HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix K - Prelim WQMPPRELIMINARY
Water Quality Management Plan
For:
Mountain View Industrial Park 13
14970 Jurupa Avenue
APN NO’S. 0237‐122‐07, 0237‐121‐03
WQMPPC24‐00028
Prepared for:
Duke Realty Limited Partnership
c/o Prologis
3546 Concours St., Suite 100
Ontario | California | 91764
Tel. No. (909) 673‐8723
Prepared by:
PBLA Engineering, Inc.
1809 E Dyer Rd, #301
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Tel. (888) 714‐9642
Submittal Date: April, 2024
Revision Date: July, 2024
Revision Date: December, 2024
Preliminary for Entitlements Complete Date:
Construction WQMP Complete Date:
Final WQMP Approved Date:
MCN No. WQMP No.
WQMP – Mtn View Ind Park 13
Owner’s Certification
Project Owner’s Certification
This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for Prologis by PBLA Engineering, Inc.
The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Fontana, Ca. 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): WQMPPC24‐00028 Grading Permit Number(s): Pending
Tract/Parcel Map
Number(s): N/A Building Permit Number(s): Pending
CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract): 0237‐121‐03, 0237‐122‐07
Owner’s Signature
Owner Name: D.J. Arellano
Title VP, Development ‐ Entitlements
Company PROLOGIS, LP
Address 3546 Concours St., Suite 100 Ontario | California | 91764
Email darellano@prologis.com
Telephone # (562) 376‐9233
Signature Date
WQMP – Mtn View Ind Park 13
Contents
Preparer’s Certification
Project Data
Permit/Application
Number(s): WQMPPC24‐00028 Grading Permit Number(s): Pending
Tract/Parcel Map
Number(s): N/A Building Permit Number(s): Pending
CUP, SUP, and/or APN (Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract): 0237‐121‐03, 0237‐122‐07
“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:
Title Principal
Company PBLA Engineering, Inc.
Address 1809 E Dyer Rd #301, Santa Ana, California
Email stevel@pbla.biz
Telephone # (888)714‐9642
Signature
Date 12/06/24
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
Attachments
Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 – WQMP Site Plan
Attachment 3 – Design Capture Volume
Attachment 4 – StormTech Storage Systems
Attachment 5 – Stormwater Watershed Mapping Tool Report
Attachment 6 – BMP Fact Sheets
Attachment 7 – NOAA Information
Attachment 8 – Soils Report dated March 28, 2024
Attachment 9 – Infiltration Report
Attachment 10 - Worksheet H – Infiltration Factor of Safety
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2‐1
Section 1 Discretionary Permit(s)
Form 1‐1 Project Information
Project Name Mountain View Industrial Park 13
Project Owner Contact Name: Annie Chen
Mailing
Address:
3546 Concours St., Suite 100
Ontario | California | 91764 E‐mail Address: Achen3@prologis.com Telephone: 909‐673‐8723
Permit/Application Number(s): WQMPPC24‐00028 Tract/Parcel Map
Number(s): N/A
Additional Information/
Comments: Site Coordinates: Latitude: 34‐02‐57.8 (34.04939°), Longitude: ‐117‐28‐40.1 (‐117.47781°)
Description of Project:
Prologis is proposing to develop approximately 22.24 acres of land in the City of Fontana,
County of San Bernardino. The property is located on the north side of Jurupa Avenue
between Live Oak Avenue and Hemlock Avenue. The property is currently developed and is
being used as a steel manufacturer’s lay down yard.
The existing drainage pattern is generally from the northeast toward the southwest to
existing infrastructure in Jurupa Ave. Master Planned drainage facilities are available on 3
sides of the site in the existing rights of way.
The proposed development improvements include a 492,130 square foot industrial logistics
building with associated paved parking, landscaped areas and underground infiltration
systems. The proposed design will include conveying surface storm water runoff as sheet
flow, into gutters, then into catch basins and then underground pipe to the proposed
infiltration systems in three of the four corners of the site.
The underground storage/infiltration systems will be sized to detain and infiltrate the
required WQMP Design Capture Volume, and any additional volume will be directed to the
outlets to the existing storm drain systems.
The proposed system is comprised of plastic arch pipes sections and gravel bedding. The
StormTech product is a proprietary system designed and provided by ADS. The system will
be designed to capture and infiltrate the required DCV calculations. The outlet for this
system will be a standard outlet manhole and outlet pipe with the invert of the outlet pipe
set to the soffit elevation of the storage system. This ensures the DCV is captured before
any stormwater is allowed to bypass the system and overflow to the existing Public Systems.
The proposed improvements consists of approximately 19.86 acres of impervious area
(DMA‐1 = 693,311 ft2, DMA‐2 = 82,911 ft2, DMA‐3 = 88,774 ft2) and is comprised of 11.06
acres of roof area (DMA‐1 = 346,471 ft2, DMA‐2 = 62,414 ft2, DMA‐3 = 62,404 ft2) and 8.79
acres of paved asphalt and concrete (DMA‐1 = 336,471 ft2, DMA‐2 = 20,497 ft2, DMA‐3 =
26,370 ft2). The onsite landscaping makes up approximately 1.10 acres of pervious area
(DMA‐1 = 34,147 ft2, DMA‐2 = 3,509 ft2, DMA‐3 = 110,232 ft2), as well as 55,756 sf (1.28 ac)
Self Treating perimeter landscaping. See the WQMP Site Plan for additional information
regarding the Drainage, Building, Asphalt/Concrete, and Landscape Areas for each DMA.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2‐2
Provide summary of Conceptual
WQMP conditions (if previously
submitted and approved). Attach
complete copy.
Not Applicable.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2‐3
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):
912,884 sf‐Trib to BMP
55,9386 not Trib to
BMP
3 Number of Dwelling
Units:
n/a 4 SIC Code:
4225 – General
Warehousing &
Storage
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)
2‐4
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:
Prologis will be responsible to build the Site and will maintain the post‐developed BMP upon completion of the Construction.
There is no intent to transfer any infrastructure to a public agency.
Contact for long‐term maintenance is:
DJ Arellano, VP
Prologis, LP
3546 Concours St
Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91764
darellano@prologis.com
(562) 376‐9233
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2‐5
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
Bacteria and viruses are a potential pollutant for Industrial/Commercial
developments if the land use involves animal waste. Due to the nature
of the development, there will be no animal waste associated with this
land use, and the site will be treated using site and source control.
Bacteria and virus can also be detected in pavement runoff; therefore,
the site has incorporated treatment control throughout. All paved and
hardened surfaces will be treated through a bioretention basin part of
Low Impact Design (LID).
Nutrients ‐ Phosphorous E N Phosphorous is an expected pollutant where landscaping exists.
Nutrients are typically found in runoff from fertilizers and eroded soils.
Nutrients ‐ Nitrogen E N Nitrogen is an expected pollutant where landscaping exists. Nutrients
are typically found in runoff from fertilizers and eroded soils.
Noxious Aquatic Plants E N
Noxious Aquatic Plants may be present where landscaping exists. The
project site may experience Noxious Aquatic Plant pollutants from the
basin.
Sediment E N Sediment is an expected pollutant where landscaping exists.
Metals E N
Metal pollution typically results from commercially available metals
and metal products, vehicle brake pad and tire tread wear emissions,
it’s use as corrosion inhibitors in primer coatings and cooling tower
systems, and as raw material components in non‐metal products. The
project site expects metal pollutants from vehicles in the parking lots
and drive aisles.
Oil and Grease E N
Oil and grease pollutants are products of petroleum hydrocarbon,
motors of leaking vehicles, esters, oils, fats, waxes and high molecular‐
weight fatty acids. The project site expects oil and grease pollutants
from vehicles in the parking lots and drive aisles.
Trash/Debris E N
Trash and debris can result from human activities and landscaping.
Trash and debris are typically in the form of paper, plastic, polystyrene
packing foam, and aluminum materials as well as biodegradable
organic matter in the form of leaves, grass cuttings, and food waste.
Pesticides / Herbicides E N Pesticides/herbicides are present wherever insects, rodents, fungi,
weeds, and other undesirable pests
Organic Compounds E N
Organic Compounds can results from waste handling and vehicle or
landscape maintenance. Solvents and cleaning compounds, as well as
dirt, grease, and grime from cleaning fluids or rinse water can absorb
harmful or hazardous organic compounds.
Other: E N
Other: E N
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
2‐6
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 0% (Total all credit percentages up to a maximum allowable credit of 50 percent)
Description of Water Quality
Credit Eligibility (if applicable)
None
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 33.9740° Longitude ‐117.6155° 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
Conveyance All DMAs Onsite storm drain begins with inlet filters and conveys runoff to underground storage & infiltration
Underground Storage
Underground storage is the Stomtech chamber system sized to capture and infiltrate the required
treatment volume
Basin outlet pipe Outlet pie conveys flows exceeding WQMP treatment volume requirements
Outlet Pipe
Storage & Infiltration
DMA‐1
Outlet Pipe
Storage & Infiltration
DMA‐2
Outlet Pipe
Storage & Infiltration
DMA‐3
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 1 DMA 2 DMA 3 DMA 4
1 DMA drainage area (ft2) 749,934 74,813 94,899
2 Existing site impervious area (ft2) 442,471 32,394 47,436
3 Antecedent moisture condition For desert
areas, use
http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/floodcontrol/pdf/2
0100412_map.pdf
II II II
4 Hydrologic soil group Refer to Watershed
Mapping Tool –
http://permitrack.sbcounty.gov/wap/
A A A
5 Longest flowpath length (ft) 1,450 728 720
6 Longest flowpath slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.007 0.008
7 Current land cover type(s) Select from Fig C‐3
of Hydrology Manual
AC pavement,
roof, some
landscape area
AC pavement,
roof, some
landscape area
AC pavement,
roof, some
landscape area
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 – see site
photo below
Poor – see site
photo below
Poor – see site
photo below
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
3‐3
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
Declez Channel
Santa Ana River Reach 3
Prado Basin
Santa Ana River Reach 2
Santa Ana River Reach 1
Pacific Ocean
Applicable TMDLs
Refer to Local Implementation Plan
Santa Ana River Reach 3:
Pathogens “Bacterial Indicator TMLDs for Middle Santa Ana River Watershed
Waterbodies (Bill Rice)
Nitrate : Santa Ana River Reach 3Nitrate TMDL (Hope Smythe)
Prado Flood Control basin
Pathogens “Bacterial Indicator TMLDs for Middle Santa Ana River Watershed
Waterbodies (Bill Rice)
Santa Ana River Reach 2 NONE
Santa Ana River Reach 1 NONE
Tidal Prism, Santa Ana River NONE
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 –
Expected pollutants of concern include heavy metals, organic compounds,
trash/debris and oil/grease. Potential pollutants of concern include bacteria
virus, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, and oxygen demanding substances.
There is no evidence to suggest that any other pollutants will be produced
from the project site other than these
303(d) listed impairment
Santa Ana River Reach 3: Pathogens, Metals (copper & lead)
Prado Flood Control Basin: Pathogens and Nutrients
Santa Ana River Reach 2: Indicator Bacteria
Santa Ana River Reach 1 and Tidal prism Santa Ana River: NONE
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
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
Practical education materials will be provided to property owner and warehouse
Maintenance staffs covering various water quality issues that will need to be addressed
on their specific site. These materials will include general practices that contribute to
the protection of storm water quality and BMP’s that eliminate or reduce pollution
during property improvements. The developer will request these materials in writing at
least 30 days prior to intended distribution and will then be responsible for publication
and distribution.
N2 Activity Restrictions
Restrictions may be developed by property owner or other mechanisms. Pesticide
applications will be performed by an applicator certified by the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation. Vehicle washing will be prohibited.
N3 Landscape Management BMPs
According to the California Stormwater Quality Associations Stormwater Best
Management Practice Handbook, landscape planning is implemented to reduce
groundwater and storm water contamination. This will be accomplished through an Bio‐
Retention basin, and landscape areas
N4 BMP Maintenance
Responsibility for implementation, inspection and maintenance of all BMPs (structural
and non‐structural) shall be consistent with the BMP Inspection and Maintenance
Responsibilities Matrix provided in Section V of this WQMP, with documented records of
inspections and maintenance activities completed. Cleaning of all structural BMP
Facilities is scheduled by Owner
N5 Title 22 CCR Compliance
(How development will comply)
The proposed commercial development will not generate waste subject to Title 22 CCR
Compliance.
N6 Local Water Quality Ordinances The local water quality ordinances shall be complied with through the implementation
of this WQMP
N7 Spill Contingency Plan
The spill Contingency Plan shall be provided in accordance with Section 6.95 of the
California Health Safety Code. Parking lots must have absorbent materials on site for
potential vehicle leaks.
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4‐3
Form 4.1‐1 Non‐Structural Source Control BMPs
N8 Underground Storage Tank Compliance No underground storage tank on the site.
N9 Hazardous Materials Disclosure
Compliance
No hazardous materials on the 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 The proposed Commercial project will not store toxic or highly toxic compressed gases
N11 Litter/Debris Control Program
Litter control onsite will include the use of litter controls, violation reporting and clean
up during landscaping maintenance activities and as needed to ensure good
housekeeping of the project’s common areas
N12 Employee Training
All employees, contractors and subcontractors of the property management shall be
trained on the proper use and staging of landscaping and other materials with the
potential to impact runoff and proper clean‐up of spills and materials.
N13 Housekeeping of Loading Docks Trucking maintenance staffs/Operators will be instructed to keep all areas of loading
docks clean and free of Trash / debris at all the time
N14 Catch Basin Inspection Program
As required by the TGD, at least 80% of the project’s private drainage facilities shall be
inspected, cleaned/maintained annually, with 100% of facilities inspected and
maintained within a two‐year period. Drainage facilities include catch basins (storm
drain inlets), detention basins, Bio‐Retention Basin, open drainage channel.
N15 Vacuum Sweeping of Private Streets and
Parking Lots
The project’s private streets drive isles and parking lots shall be swept, at minimum,
prior to the start of the traditional rainy season and as needed.
N16 Other Non‐structural Measures for Public
Agency Projects
No other Non‐Structural Measures for Public Agency Projects required.
N17 Comply with all other applicable NPDES
permits
Project will file a SWPPP w/ the State Waterboards and obtain a WDID number
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)
Storm drain stencils or signage prohibiting dumping and discharge of materials
(“No Dumping – Drains to Ocean”) shall be provided adjacent to each of the
project’s proposed inlets. The stencils shall be inspected and re‐stenciled as
needed to maintain legibility.
S2
Design and construct outdoor material storage
areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA
New Development BMP Handbook SD‐34)
Project does not propose outdoor storage areas.
S3
Design and construct trash and waste storage
areas to reduce pollution introduction (CASQA
New Development BMP Handbook SD‐32)
Garbage bin storage areas provided.
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)
In conjunction with routine landscaping maintenance activities, inspect irrigation
for signs of leaks, overspray and repair or adjust accordingly. Adjust system cycle
to accommodate seasonal fluctuations in water demand and temperatures. Ensure
use of native or drought tolerant/non‐invasive plant species to minimize water
consumption
S5
Finish grade of landscaped areas at a minimum of
1‐2 inches below top of curb, sidewalk, or
pavement
New landscaped areas will be constructed at a minimum of 1 inch below existing
paved areas
S6
Protect slopes and channels and provide energy
dissipation (CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD‐10)
Sloped areas designed with grade that protects from erosion.
S7 Covered dock areas (CASQA New Development
BMP Handbook SD‐31)
In the design of maintenance bays & loading docks, containment is encouraged
preventive measures including overflow containment structures & dead‐end
Sumps. However, in the case of loading dock from warehouse, engineered
infiltration Systems may be considered
S8
Covered maintenance bays with spill containment
plans (CASQA New Development BMP Handbook
SD‐31)
No Bays, Not applicable
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4‐6
S9 Vehicle wash areas with spill containment plans
(CASQA New Development BMP Handbook SD‐33)
No Vehicle Wash at the site, Not applicable
S10 Covered outdoor processing areas (CASQA New
Development BMP Handbook SD‐36)
No outdoor Processing, Not applicable
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, Not applicable
S12 Fueling areas (CASQA New Development BMP
Handbook SD‐30)
No Fueling Areas, Not applicable
S13 Hillside landscaping (CASQA New Development
BMP Handbook SD‐10)
No Hillside Landscaping, Not applicable
S14 Wash water control for food preparation areas No food Preparation, Not applicable
S15 Community car wash racks (CASQA New
Development BMP Handbook SD‐33)
No Community Car Wash, Not applicable
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: The Site has landscaped area, multiple planters area in additional to our infiltration/Bio‐Retention Basin.
Maximize natural infiltration capacity: Yes No
Explanation: Runoff from impervious surfaces will be conveyed to the underground infiltration chambers. The basin will not be
lined to allow for infiltration to occur, but is not the primary BMP.
Preserve existing drainage patterns and time of concentration: Yes No
Explanation: The site currently drains Southwest. Post developed flow will also drain Southwest this is consistent with existing
and Master Planned flow patterns; however, the concentration time will be increased.
Disconnect impervious areas: Yes No
Explanation: The site drains underground infiltration chambers for infiltration.
Protect existing vegetation and sensitive areas: Yes No
Explanation: There are no environmentally sensitive portions onsite.
Re‐vegetate disturbed areas: Yes No
Explanation: Part of the disturbed areas will be revegeated,. Including planting and preservation of drought tolerant
vegetation.
Minimize unnecessary compaction in stormwater retention/infiltration basin/trench areas: Yes No
Explanation: No compaction will be performed within the areas where the underground infiltration chambers are proposed.
Utilize vegetated drainage swales in place of underground piping or imperviously lined swales: Yes No
Explanation: Runoff will be intercepted by the underground infiltration chambers and multiple landscaped
areas/planters
Stake off areas that will be used for landscaping to minimize compaction during construction: Yes No
Explanation: No compaction will be performed within the area where landscape areas are proposed.
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
(DMA 1)
1 Project area DA 1 (ft2):
727,458
2 Imperviousness after applying preventative
site design practices (Imp%): 95.3
3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): _0.81
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): 0.518 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html
5 Compute P6, Mean 6‐hr Precipitation (inches): 0.7670
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): 74,099
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 4.2‐1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume
(DMA 2)
1 Project area DA 2 (ft2):
86,420
2 Imperviousness after applying preventative
site design practices (Imp%): 96.0
3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): _0.82
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): 0.518 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html
5 Compute P6, Mean 6‐hr Precipitation (inches): 0.7670
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): 8,909
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
Form 4.2‐1 LID BMP Performance Criteria for Design Capture Volume
(DMA 3)
1 Project area DA 3 (ft2):
99,006
2 Imperviousness after applying preventative
site design practices (Imp%): 89.7
3 Runoff Coefficient (Rc): _0.73
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): 0.518 http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/sa/sca_pfds.html
5 Compute P6, Mean 6‐hr Precipitation (inches): 0.7670
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): 9,006
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)
4‐10
*The Site is with in HCOC exempt area for WQMP per the San Bernardino County WQMP Project report (WAP Report).
Form 4.2‐2 Summary of HCOC Assessment (DMA 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)
4‐11
Form 4.2‐3 HCOC Assessment for Runoff Volume (DA 1)
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)
4‐12
Form 4.2‐4 HCOC Assessment for Time of Concentration (DA 1)
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)
4‐13
Form 4.2‐5 HCOC Assessment for Peak Runoff (DA 1)
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)
4‐14
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)
4‐15
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) Due to low infiltration rate on Site.
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) See attached Soils Report which includes infiltration testing results
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)
4‐16
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.
Form 4.3‐2 Site Design Hydrologic Source Control BMPs (DA 1)
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 1 DMA 1
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 2
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 3
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 4
BMP Type INFIL
2 Total impervious area draining to pervious area
3 Ratio of pervious area receiving runoff to
4 Retention volume achieved from impervious area
dispersion (ft3) V = Item2 * Item 3 * (0.5/12), assuming
retention of 0.5 inches of runoff
5 Sum of retention volume achieved from impervious area dispersion (ft3): 0 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 1 DMA 1
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 2
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 3
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 4
BMP Type INFIL
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): 0 Vretention =Sum of Item 12 for all BMPs
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
4‐17
Form 4.3‐2 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 1 DMA 1
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 2
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 3
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 4
BMP Type INFIL
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): 0 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 1 DMA 1
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 2
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 3
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 4
BMP Type INFIL
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): 0 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 1 DMA 1
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 2
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 3
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 4
BMP Type INFIL
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): 0 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)
4‐18
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)
4‐19
Form 4.3‐3 Infiltration LID BMP ‐ including underground BMPs (DA 1)
1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC BMP (ft3): 90,222 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 1 DMA 1
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 2
BMP Type INFIL
DA 1 DMA 3
BMP Type INFIL NOTES
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
11.27 (AVE) 11.27 (AVE) 11.27 (AVE) From Old Soils
Report
3 Infiltration safety factor See TGD Section 5.4.2 and Appendix D 2.75 2.75 2.75 Worksheet H
4 Design percolation rate (in/hr) Pdesign = Item 2 / Item 3 2.8 2.8 2.8
Used less than
calc’d for prelim
5 Ponded water drawdown time (hr) Copy Item 6 in Form 4.2‐1 48 48 48
6 Maximum ponding depth (ft) BMP specific, see Table 5‐4 of the TGD for
WQMP for BMP design details
7.5 6.75 7
7 Ponding Depth (ft) dBMP = Minimum of (1/12*Item 4*Item 5) or Item 6 7.5 6.75 7
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
15,846 2210 2324
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 N/A N/A
10 Amended soil porosity N/A N/A 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
2’ below, 1’ above
chambers
2’ below, 1’ above
chambers
2’ below, 1’ above
chambers
12 Gravel porosity 0.4 0.4 0.4
13 Duration of storm as basin is filling (hrs) Typical ~ 3hrs 3 3 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 0 0
15 Underground Retention Volume (ft3) Volume determined using
manufacturer’s specifications and calculations
80,624 9,956 8,962
16 Total Retention Volume from LID Infiltration BMPs: 92,220 (Sum of Items 14 and 15 for all infiltration BMP included in plan)
17 Fraction of DCV achieved with infiltration BMP: 102% 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)
4‐20
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)
1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC or infiltration BMP (ft3): 0
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)
4‐21
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 (DMA 1)
1 Remaining LID DCV not met by site design HSC,
infiltration, or harvest and use BMP for potential
biotreatment (ft3): 0 Form 4.2‐1 Item 7 ‐ Form 4.3‐2 Item
30 – Form 4.3‐3 Item 16‐ Form 4.3‐4 Item 9
Bacteria and viruses are a potential pollutant for Industrial/Commercial
developments if the land use involves animal waste. Due to the nature
of the development, there will be no animal waste associated with this
land use, and the site will be treated using site and source control.
Bacteria and virus can also be detected in pavement runoff; therefore,
the site has incorporated treatment control throughout. All paved and
hardened surfaces will be treated through a bioretention basin part of
Low Impact Design (LID).
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): 0 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): 0 Item 1 – Item 3
5 Remaining fraction of LID DCV for
sizing flow based biotreatment BMP:
0 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)
4‐22
Form 4.3‐6 Volume Based Biotreatment (DA 1) –
Bioretention and Planter Boxes with Underdrains
Biotreatment BMP Type
(Bioretention w/underdrain, planter box w/underdrain, other
comparable BMP)
DA 1 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
Pathogens,
metals, nutrients,
sediment, organic
compounds,
pesticides, trash,
oil and grease
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)
4‐23
Form 4.3‐7 Volume Based Biotreatment (DA 1) –
Constructed Wetlands and Extended Detention
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)
4‐24
Form 4.3‐8 Flow Based Biotreatment (DA 1)
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)
4‐25
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): 73,543
2 On‐site retention with site design hydrologic source control LID BMP (ft3): 0
3 On‐site retention with LID infiltration BMP (ft3): 80,624
4 On‐site retention with LID harvest and use BMP (ft3): 0
5 On‐site biotreatment with volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): 0
6 Flow capacity provided by flow based biotreatment BMP (cfs): 0
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)
4‐26
Form 4.3‐9 Conformance Summary and Alternative
Compliance Volume Estimate (DA 2)
1 Total LID DCV for the Project DA‐2 (ft3): 9,020
2 On‐site retention with site design hydrologic source control LID BMP (ft3): 0
3 On‐site retention with LID infiltration BMP (ft3): 9,956
4 On‐site retention with LID harvest and use BMP (ft3): 0
5 On‐site biotreatment with volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): 0
6 Flow capacity provided by flow based biotreatment BMP (cfs): 0
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)
4‐27
Form 4.3‐9 Conformance Summary and Alternative
Compliance Volume Estimate (DA 3)
1 Total LID DCV for the Project DA‐3 (ft3): 8,132
2 On‐site retention with site design hydrologic source control LID BMP (ft3): 0
3 On‐site retention with LID infiltration BMP (ft3): 8,962
4 On‐site retention with LID harvest and use BMP (ft3): 0
5 On‐site biotreatment with volume based biotreatment BMP (ft3): 0
6 Flow capacity provided by flow based biotreatment BMP (cfs): 0
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)
4‐28
4.3.6 Hydromodification Control BMP
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)
4‐29
4.4 Alternative Compliance Plan (if applicable)
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
Infiltration /
Underground
Storage
Prologis
Maintain System per Manufacturer Specifications.
Manufacturer recommends annual inspections. Sites with
high trash load may need more frequent inspections. A
record of each inspection is to be maintained for life of
the system.
Systems should be cleaned when an inspection reveals
accumulated sediment or trash is clogging the discharge
orifice. Manhole covers should be securely seated
following cleaning activities.
Once a year or as
Needed
Education of
Property
Owners,
Tenants and
Occupants
on
Stormwater
BMPs (N1)
Prologis
Practical education materials will be provided to property
owners covering various water quality issues that will
need to be addressed on their specific site. These
materials will include general good house keeping
practices that contribute to the protection of storm
water quality and BMP’s that eliminate or reduce
pollution during property improvements.
At C of O
Activity
Restrictions
(N2)
Prologis
Restrictions may be developed by Owner
Ongoing by Code
Enforcement
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
5‐2
Landscape
maintenance
(N3)
Prologis
Landscape planning is implemented to reduce
groundwater and storm water contamination. This will be
accomplished through an infiltration basin, and
landscape areas.
Monthly
BMP
maintenance
(N4
Prologis
See details hereon
Ongoing with every
visit
Spill
contingency
plan (N7)
Prologis
The spill contingency plan shall be provided in
accordance with Section 6.95 of the California Health and
Safety Code
Ongoing with every
visit
Litter debris
control
program (N11
Prologis Litter debris control program may be developed by the
Owner
Ongoing with every
visit
Employee
training
(N12)
Prologis Employee training may be developed by the Owner
As stated
Housekeepin
g of loading
dock (N13)
Prologis
Members of the warehouse/gardeners/maintenance
staff will be provided instruction to clean dock area free
of debris/trash all the time by the owner
Ongoing
Catch basin
inspection
program
(N14)
Prologis
Catch basins will be inspected a minimum of once every
three months during the dry season and a minimum of
once every two months during the rainy season
Inspect once a year
Vacuum
Sweeping of
Private
Streets and
Parking lot
(N15)
Prologis Vacuum of parking lot and driveways will be done by
warehouse employees
Once a month
minimum
Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
5‐3
Provide
storm drain
system
stencilling
and signage
(N16)
Prologis
Signs will be placed above storm drain inlets to warn
the public of prohibitions against waste disposal
Once a year or
according to
Manufacturer
Manuals
Use efficient
irrigation
systems &
landscape
design,
water
conservatio
n, smart
controllers,
and source
control (N3
Prologis
Rain sensors will be incorporated into the onsite
sprinkler system so that no unnecessary watering of
landscaped areas occurs after storm events.
Once a year
Finish grade
of
landscaped
areas at a
minimum of
1‐2 inches
below top of
curb,
sidewalk, or
pavement
Prologis
New landscaped areas will be constructed at a
minimum of 1 inch below existing paved areas
Once a year
Catch Basin
Triton Inlet
Filter
Prologis
To ensure proper operation, the manufacturer
recommends filter media be replaced when the
outer surface is no more than 50 percent coated with
contaminants. It is recommended that the media be
replaced a minimum of one time per seasonal cycle
year. Sites with higher pollutant loading
concentrations may require more frequent service
and media replacement.
The manufacturer
recommends that
filters are inspected
and serviced at a
minimum of three
times per seasonal
cycle year.
Frequency may
fluctuate based on
specific site
conditions.
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 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
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
P
B L
A
AL
M
O
B
D
A
V
E
NTS
CH
E
R
R
Y
A
V
E
RE
D
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
LI
V
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
HE
M
L
O
C
K
A
V
E
BE
E
C
H
A
V
E
EL
M
A
V
E
PO
P
L
A
R
A
V
E
SLOVER AVE
SANTA ANA AVE
JURUPA AVE
VALLEY BLVD
I-10
Attachment 2 - WQMP Site Plan
EX. 66" SD EX. 66" SD
EX. 66" SD
EX. SD CB TO REMAIN
EX. 48" SD
EX. 48" SD
EX. 66" SD
EX. GUTTER
EX. GUTTER
EX. CATCH BASIN
EX. CATCH BASINUNDERGROUND CHAMBERS
OVERFLOW PIPE.
DRAIN TO EX. 48" SD
IN LIVE OAK AVE.
UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS
OVERFLOW PIPE.
DRAIN TO EX. SD CB
AND EX. 48" SD
IN LIVE OAK AVE.
UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS
OVERFLOW PIPE.
DRAIN TO EX. 66" SD
IN HEMLOCK AVE.
SD
P
B L
A
B
A
L
P
P
B L
A
AL
M
O
B
D
A
V
E
NTS
CH
E
R
R
Y
A
V
E
RE
D
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
LI
V
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
HE
M
L
O
C
K
A
V
E
BE
E
C
H
A
V
E
EL
M
A
V
E
PO
P
L
A
R
A
V
E
SLOVER AVE
SANTA ANA AVE
JURUPA AVE
VALLEY BLVD
I-10
Attachment 3 - Design Capture Volume
VOLUME BASED DESIGN
FROM FORM 4.2-1 LID BMP PERFORMANCE CRITERIA DCV:
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = RC=0.858i3 - 0.78i2 + 0.774i + 0.04
WHERE i = IMPERVIOUS RATIO
2 YR, 1 HR RAINFALL DEPTH = 0.518
P6 = MEAN 6 HR PRECIPITAION = C1*2yr, 1hr
C1 = 1.4807 for Valley Region
0.77
C2 = 48 HR DRAWDOWN TIME FACTOR (1.963)
DCV = (1/12)* Area*Rc*P6*C2
DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUMES:
DMA-1
A=16.70
i=0.953
Rc=0.81
DCV = 1.70 ac-ft
DCV = 74,099 c.f.92,014 2.11
DMA-2
A=1.98
i=0.960
Rc=0.82
DCV = 0.20 ac-ft
DCV = 8,909 c.f.
DMA-3
A=2.27
i=0.897
Rc=0.73
DCV = 0.21 ac-ft
DCV = 9,006 c.f.
DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME CALCULATIONS
MOUNTAIN VIEW - 13
P6 = 0.518 * 1.4807 =
Attachment 4 - StormTech Storage Systems
ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-7200 CHAMBER SYSTEMS
PLEASE NOTE:
1.THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE".
2.STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9" (230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR.
3.WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR
COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS.
4.ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.
5.WHERE RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE IS USED IN LAYERS 'A' OR 'B' THE MATERIAL SHOULD ALSO MEET THE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN TECHNICAL NOTE 6.20 "RECYCLED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL".
NOTES:
1.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" CHAMBER CLASSIFICATION 60x101
2.MC-7200 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".
3.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION
FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS.
4.PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS.
5.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION:
·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS.
·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 3”.
·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 450 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF
ASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW
COLORS.
MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION AASHTO MATERIAL
CLASSIFICATIONS COMPACTION / DENSITY REQUIREMENT
D
FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE
TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT
PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER
ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS.
CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS.N/A
PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. PAVED
INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL AND
PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS.
C
INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' STARTS FROM THE
TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm)
ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT
SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C' LAYER.
GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% FINES OR
PROCESSED AGGREGATE.
MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THIS
LAYER.
AASHTO M145¹
A-1, A-2-4, A-3
OR
AASHTO M43¹
3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, 9, 10
BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24" (600 mm) OF MATERIAL OVER
THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN
12" (300 mm) MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR
WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE DENSITY FOR
PROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS.
B
EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS
FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE ('A' LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER
ABOVE.
CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE
OR RECYCLED CONCRETE5
AASHTO M43¹
3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57
A FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE
SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) OF THE CHAMBER.
CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE
OR RECYCLED CONCRETE5
AASHTO M43¹
3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57 PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE.2,3
NO COMPACTION REQUIRED.
24"
(600 mm) MIN*
7.0'
(2.1 m)
MAX
12" (300 mm) MIN100" (2540 mm)
12" (300 mm) MIN
12" (300 mm) MIN 9"
(230 mm) MIN
D
C
B
A
*TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED
INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR,
INCREASE COVER TO 30" (750 mm).
60"
(1525 mm)
DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED
BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 9" (230 mm) MIN
EXCAVATION WALL
(CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL)
MC-7200
END CAP
PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED
BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER)
PERIMETER STONE
(SEE NOTE 4)
SUBGRADE SOILS
(SEE NOTE 3)
**THIS CROSS SECTION DETAIL REPRESENTS
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION.
PLEASE SEE THE LAYOUT SHEET(S) FOR
PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL
AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS
MC-7200 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
NTS
PART #STUB B C
MC7200IEPP06T 6" (150 mm)42.54" (1081 mm)---
MC7200IEPP06B ---0.86" (22 mm)
MC7200IEPP08T 8" (200 mm)40.50" (1029 mm)---
MC7200IEPP08B ---1.01" (26 mm)
MC7200IEPP10T 10" (250 mm)38.37" (975 mm)---
MC7200IEPP10B ---1.33" (34 mm)
MC7200IEPP12T 12" (300 mm)35.69" (907 mm)---
MC7200IEPP12B ---1.55" (39 mm)
MC7200IEPP15T 15" (375 mm)32.72" (831 mm)---
MC7200IEPP15B ---1.70" (43 mm)
MC7200IEPP18T
18" (450 mm)
29.36" (746 mm)---MC7200IEPP18TW
MC7200IEPP18B ---1.97" (50 mm)
MC7200IEPP18BW
MC7200IEPP24T
24" (600 mm)
23.05" (585 mm)---MC7200IEPP24TW
MC7200IEPP24B ---2.26" (57 mm)
MC7200IEPP24BW
MC7200IEPP30BW 30" (750 mm)---2.95" (75 mm)
MC7200IEPP36BW 36" (900 mm)---3.25" (83 mm)
MC7200IEPP42BW 42" (1050 mm)---3.55" (90 mm)
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL
NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS
SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)100.0" X 60.0" X 79.1" (2540 mm X 1524 mm X 2010 mm)
CHAMBER STORAGE 175.9 CUBIC FEET (4.98 m³)
MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*267.3 CUBIC FEET (7.56 m³)
WEIGHT (NOMINAL)205 lbs.(92.9 kg)
NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONS
SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)90.0" X 61.0" X 32.8" (2286 mm X 1549 mm X 833 mm)
END CAP STORAGE 39.5 CUBIC FEET (1.12 m³)
MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*115.3 CUBIC FEET (3.26 m³)
WEIGHT (NOMINAL)90 lbs.(40.8 kg)
*ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS,
12" (305 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY.
PARTIAL CUT HOLES AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B"
PARTIAL CUT HOLES AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T"
END CAPS WITH A PREFABRICATED WELDED STUB END WITH "W"
CUSTOM PREFABRICATED INVERTS
ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE
12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZE
AND 15-48" (375-1200 mm)
ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOM
INVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-7200
END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOT
RECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZES
GREATER THAN 10" (250 mm). THE
INVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B'
ARE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE FOR
THE PIPE SIZE.
UPPER JOINT
CORRUGATION
WEB
CREST
CREST
STIFFENING
RIB
VALLEY
STIFFENING RIB
BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION
LOWER JOINT
CORRUGATION
FOOT
83.4"
(2120 mm)
79.1"
(2010 mm)
INSTALLED
60.0"
(1524 mm)
100.0" (2540 mm)90.0" (2286 mm)
61.0"
(1549 mm)
32.8"
(833 mm)
INSTALLED
38.0"
(965 mm)
B
C
INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE
STEP 1)INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR SEDIMENT
A.INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT)
A.1.REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN
A.2.REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED
A.3.USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG
A.4.LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL)
A.5.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.
B.ALL ISOLATOR PLUS ROWS
B.1.REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUS
B.2.USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS THROUGH OUTLET PIPE
i)MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY
ii)FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE
B.3.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.
STEP 2)CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS USING THE JETVAC PROCESS
A.A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED
B.APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN
C.VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED
STEP 3)REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS.
STEP 4)INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM.
NOTES
1.INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS
OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS.
2.CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY.
MC-7200 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL
NTS
STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS
FLEXSTORM INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM
STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES
COVER PIPE CONNECTION TO END CAP WITH ADS
GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
MC-7200 CHAMBER OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT
MC-7200 END CAP
24" (600 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE
FACTORY PARTIAL CUT END CAP PART #:
MC7200IEPP24B OR MC7200IEPP24BW
ONE LAYER OF ADSPLUS125 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN
FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS
10.3' (3.1 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS
SUMP DEPTH TBD BY
SITE DESIGN ENGINEER
(24" [600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED)
INSTALL FLAMP ON 24" (600 mm) ACCESS PIPE
PART #: MCFLAMP
UNDERDRAIN DETAIL
NTS
A
A
B B
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
NUMBER AND SIZE OF UNDERDRAINS PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER
4" (100 mm) TYP FOR SC-310 & SC-160LP SYSTEMS
6" (150 mm) TYP FOR SC-740, SC-800, DC-780, MC-3500, MC-4500 & MC-7200 SYSTEMS
OUTLET MANIFOLD
STORMTECH
END CAP
STORMTECH
CHAMBERS
STORMTECH
END CAP
DUAL WALL
PERFORATED
HDPE
UNDERDRAIN
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FOUNDATION STONE
BENEATH CHAMBERS
FOUNDATION STONE
BENEATH CHAMBERS
STORMTECH
CHAMBER
MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL
NTS
NOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BE LAID HORIZONTAL
FOR A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING.
MANIFOLD HEADER
MANIFOLD STUB
STORMTECH END CAP
MANIFOLD HEADER
MANIFOLD STUB
12" (300 mm)
MIN SEPARATION
12" (300 mm) MIN INSERTION
12" (300 mm)
MIN SEPARATION
12" (300 mm)
MIN INSERTION
St
o
r
m
T
e
c
h
88
8
-
8
9
2
-
2
6
9
4
|
WW
W
.
S
T
O
R
M
T
E
C
H
.
C
O
M
®
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
46
4
0
T
R
U
E
M
A
N
B
L
V
D
HI
L
L
I
A
R
D
,
O
H
4
3
0
2
6
1-
8
0
0
-
7
3
3
-
7
4
7
3
DA
T
E
:
DR
A
W
N
:
S
L
PR
O
J
E
C
T
#
:
CH
E
C
K
E
D
:
N
/
A
RE
V
:
TH
I
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
H
A
S
B
E
E
N
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
T
O
A
D
S
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
.
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
H
A
L
L
R
E
V
I
E
W
T
H
I
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
.
I
T
I
S
T
H
E
U
L
T
I
M
A
T
E
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
O
F
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
T
O
E
N
S
U
R
E
T
H
A
T
T
H
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
(
S
)
D
E
P
I
C
T
E
D
A
N
D
A
L
L
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
M
E
E
T
A
L
L
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
L
A
W
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
,
A
N
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
FO
N
T
A
N
A
-
D
M
A
1
FO
N
T
A
N
A
,
C
A
,
U
S
A
SHEET
1 1OF
NO
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
ISOLATOR ROW PLUS
(SEE DETAIL)
PLACE MINIMUM 17.50' OF ADSPLUS125 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDING
STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL
CHAMBER INLET ROWS
BED LIMITS
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED):966.00
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED WITH TRAFFIC):961.50
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC):961.00
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF RIGID CONCRETE PAVEMENT):961.00
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (BASE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT):961.00
TOP OF STONE:960.00
TOP OF MC-7200 CHAMBER:959.00
24" x 24" BOTTOM MANIFOLD INVERT:954.19
24" ISOLATOR ROW PLUS INVERT:954.19
18" x 18" BOTTOM MANIFOLD INVERT:954.16
18" BOTTOM CONNECTION INVERT:954.16
BOTTOM OF MC-7200 CHAMBER:954.00
UNDERDRAIN INVERT:952.00
BOTTOM OF STONE:952.00
PROPOSED LAYOUT
252 STORMTECH MC-7200 CHAMBERS
26 STORMTECH MC-7200 END CAPS
12 STONE ABOVE (in)
24 STONE BELOW (in)
40 STONE VOID
80624
INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME (CF)
(PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED)
(COVER STONE INCLUDED)
(BASE STONE INCLUDED)
16691 SYSTEM AREA (SF)
535.7 SYSTEM PERIMETER (ft)
MAX FLOWINVERT*DESCRIPTIONITEM ON
LAYOUTPART TYPE
2.26"24" BOTTOM PARTIAL CUT END CAP, PART#: MC7200IEPP24B / TYP OF ALL 24" BOTTOM
CONNECTIONS AND ISOLATOR PLUS ROWSAPREFABRICATED END CAP
1.97"18" BOTTOM PARTIAL CUT END CAP, PART#: MC7200IEPP18B / TYP OF ALL 18" BOTTOM
CONNECTIONSBPREFABRICATED END CAP
INSTALL FLAMP ON 24" ACCESS PIPE / PART#: MCFLAMPCFLAMP
2.26"24" x 24" BOTTOM MANIFOLD, ADS N-12DMANIFOLD
1.97"18" x 18" BOTTOM MANIFOLD, ADS N-12EMANIFOLD
1.97"18" BOTTOM CONNECTIONFPIPE CONNECTION
8.0 CFS OUTOCS (DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS)GCONCRETE STRUCTURE
41.5 CFS IN(DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS)HCONCRETE STRUCTURE
W/WEIR
6" ADS N-12 DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAINIUNDERDRAIN
G
H
E
D
A
F
B
C
I
11
7
.
3
3
'
137.30'
11
9
.
9
3
'
143.79'
1 MC-7200 CROSS SECTION DETAIL
2 MC-7200 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
3 MC-7200 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL
SPA
C
E
I
N
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
Y
L
E
F
T
B
L
A
N
K
4 UNDERDRAIN DETAIL
SPA
C
E
I
N
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
Y
L
E
F
T
B
L
A
N
K
5 MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL
NOTES
•MANIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. SEE TECH NOTE #6.32 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE.
•DUE TO THE ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD
COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD.
•THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
•THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
DETERMINING
THE SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS. THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAY BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION IS
PROVIDED.
•NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION: THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT & THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE.
*INVERT ABOVE BASE OF CHAMBER
ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-7200 CHAMBER SYSTEMS
PLEASE NOTE:
1.THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE".
2.STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9" (230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR.
3.WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR
COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS.
4.ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.
5.WHERE RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE IS USED IN LAYERS 'A' OR 'B' THE MATERIAL SHOULD ALSO MEET THE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN TECHNICAL NOTE 6.20 "RECYCLED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL".
NOTES:
1.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" CHAMBER CLASSIFICATION 60x101
2.MC-7200 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".
3.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION
FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS.
4.PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS.
5.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION:
·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS.
·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 3”.
·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 450 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF
ASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW
COLORS.
MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION AASHTO MATERIAL
CLASSIFICATIONS COMPACTION / DENSITY REQUIREMENT
D
FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE
TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT
PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER
ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS.
CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS.N/A
PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. PAVED
INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL AND
PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS.
C
INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' STARTS FROM THE
TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm)
ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT
SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C' LAYER.
GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% FINES OR
PROCESSED AGGREGATE.
MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THIS
LAYER.
AASHTO M145¹
A-1, A-2-4, A-3
OR
AASHTO M43¹
3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, 9, 10
BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24" (600 mm) OF MATERIAL OVER
THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN
12" (300 mm) MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR
WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE DENSITY FOR
PROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS.
B
EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS
FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE ('A' LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER
ABOVE.
CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE
OR RECYCLED CONCRETE5
AASHTO M43¹
3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57
A FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE
SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) OF THE CHAMBER.
CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE
OR RECYCLED CONCRETE5
AASHTO M43¹
3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57 PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE.2,3
NO COMPACTION REQUIRED.
24"
(600 mm) MIN*
7.0'
(2.1 m)
MAX
12" (300 mm) MIN100" (2540 mm)
12" (300 mm) MIN
12" (300 mm) MIN 9"
(230 mm) MIN
D
C
B
A
*TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED
INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR,
INCREASE COVER TO 30" (750 mm).
60"
(1525 mm)
DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED
BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 9" (230 mm) MIN
EXCAVATION WALL
(CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL)
MC-7200
END CAP
PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED
BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER)
PERIMETER STONE
(SEE NOTE 4)
SUBGRADE SOILS
(SEE NOTE 3)
**THIS CROSS SECTION DETAIL REPRESENTS
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION.
PLEASE SEE THE LAYOUT SHEET(S) FOR
PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL
AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS
MC-7200 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
NTS
PART #STUB B C
MC7200IEPP06T 6" (150 mm)42.54" (1081 mm)---
MC7200IEPP06B ---0.86" (22 mm)
MC7200IEPP08T 8" (200 mm)40.50" (1029 mm)---
MC7200IEPP08B ---1.01" (26 mm)
MC7200IEPP10T 10" (250 mm)38.37" (975 mm)---
MC7200IEPP10B ---1.33" (34 mm)
MC7200IEPP12T 12" (300 mm)35.69" (907 mm)---
MC7200IEPP12B ---1.55" (39 mm)
MC7200IEPP15T 15" (375 mm)32.72" (831 mm)---
MC7200IEPP15B ---1.70" (43 mm)
MC7200IEPP18T
18" (450 mm)
29.36" (746 mm)---MC7200IEPP18TW
MC7200IEPP18B ---1.97" (50 mm)
MC7200IEPP18BW
MC7200IEPP24T
24" (600 mm)
23.05" (585 mm)---MC7200IEPP24TW
MC7200IEPP24B ---2.26" (57 mm)
MC7200IEPP24BW
MC7200IEPP30BW 30" (750 mm)---2.95" (75 mm)
MC7200IEPP36BW 36" (900 mm)---3.25" (83 mm)
MC7200IEPP42BW 42" (1050 mm)---3.55" (90 mm)
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL
NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS
SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)100.0" X 60.0" X 79.1" (2540 mm X 1524 mm X 2010 mm)
CHAMBER STORAGE 175.9 CUBIC FEET (4.98 m³)
MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*267.3 CUBIC FEET (7.56 m³)
WEIGHT (NOMINAL)205 lbs.(92.9 kg)
NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONS
SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)90.0" X 61.0" X 32.8" (2286 mm X 1549 mm X 833 mm)
END CAP STORAGE 39.5 CUBIC FEET (1.12 m³)
MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*115.3 CUBIC FEET (3.26 m³)
WEIGHT (NOMINAL)90 lbs.(40.8 kg)
*ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS,
12" (305 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY.
PARTIAL CUT HOLES AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B"
PARTIAL CUT HOLES AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T"
END CAPS WITH A PREFABRICATED WELDED STUB END WITH "W"
CUSTOM PREFABRICATED INVERTS
ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE
12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZE
AND 15-48" (375-1200 mm)
ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOM
INVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-7200
END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOT
RECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZES
GREATER THAN 10" (250 mm). THE
INVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B'
ARE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE FOR
THE PIPE SIZE.
UPPER JOINT
CORRUGATION
WEB
CREST
CREST
STIFFENING
RIB
VALLEY
STIFFENING RIB
BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION
LOWER JOINT
CORRUGATION
FOOT
83.4"
(2120 mm)
79.1"
(2010 mm)
INSTALLED
60.0"
(1524 mm)
100.0" (2540 mm)90.0" (2286 mm)
61.0"
(1549 mm)
32.8"
(833 mm)
INSTALLED
38.0"
(965 mm)
B
C
INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE
STEP 1)INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR SEDIMENT
A.INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT)
A.1.REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN
A.2.REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED
A.3.USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG
A.4.LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL)
A.5.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.
B.ALL ISOLATOR PLUS ROWS
B.1.REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUS
B.2.USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS THROUGH OUTLET PIPE
i)MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY
ii)FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE
B.3.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.
STEP 2)CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS USING THE JETVAC PROCESS
A.A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED
B.APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN
C.VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED
STEP 3)REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS.
STEP 4)INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM.
NOTES
1.INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS
OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS.
2.CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY.
MC-7200 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL
NTS
STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS
FLEXSTORM INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM
STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES
COVER PIPE CONNECTION TO END CAP WITH ADS
GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
MC-7200 CHAMBER OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT
MC-7200 END CAP
24" (600 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE
FACTORY PARTIAL CUT END CAP PART #:
MC7200IEPP24B OR MC7200IEPP24BW
ONE LAYER OF ADSPLUS125 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN
FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS
10.3' (3.1 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS
SUMP DEPTH TBD BY
SITE DESIGN ENGINEER
(24" [600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED)
INSTALL FLAMP ON 24" (600 mm) ACCESS PIPE
PART #: MCFLAMP
UNDERDRAIN DETAIL
NTS
A
A
B B
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
NUMBER AND SIZE OF UNDERDRAINS PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER
4" (100 mm) TYP FOR SC-310 & SC-160LP SYSTEMS
6" (150 mm) TYP FOR SC-740, SC-800, DC-780, MC-3500, MC-4500 & MC-7200 SYSTEMS
OUTLET MANIFOLD
STORMTECH
END CAP
STORMTECH
CHAMBERS
STORMTECH
END CAP
DUAL WALL
PERFORATED
HDPE
UNDERDRAIN
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FOUNDATION STONE
BENEATH CHAMBERS
FOUNDATION STONE
BENEATH CHAMBERS
STORMTECH
CHAMBER
MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL
NTS
NOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BE LAID HORIZONTAL
FOR A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING.
MANIFOLD HEADER
MANIFOLD STUB
STORMTECH END CAP
MANIFOLD HEADER
MANIFOLD STUB
12" (300 mm)
MIN SEPARATION
12" (300 mm) MIN INSERTION
12" (300 mm)
MIN SEPARATION
12" (300 mm)
MIN INSERTION
St
o
r
m
T
e
c
h
88
8
-
8
9
2
-
2
6
9
4
|
WW
W
.
S
T
O
R
M
T
E
C
H
.
C
O
M
®
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
46
4
0
T
R
U
E
M
A
N
B
L
V
D
HI
L
L
I
A
R
D
,
O
H
4
3
0
2
6
1-
8
0
0
-
7
3
3
-
7
4
7
3
DA
T
E
:
DR
A
W
N
:
S
L
PR
O
J
E
C
T
#
:
CH
E
C
K
E
D
:
N
/
A
RE
V
:
TH
I
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
H
A
S
B
E
E
N
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
T
O
A
D
S
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
.
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
H
A
L
L
R
E
V
I
E
W
T
H
I
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
.
I
T
I
S
T
H
E
U
L
T
I
M
A
T
E
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
O
F
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
T
O
E
N
S
U
R
E
T
H
A
T
T
H
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
(
S
)
D
E
P
I
C
T
E
D
A
N
D
A
L
L
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
M
E
E
T
A
L
L
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
L
A
W
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
,
A
N
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
15
2
-
1
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
-
D
M
A
-
2
FO
N
T
A
N
A
,
C
A
,
U
S
A
SHEET
1 1OF
NO
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
ISOLATOR ROW PLUS
(SEE DETAIL)
PLACE MINIMUM 17.50' OF ADSPLUS125 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDING
STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL
CHAMBER INLET ROWS
BED LIMITS
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED):12.75
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED WITH TRAFFIC):8.25
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC):7.75
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF RIGID CONCRETE PAVEMENT):7.75
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (BASE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT):7.75
TOP OF STONE:6.75
TOP OF MC-7200 CHAMBER:5.75
24" ISOLATOR ROW PLUS INVERT:0.94
18" x 18" BOTTOM MANIFOLD INVERT:0.91
18" BOTTOM CONNECTION INVERT:0.91
BOTTOM OF MC-7200 CHAMBER:0.75
UNDERDRAIN INVERT:0.00
BOTTOM OF STONE:0.00
PROPOSED LAYOUT
32 STORMTECH MC-7200 CHAMBERS
6 STORMTECH MC-7200 END CAPS
12 STONE ABOVE (in)
9 STONE BELOW (in)
40 STONE VOID
9956
INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME (CF)
(PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED)
(COVER STONE INCLUDED)
(BASE STONE INCLUDED)
2384 SYSTEM AREA (SF)
226.4 SYSTEM PERIMETER (ft)
MAX FLOWINVERT*DESCRIPTIONITEM ON
LAYOUTPART TYPE
1.97"18" BOTTOM PARTIAL CUT END CAP, PART#: MC7200IEPP18B / TYP OF ALL 18" BOTTOM
CONNECTIONSAPREFABRICATED END CAP
2.26"24" BOTTOM PARTIAL CUT END CAP, PART#: MC7200IEPP24B / TYP OF ALL 24" BOTTOM
CONNECTIONS AND ISOLATOR PLUS ROWSBPREFABRICATED END CAP
INSTALL FLAMP ON 24" ACCESS PIPE / PART#: MCFLAMPCFLAMP
1.97"18" x 18" BOTTOM MANIFOLD, ADS N-12DMANIFOLD
1.97"18" BOTTOM CONNECTIONEPIPE CONNECTION
4.0 CFS OUTOCS (DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS)FCONCRETE STRUCTURE
11.0 CFS IN(DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS)GCONCRETE STRUCTURE
W/WEIR
6" ADS N-12 DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAINHUNDERDRAIN
F
G
B
E
C
H
A
D
26
.
5
0
'
77.98'
29
.
1
0
'
84.11'
1 MC-7200 CROSS SECTION DETAIL
2 MC-7200 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
3 MC-7200 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL
SPA
C
E
I
N
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
Y
L
E
F
T
B
L
A
N
K
4 UNDERDRAIN DETAIL
SPA
C
E
I
N
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
Y
L
E
F
T
B
L
A
N
K
5 MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL
NOTES
•MANIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. SEE TECH NOTE #6.32 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE.
•DUE TO THE ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD
COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD.
•THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
•THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
DETERMINING
THE SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS. THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAY BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION IS
PROVIDED.
•NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION: THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT & THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE.
*INVERT ABOVE BASE OF CHAMBER
ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-7200 CHAMBER SYSTEMS
PLEASE NOTE:
1.THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE".
2.STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9" (230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR.
3.WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR
COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS.
4.ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.
5.WHERE RECYCLED CONCRETE AGGREGATE IS USED IN LAYERS 'A' OR 'B' THE MATERIAL SHOULD ALSO MEET THE ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN TECHNICAL NOTE 6.20 "RECYCLED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL".
NOTES:
1.CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" CHAMBER CLASSIFICATION 60x101
2.MC-7200 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS".
3.THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION
FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS.
4.PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS.
5.REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDLING AND INSTALLATION:
·TO MAINTAIN THE WIDTH OF CHAMBERS DURING SHIPPING AND HANDLING, CHAMBERS SHALL HAVE INTEGRAL, INTERLOCKING STACKING LUGS.
·TO ENSURE A SECURE JOINT DURING INSTALLATION AND BACKFILL, THE HEIGHT OF THE CHAMBER JOINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 3”.
·TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ARCH SHAPE DURING INSTALLATION, a) THE ARCH STIFFNESS CONSTANT SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 450 LBS/FT/%. THE ASC IS DEFINED IN SECTION 6.2.8 OF
ASTM F2418. AND b) TO RESIST CHAMBER DEFORMATION DURING INSTALLATION AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES (ABOVE 73° F / 23° C), CHAMBERS SHALL BE PRODUCED FROM REFLECTIVE GOLD OR YELLOW
COLORS.
MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION AASHTO MATERIAL
CLASSIFICATIONS COMPACTION / DENSITY REQUIREMENT
D
FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE
TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE
PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT
PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER
ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS.
CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS.N/A
PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. PAVED
INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL AND
PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS.
C
INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' STARTS FROM THE
TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm)
ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT
SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C' LAYER.
GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% FINES OR
PROCESSED AGGREGATE.
MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THIS
LAYER.
AASHTO M145¹
A-1, A-2-4, A-3
OR
AASHTO M43¹
3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, 9, 10
BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24" (600 mm) OF MATERIAL OVER
THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN
12" (300 mm) MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR
WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE DENSITY FOR
PROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS.
B
EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS
FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE ('A' LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER
ABOVE.
CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE
OR RECYCLED CONCRETE5
AASHTO M43¹
3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57
A FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE
SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) OF THE CHAMBER.
CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE
OR RECYCLED CONCRETE5
AASHTO M43¹
3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57 PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE.2,3
NO COMPACTION REQUIRED.
24"
(600 mm) MIN*
7.0'
(2.1 m)
MAX
12" (300 mm) MIN100" (2540 mm)
12" (300 mm) MIN
12" (300 mm) MIN 9"
(230 mm) MIN
D
C
B
A
*TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED
INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR,
INCREASE COVER TO 30" (750 mm).
60"
(1525 mm)
DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED
BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER 9" (230 mm) MIN
EXCAVATION WALL
(CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL)
MC-7200
END CAP
PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED
BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER)
PERIMETER STONE
(SEE NOTE 4)
SUBGRADE SOILS
(SEE NOTE 3)
**THIS CROSS SECTION DETAIL REPRESENTS
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION.
PLEASE SEE THE LAYOUT SHEET(S) FOR
PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL
AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS
MC-7200 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
NTS
PART #STUB B C
MC7200IEPP06T 6" (150 mm)42.54" (1081 mm)---
MC7200IEPP06B ---0.86" (22 mm)
MC7200IEPP08T 8" (200 mm)40.50" (1029 mm)---
MC7200IEPP08B ---1.01" (26 mm)
MC7200IEPP10T 10" (250 mm)38.37" (975 mm)---
MC7200IEPP10B ---1.33" (34 mm)
MC7200IEPP12T 12" (300 mm)35.69" (907 mm)---
MC7200IEPP12B ---1.55" (39 mm)
MC7200IEPP15T 15" (375 mm)32.72" (831 mm)---
MC7200IEPP15B ---1.70" (43 mm)
MC7200IEPP18T
18" (450 mm)
29.36" (746 mm)---MC7200IEPP18TW
MC7200IEPP18B ---1.97" (50 mm)
MC7200IEPP18BW
MC7200IEPP24T
24" (600 mm)
23.05" (585 mm)---MC7200IEPP24TW
MC7200IEPP24B ---2.26" (57 mm)
MC7200IEPP24BW
MC7200IEPP30BW 30" (750 mm)---2.95" (75 mm)
MC7200IEPP36BW 36" (900 mm)---3.25" (83 mm)
MC7200IEPP42BW 42" (1050 mm)---3.55" (90 mm)
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL
NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS
SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)100.0" X 60.0" X 79.1" (2540 mm X 1524 mm X 2010 mm)
CHAMBER STORAGE 175.9 CUBIC FEET (4.98 m³)
MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*267.3 CUBIC FEET (7.56 m³)
WEIGHT (NOMINAL)205 lbs.(92.9 kg)
NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONS
SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH)90.0" X 61.0" X 32.8" (2286 mm X 1549 mm X 833 mm)
END CAP STORAGE 39.5 CUBIC FEET (1.12 m³)
MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE*115.3 CUBIC FEET (3.26 m³)
WEIGHT (NOMINAL)90 lbs.(40.8 kg)
*ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS,
12" (305 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY.
PARTIAL CUT HOLES AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B"
PARTIAL CUT HOLES AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T"
END CAPS WITH A PREFABRICATED WELDED STUB END WITH "W"
CUSTOM PREFABRICATED INVERTS
ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE
12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZE
AND 15-48" (375-1200 mm)
ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOM
INVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-7200
END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOT
RECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZES
GREATER THAN 10" (250 mm). THE
INVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B'
ARE THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE FOR
THE PIPE SIZE.
UPPER JOINT
CORRUGATION
WEB
CREST
CREST
STIFFENING
RIB
VALLEY
STIFFENING RIB
BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION
LOWER JOINT
CORRUGATION
FOOT
83.4"
(2120 mm)
79.1"
(2010 mm)
INSTALLED
60.0"
(1524 mm)
100.0" (2540 mm)90.0" (2286 mm)
61.0"
(1549 mm)
32.8"
(833 mm)
INSTALLED
38.0"
(965 mm)
B
C
INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE
STEP 1)INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR SEDIMENT
A.INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT)
A.1.REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN
A.2.REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED
A.3.USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG
A.4.LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW PLUS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL)
A.5.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.
B.ALL ISOLATOR PLUS ROWS
B.1.REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW PLUS
B.2.USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW PLUS THROUGH OUTLET PIPE
i)MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAY BE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY
ii)FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE
B.3.IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3.
STEP 2)CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW PLUS USING THE JETVAC PROCESS
A.A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED
B.APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN
C.VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED
STEP 3)REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS.
STEP 4)INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM.
NOTES
1.INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS
OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS.
2.CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY.
MC-7200 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL
NTS
STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS
FLEXSTORM INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM
STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES
COVER PIPE CONNECTION TO END CAP WITH ADS
GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
MC-7200 CHAMBER OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT
MC-7200 END CAP
24" (600 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE
FACTORY PARTIAL CUT END CAP PART #:
MC7200IEPP24B OR MC7200IEPP24BW
ONE LAYER OF ADSPLUS125 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN
FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS
10.3' (3.1 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS
SUMP DEPTH TBD BY
SITE DESIGN ENGINEER
(24" [600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED)
INSTALL FLAMP ON 24" (600 mm) ACCESS PIPE
PART #: MCFLAMP
UNDERDRAIN DETAIL
NTS
A
A
B B
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
NUMBER AND SIZE OF UNDERDRAINS PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER
4" (100 mm) TYP FOR SC-310 & SC-160LP SYSTEMS
6" (150 mm) TYP FOR SC-740, SC-800, DC-780, MC-3500, MC-4500 & MC-7200 SYSTEMS
OUTLET MANIFOLD
STORMTECH
END CAP
STORMTECH
CHAMBERS
STORMTECH
END CAP
DUAL WALL
PERFORATED
HDPE
UNDERDRAIN
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T
NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FOUNDATION STONE
BENEATH CHAMBERS
FOUNDATION STONE
BENEATH CHAMBERS
STORMTECH
CHAMBER
MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL
NTS
NOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BE LAID HORIZONTAL
FOR A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING.
MANIFOLD HEADER
MANIFOLD STUB
STORMTECH END CAP
MANIFOLD HEADER
MANIFOLD STUB
12" (300 mm)
MIN SEPARATION
12" (300 mm) MIN INSERTION
12" (300 mm)
MIN SEPARATION
12" (300 mm)
MIN INSERTION
St
o
r
m
T
e
c
h
88
8
-
8
9
2
-
2
6
9
4
|
WW
W
.
S
T
O
R
M
T
E
C
H
.
C
O
M
®
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
46
4
0
T
R
U
E
M
A
N
B
L
V
D
HI
L
L
I
A
R
D
,
O
H
4
3
0
2
6
1-
8
0
0
-
7
3
3
-
7
4
7
3
DA
T
E
:
DR
A
W
N
:
S
L
PR
O
J
E
C
T
#
:
CH
E
C
K
E
D
:
N
/
A
RE
V
:
TH
I
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
H
A
S
B
E
E
N
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
A
S
E
D
O
N
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
T
O
A
D
S
U
N
D
E
R
T
H
E
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
R
E
P
R
E
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
.
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
H
A
L
L
R
E
V
I
E
W
T
H
I
S
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
.
I
T
I
S
T
H
E
U
L
T
I
M
A
T
E
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
O
F
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
T
O
E
N
S
U
R
E
T
H
A
T
T
H
E
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
(
S
)
D
E
P
I
C
T
E
D
A
N
D
A
L
L
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
E
D
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
M
E
E
T
A
L
L
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
B
L
E
L
A
W
S
,
R
E
G
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
,
A
N
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
15
2
-
1
F
O
N
T
A
N
A
-
D
M
A
-
3
FO
N
T
A
N
A
,
C
A
,
U
S
A
SHEET
1 1OF
NO
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
ISOLATOR ROW PLUS
(SEE DETAIL)
PLACE MINIMUM 17.50' OF ADSPLUS125 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDING
STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET FOR SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL
CHAMBER INLET ROWS
BED LIMITS
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS:
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF PAVEMENT/UNPAVED):13.00
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED WITH TRAFFIC):8.50
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (UNPAVED NO TRAFFIC):8.00
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (TOP OF RIGID CONCRETE PAVEMENT):8.00
MINIMUM ALLOWABLE GRADE (BASE OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT):8.00
TOP OF STONE:7.00
TOP OF MC-7200 CHAMBER:6.00
24" ISOLATOR ROW PLUS INVERT:1.19
18" x 18" BOTTOM MANIFOLD INVERT:1.16
18" x 18" BOTTOM MANIFOLD INVERT:1.16
18" BOTTOM CONNECTION INVERT:1.16
BOTTOM OF MC-7200 CHAMBER:1.00
UNDERDRAIN INVERT:0.00
BOTTOM OF STONE:0.00
PROPOSED LAYOUT
27 STORMTECH MC-7200 CHAMBERS
6 STORMTECH MC-7200 END CAPS
12 STONE ABOVE (in)
12 STONE BELOW (in)
40 STONE VOID
8962
INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME (CF)
(PERIMETER STONE INCLUDED)
(COVER STONE INCLUDED)
(BASE STONE INCLUDED)
2132 SYSTEM AREA (SF)
208.3 SYSTEM PERIMETER (ft)
MAX FLOWINVERT*DESCRIPTIONITEM ON
LAYOUTPART TYPE
1.97"18" BOTTOM PARTIAL CUT END CAP, PART#: MC7200IEPP18B / TYP OF ALL 18" BOTTOM
CONNECTIONSAPREFABRICATED END CAP
2.26"24" BOTTOM PARTIAL CUT END CAP, PART#: MC7200IEPP24B / TYP OF ALL 24" BOTTOM
CONNECTIONS AND ISOLATOR PLUS ROWSBPREFABRICATED END CAP
INSTALL FLAMP ON 24" ACCESS PIPE / PART#: MCFLAMPCFLAMP
1.97"18" x 18" BOTTOM MANIFOLD, ADS N-12DMANIFOLD
1.97"18" x 18" BOTTOM MANIFOLD, ADS N-12EMANIFOLD
1.97"18" BOTTOM CONNECTIONFPIPE CONNECTION
8.0 CFS OUTOCS (DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS)GCONCRETE STRUCTURE
11.0 CFS IN(DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS)HCONCRETE STRUCTURE
W/WEIR
6" ADS N-12 DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAINIUNDERDRAIN
G
H
B
F
C
I
E
A
D
26
.
5
0
'
64.79'
29
.
1
0
'
75.06'
1 MC-7200 CROSS SECTION DETAIL
2 MC-7200 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
3 MC-7200 ISOLATOR ROW PLUS DETAIL
SPA
C
E
I
N
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
Y
L
E
F
T
B
L
A
N
K
4 UNDERDRAIN DETAIL
SPA
C
E
I
N
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
Y
L
E
F
T
B
L
A
N
K
5 MC-SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL
NOTES
•MANIFOLD SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. SEE TECH NOTE #6.32 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING GUIDANCE.
•DUE TO THE ADAPTATION OF THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM TO SPECIFIC SITE AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CUT AND COUPLE ADDITIONAL PIPE TO STANDARD MANIFOLD
COMPONENTS IN THE FIELD.
•THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER MUST REVIEW ELEVATIONS AND IF NECESSARY ADJUST GRADING TO ENSURE THE CHAMBER COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
•THIS CHAMBER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED WITHOUT SITE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON SOIL CONDITIONS OR BEARING CAPACITY. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
DETERMINING
THE SUITABILITY OF THE SOIL AND PROVIDING THE BEARING CAPACITY OF THE INSITU SOILS. THE BASE STONE DEPTH MAY BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ONCE THIS INFORMATION IS
PROVIDED.
•NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION: THIS LAYOUT IS FOR DIMENSIONAL PURPOSES ONLY TO PROVE CONCEPT & THE REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME CAN BE ACHIEVED ON SITE.
*INVERT ABOVE BASE OF CHAMBER
Attachment 5 - Stormwater Watershed Mapping
Tool Report
3/8/24, 9:00 AM about:blank
about:blank 1/3
WQMP Project Report - San Bernardino Co. Stormwater Program
Area of Interest (AOI) Information
Area : 916,327.28 ft²
Mar 8 2024 8:58:08 Pacific Standard Time
3/8/24, 9:00 AM about:blank
about:blank 2/3
Project Site Parcel Numbers
#ParcelNumber Acreage Area(ft²)
1 023712207 20.95 916,327.28
HCOC Exempt Area
#Type Status Area(ft²)
1 HCOC Exempt Areas Yes 916,327.19
Drainage Segment Details
#System Number Facility Name
Closest channel
segment’s
susceptibility to
Hydromodification
Highest downstream
hydromodification
susceptibility
Is this drainage
segment subject to
TMDLs?
1 1-813-1B Declez Channel EHM EHM No
#
Are there downstream
drainage segments subject to
TMDLs?
Is this drainage segment a
303d listed stream?
Are there 303d listed streams
downstream?Area(ft²)
1 No No No 916,327.28
Onsite Soil Groups
#Onsite Soils Group Soil Type Soil Type Abbreviation Area(ft²)
1 Soils - Hydro Group A
TvC TUJUNGA GRAVELLY
LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 9
PERCENT S*
TUJUNGA GRAVELLY LOAMY
SAND 44,552.41
2 Soils - Hydro Group A TuB TUJUNGA LOAMY SAND,
0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES A TUJUNGA LOAMY SAND 871,774.87
Studies and Reports Related to Project Site
3/8/24, 9:00 AM about:blank
about:blank 3/3
#Report Link Source Date Area(ft²)
1 Chino_Basin_Water_Master_32
nd_Annual_Report Chino Basin Watermaster 2008-2009 916,327.19
2 Chino_Basin_Recharge_Master
_Plan WE, Inc August 2001 916,327.19
3 Summary_Report_Master_Stor
m_Drainage_Plan_Study Hall & Foreman June 1992 916,327.19
4 Summary_Report_Master_Stor
m_Drainage_Plan_Map Hall & Foreman, Inc June 1992 916,327.19
5 FONTANA_MPD_FEE_STUDY Flory, Olson & Van Osdel June 1992 916,327.19
6 San_Sevaine_-
_Boyle_Map_0001 Boyle Engineering June 1997 916,327.19
7 San_Sevaine_-
_Boyle_Map_0002 Boyle Engineering June 1997 916,327.19
8 San_Sevaine_-
_Boyle_Map_0003 Boyle Engineering June 1997 916,327.19
9 SBCounty_CSDP_Project_No.2
_Volume_1 Moffatt & Nichol March 1969 916,327.19
10 SBCounty_CSDP_Project_No.2
_Volume_2 Moffatt & Nichol March 1969 916,327.19
11 Volume_2_Map Moffatt & Nichol March 1969 916,327.19
12 SBCounty_CSDP_Project_No.3
_Volume_I Verpet Engineering Company May 1973 916,327.19
13 SBCounty_CSDP_Project_No.3
_Volume_II Verpet Engineering Company May 1973 916,327.19
14 Master_SD_Hydrology_Calcs_f
or_Fontana_Vol_III Hall & Foreman, Inc May 1992 916,327.19
15 Master_SD_Hydrology_Calcs_
For_Fontana_Vol_II Hall & Foreman, Inc May 1992 916,327.19
16 Master_SD_Hydrology_Calcs_f
or_Fontana_Vol_V Hall & Foreman, Inc May 1992 916,327.19
17 Master_SD_Hydrology_Calcs_f
or_Fontana_Vol_IV Hall & Foreman, Inc May 1992 916,327.19
18 West_Fontana_Channel_Prelim
inary_Basin_Study
San Bernardino County Flood
Control District October 1986 916,327.19
Note: The information provided in this report and on the Stormwater Geodatabase for the County of San Bernardino Stormwater Program is intended to provide basic guidance in the
preparation of the applicant’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and should not be relied upon without independent verification. without independent verification.
Attachment 6 - BMP Fact Sheets
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012
Page 1
3.5 Bioretention Facility
Description
Bioretention Facilities are shallow, vegetated basins underlain by an engineered soil media.
Healthy plant and biological activity in the root zone maintain and renew the macro‐pore space
in the soil and maximize plant uptake of pollutants and runoff. This keeps the Best
Management Practice (BMP) from becoming clogged and allows more of the soil column to
function as both a sponge (retaining water) and a highly effective and self‐maintaining biofilter.
In most cases, the bottom of a Bioretention Facility is unlined, which also provides an
opportunity for infiltration to the extent the underlying onsite soil can accommodate. When the
infiltration rate of the underlying soil is exceeded, fully biotreated flows are discharged via
underdrains. Bioretention Facilities therefore will inherently achieve the maximum feasible
level of infiltration and evapotranspiration and achieve the minimum feasible (but highly
biotreated) discharge to the storm drain system.
Siting Considerations
These facilities work best when they are designed in a relatively level area. Unlike other BMPs,
Bioretention Facilities can be used in smaller landscaped spaces on the site, such as:
Parking islands
Medians
Site entrances
Landscaped areas on the site (such as may otherwise be required through minimum
landscaping ordinances), can often be designed as Bioretention Facilities. This can be
accomplished by:
Depressing landscaped areas below adjacent impervious surfaces, rather than elevating
those areas
Grading the site to direct runoff from those impervious surfaces into the Bioretention
Facility, rather than away from the landscaping
Sizing and designing the depressed landscaped area as a Bioretention Facility as
described in this Fact Sheet
Type of BMP LID – Bioretention
Treatment Mechanisms Infiltration, Evapotranspiration, Evaporation, Biofiltration
Maximum Drainage Area This BMP is intended to be integrated into a project’s landscaped area in a
distributed manner. Typically, contributing drainage areas to Bioretention
Facilities range from less than 1 acre to a maximum of around 10 acres.
Other Names Rain Garden, Bioretention Cell, Bioretention Basin, Biofiltration Basin,
Landscaped Filter Basin, Porous Landscape Detention
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012
Page 2
Bioretention Facilities should however not be used downstream of areas where large amounts
of sediment can clog the system. Placing a Bioretention Facility at the toe of a steep slope
should also be avoided due to the potential for clogging the engineered soil media with erosion
from the slope, as well as the potential for damaging the vegetation.
Design and Sizing Criteria
The recommended cross section necessary for a Bioretention Facility includes:
Vegetated area
18' minimum depth of engineered soil media
12' minimum gravel layer depth with 6' perforated pipes (added flow control features
such as orifice plates may be required to mitigate for HCOC conditions)
While the 18‐inch minimum engineered soil media depth can be used in some cases, it is
recommended to use 24 inches or a preferred 36 inches to provide an adequate root zone for
the chosen plant palate. Such a design also provides for improved removal effectiveness for
nutrients. The recommended ponding depth inside of a Bioretention Facility is 6 inches;
measured from the flat bottom surface to the top of the water surface as shown in Figure 1.
Because this BMP is filled with an engineered soil media, pore space in the soil and gravel layer
is assumed to provide storage volume. However, several considerations must be noted:
Surcharge storage above the soil surface (6 inches) is important to assure that design
flows do not bypass the BMP when runoff exceeds the soil’s absorption rate.
In cases where the Bioretention Facility contains engineered soil media deeper than 36
inches, the pore space within the engineered soil media can only be counted to the 36‐
inch depth.
A maximum of 30 percent pore space can be used for the soil media whereas a
maximum of 40 percent pore space can be use for the gravel layer.
Figure 1: Standard Layout for a Bioretention Facility
BIORETENTION FACILITY BMP FACT SHEET
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012
Page 3
Engineered Soil Media Requirements
The engineered soil media shall be comprised of 85 percent mineral component and 15 percent
organic component, by volume, drum mixed prior to placement. The mineral component shall
be a Class A sandy loam topsoil that meets the range specified in Table 1 below. The organic
component shall be nitrogen stabilized compost1, such that nitrogen does not leach from the
media.
Table 1: Mineral Component Range Requirements
Percent Range Component
70‐80 Sand
15‐20 Silt
5‐10 Clay
The trip ticket, or certificate of compliance, shall be made available to the inspector to prove
the engineered mix meets this specification.
Vegetation Requirements
Vegetative cover is important to minimize erosion and ensure that treatment occurs in the
Bioretention Facility. The area should be designed for at least 70 percent mature coverage
throughout the Bioretention Facility. To prevent the BMP from being used as walkways,
Bioretention Facilities shall be planted with a combination of small trees, densely planted
shrubs, and natural grasses. Grasses shall be native or ornamental; preferably ones that do not
need to be mowed. The application of fertilizers and pesticides should be minimal. To maintain
oxygen levels for the vegetation and promote biodegradation, it is important that vegetation
not be completely submerged for any extended period of time. Therefore, a maximum of 6
inches of ponded water shall be used in the design to ensure that plants within the Bioretention
Facility remain healthy.
A 2 to 3‐inch layer of standard shredded aged hardwood mulch shall be placed as the top layer
inside the Bioretention Facility. The 6‐inch ponding depth shown in Figure 1 above shall be
measured from the top surface of the 2 to 3‐inch mulch layer.
Curb Cuts
To allow water to flow into the Bioretention Facility, 1‐foot‐wide (minimum) curb cuts should
be placed approximately every 10 feet around the perimeter of the Bioretention Facility. Figure
2 shows a curb cut in a Bioretention Facility. Curb cut flow lines must be at or above the VBMP
water surface level.
1 For more information on compost, visit the US Composting Council website at: http://compostingcouncil.org/
BIORETENTION FACILITY BMP FACT SHEET
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012
Page 4
Figure 2: Curb Cut located in a Bioretention Facility
To reduce erosion, a gravel pad shall be placed
at each inlet point to the Bioretention Facility.
The gravel should be 1‐ to 1.5‐inch diameter in
size. The gravel should overlap the curb cut
opening a minimum of 6 inches. The gravel pad
inside the Bioretention Facility should be flush
with the finished surface at the curb cut and
extend to the bottom of the slope.
In addition, place an apron of stone or concrete,
a foot square or larger, inside each inlet to
prevent vegetation from growing up and
blocking the inlet. See Figure 3.
Terracing the Landscaped Filter Basin
It is recommended that Bioretention Facilities be level. In the event the facility site slopes and
lacks proper design, water would fill the lowest point of the BMP and then discharge from the
basin without being treated. To ensure that the water will be held within the Bioretention
Facility on sloped sites, the BMP must be terraced with nonporous check dams to provide the
required storage and treatment capacity.
The terraced version of this BMP shall be used on non‐flat sites with no more than a 3 percent
slope. The surcharge depth cannot exceed 0.5 feet, and side slopes shall not exceed 4:1. Table 2
below shows the spacing of the check dams, and slopes shall be rounded up (i.e., 2.5 percent
slope shall use 10' spacing for check dams).
Table 2: Check Dam Spacing
6” Check Dam Spacing
Slope Spacing
1% 25'
2% 15'
3% 10'
Figure 3: Apron located in a Bioretention Facility
BIORETENTION FACILITY BMP FACT SHEET
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012
Page 5
Roof Runoff
Roof downspouts may be directed towards Bioretention Facilities. However, the downspouts
must discharge onto a concrete splash block to protect the Bioretention Facility from erosion.
Retaining Walls
It is recommended that Retaining Wall Type 1A, per Caltrans Standard B3‐3 or equivalent, be
constructed around the entire perimeter of the Bioretention Facility. This practice will protect
the sides of the Bioretention Facility from collapsing during construction and maintenance or
from high service loads adjacent to the BMP. Where such service loads would not exist adjacent
to the BMP, an engineered alternative may be used if signed by a licensed civil engineer.
Side Slope Requirements
Bioretention Facilities Requiring Side Slopes
The design should assure that the Bioretention Facility does not present a tripping hazard.
Bioretention Facilities proposed near pedestrian areas, such as areas parallel to parking spaces
or along a walkway, must have a gentle slope to the bottom of the facility. Side slopes inside of
a Bioretention Facility shall be 4:1. A typical cross section for the Bioretention Facility is shown
in Figure 1.
Bioretention Facilities Not Requiring Side Slopes
Where cars park perpendicular to the Bioretention Facility, side slopes are not required. A 6‐
inch maximum drop may be used, and the Bioretention Facility must be planted with trees and
shrubs to prevent pedestrian access. In this case, a curb is not placed around the Bioretention
Facility,
but wheel stops shall be used to prevent vehicles from entering the Bioretention Facility, as
shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Bioretention Facility Layout without Side Slopes
BIORETENTION FACILITY BMP FACT SHEET
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012
Page 6
Planter Boxes
Bioretention Facilities can also be placed above ground as planter boxes. Planter boxes must
have a minimum width of 2 feet, a maximum surcharge depth of 6 inches, and no side slopes
are necessary. Planter boxes must be constructed so as to ensure that the top surface of the
engineered soil media will remain level. This option may be constructed of concrete, brick,
stone or other stable materials that will not warp or bend. Chemically treated wood or
galvanized steel, which has the ability to contaminate stormwater, should not be used. Planter
boxes must be lined with an impermeable liner on all sides, including the bottom. Due to the
impermeable liner, the inside bottom of the planter box shall be designed and constructed with
a cross fall, directing treated flows within the subdrain layer toward the point where subdrain
exits the planter box, and subdrains shall be oriented with drain holes oriented down. These
provisions will help avoid excessive stagnant water within the gravel underdrain layer. Similar
to the in‐ground Bioretention Facility versions, this BMP benefits from healthy plants and
biological activity in the root zone. Planter boxes should be planted with appropriately selected
vegetation.
Figure 5: Planter Box
Source: LA Team Effort
Overflow
An overflow route is needed in the Bioretention Facility design to bypass stored runoff from
storm events larger than VBMP or in the event of facility or subdrain clogging. Overflow systems
must connect to an acceptable discharge point, such as a downstream conveyance system as
shown in Figure 1 and Figure 4. The inlet to the overflow structure shall be elevated inside the
Bioretention Facility to be flush with the ponding surface for the design capture volume (VBMP)
as shown in Figure 4. This will allow the design capture volume to be fully treated by the
Bioretention Facility, and for larger events to safely be conveyed to downstream systems. The
overflow inlet shall not be located in the entrance of a Bioretention Facility, as shown in Figure
6.
BIORETENTION FACILITY BMP FACT SHEET
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012
Page 7
Underdrain Gravel and Pipes
An underdrain gravel layer and pipes shall be provided in accordance with Appendix B –
Underdrains.
Figure 6: Incorrect Placement of an Overflow Inlet.
Inspection and Maintenance Schedule
The Bioretention Facility area shall be inspected for erosion, dead vegetation, soggy soils, or
standing water. The use of fertilizers and pesticides on the plants inside the Bioretention
Facility should be minimized.
Schedule Activity
Ongoing
Keep adjacent landscape areas maintained. Remove clippings from
landscape maintenance activities.
Remove trash and debris
Replace damaged grass and/or plants
Replace surface mulch layer as needed to maintain a 2‐3 inch soil
cover.
After storm events Inspect areas for ponding
Annually Inspect/clean inlets and outlets
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012
Page 8
Bioretention Facility Design Procedure
1)Enter the area tributary, AT, to the Bioretention Facility.
2)Enter the Design Volume, VBMP, determined from Section 2.1 of this Handbook.
3)Select the type of design used. There are two types of Bioretention Facility designs: the
standard design used for most project sites that include side slopes, and the modified
design used when the BMP is located perpendicular to the parking spaces or with
planter boxes that do not use side slopes.
4)Enter the depth of the engineered soil media, dS. The minimum depth for the
engineered soil media can be 18' in limited cases, but it is recommended to use 24' or a
preferred 36' to provide an adequate root zone for the chosen plant palette. Engineered
soil media deeper than 36' will only get credit for the pore space in the first 36'.
5)Enter the top width of the Bioretention Facility.
6)Calculate the total effective depth, dE, within the Bioretention Facility. The maximum
allowable pore space of the soil media is 30% while the maximum allowable pore space
for the gravel layer is 40%. Gravel layer deeper than 12' will only get credit for the pore
space in the first 12'.
a.For the design with side slopes the following equation shall be used to determine
the total effective depth. Where, dP is the depth of ponding within the basin.
d ሺftሻ ൌ
0.3 ൈ ቂ൫w ሺftሻ ൈdୗ ሺftሻ൯4൫d ሺftሻ൯ଶ ቃ 0.4 ൈ 1
ሺftሻ d ሺftሻൣ4d ሺftሻ ൫w ሺftሻ െ8d ሺftሻ൯൧
w ሺftሻ
This above equation can be simplified if the maximum ponding depth of 0.5’ is
used. The equation below is used on the worksheet to find the minimum area
required for the Bioretention Facility:
d ሺftሻ ൌ ሺ0.3 ൈ dୗ ሺftሻ 0.4 x 1ሺftሻ
ሻ െቆ0.7 ሺft ଶ ሻ
w ሺftሻ ቇ0.5ሺftሻ
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012
Page 9
b. For the design without side slopes the following equation shall be used to
determine the total effective depth:
d ሺftሻ ൌd ሺftሻ ሾሺ0.3ሻ ൈdୗ ሺftሻ ሺ0.4ሻ ൈ1ሺftሻሿ
The equation below, using the maximum ponding depth of 0.5', is used on the
worksheet to find the minimum area required for the Bioretention Facility:
d ሺftሻ ൌ0.5 ሺftሻ ሾሺ0.3ሻ ൈdୗ ሺftሻ ሺ0.4ሻ ൈ1ሺftሻሿ
7) Calculate the minimum surface area, AM, required for the Bioretention Facility. This does
not include the curb surrounding the Bioretention Facility or side slopes.
A ሺft ଶ ሻ ൌ Vሺftଷ ሻ
d ሺftሻ
8) Enter the proposed surface area. This area shall not be less than the minimum required
surface area.
9) Verify that side slopes are no steeper than 4:1 in the standard design, and are not
required in the modified design.
10) Provide the diameter, minimum 6 inches, of the perforated underdrain used in the
Bioretention Facility. See Appendix B for specific information regarding perforated
pipes.
11) Provide the slope of the site around the Bioretention Facility, if used. The maximum
slope is 3 percent for a standard design.
12) Provide the check dam spacing, if the site around the Bioretention Facility is sloped.
13) Describe the vegetation used within the Bioretention Facility.
Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook rev. 2/2012
Page 10
References Used to Develop this Fact Sheet
Anderson, Dale V. "Landscaped Filter Basin Soil Requirements." Riverside, May 2010.
California Department of Transportation. CalTrans Standard Plans. 15 September 2005. May
2010 <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/HTM/stdplns‐met‐new99.htm>.
Camp Dresser and McKee Inc.; Larry Walker Associates. California Stormwater Best
Management Practice Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment. California
Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2004.
Contra Costa Clean Water Program. Stormwater Quality Requirements for Development
Applications. 3rd Edition. Contra Costa, 2006.
County of Los Angeles Public Works. Stormwater Best Management Practice Design and
Maintenance Manual. Los Angeles, 2009.
Kim, Hunho, Eric A. Seagren and Allen P. Davis. "Engineered Bioretention for Removal of Nitrate
from Stormwater Runoff." Water Environment Research 75.4 (2003): 355‐366.
LA Team Effort. LA Team Effort: FREE Planter Boxes for Businesses. 2 November 2009. May
2010 <http://lateameffort.blogspot.com/2009/11/free‐planter‐boxes‐for‐businesses‐est.html>.
Montgomery County Maryland Department of Permitting Services Water Resources Section.
Biofiltration (BF). Montgomery County, 2005.
Program, Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management. Technical Guidance Manual
for Stormwater Quality Control Measures. Ventura, 2002.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet
Bioretention. Washington D.C, 1999.
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 ‐
Best Management Practices. Vol. 3. Denver, 2008. 3 vols.
Urbonas, Ben R. Stormwater Sand Filter Sizing and Design: A Unit Operations Approach. Denver:
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, 2002.
Attachment 7 - NOAA Information
Attachment 8 - Soils Report
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
14970 Jurupa Avenue
Fontana, California
for
Prologis
22885 Savi Ranch Parkway Suite E Yorba Linda California 92887
voice: (714) 685-1115 fax: (714) 685-1118 www.socalgeo.com
March 28, 2024
Prologis
3546 Concours Street, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91764
Attention: Ms. Annie Chen
Development Manager
Project No.: 24G111-1
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Industrial Building
14970 Jurupa Avenue
Fontana, California
Ms. Chen:
In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation at the subject
site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations
developed from our investigation.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to
providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further
assistance in any manner, please contact our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Joseph Lozano Leon
Staff Engineer
Robert G. Trazo, GE 2655
Principal Engineer
Distribution: (1) Addressee
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
3.1 Site Conditions 4
3.2 Proposed Development 4
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 5
4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 5
4.2 Geotechnical Conditions 5
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 7
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9
6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 9
6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 11
6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 13
6.4 Construction Considerations 16
6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 17
6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 18
6.7 Retaining Wall Design and Construction 19
6.8 Pavement Design Parameters 21
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 24
APPENDICES
A Plate 1: Site Location Map
Plate 2: Boring Location Plan
B Boring Logs
C Laboratory Test Results
D Grading Guide Specifications
E Seismic Design Parameters
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation.
Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire
report.
Geotechnical Design Considerations
• Artificial fill soils were encountered at all of the boring locations, extending from the ground
surface to depths of 1½ to 5½± feet.
• The fill soils possess varying strengths. The existing fill soils are considered to represent
undocumented fill. These soils, in their present condition, are not considered suitable for
support of the foundation loads of the new structure.
• The near-surface native alluvial soils generally consist of sands, silty sands and gravelly sands
which possess variable strength. These soils, in their present condition, are not considered
suitable for support of the foundation loads of the new structure. The deeper alluvium
generally possesses higher strengths and densities and more favorable consolidation/collapse
characteristics.
Site Preparation Recommendations
• Demolition of the existing structures and pavements will be required in order to facilitate
construction of the new building. Demolition should also include all utilities and any other
subsurface improvements that will not remain in place for use with the new development.
Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed of off-site. Alternatively, concrete and
asphalt debris may be pulverized to a maximum 1-inch particle size, well mixed with the on-
site sands, and incorporated into new structural fills.
• Initial site preparation should include removal of all vegetation, including tree root masses
and any organic topsoil.
• Remedial grading is recommended within the proposed building pad area to remove the
undocumented fill soils, which extend to depths of 1½ to 5½± feet at the boring locations,
in their entirety. The building pad area should also be overexcavated to a depth of at least 4
feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed pad grade,
whichever is greater. Overexcavation within the foundation areas is recommended to extend
to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade.
• Following completion of the overexcavation, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth
of at least 12 inches, and thoroughly flooded to raise the moisture content of the underlying
soils to at least 0 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, extending to a depth of at
least 24 inches. The overexcavation subgrade soils should then be recompacted to at least 90
percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The previously excavated soils may then
be replaced as compacted structural fill.
• The new pavement and flatwork subgrade soils are recommended to be scarified to a depth
of 12± inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-
1557 maximum dry density.
Building Foundation Recommendations
• Conventional shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill.
• Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 lbs/ft2.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 2
• Reinforcement consisting of at least two (2) No. 5 rebars (1 top and 1 bottom) in strip footings.
Additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations.
Building Floor Slab Design Recommendations
• Conventional Slab-on-Grade: minimum 6 inches thick.
• Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: k = 150 psi/in.
• Reinforcement is not expected to be necessary for geotechnical considerations. The actual
thickness and reinforcement of the floor slab should be determined by the structural engineer.
Pavement Design Recommendations
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS (R = 50)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Auto Parking and
Auto Drive Lanes
(TI = 4.0 to 5.0)
Truck Traffic
TI = 6.0 TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0
Asphaltic Concrete 3 3½ 4 5 5½
Aggregate Base 3 4 5 5 7
Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 12
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (R = 50)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Autos and Light
Truck Traffic
(TI = 6.0)
Truck Traffic
TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0
PCC 5 5½ 6½ 8
Compacted Subgrade
(95% minimum compaction) 12 12 12 12
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 3
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services performed for this project was in general accordance with our Proposal No.
24P112R, dated January 29, 2024, and revised on February 16, 2024. The scope of services
included a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and
geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building
foundations, building floor slab, and parking lot pavements along with site preparation
recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development. The evaluation
of the environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical
investigation.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 4
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Site Conditions
The subject site is located at 14970 Jurupa Avenue in Fontana, California. The site is bounded to
the north by existing commercial/industrial development, to the west by railroad tracks and Live
Oak Avenue, to the south by Jurupa Avenue, and to the east by Hemlock Avenue. A railroad spur
is located in the western portion of the site. The general location of the site is illustrated on the
Site Location Map, enclosed as Plate 1 in Appendix A of this report.
The subject site consists of a rectangular-shaped parcel, 22.83± acres in size. The site is currently
occupied by the Brown-Strauss Steel facility and is developed with two buildings, 6,600± ft² and
20,000±ft² in size, located in the southern area of the site. One building consists of a single-story
structure of steel-frame and metal panel construction, and the other building is of wood-frame
and stucco construction. Both buildings are assumed to be supported on conventional shallow
foundations with concrete slab-on-grade floors. The site is currently utilized as a steel storage
yard, with numerous stockpiles of steel beams. An existing concrete masonry unit (CMU) screen
wall is present along the southern site boundary, and CMU retaining walls are present along the
eastern and northern site boundaries. The ground surface cover throughout the site generally
consists of asphaltic concrete (AC) pavements in moderate to poor condition, with localized severe
cracking throughout, and isolated areas of exposed soils.
Detailed topographic information was obtained from a concept grading plan prepared by PBLA
Engineering, Inc. Based on this plan, the overall site topography slopes downward to the south-
southwest with an average gradient of 1± percent.
3.2 Proposed Development
Based on the concept grading plan, the site will be developed with one (1) industrial building,
492,130± ft² in size, located in the southern area of the site. Dock-high doors will be constructed
on the north side of the proposed building. The building is expected to be surrounded by AC
pavements in the parking and drive lanes, Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements in the
loading dock area, and concrete flatwork with limited areas of landscape planters throughout.
Detailed structural information was not available at the time of this proposal. It is assumed that
the proposed building will be a single-story structure of tilt-up concrete construction, typically
supported on conventional shallow foundations with a concrete slab-on-grade floor. Based on the
assumed construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 100
kips and 4 to 7 kips per linear foot, respectively.
No significant amounts of below-grade construction, such as basements or crawl spaces, are
expected to be included in the proposed development. Based on the concept grading plan, cuts
and fills of up to 7± feet will be necessary to achieve the proposed site grades.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 5
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods
The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of six (6) borings (identified as
Boring Nos. B-1 through B-6) advanced to depths of 10 to 25± feet below the existing site grades.
All of the borings were logged during drilling by a member of our staff.
The borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers, by a conventional truck-mounted drilling
rig. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken during drilling.
Relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken with a split barrel “California Sampler” containing
a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described
in ASTM Test Method D-3550. Standard penetration test (SPT) samples were also taken using a
1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of
these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling
30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples
were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed
ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our
laboratory.
The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as
Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered
at the boring locations, as well as the results of some of the laboratory testing, are included in
Appendix B.
4.2 Geotechnical Conditions
Pavements
Boring No. B-1 was drilled through asphalt that consisted of 6¼± inches of AC with no discernible
aggregate base. The remaining borings were drilled through pavements that consisted of 3 to 6±
inches of AC, underlain by 6 to 8± inches of aggregate base.
Artificial Fill
Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the pavements at all of the boring locations,
extending to depths of 1½ to 5½± feet below the existing site grades. The artificial fill soils
generally consist of medium dense to very dense silty sands and gravelly sands, with occasional
loose silty sands. Occasional cobbles were encountered at Boring No. B-3 as shallow as 1± foot
from the ground surface. The fill soils possess a mottled and disturbed appearance resulting in
their classification as artificial fill.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 6
Alluvium
Native alluvium was encountered beneath the artificial fill soils at all of the boring locations,
extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 25± feet below the existing site grades.
The alluvial soils within the upper 8 to 12± feet generally consist of medium dense to dense
sands, silty sands and gravelly sands. At greater depths and extending to the maximum depth
explored of 25± feet, the alluvium generally consists of dense to very dense gravelly sands, with
occasional medium dense silty sands. The alluvium at Boring No. B-3 generally consists of very
dense gravelly sands with occasional cobbles.
Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered at any of the borings. Based on the lack of any water within
the borings, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater
table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 25± feet below existing site grades, at
the time of the subsurface investigation.
As part of our research, we reviewed readily available groundwater data in order to determine
regional groundwater depths. Recent water level data was obtained from the California
Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library Station Map, website,
https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. One monitoring well on record (identified as Local
Well: CHINO-1207068) is located as close as 4,130± feet southwest of the site. Water level
readings within this monitoring well indicate a high groundwater level of 225± feet below the
ground surface in January 2000.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 7
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for
further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests
are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual
samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths.
Classification
Recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in
accordance with ASTM D-2488. Field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual
classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The USCS classifications are shown on the Boring
Logs and are periodically referenced throughout this report.
Density and Moisture Content
The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities
were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM D-2937. The results
are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined
in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These
test results are presented on the Boring Logs.
Consolidation
Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance
with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded
samples in a one-inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then
loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at
selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to
permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at
an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the
consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-1, C-2 and C-3 in Appendix C of this report.
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
Representative soil samples have been tested to determine their maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content. The results have been obtained using the Modified Proctor procedure,
per ASTM D-1557 and are presented on Plates C-4 and C-5 in Appendix C of this report. These
tests are generally used for comparison with the densities of undisturbed field samples, and for
later compaction testing. Additional testing of other soil types or soil mixes may be necessary at
a later date.
Soluble Sulfates
Representative samples of the near-surface soils were submitted to a subcontracted analytical
laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in
soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 8
into contact with these soils. The results of the soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and
are discussed further in a subsequent section of this report.
Sample Identification Soluble Sulfates (%) Severity Class
B-1 @ 1 to 5 feet 0.011 Not Applicable S0
B-5 @ 1 to 5 feet 0.005 Not Applicable S0
Corrosivity Testing
Representative samples of the near-surface soils were submitted to a subcontracted corrosion
engineering laboratory for determination of electrical resistivity, pH, and chloride concentrations.
The resistivity of the soils is a measure of their potential to attack buried metal improvements
such as utility lines. The results of some of these tests are presented below.
Sample
Identification
Saturated
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
pH Chlorides
(mg/kg)
Nitrates
(mg/kg)
Sulfides
(mg/kg)
Redox
Potential
(mV)
B-1 @ 1 to 5 feet 2,747 7.0 16.7 98.6 0.3 122
B-5 @ 1 to 5 feet 9,380 7.5 21.3 16.2 0.2 123
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 9
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis,
the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The
recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and
grading considerations.
The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities
being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The recommendations are provided with
the assumption that an adequate program of client consultation, construction monitoring, and
testing will be performed during the final design and construction phases to verify compliance
with these recommendations. Maintaining Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., (SCG) as the
geotechnical consultant from the beginning to the end of the project will provide continuity of
services. The geotechnical engineering firm providing testing and observation services shall
assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.
The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this
report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner
of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that
differ from those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development.
6.1 Seismic Design Considerations
The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to
earthquakes. The performance of a site specific seismic hazards analysis was beyond the scope
of this investigation. However, numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions
are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered
reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore,
significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed
structure should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide
reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life.
Faulting and Seismicity
Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, SCG did not identify any evidence of faulting during the
geotechnical investigation. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is
considered to be low.
The potential for other geologic hazards such as seismically induced settlement, lateral spreading,
tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, and subsidence affecting the site is considered low.
Seismic Design Parameters
The 2022 California Building Code (CBC) provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural
design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 10
the structure including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters
presented below are based on the soil profile and the proximity of known faults with respect to
the subject site.
The 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters have been generated using the SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic
Design Maps Tool, a web-based software application available at the website
www.seismicmaps.org. This software application calculates seismic design parameters in
accordance with several building code reference documents, including ASCE 7-16, upon which
the 2022 CBC is based. The application utilizes a database of risk-targeted maximum considered
earthquake (MCER) site accelerations at 0.01-degree intervals for each of the code documents.
The table below was created using data obtained from the application. The output generated
from this program is included as Plate E-1 in Appendix E of this report.
2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SS 1.726
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period S1 0.640
Site Class --- C
Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SMS 2.071
Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SM1 0.897
Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SDS 1.381
Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SD1 0.598
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water
pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden
pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater
table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining
pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence
of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet
below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly
graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss,
1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.005mm) in excess of 20
percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction,
nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table.
The California Geological Survey (CGS) has not yet conducted detailed seismic hazards mapping
in the area of the subject site. The general liquefaction susceptibility of the site was determined
by research of the San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays.
Map FH29C for the Fontana 7.5-Minute Quadrangle indicates that the subject site is not located
within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. Based on the mapping performed by the county of
San Bernardino and the lack of a historic high ground water table within the upper 50± feet of
the ground surface, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for this project.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 11
6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations
General
Artificial fill soils were encountered at all of the boring locations, extending from the ground
surface to depths of 1½ to 5½± feet. These soils possess a mottled and disturbed appearance.
Additionally, no documentation regarding the placement and compaction of these soils has been
provided. The fill soils are therefore considered to be undocumented fill. The artificial fill soils are
underlain by native alluvium which possesses relatively favorable strengths and
consolidation/collapse characteristics. Additionally, it is anticipated that demolition of the existing
structures and associated improvements will cause disturbance of the upper 3 to 4± feet of soil.
Therefore, remedial grading is considered warranted within the proposed building area in order
to remove all of the undocumented fill soils in their entirety and any soils disturbed during the
demolition process, and replace these materials as compacted structural fill soils.
Settlement
The recommended remedial grading will remove the existing undocumented fill soils and a portion
of the near-surface native alluvial soils and replace these materials as compacted structural fill.
The native soils that will remain in place below the recommended depth of overexcavation will
not be subject to significant stress increases from the foundations of the new structure. Therefore,
following completion of the recommended grading, post-construction settlements are expected
to be within tolerable limits.
Expansion
The near-surface soils consist of gravelly sands, sands, and silty sands with no appreciable clay
content. These materials have been visually classified as non-expansive. Therefore, no design
considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for this site.
Soluble Sulfates
The results of the soluble sulfate testing, discussed in Section 5.0 of this report, indicate soluble
sulfate concentrations less than 0.011 percent. These concentrations are considered to be
negligible or “not applicable” with respect to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication
318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Section 4.3.
Therefore, specialized concrete mix designs are not considered to be necessary, with regard to
sulfate protection purposes. It is, however, recommended that additional soluble sulfate testing
be conducted at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of
the soils which are present at pad grade within the building areas.
Corrosion Potential
The results of laboratory testing indicate that the tested samples of the near-surface soils possess
saturated resistivities ranging from 2,747 to 9,380 ohm-cm, and pH values of 7.0 and 7.5. The
soils possess redox potentials of up to 123 mV and sulfide concentrations of up to 0.3 mg/kg.
These test results have been evaluated in accordance with guidelines published by the Ductile
Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA). The DIPRA guidelines consist of a point system by which
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 12
characteristics of the soils are used to quantify the corrosivity characteristics of the site.
Resistivity, pH, sulfide concentration, redox potential, and moisture content are the five factors
that enter into the evaluation procedure. Based on these factors, and utilizing the DIPRA
procedure, the on-site soils are considered to be slightly corrosive to ductile iron pipe. Therefore,
polyethylene protection may be required for cast iron or ductile iron pipes.
Based on American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication 318 Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete and Commentary, reinforced concrete that is exposed to external sources of
chlorides requires corrosion protection for the steel reinforcement contained within the concrete.
ACI 318 defines concrete exposed to moisture and an external source of chlorides as “severe” or
exposure category C2. ACI 318 does not clearly define a specific chloride concentration at which
contact with the adjacent soil will constitute a “C2” or severe exposure. However, the Caltrans
Memo to Designers 10-5, Protection of Reinforcement Against Corrosion Due to Chlorides, Acids
and Sulfates, dated June 2010, indicates that soils possessing chloride concentrations greater
than 500 mg/kg are considered to be corrosive to reinforced concrete. The results of the
laboratory testing indicate chloride concentrations ranging from 16.7 to 21.3 mg/kg. Although the
soils contain some chlorides, we do not expect that the chloride concentrations of the tested soils
are high enough to constitute a “severe” or C2 chloride exposure. Therefore, a chloride exposure
category of C1 is considered appropriate for this site.
Nitrates present in soil can be corrosive to copper tubing at concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg.
The tested samples possess nitrate concentrations ranging from 16.2 to 98.6 mg/kg. Based on
this test result, the on-site soils are considered to be corrosive to copper pipe.
Since SCG does not practice in the area of corrosion engineering, we recommend that
the client contact a corrosion engineer to provide a more thorough evaluation of these
test results.
Shrinkage/Subsidence
Based on the results of the laboratory testing, removal and recompaction of the near-surface fill
and native alluvium will result in an average shrinkage of 5 to 15 percent. Shrinkage estimates
for the individual samples range between 2 and 19 percent based on the results of density testing
and the assumption that the on-site soils will be compacted to about 92 percent of the ASTM D-
1557 maximum dry density. It should be noted that the shrinkage estimate is based on the results
of dry density testing performed on small-diameter samples of the existing soils taken at the
boring locations. If a more accurate and precise shrinkage estimate is desired, SCG can perform
a shrinkage study involving several excavated test-pits where in-place densities are determined
using in-situ testing methods instead of laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples.
Please contact SCG for details and a cost estimate regarding a shrinkage study, if desired.
Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to
settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.1 feet. This estimate
may be used for grading in areas that are underlain by native alluvial soils.
These estimates are based on previous experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at
the boring locations. The actual amount of subsidence is expected to be variable and will be
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 13
dependent on the type of machinery used, repetitions of use, and dynamic effects, all of which
are difficult to assess precisely.
Grading and Foundation Plan Review
Grading and foundation plans were unavailable at the time of this report. It is therefore
recommended that we be provided with copies of the preliminary grading and foundation plans,
when they become available, for review with regard to the conclusions, recommendations, and
assumptions contained within this report.
6.3 Site Grading Recommendations
The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions
encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We
recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide
Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site-specific
recommendations presented below.
Site Stripping and Demolition
Demolition of the existing structures including pavements and any associated improvements will
be necessary to facilitate the construction of the proposed development. Demolition should
include any foundations, floor slabs, and any associated utilities. Any septic systems encountered
during demolition and/or grading (if present) should be removed in their entirety. Any associated
leach fields or other existing underground improvements should also be removed in their entirety.
Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed of off-site in accordance with local
regulations. Alternatively, concrete and asphalt debris may be crushed to a maximum 1-inch
particle size, well-mixed with the on-site sands, and incorporated into new structural fills or it
may be crushed and made into crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), if desired. Furthermore, the
contractor should take necessary precautions to protect the adjacent improvements during
demolition.
Detailed structural information regarding the existing buildings has not been provided to our
office. Therefore, the foundation systems supporting the existing buildings are generally unknown
by SCG. We expect that the existing buildings are supported on conventional shallow foundations.
However, if the buildings are supported on deep foundations, any existing piles or drilled piers
located within the proposed building areas should be cut off at a depth of at least 3 feet below
the bottom of the planned overexcavation. Where drilled pier or pile foundations are encountered
within proposed pavement areas, they should be cut off at a depth of at least 2 feet below the
proposed pavement subgrade elevation or at a depth of at least 1 foot below the bottom of any
planned utilities.
Initial site stripping should also include removal of any surficial vegetation from the unpaved
areas of the site. This should include any weeds, grasses, shrubs, and trees. Root systems
associated with the trees should be removed in their entirety, and the resultant excavations
should be backfilled with compacted structural fill soils. Any organic materials should be removed
and disposed of off-site, or in non-structural areas of the property. The actual extent of site
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 14
stripping should be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer, based on the organic
content and stability of the materials encountered.
Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Pad
Remedial grading will be necessary within the proposed building pad area to remove the existing
undocumented fill soils and a portion of the variable strength native alluvium. The fill soils extend
to depths of 1½ to 5½± feet at the boring locations. In addition, the overexcavation is also
recommended to extend to a depth of at least 4 feet below existing grade and 3 feet below
proposed building pad subgrade elevation, whichever is greater. Within the influence zones of
the new foundations, the overexcavation should extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below
proposed foundation bearing grade.
The overexcavation areas should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building and foundation
perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill placed below the foundation bearing grade,
whichever is greater. If the proposed structure incorporates any exterior columns (such as for a
canopy or overhang) the area of overexcavation should also encompass these areas. The
overexcavation should also encompass the proposed fill slope located along the south side of the
proposed building.
Following completion of the overexcavation, the subgrade soils within the overexcavation areas
should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the
structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structure. This
evaluation should include proofrolling and probing to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable
soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if
additional fill materials or loose, porous, or low-density native soils are encountered at the base
of the overexcavation.
After a suitable overexcavation subgrade has been achieved, the exposed soils should be scarified
to a depth of at least 12 inches thoroughly flooded to achieve a moisture content of 0 to 4 percent
above optimum moisture content to a depth of at least 24 inches. The subgrade soils should then
be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The previously
excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill.
Treatment of Existing Soils: Retaining Walls and Site Walls
The existing soils within the areas of any proposed retaining walls and site walls should be
overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted
structural fill as discussed above for the proposed building pad. Any undocumented fill soils or
disturbed native alluvium within any of these foundation areas should be removed in their
entirety. The overexcavation areas should extend at least 3 feet beyond the foundation
perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill below the new foundations. Any erection
pads for tilt-up concrete walls are considered to be part of the foundation system. Therefore,
these overexcavation recommendations are applicable to erection pads. The overexcavation
subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to scarifying, moisture
conditioning to within 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and recompacting the
upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soils. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced
as compacted structural fill.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 15
If the full lateral extent of overexcavation is not achievable for the proposed walls, foundation
elements must be redesigned using a lower bearing pressure. The geotechnical engineer of record
should be contacted for recommendations pertaining to this type of condition.
Treatment of Existing Soils: Flatwork, Parking and Drive Areas
Based on economic considerations, overexcavation of the existing near-surface soils in the new
flatwork, parking and drive areas is not considered warranted, with the exception of areas where
lower strength or unstable soils are identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading.
Subgrade preparation in the new flatwork, parking and drive areas should initially consist of
removal of all soils disturbed during stripping and demolition operations.
The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional
unsuitable soils. Any such materials should be removed to a level of firm and unyielding soil. The
exposed subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12± inches, moisture conditioned
or air dried to 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least
90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Based on the presence of variable strength
surficial soils throughout the site, it is expected that some isolated areas of additional
overexcavation may be required to remove zones of lower strength, unsuitable soils.
The grading recommendations presented above for the proposed flatwork, parking and drive
areas assume that the owner and/or developer can tolerate minor amounts of settlement within
these areas. The grading recommendations presented above do not mitigate the extent of
undocumented fill or lower strength native alluvium in the flatwork, parking and drive areas. As
such, some settlement and associated pavement distress could occur. Typically, repair of such
distressed areas involves significantly lower costs than completely mitigating these soils at the
time of construction. If the owner cannot tolerate the risk of such settlements, the flatwork,
parking and drive areas should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below proposed pavement
subgrade elevation, with the resulting soils replaced as compacted structural fill.
Fill Placement
• Fill soils should be placed in thin (6± inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned
to 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted.
• On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction
of the geotechnical engineer.
• All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the
requirements of the current CBC and the grading code of the city of Fontana and/or the
county of San Bernardino.
• All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry
density.
• Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as
random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid
the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not
be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his
responsibility to meet the job specifications.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 16
Imported Structural Fill
Imported structural fill should consist of very low expansive (EI < 20), well graded soils possessing
at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200 sieve). Additional
specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as
Appendix D.
Utility Trench Backfill
In general, utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557
maximum dry density. Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local
grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the city of Fontana. Utility
trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should
be compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere.
Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a 1h:1v (horizontal to vertical) plane
projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils,
compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill should not
be used for these trenches.
Any soils used to backfill voids around subsurface utility structures, such as manholes or vaults,
should be placed as compacted structural fill. If it is not practical to place compacted fill in these
areas, then such void spaces may be backfilled with lean concrete slurry. Uncompacted pea gravel
or sand is not recommended for backfilling these voids since these materials have a potential to
settle and thereby cause distress of pavements placed around these subterranean structures.
6.4 Construction Considerations
Excavation Considerations
The near-surface soils are predominately granular in nature. These materials will likely be subject
to caving within shallow excavations. Where caving occurs within shallow excavations, flattened
excavation slopes may be sufficient to provide excavation stability. On a preliminary basis, the
inclination of temporary slopes should not exceed 2h:1v. Maintaining adequate moisture content
within the near-surface soils will improve excavation stability. All excavation activities on this site
should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations.
Moisture Sensitive Subgrade Soils
Based on their granular composition, the on-site soils are susceptible to erosion. The site should,
therefore, be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into
excavations.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 17
Groundwater
The static groundwater table at this site is considered to exist at a depth in excess of 25± feet at
the time of the subsurface exploration. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to impact the
grading or foundation construction activities.
6.5 Foundation Design and Construction
Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the new building pad will
be underlain by structural fill soils used to replace existing undocumented fill soils and a portion
of the near-surface alluvial soils. These new structural fill soils are expected to extend to a depth
of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade, underlain by 1± foot of additional
soil that has been densified and moisture conditioned in place. Based on this subsurface profile,
the proposed structure may be supported on conventional shallow foundations.
Foundation Design Parameters
New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows:
• Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 lbs/ft2.
• Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inches/24 inches.
• Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Two (2) No. 5 rebars (1
top and 1 bottom).
• Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at least
18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed
immediately beneath the floor slab.
• It is recommended that the perimeter building foundations be continuous across all
exterior doorways. Any flatwork adjacent to the exterior doors should be doweled into the
perimeter foundations in a manner determined by the structural engineer.
The allowable bearing pressure presented above may be increased by one-third when considering
short duration wind or seismic loads. The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above is
based on geotechnical considerations; additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural
considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the structural
engineer.
Foundation Construction
The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as discussed
in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be
evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Soils
suitable for direct foundation support should consist of newly placed structural fill, compacted to
at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable materials should
be removed to a depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill or suitable native alluvium
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 18
(where reduced bearing pressures are utilized), with the resulting excavations backfilled with
compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to
backfill such isolated overexcavations.
The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 0 to 4 percent
above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below bearing grade. Since
it is typically not feasible to increase the moisture content of the floor slab and foundation
subgrade soils once rough grading has been completed, care should be taken to maintain the
moisture content of the building pad subgrade soils throughout the construction process.
Estimated Foundation Settlements
Post-construction total and differential settlements of shallow foundations designed and
constructed in accordance with the previously presented recommendations are estimated to be
less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively. Differential movements are expected to occur over a
50-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch.
Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of
foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The
following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces:
• Passive Earth Pressure: 300 lbs/ft3
• Friction Coefficient: 0.30
These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety. When combining friction and passive
resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume
that footings will be poured directly against compacted structural fill. The maximum allowable
passive pressure is 3,000 lbs/ft2.
6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction
Subgrades which will support new floor slab should be prepared in accordance with the
recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report.
Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floor of the new structure may
be constructed as a conventional slab-on-grade supported on newly placed structural fill soils.
These fill soils are expected to extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below finished pad grade.
Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slab may be designed as follows:
• Minimum slab thickness: 6 inches.
• Minimum slab reinforcement: Reinforcement is not expected to be required for
geotechnical conditions. The actual floor slab reinforcement should be determined by the
structural engineer, based upon the imposed loading.
• Modulus of subgrade reaction, k =150 psi/in.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 19
• Slab underlayment: If moisture sensitive floor coverings will be used the minimum slab
underlayment should consist of a moisture vapor barrier constructed below the entire area
of the proposed slab. The moisture vapor barrier should meet or exceed the Class A rating
as defined by ASTM E 1745-97 and have a permeance rating less than 0.01 perms as
described in ASTM E 96-95 and ASTM E 154-88. A polyolefin material such as Stego®
Wrap Vapor Barrier or equivalent will meet these specifications. The moisture vapor barrier
should be properly constructed in accordance with all applicable manufacturer
specifications. Given that a rock free subgrade is anticipated and that a capillary break is
not required, sand below the barrier is not required. The need for sand and/or the amount
of sand above the moisture vapor barrier should be specified by the structural engineer
or concrete contractor. The selection of sand above the barrier is not a geotechnical
engineering issue and hence outside our purview. Where moisture sensitive floor
coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier may be eliminated.
• Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to 0 to 4 percent above the Modified
Proctor optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches. The moisture content of the
floor slab subgrade soils should be verified by the geotechnical engineer within 24 hours
prior to concrete placement.
• Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab
curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks.
The actual design of the floor slab should be completed by the structural engineer to verify
adequate thickness and reinforcement.
6.7 Retaining Wall Design and Construction
Small retaining walls are expected to be necessary in the truck dock areas and may also be
required to facilitate the new site grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of
these walls are presented below.
Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following parameters may
be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. We have provided parameters assuming
the use of on-site soils for retaining wall backfill. The on-site soils generally consist of sands, silty
sands, and gravelly sands. Based on their classification, these materials are expected to possess
a friction angle of at least 32 degrees when compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-
1557 maximum dry density.
If desired, SCG could provide design parameters for an alternative select backfill material behind
the retaining walls. The use of select backfill material could result in lower lateral earth pressures.
In order to use the design parameters for the imported select fill, this material must be placed
within the entire active failure wedge. This wedge is defined as extending from the heel of the
retaining wall upwards at an angle of approximately 60° from horizontal. If select backfill material
behind the retaining wall is desired, SCG should be contacted for supplementary
recommendations.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 20
RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter
Soil Type
On-site Sands and Silty Sands
Internal Friction Angle () 32
Unit Weight 134 lbs/ft3
Equivalent
Fluid Pressure:
Active Condition
(level backfill) 42 lbs/ft3
Active Condition
(2h:1v backfill) 63 lbs/ft3
At-Rest Condition
(level backfill) 63 lbs/ft3
The walls should be designed using a soil-footing coefficient of friction of 0.30 and an equivalent
passive pressure of 300 lbs/ft3. The structural engineer should incorporate appropriate factors of
safety in the design of the retaining walls.
The active earth pressure may be used for the design of retaining walls that do not directly
support structures or support soils that in turn support structures and which will be allowed to
deflect. The at-rest earth pressure should be used for walls that will not be allowed to deflect
such as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which will support foundation loads
directly.
Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface such as
a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive
resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life
of the structure.
Retaining Wall Foundation Design
The retaining wall foundations should be underlain by at least 2 feet of newly placed structural
fill. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general
Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report.
Seismic Lateral Earth Pressures
In accordance with the 2022 CBC, any retaining walls more than 6 feet in height must be designed
for seismic lateral earth pressures. If walls 6 feet or more are required for this site, the
geotechnical engineer should be contacted for supplementary seismic lateral earth pressure
recommendations.
Backfill Material
On-site soils may be used to backfill the retaining walls. However, all backfill material placed
within 3 feet of the back wall face should have a particle size no greater than 3 inches. The
retaining wall backfill materials should be well graded.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 21
It is recommended that a minimum 1-foot thick layer of free-draining granular material (less than
5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) be placed against the face of the retaining walls. This
material should extend from the top of the retaining wall footing to within 1 foot of the ground
surface on the back side of the retaining wall. This material should be approved by the
geotechnical engineer. In lieu of the 1-foot thick layer of free-draining material, a properly
installed prefabricated drainage composite such as the MiraDRAIN 6000XL (or approved
equivalent), which is specifically designed for use behind retaining walls, may be used. If the
layer of free-draining material is not covered by an impermeable surface, such as a structure or
pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to
reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils. The layer of free draining granular material
should be separated from the backfill soils by a suitable geotextile, approved by the geotechnical
engineer.
All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions
in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90 and 93 percent of
the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557-91). Care
should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind the retaining walls, and the use of
heavy compaction equipment should be avoided.
Subsurface Drainage
As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained backfill
conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be necessary in
conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage may consist of either:
• A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 2-inch diameter holes in
the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation on the exposed side of the
wall and at an approximate 10-foot on-center spacing. Alternatively, 4-inch diameter holes
at an approximate 20-foot on-center spacing can be used for this type of drainage system.
In addition, the weep holes should include a 2 cubic foot pocket of open graded gravel,
surrounded by an approved geotextile fabric, at each weep hole location.
• A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of
drain placed behind the wall, above the retaining wall footing. The gravel layer should be
wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the potential for migration of fines. The
footing drain should be extended to daylight or tied into a storm drainage system. The
actual design of this type of system should be determined by the civil engineer to verify
that the drainage system possesses the adequate capacity and slope for its intended use.
Weep holes or a footing drain will not be required for building stem walls.
6.8 Pavement Design Parameters
Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the
Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent pavement
recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either
PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However, these
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 22
designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20-year
pavement service life.
Pavement Subgrades
It is anticipated that the new pavements will be primarily supported on a layer of compacted
structural fill, consisting of scarified, thoroughly moisture conditioned and recompacted existing
soils. The near-surface soils generally consist of silty sands, sands, and gravelly sands. Based on
their classification, these materials are expected to possess excellent pavement support
characteristics, with R-values in the range of 50 to 60. Since R-value testing was not included in
the scope of services for this project, the subsequent pavement design is based upon an assumed
R-value of 50. Fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or
greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering observed
and tested conditions. It is recommended that R-value testing be performed after completion of
rough grading to verify that the pavement design recommendations presented herein are valid.
Asphaltic Concrete
Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures
consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. The pavement designs are based on the
traffic indices (TI’s) indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these TI’s are
representative of the anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that
the expected traffic volume will exceed the applicable traffic index, we should be contacted for
supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices equate to the following approximate
daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming six operational traffic days per week.
Traffic Index No. of Heavy Trucks per Day
4.0 0
5.0 1
6.0 3
7.0 11
8.0 35
9.0 93
For the purpose of the traffic volumes indicated above, a truck is defined as a 5-axle tractor trailer
unit with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices allow for 1,000
automobiles per day.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 23
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS (R = 50)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Auto Parking and
Auto Drive Lanes
(TI = 4.0 to 5.0)
Truck Traffic
TI = 6.0 TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0
Asphaltic Concrete 3 3½ 4 5 5½
Aggregate Base 3 4 5 5 7
Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 12
The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557
maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the
batch plant-reported maximum density. The aggregate base course may consist of crushed
aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt
and concrete material. The gradation, R-Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB
or CMB should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the
“Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.
Portland Cement Concrete
The preparation of the subgrade soils and aggregate base course within concrete pavement areas
should be performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. The minimum
recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows:
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (R = 50)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Autos and Light
Truck Traffic
(TI = 6.0)
Truck Traffic
TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0
PCC 5 5½ 6½ 8
Compacted Subgrade
(95% minimum compaction) 12 12 12 12
The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. Reinforcing within
all pavements should be designed by the structural engineer. The maximum joint spacing within
all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement
thickness. The actual joint spacing and reinforcing of the Portland cement concrete pavements
should be determined by the structural engineer.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-1
Page 24
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client, in order to aid in
the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and
preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the
contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project.
However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without
appropriate interpretation by the project architect, civil engineer, and/or structural engineer. The
reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern
California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third
party is at such party’s sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may
occur. The client(s)’ reliance upon this report is subject to the Engineering Services Agreement,
incorporated into our proposal for this project.
The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil
samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative
of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample
depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed
herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the
recommendations contained herein.
This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development.
It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer
carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of
the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to
verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also
recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to
verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted.
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been
promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering
practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed.
SITE
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
DRAWN: MK
CHKD: RGT
SCG PROJECT
24G111-1
PLATE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE
FONTANA QUADRANGLE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, 2021.
55 DOCK HI DOORS
5,000 SFOFFICE5,000 SFMEZZ.
5,000 SFOFFICE5,000 SFMEZZ.
JURUPA AVE.
HEMLOCK AVE.
PROPOSED
BUILDING
492,130 SF
JURUPA AVENUE
HE
M
L
O
C
K
A
V
E
N
U
E
LI
V
E
O
A
K
A
V
E
N
U
E
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
SCALE: 1" = 100'
DRAWN: JAH
CHKD: RGT
PLATE 2
SCG PROJECT
24G111-1
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
BORING LOCATION PLAN
NO
R
T
H
So
C
a
l
G
e
o
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND
NOTE: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN PREPARED BY PBLA ENGINEERING, INC.EXISTING STRUCTURE
BORING LOG LEGEND
SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL
SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
AUGER SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD
MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH. (DISTURBED)
CORE ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A
DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL. TYPICALLY USED
ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK.
GRAB 1
SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED
EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE
GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED)
CS CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL
SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS.
DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY
UNDISTURBED)
NSR
NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT
RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR
ROCK MATERIAL.
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4
INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18
INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED)
SH SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE
TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED.
(UNDISTURBED)
VANE VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING
A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT
CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED.
COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface.
SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above.
BLOW COUNT: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 lb
hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3” indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows)
at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to
push the sampler 6 inches or more.
POCKET PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket
penetrometer.
GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page.
DRY DENSITY: Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample in lbs/ft3.
MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight.
LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid.
PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic.
PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve.
UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state.
SM
SP
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
SW
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
LETTERGRAPH
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
GC
GM
GP
GW
POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SYMBOLSMAJOR DIVISIONS
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML
CLEAN SANDS
SC
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,
LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
CLEAN
GRAVELS
112
110
106
6
3
3
3
4
4
2
3
6¼± inches Asphaltic concrete with no discernible underlying
Aggregate base
FILL: Black Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, trace fine to
coarse Gravel, mottled, medium dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Light Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, trace fine
Gravel, medium dense-damp
Light Brown to Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt,
medium dense to dense-dry to damp
Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, medium
dense-damp
Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace to little Silt, very
dense-dry to damp
Boring Terminated @ 25 feet
@ 3 feet,
Disturbed Sample
@ 7 feet,
Disturbed Sample
36
34
38
65
36
59/10"
81
56
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 18 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-1
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-1
5
10
15
20
25
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 962.5 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
B-1
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
1
B
O
R
I
N
G
L
O
G
S
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
3
/
2
8
/
2
4
3
5
6
3
3
3
4± inches Asphaltic concrete with 6± inches of underlying
Aggregate Base
FILL: Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, very
dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace to little fine to
coarse Gravel, medium dense to dense-damp
Brown to Gray Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, dense to
very dense-damp
Boring Terminated @ 20 feet
50/5"
34
13
31
36
64/8"
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 14 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-1
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-2
5
10
15
20
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 958 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
B-2
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
1
B
O
R
I
N
G
L
O
G
S
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
3
/
2
8
/
2
4
2
3
3
3± inches Asphaltic concrete with 8± inches of underlying
Aggregate base
FILL: Light Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, little Silt,
occasional Cobbles, very dense-dry to damp
ALLUVIUM: Light Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, little Silt,
occasional Cobbles, medium dense to very dense-dry to damp
@ 9 feet, medium dense
Boring Terminated @ 15 feet
@ 1 foot, No
Sample Recovery
@ 3 feet,
Disturbed Sample
@ 5 feet, No
Sample Recovery
@ 7 feet, No
Sample Recovery
@ 9 feet,
Disturbed Sample
50/5"
50/5"
50/5"
50/3"
39
50/5"
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 11 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-1
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-3
5
10
15
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 962 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
B-3
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
1
B
O
R
I
N
G
L
O
G
S
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
3
/
2
8
/
2
4
4
7
2
2
6
2
6± inches Asphaltic concrete with 8± inches of underlying
Aggregate base
FILL: Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, trace
fine Gravel, loose to medium dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse
Gravel, medium dense-dry to damp
Gray Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, dense-dry to damp
Light Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, medium
dense-damp
Gray Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, very dense-dry to
damp
Boring Terminated @ 20 feet
29
7
16
30
22
67/11"
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 13 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-1
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-4
5
10
15
20
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 967 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
B-4
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
1
B
O
R
I
N
G
L
O
G
S
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
3
/
2
8
/
2
4
107
8
6
4
4
9
4
5± inches Asphaltic concrete with 8± inches of underlying
Aggregate base
FILL: Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace to little fine to coarse
Gravel, mottled, dense to very dense-moist
ALLUVIUM: Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace to little Silt,
medium dense to dense-damp to moist
Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace Iron
Oxide staining, medium dense-moist
Dark Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, very
dense-damp
Boring Terminated @ 25 feet
@ 1 foot, No
Sample Recovery
@ 3 feet,
Disturbed Sample
@ 7 feet,
Disturbed Sample
@ 9 feet, No
Sample Recovery
50/5"
50
57
41
34
45
26
58
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 12 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-1
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-5
5
10
15
20
25
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 963 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
B-5
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
1
B
O
R
I
N
G
L
O
G
S
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
3
/
2
8
/
2
4
5
7
9
3
4± inches Asphaltic concrete with 6± inches of underlying
Aggregate base
FILL: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, loose to medium dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Light Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace
coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, medium dense-damp to
moist
Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, trace
Iron Oxide staining, medium dense-moist
Light Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, dense-damp
Boring Terminated @ 10 feet
10
14
17
34
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 8 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Ryan Bremer
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-1
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-6
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 967 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
B-6
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
1
B
O
R
I
N
G
L
O
G
S
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
3
/
2
8
/
2
4
Classification: Light Brown to Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt
Boring Number:B-1 Initial Moisture Content (%)3
Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)14
Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf)109.7
Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)114.1
Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)0.35
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-1
PLATE C- 1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.1 1 10 100
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
i
n
(
%
)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
Classification: Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel
Boring Number:B-1 Initial Moisture Content (%)4
Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)17
Depth (ft) 9 to 10 Initial Dry Density (pcf)106.2
Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)111.4
Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)1.17
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-1
PLATE C- 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.1 1 10 100
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
i
n
(
%
)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
Classification: Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace to little Silt
Boring Number:B-5 Initial Moisture Content (%)6
Sample Number:---Final Moisture Content (%)16
Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf)107.5
Specimen Diameter (in)2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf)115.0
Specimen Thickness (in)1.0 Percent Collapse (%)1.09
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-1
PLATE C- 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.1 1 10 100
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
i
n
(
%
)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-1
PLATE C- 4
118
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
l
b
s
/
f
t
3)
Moisture Content (%)
Moisture/Density Relationship
ASTM D-1557
Soil ID Number B-1 @ 1-5'
Optimum Moisture (%)9
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)131
Soil
Classification
Brown fine to coarse Sand,
some fine to coarse Gravel,
some Silt
Zero Air Voids Curve:
Specific Gravity = 2.7
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-1
PLATE C- 5
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
140
142
144
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
l
b
s
/
f
t
3)
Moisture Content (%)
Moisture/Density Relationship
ASTM D-1557
Soil ID Number B-5 @ 1-5'
Optimum Moisture (%)6.5
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)136
Soil
Classification
Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand,
some fine to coarse Gravel
Zero Air Voids Curve:
Specific Gravity = 2.7
Grading Guide Specifications Page 1
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations.
They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation
report for this project. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict
with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical
investigation report will govern.
General
• The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in
accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county,
and applicable building codes.
• The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of
implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended
to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman -like
manner, nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel
employed by the Contractor.
• The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated
work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may
be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance.
• The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job -
site to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the
approved compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to
conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report.
• Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,
subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement
of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer
of areas that are ready for inspection.
• Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and
sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation,
springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable
working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage
encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the
recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains.
Site Preparation
• The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site
preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Engineer.
• If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected
of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and
Owner/Builder should be notified immediately.
Grading Guide Specifications Page 2
• Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush,
heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical E ngineer.
• Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining
shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the
Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or
city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical
Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be
formulated.
• Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered
unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement.
• Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations
basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill.
• Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of
10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted
• The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum
moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field
conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing.
Compacted Fills
• Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided
each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall
be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result
in the material being classified as “contaminated,” and shall be very low to non-expansive
with a maximum expansion index (EI) of 20. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should
have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a
maximum 6-inch particle size, except as noted below.
• All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high
expansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may
require removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfaction of the
Geotechnical Engineer.
• Rock fragments or rocks less than 6 inches in their largest dimensions, or as otherwise
determined by the Geotechnical Engineer, may be used in compacted fill, provided the
distribution and placement is satisfactory in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer.
• Rock fragments or rocks greater than 12 inches should be taken off-site or placed in
accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical
Engineer. These materials should be placed in accordance with Plate D-8 of these Grading
Guide Specifications and in accordance with the following recommendations:
• Rocks 12 inches or more in diameter should be placed in rows at least 15 feet apart, 15
feet from the edge of the fill, and 10 feet or more below subgrade. Spaces should be
left between each rock fragment to provide for placement and compaction of soil
around the fragments.
• Fill materials consisting of soil meeting the minimum moisture content requirements
and free of oversize material should be placed between and over the rows of rock or
Grading Guide Specifications Page 3
concrete. Ample water and compactive effort should be applied to the fill materials as
they are placed in order that all of the voids between each of the fragments are filled
and compacted to the specified density.
• Subsequent rows of rocks should be placed such that they are not directly above a row
placed in the previous lift of fill. A minimum 5-foot offset between rows is
recommended.
• To facilitate future trenching, oversized material should not be placed within the range
of foundation excavations, future utilities or other underground construction unless
specifically approved by the soil engineer and the developer/owner representative.
• Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously
prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in
loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer for the project.
• Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above,
as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly
distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557-78 unless otherwise indicated.
• Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at
random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests
are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workma nship,
equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for
compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies.
• Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and
recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify
the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made.
• Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5-to-1 inclination (horizontal-to-vertical) or steeper should
be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical
Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates D-2, D-4, and D-5.
• Cut/fill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet
and rebuilt with fill (see Plate D-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer.
• All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other
bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet
and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration.
• Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a
depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture
penetration.
• Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide
lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that
excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed
adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical
Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design.
Grading Guide Specifications Page 4
Foundations
• The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the
outside edge of a footing, and proceeding downward at a ½ horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1)
inclination.
• Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so
as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above.
• Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above
foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to
the floor subgrade elevation.
Fill Slopes
• The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope
compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill
in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the
compacted core
• Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4
vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction
equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction,
the slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then
grid rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer.
• Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and
therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face.
• All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at
least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet,
the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate D-5).
• All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and
should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to
filling.
• The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the
Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be
adequately keyed through all surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils
should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill port ions (see Plate D-
2).
Cut Slopes
• All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for
stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope
cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay
in recommendations.
• Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical
Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations.
Grading Guide Specifications Page 5
• All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical
inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and
dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate D-5.
• Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details
are shown on Plates D-6.
Subdrains
• Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical
subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate D-3. Subdrains should be installed after
approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer.
• Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent.
Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square -cut
(backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer.
• Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Specification 68 -1.025 or as
approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean ¾-inch
crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved
by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet
and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four -inch diameter pipe
may be used in buttress and stabilization fills.
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN: JAS
CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-2
FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL
9' MIN.
4' TYP.
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
REMOVE
U
N
S
U
I
T
A
B
L
E
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED
PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL
BEDROCK OR APPROVED
COMPETENT MATERIAL
CUT SLOPE
NATURAL GRADE
CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE
SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT"
COMPETENT MATERIAL
CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
NEW COMPACTED FILL
10' TYP.
KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE
REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5
FEET IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN: JAS
CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-4
FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL
10' TYP.
4' TYP.
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
OR 2% SLOPE
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
REMOVE U
N
S
U
I
T
A
B
L
E
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
NEW COMPACTED FILL
COMPETENT MATERIAL
KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL.
RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNIAL
ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED
IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5' IN HEIGHT
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER.
2' MINIMUM
KEY DEPTH
OVERFILL REQUIREMENTS
PER GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
BACKCUT - VARIES
PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL
TO ORIGINAL GRADE
PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT
(1:1 MAX.)
NOTE:
BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED
WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE
EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1
OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
FINISHED SLOPE FACE
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS
BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN: JAS
CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-5
STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL
FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE
COMPACTED FILL
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
10' TYP.
2' MINIMUM
KEY DEPTH
3' TYPICAL
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE
TO THE SOIL ENGINEER
KEYWAY WIDTH, AS SPECIFIED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
TOP WIDTH OF FILL
AS SPECIFIED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
4' TYP.
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN: JAS
CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-6
SLOPE FILL SUBDRAINS
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
DESIGN FINISH SLOPE
2' CLEAR
15' MAX.
OUTLETS TO BE SPACED
EXTEND 12 INCHES
AT 100' MAXIMUM INTERVALS.
BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE
AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING
CONSTRUCTION.
BUTTRESS OR
SIDEHILL FILL
2%
4-INCH DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED
OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD
BY THE SOIL ENGINEER.
10' MIN.
25' MAX.
"FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION
OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMA STD. PLAN 323)
NO. 8
NO. 4
3/8"
3/4"
1"
SIEVE SIZE
NO. 30
NO. 50
NO. 200
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
PERCENTAGE PASSING
100
40-100
90-100
25-40
"GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1 1/2"
NO. 4
NO. 200
100
50
8
MAXIMUM
SAND EQUIVALENT = MINIMUM OF 50
FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF FIVE
CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE
ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION.
ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL
FIVE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL
IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE ABOVE FOR
PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED
GRAVEL SPECIFICATION.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140
OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL
BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES
ON ALL JOINTS.
END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE.
WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM
OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED
A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH A MINIMUM
MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH
OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON-
NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE
WITH TEE OR ELBOW
NOTES:
1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED
WITH ON-SITE SOIL.
DETAIL "A"
DETAIL "A"
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN: JAS
CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-7
RETAINING WALL BACKDRAINS
"FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION
OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMA STD. PLAN 323)
NO. 8
NO. 4
3/8"
3/4"
1"
SIEVE SIZE
NO. 30
NO. 50
NO. 200
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
PERCENTAGE PASSING
100
40-100
90-100
25-40
"GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1 1/2"
NO. 4
NO. 200
100
50
8
MAXIMUM
SAND EQUIVALENT = MINIMUM OF 50
FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF TWO
CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE
BELOW FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION.
ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL
TWO CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL
IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE BELOW FOR
PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED
GRAVEL SPECIFICATION.
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140
OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL
BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES
ON ALL JOINTS.
END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE.
WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM
OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED
A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WITH A MINIMUM
MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH
FREE DRAINING MATERIAL
MINIMUM ONE FOOT WIDE LAYER OF
(LESS THAN 5% PASSING THE #200 SIEVE)COVERED WITH AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE
LOW PERMEABLILITY SOIL IF NOT
MINIMUM ONE FOOT THICK LAYER OF
PROPERLY INSTALLED PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE COMPOSITE
OR
(MiraDRAIN 6000 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT).
WATERPROOFING AT FACE OF WALL IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DETAILS
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
DRAWN: JLL
CHKD: RGT
SCG PROJECT
24G111-1
PLATE E-1
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS - 2022 CBC
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool
<https://seismicmaps.org/>
Attachment 9 - Infiltration Report
22885 Savi Ranch Parkway Suite E Yorba Linda California 92887
voice: (714) 685-1115 www.socalgeo.com
July 1, 2024
Prologis
3546 Concours Street, Suite 100
Ontario, California 91764
Attention: Ms. Annie Chen
Development Manager
Project No.: 24G111-2
Subject: Results of Infiltration Testing
Proposed Industrial Building
14970 Jurupa Avenue
Fontana, California
Reference: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Industrial Building, 14970 Jurupa Avenue,
Fontana, California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG) for
Prologis, SCG Project No. 24G111-1.
Ms. Chen:
In accordance with your request, we have conducted infiltration testing at the subject site. We
are pleased to present this report summarizing the results of the infiltration testing and our design
recommendations.
Scope of Services
The scope of services performed for this project was in general accordance with our Proposal No.
24P122R, dated January 29, 2024 and revised on February 16, 2024, and our Change Order No.
24G111-CO2, dated April 16, 2024, based on a new infiltration test location plan. The scope of
services included site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field testing, and engineering
analysis to determine the infiltration rates of the on-site soils. The infiltration testing was
performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in the Riverside County – Low
Impact Development BMP Design Handbook – Section 2.3 of Appendix A, prepared for the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH), dated December, 2013. The San
Bernardino County standards defer to the guidelines published by the RCDEH.
Site and Project Description
The subject site is located at 14970 Jurupa Avenue in Fontana, California. The site is bounded to
the north by existing commercial/industrial development, to the west by railroad tracks and Live
Oak Avenue, to the south by Jurupa Avenue, and to the east by Hemlock Avenue. A railroad spur
is located in the western portion of the site. The general location of the site is illustrated on the
Site Location Map, included as Plate 1 of this report.
The subject site consists of a rectangular-shaped parcel, 22.83± acres in size. The site is currently
occupied by the Brown-Strauss Steel facility and is developed with two buildings, 6,600± ft² and
20,000±ft² in size, located in the southern area of the site. One building consists of a single-story
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-2
Page 2
structure of steel-frame and metal panel construction, and the other building is of wood-frame
and stucco construction. Both buildings are assumed to be supported on conventional shallow
foundations with concrete slab-on-grade floors. The site is currently utilized as a steel storage
yard, with numerous stockpiles of steel beams. An existing concrete masonry unit (CMU) screen
wall is present along the southern site boundary, and CMU retaining walls are present along the
eastern and northern site boundaries. The ground surface cover throughout the site generally
consists of asphaltic concrete (AC) pavements in moderate to poor condition, with localized severe
cracking throughout, and isolated areas of exposed soils.
Detailed topographic information was obtained from a conceptual grading plan prepared by PBLA
Engineering, Inc. Based on this plan, the overall site topography slopes downward to the south-
southwest with an average gradient of 1± percent.
3.2 Proposed Development
Based on the conceptual grading plan, the site will be developed with one (1) industrial building,
482,240± ft² in size, located in the southern area of the site. Dock-high doors will be constructed
on the north side of the proposed building. The building is expected to be surrounded by AC
pavements in the parking and drive lanes, Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements in the
loading dock area, and concrete flatwork with limited areas of landscape planters throughout.
Based on the conceptual grading plan, the site will utilize on-site stormwater disposal. The
proposed infiltration systems will consist of infiltration chamber systems located to the southwest,
northwest and southeast from the proposed building. Further infiltration system information is
presented below:
Infiltration
System
Infiltration System
Type
Infiltration System
Location
Bottom of Infiltration
System Elevation MSL
(feet)
“A” Below-Grade Chamber Northwest 952.0
“B” Below-Grade Chamber Southwest 952.0
“C” Below-Grade Chamber Southeast 952.0
Concurrent Study
SCG concurrently conducted a geotechnical investigation at the subject site, referenced above.
As a part of this study, six (6) borings (identified as Boring Nos. B-1 through B-6) were advanced
to depths of 10 to 25± feet below the existing site grades. Each boring was logged during drilling
by a member of our staff.
Boring No. B-1 was drilled through asphalt that consisted of 6¼± inches of AC with no discernible
aggregate base. The remaining borings were drilled through pavements that consisted of 3 to 6±
inches of AC, underlain by 6 to 8± inches of aggregate base. Artificial fill soils were encountered
beneath the pavements at all of the boring locations, extending to depths of 1½ to 5½± feet
below the existing site grades. The artificial fill soils generally consist of medium dense to very
dense silty sands and gravelly sands, with occasional loose silty sands. Occasional cobbles were
encountered at Boring No. B-3 as shallow as 1± foot from the ground surface. Native alluvium
was encountered beneath the artificial fill soils at all of the boring locations, extending to at least
the maximum depth explored of 25± feet. The alluvial soils within the upper 8 to 12± feet
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-2
Page 3
generally consist of medium dense to dense sands, silty sands and gravelly sands. At greater
depths and extending to the maximum depth explored of 25± feet, the alluvium generally consists
of dense to very dense gravelly sands, with occasional medium dense silty sands. The alluvium
at Boring No. B-3 generally consists of very dense gravelly sands with occasional cobbles.
Subsurface Exploration
Scope of Exploration
The subsurface exploration conducted for the infiltration testing consisted of eleven (11)
infiltration test borings, advanced to depths of 6½ to 12± feet below the existing site grades.
The infiltration borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drilling rig, equipped with 8-inch-
diameter hollow-stem augers, and were logged during drilling by a member of our staff. The
approximate locations of the infiltration test borings (identified as I-1 through I-11) are indicated
on the Infiltration Test Location Plan, enclosed as Plate 2 of this report.
Upon the completion of the infiltration borings, the bottom of each test boring was covered with
2± inches of clean ¾-inch gravel. A sufficient length of 3-inch-diameter perforated PVC casing
was then placed into each test hole so that the PVC casing extended from the bottom of the test
hole to the ground surface. Clean ¾-inch gravel was then installed in the annulus surrounding
the PVC casing.
Geotechnical Conditions
Asphaltic concrete pavements were encountered at the ground surface at all of the infiltration
boring locations. The pavements measured 3 to 7± inches in thickness, underlain by 0 to 8±
inches of aggregate base. Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the pavements at all
infiltration boring locations, with the exception of Infiltration Test No. I-11, extending to depths
of 2½ to 5¼± feet below ground surface. The fill soils generally consist of loose to medium dense
silty fine sands, silty fine to medium sands, and silty fine to coarse sands. The fill soils possess
varying amounts of gravel. The fill soils possess a disturbed and mottled appearance, with some
samples containing trash fragments, resulting in their classification as artificial fill. Native alluvium
was encountered beneath the fill at all infiltration boring locations and beneath the pavement at
Infiltration Test No. I-11, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 12± feet below
ground surface. The alluvial soils generally consist of medium dense to dense fine to coarse sands,
gravelly fine to coarse sands, silty fine to coarse sands, silty fine sands, and fine sandy silts.
Occasional samples possess trace to little iron oxide staining and calcareous veining.
Groundwater
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the geotechnical or infiltration
borings. Based on the lack of any water within the geotechnical and infiltration borings, and the
moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to
have existed at a depth in excess of 25± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration.
As part of our research, we reviewed readily available groundwater data in order to determine
regional groundwater depths. Recent water level data was obtained from the California
Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library Station Map, website,
https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. One monitoring well on record (identified as Local
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-2
Page 4
Well: CHINO-1207068) is located as close as 4,130± feet southwest of the site. Water level
readings within this monitoring well indicate a high groundwater level of 225± feet below the
ground surface in January 2000.
Infiltration Testing
The infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in
Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook – Section 2.3 of Appendix
A, which apply to San Bernardino County.
Pre-soaking
In accordance with the county infiltration standards for sandy soils, the infiltration test borings
were pre-soaked 2 hours prior to the infiltration testing or until all of the water had percolated
through the test holes. The pre-soaking process consisted of filling test borings by inverting a full
5-gallon bottle of clear water supported over each hole so that the water flow into the hole holds
constant at a level at least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the bottom of each hole.
Pre-soaking was completed after all of the water had percolated through the test holes.
Infiltration Testing
Following the pre-soaking process of the infiltration test borings, SCG performed the infiltration
testing. Each test hole was filled with water to a depth of at least 5 times the hole’s radius above
the gravel at the bottom of the test holes. In accordance with the San Bernardino County
guidelines, since “sandy soils” (where 6 inches of water infiltrated into the surrounding soils in
less than 25 minutes for two consecutive readings) were encountered at the bottom of the
infiltration test borings, readings were taken at 10-minute intervals for a total of 1 hour at all
boring locations. After each reading, water was added to the borings so that the depth of the
water was at least 5 times the radius of the hole. The water level readings are presented on the
spreadsheets enclosed with this report. The infiltration rates for each of the timed intervals are
also tabulated on the spreadsheets.
The infiltration rates from the tests are tabulated in inches per hour. In accordance with the
typically accepted practice, it is recommended that the most conservative reading from the latter
part of the infiltration tests be used as the design infiltration rate. The rates are summarized
below:
Infiltration
Test No.
Approximate
Test Depth MSL
(feet)
Soil Description
Measured
Infiltration Rate
(inches/hour)
I-1 954.5 Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace
coarse Sand 13.0
I-2 950.5 Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace
Silt 14.4
I-3 948 Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little fine
Gravel, trace Silt 12.6
I-4 960 Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium to
coarse Sand 7.2
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-2
Page 5
Infiltration
Test No.
Approximate
Test Depth
(msl)
Soil Description
Measured
Infiltration Rate
(inches/hour)
I-5 956 Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace
coarse Sand, little fine Gravel 1.4
I-6 952 Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace
Silt 3.1
I-7 957.5 Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium to
coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel 0.4
I-8 952.5 Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace
Silt 10.4
I-9 952 Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace
to little Silt 22.4
I-10 951 Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, little
fine Gravel 7.3
I-11 951.5 Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, little
fine Gravel 13.0
Laboratory Testing
Moisture Content
The moisture contents for the recovered soil samples within the borings were determined in
accordance with ASTM D-2216 and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test
results are presented on the Boring Logs.
Grain Size Analysis
The grain size distribution of selected soils collected from the base of each infiltration test boring
have been determined using a range of wire mesh screens. These tests were performed in general
accordance with ASTM D-422 and/or ASTM D-1140. The weight of the portion of the sample
retained on each screen is recorded and the percentage finer or coarser of the total weight is
calculated. The results of these tests are presented on Plates C-1 through C-11 of this report.
Design Recommendations
Eleven (11) infiltration tests were performed for this project. As noted above, the infiltration rates
at these locations range from 0.4 to 22.4 inches per hour. Please note that due to the changes
in locations and depths of the proposed infiltration systems after the first nine (9) infiltration tests
were performed, most of these tests were no longer considered relevant and have been excluded
from the design recommendations. Based on the results of Infiltration Test Nos. I-1, I-9,
I-10 and I-11, we recommend the following measured infiltration rates for the
proposed infiltration systems:
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-2
Page 6
Infiltration
System
Infiltration
Test No.
Infiltration
System
Location
Bottom of
Infiltration System
MSL (feet)
Measured
Infiltration Rate
(Inches per Hour)
“A” I-1 and I-9 Northwest 952.0 13.0
“B” I-10 Southwest 952.0 7.3
“C” I-11 Southeast 952.0 13.0
The design of the storm water infiltration systems should be performed by the project civil
engineer, in accordance with the County of San Bernardino guidelines. It is recommended that
the systems be constructed so as to facilitate removal of silt and clay, or other deleterious
materials from any water that may enter the systems. The presence of such materials would
decrease the effective infiltration rates. It is recommended that the project civil engineer
apply an appropriate factor of safety. The infiltration rates recommended above are
based on the assumption that only clean water will be introduced to the subsurface
profile. Any fines, debris, or organic materials could significantly impact the
infiltration rate. It should be noted that the recommended infiltration rates are based on
infiltration testing at eight (4) discrete locations and that the overall infiltration rates of the
proposed infiltration systems could vary considerably.
Infiltration Rate Considerations
The infiltration rates presented herein were determined in accordance with the San Bernardino
County guidelines and is considered valid only for the time and place of the actual test. Varying
subsurface conditions will exist in other areas of the site, which could alter the recommended
infiltration rate presented above. The infiltration rate will decline over time between maintenance
cycles as silt or clay particles accumulate on the BMP surface. The infiltration rate is highly
dependent upon a number of factors, including density, silt and clay content, grainsize distribution
throughout the range of particle sizes, and particle shape. Small changes in these factors can
cause large changes in the infiltration rate.
Infiltration rates are based on unsaturated flow. As water is introduced into soils by infiltration,
the soils become saturated and the wetting front advances from the unsaturated zone to the
saturated zone. Once the soils become saturated, infiltration rates become zero, and water can
only move through soils by hydraulic conductivity at a rate determined by pressure head and soil
permeability. Changes in soil moisture content will affect the infiltration rate. Infiltration rates
should be expected to decrease until the soils become saturated. Soil permeability values will
then govern groundwater movement. Permeability values may be on the order of 10 to 20 times
less than infiltration rates. The system designer should incorporate adequate factors of safety
and allow for overflow design into appropriate traditional storm drain systems, which would
transport storm water off-site.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-2
Page 7
Construction Considerations
The infiltration rates presented in this report are specific to the tested locations and tested depths.
Infiltration rates can be significantly reduced if the soils are exposed to excessive
disturbance or compaction during construction. Compaction of the soils at the bottom
of the infiltration system can significantly reduce the infiltration ability of the
chambers. Therefore, the subgrade soils within proposed infiltration system areas
should not be over-excavated, undercut or compacted in any significant manner. It is
recommended that a note to this effect be added to the project plans and/or
specifications.
We recommend that a representative from the geotechnical engineer be on-site during the
construction of the proposed infiltration system to identify the soil classification at the base of the
system. It should be confirmed that the soils at the base of the proposed infiltration systems
correspond with those presented in this report to ensure that the performance of the systems will
be consistent with the rate reported herein.
We recommend that scrapers and other rubber-tired heavy equipment not be operated on the
infiltration system bottom, or at levels lower than 2 feet above the bottom of the system. As such,
the bottom 24 inches of the infiltration system should be excavated with non-rubber-tired
equipment, such as excavators.
Chamber Maintenance
The proposed project will include infiltration chambers. Water flowing into these chambers will
carry some level of sediment. This layer has the potential to significantly reduce the infiltration
rate of the chamber subgrade soils. Therefore, a formal chamber maintenance program should
be established to ensure that these silt and clay deposits are removed from the chamber on a
regular basis.
Location of Infiltration Systems
The use of on-site storm water infiltration systems carries a risk of creating adverse geotechnical
conditions. Increasing the moisture content of the soil can cause the soil to lose internal shear
strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the designed engineering
properties. Overlying structures and pavements in the infiltration area could potentially be
damaged due to saturation of the subgrade soils. The proposed infiltration system for this
site should be located at least 25 feet away from any structures, including retaining
walls. Even with this provision of locating the infiltration system at least 25 feet from the
building(s), it is possible that infiltrating water into the subsurface soils could have an adverse
effect on the proposed or existing structures. It should also be noted that utility trenches which
happen to collect storm water can also serve as conduits to transmit storm water toward the
structure, depending on the slope of the utility trench. Therefore, consideration should also be
given to the proposed locations of underground utilities which may pass near the proposed
infiltration system.
The infiltration system designer should also give special consideration to the effect that the
proposed infiltration systems may have on nearby subterranean structures, open excavations, or
descending slopes. In particular, infiltration systems should not be located near the crest of
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-2
Page 8
descending slopes, particularly where the slopes are comprised of granular soils. Such systems
will require specialized design and analysis to evaluate the potential for slope instability, piping
failures and other phenomena that typically apply to earthen dam design. This type of analysis is
beyond the scope of this infiltration test report, but these factors should be considered by the
infiltration system designer when locating the infiltration systems.
General Comments
This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client in order to aid in
the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and
preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the
contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project.
However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without
appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. The
design of the proposed storm water infiltration system is the responsibility of the civil engineer.
The role of the geotechnical engineer is limited to determination of infiltration rate only. SCG
assumes no responsibility for the design or performance of the proposed stormwater infiltration
system. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and
Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized
third party is at such party’s sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which
may occur.
The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil
samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative
of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and testing
depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed
herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the
recommendations contained herein.
This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development.
It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer
carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of
the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to
verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also
recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to
verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and
recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with
generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied
or expressed.
Proposed Industrial Building – Fontana, CA
Project No. 24G111-2
Page 9
Closure
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to
providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further
assistance in any manner, please contact our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Joseph Lozano Leon Robert G. Trazo, GE 2655
Staff Engineer Principal Engineer
Distribution: (1) Addressee
Enclosures: Plate 1 - Site Location Map
Plate 2 - Infiltration Test Location Plan
Boring Log Legend and Logs (13 pages)
Infiltration Test Results Spreadsheets (11 pages)
Grain Size Distribution Graphs (11 pages)
SITE
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
DRAWN: MK
CHKD: RGT
SCG PROJECT
24G111-2
PLATE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE
FONTANA QUADRANGLE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, 2021.
I-3
N.A.P.N.A.P.
BUILDING
472,240 SF FOOTPRINT
482,240 SF TOTAL
I-1
I-9
B-1
I-2
I-10
I-6
I-5
I-4I-7
I-8
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
I-11
INFILTRATION
SYSTEM "B"
INFILTRATION
SYSTEM "A"
INFILTRATION
SYSTEM "C"
SCALE: 1" = 100'
DRAWN: JLL
CHKD: RGT
PLATE 2
SCG PROJECT
24G111-2
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION PLAN
NO
R
T
H
So
C
a
l
G
e
o
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND
NOTE: CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN PREPARED BY PBLA ENGINEERING, INC.(SCG PROJECT NO. 24G111-1)
APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION TEST
LOCATION
EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE
DEMOLISHED
BORING LOG LEGEND
SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL
SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
AUGER SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD
MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH. (DISTURBED)
CORE ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A
DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL. TYPICALLY USED
ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK.
GRAB 1
SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED
EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE
GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED)
CS CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL
SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS.
DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY
UNDISTURBED)
NSR
NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT
RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR
ROCK MATERIAL.
SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4
INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18
INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED)
SH SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE
TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED.
(UNDISTURBED)
VANE VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING
A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT
CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED.
COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface.
SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above.
BLOW COUNT: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 lb
hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3” indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows)
at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to
push the sampler 6 inches or more.
POCKET PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket
penetrometer.
GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page.
DRY DENSITY: Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample in lbs/ft3.
MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight.
LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid.
PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic.
PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve.
UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state.
SM
SP
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
SW
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
LETTERGRAPH
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
GC
GM
GP
GW
POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SYMBOLSMAJOR DIVISIONS
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML
CLEAN SANDS
SC
SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT
MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,
LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
CLEAN
GRAVELS
5
5
12
4 ± inches Asphaltic Concrete, No Discernible Aggregate Base
FILL: Dark Brown fine Sand, little Silt, trace medium to coarse
Sand, trace fine Gravel, loose-damp
ALLUVIUM: Light Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace to little Silt,
medium dense-damp
Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand,
medium dense-moist
Boring Terminated @ 10 feet
14
26 35
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-1
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 964.5 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-1
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
7
5
5
2
2
7 ± inches Asphaltic Concrete, No Discernible Aggregate Base
FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse
Gravel, occasional trash fragments, loose-damp
ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel,
medium dense to dense-damp
Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, dense-dry
Boring Terminated @ 12 feet
14
31
35 5
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-2
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 962.5 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-2
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
6
4
3
5 ± inches Asphaltic Concrete, No Discernible Aggregate Base
FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel,
loose-damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, trace fine
to coarse Gravel, medium dense-damp
@ 10½ feet, little fine Gravel
Boring Terminated @ 12 feet
14
26 6
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-3
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 960 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-3
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
4
5
16
5 ± inches Asphaltic concrete, 4 ± inches Aggregate Base
FILL: Dark Gray Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace fine
Gravel, loose-damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little fine
Gravel, medium dense-damp
Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace
to little Iron Oxide staining, medium dense-moist to very moist
Boring Terminated @ 10 feet
22
22 58
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-4
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 970 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-4
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
11
11
13
5 ± inches Asphaltic Concrete, No Discernible Aggregate Base
FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse
Gravel, medium dense-moist
ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand,
little Iron oxide staining, medium dense-moist
Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, little
fine Gravel, medium dense-moist to very moist
Boring Terminated @ 12 feet
11
21 32
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-5
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 968 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-5
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
7
12
7
2
5 ± inches Asphaltic Concrete, No Discernible Aggregate Base
FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand,
loose-damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, little
Iron Oxide staining, medium dense-moist
Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, dense-damp
Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt, dense-dry
Boring Terminated @ 12 feet
10
35
5
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-6
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 964 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-6
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
6
2
15
4 ± inches Asphaltic Concrete, No Discernible Aggregate Base
FILL: Dark Gray Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, loose-damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, medium
dense-dry
Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace
fine Gravel, trace Iron Oxide staining, trace Calcareous veining,
medium dense-moist to very moist
Boring Terminated @ 12 feet
16
20 55
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-7
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 969.5 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-7
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
7
4
4
3½ ± inches Asphaltic concrete, No Discernible Aggregate Base
FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, little coarse Sand,
trace fine Gravel, medium dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt,
medium dense to dense-damp
Boring Terminated @ 12 feet
@ 3½ to 12 feet,
some Cobbles in
soil cuttings
26
48 5
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 3/4/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-8
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 964.5 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-8
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
5
5
4
2
2
4± inches Asphaltic Concrete, No Discernible Aggregate Base
FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium to coarse Sand,
little fine Gravel, trace Cobbles, little to some debris/copper wires,
medium dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Dark Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, little
coarse Sand, little fine Gravel, medium dense-damp
Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace to little Silt,
dense-dry to damp
Boring Terminated at 12 feet
27
36
40 7
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 6/21/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Michelle Krizek
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-9
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 964 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-9
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
4
4
3
3± inches Asphaltic Concrete underlain by 8± inches Aggregate
Base
FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace to little coarse
Sand, trace fine Gravel, medium dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, little fine
Gravel, medium dense-damp
Boring Terminated at 6½ feet
17
12
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 6/21/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Michelle Krizek
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-10
5
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 957.5 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-10
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
5
5
2
4± inches Asphaltic Concrete, No Discernible Aggregate Base
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, little coarse
Sand, trace to little fine Gravel, medium dense-damp
Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace to little coarse Sand,
trace fine Gravel, medium dense-damp
Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, little fine Gravel,
medium dense-dry
Boring Terminated at 12 feet
12
26 9
FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(T
S
F
)
DRILLING DATE: 6/21/24
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Michelle Krizek
OR
G
A
N
I
C
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(P
C
F
)
DE
P
T
H
(
F
E
E
T
)
MO
I
S
T
U
R
E
CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
JOB NO.: 24G111-2
PROJECT: Proposed Industrial Building
LOCATION: Fontana, California
PLATE B-11
5
10
LABORATORY RESULTS
CO
M
M
E
N
T
S
PA
S
S
I
N
G
#2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
(
%
)
BL
O
W
C
O
U
N
T
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 963.5 feet MSL LI
Q
U
I
D
LI
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
LI
M
I
T
SA
M
P
L
E
BORING NO.
I-11
TEST BORING LOG
TB
L
2
4
G
1
1
1
-
2
.
G
P
J
S
O
C
A
L
G
E
O
.
G
D
T
7
/
1
/
2
4
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.18 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-1
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 9:01 AM 7.50
Final 9:26 AM 10.18
Initial 9:28 AM 7.50
Final 9:53 AM 10.18
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 9:56 AM 7.50
Final 10:06 AM 9.62
Initial 10:07 AM 7.50
Final 10:17 AM 9.59
Initial 10:19 AM 7.50
Final 10:29 AM 9.57
Initial 10:31 AM 7.50
Final 10:41 AM 9.55
Initial 10:44 AM 7.50
Final 10:54 AM 9.51
Initial 10:57 AM 7.50
Final 11:07 AM 9.50
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
1 10.00 2.12 1.62 14.24
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
SANDY SOILS125.00 32.16 YES
2
Soil Criteria Test
SANDY SOILS25.00 32.16 YES
2 10.00 2.09 1.64 13.92
3 10.00 2.07 1.65 13.71
13.50
5 10.00 2.01 1.68 13.10
6 10.00 2.00 1.68 13.00
Test Data
4 10.00 2.05 1.66
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 12.02 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-2
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 9:05 AM 7.60
Final 9:30 AM 12.02
Initial 9:32 AM 7.60
Final 9:57 AM 12.02
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 10:01 AM 7.60
Final 10:11 AM 11.30
Initial 10:13 AM 7.60
Final 10:23 AM 11.22
Initial 10:25 AM 7.60
Final 10:35 AM 11.15
Initial 10:36 AM 7.60
Final 10:46 AM 11.05
Initial 10:49 AM 7.60
Final 10:59 AM 11.04
Initial 11:02 AM 7.60
Final 11:12 AM 11.04
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 3.44 2.70 14.40
6 10.00 3.44 2.70 14.40
3 10.00 3.55 2.65 15.15
4 10.00 3.45 2.70 14.47
1 10.00 3.70 2.57 16.22
2 10.00 3.62 2.61 15.64
2 25.00 53.04 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 53.04 YES SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 12.06 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-3
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 11:31 AM 7.50
Final 11:56 AM 12.06
Initial 11:58 AM 7.50
Final 12:23 PM 12.06
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 12:26 PM 7.50
Final 12:36 PM 10.87
Initial 12:37 PM 7.50
Final 12:47 PM 10.82
Initial 12:50 PM 7.50
Final 1:00 PM 10.78
Initial 1:02 PM 7.50
Final 1:12 PM 10.78
Initial 1:15 PM 7.50
Final 1:25 PM 10.76
Initial 1:27 PM 7.50
Final 1:37 PM 10.75
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 3.26 2.93 12.63
6 10.00 3.25 2.94 12.57
3 10.00 3.28 2.92 12.75
4 10.00 3.28 2.92 12.75
1 10.00 3.37 2.88 13.30
2 10.00 3.32 2.90 12.99
2 25.00 54.72 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 54.72 YES SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.17 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-4
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 1:51 PM 7.50
Final 2:16 PM 9.61
Initial 2:18 PM 7.50
Final 2:43 PM 9.54
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 2:46 PM 7.50
Final 2:56 PM 8.95
Initial 2:57 PM 7.50
Final 3:07 PM 8.94
Initial 3:09 PM 7.50
Final 3:19 PM 8.87
Initial 3:21 PM 7.50
Final 3:31 PM 8.85
Initial 3:34 PM 7.50
Final 3:44 PM 8.82
Initial 3:45 PM 7.50
Final 3:55 PM 8.81
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 1.32 2.01 7.28
6 10.00 1.31 2.02 7.21
3 10.00 1.37 1.99 7.64
4 10.00 1.35 2.00 7.49
1 10.00 1.45 1.95 8.24
2 10.00 1.44 1.95 8.16
2 25.00 24.48 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 25.32 YES SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 11.79 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-5
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 8:31 AM 7.50
Final 8:56 AM 9.80
Initial 8:58 AM 7.50
Final 9:23 AM 9.30
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 9:26 AM 7.50
Final 9:36 AM 8.10
Initial 9:39 AM 7.50
Final 9:49 AM 8.05
Initial 9:51 AM 7.50
Final 10:01 AM 8.03
Initial 10:04 AM 7.50
Final 10:14 AM 7.99
Initial 10:16 AM 7.50
Final 10:26 AM 7.98
Initial 10:27 AM 7.50
Final 10:37 AM 7.98
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 0.48 4.05 1.37
6 10.00 0.48 4.05 1.37
3 10.00 0.53 4.03 1.52
4 10.00 0.49 4.05 1.40
1 10.00 0.60 3.99 1.73
2 10.00 0.55 4.02 1.58
2 25.00 21.60 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 27.60 YES SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 11.92 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-6
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 8:37 AM 7.50
Final 9:02 AM 11.92
Initial 9:06 AM 7.50
Final 9:31 AM 11.82
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 9:33 AM 7.50
Final 9:43 AM 9.08
Initial 9:46 AM 7.50
Final 9:56 AM 8.78
Initial 9:59 AM 7.50
Final 10:09 AM 8.66
Initial 10:10 AM 7.50
Final 10:20 AM 8.60
Initial 10:22 AM 7.50
Final 10:32 AM 8.57
Initial 10:33 AM 7.50
Final 10:43 AM 8.56
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 1.07 3.89 3.17
6 10.00 1.06 3.89 3.14
3 10.00 1.16 3.84 3.47
4 10.00 1.10 3.87 3.27
1 10.00 1.58 3.63 4.99
2 10.00 1.28 3.78 3.89
2 25.00 51.84 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 53.04 YES SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 11.90 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-7
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 11:02 AM 5.92
Final 11:27 AM 6.58
Initial 11:30 AM 5.92
Final 11:55 AM 6.53
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 11:59 AM 5.92
Final 12:09 PM 6.15
Initial 12:11 PM 5.92
Final 12:21 PM 6.14
Initial 12:24 PM 5.92
Final 12:34 PM 6.15
Initial 12:35 PM 5.92
Final 12:45 PM 6.14
Initial 12:48 PM 5.92
Final 12:58 PM 6.14
Initial 1:01 PM 5.92
Final 1:11 PM 6.14
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 0.22 5.87 0.44
6 10.00 0.22 5.87 0.44
3 10.00 0.23 5.87 0.46
4 10.00 0.22 5.87 0.44
1 10.00 0.23 5.87 0.46
2 10.00 0.22 5.87 0.44
2 25.00 7.32 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 7.92 YES SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 12.03 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-8
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 11:12 AM 7.50
Final 11:37 AM 11.98
Initial 11:40 AM 7.50
Final 12:05 PM 11.83
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 12:07 PM 7.50
Final 12:17 PM 10.74
Initial 12:19 PM 7.50
Final 12:29 PM 10.50
Initial 12:31 PM 7.50
Final 12:41 PM 10.46
Initial 12:44 PM 7.50
Final 12:54 PM 10.45
Initial 12:57 PM 7.50
Final 1:07 PM 10.35
Initial 1:13 PM 7.50
Final 1:23 PM 10.33
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 2.85 3.11 10.45
6 10.00 2.83 3.12 10.35
3 10.00 2.96 3.05 11.04
4 10.00 2.95 3.06 10.99
1 10.00 3.24 2.91 12.64
2 10.00 3.00 3.03 11.26
2 25.00 51.96 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 53.76 YES SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 12.10 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-9
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 10:45 AM 7.00
Final 11:10 AM 12.10
Initial 11:13 AM 7.00
Final 11:38 AM 12.10
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 11:42 AM 7.00
Final 11:52 AM 12.10
Initial 11:55 AM 7.00
Final 12:05 PM 12.10
Initial 12:06 PM 7.00
Final 12:16 PM 12.10
Initial 12:19 PM 7.00
Final 12:29 PM 12.10
Initial 12:30 PM 7.00
Final 12:40 PM 12.10
Initial 12:43 PM 7.00
Final 12:53 PM 12.09
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 5.10 2.55 22.53
6 10.00 5.09 2.56 22.44
3 10.00 5.10 2.55 22.53
4 10.00 5.10 2.55 22.53
1 10.00 5.10 2.55 22.53
2 10.00 5.10 2.55 22.53
2 25.00 61.20 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 61.20 YES SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 6.45 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-10
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 1:31 PM 4.00
Final 1:56 PM 6.45
Initial 1:58 PM 4.00
Final 2:23 PM 6.45
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 2:25 PM 4.00
Final 2:35 PM 5.44
Initial 2:37 PM 4.00
Final 2:47 PM 5.38
Initial 2:50 PM 4.00
Final 3:00 PM 5.28
Initial 3:02 PM 4.00
Final 3:12 PM 5.23
Initial 3:15 PM 4.00
Final 3:25 PM 5.23
Initial 3:27 PM 4.00
Final 3:37 PM 5.22
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 1.23 1.84 7.37
6 10.00 1.22 1.84 7.30
3 10.00 1.28 1.81 7.77
4 10.00 1.23 1.84 7.37
1 10.00 1.44 1.73 9.11
2 10.00 1.38 1.76 8.60
2 25.00 29.40 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 29.40 YES SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 11.95 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-11
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or Non-
Sandy Soils?
Initial 4:10 PM 9.00
Final 4:35 PM 11.95
Initial 4:37 PM 9.00
Final 5:02 PM 11.95
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 5:05 PM 9.00
Final 5:15 PM 11.35
Initial 5:16 PM 9.00
Final 5:26 PM 11.30
Initial 5:29 PM 9.00
Final 5:39 PM 11.23
Initial 5:41 PM 9.00
Final 5:51 PM 11.20
Initial 5:52 PM 9.00
Final 6:02 PM 11.19
Initial 6:05 PM 9.00
Final 6:15 PM 11.19
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:
Where:Q =Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H =Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval
r =Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t =Time Interval
Havg =Average Head Height over the time interval
5 10.00 2.19 1.86 13.00
6 10.00 2.19 1.86 13.00
3 10.00 2.23 1.84 13.37
4 10.00 2.20 1.85 13.09
1 10.00 2.35 1.78 14.52
2 10.00 2.30 1.80 14.03
2 25.00 35.40 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
24G111-2
Michelle Krizek
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 35.40 YES SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r)Q
avg+
=
Sample Description I-1 @ 8½ to 10 feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 1
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Sample Description I-2 @ 10½ to 12 feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 2
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Sample Description I-3 @ 10½ to 12 feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little fine Gravel, trace Silt
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 3
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Sample Description I-4 @ 8½ to 10 feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium to coarse Sand
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 4
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Sample Description I-5 @ 10½ to 12 feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, little fine Gravel
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 5
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Sample Description I-6 @ 11½ to 12 feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 6
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Sample Description I-7 @ 10½ to 12 feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 7
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Sample Description I-8 @ 10½ to 12 feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 8
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Sample Description I-9 @ 10½ to 12 feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown Gravelly fine to coarse Sand, trace to little Silt
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 9
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Sample Description I-10 @ 5 to 6½ feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, little fine Gravel
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 10
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Sample Description I-11 @ 10½ to 12 feet
Soil Classification Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little Silt, little fine Gravel
Proposed Industrial Building
Fontana, California
Project No. 24G111-2
PLATE C- 11
3 1½¾½¼⅜#4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
P
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
y
W
e
i
g
h
t
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay)
Attachment 10 -
Worksheet H - Infiltration Factor of Safety
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
VII-35 December 20, 2013
Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate and Worksheet
Factor Category Factor Description
Assigned
Weight (w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product (p)
p = w x v
A Suitability
Assessment
Soil assessment methods 0.25
Predominant soil texture 0.25
Site soil variability 0.25
Depth to groundwater / impervious
layer 0.25
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = p
B Design
Tributary area size 0.25
Level of pretreatment/ expected
sediment loads 0.25
Redundancy 0.25
Compaction during construction 0.25
Design Safety Factor, SB = p
Combined Safety Factor, STotal= SA x SB
Observed Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, Kobserved
(corrected for test-specific bias)
Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, KDESIGN = KObserved / STotal
Supporting Data
Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms:
Note: The minimum combined adjustment factor shall not be less than 2.0 and the maximum
combined adjustment factor shall not exceed 9.0.
1 0.25
1
1
1
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.0
3
3
2
3
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
2.75
2.75
11 (ave)
4.0
Infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published
in Riverside County - Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook - Section 2.3
Appendix A.
Infiltration test borings were pre-soaked. Each test hole was filled with water and
readings were taken at 10-minute intervals for one hour, since sandy soils were
encountered.
Please see Appendix 9 for the Infiltration Report and Test Forms.