Meeks_Bay_Hydraulics_Report.pdf

APPENDIX E Long Form - Storm Water Data Report

Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide July 2010

Dist-County-Route: 03-ED-89 Post Mile Limits: PM 25.4 – 25.7 Project Type: Class 1 Bike Path Construction Project ID (or EA): EFIS 0313000083 (03-3F6201) Program Identification: FLAP Phase: PID

PA/ED

PS&E

Regional Water Quality Control Board(s): Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board

Is the Project required to consider Treatment BMPs? Yes No If yes, can Treatment BMPs be incorporated into the project? Yes No

If No, a Technical Data Report must be submitted to the RWQCB at least 30 days prior to the projects RTL date. List RTL Date:

Total Disturbed Soil Area: 3.24 acres Risk Level: TB Estimated: Construction Start Date: June 2018 Construction Completion Date: October 2018 Notification of Construction (NOC) Date to be submitted:

Erosivity Waiver Yes Date: No Notification of ADL reuse (if Yes, provide date) Yes Date: No Separate Dewatering Permit (if yes, permit number) Yes Permit # No

This Report has been prepared under the direction of the following Licensed Person. The Licensed Person attests to the technical information contained herein and the date upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. Professional Engineer or Landscape Architect stamp required at PS&E.

5/5/2017 Edwin Henderson, Registered Project Engineer Date

I have reviewed the stormwater quality design issues and find this report to be complete, current and accurate:

Matthew Ambroziak, Project Manager Date

Jesus Garcia, Designated Maintenance Representative Date

Jeff Pietrzak, Designated Landscape Architect Representative Date

[Stamp Required for PS&E only) Wes Faubel, District/Regional Design SW Coordinator or Designee Date

Matthew.Ambroziak Typewritten Text 5/30/2017

Matthew.Ambroziak Typewritten Text

Project Planning and Design Guide July 2010

STORM WATER DATA INFORMATION

1. Project Description The purpose of the Project is to extend the existing Lake Tahoe west shore trail system that currently extends from Sugar Pine Point State Park to Dollar Hill in Tahoe City and the resort area of Squaw Valley located in Olympic Valley, California in a manner that is consistent with the Goals, Policies, and Actions set forth in the 2010 Lake Tahoe Region Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. In addition, the 0.7-mile long, 10-foot wide, Class 1 Bike Path commencing near the southern boundary of the Sugar Pine Point State Park and extending southward to the Meeks Bay Resort & Marina will link two major activity centers on the west shore of Lake Tahoe. Proposed improvements are within the Caltrans State Route 89 right-of-way and on US Forest Service (USFS) land. The bike path will parallel the eastern edge of SR-89 for approximately 1/3 of a mile and then divert onto USFS land for the remaining length.

The portion of the project within Caltrans right-of-way includes a bike/pedestrian bridge and geosynthetic reinforced retaining walls along the majority of its length. Post construction water quality treatment is proposed for the portion of SR-89 that drains to the stream environment zone near the bridge crossing. The portion of the project within USFS land will have traditional cut/fill slope grading with appropriate soil stabilization BMPs.

• The total disturbed soil area (DSA) is 3.24 acres, and is based on aerial calculations using Microstation. The DSA was determined by calculating the total areas inside the clearing limits, which includes any soil that is exposed through the removal of pavement.

• There is approximately 0.04 acres of existing impervious area. The net new impervious area (NNIA) is 0.84 acres. The NNIA was calculated by subtracting the existing impervious area from the new impervious area. The NNIA is associated with the bike path paving and is exempt from stormwater treatment. The Project does include stormwater treatment features for runoff from the existing SR 89 pavement to fulfill the requirement of Caltrans EA 03-1A845.

• This project is located within the Tahoe Basin MS4 Permit Boundaries.

2. Site Data and Storm Water Quality Design Issues (refer to Checklists SW-1, SW-2, and

SW-3)

This project is located within the Region 6, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction.

• The project is part of the General Creek-Frontal Lake Tahoe Watershed, the General Creek-Frontal Lake Tahoe SubWatershed with the hydraulic Unit Code 160501010402 and is located within the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit, North Tahoe Hydrologic Area and an Undefined Hydrologic Sub-Area 634.20. This information was determined using Caltrans Water Quality Planning Tool. The northern portion of the project drains to

Lake Tahoe by way of an unnamed creek through a system of storm drains and BMPs, while the remaining portion of the project sheet flows to minimize concentrated flows.

• Lake Tahoe is included in the 2010 Clean Water Act 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments and great care must be taken to avoid discharge of contaminated runoff to Lake Tahoe or any of its tributaries. The 303(d) list identifies Lake Tahoe as being impaired for sedimentation/siltation from various sources. A TMDL for Lake Tahoe is currently being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL.

• Due to the fact that the bridge design will keep the proposed project from causing temporary or permanent impacts to the jurisdictional waters and the abutments have been designed to be above the ordinary high water mark and riparian area of the channel, the project is exempt from the CWA 404 and 401 permitting process.

• There are no Drinking Water Reservoirs and/or Recharge Facilities within the project limits.

• The Lahontan RWQCB region-specific requirements developed for the Lake Tahoe Basin include compliance with established TMDLs, fine sediment particles, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The current Lahontan Region Permit Order NO. R6T- 2016-0010 NPDES NO. CAG616002 also requires Caltrans to implement collection and treatment BMPs that are capable of handling the discharge from all impervious surfaces generated by the 20-year, 1-hour storm (1 inch of rainfall in the Lake Tahoe Basin). The NPDES permit also allows the RWQCB's Executive Officer to approve and/or require alternative treatment mitigation measures. This project has many constraints, see Section 3 for constraints and conclusions.

The RWQCB Executive Officer approved the use of the Natural Environment As Treatment (NEAT) Report to prioritize water quality improvements within the Lake Tahoe Basin. Water quality improvements for SR 89 runoff are consistent with the NEAT mapping (See Neat Mapping in Supplemental Attachments).

• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) is actively involved with the trail design as well as the storm water treatment strategies for the project. TRPA regulates the following:

development within a stream environment zone (SEZ), tree removal, impervious surface coverage, and requires a soil hydrologic analysis in areas where infiltration facilities are proposed to ensure there is 1 foot of separation between the invert of the infiltration facility and the seasonally high groundwater elevation. TRPA also reviews project development to ensure protection (no adverse impact or enhancement) of nine environmental thresholds which include: water quality, air quality, scenic, soil, fish, vegetation, wildlife habitat, noise, and recreation.

• Design considerations for this project:

o Climate – The average annual temperature in the project area ranges from

100° F (high temperature) in July to 40° F (low temperature) in January. The average annual precipitation, falling as a mixture of rain and snow, varies from 20 to 60 inches (converted to rainfall) per year. The rainy season is from August 1st through October 1st and November 1st through May 1st of each year.

o Topography – Topography across the Project area generally consists of an established vegetated forest and slopes from west to east, toward Lake Tahoe. The roadway embankment extends some 20 to 40-feet (horizontally) from the edge of the highway shoulder. Vegetal cover outside of the existing roadway is typically defined as good with about 50% grassland/woodland cover. Surface storage for the majority of area is negligible to low with few and shallow surface depressions.

o Groundwater Information – A Geotechnical Report prepared in 2014 by Marvin E. Davis & Associates, Inc. reported the groundwater was encountered at a depth of 18 to 20 feet below the surface throughout most of the project site. Groundwater may rise seasonally, but is not expected to interfere with bike trail construction.

o Right-of-way requirements – The Project requires encroachments into public properties. The appropriate authorizations will be required for public property encroachments, including an encroachment permit from Caltrans for proposed improvements within the Caltrans ROW, a Special Use Permit from the USFS for proposed improvements on APN 016-031-12, and the appropriate access permit from the State of California for proposed improvements within the Sugar Pine Point State Park. The TTD has assumed responsibility for obtaining the appropriate authorizations.

Portions of the proposed bike path are situated adjacent to and within the Caltrans SR 89 ROW, which extends approximately 40-feet from the highway centerline on both sides of the highway. The Project does not include crossings of the highway. No construction or permanent easements will be required on the adjacent private parcels.

o Slope Stabilization – It is anticipated that all new slopes created by the project will be graded to be maximum 1:2 (rise:run) and will be stabilized using permanent erosion control measures. Retaining walls will be constructed in locations where 1:2 slopes cannot be maintained. There will be multiple retaining walls within the project and they will range from 6-16 feet.

o Hazardous Waste – Soils in the project area are not expected to be contaminated.

o Soil Characteristics – The soil data for this project was obtained from the National Resources Conservation Services Web Soil Survey website. The general soil type was identified as Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) A.

• There is no known soil contamination in the project area. There will be no reuse of soils containing Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL).

• Measures for avoiding or reducing potential storm water impacts for the project include designing the proposed bridge to span the entire SEZ, so as to minimize construction impacts. The project design will allow for the ease of maintaining all BMPs and the project will be phased to minimize soil-disturbing work during the rainy season. Side slopes are specified to be as flat as possible for easy maintenance. Any concentrated flows will be collected into channels and dissipated in riprap pads.

3. Regional Water Quality Control Board Agreements

• In 2008, the Lahontan RWQCB's Executive Officer approved an alternative treatment mitigation methodology incorporated in the NEAT Report. The NEAT Report categorizes Caltrans' right-of-way within the project limits into three specific designations of: NEAT, Modified Natural Environment as Treatment (MEAT), or Treatment (TREAT) with structural BMP. With the exception of the portion of project crossing a SEZ, the project area has been identified as a MEAT area by Caltrans.

• An Initial Environmental Checklist was submitted to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) in February 2013. A TRPA Soils Hydro Analysis was waived by Shannon Friedman of the TRPA via email on October 3, 2014 based on TRPA Code Section

30.4.6.3 which exempts non-motorized public trails. The TRPA Environmental Improvement Program application was submitted to TRPA in late 2013. The TRPA permit was received in February 2017.

• No construction will take place in Waters of the United States as determined by a wetland delineation performed by NCE which was submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) on August 9, 2013. The ACOE assigned the delineation with reference number SPK-2013-00812 but has not yet verified the delineation.

Assuming the delineation is verified by the ACOE, no ACOE 404 Permit, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Water Quality Certification, or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDF&W) Streambed Alteration Agreement is necessary to construct this project.

• Coordination with TRPA and Caltrans between January 29, 2015 and December 8, 2016 – email correspondence. TRPA and Caltrans are in support of designing a rock lined swale between the highway and the trail that would collect sand and allow sheet flowing over the trail and wall into the vegetated surroundings south of the SEZ. North of the SEZ, the runoff would be collected in a roadside ditch or paved shoulder that would flow into a sand trap and would then outlet into a swale for infiltration. Rock lined swale design evolved into a 3-foot wide riprap band between SR 89 and the bike path to capture traction sand, prevent scour and erosion of the roadside shoulder, and reduce sheet flow velocities without concentrating the runoff.

• Conference call with CFLHD and TRPA was held on December 13, 2016 to revisit the water quality design shown in the Meeks Bay Bike Path 95% Design Plans. Bud Amorfini from Lahontan was invited to the call, but he declined to attend and deferred to Shannon (TRPA) for final approval.

o The MEAT and TREAT water quality elements in the plans were discussed and confirmed as meeting TRPA’s approval for issuing their permit for the project.

The MEAT element provides a 3’ wide band of rock slope protection (RSP) between the highway and bike path to trap sand from the highway while still maintaining the existing sheet flow condition toward the forest and private properties.

o Caltrans Maintenance’s concern about potential equipment damage from vacuuming up rocks from the riprap if the rock size is too small, so the riprap size shown in the 100% plans was upsized to address this concern.

o The TREAT element provides a roadside ditch and curbing to collect highway runoff near the SEZ and direct it to sand traps prior to discharging. TRPA is ready to issue a permit.

4. Proposed Design Pollution Prevention BMPs to be used on the Project.

Downstream Effects Related to Potentially Increased Flow, Checklist DPP-1, Parts 1 and 2

• The project results in an increase of impervious surfaces in the project area by 0.84 acres. This will increase velocity, sediment and volume of flow within the project limits.

• This increase will be mitigated through the use of BMPs and low impact development (LID) efforts to maintain or restore pre-project hydrology, as well as provide overall water quality improvement of discharges.

• Project ditches have been lined to keep flow velocities at non-erosive levels (e.g. less than 3 fps). In addition, riprap is used at the outlets to dissipate energy, reducing erosion.

• LID efforts will be incorporated in the development and permanent BMPs will be placed to the maximum extent practicable. Potential LID measures that will be considered for this project to improve downstream water quality include:

o Grading slopes to blend with the natural terrain and decrease the need for dikes, promoting sheet flow to vegetated areas that can provide water quality benefits and promote infiltration o Permanent drainage facilities have been designed to maintain the existing drainage patterns of the area o Constructing lined drainage ditches to decrease the velocity of discharge, plus decreasing the volume of discharge by promoting infiltration and allowing for pollutant removal

Slope/Surface Protection Systems, Checklist DPP-1, Parts 1 and 3

• Water quality improvements have been incorporated to treat SR 89 stormwater runoff into the Project area. With the exception of the portion of project crossing a SEZ, the project area has been identified as a MEAT area by Caltrans. A MEAT designation indicates that minor modifications are necessary to sufficiently treat runoff with the existing vegetation in the area. Therefore, sheet flow of the runoff has been chosen as the primary treatment method in the project area. South of the bike bridge, a 3-foot wide riprap band will be constructed between SR 89 and the bike path in areas receiving sheet flow runoff to capture traction sand, prevent scour and erosion of the roadside shoulder, and reduce sheet flow velocities without concentrating the runoff.

• The path typically slopes from west to east, toward Lake Tahoe. Cut/fill slopes to existing grade of 2H:1V maximum are provided within USFS property and Caltrans ROW with the exception of 4H:1V maximum slopes provided within the SR 89 road clear recovery zone. Where feasible, uphill slopes of 4H:1V or less are provided to promote sheet flow over the bike path. Retaining walls are provided within Caltrans ROW in areas where 2H:1V downhill slopes would otherwise extend onto private property.

• All proposed slopes and disturbed land will be covered with forest duff conserved from the pine needles and chipping of tree limbs removed as part of the project. Temporary measures to establish slope stabilization during construction are discussed in Section 6 of this report.

• Hard surfaces for this project include paving of the bike path and riprap at the channel and storm drain system outlets.

Concentrated Flow Conveyance Systems, Checklist DPP-1, Parts 1 and 4

• A graded ditch is proposed along the left side of the bike path, from Station 8+12 to 9+35. The ditch collects and conveys stormwater from the highway and vegetated existing ground before discharging to the existing ground slopes and allowing the natural drainage patterns to resume.

• A lined ditch is proposed along the right side of the bike path, from Station 19+74 to 23+88. The ditch collects and conveys stormwater from the highway and bike path and dissipates onto a riprap outfall.

• North of the driveway #4, cut slopes prevent runoff from sheet flowing. A ditch is proposed along the right side of the bike path north of the driveway #4 to capture runoff from the highway and bike path before it encroaches onto the private property.

• The ditch will collect and convey stormwater south to a single traction sand trap at driveway #4. The traction sand trap will convey flow to an 18” RCP storm drain system, which will flow south underneath driveway #4. Then continue south along the SR-89 alignment intercepting two additional traction sand traps at stations 40+00 and 39+30, respectively. Caltrans type B2-4 concrete curb will be installed in the SR 89 roadside shoulder and the shoulder will be paved to collect roadway runoff, which will be intercepted by the aforementioned on-grade traction sand traps.

• Through the SEZ area, a Caltrans type 60C concrete barrier will be installed in the SR 89 roadside shoulder and the shoulder will be paved to collect roadway runoff to prevent it from discharging directly to the SEZ. At the low point in the SEZ area, traction sand traps will be installed in series adjacent to the 60C concrete barrier to collect traction sand and treat the concentrated runoff flow. A Traction Sand Trap Sizing Guide provided by Caltrans was used to determine that 2 traction sand traps are needed at this location. The treated runoff will then outlet onto rock slope protection outside of the SEZ and be allowed to infiltrate into the adjacent vegetation. An existing overside flume drain at the low point of the road shoulder will be removed.

Preservation of Existing Vegetation, Checklist DPP-1, Parts 1 and 5

• Clearing and grubbing is identified on the contract plans by the clearing / construction limits lines on the plan and profile sheets.

• There are several environmentally sensitive areas that will be off-limits to the contractor including:

o Stream environment zone (SEZ) – silt fence is used to delineate the SEZ which the contractor cannot enter.

o Trees that are to remain – see the protection and obliteration plans and details in the plans for temporary plastic fence to restrict construction access.

5. Proposed Permanent Treatment BMPs to be used on the Project

Treatment BMP Strategy, Checklist T-1

• The Targeted Design Constituents (TDC) for Lake Tahoe are sedimentation / siltation.

Treatment BMPs were selected based upon this TDC.

• Four types of treatment BMPs are proposed for use within the project area including a 3-foot wide riprap band, sheet flow over vegetated pervious areas, TST, and rock lined ditches. A detailed analysis of the project's BMPs has been completed. Project treatment BMP strategy:

o A 3-foot wide riprap band will be constructed between SR 89 and the bike path in areas receiving sheet flow runoff to capture traction sand, prevent scour and erosion of the roadside shoulder, and reduce sheet flow velocities without concentrating the runoff.

o Sheet flow over vegetated pervious areas in accordance with NEAT strategies is proposed within the USFS land to infiltrate runoff and reduce sediment loads to the Truckee River.

o TSTs are proposed for all catch basins and manholes throughout the project.

o Rock lined ditches collect and convey stormwater from the highway and bike path and dissipate onto riprap outfalls.

• BMPs are sized to treat the discharge from all impervious surfaces generated by the

20-year, 1-hour storm (1 inch of rainfall) per TRPA requirements. The NNIA is 0.84 acres with a required treatment for WQF is 0.16 cfs. The project is treating a minimum of 1.3 cfs or more than 100% of NNIA using the above BMP strategy.

Biofiltration Swales/Strips, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 2

• Biofiltration strips are not feasible due to the climate and site conditions that do not allow adequate vegetation to be established.

Dry Weather Diversion, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 3

• Dry Weather Diversions are not incorporated into this project because dry weather flows generated by Caltrans are not anticipated to be persistent and would require extraordinary construction.

Infiltration Devices – Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 4

• Infiltration Devices, such as infiltration basins and Infiltration trenches, are not incorporated into this project due to the site conditions, namely limited right-of-way and existing major utilities. However, the proposed Traction Sand Traps have been designed with an open bottom with permeable rock material that will promote infiltration.

Detention Devices, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 5

• Detention devices are not incorporated into the project due to site constraints such as limited right-of-way and existing major utilities.

Gross Solids Removal Devices (GSRDs), Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 6

• GSRD are not required because Lake Tahoe does not have a 303(d) TMDL for litter or trash.

Traction Sand Traps, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 7

• TST are incorporated into this project. Six proposed TSTs (Pipe Inlet – CIP Type) are part of the design in the northern portion of the project from stations 38+42 to 41+10.

• Traction sand is typically applied through the winter months from November through April. An application rate of 0.194 ft3 sand per ft road was provided by Caltrans for use in calculations.

Media Filters, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 8

• Media filters cannot be incorporated into the design because of project constraints including insufficient hydraulic head to operate the device and limited right-of-way.

Multi-Chambered Treatment Trains (MCTTs), Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 9

• MCTTs are not feasible for this project because it is not located to serve a critical source areas and does not have sufficient hydraulic head to operate the device.

Wet Basins, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 10

• Wet basins are not feasible because the volume required for the permanent pool is larger than is feasible for the project.

6. Proposed Temporary Construction Site BMPs to be used on Project

• The project is estimated to be constructed over one construction season. To mitigate potential runoff to the project area, temporary soil erosion and sediment controls have been incorporated into the plans and should be installed before construction. These measures follow the Permit Registration Documents which include the NOI, site maps, and SWPPP. Written authorization shall be received, prior to the commencement of land disturbing activities, as required per the Lahontan RWQCB’s storm water general permit, Order NO. R6T-2016-0010 NPDES NO. CAG616002. The Meeks Bay Bike Path project will not be constructed under a Caltrans NOI, but rather FHWA CFLHD will file their own NOI as the lead agency.

• The construction BMPs are based on Central Federal Land’s soil erosion and sediment control detail drawings and specifications and shall comply with Order NO. R6T-2016- 0010 NPDES NO. CAG616002. Whenever possible, the scheduling of earth-disturbing construction activities should not be made during anticipated rain events.

Construction BMP strategy:

o Silt fence filters and settles soil particles from sediment laden water. Silt fence is used along the perimeter, where sheet flow prevails, to contain sediments onsite (project bid item).

o Inlet protection on existing inlets and on newly constructed inlets that are within any area of active construction. If inlet protection is blocking flow to a new or existing drain inlet in such a manner that pose concerns to other drainage problems (i.e. potential discharge to private property, flooding in the right-of-way, etc.) the Contractor shall notify the QSP immediately. Location and installation of inlet protection shall be amended as required by the QSP (project bid item).

o Soil and tree protection fencing is provided as shown in the Plans and Specifications and/or as directed by the QSP to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Soil and tree protection fencing shall be installed at the driplines of trees to the extent feasible. In some cases, tree protection may include tree trunk protection at the direction of the QSP. In no cases shall materials be staged or stored within the driplines of trees (project bid item).

o Gravel check dams may be implemented to divert or detain runoff for purposes of controlling erosive forces of storm water. Location and placement of gravel check dams shall be adjusted throughout a specific storm and for the duration of the project as directed by the QSP (project bid item).

o All stockpiles, including construction waste material, asphalt base, backfill material, export material, etc. shall be encircled with fiber roll while not in active use, including overnight. When precipitation is forecasted or as directed by the QSP, stockpiles shall be covered with plastic to prevent wind or rain event triggered erosion. Stockpiles shall be covered entirely with covering securely attached. (project bid item).

o Vehicular tracking shall be minimized at all times throughout construction. All streets upon which construction related vehicles or equipment have operated shall be swept daily at a minimum and/or at the direction of the QSP. Street sweeping shall be conducted with a PM 10 Certified street sweeper, meaning that it is capable of collecting and holding particulates less than 10 microns in diameter. Use of kick brooms and/or washing the streets into storm drain system shall not be permitted. At least one street sweeper shall be kept at the job site at all times when project is active. The street sweeper must be in good working order; contractor must provide current maintenance records if requested by QSD. (project bid item).

o Stabilized construction entrances shall be provided for the staging and construction areas. Placement shall be coordinated with the project contracting officer (project bid item).

o Extra sediment and erosion control materials must be on-site at all times and shall be available for installation and implementation as required by the QSP.

Extra materials shall be stored in designated staging and storage areas and shall include at a minimum, reinforced silt fence, fiber roll, soil and tree protection fencing, gravel bag check dams, plastic covering for stockpile protection, and all required installation equipment (i.e. stakes, fencing posts, attachment wire, etc.). Contractor shall maintain adequate supply and replenish the extra material stockpile as required by the QSP.

• Construction dewatering is not anticipated for this project.

• Active treatment systems will not be utilized for this project.

• Coordination with construction is ongoing.

7. Maintenance BMPs (Drain Inlet Stenciling)

This project in located in a designated MS4 are and will require stencil all new inlets per the Caltrans standard plan D71.

Required Attachments

• Vicinity Map (attached)

• Evaluation Documentation Form (EDF) (attached)

• Construction Site BMP Consideration Form (required at PS&E only) (attached)

• RUSLE2 Summary Sheet, as applicable (required at PS&E only) (Not applicable)

• Risk Level Determination Documentation (Not applicable)

• Treatment BMP Summary Spreadsheets (required, if Treatment BMPs are incorporated into project, required at PS&E only) (attached)

• Quantities for Construction Site BMPs (required at PS&E) (attached)

• Rainfall Erosivity Waiver, if applicable (required at PS&E) (Not applicable)

Supplemental Attachments

Note: Supplement Attachments are to be supplied during the SWDR approval process;

where noted, some of these items may only be required on a project-specific basis.

• Storm Water BMP Cost Summary

• BMP cost information form: Preliminary Engineer’s Cost Estimate (PECE) for PS&E project phase

• Plans showing BMP Deployment (i.e. Layout Sheets, Drainage Sheets, Water Pollution

Control Sheets, etc) (attached)

• Pertinent Correspondence with RWQCB (if requested or recommended by

District/Regional NPDES Storm Water Coordinator or Designated Reviewer) (attached)

• Checklist SW-1, Site Data Sources (attached)

• Checklist SW-2, Storm Water Quality Issues Summary (attached)

• Checklist SW-3, Measures for Avoiding or Reducing Potential Storm Water BMPs

(attached)

• Checklists DPP-1, Parts 1–5 (Design Pollution Prevention BMPs) (attached)

• Checklists T-1, Parts 1–10 (Treatment BMPs) (attached)

• Checklists CS-1, Parts 1–6 (Construction Site BMPs) (attached)

• Calculations and cross sections related to BMPs (if requested by District/Regional

Design Storm Water Coordinator)

• 07-340 or 07-345 (During PS&E Phase if requested or recommended by

District/Regional Design Storm Water Coordinator)

• Conceptual Drainage Map or Drainage Plans, if available (if requested by

District/Regional Design Storm Water Coordinator for review)

• NEAT Mapping (attached)

Vicinity Map

P

M d e n p w p p w ic s jo b s A

T it

S R .d g n

U s e r D

E N

P W

P

D E P

A R T

M

E

NT

OF TRANSPO

R T

A T I O

N

U N

IT

E

D STATES OF

AME

R I C

A

PLANS FOR PROPOSED

PROJECT MANAGER LEAD DESIGNER

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DENVER, COLORADO

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

APPROVED:

DATE:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Slopes are expressed as RISE:RUN

U.S. CUSTOMARY DIMENSIONS:

Know what'sbelow.

before you dig.Call

R www.call811.com

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

DIRECTOR, PROJECT DELIVERY

M e e k s

C re e k

Tohoma

Meeks Bay

Placer Co.

El Dorado Co.

G en er al C re ek

Lo g

C ab in R d

PLANS PREPARED BY

FOR

10,000'5,000'0

Scale in FeetCH2M HILLMATTHEW AMBROZIAK

Lake Tahoe

CA FLAP SR89(1)

Eureka

SAN

FRANCISCO

LOS

ANGELES

San

Diego

Sacramento

OREGON

N

EV

A D

A

ARIZONA

MEXICO

Redding

KEY MAP OF CALIFORNIA

INTERSTATE

INTERSTATE

INTERSTATE

INTERSTATE

INTERSTATE

INTERSTATE

INTERSTATE

A1

42+58.00

CA FLAP SR89(1)

End Project

5+21.72

CA FLAP SR89(1)

Begin Project

#03-ED-89, 03-3F6201, 0313000083

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN #114

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT #03.01.02.16

TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT #300-0009

CA FLAP SR89(2)

T a h o e C ity m ile s to

S o u th L a k e T a h o e m il e s t o

A9

LENGTH 0.74 miles

EL DORADO COUNTY

LAKE TAHOE BASIN NATIONAL FOREST

MEEKS BAY BIKE PATH

and Retaining Walls

Class 1 Bike Path Construction, Bicycle Bridge Construction, TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

FEBRUARY 3, 2017

100% DESIGN SUBMITTAL

U.S. CUSTOMARY UNITS"

AND BRIDGES ON FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROJECTS, FP-14,

"STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS

SPECIFICATIONS:

P

M d e n p w p p w ic s jo b s A

T it

S R .d g n

U s e r D

E N

P W

P

_ CA

REG STATE PROJECT

NO.

SHEET

SHEETS

TOTAL

CA FLAP SR89(2)N/A

D

E S I G

N S

U B

M I T

T A

L F

E B

R U

A R

Y N

O T F

O R C

O N

S T

R U

C T I O

N

Evaluation Documentation Form (EDF)

Evaluation Documentation Form

Project Planning and Design Guide July 2010

DATE: 5/25/2017_____________

Project ID (or EA): CA FLAP SR 89(2)_______

NO. CRITERIA YES

NO

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR

EVALUATION

1. Begin Project Evaluation regarding requirement for consideration of Treatment BMPs

See Figure 4-1, Project Evaluation Process for Consideration of Permanent Treatment BMPs. Go to 2

2. Is this an emergency project?

If Yes, go to 10.

If No, continue to 3.

3. Have TMDLs or other Pollution Control Requirements been established for surface waters within the project limits?

Information provided in the water quality assessment or equivalent document.

If Yes, contact the District/Regional NPDES Coordinator to discuss the Department’s obligations under the TMDL (if Applicable) or Pollution Control Requirements, go to 9 or 4.

_____ (Dist./Reg. SW Coordinator initials)

If No, continue to 4.

4. Is the project located within an area of a local MS4 Permittee? If Yes. (Tahoe Basin), go to 5.

If No, document in SWDR go to 5.

5. Is the project directly or indirectly discharging to surface waters?

If Yes, continue to 6.

If No, go to 10.

6. Is it a new facility or major reconstruction?

If Yes, continue to 8.

If No, go to 7.

7. Will there be a change in line/grade or hydraulic capacity? If Yes, continue to 8.

If No, go to 10.

8. Does the project result in a net increase of one acre or more of new impervious surface?

If Yes, continue to 9.

If No, go to 10.

(Net Increase New Impervious Surface)

9. Project is required to consider approved Treatment BMPs.

See Sections 2.4 and either Section 5.5or 6.5 for BMP Evaluation and Selection Process. Complete Checklist T-1 in this Appendix E.

10. Project is not required to consider Treatment BMPs.

______(Dist./Reg. Design SW Coord.

Initials) ______(Project Engineer Initials) ______________ (Date)

Document for Project Files by completing this form, and attaching it to the SWDR.

See Figure 4-1, Project Evaluation Process for Consideration of Permanent Treatment BMPs 1

Construction Site BMP Consideration Form

Construction Site BMP Consideration Form

May 2007

Project Evaluation Process for the Consideration of Construction Site BMPs

DATE: 01/31/2017

EA: CA FLAP SR89 (2)

NO. CRITERIA YES NO SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

1. Will construction of the project result in areas of disturbed soil as defined by the

(PPDG)?

If Yes, Construction Site BMPs for Soil Stabilization (SS) will be required.

Complete CS-1, Part 1. Continue to 2.

If No, Continue to 3.

2. Is there a potential for disturbed soil areas within the project to discharge to storm drain inlets, drainage ditches, areas outside the right of way, etc?

If Yes, Construction Site BMPs for Sediment Control (SC) will be required.

Complete CS-1, Part 2.

Continue to 3.

3. Is there a potential for sediment or construction related materials and wastes to be tracked offsite and deposited on private or public paved roads by construction vehicles and equipment?

Tracking Control (TC) will be required.

Complete CS-1, Part 3.

Continue to 4.

4. Is there a potential for wind to transport soil and dust offsite during the period of construction?

If Yes, Construction Site BMPs for Wind Erosion Control (WE) will be required. Complete CS-1, Part 4.

Continue to 5.

5. Is dewatering anticipated or will construction activities occur within or adjacent to a live channel or stream?

If Yes, Construction Site BMPs for Non- Storm Water Management (NS) will be required. Complete CS-1, Part 5.

Continue to 6.

6. Will construction include saw-cutting, grinding, drilling, concrete or mortar mixing, hydro-demolition, blasting, sandblasting, painting, paving, or other activities that produce residues?

If Yes, Construction Site BMPs for Non- Storm Water Management (NS) will be required. Complete CS-1, Part 5.

Continue to 7.

7. Are stockpiles of soil, construction related materials, and/or wastes anticipated?

If Yes, Construction Site BMPs for Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control (WM) will be required.

Complete CS-1, Part 6.

Continue to 8.

8. Is there a potential for construction related materials and wastes to have direct contact with precipitation; storm water run-on, or stormwater runoff; be dispersed by wind; be dumped and/or spilled into storm drain systems?

Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control (WM) will be required.

Complete CS-1, Part 6.

Continue to 9.

9. End of checklist.

Document for Project Files by completing this form, and attaching it to the SWDR.

PE to initialize after concurrence with Construction (PS&E only) Date

Treatment BMP Summary Spreadsheets

CA FLAP SR89(2) - MEEKS BAY BIKE PATH EA: 03-3F6201

WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS Date: 5/25/17

Calculated by: EJH

Tmt ID No.

BMP Type Station/Offset

Treated Pervious

Area (acres)

Treated Impervious

Area (acres)

BMP Size (Ft3)

WQV

(cf)

Treated

Location:

Latitude, Longitude

TST #1

Traction Sand Trap

Pipe Inlet 33+83.5/8.8'Rt 0.07 0.04 17.7 145

38.0437, -120.1202

TST #2

Traction Sand Trap

Pipe Inlet 38+42.7/10.0'Lt 0.01 0.01 21.2 36

39.0449, -120.1201

TST #3

Traction Sand Trap

G1 Inlet 38+60.0/13.8'Lt 0.00 0.06 14.7 218

39.0450, -120.1201

TST #4

Traction Sand Trap

G1 Inlet 38+64.0/13.8'Lt 0.00 0.06 14.7 218

39.0450, -120.1201

TST #5

Traction Sand Trap

G1 Inlet 39+30.0/11.2'Lt 0.00 0.05 14.7 182

39.0452, -120.1201

TST #6

Traction Sand Trap

G1 Inlet 40+00.0/10.7'Lt 0.00 0.12 14.7 436

39.0454, -120.1199

TST #7

Traction Sand Trap

Pipe Inlet 41+10.0/7.9'Rt 0.02 0.06 21.2 218

39.0456, -120.1197

*Note: Treatment BMPs are being installed by the Meeks Bay Bike Path project to fulfill the requirements of Caltrans project EA 03-1A845 for runoff from State Route 89 existing pavement.

1,452Total 0.10 0.40

TR 5/25/2017 1 of 1 03\2A940\Design\Sand Trap\MeeksBay_Sand_Vault_Storage English units

TRACTION SAND TRAP SIZING 4-ED-89, PM 25.4/25.7

EA 03-3F6201

Volume = Total volume of traction sand that must be stored (ft3) = (SxRxLxE)/F S = Estimated volume of sand applied (ft3) Var R = A reduction factor to account for sand recovered by roadway sweeping 0.6

Use 0.6<R<1.0 L = A factor to account for other miscellaneous losses/accumulations 0.8

Use 0.8<L<1.0 (0.8 used to account for unrecoverable (blown) snow) E = 1 F = Number of times trap will be cleaned per season 1

Vault Station

Post Mile

Dir of Flow

Sanded Length

Applied Rate Grade K1 K2 K3 K4

Ktot

(4.0 max)

Sand Applied

S

Reduction Factor

Sand Collected

10-Yr Flow

WQV

(Impervious Area X 1")

Use L= 8ft Min in 4ft

Increments Notes ln-ft ft3/ft % ft3 R*L*E/F ft3 ft3/s ft3 W D Radius Lmin ft 32+50 Crest v 134 0.194 0.50 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 7 0.48 3.1 0.2 145

33+84 1.5 0.6 Use TST Pipe Inlet - 36" CSP inlet with 2.5' sump, storage volume =17.7 cubic feet.

38+43 Crest v 0 0.194 0.50 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 0 0.48 0.0 0.0 0

38+43 1.5 0.0 Use TST Pipe Inlet - 36" CSP inlet with 3.0' sump, storage volume =21.2 cubic feet.

37+80 Crest v 160 0.194 0.50 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 8 0.48 3.7 0.2 218

38+60 2 2.5 1.0 Use TST Inlet - CIP Type with G1 inlet with 2.5' sump.

G1 dimensions = 2.00' x 2.94'. 2.94' > 1.0' from calculation.

39+30 Crest v 132 0.194 0.50 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 6 0.48 3.1 0.2 218

38+64 2 2.5 0.8 Use TST Inlet - CIP Type with G1 inlet with 2.5' sump.

G1 dimensions = 2.00' x 2.94'. 2.94' > 0.8' from calculation.

40+00 Crest v 140 0.194 5.00 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.8 20 0.48 9.8 0.2 182

39+30 2 2.5 2.5 Use TST Inlet - CIP Type with G1 inlet with 2.5' sump.

G1 dimensions = 2.00' x 2.94'. 2.94' > 2.5' from calculation.

41+10 Crest v 110 0.194 5.00 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.8 16 0.48 7.7 0.3 436

40+00 2 2.5 2.0 Use TST Inlet - CIP Type with G1 inlet with 2.5' sump.

G1 dimensions = 2.00' x 2.94'. 2.94' > 2.0' from calculation.

42+10 Crest v 100 0.194 5.00 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.8 15 0.48 7.0 0.2 218

41+10 1.5 1.3 Use TST Pipe Inlet - 36" CSP inlet with 3.0' sump, storage volume =21.2 cubic feet.

Total 72

Application Rate (provided by John Schnoor, Caltrans Tahoe City) = 1,500 tons of sand per year for 12.2 centerline miles of Hwy Placer 89) = 1500 ton 2000# ft3 ln-mi

24.4 ln-mi ton 120# 5280ft

K1 = Factor for Grade: K2 = Snow Shadow Effect: K3 = Shade/Curve Effect: K4 = Other Factors:

K1 = 0.5 for 0% - 2% K1 =1.5 for 5% K2 = 1.3 for PM 0.8 to 4.0 K3 = 1.5 for Curves in Shade Offsite Sand Contribution: Erodible Slope or Sanded Public Road Connections or K1 = 0.75 for 3% K1 = 2.0 for 6% K2 = 1.0 for PM 4.0 to 7.6 K3 = 0.8 for Tangents in Sun K1 = 1.0 for 4% K1 = 3.0 for 7% K2 = 0.7 for PM 7.6 to 11.0 K3 = 1.0 for Other Sections

Sand Applied (S) = Sanded Length x Application Rate x Ktot Sand Collected = S x R x L x E / F

Note: For "Single" locations, consider Pipe Inlet Sand Trap first.

= 0.19

Estimated recovery efficiency (Use E = 1.0 ) ft3 sand ft road

Sections with cut slopes (K>1.0) or fill slopes (K<1.0) on both sides (Use K4 = 0.5 for 1 lane each direction, both sides in fill)

"L" includes 30% Safety Factor

D = depth of sand or water, not depth of Vault. Vault floor elev. = pipe flowline elev. - 6 in (or vault roof elev - 12 in) - D.

Sand Vault Storage Dimensions ft

X X X

Quantities for Construction Site BMPs

Plans showing BMP Deployment

P

M d e n p w p p w ic s jo b s D

P ln

S R .d g n

U s e r D

E N

P W

P

REG STATE PROJECT

NO.

SHEET

SHEETS

TOTAL

CAN/A CA FLAP SR89(2)

V P I

.0

E L

.1

V P I

.0

E L

.9

V P I

.1

E L

.1

-2.324%

-3.356%

40.00' VC

P T

.1

P R

C

.5

P R

C

.8

P R

C

.2

P C

.0

P R

C

.7

D7D4

40'20'0

Scale in Feet

3+00 4+00

Bike Path "A" 35+20.26

Bike Path "D" 4+46.10 =

E 7098300.52

N 2148418.35

End Bike Path "D"

CA FLAP SR89 (2)

4+46.10

-2.00% -2.00%

-12.00% Rt.

-2.00% Lt.

-2.00%

-2.00%

-12.00% Rt.

-2.00% Lt.

E 7098272.94

N 2148275.21

Begin Bike Path "D"

CA FLAP SR89 (2)

3+00.00

.1

Match Existing

El. 6313.4±

4+13.99, 18.75' Rt

El. 6318.00

3+95.05, 5.00' Lt

Match Existing

El. 6314.8±

3+99.73, 19.60' Rt

El. 6317.82

3+72.55, 6.00' Rt

El. 6317.29

EC

3+79.05, 10.87' Rt

Match Existing

El. 6316.0±

3+89.29, 19.56' Rt

El. 6317.45

3+84.38, 6.00' Rt

El. 6317.28

3+93.37, 6.00' Rt

Match Existing

El. 6318.0±

4+03.15, 10.08' Lt

Match Existing

El. 6319.7±

3+25.29, 12.71' Lt

L = 20.29'

T = 10.18'

R = 100.00'

PI = 3+36.47

Curve = D02

L = 26.29'

T = 13.22'

R = 100.00'

PI = 3+13.22

Curve = D01

L = 53.16'

T = 26.60'

R = 625.00'

PI = 3+73.17

Curve = D03

SR89

edge of pavement

SR89 existing

E 7098272.94

N 2148275.21

Begin Bike Path "D"

CA FLAP SR89 (2)

3+00.00

Match Existing

El. 6318.6±

3+79.43, 10.00' Lt

El. 6318.37

5.00' Lt

3+79.96, L = 20.15'

T = 10.11'

R = 100.00'

PI = 4+09.84

Curve = D04

L = 26.21'

T = 13.18'

R = 100.00'

PI = 4+33.07

Curve = D05

El. 6319.08

5.00' Lt

3+49.44, Construction

Limits of

Caltrans R/W

Existing

Bike Path

R

11'R

E 7098300.52

N 2148418.35

End Bike Path "D"

CA FLAP SR89 (2)

4+46.10

EC

El. 6316.20

3+97.17, 10.91' Rt

EC

Match Existing

El. 6317.7±

4+03.19, 9.08' Lt

LBike Path "D" C

Bike Path "A" CL

Match Existing

BC

El. 6319.7±

3+25.04, 11.73' Lt

Bike Path "A" 33+74.23

Bike Path "D" 3+00.00 = Wall

GRS/Rockery Retaining

Driveway #3

BIKE PATH "D" AT DRIVEWAY #3

NOTE:

1.

do not conflict.

project improvements excavations to confirm waterline prior to

Pothole existing

1.

Special 251-B protection, See

Outlet rock slope

See Special 604-A

Top of grate El. 6319.84

6318.62

El. 6318.84 and El.

S and N side openings

Pipe inlet sand trap.

33+83.50', 8.82' Rt.

P

M d e n p w p p w ic s jo b s G

S p B

S R .d g n

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

SPECIAL

U.S. CUSTOMARY SPECIAL

U s e r D

E N

P W

P

REG STATE PROJECT

NO.

SHEET

SHEETS

TOTAL

CAN/A CA FLAP SR89(2)

PLAN

2'

B

251-B

G11G2

A A 5

B

C

C

1:1 Or Flatter

7' Minimum Pipe Inlet Sand Trap

Pipe Inlet Sand Trap

Side Opening

SECTION A-A

Existing Ground

OG

See Note 3

Existing Ground

5'

SECTION C-C

Existing Ground

2'

5'

3'

Side Opening

SECTION B-B

Pipe Inlet Sand Trap

1:1 Or Flatter

2'

In le t

RIPRAP OUTLET

Ground.

Geotextile shall not be exposed above

Flow-Line and adjacent Ground.

Match Dissipater Grade with Downstream

Flow-Line or adjacent Ground.

that Rock does not protrude above Culvert

Place RSP Class Dissipater Rock in Trench so

Trench as required.

Sides of Trench. Pin geotextile to Sides of

Place geotextile loosely on Bottom & all required.

Dimensions as shown. Squared Edges not

Excavate and/or Fill Dissipater Trench to

NOTES:

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

typ.

Geotextile, Geotextile, typ.

typ.

Geotextile, Riprap Class 2, typ.

P

M d e n p w p p w ic s jo b s T

L a y S

R .d g n

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U s e r D

E N

P W

P

U.S. CUSTOMARY

REG STATE PROJECT

NO.

SHEET

SHEETS

TOTAL

CAN/A CA FLAP SR89(2)

S S

C O

S S

C O

S

40'20'0

Scale in Feet

Sawcut drain

Remove overside

See Special 604-D

38+64.00, 13.84' Lt.

See Special 251-B

Outlet rock slope protection

Bike Path

S E

Z B o u n d a r y

S E

Z B o u n d a r y

T31T1 improvements do not conflict.

excavations to confirm project

Pothole existing water line prior to

SR89 existing edge of pavement not conflict.

confirm project improvements do force main prior to excavations to

Pothole existing sanitary sewer

Proposed Bridge culvert outlet

Existing 48"

See Special 604-B

Top of grate El. 6310.60

Inlet FL El. 6307.11

Pipe inlet sand trap.

38+42.70, 10.00' Lt.

18" RCP

See Special 604-D

Drainage inlet sand trap

38+60.00, 13.81' Lt.

18" RCP

See Special 604-E

Drainage inlet sand trap

39+30.00, 11.21' Lt.

18" RCP

See Special 604-E

Drainage inlet sand trap

40+00.00, 10.76' Lt.

See Special 604-B

Drainage inlet sand trap

41+10.00, 7.95' Lt.

18" RCP

System

Drainage

D rivew ay #

SR89 existing CL

SEZ AREA DRAINAGE LAYOUT

NOTES:

2.

1.

Inlet Sand Trap).

item 60404-0000 Catch Basin (Drainage

Gutter depressions will be subsidiary to

See Z Series for drainage system profile.

1H

1I

1J

1G

1F

1E

1D 1C

1A

1B see Special 604-N

Gutter depression, see Special 604-M

Gutter depression, see Special 604-M

Gutter depression, P

M d e n p w p p w ic s jo b s T S p B

S R .d g n

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U s e r D

E N

P W

P

REG STATE PROJECT

NO.

SHEET

SHEETS

TOTAL

CAN/A CA FLAP SR89(2)

I E

G N

N

P O

Opening

B

18"

Dia

Type 36R Grate

DETAIL A

PCC Cap

36" Corrugated Steel Pipe Inlet

8" x 2'

SECTION A-A

OG

604-B

T31T3

B

SECTION B-B

:1 O r Fl a tt e r1

:1 O r Fla tte r

38+42.70

PIPE INLET SAND TRAP

See Special 604-J

Geotextile Filter, Class 1, Type A

NOTE:

1.

inlet (pipe inlet sand trap).

under pay item 60403-0000

All materials will be paid for

3'-0"

Dia

18"

AA

Opening

Type 36R Grate

See Detail A

Existing ground

8" x 2'

Pcc Cap (Typ)

3'-0" Nominal ID

Station, Offset and

Top of Grate Elevation Point

See Section B-B Inlet

Ditch Flowline

Granular Backfill (Typ)

Geotextile Filter, Class 1, Type A (Typ)

Sheet) (See Layout Invert Elevation Outlet Pipe

P

M d e n p w p p w ic s jo b s T S p C

S R .d g n

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U s e r D

E N

P W

P

REG STATE PROJECT

NO.

SHEET

SHEETS

TOTAL

CAN/A CA FLAP SR89(2)

3'-0"

I E

G N

N

P O

Opening

B

Dia

18"

AA

18"

Dia

Opening

Type 36R Grate

DETAIL A

Type 36R Grate

See Detail A

PCC Cap

Existing ground

36" Corrugated Steel Pipe Inlet

8" x 2'

8" x 2'

(See Layout Sheet) Invert Elevation Outlet Pipe

Pcc Cap (Typ)

3'-0" Nominal ID

SECTION A-A

OG

604-C

T31T4

Station, Offset and

Top of Grate Elevation Point

B

SECTION B-B

See Section B-B

Outlet

Ditch Flowline

:1 O r Fl a tt e r1

:1 O r Fla tte r

41+10.00

PIPE INLET SAND TRAP

See Special 604-J

For Details not shown, See Special 604-G 36" Corrugated Steel Pipe Inlet

Geotextile Filter, Class 1, Type A

Granular Backfill (Typ)

NOTE:

1.

Geotextile Filter, Class 1, Type A (Typ) inlet (pipe inlet sand trap).

under pay item 60403-0000

All materials will be paid for

P

M d e n p w p p w ic s jo b s T S p D

S R .d g n

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U s e r D

E N

P W

P

REG STATE PROJECT

NO.

SHEET

SHEETS

TOTAL

CAN/A CA FLAP SR89(2)

3"

FG

FG

Weep Hole

18" Plastic Pipe

18" Plastic Pipe

Weep Hole

Section A-A

Plan

AA

(See Layout Sheet)

.5

M in

Caltrans Type G1 Drainage Inlet (Modified)

6"

Outflow

Outlet Pipe Invert Elevation

Top of Grate Elevation Point Station, Offset and

604-D

T31T5

2'-0"

O u tflo w

See Special 604-K Weep Hole

See Special 609-A Type B2-4 Curb

For Details Not Shown, See Special 604-F

38+60.64

DRAINAGE INLET SAND TRAP

Type B2-4 Curb, See Special 609-A

Granular Backfill (Typ)

NOTE:

1.

See Special 604-J Type 24-12X Grate, Geotextile Filter, Class 1, Type A (Typ)

(Drainage inlet sand trap).

pay item 60404-0000 Catch Basin

All materials will be paid for under

18" RCP Pipe

18" RCP Pipe

I n fl o w

18" RCP Pipe

P

M d e n p w p p w ic s jo b s T S p E S

R .d g n

CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

U s e r D

E N

P W

P

REG STATE PROJECT

NO.

SHEET

SHEETS

TOTAL

CAN/A CA FLAP SR89(2)

3"

FGFG

Weep Hole

Section A-APlan

AA

(See Layout Sheet)

.5

M in

Caltrans Type G1 Drainage Inlet (Modified)

6"

Top of Grate Elevation Point Station, Offset and

604-E

T31T6

2'-0"

O u tflo w

In fl o w

18" RCP

18" RCP

See Special 609-A Type B2-4 curb, See Special 604-K Weep Hole, Type B2-4 Curb, See Special 609-A

Type 24-12X Grate, See Special 604-J

For Details Not Shown, See Special 604-F

18" RCP

Pipe Invert Elevation

Granular Backfill (Typ)

NOTE:

1.

Geotextile Filter, Class 1, Type A (Typ)

39+30.00 AND 40+00.00

DRAINAGE INLET SAND TRAP

(Drainage inlet sand trap).

item 60404-0000 Catch Basin

All materials will be paid for under pay

PROJECTSTATEREG

P

M d e n p w p p w ic s jo b s Z

X S

D S

R .d g n

CA

SHEETS

TOTAL

NO.

SHEET

N/A CA FLAP SR89(2)

63806380

9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00

63806380

5.40%

6.00%

5.50%

Side Opening

18" RCP x 110'

18" RCP x 70'

18" RCP x 67'

18" RCP x 15' @0.50%

10.

28%

6321.30

FL El.

6315.25

FL El.6315.14

FL El.

6310.98

FL El.

6310.87

FL El.

6307.28

FL El.

6307.19

FL El.

6307.11

FL El.

Top of grate El. 6325.20

Pipe Inlet Sand Trap

41+10.00, 7.95' Lt.

Top of grate El. 6319.24

Drainage Inlet Sand Trap

40+00.00, 10.76' Lt.

Top of grate El. 6314.97

Drainage Inlet Sand Trap

39+30.00, 11.21' Lt.

Top of grate El. 6311.11

Drainage Inlet Sand Trap

38+60.00, 13.81' Lt.

Top of grate El. 6310.60

Drainage Inlet Sand Trap

38+42.70, 10.00' Lt.

Z1Z1

1A

1B

1C

1D

1E

1F

1G

1H

1I

Drainage System 1

6308.7

Side opening

Q=2.20 cfs

100 YR HGL

Q=1.48 cfs

100 YR HGL

Q=1.17 cfs

100 YR HGL

Q=0.48 cfs

100 YR HGL

El. Unknown

Ex. SSFM

El. Unknown

Ex. Water

Pertinent Correspondence with

RWQCB

From: mrayback@WoodRodgers.com To: Henderson, Edwin/SAC Cc: srobinson@WoodRodgers.com Subject: Fwd:…