem auger borings (IT-1 and IT-2) to a maximum depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface in the vicinity of the proposed infiltration systems. The borings were logged by a member of our technical staff. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples of encountered material were collected at selected depths and taken back to our in- house laboratory for geotechnical testing. Geotechnical Laboratory Testing: Geotechnical laboratory tests were conducted on selected SPT soil samples obtained during our field investigation. The laboratory testing program was designed to evaluate engineering characteristics of site soils. Laboratory tests conducted during this investigation included sieve analyses for grain-size distributions and percent passing the #200 sieve. Infiltration Testing: We conducted well permeameter tests (IT-1 and IT-2) at locations near the southern edge of the site to evaluate general infiltration rates of the subsurface soils at the depth and location tested. The well permeameter tests Jefferson Fontana Infiltration Testing 13584.003 - 3 - were conducted based on the USBR 7300-89 method and in general accordance with San Bernardino County guidelines. The tests were conducted at a depth of approximately 10 feet (bgs) to estimate infiltration rates. A nearby fire hydrant was utilized to source water and conduct our infiltration testing. Excavations were backfilled with the onsite soil cuttings. Logs of the geotechnical borings and the well permeameter test results are attached. Approximate well permeameter test locations are shown on Figure 2 – Exploration Map. Engineering Analysis: Data obtained from our testing was evaluated and analyzed to provide the recommendations presented in this report. Report Preparation: Results of our infiltration study have been summarized in this report. S ITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION This site consists of approximately 11.9 acres of land located at the southwest corner of Juniper Avenue and Valley Boulevard in the City of Fontana, California. The property is bounded to the north by Valley Boulevard, to the east by Juniper Avenue, and to the west and south by commercial and residential properties. The southernmost end of the property is bounded by Washington Drive, with Interstate 10 farther to the south. The site is relatively flat, slopes gently towards the south, and is currently vacant and undeveloped land. Based on review of historical imagery, a portion of the site has been historically occupied with agricultural and residential use from about 1938 to 1985 (NETR, 2022). Between 1985 and 1994, all structures were removed, and the site has remained vacant and undeveloped since. SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS The onsite soils described by SPC (2019) included an approximately 3½-foot-thick layer of artificial fill at the surface that overlies young alluvial fan deposits in the upper 2 to 3 feet. Because a geotechnical report of rough grading summarizing grading observations and testing of the previously placed fill is not available, existing onsite fill materials are considered undocumented. Based on our observation during drilling, undocumented artificial fill encountered consisted of silty sand and well graded sand. Native older Jefferson Fontana Infiltration Testing 13584.003 - 4 - alluvial fan deposits observed in our borings down to 10 feet bgs, included silty sands and well graded sands with silt. The soils in the upper 5 feet were generally described loose to dense and the soils below 5 feet were described as medium dense to dense. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions within our logs are presented on the boring logs for our current and previous explorations (Appendix A). Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in our borings extending to a depth of 10 feet during our current exploration, or during SPC’s previous geotechnical exploration to a maximum depth of 31½ feet below the existing ground surface (Leighton, 2022). State Well No. 01S05W20N001S located approximately 0.6 mile southeast of the site indicated a historically highest groundwater level of 268 feet bgs based on measurements taken from October 1989 to September 2021. State Well No. 01S06W24R001S located approximately 0.8 mile southwest of the site indicated a historically highest groundwater level of 322 feet bgs based on measurements taken from March 1992 to September 2021. Fife et al. (1976) reported generalized depth to groundwater in 1960 to be between 400 and 500 feet below the project site. Based on review of available regional groundwater data, groundwater is expected to be greater than 50 feet below the project site. As such, groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to the proposed development. INFILTRATION TESTING Two well permeameter tests (IT-1 and IT-2) were conducted to estimate the infiltration rate at specific locations of the site. The well permeameter testing was conducted at locations on the southern end of the site, within the parking lot area, south of the proposed building pads with well bottoms at depths of 10 feet bgs. The well bottom depths were selected based on correspondence with you. A well permeameter test is useful for field measurements of soil infiltration rates, and is suited for testing when the design depth of the basin or chamber is deeper than current existing grades. The test consisted of excavating a boring to the depth of the test. A layer of Monterrey #3 sand was placed in the boring bottom to support a temporary 2- inch-diameter perforated well casing pipe. In addition, #3 sand was poured around the outside of the well casing within the test zone to prevent the boring from Jefferson Fontana Infiltration Testing 13584.003 - 5 - caving/collapsing or eroding when water is added. Water is added into the boring to an initial water height, as water within the boring infiltrates into the soil, measurements are taken of the height of the water column within the boring at equally timed intervals (known as a falling head test). The infiltration rate as measured during intervals of the test is defined as the flow rate of water infiltrated, divided by the surface area of the infiltration interface. The test was conducted based on the USBR 7300-89 test method. Results of the infiltration testing are summarized below and are provided in Appendix B. Infiltration Test Rates Boring Soil Type Approx. Test Zone Percent Fines Unfactored Infiltration Rate (ft), bgs (in/hr) IT-1 SW-SM & SM 5 to 10 10% above 9’ 39% below 9’ 3.6 IT-2 SM 5 to 10 47 2.7 INFILTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our testing of the onsite soils at approximately 10 feet deep, we recommend an unfactored (small-scale) incremental infiltration rate of 3 in/hr. These rates are applicable at the specific locations and depths indicated. Infiltration rates are anticipated to vary significantly at various depths. We recommend that a correction factor/safety factor be applied to the infiltration rate in conformance with San Bernardino County guidelines, since monitoring of actual facility performance has shown that actual infiltration rates are lower than for small-scale tests. The small-scale infiltration rate should be divided by a correction factor of at least 2 for buried chambers, and at least 3 for open basins or for conditions where retained water will be exposed to the open atmosphere, but the correction/safety factor may be higher based on project-specific aspects. Infiltration basins are subject to siltation, which can result in reduced infiltration rates. It should be noted that during periods of prolonged precipitation, underlying soils tend to become saturated to greater depths/extent. Therefore, infiltration rates tend to decrease with prolonged rainfall. It is difficult to extrapolate longer-term, full-scale infiltration rates from small-scale tests, and as such, this is a significant source of uncertainty in infiltration rates. Jefferson Fontana Infiltration Testing 13584.003 - 6 - Additional Review and Evaluation: Infiltration rates are anticipated to vary significantly based on the location and depth. Infiltration concepts should be discussed with Leighton as infiltration plans are being developed. Leighton should review all infiltration plans, including specific locations and depths of proposed facilities. Further testing may be needed based on the design of infiltration facilities, particularly considering their type, depth and location. General Design Considerations: The periodic flow of water carrying sediments in the dry well, plus the introduction of wind-blown sediments and sediments from erosion of the basin side walls, can eventually cause the bottom of the chamber to accumulate a layer of silt, which has the potential of significantly reducing the overall infiltration rate of the basin or chamber. Therefore, we recommend that significant amounts of silt/sediment not be allowed to flow into the facility within storm water, especially during construction of the project and prior to achieving a mature landscape on site. As it is typically very difficult to remove silt from buried infiltration facilities, we recommend that an easily maintained, robust silt/sediment removal system be installed to pretreat storm water before it enters the infiltration facility. Infiltration facilities should not be constructed adjacent to or under buildings. In general, the rate of infiltration reduces as the head of water in the infiltration facility reduces, and it also reduces with prolonged periods of infiltration. As such, water typically infiltrates much faster near the beginning of and/or immediately after storm events than at times well after a storm when the water level in the facility has receded, since the infiltration rate is then slower due to both lower head and longer overall duration of infiltration. Estimating infiltration rates, especially based on small-scale testing, is inexact and indefinite, and often involves known and unknown soil complexities, potentially resulting in a condition where actual infiltration rates of the completed facility are significantly less than design rates. Jefferson Fontana Infiltration Testing 13584.003 - 7 - Construction Considerations: We recommend that Leighton evaluate the dry well excavations, to confirm that granular, undisturbed alluvium is exposed in the bottoms and sides. Additional excavation or evaluation may be required if silty or clayey soils are exposed. Maintenance Considerations: The infiltration facilities should be routinely monitored, especially before and during the rainy season, and corrective measures should be implemented as/when needed. Things to check for include proper upkeep, proper infiltration, absence of accumulated silt, and that de-silting filters/features are clean and functioning. Pretreatment desilting features should be cleaned and maintained per manufacturers’ recommendations. Even with measures to prevent silt from flowing into the infiltration facility, accumulated silt may need to be removed occasionally as part of maintenance. LIMITATIONS This report was based in part on data obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, soil excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is, by necessity, incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing soil or geologic conditions can be present within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, our findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that Leighton and Associates, Inc. will provide geotechnical observation and testing during construction This report was prepared for the sole use of JPI Companies, for application to the design of the proposed multi-use development in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time in California. Jefferson Fontana Infiltration Testing 13584.003 - 8 - CLOSING We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Jose Tapia, PE 91630 Project Engineer Jason D. Hertzberg, GE 2711 Principal Engineer AA/JAT/JDH/rsm Attachments: References Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map Appendix A - Borings Logs Appendix B - Infiltration Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results Distribution: (1) Addressee Jefferson Fontana Infiltration Testing 13584.003 REFERENCES California Department of Water Resources, 2022, California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program, website: https://www.casgem.water.ca.gov/OSS/, accessed October 12, 2022. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2022, Geotechnical Due-Diligence Evaluation Proposed Jefferson Fontana Mixed-Use Development, Southwest of the Intersection of Juniper Avenue and Valley Boulevard, City of Fontana, California, Project No. 13584.001, dated June 24, 2022. SPC Geotechnical Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, AutoFit Fontana, 16655 Valley Boulevard, Fontana, 92335, Project No. SPC 8505-01, dated March 27, 2019. ³ 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Scale:1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 13584.003 Eng/Geol: JDH/SGO Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13584\001\Maps\13584-001_F01_SLM_2022-06-16.mxd on 6/15/2022 12:44:53 PM Author: KVM (btran) Date: October 2022 SITE LOCATION MAP Proposed Jefferson FontanaMixed-Use Residential DevelopmentSouthwest of the Intersection ofJuniper Avenue and Valley BoulevardCity of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California Approximate Site Boundary FIGURE 1 Reference: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13584\003\Maps\13584-003_F02_ELM_2022-10-18.mxd on 10/17/2022 4:51:14 PM EXPLORATION LOCATION MAPProposed Jefferson Fontana Mixed-use Residential DevelopmentSouthwest of the Intersection of Juniper Avenue and Valley BoulevardCity of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California ³0 100 200 Feet Scale: Base Map: Site Plan, Sheet A1.0, dated 05/23/2022by Architecture Design Collaborative (ADC) 1 " = 100 ' Project: 13584.003 Eng/Geol: JDH/SGO Author: (btran) Date: October 2022 LEGEND &?Approximate location of infiltration test(Leighton, 2022) &<Approximate location of boring(SPC, 2019) &(Approximate location of infiltration test(SPC, 2019) Approximate Site Boundary FIGURE 2 B-7 I-3 IT-2 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS SW-SM SP-SMSM S-1 S-2 -200 SA 5 8 25 131714 @Surface: SILTY SAND (SM): brown, slightly moist, fine to coarsesand, 30% fines (field estimate) @1': SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SW-SM): brown, slightlymoist, fine to coarse sand, trace of gravel @4.5: Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SW-SM):dense, brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse sand, trace of gravel,6% fines (lab)Auger chatter, gravel in cuttings @8.5: Poorly-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM):dense, brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse sand, trace of gravel,10% fines, 30% gravel (field estimate) @9: SILTY SAND (SM): brown, slightly moist, fine to mediumsand, 39% fines (lab) TOTAL DEPTH 10 FEETNO GROUNDWATERCONVERTED TO INFILTRATION BORING, BACKFILLED WITHSOIL CUTTINGS AFTER COMPLETION OF TESTING Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1100 1095 1090 1085 1080 1075 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1104' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Hollow Stem Auger - Autohammer 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 So i l C l a s s . 10-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map JPI - Fontana 13584.003 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG IT-1 SP SW-SM SM S-1 S-2 -200 SA 4 4 5 51014 @Surface: POORLY GRADED SAND (SP): brown, slightly moist,fine to medium sand, trace of gravel, 5% fines (field estimate) @1': SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SW-SM): brown, slightlymoist, fine to medium sand @3.5: Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SW-SM): loose,brown, slightly moist, fine to medium sand, 20% gravel (fieldestimate), 11% fines (lab) @8.5: SILTY SAND (SM), medium dense, brown, slightly moist,fine to medium sand, 47% fines (lab) TOTAL DEPTH 10 FEETNO GROUNDWATERCONVERTED TO INFILTRATION BORING, BACKFILLED WITHSOIL CUTTINGS AFTER COMPLETION OF TESTING Project No. Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Co n t e n t , % Logged By Date Drilled 1100 1095 1090 1085 1080 1075 * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * AA Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f 1103' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLE BCGR ST AA Hollow Stem Auger - Autohammer 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 So i l C l a s s . 10-7-22 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Location See Figure 2 - Exploration Location Map JPI - Fontana 13584.003 Drilling Method 8" Fe e t Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual. TYPE OF TESTS:-200 ALCN COCRCU % FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DSEIH MDPP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUE SASESG UC Sa m p l e N o . SIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVESTRENGTH GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG IT-2 APPENDIX B INFILTRATION LOGS Results of Well Permeameter, from USBR 7300-89 Method Project:13584.003 Initial estimated Depth to Water Surface (in.): 74 Exploration #/Location:IT-1 Average depth of water in well, "h" (in.): 46 Cross‐sectional area for flow calcs based on h Depth Boring drilled, bgs (ft):10 approx. h/r: 11.5 Well pack sand porosity 0.4 Tested by:AA Tu (Fig. 8) (ft): 93.8 Casing outer diameter, in.2.3 USCS Soil Type in test zone:SW-SM & SM Tu>3h?: yes, OK Casing inner diameter, in.2.1 Weather (start to finish):Sunny Cross‐sectional area, in.^2 21.9 Water Source/pH:H2O Measured boring diameter:8 in.4 in. Well Radius Depth to GW or aquitard, bgs:100 ft Well Prep:Drilled to 10 feet, bottom 5 feet slotted 2" diameter pipe. #3 sand around anulus Use of Barrels:No ft in.Total (in.)Use of Flow Meter:Yes Depth to bottom of well measured from top of auger (or ground sur 10. ft 120 Depth of well bottom below top of casing (in):120 Test Type:Constant Head Casing stickup measured above top of auger (or ground surface) (0. ft 0. in.0 Depth to top of sand from top of casing 4.5 ft 0. in. Field Data Calculations Refilled? Start Date Start time:Total 10/7/2022 13:45 Gallons ft in. 10/7/22 13:52 4807.73 6.21 7 74.5 45.5 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 10/7/22 13:55 4808.95 6.2 3 10 74.4 45.6 0.12 46 282 -3 279 93 5584 0.8 0.78 3.84 10/7/22 14:00 4811.09 6.2 5 15 74.4 45.6 0 46 494 0 494 99 5932 0.8 0.82 4.03 10/7/22 14:10 4815.49 6.18 10 25 74.2 45.8 0.24 46 1016 -5 1011 101 6067 0.8 0.82 4.07 10/7/22 14:15 4817.48 6.25 5 30 75.0 45.0 -0.84 45 460 18 478 96 5737 0.8 0.79 3.83 10/7/22 14:20 4819.47 6.25 5 35 75.0 45.0 0 45 460 0 460 92 5516 0.8 0.75 3.68 10/7/22 14:37 4826.62 6.25 17 52 75.0 45.0 0 45 1652 0 1652 97 5829 0.8 0.79 3.85 10/7/22 14:40 4827.83 6.23 3 55 74.8 45.2 0.24 45 280 -5 274 91 5485 0.8 0.73 3.58 10/7/22 14:50 4832.05 6.23 10 65 74.8 45.2 0 45 975 0 975 97 5849 0.8 0.77 3.78 10/7/22 15:00 4836.26 6.2 10 75 74.4 45.6 0.36 45 973 -8 965 96 5788 0.8 0.74 3.69 10/7/22 15:10 4840.42 6.18 10 85 74.2 45.8 0.24 46 961 -5 956 96 5734 0.8 0.73 3.61 10/7/22 15:20 4844.64 6.14 10 95 73.7 46.3 0.48 46 975 -11 964 96 5786 0.7 0.71 3.59 10/7/22 15:30 4848.86 6.13 10 105 73.6 46.4 0.12 46 975 -3 972 97 5833 0.7 0.71 3.57 10/7/22 15:40 4853.1 6.13 10 115 73.6 46.4 0 46 979 0 979 98 5877 0.7 0.71 3.57 10/7/22 15:50 4857.33 6.1 10 125 73.2 46.8 0.36 47 977 -8 969 97 5815 0.7 0.69 3.50 10/7/22 16:00 4861.58 6.07 10 135 72.8 47.2 0.36 47 982 -8 974 97 5843 0.7 0.68 3.47 10/7/22 16:10 4865.85 6.05 10 145 72.6 47.4 0.24 47 986 -5 981 98 5887 0.7 0.68 3.46 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 145 72.6 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! Minimum Rate: 3.46 Raw Rate for design, prior to application of adjustment factors:3.60 Water Temp (deg F)Reading (gallons)Interval Pulse Count (or Comments) Date Time Data from Flow Meter Depth to WL in Boring (measured from top of casing) Average Infiltration Surface Area, (in^2) V (Fig 9) K20, Coef. Of Perme- ability at 20 deg C (in./hr) Infiltration Rate [flow/surf area] (in./hr) (FS=1) Vol Change (in.^3) from supply from h Flow (in^3/ min) q, Flow (in^3/ hr) Δt (min) Total Elapsed Time (min) Depth to WL in well (in.) h, Height of Water in Well (in.) h (in.)Avg. h Results of Well Permeameter, from USBR 7300-89 Method Project:13584.003 Initial estimated Depth to Water Surface (in.): 77 Exploration #/Location:IT-2 Average depth of water in well, "h" (in.): 48 Cross‐sectional area for flow calcs based on h Depth Boring drilled, bgs (ft):10 approx. h/r: 11.9 Well pack sand porosity 0.4 Tested by:AA Tu (Fig. 8) (ft): 93.6 Casing outer diameter, in.2.3 USCS Soil Type in test zone:SM Tu>3h?: yes, OK Casing inner diameter, in.2.1 Weather (start to finish):Sunny Cross‐sectional area, in.^2 21.9 Water Source/pH:H2O Measured boring diameter:8 in.4 in. Well Radius Depth to GW or aquitard, bgs:100 ft Well Prep:Drilled to 10 feet, bottom 5 feet slotted 2" diameter pipe. #3 sand around anulus Use of Barrels:No ft in.Total (in.)Use of Flow Meter:Yes Depth to bottom of well measured from top of auger (or ground surfac10.4 ft 125 Depth of well bottom below top of casing (in):125 Test Type:Constant Head Casing stickup measured above top of auger (or ground surface) (+ is 0. ft 0. in.0 Depth to top of sand from top of casing 4.5 ft 0. in. Field Data Calculations Refilled? Start Date Start time:Total 10/7/2022 9:00 Gallons ft in. 10/7/22 9:13 4698.25 6.4 13 76.8 48.0 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 10/7/22 9:15 4700.04 6.34 2 15 76.1 48.7 0.72 48 413 -16 398 199 11931 0.8 1.49 7.75 10/7/22 9:17 4701.35 6.29 2 17 75.5 49.3 0.6 49 303 -13 289 145 8684 0.8 1.05 5.50 10/7/22 9:20 4703.33 6.23 3 20 74.8 50.0 0.72 50 457 -16 442 147 8832 0.8 1.03 5.47 10/7/22 9:25 4706.66 6.15 5 25 73.8 51.0 0.96 51 769 -21 748 150 8978 0.8 1.01 5.41 Adjusted Flow 25 73.8 51.0 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 10/7/22 9:28 4708.3 6.4 28 76.8 48.0 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 10/7/22 9:30 4709.18 6.44 2 30 77.3 47.5 -0.48 48 203 11 214 107 6414 0.8 0.79 3.97 10/7/22 9:35 4711.6 6.44 5 35 77.3 47.5 0 48 559 0 559 112 6708 0.8 0.82 4.13 10/7/22 9:40 4714.03 6.4 5 40 76.8 48.0 0.48 48 561 -11 551 110 6610 0.8 0.78 4.02 10/7/22 9:50 4718.84 6.39 10 50 76.7 48.1 0.12 48 1111 -3 1108 111 6651 0.8 0.78 3.99 10/7/22 10:00 4723.65 6.33 10 60 76.0 48.8 0.72 48 1111 -16 1095 110 6572 0.7 0.75 3.88 10/7/22 10:10 4728.48 6.29 10 70 75.5 49.3 0.48 49 1116 -11 1105 111 6631 0.7 0.74 3.84 10/7/22 10:23 4734.76 6.25 13 83 75.0 49.8 0.48 50 1451 -11 1440 111 6647 0.7 0.72 3.79 10/7/22 10:30 4738.14 6.24 7 90 74.9 49.9 0.12 50 781 -3 778 111 6670 0.7 0.72 3.76 10/7/22 10:40 4742.93 6.22 10 100 74.6 50.2 0.24 50 1106 -5 1101 110 6607 0.7 0.70 3.69 10/7/22 10:50 4747.74 6.19 10 110 74.3 50.5 0.36 50 1111 -8 1103 110 6619 0.7 0.69 3.66 10/7/22 11:00 4752.51 6.18 10 120 74.2 50.6 0.12 51 1102 -3 1099 110 6595 0.7 0.68 3.61 10/7/22 11:10 4757.31 6.17 10 130 74.0 50.8 0.12 51 1109 -3 1106 111 6637 0.7 0.68 3.62 10/7/22 11:20 4762.12 6.14 10 140 73.7 51.1 0.36 51 1111 -8 1103 110 6619 0.7 0.67 3.58 Adjusted Flow 140 73.7 51.1 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 10/7/22 11:25 4764.28 6.45 145 77.4 47.4 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 10/7/22 11:30 4765.94 6.56 5 150 78.7 46.1 -1.32 47 383 29 412 82 4949 0.7 0.59 2.89 10/7/22 11:35 4767.6 6.61 5 155 79.3 45.5 -0.6 46 383 13 397 79 4759 0.7 0.58 2.83 10/7/22 11:40 4769.2 6.64 5 160 79.7 45.1 -0.36 45 370 8 377 75 4530 0.7 0.56 2.72 10/7/22 11:50 4772.42 6.65 10 170 79.8 45.0 -0.12 45 744 3 746 75 4479 0.7 0.55 2.70 10/7/22 12:00 4775.63 6.68 10 180 80.2 44.6 -0.36 45 742 8 749 75 4496 0.7 0.56 2.73 10/7/22 12:10 4778.8 6.7 10 190 80.4 44.4 -0.24 45 732 5 738 74 4425 0.7 0.56 2.71 10/7/22 12:20 4781.96 6.71 10 200 80.5 44.3 -0.12 44 730 3 733 73 4396 0.7 0.56 2.70 10/7/22 12:30 4785.12 6.72 10 210 80.6 44.2 -0.12 44 730 3 733 73 4396 0.7 0.56 2.72 Adjusted Flow 210 80.6 44.2 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 10/7/22 12:40 4785.76 6.67 220 80.0 44.8 #### ###### ##### ####### #VALUE! 10/7/22 12:45 4787.29 6.53 5 225 78.4 46.4 1.68 46 353 -37 317 63 3799 0.7 0.45 2.31 10/7/22 12:50 4788.99 6.55 5 230 78.6 46.2 -0.24 46 393 5 398 80 4775 0.7 0.58 2.87 10/7/22 13:00 4792.08 6.59 10 240 79.1 45.7 -0.48 46 714 11 724 72 4346 0.7 0.54 2.64 10/7/22 13:10 4795.22 6.6 10 250 79.2 45.6 -0.12 46 725 3 728 73 4368 0.7 0.55 2.69 10/7/22 13:15 4797.12 6.62 5 255 79.4 45.4 -0.24 45 439 5 444 89 5330 0.7 0.68 3.31 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! 255 79.4 45.4 #### ###### ##### ########VALUE! Minimum Rate:2.31 Raw Rate for design, prior to application of adjustment factors:2.70 Water Temp (deg F)Reading (gallons)Interval Pulse Count (or Comments) Date Time Data from Flow Meter Depth to WL in Boring (measured from top of casing) Average Infiltration Surface Area, (in^2) V (Fig 9) K20, Coef. Of Perme- ability at 20 deg C (in./hr) Infiltration Rate [flow/surf area] (in./hr) (FS=1) Vol Change (in.^3) from supply from h Flow (in^3/ min) q, Flow (in^3/ hr) Δt (min) Total Elapsed Time (min) Depth to WL in well (in.) h, Height of Water in Well (in.) h (in.)Avg. h APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project Name:Tested By:MRV Date:10/12/22 Project No.:13584.003 Checked By:MRV Date:10/13/22 Boring No.:IT-1 Depth (feet):9.0 Sample No.:S-2B Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Yellowish Brown. A 456.9 456.9 452.5 279.3 279.3 173.2 2.5 A 390.2 279.3 110.9 (in.)(mm.) 3"75.000 1"25.000 3/4"19.000 1/2"12.500 3/8"9.500 #4 4.750 #8 2.360 #16 1.180 #30 0.600 #50 0.300 #100 0.150 #200 0.075 GRAVEL:9 % SAND:52 % FINES:39 % GROUP SYMBOL:SM N/A N/A Remarks: Cumulative Weight Dry Soil Retained (g) PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION) ASTM D 6913 Container No.: JPI/Jefferson Fontana/Infiltration of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g) Moisture Content (%) 100.0 Wt. of Container (g) U. S. Sieve Size Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil 72.1 Wt. of Container No._____ (g) Container No. Percent Passing (%) Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g) 48.3 100.0 100.0 Dry Wt. of Soil (g) Cu = D60/D10 = Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) = 6.6 16.3 PAN 65.8 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g) 80.5 86.822.8 100.0 33.7 After Wet Sieve Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g) Wt. of Container (g) Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g) 96.2 90.6 0.0 106.3 62.0 38.6 83.3 51.9 A-2B Oct-229:52 :39 Project Name: PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Yellowish Brown. SM GR:SA:FI : (%) Boring No.: Depth (feet):9.0 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER JPI/Jefferson Fontana/Infiltration Project No.:IT-1 Sample No.: Soil Type :13584.003 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T PARTICLE -SIZE (mm) " Sieve; IT-1, A-2B (10-07-22) Project Name:Tested By:MRV Date:10/12/22 Project No.:13584.003 Checked By:MRV Date:10/13/22 Boring No.:IT-2 Depth (feet):8.5 Sample No.:S-2 Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Yellowish Brown. B 629.8 629.8 622.0 278.5 278.5 343.5 2.3 B 484.6 278.5 206.1 (in.)(mm.) 3"75.000 1"25.000 3/4"19.000 1/2"12.500 3/8"9.500 #4 4.750 #8 2.360 #16 1.180 #30 0.600 #50 0.300 #100 0.150 #200 0.075 GRAVEL:14 % SAND:39 % FINES:47 % GROUP SYMBOL:SM N/A N/A Remarks: Cumulative Weight Dry Soil Retained (g) PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION) ASTM D 6913 Container No.: JPI/Jefferson Fontana/Infiltration of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g) Moisture Content (%) 100.0 Wt. of Container (g) U. S. Sieve Size Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil 75.1 Wt. of Container No._____ (g) Container No. Percent Passing (%) Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g) 85.6 100.0 94.9 Dry Wt. of Soil (g) Cu = D60/D10 = Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) = 0.0 27.4 47.4 PAN 104.2 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g) 78.6 82.061.8 100.0 73.6 After Wet Sieve Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g) Wt. of Container (g) Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g) 92.0 86.2 17.6 182.9 69.7 46.8 129.5 62.3 S-2 Oct-2214:39 :47 Project Name: PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Yellowish Brown. SM GR:SA:FI : (%) Boring No.: Depth (feet):8.5 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER JPI/Jefferson Fontana/Infiltration Project No.:IT-2 Sample No.: Soil Type :13584.003 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T PARTICLE -SIZE (mm) " Sieve; IT-2, S-2 (10-07-22) IT-1 IT-2 S-1 S-1 4.5 3.5 SPT SPT 10 10 810.5 679.6 805.5 673.2 278.7 279.8 0.9 1.6 F W 805.5 673.2 278.7 279.8 526.8 393.4 F W 774.5 628.0 278.7 279.8 495.8 348.2 6 11 94 89 Project Name:JPI/Jefferson Fontana/Infiltration Project No.:13584.003 Client Name:JPI Companies Tested By:M. Vinet Date:10/12/22 Boring No. Sample No. Container No.: Wet Weight of Soil + Container (gm.) Container No.: Weight of Sample + Container (gm.) Sample Dry Weight Determination Depth (ft.) Dry Weight of Soil + Container (gm.) Moisture Correction Sample Type Soil Classification Soak Time (min) After Wash % Retained No. 200 Sieve Dry Weight of Sample (gm) Dry Weight of Sample + Container (gm) Weight of Container (gm) Weight of Container (gm) Moisture Content (%) Weight of Container (gm.) Weight of Dry Sample (gm.) % Passing No. 200 Sieve (SW-SM)g PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE ASTM D 1140 (SW-SM)g 200 Wash (10-07-22) APPENDIX F WQMP CERTIFICATION AND MEMORENDAM OF AGREEMENT