STORM WATER DATA REPORT. State Route 79 Realignment Project. California Department of Transportation. Riverside County Transportation Commission

Transcription

1 State Route 79 Riverside County, CA STORM WATER DATA REPORT For State Route 79 Realignment Project EA Riv-79 KP 25.4/54.4 (PM 15.8/33.8) May 2016 Submitted to: California Department of Transportation The environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable Federal laws for this project is being, or has been, carried out by Caltrans under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 U.S.C Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission Submitted by: CH2M 6 HUTTON CENTRE DRIVE, SUITE 700 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707

2

3 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report STORM WATER DATA INFORMATION 1. Project Description The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) (Project proponent), in cooperation with District 8 of the California Department of Transportation (Department), the County of Riverside, the City of Hemet, and the City of San Jacinto, has proposed a project for the realignment of State Route 79 (SR 79) (Project or proposed Project) in the vicinity of the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto in Riverside County, California. The Department will serve as the Federal lead Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The realignment is proposed to occur south of Domenigoni Parkway and continue north to Gilman Springs Road, a distance of approximately 18 miles. The Project would facilitate the regional movement of people and goods, enhance safety, and protect right-of-way (ROW) for future improvements and would provide a more efficient connection between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road. The Project as designed would be a divided limited-access expressway with four travel lanes (two lanes in each direction). The cross section allows room for a future project to add two more lanes to achieve the ultimate concept of a six-lane expressway. Almost all of the realignment would be new construction, in areas where no such highway exists. The Project would begin a kilometer post (KP) R25.4 (post mile [PM] R15.78), which is km (1.26 mi) south of Domenigoni Parkway, and end approximately 29 km (18 mi) north at the intersection of SR 79 and Gilman Springs Road (KP R54.4 PM R33.80]). Along with the Build Alternative that is required by NEPA and CEQA regulations, four Build alternatives (with two design options) have been developed. Each Build alternative is composed of several roadway segments that can be grouped into different combinations to form a complete Build alternative. There are 14 potential roadway segments (designated A through N). The descriptions of the Build alternatives, design options, and roadway segments are as follows: - Build Alternative 1a Roadway Segments A, E, G, I, J, L, and N - Build Alternative 1b and Design Option 1b1 Roadway Segments B, C, G, I, K, M, and N - Build Alternative 2a Roadway Segments A, F, H, I, K, L, and N - Build Alternative 2b and Design Option 2b1 Roadway Segments B, D, H, I, J, M, and N - Preferred Alternative (Build Alternative 1b with Refinements) Roadway Segments B, C, G, I, J, M, and N. While multiple alternatives are considered, only the preferred alternative is presented in the Storm Water Data Report (SWDR). The total disturbed soil area within Caltrans right-of-way has been calculated as hectares (ha) (942.8 acres [ac]). Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide July 2010

4 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report Impervious surface areas within Caltrans right-of-way have been quantified for the Project. The existing impervious surface area is estimated to be 4.7 ha (11.5 ac). The impervious area after the Project is completed is estimated to be 94.0 ha (232.5 ac). The Project lies within the Riverside County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). CAS618033] and San Diego Region MS4 permit (NPDES. CAS ). 2. Site Data and Storm Water Quality Design Issues (refer to Checklists SW-1, SW-2, and SW-3) The Project is located within four Hydrologic Sub Areas (HSAs): , , , and Runoff from the Project area would drain to three distinct waterways. Within the Santa Ana Region, a drainage dividing boundary is located approximately south of Esplanade Avenue. rth of the drainage boundary, runoff will flow north to San Jacinto River, located about 300 meters (m) (984 feet [ft]) away from the Project. The San Jacinto River flows west and has been dammed to form Canyon Lake, which then drains to Lake Elsinore. South of this drainage boundary, runoff will flow south to Hemet Channel and into Salt Creek. Both flow patterns will eventually drain to Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore. At the southern end of the Project, within the San Diego Region, approximately 1,200 m (4,000 ft) of roadway would drain south to Warm Springs Creek. This creek discharges to Murrieta Creek in Temecula Valley. Murrieta Creek then joins with Temecula Creek to form the Santa Margarita River, which ultimately discharges into the Pacific Ocean north of Oceanside near Camp Pendleton Marine Base. The Pollutants of Concern for the Project are identified based on California s (d) list. Canyon Lake has been designated as impaired for nutrients and pathogens. Lake Elsinore is impaired for nutrients, organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), sediment toxicity, and unknown toxicity. Murrieta Creek is impaired for chlorpyrifos, copper, iron, manganese, nitrogen, phosphorus, and toxicity. Warm Springs Creek is impaired for chlorpyrifos, E. coli, fecal coliform, iron, manganese, phosphorus, and total nitrogen as N. Clean Water Act 401 Certification is required for any project that may result in a discharge into the waters of the state to ensure that the proposed Project will not violate state water quality standards. Any project that requires a federal permit or license under the Clean Water Act, such as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, requires 401 Certification. The Project will require Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) 401 certification, a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 permit, and approval by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). There are no drinking water reservoirs or recharge facilities within the Project limits. The Department PPDG requires that beneficial uses, effluent limits, and any total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) be identified for each of the receiving water bodies for runoff from the Project site. Within the Santa Ana Region, Canyon Lake and Lake Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

5 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report Elsinore have TMDLs for nutrients. Lake Elsinore also has a TMDL for organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen. It should be noted that the Santa Ana and San Diego basin plans differ in their approach to the designation of groundwater. Santa Ana Region groundwater is discussed in terms of groundwater management zones, whereas groundwater in the San Diego region is designated by Hydrologic Area (or basin) and HSA. This difference in delineation methods does not affect analysis results, however, because the boundary between the Santa Ana and San Diego regions is a natural dividing point for both ground and surface flows. Beneficial uses and water quality objectives are applied in an identical manner. The Project-related water bodies for which explicit beneficial uses have been established in the Santa Ana Region are listed in Table 1. The Project-related water bodies for which explicit beneficial uses have been established in the San Diego Region are listed in Table 2. Table 1 Beneficial Uses Santa Ana Region Beneficial Use** Water Body Water Body Type MUN AGR IND PROC GWR REC1 REC2 WARM BIOL WILD RARE San Jacinto Wildlife Preserve San Jacinto River (reaches 3 through 5) Salt Creek Hemet Channel* Inland Wetlands Inland Surface Stream Inland Surface Stream Inland Surface Stream + X X X X X X + I I I I I I + I I I I + I I I I Canyon Lake Lakes and Reservoirs X X X X X X X Lake Elsinore Lakes and Reservoirs + X X X X San Jacinto Upper Hemet South Groundwater Management Zone Groundwater Management Zone X X X X X X X X Lakeview Hemet rth Groundwater Management Zone X X X X Source: Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin, 2011, Santa Ana RWQCB tes: * Beneficial uses are inherited from Salt Creek. ** X = Established, I = Intermittent, P = Potential, + = Excepted from MUN by the Regional Board under the terms and conditions of State Board Resolution , Sources of Drinking Water Policy. TF Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

6 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report Table 2 Beneficial Uses San Diego Region Beneficial Use** Water Body Water Body Type MUN AGR IND PROC GWR REC1 REC2 WARM COLD BIOL WILD SPWN RARE Santa Margarita River Murrieta Creek Warm Springs Creek Temecula Creek Inland Surface Stream Inland Surface Stream Inland Surface Stream Inland Surface Stream X X X X X X X X X X X X X X P X X X X X X X P X X X X X X X X P X X X X X Murrieta Hydrologic Area X X X X Source: Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin, 2011, San Diego RWQCB (2011) tes: ** X = Established, P = Potential, + = Excepted from MUN by the Regional Board under the terms and conditions of State Board Resolution , Sources of Drinking Water Policy. TF The BMPs proposed for this Project are consistent with Department and local MS4 permit requirements. other local agency requirements and concerns regarding water quality are anticipated. The Project design considerations, including climate, soil, topography, geology, groundwater, and right-of-way requirements, are discussed below. Climate. The Project site has a Mediterranean climate characterized by hot and dry summers, and moderately cool winters. Mean seasonal precipitation in Riverside County varies substantially according to elevation and distance from the ocean, and ranges from 76 millimeters [mm] (3 inches) per year in the eastern desert regions to 889 mm (35 inches) per year in the mountainous regions. The Project site is located in the southern portion of the county, where the average rainfall is approximately 290 mm (11.4 inches) per year. The average maximum temperature is 80.5 degrees Fahrenheit ( F), and the average minimum temperature is 53.5 F (Western Regional Climate Center). Topography. The Project area is located in the San Jacinto Valley, which runs northwest to southeast. The San Bernardino Mountains are to the north, the San Jacinto Mountains to the east, and the Lakeview Mountains to the immediate west. The Santa Ana Mountains separate the valley from the coast along the southwest. Elevations along the centerline of the preferred alignment are typically from 445 m Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

7 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report (1,460 ft) to 463 m (1,520 ft) above sea level, with a few peaks of approximately 520 m (1,700 ft) to 550 m (1,800 ft). Although the Project area is situated in a valley bottom, the local topography consists of undulating and uneven ground, with some significant vertical relief, specifically the Tres Cerritos Hills (620 m [2,035 ft] elevation) and the adjacent hills approximately 1,200 m (4,000 ft) to the west (754 m [2,473 ft] elevation). The north and south extents of the study area are also prone to flooding because these areas lie within the 100-year flood zone areas for the San Jacinto River and Hemet Channel. Geology. Geology in the Project area is relatively stable with low potential for landslides or subsidence. The San Jacinto fault zones cross the northern 10 percent of the Project with a moderate liquefaction potential in that same region. In the southern 10 percent, there is a very high liquefaction potential; and throughout the middle region of the Project area, the liquefaction potential is high. Soil. Soil associations for the Project area were determined in the Soil Survey for the Western Riverside Area conducted by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (USDA 1971). Soils in the northern portion of the study area are classified in the San Emigdio-Grangeville-Metz association and the Traver-Domino-Willows association, from north to south. In the southern portion of the Project area, soils are classified in the Hanford-Tujunga-Greenfield association, the Traver-Domino-Willows association, and the Cieneba-Rock Land-Fallbrook association, from north to south. The San Emigdio-Grangeville-Metz association is characterized by poorly drained to somewhat excessively drained calcareous, loamy sand to loam on alluvial fans and floodplains. The Traver-Domino-Willows association contains moderately well-drained to poorly drained loamy sand to loam. The Hanford-Tujunga-Greenfield association is characterized by well-drained to excessively drained sand to sandy loam on alluvial fans and floodplains. The Cieneba-Rock Land-Fallbrook association consists of welldrained to excessively well-drained sandy loam and fine sandy loam on granitic rock. Groundwater. Depth to groundwater varies throughout the Project site, but is expected to be between approximately 45 and 69 m (150 and 225 ft) below the ground surface. Right-of-Way. The Project is located in unincorporated western Riverside County, the City of Hemet, and the City of San Jacinto. Most of the land use within the study area is agricultural. Cropland, dairies, and horse and poultry farms are the most common types of agriculture. Rural residential farmsteads are common, especially in unincorporated Riverside County. However, the area is changing rapidly, and much of the existing agricultural land is planned for future development, primarily residential uses. A concentrated commercial area exists along State Route 74 (SR 74)/Florida Avenue. Overall right-of-way acquisition needs are anticipated to be approximately $187 million for the Project. The Riverside County Hydrology Manual classifies the Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) in the Project area to be primarily Groups B and C, with few areas of Groups A and D. A map depicting the HSG classification is presented in the attachments. Group C and D soils have low infiltration rates and moderately well drained soils with moderately fine Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

8 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a medium runoff potential after saturation. This Project is identified as Risk Level 2. See the required attachments for details on the Risk Level Determination. It is not anticipated that this Project would reuse soil that contains aerially deposited lead (ADL). ADL studies have been conducted to date. Final design/construction will identify and address ADL requirements. Aside from a right-of-way acquisition cost of $187 million for the Project, no additional right-of-way costs are anticipated for BMPs. Due to the scope of work, the project cannot be relocated to avoid impacts to receiving waters. Erosion will be minimized by disturbing existing slopes when necessary, minimizing cut and fill to reduce slope lengths, avoiding soils that will be difficult to revegetate, constructing slopes flat enough to allow re-vegetation and rounding slopes to reduce concentrated flows. The design will allow for ease of maintaining all BMPs. All work will be scheduled to minimize soil-disturbing work during rains. permanent storm water controls will be installed early to be used during construction. There are no existing Treatment BMPs within the Project limits. 3. Regional Water Quality Control Board Agreements The Project site lies within the jurisdiction of RWQCB Region 8 (Santa Ana) and Region 9 (San Diego). The project shall conform to Caltrans National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) statewide storm permit (Order DWQ, NPDES Permit. CAS000003), Construction General Permit (Order DWQ, NPDES General Permit. CAS000002), and Riverside MS4 Permit (NPDES. CAS618033). There are currently no agreements between the Department and Regions 8 and 9 that are specific to the Project area. A tice of Intent (NOI) shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 30 days prior to construction. 4. Proposed Design Pollution Prevention BMPs to be used on the Project. A short narrative summarizing the responses to Checklist DPP-1, Parts 1 through 5, is provided in the bullets below. The permanent erosion control strategy will be designed so that the Project will not pose additional risk above pre-construction conditions. Design Pollution Prevention (DPP) BMPs will be incorporated to effectively limit sediment yield and stabilize the Project site in compliance with the Construction General Permit (CGP) Part II.D, Qualitative benefits of DPP BMPs include reducing the mobilization of sediment and other pollutants in stormwater, increasing the detention time to allow for infiltration, reducing overall pollutant loads by reducing volumetric discharges, and ancillary filtration and infiltration within vegetated conveyances. Final DPP BMPs, slope conditions, and landscape Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

9 Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report and maintenance plans will be developed at the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase. Cost estimates for DPP BMPs were prepared, including flared end sections, rock slope protection, asphalt concrete dike, overside drains, and landscaping. additional right-ofway is needed for erosion control. The cost summary is presented in the attachments. Downstream Effects Related to Potentially Increased Flow, Checklist DPP-1, Parts 1 and 2 The stormwater runoff from the Project site would marginally increase flow volumes and velocities. The Project will result in an increase of 89.3 ha (221.0 ac) of paved area. The Project site drains to the San Jacinto River, Hemet Channel, Salt Creek, and Warm Springs Creek. The channels to which drainage systems directly outfall are Hemet Channel and Salt Creek, both of which are unlined. Potential increased erosion from higher runoff flows would be minimized using erosion control measures such as rock slope protection (RSP). Any adverse impacts to the downstream channel conditions and sediment loading potential are anticipated to be minor. Slope/Surface Protection Systems, Checklist DPP-1, Parts 1 and 3 The Project would require the creation of new cut-and-fill slopes. These new slopes would be 4:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter wherever possible, except where steeper slopes are necessary. In the existing Project area, there is currently no protection provided by hard-surface methods; and much of the existing areas are protected only by vegetative methods. Slope surface protection for the new cut-and-fill slopes would be provided using a combination of inert materials and vegetative methods. The proposed permanent erosion control strategy will be to use a combination of inert materials and vegetative cover to protect new slopes of 2:1 or flatter. Upon completion of the Project, all new and modified slopes would be sprayed with a Landscape Architect-approved erosion control mix. The Erosion Prediction Procedure will be used to validate erosion control design at PS&E. Approval of the Erosion Control Plan by Landscape Architecture and Maintenance will be pursued at PS&E. RSP may be included to protect the fill slopes near existing tributary creek beds. Concrete slopes may be proposed at abutment locations. Concentrated Flow Conveyance Systems, Checklist DPP-1, Parts 1 and 4 Where the cut slopes are steeper than 4:1 or where sheet flow from the roadway is not possible or must be avoided, asphalt concrete dikes, toe of fill ditches, and

10 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report downdrains/overside drains will be used to control runoff and minimize gullies and scour. Where cross-culverts convey onsite and offsite runoff under the highway, flared end sections will be specified at the inlet/outlet of the culverts; and RSP will be provided at the culvert outlets to minimize scour and erosion at cross-culvert transitions. Preservation of Existing Vegetation, Checklist DPP-1, Parts 1 and 5 The Project will require removal of existing non-irrigated vegetation. Where feasible, existing vegetation will be preserved. Where disturbances are unavoidable, the disturbed vegetation will be replaced in-kind with an Erosion Control seed mix approved by the District Landscape Architect. At this phase of the Project, no areas have been identified as off-limits to the Contractor. Disturbed areas will be minimized to the maximum extent possible. Critical areas such as floodplains, wetlands, problem soils, steep slopes, and environmentally sensitive areas will be delineated in the plans at final design. 5. Proposed Permanent Treatment BMPs to be used on the Project A short narrative summarizing the responses to Checklist T-1, Parts 1 through 10, is provided in the bullets below. The soil classification, permeability, erodibility, and depth to groundwater have been evaluated for this project and described in Section 2. Preliminary soil classification and depth to groundwater have been determined for the project area. During final design, permeability rates and groundwater levels will be confirmed by field testing. Cost estimates for Treatment BMPs were prepared. The cost summary is presented in the attachments. Treatment BMP Strategy, Checklist T-1 A project must consider treatment for a Targeted Design Constituent (TDC) when an affected water body within the project limits is on the 303(d) list for one or more of these constituents. The TDCs identified for this Project are nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved copper, and total copper. Therefore, this Project will follow Matrix D for nutrient and metal removal. The water quality depth and water quality flow (WQF) have been negotiated between the SWRCB and each of the local RWQCBs, and should be used as the basis for designing volume- and flow-based Treatment BMPs, respectively. For the Project, RWQCB Region 8 and Region 9 have established a water quality depth for the project site of 0.80 inch, based on Basin Sizer (Caltrans method). The WQF is based on a runoff rate of 0.20 inches per hour (inch/hr). Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

11 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report Upon completion of the project, the total paved area for the project is estimated to be acres, including acres of new paved area. The Project proposes to treat 100 percent of the Water Quality Volume/WQF. The attached Treatment BMP summary table shows the areas treated by the infiltration basins and biofiltration swales. The net water quality volume (WQV) (for all new impervious surfaces within the project) is estimated as 641,784 cubic feet (ft 3 ). The percentage of the net WQV that will be treated is 109 percent. The Treatment BMP strategy is to consider the existing site constraints and determine the feasibility of BMP implementation at the site-specific location. The goal is for the BMPs to retain and treat the paved area runoff to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Treatment BMPs have been evaluated individually for implementation on the proposed project in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG) (Caltrans, 2010). The strategy is to first evaluate Low Impact Development (LID) type BMPs such as biofiltration strips/swales, infiltration devices and other earthen-type BMPs. According to the PPDG, infiltration devices are always a first choice to be considered when selecting a Treatment BMP for a Caltrans project. Therefore, the priority for treatment will be infiltration devices followed by other earthen-type BMPs. For the Project, infiltration basins and biofiltration swales are the primary Treatment BMPs proposed. The drainage plans presented in the attachments show the proposed Treatment BMPs. Biofiltration Swales/Strips, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 2 Biofiltration swales are feasible Treatment BMPs that can be incorporated into the project. Coordination with the District Landscape Architect will be required to determine which seed mix is preferred for this project. At this stage, there are four biofiltration swales proposed for the project. The tributary area for the biofiltration swales is acres. A summary of the proposed biofiltration swales is provided below in Table 3 and in the attachment. Table 3 Biofiltration Swales Biofiltration Swale Tributary Area (acres) Length (feet) WQF (cubic feet per second) BB-2a , BB-2b , GB-2a , GB-2b , Total , Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

12 Dry Weather Diversion, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 3 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report Dry weather diversions are not appropriate for this project because dry weather flows generated by Caltrans are not anticipated to be persistent. Infiltration Devices Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 4 Infiltration basins (IFBs) are proposed as the primary method of treatment for the Project. According to the Riverside County Hydrology Manual, the vast majority of the soils in the Project area are classified as Groups B and C, with only a few areas designated as Groups A and D. This preliminary soil classification will need to be confirmed by field testing prior to construction. At this phase, all proposed volumebased BMPs have been identified as infiltration basins. This is because infiltration basins are the preferred Treatment BMP for the Project and provide the highest level of stormwater treatment of all the volume-based BMPs. Permeability testing will be required prior to final design of new IFBs. Should testing rule out infiltration, then other BMPs will be considered. The approximate tributary area for these infiltration basins is summarized below and in the attachments. These are subject to change during PS&E. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

13 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report Table 4 Infiltration Basins Infiltration Basin Tributary Area (acres) WQV (cubic feet) BB ,761 CB ,894 CB ,149 CB ,946 CB ,158 CB ,397 CB ,606 CB ,817 GB ,718 IB ,953 JB ,259 JB ,520 MB ,101 MB ,249 MB ,528 MB ,435 NB ,794 Total ,285 Table 4 summarizes the Water Quality Volume (WQV) treated per Treatment Infiltration Device. The soil types, HSG, and permeability of the existing soils at each infiltration device location will be collected during the final design phase to determine the feasibility of implementing the proposed BMPs. Should infiltration basins be determined to be infeasible, detention devices or media filters may be substituted at a later time. Groundwater elevations, at specific BMP sites will be determined during the final design phase. At this stage, the BMPs concept assumes that infiltration devices are feasible. Infiltration rates at specific BMP sites will be determined during the final design phase. At this stage, the BMPs concept assumes that infiltration devices are feasible. Geotechnical integrity at specific BMP sites will be determined during the final design phase. At this stage, the BMPs concept assumes that infiltration devices are feasible. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

14 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report Detention Devices, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 5 Detention devices should be considered for implementation wherever infiltration basins are not feasible. The determination will be made after the field testing to conclude whether the soil properties and groundwater table are appropriate for infiltration. Gross Solids Removal Devices (GSRDs), Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 6 Gross Solids Removal Devices (GSRDs) are not appropriate for this project because downstream receiving waters are not listed on the 303(d) list for litter/trash and a trash TMDL has not been developed. Traction Sand Traps, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 7 The project is not located where sand or other traction-enhancing substances are applied to the roadway at least twice per year. Therefore, Traction Sand Traps are not proposed. Media Filters, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 8 Earthen-based Austin sand filters should be considered for implementation wherever infiltration basins are not feasible. The determination will be made after the field testing to conclude whether the soil properties and groundwater table are appropriate for infiltration. Multi-Chambered Treatment Trains (MCTTs), Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 9 The project site does not contain a critical pollutant source area, such as vehicle service facilities, parking areas, paved storage areas, and fueling stations. Therefore, MCTTs are not feasible and not recommended for implementation on this Project. Wet Basins, Checklist T-1, Parts 1 and 10 The project site does not have a permanent source of water to maintain a pool, and the groundwater is too far below the surface to be considered as a source of water. Therefore, a wet basin is not feasible and is not proposed to be incorporated on this project. 6. Proposed Temporary Construction Site BMPs to be used on Project The proposed Construction Site BMP strategy for this project requires the implementation of the Construction Site BMPs identified in the Construction General Permit (CGP) and in this section. A short narrative summarizing the selected Construction Site BMPs is provided in the bullets below. The following Job Site Management BMPs may be implemented and included as separate Bid Line Items. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

15 Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report o SS-1 Scheduling o SS-3 Hydraulic Mulch (Bonded Fiber Matrix) o SS-5 Soil Binders Will be applied to all disturbed soil areas 14 days prior to a designated rain event o SS-10 Outlet Protection/Velocity Dissipation Devices o SC-4 Check Dams o SC-5 Fiber Rolls o SC-7 Street Sweeping and Vacuuming o TC-1 Stabilized Construction Entrance o Existing and proposed drain inlets will be covered during construction and will be paid under BMP NS-3, Paving and Grinding Operations o Rain Event Action Plan o Storm Water Annual Report o Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Day The following Construction Site BMPs may be implemented and incorporated as a lump sum. It is anticipated that the project may employ: o Water Pollution Control Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Preparation Construction Site Monitoring Program Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Additional Water Pollution Control Water Pollution Control Maintenance Sharing o Construction Site Management Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control WM-1 Material Delivery and Storage WM-2 Material Use WM-3 Stockpile Management WM-4 Spill Prevention and Control WM-5 Solid Waste Management WM-6 Hazardous Waste Management WM-7 Contaminated Waste Management WM-8 Concrete Waste Management WM-9 Sanitary/Septic Waste Management WM-10 Liquid Waste Management n-storm Water Controls NS-1 Water Conservation Practices NS-2 Dewatering Operations

16 NS-3 Paving and Grinding Operations NS-4 Temporary Stream Crossing NS-8 Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report NS-10 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance NS-12 Concrete Curing This project is identified as Risk Level 2. Monitoring locations and activities will be identified during the PS&E phase. Dewatering will be required to remove accumulated precipitation during storm events, or may be required during excavations for construction of abutment walls or foundations, etc. At this point, no separate dewatering permit is anticipated to be required. Any dewatering will follow the provisions stated in the 2015 Standard Specifications, Job Site Management Section Active treatment systems (ATS) are not anticipated to be used for the project site. This preliminary SWDR submittal is intended to serve as the initial coordination effort to get concurrence with Construction regarding the Construction Site BMP strategy and associated quantities. Further coordination will take place as needed. A copy of the Construction Site BMP Consideration Form will be included at PS&E. Cost estimates for Construction Site BMPs were prepared. The cost summary is presented in the attachments. 7. Maintenance BMPs (Drain Inlet Stenciling) Drain inlet stenciling will be provided for all storm drains in areas where improvements to local facilities and overcrossings will be accessible to pedestrians. Required Attachments Vicinity Map Evaluation Documentation Form (EDF) Construction Site BMP Consideration Form (required at PS&E only) Risk Level Determination Documentation Treatment BMP Summary Spreadsheets (required, if Treatment BMPs are incorporated into project, required at PS&E only) Supplemental Attachments te: 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 from: Project Planning Cost Estimate (PPCE) during PID and PA/ED project phases; Preliminary Engineer s Cost Estimate (PECE) for PS&E project phase

17 Long Form - Storm Water Data Report Plans showing BMP Deployment (i.e., Layout Sheets, Drainage Sheets, Water Pollution Control Sheets, etc.) Checklist SW-1, Site Data Sources Checklist SW-2, Storm Water Quality Issues Summary Checklist SW-3, Measures for Avoiding or Reducing Potential Storm Water BMPs Checklists DPP-1, Parts 1 5 (Design Pollution Prevention BMPs) [only those parts that are applicable] Checklists T-1, Parts 1 10 (Treatment BMPs) [only those Parts that are applicable] Calculations and cross sections related to BMPs (if requested by District/Regional Design Storm Water Coordinator) Hydrologic Soil Group Classification Map Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

18 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS CH2M

19 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 VICINITY MAP CH2M

20 Rancho Cucamonga }þ }þ Fontana Ontario }þ 60 Rialto }þ 18 San Bernardino }þ }þ 330 }þ 18 Redlands }þ 38 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY }þ 91 Riverside 215 }þ 60 Moreno Valley 10 Beaumont }þ 79 Banning Corona 15 ORANGE COUNTY }þ 74 Cajalco Rd RamonaExpy }þ 74 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Perris Murrieta }þ 74 }þ 79 Temecula }þ 79 }þ 79 Domenigoni Pkwy E Newport Rd Winchester }þ 79 RamonaExpy San Jacinto Hemet }þ 74 }þ 243 N e v a d a Las Vegas 15 5 Pacific Ocean Basemap Data: ESRI StreetMaps, LEGEND Build Alternative 1br Existing State Route 79 Proposed for Realignment Interstate ES State Route ES Local Road ES Sources: CR - County of Riverside; ES - ESRI SAN DIEGO COUNTY }þ }þ 76 Oceanside 15 Fallbrook 1:538,560 C a l i f o r n i a 5 Los Angeles 215 Anaheim San Diego 40 Project Location 8 \\GALT\PROJ\RCTC\171146\2015\MAPFILES\SOTRMWATER\PAD_RPL_1BR.MXD PAD_RPL_1BR.PDF 12/23/2015 County Boundary CR Miles Kilometers Figure 1 Regional Project Location Storm Water Data Report State Route 79 Realignment Project DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

21 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 EVALUATION DOCUMENTATION FORM (EDF) CH2M

22 Evaluation Documentation Form DATE: January 4, 2016 Project ID (or EA): NO. CRITERIA 1. Begin Project Evaluation regarding requirement for consideration of Treatment BMPs 2. Is this an emergency project? 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. YES NO SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR EVALUATION See Figure 4-1, Project Evaluation Process for Consideration of Permanent Treatment BMPs. Go to 2 If, go to 10. If, continue to 3. If, 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, continue to Is the project located within an area of a local MS4 Permittee? 5. Is the project directly or indirectly discharging to surface waters? 6. Is it a new facility or major reconstruction? 7. Will there be a change in line/grade or hydraulic capacity? 8. Does the project result in a net increase of one acre or more of new impervious surface? 9. Project is required to consider approved Treatment BMPs. 10. Project is not required to consider Treatment BMPs. (Dist./Reg. Design SW Coord. Initials) (Project Engineer Initials) (Date) If. (Riverside County MS4), go to 5. If, document in SWDR go to 5. If, continue to 6. If, go to 10. If, continue to 8. If, go to 7. If, continue to 8. If, go to 10. If, continue to 9. If, go to ac (Net Increase New Impervious Surface) 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. 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 Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

23 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 CONSTRUCTION SITE BMP CONSIDERATION FORM CH2M

24 Project Evaluation Process for the Consideration of Construction Site BMPs NO. CRITERIA 1. Will construction of the project result in areas of disturbed soil as defined by the Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG)? 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? 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? 4. Is there a potential for wind to transport soil and dust offsite during the period of construction? 5. Is dewatering anticipated or will construction activities occur within or adjacent to a live channel or stream? 6. Will construction include saw-cutting, grinding, drilling, concrete or mortar mixing, hydro-demolition, blasting, sandblasting, painting, paving, or other activities that produce residues? 7. Are stockpiles of soil, construction related materials, and/or wastes anticipated? 8. Is there a potential for construction related materials and wastes to have direct contact with precipitation; stormwater run-on, or stormwater runoff; be dispersed by wind; be dumped and/or spilled into storm drain systems? Construction Site BMP Consideration Form YES NO DATE: January 4, 2016 Project ID (or EA): SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION If, Construction Site BMPs for Soil Stabilization (SS) will be required. Complete CS-1, Part 1. Continue to 2. If, Continue to 3. If, Construction Site BMPs for Sediment Control (SC) will be required. Complete CS-1, Part 2. Continue to 3. If, Construction Site BMPs for Tracking Control (TC) will be required. Complete CS-1, Part 3. Continue to 4. If, Construction Site BMPs for Wind Erosion Control (WE) will be required. Complete CS-1, Part 4. Continue to 5. If, Construction Site BMPs for n-storm Water Management (NS) will be required. Complete CS-1, Part 5. Continue to 6. If, Construction Site BMPs for n-storm Water Management (NS) will be required. Complete CS-1, Parts 5 & 6. Continue to 7. If, Construction Site BMPs for Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control (WM) will be required. Complete CS-1, Part 6. Continue to 8. If, Construction Site BMPs for Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control (WM) will be required. Complete CS-1, Part 6. Continue to 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 Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide July 2010

25 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 RISK LEVEL DETERMINATION DOCUMENTATION CH2M

26 1 2 Sediment Risk Factor Worksheet A) R Factor A B C Entry Analyses of data indicated that when factors other than rainfall are held constant, soil loss is directly proportional to a rainfall factor composed of total storm kinetic energy (E) times the maximum 30-min intensity (I30) (Wischmeier and Smith, 1958). The numerical value of R is the average annual sum of EI30 for storm events during a rainfall record of at least 22 years. "Isoerodent" maps were developed based on R values calculated for more than 1000 locations in the Western U.S. Refer to the link below to determine the R factor for the project site. B) K Factor (weighted average, by area, for all site soils) The soil-erodibility factor K represents: (1) susceptibility of soil or surface material to erosion, (2) transportability of the sediment, and (3) the amount and rate of runoff given a particular rainfall input, as measured under a standard condition. Fine-textured soils that are high in clay have low K values (about 0.05 to 0.15) because the particles are resistant to detachment. Coarse-textured soils, such as sandy soils, also have low K values (about 0.05 to 0.2) because of high infiltration resulting in low runoff even though these particles are easily detached. Medium-textured soils, such as a silt loam, have moderate K values (about 0.25 to 0.45) because they are moderately susceptible to particle detachment and they produce runoff at moderate rates. Soils having a high silt content are especially susceptible to erosion and have high K values, which can exceed 0.45 and can be as large as Silt-size particles are easily detached and tend to crust, producing high rates and large volumes of runoff. Use Site-specific data must be submitted. Site-specific K factor guidance R Factor Value 48 9 K Factor Value C) LS Factor (weighted average, by area, for all slopes) The effect of topography on erosion is accounted for by the LS factor, which combines the effects of a hillslope-length factor, L, and a hillslope-gradient factor, S. Generally speaking, as hillslope length and/or hillslope gradient increase, soil loss increases. As hillslope length increases, total soil loss and soil loss per unit area increase due to the progressive accumulation of runoff in the downslope direction. As the hillslope gradient increases, the velocity and erosivity of runoff increases. Use the LS table located in separate tab of this spreadsheet to determine LS factors. Estimate the weighted LS for the site prior to construction. LS Table LS Factor Value Watershed Erosion Estimate (=RxKxLS) in tons/acre Site Sediment Risk Factor Low Sediment Risk: < 15 tons/acre Medium Sediment Risk: >=15 and <75 tons/acre High Sediment Risk: >= 75 tons/acre 28.3 Medium 1.64

27 Receiving Water (RW) Risk Factor Worksheet Entry Score A. Watershed Characteristics yes/no A.1. Does the disturbed area discharge (either directly or indirectly) to a 303(d)-listed waterbody impaired by sediment? For help with impaired waterbodies please check the attached worksheet or visit the link below: 2006 Approved Sediment-impared WBs Worksheet OR A.2. Does the disturbed area discharge to a waterbody with designated beneficial uses of SPAWN & COLD & MIGRATORY? no Low

28 Combined Risk Level Matrix Receiving Water Risk Low Level 1 Sediment Risk Low Medium High Level 2 High Level 2 Level 3 Project Sediment Risk: Medium 2 Project RW Risk: Low 1 Project Combined Risk: Level 2

29 Fact Sheet Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Page 4 Figure 1. Erosivity Index Zone Map

30 Table 1. Erosivity Index (%EI Values extracted from USDA Manual 703) All values are at the end of the day listed below - Linear interpolation between dates is acceptable. EI as a percentage of Average Annual R Value Computed for Geographic Areas Shown in Figure 1 Month Jan Jan Jan Feb Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr May May Jun Jun Jul Jul Aug Aug Sept Sept Oct Oct v v Dec Dec Day EI Zone Construction Start: January 1, 2018 Construction End: January 1, 2021 EI = 300% Fact Sheet Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Page 9

31 10 Use Isoerodent value = 16 Sum EI% = 300% R-Value = 16 x 300% = Project Location \\GALT\PROJ\RCTC\171146\2015\MAPFILES\SOTRMWATER\RUSLE_R_A.MXD RUSLE_R_A.PDF 12/23/2015 LEGEND Build Alternative 1br 50 Isoerodent R Value SW Source: SW - State Water Resources Control Board Miles 0 90 Kilometers 1:5,702,400 Figure 2 RUSLE R Isoerodent Values Storm Water Data Report State Route 79 Realignment Project DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

32 Use weighted average for K Factor = Project Location \\GALT\PROJ\RCTC\171146\2015\MAPFILES\SOTRMWATER\RUSLE_K_A.MXD RUSLE_K_A.PDF 12/23/2015 LEGEND Build Alternative 1br K Factor Whole Soil NAS Miles Kilometers :5,702,400 Source: NAS - Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, and State Water Resources Control Board Figure 3 RUSLE K Values Storm Water Data Report State Route 79 Realignment Project DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

33 Use weighted average for LS Factor = Project Location \\GALT\PROJ\RCTC\171146\2015\MAPFILES\SOTRMWATER\RUSLE_LS_A.MXD RUSLE_LS_A.PDF 12/23/2015 LEGEND Build Alternative 1br LS ValuesSW Figure 4 RUSLE LS Values Source: SW - State Water Resources Control Board :5,702,400 Storm Water Data Report State Route 79 Realignment Project Miles Kilometers DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

34 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 TREATMENT BMP SUMMARY SPREADSHEET CH2M

35 Treatment BMPs Summary SR 79 Realignment Project Biofiltration Swales District-County-Route: 08-RIV-79 Project ID: STA STA Highway WQV WQF Length County Route Bioswale Begin End Area (ac) (ft3) (cfs) (ft) RIV 79 BB-2a , ,720 RIV 79 BB-2b , ,720 RIV 79 GB-2a , ,950 RIV 79 GB-2b , ,950 TOTALS , ,340 Infiltration Basins District-County-Route: 08-RIV-79 Project ID: STA Highway WQV County Route Infiltration Basin Area (ac) (ft3) RIV 79 BB Lt ,761 RIV 79 CB Rt ,894 RIV 79 CB Lt ,149 RIV 79 CB Lt ,946 RIV 79 CB Rt ,158 RIV 79 CB Lt ,397 RIV 79 CB Rt ,606 RIV 79 CB Lt ,817 RIV 79 GB Rt ,718 RIV 79 IB Rt ,953 RIV 79 JB Rt ,259 RIV 79 JB Lt ,520 RIV 79 MB Rt ,101 RIV 79 MB Lt ,249 RIV 79 MB Lt ,528 RIV 79 MB Lt ,435 RIV 79 NB Lt ,794 TOTALS ,285 Total WQV: 696,620 cf Net Impervious Area: ac Net WQV: 641,784 cf Percent of New WQV Treated: 696, ,784 = 109% Percent of New WQV Infiltrated: 627, ,784 = 98% Treatment BMPs_SR-79.xlsx Summary 1 of 1 5/18/ :58 AM

36 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHMENTS CH2M

37 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 STORM WATER BMP COST SUMMARY CH2M

38 Sheet. 1 Calculation. 1 PROJECT TITLE : SR 79 Realignment Project Project. Alternative 1br with Refinements Calc By WH Date 3/21/2016 SUBJECT / FEATUTRE: BMP Cost Checked By KH Date 3/21/2016 Design Pollution Prevention BMP Cost Item Description Estimated Quantity Unit Quantity Unit Price Total PRINTED: 3/25/ :22 36" Flared End Section EA 76 $ 830 $ 63,080 42" Flared End Section EA 2 $ 1,400 $ 2,800 Rock Slope Protection (Facing, Method B) CY 471 $ 195 $ 91,845 Concrete (Ditch Lining) CY 7,852 $ 520 $ 4,083,040 Erosion Control (Bonded Fiber Matrix) AC $ 3,000 $ 975,000 Plant Establishment Work LS 1 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Phase I Highway Tree Planting LS 1 $ 5,900,000 $ 5,900,000 Total $ 11,765,765 Treatment BMP Cost Item Description Unit WQV Unit Price Total Biofiltration Swale CF 69,335 $ 43 $ 2,981,405 Infiltration Basin CF 627,285 $ 21 $ 13,172,985 Total $ 16,154,390 SCO PN: BMP Costs_SR-79.xls 1 of 1

39 Sheet. 1 Calculcation. 1 PROJECT TITLE : SR 79 Realignment Project EA Alternative 1br with Refinements Calc By WH Date 5/16/2016 Rev SUBJECT / FEATURE: Construction BMPs - Backup Calculation Checked By KH Date 5/16/2016 Assumptions Estimated Construction Start Date: January 1, 2018 Construction Completion Date: January 1, 2021 N = 16 discharge areas Prepare Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan RQM Cost = (months/3 + 1) x (N + 4) x Labor RQM Cost = (36/3 + 1) x (16 + 4) x $100 = $26,000 Prepare SWPPP = $6,000 + RQM = $32,000 Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) # of Days = mean number of days reported for precipitation producing greater than or equal to 0.1 inches for the duration of the project, plus nine more months Month Mean Number of Days >0.1 in Mean Number of Days >0.5 in Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct v Dec Annual Reference: Water Quality Planning Tool, Precipitation data for San Jacinto RS, # of Days >0.1" = 11.7 days x 3 years = 36 REAP Cost = $500 x 36 = $18,000 Storm Water Annual Report Storm Water Annual Report Cost = $2,000 x 4 yrs = $8,000 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Day SWM Cost = M x {[Days 0.5" x $1000] + $2000 ( (Months/12))} M = cost multiplier based on number of aniticipated discharge sampling points Assume 32 sampling points; therefore M = 5 # of Days >0.5" =4.0 days x 3 yr = 13 Days 0.5" = difference between mean number of days for both precipitation events greater than 0.5" and 0.1" over project timeline Days 0.5" = (36-13) = 23 days SWM Cost = 5 x {[23 x $1000] + $2000 ( (36/12))} = $128,000 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Use the same rate as for Prepare SWPPP less RQM; therefore, the cost is estimated to be $6,000. Additional Water Pollution Control Use the same rate as for Prepare SWPPP less RQM; therefore, the cost is estimated to be $6,000. Water Pollution Control Maintenance Sharing Temporary Fiber Roll, estimate at 10% of separate item cost per rainy season $193,480

40 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 PROJECT PLANNING COST ESTIMATE (PPCE) CH2M

41 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Preliminary Cost Estimate Project ID: Type of Estimate : Program Code : Project Limits : Description: Scope : Alternative : Supplemental Draft Project Report HE Riv-79 PM R15.8/R33.8 Realignment of SR-79 New Freeway Alignment 1B with refinements (Opening Day 2020) Current Cost Escalated Cost ROADWAY ITEMS $ 564,234,800 $ 635,051,238 STRUCTURE ITEMS $ 252,560,000 $ 284,258,505 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 816,794,800 $ 919,309,743 RIGHT OF WAY $ 186,815,289 $ 207,369,184 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COST $ 1,003,611,000 $ 1,126,679,000 PR/ED SUPPORT $ - $ - PS&E SUPPORT $ - $ - RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT $ - $ - CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT $ - $ - TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT COST* $ - $ - TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,004,000,000 $ 1,127,000,000 Date of Estimate (Month/Year) Estimated Date of Construction Start (Month/Year) Month / Year 4 / / 2018 Number of Working Days 780 Working Days Number of Plant Establishment Days 250 Days If Project has been programmed enter Programmed Amount $ - Estimated Project Schedule PID Approval PA/ED Approval PS&E RTL Begin Construction June 2016 Jan 2018 Approved by Project Manager Tom Ionta (714) Project Manager Date Phone

42 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY Section Cost 1 Earthwork $ 159,083,600 2 Structural Section $ 72,700,400 3 Drainage $ 63,530,900 4 Specialty Items $ 48,108,600 5 Environmental $ 10,537,200 6 Traffic Items $ 8,052,000 7 Detours $ 1,373,900 8 Minor Items $ 5,450,800 9 Roadway Mobilization $ 37,000, Supplemental Work $ 31,009, State Furnished $ 3,948, Contingencies $ 94,039, Overhead $ 29,400,000 TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $ 564,234,800 Estimate Prepared By Cat Quach, P.E. (951) Name and Title Date Phone Estimate Reviewed By Alicia Cannon, P.E. (951) Name and Title Date Phone By signing this estimate you are attesting that you have discussed your project with all functional units and have incorporated all their comments or have discussed with them why they will not be incorporated.

43 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 1: EARTHWORK Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Clearing & Grubbing (LS) LS 1 x 2,332, = $ 2,332, Develop Water Supply LS 1 x 8,500, = $ 8,500, Roadway Excavation CY 1,683,689 x = $ 25,255, Structure Backfill (Retaining Wall) CY 190,988 x = $ 5,729, Ditch Excavation CY 90,372 x = $ 1,355, Imported Borrow (CY) CY 11,591,046 x = $ 115,910,460 TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS $ 159,083,600 SECTION 2: STRUCTURAL SECTION Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Class 2 Aggregate Base (CY) CY 381,696 x = $ 13,359, Lean Concrete Base CY 0 x = $ Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 166,326 x = $ 14,969, Tack Coat TON 172 x = $ 124, Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement CY 143,954 x = $ 33,109, Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement Cy 40,717 x $ 6,921, Joint Seal (Asphalt Rubber) LF 348,480 x 3.00 = $ 1,045, Isolation Joint Seal (Asphalt Rubber) LF 0 x 3.00 = $ Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) LF 55,351 x = $ 1,383, Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY 3,248 x = $ 1,786,400 TOTAL STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS $ 72,700,400

44 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 3: DRAINAGE Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Structural Concrete, Box Culvert CY 19,956 x 1, = $ 29,934, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 34,147 x = $ 2,390, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 26,273 x = $ 2,101, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 9,709 x = $ 1,262, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 7,105 x = $ 1,030, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 516 x = $ 79, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 178 x = $ 37, " Alternative Flared End Section EA 76 x = $ 63, " Alternative Flared End Section EA 2 x 1, = $ 2, Rock Slope Protection (Facing, Method B) CY 471 x = $ 91, Concrete (Ditch Lining) CY 7,852 x = $ 4,083, Miscellaneous Iron and Steel LB 2,863,534 x 2.20 = $ 6,299,775 xxxxxx Treatment BMP LS 1 x 16,154, = $ 16,154,390 SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method) LS 1 x 50, = $ 50, Lead Compliance Plan LS 1 x 5, = $ 5, Structural Concrete, Retaining Wall CY 47,750 x = $ 25,068, Sound Wall (Masonry Block) SQFT 226,116 x = $ 4,522, Bar Reinforcing Steel (Retaining Wall) LB 10,905,930 x 1.00 = $ 10,905, Anti-Graffiti Coating SQFT 655,840 x 2.00 = $ 1,311, Fence (Type WM, Metal Post ) LF 138,200 x = $ 1,934, Midwest Guardrail System LF 7,200 x = $ 324, Double Thrie Beam Barrier LF 55,298 x = $ 2,211, Cable Railing LF 23,692 x = $ 1,066, Transition Railing (Type WB-31) EA 120 x 3, = $ 420, Alternative Flared Terminal System EA 120 x 2, = $ 288,000 $ 63,530,900 TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS $ 48,108,600

45 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL 5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Temporary Reinforced Silt Fence LF 130,000 x 6.50 = $ 845, Temporary Fence (Type ESA) LF 50,000 x 5.00 = $ 250,000 Subtotal Environmental $ 1,095,000 5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Erosion Control (Bonded Fiber Matrix)(Acre) ACRE 325 x 3, = $ 975,000 20xxxx Phase 1 Highway Tree Planting LS 1 x 5,900, = $ 5,900, Plant Establishment Work LS 1 x 650, = $ 650,000 Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation $ 7,525,000 5C - NPDES Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Construction Site Management LS 1 x 500, = $ 500, Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 32, = $ 32, Temporary Silt Fence LF 138,200 x 3.50 = $ 483, Temporary Fiber Rolls LF 138,200 x 3.50 = $ 483, Soil Binders SY 4,840 x 0.30 = $ 1, Temporary Check Dams LF 13,212 x 8.50 = $ 112, Street Sweeping and Vacuuming LS 1 x 150, = $ 150, Rain Event Action Plan EA 36 x = $ 18, Storm Water Annual Report EA 4 x 2, = $ 8, Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Day EA 23 x 5, = $ 128,000 Supplemental Work for NPDES (These costs are not accounted in total here but under Supplemental Work on sheet 7 of 11) Water Pollution Control Maintenance Sharing* LS 1 x 193, = $ 193, Additional Water Pollution Control** LS 1 x 6, = $ 6, Storm Water Sampling and Analysis*** LS 1 x 6, = $ 6,000 *Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs. **Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects. *** Applies only to project with SWPPPs. Subtotal NPDES (Without Supplemental Work) $ 1,917,154 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $ 10,537,200

46 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS 6A - Traffic Electrical Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Signals & Lighting LS 1 x 6,200, = $ 6,200,000 Subtotal Traffic Electrical 6B - Traffic Signing and Striping Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost 5660XX Permanent Signing LS 1 x 250, = $ 250,000 84XXXX Permanent Pavement Delineation LS 1 x 510, = $ 510,000 Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping 6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Traffic Control System LS 1 x 1,092, = $ 1,092,000 Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling $ $ $ 6,200, ,000 1,092,000 TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS $ 8,052,000

47 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 7: DETOURS Include constructing, maintaining, and removal Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Temporary Signal System LS 1 x 100, = $ 100, Class 2 Aggregate Base (CY) CY 18,051 x = $ 631, Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 7,134 x = $ 642,060 XXXXXX Some Item LS x = $ - TOTAL DETOURS $ 1,373,900 SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1-7 $ 363,386,600 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS 8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items ADA Items 0.5% $ 1,816,933 8B - Bike Path Items Bike Path Items 0.5% $ 1,816,933 8C - Other Minor Items Other Minor Items 0.5% $ 1,816,933 Total of Section 1-7 $ 363,386,600 x 1.5% = $ 5,450,799 SECTIONS 9: MOBILIZATION TOTAL MINOR ITEMS Item code Total Section 1-8 $ 368,837,400 x 10% = $ 37,000,000 $ 5,450,800 SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK TOTAL MOBILIZATION $ 37,000,000 Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Federal Trainee Program LS 1 x 26, = $ 26, Traffic Management Plan - Public Information LS 1 x 11,000, = $ 11,000, Maintain Traffic LS 1 x 546, = $ 546, Value Analysis LS 1 x 10, = $ 10, Payment Adjustments For Price Index Fluctuation LS 1 x 660, = $ 660, Partnering LS 1 x 90, = $ 90, Dispute Review Board LS 1 x 30, = $ 30,000 Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5C = $ 205,480 Total Section 1-8 $ 368,837,400 5% = $ 18,441,870 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK $ 31,009,800

48 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost RE Office LS 1 x 260, = $260,000 Total Section 1-8 $ 368,837,400 1% = $ 3,688,374 TOTAL STATE FURNISHED $3,948,400 SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD Estiamted Time-Releated Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to = 5% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Total of All Contract Items Only $ 621,397,400 (used to calculate TR Total Project Cost $ 693,355,600 (used to check if proje Time-Related Overhead WDAY 780 X = $29,400,000 TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $29,400,000 (Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%) Total Section 1-11 $ 470,195,600 x 20% = $94,039,120 TOTAL CONTINGENCY $94,039,200

49 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Bridge 1 Bridge 2 Bridge 3 DATE OF ESTIMATE March 2008 March 2008 March 2008 Bridge Name NB Patterson Ave UC Sb Patterson Ave UC NB Patton Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 1080 SQM 837 SQM 1016 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.53 M 1.53 M 2.59 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $3, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $3,800, $2,910, $3,770, Bridge 4 Bridge 5 Bridge 6 DATE OF ESTIMATE March 2008 March 2008 March 2008 Bridge Name SB Patton Ave UC NB Domenigoni UC SB Domenigoni UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 776 SQM 2677 SQM 2532 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 2.59 M 2.21 M 2.21 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $2, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $2,790, $7,960, $7,140, Bridge 7 Bridge 8 Bridge 9 DATE OF ESTIMATE v 2007 v 2007 Sept 2014 Name NB Salt Creek Channel Bridge SB Salt Creek Channel Bridge NB Simpson Rd UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 3871 SQM 6898 SQM 1379 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 2.74 M 2.74 M 1.37 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $2, $2, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $10,330, $18,910, $4,510,000.00

50 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Bridge 10 Bridge 11 Bridge 12 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Bridge Name SB Simpson UC NB San Jacinto Line OH SB San Jacinto Line OH Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 1072 SQM 4329 SQM 4633 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.37 M 2.44 M 2.44 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $2, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $3,500, $10,660, $11,410, Bridge 13 Bridge 14 Bridge 15 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Bridge Name NB Off-Ramp San Jacinto Line OH NB Grand Ave UC SB Grand Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 3933 SQM 885 SQM 885 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 2.44 M 1.45 M 1.45 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $2, $3, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $10,110, $2,940, $2,940, Bridge 16 Bridge 17 Bridge 18 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Bridge Name Nb Stowe Rd UC Sb Stowe Rd UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M Total Bridge Length M M Total Area (Square Meter) 1057 SQM 1057 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.37 M 1.37 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $3,530, $3,530,000.00

51 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Bridge 19 Bridge 20 Bridge 21 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Bridge Name NB Stetson Ave UC SB Stetson Ave UC NB California Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 1203 SQM 1105 SQM 1677 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.68 M 1.68 M 1.83 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $2, $2, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $3,570, $3,280, $5,240, Bridge 22 Bridge 23 Bridge 24 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Dec 2007 Dec 2007 Bridge Name SB California Ave UC NB SR-74/Florida Ave Separation SB SR-74/Florida Ave Separation Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 1725 SQM 1030 SQM 2098 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.83 M 1.53 M 1.53 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $2, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $5,390, $3,060, $6,220, Bridge 25 Bridge 26 Bridge 27 DATE OF ESTIMATE Dec 2007 May 2008 Jan 2008 Bridge Name SR-74/Florida Ave NB On Loop Devonshire Ave OC NB Esplanade Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] 8.07 M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 845 SQM 2249 SQM 7968 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.53 M 1.83 M 2.82 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $3, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $2,680, $6,990, $21,870,000.00

52 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Bridge 28 Bridge 29 Bridge 30 DATE OF ESTIMATE Jan 2008 Bridge Name SB Esplanade Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M Total Bridge Length M Total Area (Square Meter) 7667 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 2.85 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Cost Per Square Meter $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $22,010, $0.00 $0.00 Bridge 31 Bridge 32 Bridge 33 DATE OF ESTIMATE May 2008 May 2008 Bridge Name NB 7th St UC SB 7th St UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M Total Bridge Length M M Total Area (Square Meter) 564 SQM 614 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 2.52 M 2.52 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $1,730, $1,890, $0.00 Bridge 34 Bridge 35 Bridge 36 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Sept /00/00 Bridge Name NB Sanderson Ave UC SB Sanderson Ave UC Ramona Exwy UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M 0.00 M Total Bridge Length M M 0.00 M Total Area (Square Meter) 1944 SQM 938 SQM SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.98 M 1.98 M 0.00 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $3, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $6,120, $2,960, $39,990,000.00

53 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Bridge 37 DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 Bridge Name San Jacinto River Bridge Bridge Number 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] 0.00 M Total Bridge Length 0.00 M Total Area (Square Meter) 3013 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 0.00 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Cost Per Square Meter $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $8,820, $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES TOTAL COST OF BUILDINGS $252,560, N/A TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES 1 $252,560, Estimate Prepared By John Powell, P.E. Date

54 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE III. RIGHT OF WAY Fill in all of the available information from the Right of Way data sheet. A) A1) Acquisition, including Excess Land Purchases, Damages & Goodwill, $ 145,631,618 A2) SB-1210 $ B) Acquisition of Offsite Mitigation $ 6,000,000 C) C1) Utility Relocation (State Share) $ 22,228,248 C2) Potholing (Design Phase) $ 0 D) Railroad Acquisition $ 0 E) Clearance / Demolition $ 6,839,173 F) Relocation Assistance (RAP and/or Last Resort Housing Costs) $ 6,116,250 G) Title and Escrow $ 0 H) Environmental Review $ 0 I) Condemnation Settlements 0% $ (Items G & H applied to items A + B) J) Design Appreciation Factor 0% $ 0 K) Utility Relocation (Construction Cost) $ 0 L) (Excluding Item #8 - Hazardous Waste) TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE $186,815,289 M) TOTAL R/W ESTIMATE: Escalated $207,369,184 N) Right of Way Support $ 0 Support Cost Estimate Prepared By Project Coordinator 1 Phone Utility Estimate Prepared By Utiliy Coordinator 2 Phone R/W Acquistion Estimate Prepared By Right of Way Estimator 3 Phone 1 When estimate has Support Costs onl 2 When estimate has Utility Relocation 3 When R/W Acquisition is required

55 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE IV. SUPPORT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY SB-45 CATEGORY SUPPORT COST PREVIOUS FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FUTURE P3 Total Support Ratio PR/ED (PD,PE,PM) $ % PS&E (PS) $ % R/W (RW) $ % CONSTRUCTION (CM) $ % Total Support Cost: $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - te: It is assumed that the Support Costs are already escalated by Programming to the year of expenditure. Use project Programming Sheet data. 0.00% Total Capital Cost: Total Capital Outlay Support Cost: Overall Percent Support Cost: $1,003,611,000 $0 0.00% V. ESCALATED CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY te: Right of way escalated cost are accounted for on sheet 10 of 11. Month / Year Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 4 / 2016 Estimated Date of Construction Start (Month/Year) 1 / 2018 Number of Working Days 780 WD YEAR FUTURE FORECASTED ESCALATION RATE* 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% ESCALATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS FUTURE TOTAL ESCALATED COSTS ROADWAY ITEMS $ 564,234,800 $ 581,161,844 $ 598,596,699 $ 616,554,600 $ 635,051,238 $ 635,051,238 $ 635,051,238 $ 635,051,238 $ 635,051,238 $ 635,051,238 $ 635,051,238 $ 635,051,238 STRUCTURE ITEMS $ 252,560,000 $ 260,136,800 $ 267,940,904 $ 275,979,131 $ 284,258,505 $ 284,258,505 $ 284,258,505 $ 284,258,505 $ 284,258,505 $ 284,258,505 $ 284,258,505 $ 284,258,505 SUBTOTAL $ 816,794,800 $ 841,298,644 $ 866,537,603 $ 892,533,731 $ 919,309,743 $ 919,309,743 $ 919,309,743 $ 919,309,743 $ 919,309,743 $ 919,309,743 $ 919,309,743 $ 919,309,743 Approved by: Project Control Engineer Date

56 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Preliminary Cost Estimate Project ID: Type of Estimate : Program Code : Project Limits : Description: Scope : Alternative : Supplemental Draft Project Report HE Riv-79 PM R15.8/R33.8 Realignment of SR-79 New Freeway Alignment 1B with refinements (Planning Horizon 2040) Current Cost Escalated Cost ROADWAY ITEMS $ 594,094,400 $ 688,718,236 STRUCTURE ITEMS $ 278,780,000 $ 323,182,426 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 872,874,400 $ 1,011,900,662 RIGHT OF WAY $ 186,815,289 $ 207,369,184 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COST $ 1,059,690,000 $ 1,219,270,000 PR/ED SUPPORT $ - $ - PS&E SUPPORT $ - $ - RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT $ - $ - CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT $ - $ - TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY SUPPORT COST* $ - $ - TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,060,000,000 $ 1,220,000,000 Date of Estimate (Month/Year) Estimated Date of Construction Start (Month/Year) Month / Year 4 / / 2018 Number of Working Days 780 Working Days Number of Plant Establishment Days 250 Days If Project has been programmed enter Programmed Amount $ - Estimated Project Schedule PID Approval PA/ED Approval PS&E RTL Begin Construction June 2016 Jan 2018 Approved by Project Manager Tom Ionta (714) Project Manager Date Phone

57 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY Section Cost 1 Earthwork $ 169,547,600 2 Structural Section $ 77,801,200 3 Drainage $ 63,530,900 4 Specialty Items $ 51,293,500 5 Environmental $ 10,537,200 6 Traffic Items $ 8,052,000 7 Detours $ 1,374,000 8 Minor Items $ 5,732,100 9 Roadway Mobilization $ 39,000, Supplemental Work $ 32,071, State Furnished $ 4,138, Contingencies $ 99,015, Overhead $ 32,000,000 TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $ 594,094,400 Estimate Prepared By Cat Quach, P.E. (951) Name and Title Date Phone Estimate Reviewed By Alicia Cannon, P.E. (951) Name and Title Date Phone By signing this estimate you are attesting that you have discussed your project with all functional units and have incorporated all their comments or have discussed with them why they will not be incorporated.

58 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 1: EARTHWORK Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Clearing & Grubbing (LS) LS 1 x 2,332, = $ 2,332, Develop Water Supply LS 1 x 8,500, = $ 8,500, Roadway Excavation CY 1,683,689 x = $ 25,255, Structure Backfill (Retaining Wall) CY 204,608 x = $ 6,138, Ditch Excavation CY 93,995 x = $ 1,409, Imported Borrow (CY) CY 12,591,154 x = $ 125,911,540 TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS $ 169,547,600 SECTION 2: STRUCTURAL SECTION Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Class 2 Aggregate Base (CY) CY 450,063 x = $ 15,752, Lean Concrete Base CY 0 x = $ Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 193,339 x = $ 17,400, Tack Coat TON 195 x = $ 141, Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement CY 143,954 x = $ 33,109, Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement CY 40,717 x $ 6,921, Joint Seal (Asphalt Rubber) LF 348,480 x 3.00 = $ 1,045, Isolation Joint Seal (Asphalt Rubber) LF 0 x 3.00 = $ Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) LF 55,351 x = $ 1,383, Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY 3,721 x = $ 2,046,550 TOTAL STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS $ 77,801,200

59 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 3: DRAINAGE Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Structural Concrete, Box Culvert CY 19,956 x 1, = $ 29,934, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 34,147 x = $ 2,390, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 26,273 x = $ 2,101, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 9,709 x = $ 1,262, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 7,105 x = $ 1,030, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 516 x = $ 79, " Alternative Pipe Culvert LF 178 x = $ 37, " Alternative Flared End Section EA 76 x = $ 63, " Alternative Flared End Section EA 2 x 1, = $ 2, Rock Slope Protection (Facing, Method B) CY 471 x = $ 91, Concrete (Ditch Lining) CY 7,852 x = $ 4,083, Miscellaneous Iron and Steel LB 2,863,534 x 2.20 = $ 6,299,775 xxxxxx Treatment BMP LS 1 x 16,154, = $ 16,154,390 TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS $ 63,530,900 SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Progress Schedule (Critical Path Method) LS 1 x 50, = $ 50, Lead Compliance Plan LS 1 x 5, = $ 5, Structural Concrete, Retaining Wall CY 51,150 x = $ 26,853, Bar Reinforcing Steel (Retaining Wall) LB 11,609,080 x 1.00 = $ 11,609, Sound Wall (Masonry Block) SQFT 242,492 x = $ 4,849, Anti-Graffiti Coating SQFT 702,859 x 2.00 = $ 1,405, Fence (Type WM,Metal Post) LF 138,200 x = $ 1,934, Midwest Guardrail System LF 9,120 x = $ 410, Double Thrie Beam Barrier LF 55,298 x = $ 2,211, Cable Railing LF 23,692 x = $ 1,066, Transition Railing (Type WB-31) EA 152 x 3, = $ 532, Alternative Flared Terminal System EA 152 x 2, = $ 364,800 TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS $ 51,293,500

60 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL 5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Temporary Reinforced Silt Fence LF 130,000 x 6.50 = $ 845, Temporary Fence (Type ESA) LF 50,000 x 5.00 = $ 250,000 Subtotal Environmental $ 1,095,000 5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Erosion Control (Bonded Fiber Matrix) (Acre) ACRE 325 x 3, = $ 975,000 20xxxx Phase 1 Highway Tree Planting LS 1 x 5,900, = $ 5,900, Plant Establishment Work LS 1 x 650, = $ 650,000 Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation $ 7,525,000 5C - NPDES Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Construction Site Management LS 1 x 500, = $ 500, Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 32, = $ 32, Temporary Silt Fence LF 138,200 x 3.50 = $ 483, Temporary Fiber Rolls LF 138,200 x 3.50 = $ 483, Soil Binders SY 4,840 x 0.30 = $ 1, Temporary Check Dams LF 13,212 x 8.50 = $ 112, Street Sweeping and Vacuuming LS 1 x 150, = $ 150, Rain Event Action Plan EA 36 x = $ 18, Storm Water Annual Report EA 4 x 2, = $ 8, Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Day EA 23 x 5, = $ 128,000 Supplemental Work for NPDES (These costs are not accounted in total here but under Supplemental Work on sheet 7 of 11) Water Pollution Control Maintenance Sharing* LS 1 x 193, = $ 193, Additional Water Pollution Control** LS 1 x 6, = $ 6, Storm Water Sampling and Analysis*** LS 1 x 6, = $ 6,000 *Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs. **Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects. *** Applies only to project with SWPPPs. Subtotal NPDES (Without Supplemental Work) $ 1,917,154 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $ 10,537,200

61 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS 6A - Traffic Electrical Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Signals & Lighting LS 1 x 6,200, = $ 6,200,000 Subtotal Traffic Electrical 6B - Traffic Signing and Striping Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost 5660XX Permanent Signing LS 1 x 250, = $ 250,000 84XXXX Permanent Pavement Delineation LS 1 x 510, = $ 510,000 Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping 6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Traffic Control System LS 1 x 1,092, = $ 1,092,000 Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling $ $ $ 6,200, ,000 1,092,000 TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS $ 8,052,000

62 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 7: DETOURS Include constructing, maintaining, and removal Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Temporary Signal System LS 1 x 100, = $ 100, Class 2 Aggregate Base (CY) CY 18,051 x = $ 631, Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 7,135 x = $ 642,150 TOTAL DETOURS $ 1,374,000 SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1-7 $ 382,136,400 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS 8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items ADA Items 0.5% $ 1,910,682 8B - Bike Path Items Bike Path Items 0.5% $ 1,910,682 8C - Other Minor Items Other Minor Items 0.5% $ 1,910,682 Total of Section 1-7 $ 382,136,400 x 1.5% = $ 5,732,046 SECTIONS 9: MOBILIZATION Item code Total Section 1-8 $ 387,868,500 x 10% = $ 39,000,000 SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK TOTAL MINOR ITEMS TOTAL MOBILIZATION $ $ 5,732,100 39,000,000 Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Federal Trainee Program LS 1 x 26, = $ 26, Traffic Management Plan - Public Information LS 1 x 11,000, = $ 11,000, Maintain Traffic LS 1 x 546, = $ 546, Value Analysis LS 1 x 10, = $ 10, Payment Adjustments For Price Index Fluctuation LS 1 x 770, = $ 770, Partnering LS 1 x 90, = $ 90, Dispute Review Board LS 1 x 30, = $ 30,000 Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5C = $ 205,480 Total Section 1-8 $ 387,868,500 5% = $ 19,393,425 TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK $ 32,071,400

63 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost RE Office LS 1 x 260, = $260,000 Total Section 1-8 $ 387,868,500 1% = $ 3,878,685 TOTAL STATE FURNISHED $4,138,700 SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD Estiamted Time-Releated Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to = 5% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost Total of All Contract Items Only $ 666,648,500 (used to calculate TR Total Project Cost $ 741,858,600 (used to check if proje Time-Related Overhead WDAY 780 X 41,026 = $32,000,000 TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $32,000,000 (Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%) Total Section 1-11 $ 495,078,600 x 20% = $99,015,720 TOTAL CONTINGENCY $99,015,800

64 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Bridge 1 Bridge 2 Bridge 3 DATE OF ESTIMATE March 2008 March 2008 March 2008 Bridge Name NB Patterson Ave UC Sb Patterson Ave UC NB Patton Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 1080 SQM 837 SQM 1016 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.53 M 1.53 M 2.59 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $3, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $3,800, $2,910, $3,770, Bridge 4 Bridge 5 Bridge 6 DATE OF ESTIMATE March 2008 March 2008 March 2008 Bridge Name SB Patton Ave UC NB Domenigoni UC SB Domenigoni UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 776 SQM 2677 SQM 2532 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 2.59 M 2.21 M 2.21 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $2, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $2,790, $7,960, $7,140, Bridge 7 Bridge 8 Bridge 9 DATE OF ESTIMATE v 2007 v 2007 Sept 2014 Name NB Salt Creek Channel Bridge SB Salt Creek Channel Bridge NB Simpson Rd UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 3871 SQM 6898 SQM 1379 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 2.74 M 2.74 M 1.37 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $2, $2, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $10,330, $18,910, $4,510,000.00

65 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Bridge 10 Bridge 11 Bridge 12 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Bridge Name SB Simpson UC NB San Jacinto Line OH SB San Jacinto Line OH Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 1072 SQM 4329 SQM 4633 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.37 M 2.44 M 2.44 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $2, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $3,500, $10,660, $11,410, Bridge 13 Bridge 14 Bridge 15 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Bridge Name NB Off-Ramp San Jacinto Line OH NB Grand Ave UC SB Grand Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 3933 SQM 885 SQM 885 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 2.44 M 1.45 M 1.45 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $2, $3, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $10,110, $2,940, $2,940, Bridge 16 Bridge 17 Bridge 18 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Bridge Name Grand Ave Ave SB ON Loop Nb Stowe Rd UC Sb Stowe Rd UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 789 SQM 1057 SQM 1057 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.45 M 1.37 M 1.37 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $3, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $2,600, $3,530, $3,530,000.00

66 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Bridge 19 Bridge 20 Bridge 21 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Sept 2014 Bridge Name NB Stetson Ave UC SB Stetson Ave UC NB California Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 1203 SQM 1105 SQM 1677 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.68 M 1.68 M 1.83 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $2, $2, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $3,570, $3,280, $5,240, Bridge 22 Bridge 23 Bridge 24 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Dec 2007 Dec 2007 Bridge Name SB California Ave UC NB SR-74/Florida Ave Separation SB SR-74/Florida Ave Separation Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 1725 SQM 1030 SQM 2098 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.83 M 1.53 M 1.53 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $2, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $5,390, $3,060, $6,220, Bridge 25 Bridge 26 Bridge 27 DATE OF ESTIMATE Dec 2007 May 2008 Jan 2008 Bridge Name SR-74/Florida Ave NB On Loop Devonshire Ave OC NB Esplanade Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] 8.07 M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 845 SQM 2249 SQM 7968 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.53 M 1.83 M 2.82 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $3, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $2,680, $6,990, $21,870,000.00

67 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Bridge 28 Bridge 29 Bridge 30 DATE OF ESTIMATE Jan 2008 Jan 2008 Sept 2014 Bridge Name SB Esplanade Ave UC NBOFF Ramp Esplanade Ave UC SBOFF Ramp Esplanade Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M 8.21 M 9.90 M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 7667 SQM 2178 SQM 2078 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 2.85 M 2.90 M 3.20 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $2, $3, $3, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $22,010, $7,070, $7,290, Bridge 31 Bridge 32 Bridge 33 DATE OF ESTIMATE May 2008 May 2008 May 2008 Bridge Name NB 7th St UC SB 7th St UC Cottonwood Ave UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M M Total Bridge Length M M M Total Area (Square Meter) 564 SQM 614 SQM 3886 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 2.52 M 2.52 M 2.14 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $3, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $1,730, $1,890, $9,260, Bridge 34 Bridge 35 Bridge 36 DATE OF ESTIMATE Sept 2014 Sept /00/00 Bridge Name NB Sanderson Ave UC SB Sanderson Ave UC Ramona Exwy UC Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] M M 0.00 M Total Bridge Length M M 0.00 M Total Area (Square Meter) 1944 SQM 938 SQM SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 1.98 M 1.98 M 0.00 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Pile Pile Cost Per Square Meter $3, $3, $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $6,120, $2,960, $39,990,000.00

68 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Bridge 37 DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 Bridge Name San Jacinto River Bridge Bridge Number 57-XXX Structure Type CIP / PS Box Width (Meter) [out to out] 0.00 M Total Bridge Length 0.00 M Total Area (Square Meter) 3013 SQM Structure Depth (Meter) 0.00 M Footing Type (pile or spread) Pile Cost Per Square Meter $2, COST OF EACH STRUCTURE $8,820, $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES TOTAL COST OF BUILDINGS $278,780, N/A TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES 1 $278,780, Estimate Prepared By John Powell, P.E. Date

69 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE III. RIGHT OF WAY Fill in all of the available information from the Right of Way data sheet. A) A1) Acquisition, including Excess Land Purchases, Damages & Goodwill, $ 145,631,618 A2) SB-1210 $ B) Acquisition of Offsite Mitigation $ 6,000,000 C) C1) Utility Relocation (State Share) $ 22,228,248 C2) Potholing (Design Phase) $ 0 D) Railroad Acquisition $ 0 E) Clearance / Demolition $ 6,839,173 F) Relocation Assistance (RAP and/or Last Resort Housing Costs) $ 6,116,250 G) Title and Escrow $ 0 H) Environmental Review $ 0 I) Condemnation Settlements 0% $ 0 (Items G & H applied to items A + B) J) Design Appreciation Factor 0% $ 0 K) Utility Relocation (Construction Cost) $ 0 L) (Excluding Item #8 - Hazardous Waste) TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE $186,815,289 M) TOTAL R/W ESTIMATE: Escalated $207,369,184 N) Right of Way Support $ 0 Support Cost Estimate Prepared By Project Coordinator 1 Phone Utility Estimate Prepared By Utiliy Coordinator 2 Phone R/W Acquistion Estimate Prepared By Right of Way Estimator 3 Phone 1 When estimate has Support Costs onl 2 When estimate has Utility Relocation 3 When R/W Acquisition is required

70 PRELIMINARY PROJECT COST ESTIMATE IV. SUPPORT COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY SB-45 CATEGORY SUPPORT COST PREVIOUS FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FUTURE P3 Total Support Ratio PR/ED (PD,PE,PM) $ % PS&E (PS) $ % R/W (RW) $ % CONSTRUCTION (CM) $ % Total Support Cost: $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - te: It is assumed that the Support Costs are already escalated by Programming to the year of expenditure. Use project Programming Sheet data. 0.00% Total Capital Cost: Total Capital Outlay Support Cost: Overall Percent Support Cost: $1,059,690,000 $0 0.00% V. ESCALATED CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY te: Right of way escalated cost are accounted for on sheet 10 of 11. Month / Year Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 4 / 2016 Estimated Date of Construction Start (Month/Year) 1 / 2018 Number of Working Days 780 WD YEAR FUTURE FORECASTED ESCALATION RATE* 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% ESCALATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS FUTURE TOTAL ESCALATED COSTS ROADWAY ITEMS $ 594,094,400 $ 611,917,232 $ 630,274,749 $ 649,182,991 $ 668,658,481 $ 688,718,236 $ 688,718,236 $ 688,718,236 $ 688,718,236 $ 688,718,236 $ 688,718,236 $ 688,718,236 STRUCTURE ITEMS $ 278,780,000 $ 287,143,400 $ 295,757,702 $ 304,630,433 $ 313,769,346 $ 323,182,426 $ 323,182,426 $ 323,182,426 $ 323,182,426 $ 323,182,426 $ 323,182,426 $ 323,182,426 SUBTOTAL $ 872,874,400 $ 899,060,632 $ 926,032,451 $ 953,813,424 $ 982,427,827 $ 1,011,900,662 $ 1,011,900,662 $ 1,011,900,662 $ 1,011,900,662 $ 1,011,900,662 $ 1,011,900,662 $ 1,011,900,662 Approved by: Project Control Engineer Date

71 Sa n Ja ci nt o Ri ve r RAMONA EXPRESSWAY R Col or ado Ri ver Aqued uct A E X P R H E A Y Z A N N A O W E M S D A S R A V EN UE N T O D E LL O R RO A D M O W A RREN A N B A O E IV L R U D ORNI F I L A CA V A E 79 R D sa Ca m Lo a l na Ca San Jacinto COTTONWOOD AVENUE SEVENTH STREET T H R E E S P R IN HIDDEN SPRINGS RD Tres Cerritos Hills TRES CERRITOS AVENUE C A LIFO R N IA C A W STO N DEVONSHIRE AVENUE AVE A V EN UE MENLO AVENUE SA N D ERSO N G S RD A V EN UE ESPLANADE AVENUE ORNI F I L A CA ORNI F I L A CA FLORIDA AVENUE ORNI F I L A CA Aq ue du ct s STETSON AVENUE n Sa o nt ci Ja ch an Br ne Li W A RREN RO A D C A LIFO R N IA MW D A V EN UE W IN C H E S T E R STOWE ROAD Hemet Hemet-Ryan Airport Sa n RO A D Di eg o Ca na l 74 GRAND AVENUE Winchester re e k Channel H e m e t C S a lt C h a n n e l SIMPSON ROAD OLIVE AVENUE ORNI F I L A CA 79 E NEW PORT ROAD Diamond Valley Lake CONSTRUCTION ROAD MW D Aq ue du ct s DOMENIGONI PARKWAY Aerial Date: February 2011 Exh-SR79-Ramps-OD.dgn LEGEND: Right-of-Way Boundary Alternative 1b with Refinements Opening Day (2020) MWD Aqueducts Final Project Report State Route 79 Realignment Project Mile Kilometer 1:52,500

72 Sa n Ja ci nt o Ri ve r RAMONA EXPRESSWAY R Col or ado Ri ver Aqued uct A E X P R H E A Y Z A N N A O W E M S D A S R A V EN UE N T O D E LL O R RO A D M O W A RREN A N B A O E IV L R U D ORNI F I L A CA V A E 79 R D sa Ca m Lo a l na Ca San Jacinto COTTONWOOD AVENUE SEVENTH STREET T H R E E S P R IN HIDDEN SPRINGS RD Tres Cerritos Hills TRES CERRITOS AVENUE C A LIFO R N IA C A W STO N DEVONSHIRE AVENUE AVE A V EN UE MENLO AVENUE SA N D ERSO N G S RD A V EN UE ESPLANADE AVENUE ORNI F I L A CA ORNI F I L A CA FLORIDA AVENUE ORNI F I L A CA Aq ue du ct s STETSON AVENUE n Sa o nt ci Ja ch an Br ne Li W A RREN RO A D C A LIFO R N IA MW D A V EN UE W IN C H E S T E R STOWE ROAD Hemet Hemet-Ryan Airport Sa n RO A D Di eg o Ca na l 74 GRAND AVENUE Winchester re e k Channel H e m e t C S a lt C h a n n e l SIMPSON ROAD OLIVE AVENUE ORNI F I L A CA 79 E NEW PORT ROAD Diamond Valley Lake CONSTRUCTION ROAD MW D Aq ue du ct s DOMENIGONI PARKWAY Aerial Date: February 2011 Exh-SR79-Ramps-PH.dgn LEGEND: Right-of-Way Boundary Alternative 1b with Refinements Planning Horizon (2040) MWD Aqueducts Final Project Report State Route 79 Realignment Project Mile Kilometer 1:52,500

73 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT JANUARY 2016 PLANS SHOWING BMP DEPLOYMENT CH2M

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 CHECKLISTS SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, DPP-1, T-1 CH2M

86 Storm Water Checklist SW-1 Checklist SW-1, Site Data Sources Prepared by: W. Hsu Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Information for the following data categories should be obtained, reviewed and referenced as necessary throughout the project planning phase. Collect any available documents pertaining to the category and list them and reference your data source. For specific examples of documents within these categories, refer to Section 5.5 of this document. Example categories have been listed below; add additional categories, as needed. Summarize pertinent information in Section 2 of the SWDR. Topographic DATA CATEGORY/SOURCES Date Hydraulic Soils Climatic USGS Topo Quad Maps Water Quality Planning Tool Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual USGS Preliminary Geologic Map of the Murrieta 7.5 Quadrangle, Riverside County, California Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual January 4, 2016 January 4, Water Quality Water Quality Planning Tool January 4, 2016 Basin Plan, Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8) 2011, 1995 Basin Plan, San Diego RWQCB (Region 9) 2011, 1995 Other Data Categories Caltrans Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Report / Statement State Route 79 Realignment Project: Domenigoni Parkway to Gilman Springs Road February 2013 Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide July 2010

87 Storm Water Checklist SW-2 Checklist SW-2, Storm Water Quality Issues Summary Prepared by: W. Hsu Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) The following questions provide a guide to collecting critical information relevant to project stormwater quality issues. Complete responses to applicable questions, consulting other Caltrans functional units (Environmental, Landscape Architecture, Maintenance, etc.) and the District/Regional Storm Water Coordinator as necessary. Summarize pertinent responses in Section 2 of the SWDR. 1. Determine the receiving waters that may be affected by the project throughout the project life cycle (i.e., construction, maintenance and operation). Complete NA 2. For the project limits, list the 303(d) impaired receiving water bodies and their constituents of concern. 3. Determine if there are any municipal or domestic water supply reservoirs or groundwater percolation facilities within the project limits. Consider appropriate spill contamination and spill prevention control measures for these new areas. 4. Determine the RWQCB special requirements, including TMDLs, effluent limits, etc. 5. Determine regulatory agencies seasonal construction and construction exclusion dates or restrictions required by federal, state, or local agencies. Seasonal construction and construction exclusion dates will be determined at a later stage. At this time, no exclusions are assumed. Complete Complete Complete Complete 6. Determine if a 401 certification will be required. Complete NA 7. List rainy season dates. Complete NA 8. Determine the general climate of the project area. Identify annual rainfall and rainfall intensity curves. Complete NA 9. If considering Treatment BMPs, determine the soil classification, permeability, erodibility, and depth to groundwater. Preliminary soil classification and depth to groundwater have been determined for the project area. During final design, permeability rates and groundwater levels will be confirmed by field testing. Complete NA 10. Determine contaminated soils within the project area. Complete NA 11. Determine the total disturbed soil area of the project. Complete NA 12. Describe the topography of the project site. Complete NA 13. List any areas outside of the Caltrans right-of-way that will be included in the project (e.g. contractor s staging yard, work from barges, easements for staging, etc.). Staged construction plans will be prepared during the final design phase. At this time, no staging areas are anticipated to be required outside the project limits. Complete NA 14. Determine if additional right-of-way acquisition or easements and right-of-entry will be required for design, construction and maintenance of BMPs. If so, how Complete NA much? 15. Determine if a right-of-way certification is required. Complete NA NA NA NA NA Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide July 2010

88 Storm Water Checklist SW Determine the estimated unit costs for right-of-way should it be needed for Treatment BMPs, stabilized conveyance systems, lay-back slopes, or interception ditches. Complete NA 17. Determine if project area has any slope stabilization concerns. Complete NA 18. Describe the local land use within the project area and adjacent areas. Complete NA 19. Evaluate the presence of dry weather flow. Complete NA Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide July 2010

89 Storm Water Checklist SW-3 Checklist SW-3, Measures for Avoiding or Reducing Potential Storm Water Impacts Prepared by: W. Hsu Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) The PE must confer with other functional units, such as Landscape Architecture, Hydraulics, Environmental, Materials, Construction and Maintenance, as needed to assess these issues. Summarize pertinent responses in Section 2 of the SWDR. Options for avoiding or reducing potential impacts during project planning include the following: 1. Can the project be relocated or realigned to avoid/reduce impacts to receiving waters or to increase the preservation of critical (or problematic) areas such as floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands, and areas with erosive or unstable soil conditions? 2. Can structures and bridges be designed or located to reduce work in live streams and minimize construction impacts? NA NA 3. Can any of the following methods be utilized to minimize erosion from slopes: a. Disturbing existing slopes only when necessary? NA b. Minimizing cut and fill areas to reduce slope lengths? NA c. Incorporating retaining walls to reduce steepness of slopes or to shorten slopes? d. Acquiring right-of-way easements (such as grading easements) to reduce steepness of slopes? e. Avoiding soils or formations that will be particularly difficult to restabilize? f. Providing cut and fill slopes flat enough to allow re-vegetation and limit erosion to pre-construction rates? g. Providing benches or terraces on high cut and fill slopes to reduce concentration of flows? NA NA NA NA NA h. Rounding and shaping slopes to reduce concentrated flow? NA i. Collecting concentrated flows in stabilized drains and channels? NA 4. Does the project design allow for the ease of maintaining all BMPs? 5. Can the project be scheduled or phased to minimize soil-disturbing work during the rainy season? 6. Can permanent storm water pollution controls such as paved slopes, vegetated slopes, basins, and conveyance systems be installed early in the construction process to provide additional protection and to possibly utilize them in addressing construction storm water impacts? NA Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

90 Checklist DPP-1, Part 1 Prepared by: W. Hsu Design Pollution Prevention BMPs Checklist DPP-1, Part 1 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Consideration of Design Pollution Prevention BMPs Consideration of Downstream Effects Related to Potentially Increased Flow [to streams or channels] Will project increase velocity or volume of downstream flow? NA Will the project discharge to unlined channels? NA Will project increase potential sediment load of downstream flow? NA Will project encroach, cross, realign, or cause other hydraulic changes to a stream that may affect downstream channel stability? If was answered to any of the above questions, consider Downstream Effects Related to Potentially Increased Flow, complete the DPP-1, Part 2 checklist. NA Slope/Surface Protection Systems Will project create new slopes or modify existing slopes? NA If was answered to the above question, consider Slope/Surface Protection Systems, complete the DPP-1, Part 3 checklist. Concentrated Flow Conveyance Systems Will the project create or modify ditches, dikes, berms, or swales? NA Will project create new slopes or modify existing slopes? NA Will it be necessary to direct or intercept surface runoff? NA Will cross drains be modified? NA If was answered to any of the above questions, consider Concentrated Flow Conveyance Systems; complete the DPP-1, Part 4 checklist. Preservation of Existing Vegetation It is the goal of the Storm Water Program to maximize the protection of desirable existing vegetation to provide erosion and sediment control benefits on all projects. Complete Consider Preservation of Existing Vegetation, complete the DPP-1, Part 5 checklist. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

91 Checklist DPP-1, Part 2 Prepared by: W. Hsu Design Pollution Prevention BMPs Checklist DPP-1, Part 2 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Downstream Effects Related to Potentially Increased Flow 1. Review total paved area and reduce to the maximum extent practicable. Complete 2. Review channel lining materials and design for stream bank erosion control. Complete (a) See Chapters 860 and 870 of the HDM. (b) Consider channel erosion control measures within the project limits as well as downstream. Consider scour velocity. Complete Complete 3. Include, where appropriate, energy dissipation devices at culvert outlets. Complete 4. Ensure all transitions between culvert outlets/headwalls/wingwalls and channels are smooth to reduce turbulence and scour. 5. Include, if appropriate, peak flow attenuation basins or devices to reduce peak discharges. 6. Calculate the water quality volume infiltrated by DPP BMPs within the project limits. Include the percentage of the water quality volume for each BMP and subwatershed, as appropriate, for site conditions. These calculations will be used later in the T-1 checklist. Complete Complete Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

92 Checklist DPP-1, Part 3 Prepared by: W. Hsu Design Pollution Prevention BMPs Checklist DPP-1, Part 3 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Slope / Surface Protection Systems 1. What are the proposed areas of cut and fill? (attach plan or map) Complete 2. Were benches or terraces provided on high cut and fill slopes to reduce concentration of flows? 3. Were slopes rounded and/or shaped to reduce concentrated flow? 4. Were concentrated flows collected in stabilized drains or channels? 5. Are new or disturbed slopes > 4:1 horizontal:vertical (h:v)? If, District Landscape Architect must prepare or approve an erosion control plan, at the District s discretion. 6. Are new or disturbed slopes > 2:1 (h:v)? If, Geotechnical Services must prepare a Geotechnical Design Report, and the District Landscape Architect should prepare or approve an erosion control plan. Concurrence must be obtained from the District Maintenance Storm Water Coordinator for slopes steeper than 2:1 (h:v). 7. Estimate the net new impervious area that will result from this project. 221acres Complete VEGETATED SURFACES 1. Identify existing vegetation. Complete 2. Evaluate site to determine soil types, appropriate vegetation and planting strategies. Complete 3. How long will it take for permanent vegetation to establish? Complete 4. Minimize overland and concentrated flow depths and velocities. Complete HARD SURFACES 1. Are hard surfaces required? If, document purpose (safety, maintenance, soil stabilization, etc.), types, and general locations of the installations. Review appropriate SSPs for Vegetated Surface and Hard Surface Protection Systems. Complete Complete Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

93 Checklist DPP-1, Part 4 Design Pollution Prevention BMPs Checklist DPP-1, Part 4 Prepared by: W. Hsu Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Concentrated Flow Conveyance Systems Ditches, Berms, Dikes and Swales 1. Consider Ditches, Berms, Dikes, and Swales as per Topics 813, 834.3, and 835, and Chapter 860 of the HDM. Complete 2. Evaluate risks due to erosion, overtopping, flow backups or washout. Complete 3. Consider outlet protection where localized scour is anticipated. Complete 4. Examine the site for run-on from off-site sources. Complete 5. Consider channel lining when velocities exceed scour velocity for soil. Complete Overside Drains 1. Consider downdrains, as per Index of the HDM. Complete 2. Consider paved spillways for side slopes flatter than 4:1 h:v. Complete Flared Culvert End Sections 1. Consider flared end sections on culvert inlets and outlets as per Chapter 827 of the HDM. Complete Outlet Protection/Velocity Dissipation Devices 1. Consider outlet protection/velocity dissipation devices at outlets, including cross drains, as per Chapters 827 and 870 of the HDM. Review appropriate SSPs for Concentrated Flow Conveyance Systems. Complete Complete Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

94 Checklist DPP-1, Part 5 Prepared by: W. Hsu Design Pollution Prevention BMPs Checklist DPP-1, Part 5 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Preservation of Existing Vegetation 1. Review Preservation of Property, (Clearing and Grubbing) to reduce clearing and grubbing and maximize preservation of existing vegetation. Complete 2. Has all vegetation to be retained been coordinated with Environmental, and identified and defined in the contract plans? These areas will be coordinated with Environmental during the final design phase. 3. Have steps been taken to minimize disturbed areas, such as locating temporary roadways to avoid stands of trees and shrubs and to follow existing contours to reduce cutting and filling? Complete 4. Have impacts to preserved vegetation been considered while work is occurring in disturbed areas? 5. Are all areas to be preserved delineated on the plans? These areas will be delineated during the final design phase. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

95 Checklist T-1, Part 1 Prepared by: W. Hsu Treatment BMPs Checklist T-1, Part 1 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Consideration of Treatment BMPs This checklist is used for projects that require the consideration of Approved Treatment BMPs, as determined from the process described in Section 4 (Project Treatment Consideration) and the Evaluation Documentation Form (EDF). This checklist will be used to determine which Treatment BMPs should be considered for each watershed and sub-watershed within the project. Supplemental data will be needed to verify siting and design applicability for final incorporation into a project. Complete this checklist for each phase of the project, when considering Treatment BMPs. Use the responses to the questions as the basis when developing the narrative in Section 5 of the Storm Water Data Report to document that Treatment BMPs have been appropriately considered. Answer all questions, unless otherwise directed. Questions 14 through 16 should be answered after all subwatershed (drainages) are considered using this checklist. 1. Is the project in a watershed with prescriptive TMDL treatment BMP requirements in an adopted TMDL implementation plan or does the project have a dual purpose facility requirement (e.g. flood control and water quality treatment or Design Pollution Prevention BMPs that provide infiltration and treatment)? If, consult the District/Regional Storm Water Coordinator to determine whether the T-1 checklist should be used to propose alternative BMPs because the prescribed BMPs may not be feasible or other BMPs may be more costeffective. Special documentation and regulatory response may be necessary. 2. Dry Weather Flow Diversion (a) Are dry weather flows generated by Caltrans anticipated to be persistent? (b) Is a sanitary sewer located on or near the site? If to both 2 (a) and (b), continue to (c). If to either, skip to question 3. (c) Is connection to the sanitary sewer possible without extraordinary plumbing, features or construction practices? (d) Is the domestic wastewater treatment authority willing to accept flow? If was answered to all of these questions consider Dry Weather Flow Diversion, complete and attach Part 3 of this checklist. 3. Is the receiving water on the 303(d) list for litter/trash or has a TMDL been issued for litter/trash? Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

96 Checklist T-1, Part 1 If, consider Gross Solids Removal Devices (GSRDs). Complete and attach Part 6 of this checklist. te: Infiltration Devices, Detention Devices, Media Filters, MCTTs, and Wet Basins also can capture litter. Before considering GSRDs for stand-alone installation or in sequence with other BMPs, consult with District/Regional NPDES Storm Water Coordinator to determine whether Infiltration Devices, Detention Devices, Media Filters, MCTTs, and Wet Basins should be considered instead of GSRDs to meet litter/trash TMDL. 4. Is the project located in an area (e.g., mountain regions) where traction sand is applied more than twice a year? If, consider Traction Sand Traps Complete and attach Part 7 of this checklist. 5. Maximizing Biofiltration Strips and Swales Objectives: 1) Quantify infiltration from biofiltration alone 2) Identify highly infiltrating biofiltration (i.e. > 90%) and skip further BMP consideration. 3) Identify whether amendments can substantially improve infiltration. (a) Have biofiltration strips and swales been designed for runoff from all project areas, including sheet flow and concentrated flow conveyance? If no, document justification in Section 5 of the SWDR. (b) Based on existing site conditions, estimate what percentage of the WQV 1 can be infiltrated. When calculating the WQV, use a drawdown time appropriate for the site conditions. All four soil types are present within the study area. The Project area contains primarily Groups B and C, with few areas of Groups A and D. The infiltration capacity of the soils will be dependent on site-specific properties of the soil where the BMP is proposed. The soil type will need to be confirmed by field testing prior to construction. At this time, the infiltration capacity of the BMPs cannot be determined. Complete < 20% 20 % - 50% 50% - 90% > 90% 1 A complete methodology for determining WQV infiltration is available at: Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

97 Checklist T-1, Part 1 (c) Is infiltration greater than 90 percent? If, skip to question 13. Please see response to Question 5b. If, Continue to 5 (d). (d) Can the infiltration ranking in question 5(b) above be increased by using soil amendments? Soil amendments will be considered during the PS&E phase. If, consider including soil amendments (increasing the infiltration ranking of strips and swales shows performance comparable to other BMPs). Record the new infiltration estimate below. If, continue to 5 (e). Please see response to Question 5b. < 20% (skip to 6) 20 % - 50% (skip to 6) 50% - 90% (skip to 6) >90% Complete (e) Is infiltration greater than 90 percent? If, skip to question 13. If, continue to 5 (f). Please see response to Question 5b. (f) Is infiltration greater than 50 percent and is biofiltration preferred? If yes to both, skip to question 13. Please see response to Question 5b. 6. Biofiltration in Rural Areas Is the project in a rural area (outside of urban areas that is covered under an NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit 2 )? If, proceed to question See pages 39 and 40 of the Fact Sheets for the CGP. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

98 Checklist T-1, Part 1 7. Estimating Infiltration for BMP Combinations Objectives: 1) Identify high-infiltration biofiltration or biofiltration and infiltration BMP combinations and skip further BMP consideration. 2) If high infiltration is infeasible, then identify the infiltration level of all feasible BMP combinations for use in the subsequent BMP selection matrices. (a) Has concentrated infiltration (i.e., via earthen basins) been prohibited? Consult your District/Regional Storm Water Coordinator and/or environmental documents. If, continue to 7 (b); if, skip to question 8 and do not consider earthen basin-type BMPs Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

99 Checklist T-1, Part 1 (b) Can the infiltration ranking be increased by infiltrating the un-infiltrated remaining WQV from question 5, with an infiltration BMP 1? If yes, record the new infiltration estimate below. If no, proceed to 7(c). Please see response to Question 5b. < 20% (do not consider this BMP combination) 20% - 50% 50% - 90% >90% Is at least 90 percent infiltration estimated? If, proceed to 13. If, proceed to 7(c). (c) Assess infiltration of biofiltration combined with an approved earthen BMP. This assessment will be used in subsequent BMP selection matrices. Please see response to Question 5b. Earthen Detention Basin < 20% 20% - 50% > 50% Complete Continue to Question 8 8. Identifying BMPs based on the Target Design Constituents (a) Does the project discharge to a 303(d) impaired water body or a water body that has a TMDL adopted? If, use Matrix A to select BMPs, consider designing to treat 100% of the WQV, then skip to question 12. If, is the identified pollutant(s) considered a Targeted Design Constituent (TDC) (check all that apply below)? sediments phosphorus nitrogen copper (dissolved or total) lead (dissolved or total) zinc (dissolved or total) general metals (dissolved or total) 2 (b) Treating Sediment. Is sediment a TDC? If, use Matrix A to select BMPs, then skip to question 12. Otherwise, proceed to question 9. 1 Assess the combined infiltration of the WQV by both biofiltration and infiltration BMPs. As site constraints allow, size the infiltration BMP up to the un-infiltrated WQV remaining after the biofiltration BMP. 2 General metals is a designation used by Regional Water Boards when specific metals have not yet been identified as causing the impairment. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

100 Checklist T-1, Part 1 BMP Selection Matrix A: General Purpose Pollutant Removal Consider approaches to treat the remaining WQV with combinations of the BMPs in this table. The PE should select at least one BMP for the project; preference is for Tier 1 BMPs, followed by Tier 2 BMPs when Tier 1 BMPs are not feasible. Within each Tier, BMP selection will be determined by the site-specific determination of feasibility (Section ). BMPs are chosen based on the infiltration category determined in question 7. BMPs in other categories should be ignored. BMP ranking for infiltration category: Infiltration < 20% Infiltration 20% - 50% Infiltration > 50% Tier 1 Strip: HRT > 5 Austin filter (concrete) Austin filter (earthen) Delaware filter MCTT Wet basin Austin filter (earthen) Detention (unlined) Infiltration basins* Infiltration trenches* Biofiltration Strip Austin filter (earthen) Detention (unlined) Infiltration basins* Infiltration trenches* Biofiltration Strip Biofiltration Swale Tier 2 Strip: HRT < 5 Biofiltration Swale Detention (unlined) Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter Biofiltration Swale MCTT Wet basin Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter MCTT Wet basin HRT = hydraulic residence time (min) *Infiltration BMPs that infiltrate the water quality volume were considered previously, so only undersized infiltration BMPs or hybrid designs are considered where infiltration is less than 90% of the water quality volume. 9. Treating both Metals and Nutrients. Is copper, lead, zinc, or general metals AND nitrogen or phosphorous a TDC? If, use Matrix D to select BMPs, then skip to question 12. Otherwise, proceed to question Treating Only Metals. Are copper, lead, zinc, or general metals listed TDCs? If, use Matrix B below to select BMPs, and skip to question 12. Otherwise, proceed to question 11. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

101 Checklist T-1, Part 1 BMP Selection Matrix B: Any metal is the TDC, but not nitrogen or phosphorous Consider approaches to treat the remaining WQV with combinations of the BMPs in this table. The PE should select at least one BMP for the project; preference is for Tier 1 BMPs, followed by Tier 2 BMPs when Tier 1 BMPs are not feasible. Within each Tier, BMP selection will be determined by the site-specific determination of feasibility (Section ). BMPs are chosen based on the infiltration category determined in question 7. BMPs in other categories should be ignored. BMP ranking for infiltration category: Infiltration < 20% Infiltration 20% - 50% Infiltration > 50% Tier 1 MCTT Wet basin Austin filter (earthen) Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter Austin filter (earthen) Detention (unlined) Infiltration basins* Infiltration trenches* MCTT Wet basin Austin filter (earthen) Detention (unlined) Infiltration basins* Infiltration trenches* MCTT Biofiltration Strip Biofiltration Swale Wet basin Tier 2 Strip: HRT > 5 Strip: HRT < 5 Biofiltration Swale Detention (unlined) Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter Biofiltration Strip Biofiltration Swale Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter HRT = hydraulic residence time (min) *Infiltration BMPs that infiltrate the water quality volume were considered previously, so only undersized infiltration BMPs or hybrid designs are considered where infiltration is less than 90% of the water quality volume. 11. Treating Only Nutrients. Are nitrogen and/or phosphorus listed TDCs? If, use Matrix C to select BMPs. If, please check your answer to 8(a). At this point one of the matrices should have been used for BMP selection for the TDC in question, unless no BMPs are feasible. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

102 Checklist T-1, Part 1 BMP Selection Matrix C: Phosphorous and / or nitrogen is the TDC, but no metals are the TDC Consider approaches to treat the remaining WQV with combinations of the BMPs in this table. The PE should select at least one BMP for the project; preference is for Tier 1 BMPs, followed by Tier 2 BMPs when Tier 1 BMPs are not feasible. Within each Tier, BMP selection will be determined by the site-specific determination of feasibility (Section ). BMPs are chosen based on the infiltration category determined in question 7. BMPs in other categories should be ignored. Tier 1 Tier 2 BMP ranking for infiltration category: Infiltration < 20% Infiltration 20% - 50% Infiltration > 50% Austin filter (earthen) Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter** Wet basin Biofiltration Strip Biofiltration Swale Detention (unlined) Austin filter (earthen) Detention (unlined) Infiltration basins* Infiltration trenches* Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter Biofiltration Strip Biofiltration Swale Wet basin Austin filter (earthen) Detention (unlined) Infiltration basins* Infiltration trenches* Biofiltration Strip Biofiltration Swale Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter Wet basin * Infiltration BMPs that infiltrate the water quality volume were considered previously, so only undersized infiltration BMPs or hybrid designs are considered where infiltration is less than 90% of the water quality volume. ** Delaware filters would be ranked in Tier 2 if the TDC is nitrogen only, as opposed to phosphorous only or both nitrogen and phosphorous. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

103 Checklist T-1, Part 1 BMP Selection Matrix D: Any metal, plus phosphorous and / or nitrogen are the TDCs Consider approaches to treat the remaining WQV with combinations of the BMPs in this table. The PE should select at least one BMP for the project; preference is for Tier 1 BMPs, followed by Tier 2 BMPs when Tier 1 BMPs are not feasible. Within each Tier, BMP selection will be determined by the site-specific determination of feasibility (Section ). BMPs are chosen based on the infiltration category determined in question 7. BMPs in other categories should be ignored. BMP ranking for infiltration category: Infiltration < 20% Infiltration 20% - 50% Infiltration > 50% Tier 1 Wet basin* Austin filter (earthen) Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter** Wet basin* Austin filter (earthen) Detention (unlined) Infiltration basins*** Infiltration trenches*** Wet basin* Austin filter (earthen) Detention (unlined) Infiltration basins*** Infiltration trenches*** Biofiltration Strip Biofiltration Swale Tier 2 Biofiltration Strip Biofiltration Swale Detention (unlined) Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter Biofiltration Strip Biofiltration Swale Austin filter (concrete) Delaware filter * The wet basin should only be considered for phosphorus ** In cases where earthen BMPs can infiltrate, Delaware filters are ranked in Tier 2 if the TDC is nitrogen only, but they are Tier 1 for phosphorous only or both nitrogen and phosphorous. *** Infiltration BMPs that infiltrate the water quality volume were considered previously, so only undersized infiltration BMPs or hybrid designs are considered where infiltration is less than 90% of the water quality volume. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

104 Checklist T-1, Part Does the project discharge to a 303(d) waterbody that is listed for mercury or low dissolved oxygen? If, contact the District/Regional NPDES Storm Water Coordinator to determine if standing water in a Delaware filter, wet basin, or MCTT would be a risk to downstream water quality. 13. After completing the above, identify and attach the checklists shown below for every Treatment BMP under consideration. (use one checklist every time the BMP is considered for a different drainage within the project) _ _ Biofiltration Strips and Biofiltration Swales: Checklist T-1, Part 2 Dry Weather Diversion: Checklist T-1, Part 3 _ _ Infiltration Devices: Checklist T-1, Part 4 Detention Devices: Checklist T-1, Part 5 GSRDs: Checklist T-1, Part 6 Traction Sand Traps: Checklist T-1, Part 7 Media Filter [Austin Sand Filter and Delaware Filter]: Checklist T-1, Part 8 Multi-Chambered Treatment Train: Checklist T-1, Part 9 Wet Basins: Checklist T-1, Part 10 Complete 14. Estimate what percentage of the net WQV (for all new impervious surfaces within the project) or WQF (depending upon the Treatment BMP selected) will be treated by the preferred Treatment BMP(s): 109 %* Complete 15. Estimate what percentage of the net WQV (for all new impervious surfaces within the project) that will be infiltrated by the preferred treatment BMP(s): 98 %** Complete 16. Prepare cost estimate, including right-of-way, and site specific determination of feasibility (Section ) for selected Treatment BMPs and include as supplemental information for SWDR approval. Complete *te: The amount of treatment should be calculated for each BMP and each subwatershed, unless all BMPs within a project are the same. Document in SWDR. **te: The Water Quality Volume infiltrated should be documented for the entire project and also for each subwatershed. Document in SWDR. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

105 Checklist T-1, Part 2 Treatment BMPs Checklist T-1, Part 2 Prepared by: W. Hsu Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Biofiltration Swales / Biofiltration Strips Feasibility 1. Do the climate and site conditions allow vegetation to be established? 2. Are flow velocities from a peak drainage facility design event < 4 fps (i.e. low enough to prevent scour of the vegetated biofiltration swale as per HDM Table 873.3E)? If to either question above, Biofiltration Swales and Biofiltration Strips are not feasible. 3. Are Biofiltration Swales proposed at sites where known contaminated soils or groundwater plumes exist? If, consult with District/Regional NPDES Coordinator about how to proceed. 4. Does adequate area exist within the right-of-way to place Biofiltration device(s)? If, continue to Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area does not exist within right-of-way, can suitable, additional rightof-way be acquired to site Biofiltration devices and how much right-of-way would be needed to treat WQF? acres If, continue to Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area cannot be obtained, document in Section 5 of the SWDR that the inability to obtain adequate area prevents the incorporation of these Treatment BMPs into the project. Complete Design Elements * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Has the District Landscape Architect provided vegetation mixes appropriate for climate and location? * Vegetation mixes will be provided by the District Landscape Architect during final design. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

106 Checklist T-1, Part 2 2. Can the biofiltration swale be designed as a conveyance system under any expected flows > the WQF event, as per HDM Chapter 800? * (e.g. freeboard, minimum slope, etc.) 3. Can the biofiltration swale be designed as a water quality treatment device under the WQF while meeting the required HRT, depth, and velocity criteria? (Reference Appendix B, Section B.2.3.1)* 4. Is the maximum length of a biofiltration strip 100 ft? Strips > 100 ft. may still be considered as long as potential erosion issues have been addressed.** biofiltration strips are proposed. 5. Has the minimum width (perpendicular to flow) of the invert of the biofiltration swale received the concurrence of Maintenance? * This will be done during the final design phase. 6. Can biofiltration swales be located in natural or low cut sections to reduce maintenance problems caused by animals burrowing through the berm of the swale? ** 7. Has the infiltration rate of the bio-filtration device been calculated and maximized through amendments where appropriate. ** This will be determined during the final design phase. 8. Have Biofiltration Systems been considered for locations upstream of other Treatment BMPs, as part of a treatment train? ** Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

107 Checklist T-1, Part 3 Treatment BMPs Checklist T-1, Part 3 Prepared by: W. Hsu Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Dry Weather Flow Diversion NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT Feasibility 1. Is a Dry-Weather Flow Diversion acceptable to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)? 2. Would a connection require ordinary (i.e., not extraordinary) plumbing, features or construction methods to implement? If to either question above, Dry Weather Flow Diversion is not feasible. 3. Does adequate area exist within the right-of-way to place Dry Weather Flow Diversion devices? If, continue to Design Elements sections. If, continue to Question If adequate area does not exist within right-of-way, can suitable, additional right-ofway be acquired to site Dry Weather Flow Diversion devices and how much right-ofway would be needed? (acres) If, continue to the Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area cannot be obtained, document in Section 5 of the SWDR that the inability to obtain adequate area prevents the incorporation of this Treatment BMP into the project. Complete Design Elements * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Does the existing sanitary sewer pipeline have adequate capacity to accept project dry weather flows, or can an upgrade be implemented to handle the anticipated dry weather flows within the project s budget and objectives? * 2. Can the connection be designed to allow for Maintenance vehicle access? * 3. Can gate, weir, or valve be designed to stop diversion during storm events? * 4. Can the inlet be designed to reduce chances of clogging the diversion pipe or channel? * 5. Can a back flow prevention device be designed to prevent sanitary sewage from entering storm drain? * Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide August 2010

108 Checklist T-1, Part 4 Prepared by: W. Hsu Treatment BMPs Checklist T-1, Part 4 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Infiltration Devices Feasibility 1. Does local Basin Plan or other local ordinance provide influent limits on quality of water that can be infiltrated, and would infiltration pose a threat to groundwater quality? 2. Does infiltration at the site compromise the integrity of any slopes in the area? 3. Per survey data or U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quad Map, are existing slopes at the proposed device site >15%? 4. At the invert, does the soil type classify as NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) D, or does the soil have an infiltration rate < 0.5 inches/hr? For Design Pollution Prevention BMPs, can the soil be amended to provide an adequate infiltration rate and void space. 5. Is site located over a previously identified contaminated groundwater plume? If to any question above, Infiltration Devices are not feasible; stop here and consider other approved Treatment BMPs. 6. (a) Does site have groundwater within 10 ft of basin invert? (b) Does site investigation indicate that the infiltration rate is significantly greater than 2.5 inches/hr? If to either part of Question 6, the RWQCB must be consulted, and the RWQCB must conclude that the groundwater quality will not be compromised, before approving the site for infiltration. 7. Does adequate area exist within the right-of-way to place Infiltration Device(s)? If, continue to Design Elements sections. If, continue to Question If adequate area does not exist within right-of-way, can suitable, additional rightof-way be acquired to site Infiltration Devices and how much right-of-way would be needed to treat WQV? acres If, continue to Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area cannot be obtained, document in Section 5 of the SWDR that the inability to obtain adequate area prevents the incorporation of this Treatment BMP into the project. Complete Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

109 Design Elements Infiltration Basin Checklist T-1, Part 4 * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Has a detailed investigation been conducted, including subsurface soil investigation, in-hole conductivity testing and groundwater elevation determination? (This report must be completed for PS&E level design.) * This will be done during the final design phase. 2. Has an overflow spillway with scour protection been provided? * 3. Is the Infiltration Basin size sufficient to capture the WQV while maintaining a hour drawdown time? If the BMP is used in series with a biofiltration device, then does the total upstream infiltration plus the Infiltration Basin volume at least equal the WQV. * 4. Can access be placed to the invert of the Infiltration Basin? * 5. Can the Infiltration Basin accommodate the freeboard above the overflow event elevation (reference Appendix B.1.3.1)? * 6. Can the Infiltration Basin be designed with interior side slopes no steeper than 4:1 (h:v) (may be 3:1 [h:v] with approval by District Maintenance)? * 7. Can vegetation be established in the Infiltration Basin? ** 8. Can diversion be designed, constructed, and maintained to bypass flows exceeding the WQV? ** 9. Can a gravity-fed Maintenance Drain be placed? ** Design Elements Infiltration Trench 1. Has a detailed investigation been conducted, including subsurface soil investigation, in-hole conductivity testing and groundwater elevation determination? (This report must be completed for PS&E level design.) * 2. Is the surrounding soil within Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG) Types A or B? ** 3. Since this BMP is used in series with a pretreatment (see. 7 below), then does the total upstream infiltration by the pretreatment plus the void space volume of the Infiltration Trench at least equal the WQV, while maintaining a drawdown time of 72 hours? ** 4. Is the depth of the Infiltration Trench 13 ft? * 5. Can an observation well be placed in the trench? ** 6. Can access be provided to the Infiltration Trench? * 7. Can pretreatment be provided to capture sediment in the runoff (such as using vegetation)? * 8. Can flow diversion be designed, constructed, and maintained to bypass flows exceeding the Water Quality event? ** Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

110 Checklist T-1, Part 4 9. Can a perimeter curb or similar device be provided (to limit wheel loads upon the trench)? ** Design Elements and Feasibility Infiltration-DPP BMPs * Required Design Element (see definition above) ** Recommended Design Element (see definition above) 1. Has a detailed soil investigation been conducted, to assure stability of the slope? ** This will be done during the final design phase. 2. Does the soil have adequate infiltration rates or can the soil be amended to increase its infiltrating properties? ** This will be determined during the final design phase. 3. Are flow velocities from a peak drainage facility design event < 4 fps (i.e. low enough to prevent scour or erosion of DPP (swale or conveyance) as per HDM Table 873.3E)? Or has the BMP been designed to prevent scour or erosion for higher velocities (e.g. rock lined ditch). * This will be done during the final design phase. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

111 Checklist T-1, Part 5 Treatment BMPs Checklist T-1, Part 5 Prepared by: W. Hsu Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Detention Devices APPLICABLE ONLY IF INFILTRATION BASINS CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED. TO BE DETERMINED DURING PS&E. Feasibility 1. Is there sufficient head to prevent objectionable backwater conditions in the upstream drainage systems? 2. 2a) Is the volume of the Detention Device equal to at least the WQV? (te: the WQV must be 4,356 ft 3 [0.1 acre-feet]). If the BMP is used in series with a biofiltration device, then does the total upstream infiltration plus the Detention Device volume at least equal the WQV? Only answer (b) if the Detention Device is being used also to capture traction sand. 2b) Is the total volume of the Detention Device at least equal to the WQV plus the anticipated volume of traction sand, while maintaining a minimum 12 inch freeboard (1 ft)? 3. Is basin invert 10 ft above seasonally high groundwater or can it be designed with an impermeable liner? (te: If an impermeable liner is used, the seasonally high groundwater elevation must not encroach within 12 inches of the invert.) If to any question above, then Detention Devices are not feasible. 4. Does adequate area exist within the right-of-way to place Detention Device(s)? If, continue to the Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area does not exist within right-of-way, can suitable, additional rightof-way be acquired to site Detention Device(s) and how much right-of way would be needed to treat WQV? acres If, continue to the Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area cannot be obtained, document in Section 5 of the SWDR that the inability to obtain adequate area prevents the incorporation of this Treatment BMP into the project. Complete Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

112 Checklist T-1, Part 5 Design Elements * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Has the geotechnical integrity of the site been evaluated to determine potential impacts to surrounding slopes due to incidental infiltration? If incidental infiltration through the invert of an unlined Detention Device is a concern, consider using an impermeable liner. * 2. Has the location of the Detention Device been evaluated for any effects to the adjacent roadway and subgrade? * 3. Can a minimum freeboard of 12 inches be provided above the overflow event elevation? * 4. Is an overflow outlet provided? * 5. Is the drawdown time of the Detention Device within 24 to 72 hours? * 6. Is the basin outlet designed to minimize clogging (minimum outlet orifice diameter of 0.5 inches)? * 7. Are the inlet and outlet structures designed to prevent scour and re-suspension of settled materials, and to enhance quiescent conditions? * 8. Can vegetation be established in an earthen basin at the invert and on the side slopes for erosion control and to minimize re-suspension? te: Detention Basins may be lined, in which case no vegetation would be required for lined areas.* 9. Has sufficient access for Maintenance been provided? * 10. Is the side slope 4:1 (h:v) or flatter for interior slopes? ** (te: Side slopes up to 3:1 (h:v) allowed with approval by District Maintenance.) 11. If significant sediment is expected from nearby slopes, can the Detention Device be designed with additional volume equal to the expected annual loading? ** 12. Is flow path as long as possible (> 2:1 length to width ratio at WQV elevation is recommended)? ** Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

113 Checklist T-1, Part 6 Prepared by: W. Hsu Treatment BMPs Checklist T-1, Part 6 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Gross Solids Removal Devices (GSRDs) NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT Feasibility 1. Is the receiving water body downstream of the tributary area to the proposed GSRD on a 303(d) list or has a TMDL for litter been established? 2. Are the devices sized for flows generated by the peak drainage facility design event or can peak flow be diverted? 3. Are the devices sized to contain gross solids (litter and vegetation) for a period of one year? 4. Is there sufficient access for maintenance and large equipment (vacuum truck)? If to any question above, then Gross Solids Removal Devices are not feasible. te that Biofiltration Systems, Infiltration Devices, Detention Devices, Dry Weather Flow Diversion, MCTT, Media Filters, and Wet Basins may be considered for litter capture, but consult with District/Regional NPDES if proposed to meet a TMDL for litter. 5. Does adequate area exist within the right-of-way to place Gross Solids Removal Devices? If, continue to Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area does not exist within right-of-way, can suitable, additional rightof-way be acquired to site Gross Solids Removal Devices and how much right-ofway would be needed? acres If, continue to Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area cannot be obtained, document in Section 5 of the SWDR that the inability to obtain adequate area prevents the incorporation of this Treatment BMP into the project. Complete Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

114 Checklist T-1, Part 6 Design Elements Linear Radial Device * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Does sufficient hydraulic head exist to place the Linear Radial GSRD? * 2. Was the litter accumulation rate of 10 ft 3 /ac/yr (or a different rate recommended by Maintenance) used to size the device? * 3. Were the standard detail sheets used for the layout of the devices? ** If, consult with Headquarters Office of Storm Water Management and District/Regional NPDES. 4. Is the maximum depth of the storage within 10 ft of the ground surface, or another depth as required by District Maintenance? * Design Elements Inclined Screen * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Does sufficient hydraulic head exist to place the Inclined Screen GSRD? * 2. Was the litter accumulation rate of 10 ft 3 /ac/yr (or a different rate recommended by Maintenance) used to size the device? * 3. Were the standard details sheets used for the layout of the devices? ** If, consult with Headquarters Office of Storm Water Management and District NPDES. 4. Is the maximum depth of the storage within 10 ft of the ground surface, or another depth as required by District Maintenance? * Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

115 Checklist T-1, Part 7 Prepared by: W. Hsu Treatment BMPs Checklist T-1, Part 7 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Traction Sand Traps NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT Feasibility 1. Can a Detention Device be sized to capture the estimated traction sand and the WQV from the tributary area? If, then a separate Traction Sand Trap may not be necessary. Coordinate with the District/Regional Design Storm Water Coordinator and also complete Checklist T-1, Part Is the Traction Sand Trap proposed for a site where sand or other traction enhancing substances are applied to the roadway at least twice per year? 3. Is adequate space provided for Maintenance staff and equipment access for annual cleanout? If the answer to any one of Questions 2 or 3 is, then a Traction Sand Trap is not feasible. 4. Does adequate area exist within the right-of-way to place Traction Sand Traps? If, continue to Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area does not exist within right-of-way, can suitable, additional rightof-way be acquired to site Traction Sand Traps and how much right-of-way would be needed? acres If, continue to the Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area cannot be obtained, document in Section 5 of the SWDR that the inability to obtain adequate area prevents the incorporation of this Treatment BMP into the project. Complete Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

116 Checklist T-1, Part 7 Design Elements * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Was the local Caltrans Maintenance Station contracted to provide the amount of traction sand used annually at the location? * (Detention Device or CMP type) List application rate reported. yd 3 2. Does the Traction Sand Trap have enough volume to store settled sand over the winter using the formula presented in Appendix B, Section B.5? * (Detention Device or CMP type) 3. Is the invert of the Traction Sand Trap a minimum of 3 ft above seasonally high groundwater? * (CMP type) 4. Is the maximum depth of the storage within 10 ft of the ground surface, or another depth as required by District Maintenance? * (CMP type) 5. Can peak flow be diverted around the device? ** (CMP type) 6. Can peak flow be diverted around the device? ** (CMP type) 7. Is 6 inches separation provided between the top of the captured traction sand and the outlet from the device, in order to minimize re-suspension of the solids? ** (CMP type) Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

117 Checklist T-1, Part 8 Prepared by: W. Hsu Treatment BMPs Checklist T-1, Part 8 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Media Filters APPLICABLE ONLY IF INFILTRATION BASINS CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED. TO BE DETERMINED DURING PS&E. Caltrans has approved two types of Media Filter: Austin Sand Filters and Delaware Filters. Austin Sand filters are typically designed for larger drainage areas, while Delaware Filters are typically designed for smaller drainage areas. The Austin Sand Filter is constructed with an open top and may have a concrete or earthen invert, while the Delaware is always constructed as a vault. See Appendix B, Media Filters, for a further description of Media Filters. Feasibility Austin Sand Filter 1. Is the volume of the Austin Sand Filter equal to at least the WQV using a 24 hour drawdown? (te: the WQV must be 4,356 ft 3 [0.1 acre-feet]) 2. Is there sufficient hydraulic head to operate the device (minimum 3 ft between the inflow and outflow chambers)? 3. If initial chamber has an earthen bottom, is initial chamber invert 3 ft above seasonally high groundwater? 4. If a vault is used for either chamber, is the level of the concrete base of the vault above seasonally high groundwater or is a special design provided? If to any question above, then an Austin Sand Filter is not feasible. 5. Does adequate area exist within the right-of-way to place an Austin Sand Filter(s)? If, continue to Design Elements sections. If, continue to Question If adequate area does not exist within right-of-way, can suitable, additional rightof-way be acquired to site the device and how much right-of way would be needed to treat WQV? acres If, continue to the Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area cannot be obtained, document in Section 5 of the SWDR that the inability to obtain adequate area prevents the incorporation of this Treatment BMP into the project. If an Austin Sand Filter meets these feasibility requirements, continue to the Design Elements Austin Sand Filter below. Complete Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

118 Checklist T-1, Part 8 Feasibility- Delaware Filter 1. Is the volume of the Delaware Filter equal to at least the WQV using a 48 hour drawdown? (te: the WQV must be 4,356 ft 3 [0.1 acre-feet], consult with District/Regional Design Storm Water Coordinator if a lesser volume is under consideration.) 2. Is there sufficient hydraulic head to operate the device (minimum 3 ft between the inflow and outflow chambers)? 3. Would a permanent pool of water be allowed by the local vector control agency? Confirm that check valves and vector proof lid as shown on standard detail sheets will be allowed, is used. If to any question, then a Delaware Filter is not feasible 4. Does adequate area exist within the right-of-way to place a Delaware Filter(s)? If, continue to Design Elements sections. If, continue to Question If adequate area does not exist within right-of-way, can suitable, additional rightof-way be acquired to site the device and how much right-of way would be needed to treat WQV? acres If, continue to the Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area cannot be obtained, document in Section 5 of the SWDR that the inability to obtain adequate area prevents the incorporation of this Treatment BMP into the project. Complete 7. Does the project discharge to a waterbody that has been placed on the 303-d list or has had a TMDL adopted for bacteria, mercury, sulfides, or low dissolved oxygen? If yes, contact the Regional/District NPDES Storm Water Coordinator to determine if standing water in this treatment BMP would be a risk to downstream water quality. If standing water is a potential issue, consider use of another treatment BMP. If a Delaware Filter is still under consideration, continue to the Design Elements Delaware Filter section. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

119 Checklist T-1, Part 8 Design Elements Austin Sand Filter * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Is the drawdown time of the 2 nd chamber 24 hours? * 2. Is access for Maintenance vehicles provided to the Austin Sand Filter? * 3. Is a bypass/overflow provided for storms > WQV? * 4. Is the flow path length to width ratio for the sedimentation chamber of the full Austin Sand Filter 2:1? ** 5. Can pretreatment be provided to capture sediment and litter in the runoff (such as using vegetation)? ** 6. Can the Austin Sand Filter be placed using an earthen configuration? ** If, go to Question Is the Austin Sand Filter invert separated from the seasonally high groundwater table by 10 ft)? * If, design with an impermeable liner. 8. Are side slopes of the earthen chamber 3:1 (h:v) or flatter? * 9. Is maximum depth 13 ft below ground surface? * 10. Can the Austin Sand Filter be placed in an offline configuration? ** Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide August 2010

120 Checklist T-1, Part 8 Design Elements Delaware Filter * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Is the drawdown time of the 2 nd chamber between 40 and 48 hours, typically 40- hrs? * 2. Is access for Maintenance vehicles provided to the Delaware Filter? * 3. Is a bypass/overflow provided for storms > WQV? ** 4. Can pretreatment be provided to capture sediment and litter in the runoff (such as using vegetation)? ** 5. Is maximum depth 13 ft below ground surface? * Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide August 2010

121 Checklist T-1, Part 9 Prepared by: W. Hsu Treatment BMPs Checklist T-1, Part 9 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) MCTT (Multi-chambered Treatment Train) NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT Feasibility 1. Is the proposed location for the MCTT located to serve a critical source area (i.e. vehicle service facility, parking area, paved storage area, or fueling station)? 2. Is the WQV 4,346 ft 3 [0.1 acre-foot]? 3. Is there sufficient hydraulic head (typically 6 feet) to operate the device? 4. Would a permanent pool of water be allowed by the local vector control agency? Confirm that check valves and vector proof lid as shown on standard detail sheets be allowed. If to any question above, then an MCTT is not feasible. 5. Does adequate area exist within the right-of-way to place an MCTT(s)? If, continue to Design Elements sections. If, continue to Question If adequate area does not exist within right-of-way, can suitable, additional rightof-way be acquired to site the device and how much right-of way would be needed to treat WQV? acres If, continue to Design Elements section. If, continue to Question If adequate area cannot be obtained, document in Section 5 of the SWDR that the inability to obtain adequate area prevents the incorporation of this Treatment BMP into the project. Complete 8. Does the project discharge to a waterbody that has been placed on the 303-d list or has had a TMDL adopted for bacteria, mercury, sulfides, low dissolved oxygen, or odors? If yes, contact the Regional/District NPDES Storm Water Coordinator to determine if standing water in this treatment BMP would be a risk to downstream water quality. If standing water is a potential issue, consider use of another treatment BMP. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

122 Checklist T-1, Part 9 Design Elements * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Is the maximum depth of the 3rd chamber 13 ft below ground surface and has Maintenance accepted this depth? * 2. Is the drawdown time in the 3rd chamber between 24 and 48 hours, typically designed for 24-hrs? * 3. Is access for Maintenance vehicles provided to all chambers of the MCTT? * 4. Is there sufficient hydraulic head to operate the device? * 5. Has a bypass/overflow been provided for storms > WQV? * 6. Can pretreatment be provided to capture sediment and litter in the runoff (such as using vegetation)? ** Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

123 Checklist T-1, Part 10 Prepared by: W. Hsu Treatment BMPs Checklist T-1, Part 10 Date: January 4, 2016 District-Co-Route: 08-RIV-79 PM : R15.8/R33.8 Project ID (or EA): RWQCB: Santa Ana (8) and San Diego (9) Wet Basin NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT Feasibility 1. Is the volume of the Wet Basin above the permanent pool equal to at least the WQV using a 24 to 96 hour drawdown (40 to 48 hour drawdown preferred)? (te: the WQV must be 4,356 ft 3 [0.1 acre-feet] and the permanent pool must be at least 3x the WQV.) 2. Is a permanent source of water available in sufficient quantities to maintain the permanent pool for the Wet Basin? 3. Is proposed site in a location where naturally occurring wetlands do not exist? Answer either question 4 or question 5: 4. For Wet Basins with a proposed invert above the seasonally high groundwater, Are NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups [HSG] C and D at the proposed invert elevation, or can an impermeable liner be used? (te: If an impermeable liner is used, the seasonally high groundwater elevation must not encroach within 12 inches of the invert.) 5. For Wet Basins with a proposed invert below the groundwater table: Can written approval from the local Regional Water Quality Control Board be obtained to place the Wet Basin in direct hydraulic connectivity to the groundwater? 6. Is freeboard provided 1 foot? 7. Is the maximum impoundment volume < acre-feet? 8. Would a permanent pool of water be allowed by the local vector control agency? If to any question above, then a Wet Basin is not feasible. 9. Is the maximum basin width 49 ft as suggested in Section B.10.2? If, consult with the local vector control agency and District Maintenance. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

124 Checklist T-1, Part Does adequate area exist within the right-of-way to place a Wet Basin? If, continue to Design Elements sections. If, continue to Question If adequate area does not exist within right-of-way, can suitable, additional rightof-way be acquired to site the device and how much right-of way would be needed to treat WQV? acres If, continue to Design Elements section. If, continue to Question Have the appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies been contacted to discuss location and potential to attract and harbor sensitive or endangered species? If, contact the Regional/District NPDES Coordinator 13. If adequate area cannot be obtained, document in Section 5 of the SWDR that the inability to obtain adequate area prevents the incorporation of this Treatment BMP into the project. Complete 14. Does the project discharge to a waterbody that has been placed on the 303-d list or has had a TMDL adopted for bacteria, mercury, sulfides, low dissolved oxygen, or odors? If yes, contact the Regional/District NPDES Storm Water Coordinator to determine if standing water in this treatment BMP would be a risk to downstream water quality. If standing water is a potential issue, consider use of another treatment BMP. Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

125 Checklist T-1, Part 10 Design Elements * Required Design Element A response to these questions is required to further the consideration of this BMP into the project design. Document a response in Section 5 of the SWDR to describe why this Treatment BMP cannot be included into the project design. ** Recommended Design Element A response is preferred for these questions, but not required for incorporation into a project design. 1. Can a controlled outlet and an overflow structure be designed for storm events larger than the Water Quality event? * 2. Is access for Maintenance vehicles provided? * 3. Is the drawdown time for the WQV between 24 and 96 hours? * 4. Has appropriate vegetation been selected for each hydrologic zone? * 5. Can all design elements required by the local vector control agency be incorporated? * 6. Has a minimum flow path length-to-width ration of at least 2:1 been provided? ** 7. Has an upstream bypass been provided for storms > WQV? ** 8. Can pretreatment be provided to capture sediment and litter in the runoff (such as using vegetation, or a forebay)? ** 9. Can public access be restricted using a fence if proposed at locations accessible on foot by the public? ** 10. Is the maximum depth < 10 ft?" Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks Project Planning and Design Guide May 2012

126 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 CALCULATIONS AND CROSS SECTIONS RELATED TO BMPS CH2M

127 SR 79 Realignment Project Bioswale BB-2a Biofiltration Swale Calculations Water Quality Flow Runoff Coefficients Design Storm, Q 25 Paved area treated 3.34 ac WQF Design Storm I 25 (t c = 5 min) 3.44 in/hr Unpaved area treated 0 ac C paved I 25 (t c = 10 min) 2.39 in/hr Assumed freeboard 0.2 ft C unpaved Q cfs WQ Rainfall Intesity 0.2 in/hr WQF 0.67 cfs WQF event - use n = 0.24 Manning's Equation : Q = (1.486*A*(R^0.67)*(S^0.5))/n (ENGLISH) Bioswale schematic x z y x b (Lt side (Rt side S Length (ft) slope) slope) n (ft / ft) (ft) b Input Site Data on this row z initial trial depth ft Solve by trial and error on the initial and increment depths, match required Q TDA increment on depth ft depth y (=Depth) A P R Q Velocity HRT HRT criteria met inches (feet) (feet ^ 2) (feet) (feet) (ft^3 / sec) (ft/sec) (minutes) (sec^2/ft^2) max = 6 inches max = 1.0 ft/s min = 5 minutes HRT*60/(y*V) >= , , , , , , , , ,445 Criteria 1. HRT*60/(y * V) >= V max <= 1.0 fps 3. Depth <= 6 inches 4. HRT >= 5 minutes Criteria Checks HRT Criteria s2/ft2 ok V WQF 0.2 fps ok d WQF 5.7 in ok HRT min ok file: Treatment BMPs_SR-79.xlsx, tab: BB-2a 1 of 8 1/13/2016 1:23 PM

128 SR 79 Realignment Project Bioswale BB-2a Biofiltration Swale Calculations HDM event, Q25 - use n = 0.05 x z (Lt side (Rt side b (feet) slope) slope) n S (feet / feet) Length (feet) Data copied from above initial trial depth ft Solve by trial and error on the initial and increment depths, match required Q increment on depth ft depth y (=Depth) A P R Q Velocity inches (feet) (feet ^ 2) (feet) (feet) (ft^3 / sec) (ft/sec) no max depth max = 4.0 ft/s Design Calculations Interpolated Depth, d Q in Interpolated Velocity, V Q fps Froude #, Fr 0.20 subcritical Freeboard Required 0.01 ft Minimum Curve Radius, R 0 ft Superelevation, E 0.00 ft Min BSW depth, h req'd 0.93 ft Freeboard and Superelevation are based on HDM Topic Criteria Checks V Q fps ok BSW Design Summary Bottom Width, B 4.0 ft Height, H 1.00 ft Side Slope, Z 4.0 ft/ft Long. Slope, S ft/ft file: Treatment BMPs_SR-79.xlsx, tab: BB-2a 2 of 8 1/13/2016 1:23 PM

129 SR 79 Realignment Project Bioswale BB-2b Biofiltration Swale Calculations Water Quality Flow Runoff Coefficients Design Storm, Q 25 Paved area treated 3.34 ac WQF Design Storm I 25 (t c = 5 min) 3.44 in/hr Unpaved area treated 0 ac C paved I 25 (t c = 10 min) 2.39 in/hr Assumed freeboard 0.2 ft C unpaved Q cfs WQ Rainfall Intesity 0.2 in/hr WQF 0.67 cfs WQF event - use n = 0.24 Manning's Equation : Q = (1.486*A*(R^0.67)*(S^0.5))/n (ENGLISH) Bioswale schematic x z y x b (Lt side (Rt side S Length (ft) slope) slope) n (ft / ft) (ft) b Input Site Data on this row z initial trial depth ft Solve by trial and error on the initial and increment depths, match required Q TDA increment on depth ft depth y (=Depth) A P R Q Velocity HRT HRT criteria met inches (feet) (feet ^ 2) (feet) (feet) (ft^3 / sec) (ft/sec) (minutes) (sec^2/ft^2) max = 6 inches max = 1.0 ft/s min = 5 minutes HRT*60/(y*V) >= , , , , , , , , ,445 Criteria 1. HRT*60/(y * V) >= V max <= 1.0 fps 3. Depth <= 6 inches 4. HRT >= 5 minutes Criteria Checks HRT Criteria s2/ft2 ok V WQF 0.2 fps ok d WQF 5.7 in ok HRT min ok file: Treatment BMPs_SR-79.xlsx, tab: BB-2b 3 of 8 1/13/2016 1:23 PM

130 SR 79 Realignment Project Bioswale BB-2b Biofiltration Swale Calculations HDM event, Q25 - use n = 0.05 x z (Lt side (Rt side b (feet) slope) slope) n S (feet / feet) Length (feet) Data copied from above initial trial depth ft Solve by trial and error on the initial and increment depths, match required Q increment on depth ft depth y (=Depth) A P R Q Velocity inches (feet) (feet ^ 2) (feet) (feet) (ft^3 / sec) (ft/sec) no max depth max = 4.0 ft/s Design Calculations Interpolated Depth, d Q in Interpolated Velocity, V Q fps Froude #, Fr 0.20 subcritical Freeboard Required 0.01 ft Minimum Curve Radius, R 0 ft Superelevation, E 0.00 ft Min BSW depth, h req'd 0.93 ft Freeboard and Superelevation are based on HDM Topic Criteria Checks V Q fps ok BSW Design Summary Bottom Width, B 4.0 ft Height, H 1.00 ft Side Slope, Z 4.0 ft/ft Long. Slope, S ft/ft file: Treatment BMPs_SR-79.xlsx, tab: BB-2b 4 of 8 1/13/2016 1:23 PM

131 SR 79 Realignment Project Bioswale GB-2a Biofiltration Swale Calculations Water Quality Flow Runoff Coefficients Design Storm, Q 25 Paved area treated 8.6 ac WQF Design Storm I 25 (t c = 5 min) 3.44 in/hr Unpaved area treated 0 ac C paved I 25 (t c = 10 min) 2.39 in/hr Assumed freeboard 0.2 ft C unpaved Q cfs WQ Rainfall Intesity 0.2 in/hr WQF 1.72 cfs WQF event - use n = 0.24 Manning's Equation : Q = (1.486*A*(R^0.67)*(S^0.5))/n (ENGLISH) Bioswale schematic x z y x b (Lt side (Rt side S Length (ft) slope) slope) n (ft / ft) (ft) b Input Site Data on this row z initial trial depth ft Solve by trial and error on the initial and increment depths, match required Q TDA increment on depth ft depth y (=Depth) A P R Q Velocity HRT HRT criteria met inches (feet) (feet ^ 2) (feet) (feet) (ft^3 / sec) (ft/sec) (minutes) (sec^2/ft^2) max = 6 inches max = 1.0 ft/s min = 5 minutes HRT*60/(y*V) >= , , , , , , , , ,047 Criteria 1. HRT*60/(y * V) >= V max <= 1.0 fps 3. Depth <= 6 inches 4. HRT >= 5 minutes Criteria Checks HRT Criteria s2/ft2 ok V WQF 0.4 fps ok d WQF 6.0 in ok HRT min ok file: Treatment BMPs_SR-79.xlsx, tab: GB-2a 5 of 8 1/13/2016 1:23 PM

132 SR 79 Realignment Project Bioswale GB-2a Biofiltration Swale Calculations HDM event, Q25 - use n = 0.05 x z (Lt side (Rt side b (feet) slope) slope) n S (feet / feet) Length (feet) Data copied from above initial trial depth ft Solve by trial and error on the initial and increment depths, match required Q increment on depth ft depth y (=Depth) A P R Q Velocity inches (feet) (feet ^ 2) (feet) (feet) (ft^3 / sec) (ft/sec) no max depth max = 4.0 ft/s Design Calculations Interpolated Depth, d Q in Interpolated Velocity, V Q fps Froude #, Fr 0.38 subcritical Freeboard Required 0.03 ft Minimum Curve Radius, R 0 ft Superelevation, E 0.00 ft Min BSW depth, h req'd 1.01 ft Freeboard and Superelevation are based on HDM Topic Criteria Checks V Q fps ok BSW Design Summary Bottom Width, B 6.0 ft Height, H 1.25 ft Side Slope, Z 4.0 ft/ft NO!, Vel >4.0 ft/s Long. Slope, S ft/ft file: Treatment BMPs_SR-79.xlsx, tab: GB-2a 6 of 8 1/13/2016 1:23 PM

133 SR 79 Realignment Project Bioswale GB-2b Biofiltration Swale Calculations Water Quality Flow Runoff Coefficients Design Storm, Q 25 Paved area treated 8.6 ac WQF Design Storm I 25 (t c = 5 min) 3.44 in/hr Unpaved area treated 0 ac C paved I 25 (t c = 10 min) 2.39 in/hr Assumed freeboard 0.2 ft C unpaved Q cfs WQ Rainfall Intesity 0.2 in/hr WQF 1.72 cfs WQF event - use n = 0.24 Manning's Equation : Q = (1.486*A*(R^0.67)*(S^0.5))/n (ENGLISH) Bioswale schematic x z y x b (Lt side (Rt side S Length (ft) slope) slope) n (ft / ft) (ft) b Input Site Data on this row z initial trial depth ft Solve by trial and error on the initial and increment depths, match required Q TDA increment on depth ft depth y (=Depth) A P R Q Velocity HRT HRT criteria met inches (feet) (feet ^ 2) (feet) (feet) (ft^3 / sec) (ft/sec) (minutes) (sec^2/ft^2) max = 6 inches max = 1.0 ft/s min = 5 minutes HRT*60/(y*V) >= , , , , , , , , ,047 Criteria 1. HRT*60/(y * V) >= V max <= 1.0 fps 3. Depth <= 6 inches 4. HRT >= 5 minutes Criteria Checks HRT Criteria s2/ft2 ok V WQF 0.4 fps ok d WQF 6.0 in ok HRT min ok file: Treatment BMPs_SR-79.xlsx, tab: GB-2b 7 of 8 1/13/2016 1:23 PM

134 SR 79 Realignment Project Bioswale GB-2b Biofiltration Swale Calculations HDM event, Q25 - use n = 0.05 x z (Lt side (Rt side b (feet) slope) slope) n S (feet / feet) Length (feet) Data copied from above initial trial depth ft Solve by trial and error on the initial and increment depths, match required Q increment on depth ft depth y (=Depth) A P R Q Velocity inches (feet) (feet ^ 2) (feet) (feet) (ft^3 / sec) (ft/sec) no max depth max = 4.0 ft/s Design Calculations Interpolated Depth, d Q in Interpolated Velocity, V Q fps Froude #, Fr 0.38 subcritical Freeboard Required 0.03 ft Minimum Curve Radius, R 0 ft Superelevation, E 0.00 ft Min BSW depth, h req'd 1.01 ft Freeboard and Superelevation are based on HDM Topic Criteria Checks V Q fps ok BSW Design Summary Bottom Width, B 6.0 ft Height, H 1.25 ft Side Slope, Z 4.0 ft/ft NO!, Vel >4.0 ft/s Long. Slope, S ft/ft file: Treatment BMPs_SR-79.xlsx, tab: GB-2b 8 of 8 1/13/2016 1:23 PM

135 STORM WATER DATA REPORT SR 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT APRIL 2016 HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP CLASSIFICATION MAP CH2M

136 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, April 1978 (Winchester/Lakeview) \\GALT\PROJ\RCTC\171146\2015\MAPFILES\STORMWATER\WQA_HSG_A.MXD WQA_HSG_A.PDF 01/07/2016 LEGEND Project Roadway Figure HSG Classification State Route 79 Realignment Project 0 7,000 Feet 0 1,500 Meters 1:84,000