No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPW San Quentin Pump Station Reconstruction____________________________________________________________________________________ FOR CITY CLERK ONLY Council Meeting: 01/21/2020 Disposition: Resolution 14759 Agenda Item No: 5.a Meeting Date: January 21, 2020 TOPIC: SAN QUENTIN PUMP STATION RECONSTRUCTION SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE SAN QUENTIN PUMP STATION RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 11334 RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, accept public comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt a resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Quentin Pump Station Reconstruction Project and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Direct staff to proceed with final design and submittal of regulatory environmental permits. BACKGROUND: The City of San Rafael owns and operates 12 stormwater pump stations, which pump water from low-lying areas to prevent flooding during storms. The San Quentin Pump Station, located in the saltwater marsh wetland behind Target and Home Depot off Shoreline Parkway, was originally constructed in 1971. Since its construction, this pump station has been a workhorse for the area lifting storm water from the detention ponds through the levee for discharge into the Bay. On December 18, 2017, the City Council approved an agreement with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. (“CSW/Stuber-Stroeh”) for preliminary engineering services resulting in a Basis of Design/Feasibility Study. After amending the agreement on October 1, 2018, the design team commenced environmental studies and construction drawings. ANALYSIS: As the project is progressing, staff recommends the City Council take the actions described below. 1. Resolution re Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Beginning in March 2019, the design team developed environmental documentation for the State of California in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study was prepared to determine the potential environmental impacts, which found that the proposed project would potentially affect biological resources, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, hazardous material, noise and mandatory findings of significance. The project impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Public Works Prepared by: Bill Guerin, Director of Public Works City Manager Approval: ___ _____ SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 through implementation of recommended mitigation measures as required in the included Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program or through compliance with certain applicable agency requirements. A Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Marin IJ on November 8, 2019 (see Attachment 2) and was mailed to residents/businesses residing within 1,000 feet of the pump station. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a minimum 30-day public review period was provided for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, is on the City’s website, and can be accessed for review at: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/san-quentin-pump-station/ (Attachment 3). The formal public review period closed on December 13th, 2019 with the City receiving two letters providing public comments and/or indicating that the City complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements (see Attachment 4). As a courtesy, City staff provided copies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to the Marin Audubon Society and the property owner of the Canalways property, which directly adjoins the pump station project location. The primary environmental impacts for this project relate to biological resources and hazardous material. The project has the potential to impact special status and native species, sensitive communities, and wetlands; however as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 would implement avoidance and minimization measures to protect the salt-marsh harvest mouse, nesting birds, and roosting bats and require 404/401 permits to protect wetlands, thus mitigating these impacts. Due to the location of the Project being near undocumented fill and a closed landfill, and because demolition is occurring, there is some potential for impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials; however, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 require a Phase II environmental assessment and a signed assessment report documenting a lack of hazardous building materials. Thus, these impacts would also be mitigated. The recommended resolution would adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA Guidelines and clear this project for construction from the environmental clearance standpoint except for necessary permits required from environmental regulatory agencies. It is anticipated that permits will be required from the following agencies: US Army Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 2. Motion Directing Staff to Proceed with Final Design and Environmental Permitting With City Council approval of the recommended resolution, staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to proceed with final design work and procurement of environmental regulatory permits. FISCAL IMPACT: No immediate fiscal impact is associated with the approval and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. OPTIONS: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 1. Adopt the resolution as presented and move to authorize staff to proceed with final design work and procurement of environmental regulatory permits. 2. Adopt the resolution with modifications. 3. The City Council may decline to approve the resolution, which will result in the project being unable to move forward. 4. The City Council may defer action and request staff to provide further information or modifications at a future Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Adopt the resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the San Quentin Pump Station Reconstruction Project. 2. Move to authorize staff to proceed with final design and submittal of regulatory environmental permits. ATTACHMENTS: Mitigated Negative Declaration 1. Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Public Hearing Notices 3. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration dated November 2019 including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4. Comments received to date 5. Memorandum – Response to Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 RESOLUTION NO. 14759 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE SAN QUENTIN PUMP STATION RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 11334 WHEREAS, the City has determined it is necessary to replace the San Quentin Pump Station and has retained consultants to design the project and prepare construction drawings, City Project No. 11334; and WHEREAS, the construction plans are approximately 65% completed for the Project’s proposed pump station reconstruction and, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, it was determined that, for purposes of CEQA, the improvements are defined as a “project” subject to environmental review; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an Initial Study was prepared to determine the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, in preparing the Initial Study, an offer of tribal consultation was made to the local Native American Tribe (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria) consistent with Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2019, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) responded to the offer of consultation requesting additional information on the project; and WHEREAS, as demonstrated in the preparation of the Initial Study, the proposed Project would result in a number of potentially significant environmental impacts for which mitigation is recommended to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, the Initial Study supports and recommends the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, on November 8th, 2019, the City published a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which was made available for a 30-day public review period. Two comments were received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. One 2 comment by the State Clearinghouse stated that the City complied with CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on January 21st, 2020, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to review the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and considered all oral and written public testimony; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the City Clerk; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Quentin Pump Station Reconstruction Project, City Project No. 11334, and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, based on the following findings: 1. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the provisions of the City of San Rafael Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual. Further, in preparing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City followed the steps and procedures required by Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3 and 21080.3.2 (AB 52) by offering and completing tribal consultation with the local Native American Tribe (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria). As a result of this consultation, mitigation measures required to address potential archaeological resources have been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. As prescribed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, a public review period of a minimum of 30 days was observed for public comment (30-days observed commencing on November 8th, 2019 and closing on December 13th, 2019). 3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been presented to the City Council who has reviewed and considered the information in the Initial Study for adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Further, the City Council finds that the Initial Study 3 is adequate and complete to support the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. The City Council has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the Initial Study and has considered the comments received during the public review period and public hearing. Based on this review, the City Council has determined that a) there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant impact on the environment; and b) revisions have been made to the Project or have been included in the Project as conditions of approval which reduce the potentially significant impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and air quality for which mitigation measures are required; and c) result in either no environmental impacts or impacts that are deemed to be less-than-significant in other topic areas listed in the Initial Study Checklist. I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on the 21st day of January 2020, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin & Mayor Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: McCullough LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk File No.: 08.06.69 Legal No. Marin Independent Journal 4000 Civic Center Drive, Suite 301 San Rafael, CA 94903 415-382-7335 legals@marinij.com I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Marin, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Marin, State of California, under date of FEBRUARY 7, 1955, CASE NUMBER 25566; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: 11/08/2019 I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 8th day of November, 2019. PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Marin Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION 0006422932 2072889 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PO BOX 4186 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94913-4186 r.BP7-11/10/16 1 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ADOPT AN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CEQA Public Review Period: November 8, 2019 to December 13, 2019 You are being informed of the availability of a Draft In itial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review and invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project: DATE/TIME/PLACE: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 7:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901 PROJECT: San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project. Locat ed behind Target at APN 009-010-25. Project calls for th e replacement of the existinij San Quentin Pump Station with a new pump stati on in the same location. City File No: 08.06.69 . Co nsistent with the provisio ns of the Califo rni a En vironme nta l Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this project is subject to enviro nmenta l review an d an Initia l Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. The In itial Study and supp ortive append ices have been posted on the City of San Rafael webs ite and can be accessed via the following link: h!.\:Qs:/ /www.cityofsanrafael.org/san-quentin-11um11-station/. A hard copy of the Initial Study is available for review at the Department of Publ ic Works, 111 Morphew Street, San Rafael. A 30-day public review period is being obs erved for review and comment on the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, commencing on Friday, November 8th , 2019 and closing o n Friday, December 13th, 2019. All written co mm ents on the Initia l Study must be subm itted to the City by December 13th, 2019 . Th e City Council wi ll then hold a public hearing on the matter on the date listed above. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You ca n comment o n the project. The City Cou n- cil wi ll consider a ll public testimony and decide w hether to approve o r deny the application. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send written correspondence by email to the address below, or by mail/hand delivery t o the Public Works Departme nt, City of San Rafael, 111 Morphew St, San Rafael , CA 94901. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit the project webpage at https://www. cityofsanrafae l.org /san-que ntin -pump-station/ or contact Theo Sanchez, Associate Civil En gi nee r at (41S) 4S8-5326 o r Theo.Sanchez@ CityofSanRafael.org. Yo u can also come to the Publi c Works office, lo- cated at 111 Morphew Street, to look at the file for the proposed proj- ect. The office is ope n from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday thru Thursday and 8 a.m. t o 4p.m. on Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m . on the Friday before the meeting at http://www.cityofsanrafael.or g/meetings. SAN RAFAEL CITY CLERK /s/ Lindsay La ra Lind say Lara CITY CLERK No. November 8, 2019 Draft Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: City of San Rafael Department of Public Works 111 Morphew Street San Rafael, CA 94901 Contact: Theo Sanchez Prepared By: WRA, Inc. 2169-G East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, California 94901 Contact: Geoff Reilly, AICP reilly@wra-ca.com Date: November, 2019 I', I', t)wra ~NVll?ONMENTA L CONSULT,ti.NTS 2169..{3 E.asl Froncasco Blvd . Son ~a81 , CA 94001 (415) 54-8868 1111 (-115) 454-0 129 ra x lnlo@wTa~.com www.wro-1t1u~o m i Table of Contents Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 1. Project Title: .......................................................................................................... 1 2. Lead Agency and Project Applicant: ..................................................................... 1 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: .................................................................... 1 4. Project Location: ................................................................................................... 1 5. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: .................................................................... 1 6. Existing System: ................................................................................................... 4 7. Project Design Alternatives: .................................................................................. 4 8. Project Description: ............................................................................................... 9 9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required: ................................ 17 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 19 Initial Study Checklist ........................................................................................................ 20 I. AESTHETICS ..................................................................................................... 21 II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ............................................ 23 III. AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................... 26 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 29 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 49 VI. ENERGY ............................................................................................................ 54 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................... 61 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................... 66 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...................................................... 68 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................................. 75 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................. 78 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 80 XIII. NOISE ................................................................................................................ 81 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................... 86 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................ 87 XVI. RECREATION .................................................................................................... 89 ii XVII. TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................... 90 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................... 93 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................ 96 XX. WILDFIRE .......................................................................................................... 98 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................... 99 Checklist Information Sources ....................................................................................... 101 References ...................................................................................................................... 102 Report Preparation........................................................................................................... 104 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Site Regional Location Map 2 Figure 2. Aerial Location Map 3 Figure 3. Views of the Project Site (1 of 2) 5 Figure 4. Views of the Project Site (2 of 2) 6 Figure 5. Views of Surrounding Land Uses 7 Figure 6. Project Site Plan (1 of 3) 11 Figure 7. Project Site Plan (2 of 3) 12 Figure 8. Project Site Plan (3 of 3) 13 Figure 9. Biological Study Area around Project Footprint 33 Figure 10. Biological Communities in the Study Area 34 Figure 11. Project Impacts within the Biological Study Area 43 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Biological Communities within the Study Area and Project Area 32 Table 2. Construction Equipment Noise Generation 83 APPENDICES Appendix A – San Quentin Pump Station Basis of Design Report Sub-Appendix A – Draft Geotechnical Investigation Report Sub-Appendix B – Environment Technical Memorandum Sub-Appendix C – Drainage Study Sub-Appendix D – Vertical Pump Specification Sub-Appendix E – Submersible Pump Specification Sub-Appendix F – Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Sub-Appendix G – Schematic Layout Options Appendix B – Biological Resources Memorandum Appendix C – Archaeological Survey Report and Historic Resource Evaluation Report iv This page intentionally left blank. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project 2. Lead Agency and Project Applicant: City of San Rafael Department of Public Works 111 Morphew Street San Rafael, California 94901 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Theo Sanchez Tel: (415) 458-5326 Email: Theo.Sanchez@cityofsanrafael.org 4. Project Location: Adjacent and north of the Target property at 123 Shoreline Parkway in the City of San Rafael, Marin County, California (see Figures 1 and 2) 5. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project is located at Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 009-010-25, directly north of and adjacent to the Target property at 123 Shoreline Parkway in San Rafael, Marin County (Figure 1). Project plans involve replacement of the deteriorated San Quentin Pump Station, demolition of the existing station, and improvements to the outfall pipe that extends from the pump station to San Rafael Bay. The project footprint is on City of San Rafael land and does not encroach on other properties, though lands of Kerner Blvd. LLC (APN 009-010-23) and Target Corporation (APN 009-320-51) are directly to the north and south, respectively. The proposed project is located on former marshland, which continues to the north, west, and east of the project site before abutting San Rafael Bay approximately 0.20 miles to the east (Figure 2). The San Quentin Pump Station watershed is approximately 403 acres and flows into a storage basin created as part of the East San Rafael Drainage Assessment District. Commercial properties including Target and Home Depot are located to the south and southwest of the project site, and Interstate 580 runs in a northwest-southeasterly direction approximately 0.32 miles southwest of the pump station. The San Quentin Disposal Site (SQDS), located immediately south of the site, was a permitted Class III landfill that accepted construction and landscape debris from 1968 to 1987. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) landfill closure report (2001) indicates the landfill does not extend onto the pump station site. The zoning district designated for the project site is W-WO (Water District-Water Overlay District). The General Plan land use designation for the site is Conservation, and the land use designations in the project vicinity include Conservation to the north, Light Industry/Office to the south, Conservation and Light Industry/Office to the west, and Conservation and the San Rafael Bay to the east. Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\27000\27342\GIS\ArcMap\Location.mxdSources: National Geographic, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 5/22/2019 Project Site Pacific Ocean View Extent San Quentin Pump Station ZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚProject ŝƚLJŽĨSan Rafael, California 021 Miles Figure 1. Project Site Regional Location Map ,!,a nta Ro sa • P• .,. ~ ount Vacaville • Napa• • San Mateo Ct''\I. ~,,1,r John Fr,k.mnis Par!-, Rich.1rdson B,y WCST ,01" IJLAt,jD 8 1 d Belvedere-eve ere Tiburon N S.111 FrJ11cisco B,y A~G!t HLA"D Angel Island State Park A (O)wra ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\27000\27342\GIS\ArcMap\Aerial.mxdExisting Pump Station 0500250 Feet Sources: National Geographic, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 1/30/2019 Figure 2. Aerial >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶMap San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project City of San Rafael, California 580 F r a n c i s c o B l v d E a s t Target StoreSanRafaelBayExisting Outfall Pipe Under Levee Road Existing Drainage Channel Construction Access Route San Francisco Bay Trail N A (O)wra ENV I RONMENTAL CONSULTANTS San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 4 6. Existing System: The San Quentin Pump Station was constructed in 1972 to serve a portion of east San Rafael that was envisioned as a major light industrial area extending toward the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge from the canal area. The pump station is underlain by artificial fill over Bay Mud, as it is located on former marshland that was reportedly filled in the 1960s as a part of the East San Rafael Drainage Assessment District. The pump station lifts storm water from the large low-lying detention ponds for discharge to San Rafael Bay. Views of the project site, including the pump station and detention ponds, are included in Figures 3 and 4. The site is protected from inundation by a levee along and beneath the San Francisco Bay Trail along the San Rafael Bay. At the east end of the site, the outfall pipe lies under this levee before terminating in the outboard bank of the levee. The adjacent 20-foot-high embankment was constructed for the Target store in 2013 and is located immediately south of the outfall pipeline. Views of the surrounding land uses, including the San Rafael Bay and commercial uses, are included in Figure 5. The existing pump station building is approximately 722 square feet in size, located 0.2 miles inland from the San Rafael Bay. It consists of a wet well, a pressure vault and associated controls, and two vertical pumps. To connect to the Bay, the pump station building is also associated with a 962-foot-long storm drainage pipe that discharges into the San Rafael Bay. Views of the pump station and project site can be seen in Figure 3. In its 46 years of operation, the outfall pipe has become deteriorated to the point where leaks are noticeable at the ground surface when the pumps are in use. The pump station itself also shows signs of age and continues to settle in the fill differentially relative to the outfall pipe and site. Under the existing pump system, if the pump station loses power or one of the two pumps fail, then flooding occurs in the neighboring industrial areas and along Highway 580 leading to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. 7. Project Design Alternatives: Pump Station Replacement Considerations Several site locations for the proposed pump station were evaluated in the project design phase. Since the existing station must stay operational until the new station is ready to function, demolishing the station and building the new one in its place was not an option. One option considered was placing the new station immediately adjacent to the existing station, and the other option was moving the station closer to the Bay. The most cost-effective pump station location is typically at the low point of the watershed and, as indicated in the Environment Technical Memorandum (Appendix A, Sub-Appendix B), the existing pump station is already located at the low point. As part of the East San Rafael Drainage Assessment District project, the area was excavated to create a low point at the existing pump station. Figure . Views of the Project Site 3DJHRI 6DQ4XHQWLQ3XPS6WDWLRQ5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW&LW\RI6DQ5DIDHO, CaliforniaView 1. View of the QRUWKDQGZHVWVLGHRIWKHSXPSVWDWLRQIDFLQJVRXWKHDVWDVLWDEXWVPDUVKDUHD7KH7DUJHWVWRUHLVLQWKHEDFNJURXQGView 2. View of theQRUWKVLGHRIWKHSXPSVWDWLRQDQGXWLOLW\SROHVIDFLQJVRXWKView 3. View of theVRXWKVLGHRIWKHSXPSVWDWLRQXWLOLW\SROHVDQGHTXLSPHQWDFFHVVDQGWXUQDURXQGFLUFOHIDFLQJQRUWKZHVWView 4. View ORRNLQJZHVWVRXWKZHVWWRZDUGWKHSXPSVWDWLRQIURPWKHJUDYHOOHYHHURDGXQGHUZKLFKWKHRXWIDOOSLSHUXQVWRZDUGWKH6DQ5DIDHO%D\(t)wra ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure . Views of the Project Site 3DJHRI 6DQ4XHQWLQ3XPS6WDWLRQ5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW&LW\RI6DQ5DIDHO, CaliforniaView 1. View of the VRXWKDQGZHVWVLGHRIWKHSXPSVWDWLRQIDFLQJQRUWKHDVWView 2. View of theFXOYHUWGLUHFWO\VRXWKRIWKHSXPSVWDWLRQIDFLQJHDVWView 3. View of theVRXWKVLGHRIWKHSXPSVWDWLRQDQGDGMRLQLQJODJRRQDQGJUDVVHVIDFLQJQRUWKView 4. View RIWKHHOHFWULFXQGHUJURXQGLQJDUHDGLUHFWO\VRXWKHDVWRIWKHSXPSVWDWLRQDGMDFHQWWRWKHWXUQDURXQGDUHDIDFLQJQRUWKHDVW(t)wra ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure . Views of the 6XUURXQGLQJ/DQG8VHV6DQ4XHQWLQ3XPS6WDWLRQ5HSODFHPHQW3URMHFW&LW\RI6DQ5DIDHO, CaliforniaView 1. View IURPWKHSXPSVWDWLRQWRZDUGWKHDGMDFHQWODJRRQPDUVKDQGPXOWLIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDOPL[HGFRPPHUFLDODUHDWRWKHZHVWView 2. View IURPWKHSXPSVWDWLRQWRZDUGWKH+RPH'HSRWVWRUHWRWKHVRXWKZHVWRIWKHVLWHView 3. View IURPWKHOHYHHURDG WKDWUXQVIURPWKHVLWHWRWKHED\ of theDGMDFHQW7DUJHWVWRUHSURSHUW\GLUHFWO\WRWKHVRXWKHDVWRIWKHVLWHView 4. View RIWKH6DQ5DIDHO%D\DQGULSUDSHPEDQNPHQWWRWKHHDVWRIWKHED\WUDLOUXQQLQJDORQJWKHHDVWHUQVLGHRIWKHVLWHIDFLQJVRXWKZHVW(t)wra ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS This page intentionally left blank. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 9 Furthermore, while moving the pump station closer to the Bay would reduce the length of outfall pipe necessary and reduce the potential for long-term settlement relative to the outfall pipe, the area excavated for the lagoon surrounding the existing station is now considered sensitive habitat (wetland) and potential habitat for special-status wildlife species. Relocating the pump station closer to the Bay would require excavation and a net loss of wetland area for a new drainage channel, increasing costs related to mitigation and monitoring for this loss of wetland. Locating the pump station closer to the Bay would also place the station between the toe of the building pad for the Target store and the top of the bank of the storage pond. This is a narrow area and does not provide an easy staging area from which to build the pump station. Outfall Pipe Replacement Considerations Based on discussions with City maintenance crews, the existing 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) leaks and has settled unevenly in the bay mud causing sags. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and potholing were used to help locate potential pipe sags (Appendix A, CSW San Quentin Pump Station Basis of Design Report). Three sags were located, consisting of either a dislocated or broken pipe segment. The magnitude of the sags appears to be less than 12 inches. The locations of the existing pipe deficiencies and anomalies are approximate due to limited access for study. Three potential options were studied to improve the 900 feet of discharge outfall pipe. These options include: 1) slip lining the existing 60-inch RCP with the new 48-inch diameter high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe; 2) installing a Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) within the 60-inch RCP; and 3) open trench removal of the existing pipe and installing a new 48-inch diameter HDPE pipe. The outfall repairs would extend from the existing pump station eastward to just before the Bay Trail; project work is not proposed at the outfall into the Bay nor within 100 feet of the shoreline. Additionally, the contractor would be required to dewater the existing storm drain and maintain operation of the existing pump station while thoroughly cleaning and installing the new pipe. 8. Project Description: Pump Station Replacement Due to the sensitive habitat and staging and access considerations discussed previously, the chosen location for the new pump station construction is immediately south of the existing pump station. This would minimize wetland disturbance and provide the benefit of a relatively large construction staging area with good access. Development of the new pump station would require the removal of approximately 60 feet of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) leading to an existing storm drain turning structure (to be preserved), as well as the removal of existing riprap rock, base rock, and asphalt and concrete pavement directly to the south of the existing station. This would be followed by installation of an approximately 2,105-square-foot concrete slab to be placed partially over the area of removed rock and concrete adjacent to the existing station. Pump station elements, such as new vertical and submersible pumping units, a pressure chamber, motor control centers, and electric equipment would be installed on top of the slab. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 10 Once the new pump station is operational, the existing 722-square-foot station would be removed and disposed of, including the pump station walls and stairway, pumps, electric facilities, screens, pressure relief plumbing, and the wet well. In addition to these pump station elements, the overhead power lines and electrical poles surrounding the existing station would be disconnected and removed as well, all of which are situated on gravel within the project disturbance footprint. The proximity to the proposed pump station should not significantly affect the operation of the existing pump station during construction. Further design details can be viewed in the Site Plans (Figures 6-8). As indicated in the Draft Geotechnical Investigation Report (Appendix A, Sub-Appendix A), the planned pump station is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The weight of the new pump station is anticipated to be less than the weight of the excavated soil to build the pump station. The weight of the removed soil should offset the weight of the new pump station, minimizing additional settlement of the structure and causing it to “float” on the mud. Primary geotechnical considerations for the project include: x Excavation through soft Bay Mud x Providing appropriate temporary support for excavations x Providing appropriate seismic and structural design for any new structures x Providing for proper bedding and trench backfill x Minimizing the extent of excavation and associated backfills for new manholes and other below-grade structures that are underlain by Bay Mud To provide enough pressure for the storm water discharged from the pumps to reach the Bay, water would be pumped into a pressure chamber, which would be connected to the outfall pipe. The proposed discharge assembly pressure box would be configured to better drive the outflow from the pump discharges to the outfall pipe through directed discharge assemblies and other miscellaneous equipment housed in the pump station and pressure chamber. The pump station would use three vertical axial flow pumps to maximize efficiency. Utilizing three smaller pumps capable of discharging 66 cubic feet per second (cfs) provides flexibility and increases efficiency for the more frequent, smaller storm events while also providing capacity for the 100-year storm event. Utilizing three 100 cfs pumps provides more flexibility for larger storm events with increased pump rest time and a higher freeboard over the maximum 4-foot water surface elevation. A smaller high pressure (HP) submersible pump would be included in the final design as well, for nuisance water during dry weather season and maintenance purposes. The Motor Control Center and other electrical components are currently housed outside the pump station. An electrical instrumentation and controls design would be incorporated in the final pump station design. Based upon initial review of the PG&E electrical facilities, the existing transformer would be a ground-mounted transformer and, as indicated in Site Plans (Figures 6-8), an area would be designated for an existing City-supplied portable generator. Alarm monitoring and controls would be determined by City staff and incorporated in the final design plans. 0DS%\6* 0DS'DWH-XQH %DVH6RXUFH(65,:RUOG7RSR 5HFRORJ\*UHHQ 5DLO3URMHFW $ODPHGD&RXQW\ &DOLIRUQLD .   6RXUFH&6:_67 'DWH1RYHPEHU P:\Projects\27000\27342\Figures\PD Figures\Working Files\AI San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project City of San Rafael $BMJGPSOJB Figure 6. Site Plan (1 of 3) ' ' I -----< \~ ' r~ l l 7_i' mr • .~ · r ~·---·_; ----- -r· • i t ~ n 1 ~-l y I =-~_;, le" I l T ~ ~-µ ~ I ~"qf/P ~ \,~"<__ ~ / ~ .L I --\ LAGOON TARGET PLAN VIEW HOME DEPOT / / 1 ---------.__.,.,_ 'c..,., ____ l.::.,._.l_ _ 0 SECTION VIEW \ ~ >j,%. "o (el ~ 'a EXISTING PUMP STATION SITE PLAN & SECTION VIEW PROPERTY MAP ✓--- ( \ r---.. \ I / "'----. i I / ------------LANDS OF KERNER BLV D LLC APN 009-010-23 \ I \ I \ \ \ WETLANDS AREA -----------------.:, -----\ \ ///--,, \ \ ,/--\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . \ \ \ \ CP4 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CPS ~ \ \ \ ',, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ " \ WETLANDS LIMIT ___ \_ \ (E)PUMPSTATION ~~ I (SEE SITE Pl.AN AND SECTION VIEW. TH IS SHEEl) WETLANDS AREA LANDS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APN 009 -010 -25 \ -- \ ~------ \ ------\ r WETLANOSLIMIT _ .. /' ___ _ \ I ~--\ --------\ ------- "---""-------,,----~---- LANDS OF TARGET CORP. 125 SHORELINE PKWY APN 009-320-51 -- Graphi c Sc ale (i n feet ) EXISTING SITE PLAN ----------------- I I \ I I \ -------------- CONTROL POINTS PO INT NO. N OTHING EA STING ELEVATI O N 2 2176656.299812 5987083.060150 3.96 3 2176573.533388 5987065.644983 4 .35 4 2176735.928568 5987055.085624 4 .12 5 2176714.591922 5987030.066885 4.80 6 2176734 .340642 5987484.616836 3.54 7 2176911.145372 5987954.962687 9.13 12 2176830.111457 5987951.950462 9.54 13 2176781.163349 5987678.220722 2 .81 14 2176720.821334 5987 403.134558 3 .88 BASIS OF BEARINGS BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP IS N76'59'41"£ BASED ON FOUND j" IRON PIPES ON£ TAGGED LS 7237 AND TH£ OTHER HAVING AN ILLEGIBLE TAG. BOTH ACCEPTED AS TH£ CORNERS OF LOT 6, 2012 PM 96 [9}, MARIN COUNTY RECORDS. LEGEND -------- 0 • ---BOUNOARY S£7 1/2" REBAR CAP PLS 9387 FOUND MONUMENT ' BCOC BAY -+---e'-'-+--< JURISDICTl 9 AL I BOUNDARY 100'BCDCBAY ---1 /7 JURISDICTIONAL /4 BOUNDARY SETBACK \ I I \ \ \ (e)wra ENVIRONMEN TAL CONSULTANTS D ESCRIPTION CP600 CP60D CP600 CP600 CP600 CP600 CP600 CP600 CP60D 0DS%\6* 0DS'DWH-XQH %DVH6RXUFH(65,:RUOG7RSR 5HFRORJ\*UHHQ 5DLO3URMHFW $ODPHGD&RXQW\ &DOLIRUQLD .   6RXUFH&6:_67 'DWH1RYHPEHU P:\Projects\27000\27342\Figures\PD Figures\Working Files\AI San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project City of San Rafael $BMJGPSOJB Figure 7. Site Plan (2 of 3) KEYNOTES REMOVE & DISPOSE 18" CMP REMOVE & DISPOSE 60" (±) 0 STORM DRAIN PIPE REMOVE & DISPOSE EXISTING OVERHEAD LINES REMOVE & DISPOSE GUY WIRE ANO ANCHOR. REPAIR GRAVEL ROAD, AS NEEDED, FOR ANCHOR REMOVAL REMOVE & DISPOSE ELECTRICAL POLE, FOUNDATION, & APPURTENANCES REMOVE & DISPOSE RIPRAP ROCK REMOVE & DISPOSE ASPHALT PAVEMENT & BASE ROCK REMOVE & DISPOSE CONCRETE PAVEMENT & BASE ROCK REMOVE & DISPOSE PUMP STATION, WALLS, STAIRWAY, PUMPS, ELECTRICAL FACILITIES, SCREENS, & APPURTENANCES. PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENT REPAIR SAGS AS INDICATED IN C3.0 &C3.1 PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING STORM DRAIN TURNING STRUCTURE PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING UTILITY POLE & METER PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING PUMP STATION WETLANDS LIMIT S REMOVE & DISPOSE OF (2) VERTICAL PUMPS, MOTORS, DISCHARGE TUBE, & APPURTENANCES REMOVE & DISPOSE PRESSURE RELIEF PLUMBING REMOVE & DISPOSE EXISTING WET WELL, BAR SCREENS, & APPURTENANCES REMOVE & DISPOSE EXISTING PRESSURE VAULT & APPURTENANCES REMOVE & DISPOSE ACCESS MANHOLE & APPURTENANCES 5 ------< 1------ -------<1 i i ,;:-i I L!J ~-----~ 8--------- LEGEND I I REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTI NG FACILITIES AS I I I I INDICATED I ________ J REMOVE & DISPOSE OF EXISTING UTILITY ~ CONTROL POINT -PROTECT AS NEEDED ~ Graphic Sca le (in feet) ~---.J -- A L PLAN VIEW EXISTING PUMP STATION SITE PLAN & SECTION VIEW \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ " \ \ " \ " \ \ " " \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ WETLANDS AREA \ \ ~ I \ "-- '------ LANDS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APN 009-010-25 (e)wra ENVIRONMEN TAL CONSULTANTS " "-- " "-- "---~ 5 \ \ \ \ \ ' ' ' ' LANDS OF KERNER BLVD LLC ' ' APN 009-010-23 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --------------- ~ CP2 ~ CP3 EXISTING SITE PLAN 0DS%\6* 0DS'DWH-XQH %DVH6RXUFH(65,:RUOG7RSR 5HFRORJ\*UHHQ 5DLO3URMHFW $ODPHGD&RXQW\ &DOLIRUQLD .   6RXUFH&6:_67 'DWH1RYHPEHU P:\Projects\27000\27342\Figures\PD Figures\Working Files\AI San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project City of San Rafael $BMJGPSOJB Figure 8. Site Plan (3 of 3) LANDS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL APN 009-010-25 \, CPS "'",,"' \ ____________ .,, ', §--/ I I <.,> PUMP STATION SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN \ \ \ \ \ \ CP4 \ .... \ \ I I .&, CP2 \\____g I I I I I \r-8 I I I \ 3 I \ l-- LANDS OF TARGET CORP. 125 SHORELINE PKWY AP N 009-320-51 lSUJ-=--+---EXIST ING STORM DRAINAGE INLET Grap hic Scale (in feet) \ KEYNOTES NEW VERTICAL PUMPING UNIT NEW SUBMERSIBLE PUMPING UNIT NEW MOTOR CONTROL CENTER NEW PLC CONTROL NEW AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH NEW MAIN SWITCHBOARD NEW SWITCHBOARD MS-1 PORTABL E GENERATOR (NIC ) NEW TRANSFORMER NEWS' HIGH PEDESTRIAN GATE NEW 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE NEW6' HIGH VEHICULAR GATE NEW 18M CMP (LENGTH PER PLAN ) NEW STORM DRAINAGE DROP INLET -UCS #260 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE -UCS #205 TYPE "N 12" NOMINAL DIAMETER RIPRAP ROCK 48" STORM DRAIN -OPEN TRENCH CONSTRUCTION 48" STORM DRAI N -SLIP LINE INTO EX STORM DRAIN REMOVE & DISPOSE EXISTING PUMP STATION & APPURTENANCES LIMITS OF W ETLANDS GRADING LIMITS U.S.A. NOTIFlCATl()f SERVICE (e)wra ENVIRONMEN TAL CONSULTANTS This page intentionally left blank. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 15 Discharge piping and miscellaneous equipment housed in the pump station would be necessary for normal operations. The existing pump station utilizes a pressure vault, which connects to a 60-inch diameter outfall pipe. A pressure vault minimizes pressure loss, construction costs, and future maintenance; therefore, a pressure vault would be used in the final design of the new pump station as well. Outfall Pipe Replacement As indicated in the Site Plans (Figures 6-8), the pressure vault would connect to a pressurized outfall pipe. Based on the environmental sensitivity of the area and limited work area (25 feet wide), it was decided that slip lining (option 1 discussed previously) would be used to improve the discharge outfall pipe. This would involve 35 feet of 48-inch storm drain to be installed via open trench construction in order to connect the new pump station to the existing outfall pipe, where slip lining would begin. Approximately 25 feet of 60-inch storm drain would be removed to disconnect the existing station from the existing outfall pipe as well. The benefits of the slip lining option include a smoother lining and less headloss, as well as avoidance of extensive open trenching and the resulting ground disturbance and air and water quality impacts. Slip line rehabilitation technology has been historically successful and works well with long straight pipe segments (Appendix A, CSW San Quentin Pump Station Basis of Design Report). Staging and Access The City of San Rafael construction contract specifications would contractually require the construction Contractor to locate the construction staging area on-site. The specifications for this staging area would include, at minimum, the following requirements: x The staging area will be included in the Contractor’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). x The staging area will not be located in an environmentally or culturally sensitive area and/or impact water resources (rivers, streams, bays, inlet, lakes, drainage sloughs). x The staging area will not be located in a regulatory floodway or within the base floodplain (100-year). x The staging area will not affect access to properties or roadways. The staging area for the proposed project would be located adjacent and to the south of the existing pump station, along with a turn-around point for construction vehicles via the gravel road in front of the existing station. The site would be reached via the existing access road that connects the pump station to Francisco Boulevard East (Figure 2). Construction Construction of the proposed project would last for approximately 33 weeks. All improvements would be made within the existing City right-of-way. Construction would require a pick-up truck, excavator, dump truck, dozer or grader, backhoe, and a crane with a hydraulic hammer. Sheet piles would be driven around the area designated for new pump station installation to dewater the San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 16 site and prevent water from entering the new wet well during construction. Additionally the new pump station would be built on a concrete slab that “floats” on the bay mud. The intent of this design is to minimize the differential settlement between the pump station and the outfall pipe. The total footprint of all permanent and temporary impacts from the pump station and outfall pipe replacement, as well as construction access and staging, is approximately 6,960 square feet. At least one week prior to the commencement of work, the Contractor would provide project information signs to notify drivers of the upcoming project and potential traffic delays. Additionally, the City or its contractor would notify and coordinate with law enforcement and emergency service providers prior to the start of construction to ensure minimal disruption to service during construction. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommends basic construction measures to ensure minimal impacts on regional air quality. The contractor would be responsible for implementing the following basic measures during construction: x All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas) will be watered two times per day. x All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site will be covered. x All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. x Idling times will be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). x Clear signage will be provided for construction workers at all access points. x All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications, and all equipment will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. x A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding any dust complaints will be posted in or near the project site. The contact person will respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Grading The project proposes to excavate 617 cubic yards (CY) of soil and to fill 305 CY, creating a net cut of 312 CY, which would be placed on-site at the graveled spit peninsula directly adjacent and northeast of the existing pump station. Parking Construction of the proposed project would not require the use of any on-street parking, as there is none within the project site. The proposed project does not add any new parking on-site. Construction vehicles would park in the staging area. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 17 Traffic Traffic interference is in no way expected due to the location of the project off of main streets, but any traffic control would conform to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), as well as City standard specifications. There is a possibility that some pedestrians and bicyclists use the gravel levee road for recreational purposes. The Contractor would install advance warning signs to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of the work zone. Advance warning signs may be reflective signs, changeable message boards, cones, and/or barricades. The work would be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director of Public Works. Utilities The project site includes a PG&E utility pole, used to power the existing pump station. This pole would remain unaltered for the newly built station adjacent to the existing station. This is one of the benefits of building the new pump station next to the existing station, rather than closer to the Bay. Tree Loss The project has been designed to avoid tree loss and tree trimming to the maximum degree possible. Standard avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented to ensure the project complies with all applicable City regulations regarding tree removal. 9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required: The information contained in this Initial Study will be used by the City of San Rafael (the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Lead Agency) as it considers whether or not to approve the proposed project. If the project is approved, the Initial Study, as well as the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be used by the City and responsible and trustee agencies in conjunction with various approvals and permits. These actions include, but may not be limited to, the following approvals by the agencies indicated: City of San Rafael x City Council Approval Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) x Clean Water Act, Section 404 Discharge into Waters of the U.S. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) x Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 18 This page left intentionally blank. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated , as indicated by the checklist on the following pages . □ Aesthetics □ Greenhouse Gas □ Public Services □ Agricultural Resources ~ Hazards/Hazardous □ Recreation □ Air Quality □ Hydrology/Water □ Transportation ~ Biological Resources □ Land Use/Planning ~ Tribal Cultural Resources ~ Cultural Resources □ Mineral Resources □ Utilities and Service Systems □ Energy ~ Noise □ Wildfire □ Geology/Soils □ Population/Housing · ~ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation : D I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared . ~ I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared . D I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required . D I find that the project MAY have a "Potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets . An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required , but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards , and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION , including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project , nothing further is required. Signature : ~ 5~ Date : 11/05/2019 Name/Title: Theo Sanchez , Associate Civil Engineer , City of San Rafael Department of Public Works San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project City of San Rafael 19 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2019 San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 20 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST This section describes the existing environmental conditions in and near the project area and evaluates environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), was used to identify environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The cited sources are identified at the end of this section. Each of the environmental categories was fully evaluated, and one of the following four determinations was made for each checklist question: ƒ “No Impact” means that no impacts to the resource would occur as a result of implementing the project. ƒ “Less than Significant Impact” means that implementation of the project would not result in a substantial and/or adverse change to the resource, and no mitigation measures are required. ƒ “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” means that the incorporation of one or more mitigation measures is necessary to reduce the impact from potentially significant to less than significant. ƒ “Potentially Significant Impact” means that there is either substantial evidence that a project-related effect may be significant, or, due to a lack of existing information, could have the potential to be significant. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 21 I. AESTHETICS — Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Source a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1,2,3 c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 1 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 Environmental Setting There are no designated scenic highways in Marin County. Portions of Highway 101, State Route (SR) 1, and SR-37 are, however, eligible for listing. The project site is not located along any eligible portion of these highways, which are located more than 10 miles to the west (Highway 101) and more than nine miles north (Highway 101 and SR-37) of the project site (California Department of Transportation, 2012). The San Rafael General Plan Community Design Element, Policy CD-5 states, “Respect and enhance to the greatest extent possible, views of the Bay and its islands, Bay Wetlands, St. Raphael’s church bell tower, Canalfront, marinas, Mt. Tamalpais, Marin Civic Center and hills and ridgelines from public streets, parks and publicly accessible pathways.” The proposed pump station site does not consist of, nor would it block, one of these City-designated scenic views. Existing land uses adjacent to the project site consist of light industry, commercial, residential, and conservation, and the San Francisco Bay Trail runs along the San Rafael Bay approximately 0.18 miles to the east of the site. Views of the site from the residential neighborhood to the north and the Bay Trail to the east are mostly screened by vegetation, and the distance is too great for clear views of the low-lying pump station. Views from some angles within the private commercial parking lots to the south and southwest are possible but unlikely, as the pump station sits on the backside of the large commercial stores. Motorists would not be able to view the project site, as views from any major road are blocked by buildings. □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ [8J □ □ □ □ [8J San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 22 Existing sources of nighttime light in the project area include vehicle headlights, commercial development lighting, parking lot lights and residential security lighting. Existing sources of glare are mainly limited to automobile windshields and reflective building materials associated with residential and commercial uses. Discussion of Impacts a, b) No Impact. No scenic vistas exist in or near the project site. Furthermore, there is no state or locally designated scenic highway, road or corridor within the vicinity of the project site. The project also would not result in impacts within a state scenic highway, such as the removal of trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. c) Less than Significant Impact. There is the potential for temporary impacts to the existing visual quality of the surrounding area during construction. The only potential public view of the project site comes from the San Francisco Bay Trail directly to the east. Recreationists using the Bay Trail may be able to view the project site from certain angles, though it is mainly screened by vegetation. Temporary visual impacts could therefore result from the presence of construction vehicles or ground disturbance during project construction activities. However, construction activities would be temporary. The permanent development of the site would be consistent with the existing conditions of the site, as the new pump station would replace the current, dilapidated station. The new station would be slightly larger, but this size difference would not be noticeable nearly 0.20 miles away from the Bay Trail. The proposed pump station site does not consist of, nor would it block, any of the City-designated scenic views as described in the San Rafael General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. d) No Impact. Construction of the proposed project would not create a significant source of light or glare during daytime. The long-term operation of the project would not result in the addition of new sources of light and glare. Upon completion of construction the light and glare conditions at the project site would be nearly identical to existing conditions. The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 23 II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES — (Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Website) In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Source a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? 4 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 2 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 2 □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 24 II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES — (Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Website) In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Source d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?? 1,4 Environmental Setting The project site does not contain any farmland or forestry land and is not designated for agricultural or forestry uses or Prime, Statewide, or Locally Important Farmland (California Department of Conservation, 2010). The proposed project is located in residential and commercial areas and follows existing roads. Surrounding land is developed with residential, commercial, light industrial, and conservation uses. Discussion of Impacts a-e) No Impact. There are no agricultural or forestry resources within the project site. There are no Prime, Unique, Statewide or Locally Important farmlands in the area. The project □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 25 site is not under a Williamson Act Contract, nor is the project zoned as forest land or timber production. The project would be confined nearly entirely to the gravel road and turnaround point for the existing station, and all work and staging would take place on City of San Rafael land. No impacts to agricultural or forestry resources would occur. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 26 III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Source a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1,11 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 1,11 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1,11 d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people? 1,11 Environmental Setting The project site is in the San Francisco Bay Area air basin, where air quality is monitored and regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Ambient concentrations of key air pollutants have decreased considerably over the course of the last several decades. Air pollution is generated by anything that burns fuel (including but not limited to cars and trucks, construction equipment, backup generators, boilers and hot water heaters, barbeques and broilers, gas-fired cooking ranges and ovens, fireplaces, and wood-burning stoves), almost any evaporative emissions (including the evaporation of gasoline from service stations and vehicles, emissions from food as it is cooked, emissions from paints, cleaning solvents, and adhesives, etc.), and other processes (fugitive dust generated from roadways and construction activities, etc.). A sensitive receptor is generally defined as a location where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are located where there is a reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure to air pollutants. These typically include residences, hospitals, and schools. The site is surrounded by residential, commercial, and light industrial land uses. The Bay Area is currently classified as “attainment” or “unclassifiable” with respect to every National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) except ozone and fine particulate matter PM2.5, for which it is still classified as “nonattainment.” Ozone concentrations in the Bay Area have also decreased considerably over the last several decades, but NAAQS are required to be set to be protective of public health “allowing an adequate margin of safety” and have also become more □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 27 stringent. Prior to 2008, attaining the ozone NAAQS required that the “design value”--i.e., the peak 8-hour average concentration on the 4th-worst day of the year (averaged over three consecutive years)--be below 0.08 parts per million (ppm); the Bay Area was classified as “marginal” nonattainment with respect to that standard.1 In 2008, the ozone NAAQS was revised to 0.075 ppm. Therefore, while EPA has not yet finalized its attainment designations for the 2008 ozone standard, it is proposing to designate the Bay Area as “marginal nonattainment” (0.076 - 0.086 ppm) with respect to that standard.2 The State of California also has its own ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) which are equivalent to or more stringent than the NAAQS; the Bay Area is currently classified as nonattainment with respect to the CAAQS for ozone, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10), and “fine” particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities would result in short-term increases in emissions from the use of heavy equipment that generates dust, exhaust, and tire-wear emissions; soil disturbance; materials used in construction; and construction traffic. Project construction would produce fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) during ground disturbance and would generate carbon monoxide, ozone precursors, and other emissions from vehicle and equipment operation. BAAQMD released a Clean Air Plan for the Bay Area in 2010, which would be the applicable air quality plan for the proposed project. Best management practices (BMPs) recommended by BAAQMD and identified above in the project description would be implemented during construction to minimize fugitive dust. Pump station development activities would mainly take place within an existing developed footprint. Construction emissions would be temporary, lasting approximately 33 weeks, and would not have long-term effects on air quality in the Bay Area. Because of the small area of disturbance, temporary nature of the emissions, and implementation of construction measures, impacts on air quality would be less than significant and would comply with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under item a), the project would result in minor construction-related emissions. It would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The project would cause short-term air quality impacts as a result of construction activities; however, it would not result in long-term or cumulatively considerable increases in air quality pollutant emissions for which the Bay Area is currently in non-attainment (ozone and particulate matter). Implementation of BAAQMD BMPs would ensure that the temporary increase in air pollutant emissions 1 The Bay Area Air Quality Management reported that the maximum 8-hour ozone concentration only exceeded the standard once in 2005 and once in 2007, but exceeded the standard on 12 days in 2006. 2 EPA’s proposed criterion for the “marginal” classification was proposed in the Federal Register on February 14, 2012. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 28 associated with construction activities would result in less than significant contributions to cumulative pollutant levels in the region. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The primary sensitive receptors in the vicinity are residents and shoppers, which may include children, elderly people, or people with respiratory illnesses. Sensitive receptors located in close proximity to several locations adjacent to the construction area could be exposed to temporary air pollutants from construction activities, such as fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and carbon monoxide. The duration of construction activities would be limited. Basic construction measures recommended by BAAQMD would be implemented during construction to minimize air pollutants. New construction equipment has been subject to increasingly stringent emissions requirements at the Federal level (e.g., 40 CFR 89 and 1039), designated “Tier 1”, “Tier 2”, “Tier 3”, etc.; older construction equipment is subject to potential retrofit requirements required by the State of California (13 CCR 2449, 13 CCR 2450-2466, and 17 CCR 93116). As a result, sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities would involve the use of gasoline or diesel-powered equipment that emits exhaust fumes. These activities would take place intermittently throughout the workday, and the associated odors are expected to dissipate within the immediate vicinity of the work area. Persons near the construction work area may find these odors objectionable. However, the proposed project would not include uses that have been identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors, such as restaurants, manufacturing plants, landfills, and agricultural and industrial operations. The infrequency of the emissions, rapid dissipation of the exhaust and other odors into the air, and short-term nature of the construction activities would result in less- than-significant odor impacts. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 29 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Source a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,5,13 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,5,13 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1, 13 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1, 13 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1,2, 13 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1,13 □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ □ [8J San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 30 The following discussion related to biological resources is based on a Biological Resources Memorandum prepared by WRA, Inc. in May, 2019 that is provided in Appendix B. Regulatory Setting Sensitive Biological Communities Sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, or riparian habitat. These habitats are protected under federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act; state regulations such as the Porter-Cologne Act, the CDFW Streambed Alteration Program, and CEQA; or local ordinances or policies such as city or county tree ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas, and General Plan Elements. Waters of the United States The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a sufficient duration to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as “other waters” and are often characterized by an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Other waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into Waters of the U.S generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the State The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protects all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction includes “isolated” wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact Waters of the State, are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit, but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 31 Other Sensitive Biological Communities Other sensitive biological communities not discussed above include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW; formerly the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]). The CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2013). Sensitive plant communities are also identified by CDFW (CDFG 2003, 2007, 2009). CNDDB vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 based on NatureServe's (2010) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identified by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in city or county general plans or ordinances. Environmental Setting The proposed project footprint, as described in the Project Description, encompasses the area where planned activities would occur, including the existing pump station and associated underground pipe that runs to the east under the gravel walkway, as well as the footprint of a new pump station and associated underground culverts. The Biological Study Area (Figure 9) is a 3.8- acre area situated at the base of a slope created from infill that was placed between 1968 and 1987 (Historical Aerials 2018 3). The entire area was diked in the mid 1950’s. The project footprint is located between the ruderal vegetation on the infill soil and the naturally occurring muted salt marsh vegetation within the diked baylands. The majority of the Biological Study Area is composed of biological communities typically located on degraded or impacted natural areas, a result of past and present disturbance including maintenance of utility easements (mowing and other vegetation disturbance), infill, and the effects of urbanization. The northern and western outer edges of the Biological Study Area are dominated by less impacted salt marsh biological community types. Table 1 summarizes the area of each biological community type observed in the Biological Study Area and in the project footprint. Non-sensitive biological communities are the ruderal/non-native and developed areas. Sensitive biological communities include salt marsh, seasonal wetland, vegetation and Waters of the U.S./State consisting of a drainage channel (Figure 10). Descriptions for each biological community are provided below. 3 Historical Aerials. 2018. Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 32 Table 1. Biological Communities within the Biological Study Area and Project Area Biological Community Acreage within Bio. Study Area Acreage within Project Footprint Non-Sensitive Developed 0.65 0.20 Ruderal/Non-native 2.51 0.08 Sensitive Salt Marsh 0.44 0.01 (363 sq. ft.) Seasonal Wetland 0.01 0.00 Waters of the U.S./State 0.17 <0.01 (228 sq. ft.) Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\27000\27342\GIS\ArcMap\BiologicalStudyAreaAroundProjectFootprint.mxdBiological Study Area (3.79 ac.) Project Footprint San Quentin Pump Station ZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚProject ŝƚLJŽĨSan Rafael, California Sources: 2016 NAIPl, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 5/22/2019 010050 Feet Figure 9. Biological Study Area Ăround PrŽject Footprint N A (O)wra ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\27000\27342\GIS\ArcMap\BioComms.mxdBiological Study Area (3.78 ac.) Sensitive Biological Communities Salt Marsh (0.44 ac.) Seasonal Wetland (0.01 ac.) Water (0.17 ac.) Non-Sensitive Biological Communities Developed (0.65 ac.) Ruderal/Non-Native (2.51 ac.) San Quentin Pump Station Reconstruction Project, San Rafael, California Sources: 2016 DigitalGlobe Aerial, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 4/25/2019 010050 Feet Figure ϭϬ. Biological Communities in the Study Area DJ ----- San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 35 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities Developed Approximately 0.65 acres of developed area is located within the Biological Study Area, which includes the existing pump station, the gravel pathway and gravel landing to the north of the existing pump station. Ruderal/Non-native Approximately 2.51 acres of ruderal/non-native vegetation is located in the Biological Study Area on uplands along the gravel pathway and gravel landing. The ruderal/non-native vegetation community is composed of areas that are characterized as fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) patches and iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.) mats. This vegetation type typically occur in ruderal locations which have been partially developed or been used in the past for agriculture. Fennel is dominant or co-dominant in the herbaceous canopy layer with more than 50 percent relative cover. In areas of ice plant, a nearly monotypic mat with emergent non-native grasses and pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica) is present. Additional species within this community includes wild oats (Avena sp.), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), crane’s bill geranium (Geranium molle), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), and perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). Sensitive Biological Communities Salt Marsh The areas of salt marsh habitat best fits Alkali Heath Marsh (Frankenia salina Herbaceous Alliance, Pickleweed Mat (Salicornia pacifica Herbaceous Alliance), and Salt Grass Flats (Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Alliance) CDFW vegetation alliances (CNPS 2018b). A combined 0.44 acre of salt marsh is located within the Biological Study Area (Figure 10). Alkali heath marsh is located along the edge of the drainage channel north of the existing pump station. The areas of alkali heath marsh are dominated by alkali heath with associated species of curly leaf dock (Rumex crispus), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica) and annual grasses. The small area of pickleweed mat which occurs along the northern boundary of the Biological Study Area is the southern edge of a larger expanse of an isolated patch of pickleweed mat; areas of pickleweed mat are nearly 100 percent relative cover of pickleweed. Within the Biological Study Area, salt grass flat is located along the drainage channel south of the existing pump station and on the opposite side of the channel, across from the existing pump station. Areas of salt grass flats are nearly 100 percent relative cover of salt grass with ripgut brome, perennial pepperweed occurring at low cover. Both alkali heath marsh and pickleweed mat are considered sensitive by CDFW as indicated by an S3 rank; additionally, these communities are wetlands and within jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and RWQCB under Section 404/401 of the CWA. Salt grass flats are San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 36 not considered sensitive by CDFW, it is a wetland and within the jurisdiction of the Corps and RWQCB under Section 404/401 of the CWA. Seasonal Wetland A 0.01 acre seasonal wetland, dominated by non-native grasses and forbs is located along the eastern edge of the access road near the proposed pump station site. Vegetation is dominated by seaside barley (Hordeum marinum) and Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), both of which are facultative wetland species. Redoximorphic features (soil color patterns indicating oxidation of iron and manganese compounds resulting from water saturation) were observed in the soil, below the rocky road base. Soils were saturated to the surface at the time of the site visit. This community is considered sensitive as it is a potential seasonal wetland which are within the jurisdiction of the Corps and RWQCB under Section 404/401 of the CWA. Waters of the U.S./State Approximately 0.17 acre of a drainage channel is located along the western portion of the Biological Study Area. Stormwater runoff enters this channel at Highway 580. Water is present throughout the year within this feature; however, there is a fluctuation of depth and width throughout the year, with lower depth and smaller width occurring in the summer and fall months (Google Earth 1987-2018). The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and top-of-bank (TOB) of this feature are similar and were determined based on shift of vegetation, change in topography, and wrack line. Vegetation along the edges of the channel within the Biological Study Area include alkali heath marsh and salt grass flats as described above. Some patches of pickleweed and alkali bulrush were observed within the OHWM of the feature. This channel extends westward to Highway 580 and receives freshwater from stormwater runoff from adjacent developed areas. This channel is considered sensitive because it is within jurisdiction of the Corps and RWQCB under Section 404/401 of the CWA. Special-Status Species Plants Based upon a review of the resources and databases listed above, it was determined that 106 special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the Biological Study Area. The majority of the Biological Study Area (3.2 acres) is dominated by ruderal/non-native vegetation and developed areas. These communities are unlikely to support special-status plant species due to presence of aggressive non-native annual and perennial plant species which likely preclude special-status plants. The remaining salt marsh vegetation types comprise 0.44 acre of the 3.78-acre Biological Study Area, and are therefore limited in extent within the Biological Study Area. Based on assessment of biological communities present within the Biological Study Area, no special status plants are determined to have potential to occur within it. The Biological Study Area is located within an area that was diked off from the bay within the mid 1950’s (Historical Aerials 2018), and has received no direct tidal influence since that time. Known occurrences of nearby special-status plants that are known to occur in the biological communities present within San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 37 the Biological Study Area typically require direct tidal influence, which is not present at the project site. Therefore, while the biological communities within the Biological Study Area are potentially suitable for these salt marsh species to occur, the isolation of the Biological Study Area from direct tidal influence makes their occurrence unlikely. Wildlife Eighteen special-status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the Biological Study Area in the California Natural Diversity Database.4 Two of the species are considered extirpated from the region, and 15 species have little to no potential to occur within the Biological Study Area due to lack of suitable habitat (see Appendix B). The remaining species, the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), has a moderate potential to occur within the Biological Study Area. Nesting birds and roosting bats also have the potential to occur within the Biological Study Area. Salt marsh harvest mouse; Federal Endangered Species, State Endangered, CDFW Fully Protected Species. The salt-marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) is a relatively small rodent found only in suitable salt and brackish marsh habitat in the greater San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay areas. This species has been divided into two subspecies: the northern SMHM (Reithrodontomys raviventris halicoetes) which lives in the brackish marshes of the San Pablo and Suisun bays, and the southern SMHM (R. r. raviventris) which is found in the marshes of San Francisco Bay. The Biological Study Area occurs near the presumed boundary between the northern and subspecies, likely within the range of the southern subspecies, though the exact location of the boundary and whether the two subspecies hybridize are both unknown.5 The southern subspecies generally persists in smaller and more isolated populations relative to the northern subspecies, as most of the marshes of the South San Francisco Bay are narrow, strip- like marshes and thus support fewer SMHM compared to marshes in the northern portions of the species’ range.6 Northern marshes also tend to be more brackish, and have a more diverse assemblage of vegetation, thus the northern subspecies is more likely to occur in habitats that are not dominated by pickleweed, which dominates habitat in the southern range.7 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). RareFind 5. Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. Accessed: November 2018. 5 Smith, Katherine R, Melissa K Riley, Laureen Barthman–Thompson, Mark J Statham, Sarah Estrella, and Douglas Kelt. 2018. Towards Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Recovery: Research Priorities. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 16, no. 2. 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Five Year Review for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA. 7 Smith, Katherine R, Melissa K Riley, Laureen Barthman–Thompson, Isa Woo, Mark J Statham, Sarah Estrella, and Douglas A Kelt. 2018. Towards Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Recovery: A Review. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 16, no. 2 San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 38 The SMHM was last recorded in the Biological Study Area in 1987. The lack of more recent records is not unusual, especially for a privately owned property where state and Federal resource managers may have difficulty obtaining access, and may not accurately reflect an absence of the species on the Biological Study Area. Pickleweed, alkali heath, and saltgrass-dominated marsh occurs within the Biological Study Area, and these habitat patches are directly connected to over a quarter square kilometer of adjacent, high-quality, pickleweed marsh. However, the wetland complex is completely isolated from any other marshes that could support SMHM, and has a long history of disturbance. If any population-level extinction events occurred in the Biological Study Area and surrounding marsh, there would be virtually no chance of recolonization. However, the marsh is large with abundant upland refuge, so it is possible that a SMHM population has persisted here since the late 1980’s. The species is presumed present within the pickleweed and salt grass marsh within the Biological Study Area, and within suitable habitat in the surrounding marsh. Nesting Birds. Within the Biological Study Area, native birds may nest on the ground, in shrubbery, and on infrastructure. Most native birds have baseline protections under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as well as the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Under these laws/codes, the intentional killing, collecting or trapping of covered species, including their active nests (those with eggs or young), is prohibited.8 Work in the Biological Study Area could lead to damage or mortality to nests, or disturbance of adults leading to abandonment of nests. Roosting Bats. The pump station that is to be demolished in the Biological Study Area may support roosting bats. Bats could potentially use the structure for hibernation, or for maternity roosting. Hibernation roosting usually occurs between the fall and early spring in California. Disturbing bats during hibernation has high metabolic costs to the animals and can lead to reduced survival. Maternity colonies are composed of adult females and young, and disturbance of these can lead to abandonment of the colony, and/or mortality of young. The pump station contains abundant crevices that could accommodate roosting bats, and while the structure is small and subject to regular disturbance the potential for bat roosting cannot be ruled out. Methods Prior to the site visit, background literature was reviewed to determine the potential presence of sensitive vegetation types, aquatic communities, and special-status plant and wildlife species. Resources reviewed for sensitive vegetation communities and aquatic features include aerial photography, mapped soil types, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Database 8 The U.S. Department of the Interior recently issued guidance clarifying that the MBTA only applies to intentional/deliberate killing, harm or collection of covered species (including active nests) (USDOI 2017). According to the guidance, unintentional impacts to birds/nests that occur within the context of otherwise lawful activities are not MBTA violations. However, ambiguity remains regarding application of the CFGC, as well as the extent to which minimization and avoidance measures are still required under the MBTA. Additionally, challenges to the Opinion are anticipated. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 39 (2018a 9), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, CDFW 2018 10), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPac) database (USFWS 2018 11). For database queries, the San Rafael and eight surrounding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles were included as the focal search area (USGS 1980 12). On January 8, 2018, WRA biologists conducted a field assessment of the Biological Study Area to evaluate the potential presence of sensitive vegetation communities and aquatic features and evaluate on-site habitats to determine the potential for occurrence of special-status plant and wildlife species. Observed plant communities, aquatic features, and plant and wildlife species were noted. Site conditions were noted as they relate to habitat requirements of special-status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity as determined by the background literature research. The Biological Study Area was assessed in terms of potential biological resources impacts on the redevelopment project. This analysis was performed to a level of detail necessary to understand what types of major biological impacts are likely to be associated with the proposed project activities, with a focus on the project footprint within the Biological Study Area. The conclusions of this analysis are based on conditions observed at the time of the field assessments and regulatory policies and practices in place at the time the Biological Resources Memorandum (Appendix B) was prepared; changes that may occur in the future with regard to conditions, policies, or practices could affect the conclusions presented in this assessment. Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Noise, ground disturbance, and other construction activities could cause a temporary disturbance to salt-marsh harvest mouse (SMHM), a federal and state-protected endangered species, within and adjacent to the Biological Study Area. Activities could lead to injury or mortality to SMHM within the Biological Study Area. Implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures listed in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce construction phase impacts to less than significant. The operational phase of the project, which would require very little disturbance except for the occasional maintenance activity, would leave the area very similar to its current baseline condition and would therefore have less than significant impacts to state or federal special status species. 9 California Native Plant Society. 2018a. Online Rare Plant Inventory. Available at: http://rareplants.cnps.org/ 10 California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW 2018. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data 11 US. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Information for Planning and Consultation. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ 12 U.S. Geologic Society.1980. San Rafael 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 40 Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Mitigation measures for avoidance and minimization of effects to SMHM shall be incorporated into the permits or required authorizations and specifications, which the project proponent shall follow. The following avoidance and minimization measures are required: 1. A qualified biological monitor (i.e., biologist whose credentials for SMHM monitoring have been previously approved by the USFWS) shall be present on-site during all construction work taking place adjacent to emergent marsh, including all vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing work in these areas. The biological monitor shall document compliance with the Action permit conditions and all take avoidance and minimization measures. The monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt construction, if necessary, if there is the potential for a listed species to be harmed or when non- compliance events occur. The biological monitor(s) shall be the contact person for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a listed species, or anyone who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped listed species. 2. If any mouse is observed at any time during construction, work shall not be initiated or shall be stopped immediately by the biological monitor until the mouse leaves the vicinity of the work area of its own accord. The biological monitor or any other persons at the site shall not pursue, capture, or handle any mouse observed. 3. Night work is not anticipated and shall be avoided to the fullest extent feasible. If night work is necessary, all lighting shall be directed away from marsh and wetland areas to avoid impacting the natural behavior of SMHM. 4. All vehicles and heavy equipment stored outside of exclusion fencing and in the vicinity of suitable SMHM habitat shall be checked for mice before work commences each morning. 5. When construction activities are to take place in potential SMHM habitat (emergent marsh and upland areas within 50 feet of emergent marsh), vegetation removal in work areas shall be performed to remove cover and render these areas unattractive to SMHM. a. Only non-motorized equipment or hand-held motorized equipment (i.e., string trimmers) shall be used to remove the vegetation. b. Vegetation shall be cut in at least two passes: with the first pass cutting vegetation at approximately half of its height above the ground (mid-canopy) and the next pass, or subsequent passes, cutting vegetation to ground-level or no higher than 1 inch. c. The biological monitor shall inspect areas of vegetation removal immediately prior to the initiation of removal to search for SMHM and “flush” small mammals out of the area and toward adjacent marsh areas that will not be subject to removal. If any mouse is observed, work shall be stopped immediately by the biological monitor until the mouse leaves the vicinity of the vegetation removal of its own accord. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 41 d. Vegetation removal shall start in the position furthest from the highest quality and most accessible SMHM habitat outside of the work area, and progress toward that habitat, such that SMHM are protected to the greatest degree possible as they move out of the focal area. e. Cut vegetation shall be removed from the exclusion area (work area) so that no cut vegetation remains there once the exclusionary fence is installed, to discourage SMHM from being attracted to the area. f. All non-native, invasive vegetation removed shall be discarded at a location outside of any marsh areas to prevent reseeding. 6. Following completion of vegetation removal, temporary exclusionary fencing shall be installed to isolate work areas and prevent SMHM from entering work areas during construction. a. The fencing shall be installed between suitable habitat areas (e.g., salt marsh) and the defined work area (or areas) adjacent to suitable habitat immediately following vegetation removal and prior to the start of construction/excavation activities. Areas to be fenced should include the vicinity of the old and new pump structures and the area to be graded to the north of the pumps. As there is no suitable habitat for SMHM adjacent to the linear work area where the underground pipe is to be replaced, fencing would have limited value there. b. The fence shall consist of a non-textured, slick material that does not allow SMHM to pass through or climb, or silt fence with slick tape (or an effectively similar material) a minimum of 6 inches wide fixed to the fence to render it non-climbable. The bottom should be buried to a depth of at least 4 inches so that animals cannot crawl under the fence. Fence height should be at least 12 inches higher than the highest adjacent vegetation with a maximum height of 4 feet. c. Fence posts should be placed facing the work area side (i.e., vegetation-cleared side) and not the side of the fencing facing intact habitat areas. The fencing shall be installed under the supervision of a biological monitor. d. The biological monitor shall routinely inspect exclusionary fencing to ensure that it remains intact and effective. Fencing deficiencies noted shall be immediately reported to the contractor and repaired promptly. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Approximately 247 square feet of salt marsh habitat (salt grass mats), a sensitive riparian biological community per CDFW as indicated by an S3 rank, would be permanently impacted through the development of the new pump station, and an additional 116 square feet would be temporarily impacted through the removal of the existing station (Figure 11). Project activities would require permits from pertinent regulatory agencies, such as the Corps and the Regional Water Board, which would require mitigation for the small footprint of the project’s wetland impacts. Furthermore, the proposed project, via the re-contouring of the pond slope after San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 42 This page intentionally left blank. Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\27000\27342\GIS\ArcMap\ImpactsInTheBiologicalStudyArea.mxdBiological Study Area (3.78 ac.) Restored Wetlands and Waters (0.02 ac. - 736 Sq. Ft.) Impact Type Permanent (0.05 ac. - 5,461 Sq. Ft.) Temporary (0.11 ac. - 7,341 Sq. Ft.) SensiƟve Biological CommuniƟes Salt Marsh (0.44 ac.) Seasonal Wetland (0.01 ac.) Water (0.17 ac.) San QuenƟn Pump StaƟon ReconstrucƟon Project, San Rafael, California Sources: 2016 DigitalGlobe Aerial, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 6/3/2019 010050 Feet Figure 11. Impacts in the Biological Study Area Biological CommuniƟes Acres Sq. Ft. Acres Sq. Ft. Salt Marsh 0.01 246.67 0.00 116.24 Water 0.00 76.56 0.00 151.25 Seasonal Wetland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Impact Type Permanent Temporary ... . -..... ,Ji ll \ , ~\' N A (O)wra ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS This page intentionally left blank. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 45 pump station replacement, would create approximately 736 square feet of area that would be naturally reclaimed by water and salt marsh habitat. These calculated areas can be seen in detail on Figure 11. With this and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 below, calling for the applicant to be bound to specific mitigation as written into the appropriate regulatory permits, the project’s substantial adverse effects on sensitive biological communities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The applicant shall obtain a Section 404 permit from the Corps, and a Section 401 Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the permits, which the project proponent shall follow. The following avoidance and minimization measures are proposed as a part of the permit applications: 1. Best management practices shall be employed to reduce impacts to vegetation and to limit erosion. Vegetation removal shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Areas in which vegetation is removed should be replanted or seeded with native plants appropriate for the site. Erosion control measures, such as the use of silt fencing or straw wattles, should be implemented in areas of ground disturbance or vegetation removal. 2. All impacts to the drainage channel from deconstruction would be temporary as vegetation is expected to recolonize the excavated areas. To reduce potential temporary impacts to waters in the Project Area, best management practices shall be employed to reduce impacts associated with excavation and grading including erosion and sedimentation. Best management practices recommended by the Marin Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program shall be implemented to minimize pollutants carried from the Project Area in runoff. The project shall comply with terms of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. 3. All staging, maintenance, and storage of construction equipment shall be performed in a manner to preclude any direct or indirect discharge of fuel, oil, or other petroleum products into the drainage channel or salt marsh vegetation. No other debris, rubbish, creosote-treated wood, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete or washings thereof, or other construction related materials or wastes shall be allowed to enter into or be placed where they may be washed by rainfall or runoff into the drainage channel or salt marsh vegetation. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and properly disposed of at an appropriate site. 4. No equipment shall be operated in areas of flowing or standing water. No fueling, cleaning, or maintenance of vehicles or equipment shall take place within any areas where an accidental discharge to the drainage channel or salt marsh vegetation may occur. 5. Disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not exceed the minimum necessary to complete construction. 6. Where areas of bare soil other than in the excavated drainage channel are San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 46 exposed during the rainy season, sediment and erosion control measures shall be used to prevent sediment from entering waters in the drainage channel or salt marsh vegetation. Sediment and erosion control structures shall be monitored and repaired or replaced as needed. Build-up of soil behind silt fences shall be removed promptly and any breaches or undermined areas repaired promptly. Revegetation of disturbed surfaces other than the excavated drainage channel shall occur prior to the start of the first rainy season after construction. 7. The work area shall be delineated where necessary with orange construction fencing in order to minimize impacts to habitat beyond the work limit. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Prior to filling of jurisdictional waters, or construction activities within Corps or RWQCB jurisdiction, necessary regulatory permits shall be obtained from the appropriate agencies. Regulatory permits to be obtained include a Corps Permit, Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirement. Prior to proposed filling of jurisdictional waters, compliance with all regulatory agency permit conditions shall be demonstrated. Permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or waters shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio on a functions and values basis by: (1) replacing permanent impacted features through bank re-contouring at the old pump station location to create new area of waters and wetlands in the Biological Study Area; (2) purchasing an appropriate amount of mitigation credits by an approved mitigation bank, or (3) another type of mitigation as approved by the Corps and/or RWQCB through the permitting process. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would temporarily impact 151 square feet of Waters of the U.S./State and 116 square feet of salt marsh habitat as discussed above, which is considered wetland within jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and RWQCB under Section 404/401 of the CWA, through the removal of the existing pump station. If not adequately controlled, soil and material from the existing structure may enter the Waters during deconstruction of the existing pump station. Additionally, removal of material would cause turbidity within the Waters. Once the existing pump station is removed, installation of the new pump station would permanently impact approximately 77 square feet of Waters and 247 square feet of salt marsh, a total of 324 square feet of permanent impact. The proposed project includes placing fill within the Waters to stabilize and support the concrete slab upon which the new pump station would be placed. However, upon completion of pump station replacement, the bank would be regraded and new Waters would be gained; the bank adjacent to the newly gained Waters would have the potential to support salt marsh habitat. Approximately 736 square feet of wetlands and Waters of the U.S. would be gained, which is 547 square feet more Waters and wetland area than is being permanently impacted. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 47 Given a net increase in wetlands and Waters, and with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 above, the project’s impacts to wetlands and Waters of the U.S. and State would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would not impede the movement of a native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, as drainage patterns and topographic features would not be changed. However, the project has the potential to temporarily impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites during the construction phase by damaging bird nests and causing injury or mortality to eggs or chicks, or disturbance of nesting adults resulting in reduced clutch survival or nest abandonment, and/or by causing disturbance to roosting bats or injury or mortality of bat pups (young). Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and BIO-5 would ensure that impacts to native wildlife nursery sites are less than significant during the construction phase. The operation phase would have a less than significant impact on this topic, as it would leave the site in nearly the exact condition it is currently. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Mitigation measures for avoidance and minimization of effects to nesting birds shall be incorporated into the permits or required authorizations and specifications, which the project proponent shall follow. For the avoidance of impacts to native nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, the following avoidance and minimization measures are proposed as a part of the permit applications: 1. Project activities shall be initiated to the extent feasible, outside of the nesting season. The nesting season is defined here as being from February 1 to August 31 and therefore work shall commence between September 1 and January 31. 2. If this is not possible, and project activities are initiated during the nesting season, then a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 14 days prior to the start of project activities. 3. If nests are identified, a no-disturbance buffer shall be implemented to avoid impacts to nesting birds and should remain in place until all young are fledged or the nest otherwise becomes inactive. Buffers typically range from 25 feet to 500 feet depending on the species. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Mitigation measures for avoidance and minimization of effects to roosting bats shall be incorporated into the permits or required authorizations and specifications, which the project proponent shall follow. The following avoidance and minimization measures are required: 1. Preconstruction surveys for bats shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no less than 14 days prior to removal of the pump house if the work should begin during the maternity roosting season (April 1 through August 31) or during the hibernation season (November 1 through February 28). San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 48 2. If special-status bat species are detected during surveys, appropriate, species and roost specific mitigation measures shall be developed. Such measures may include postponing demolition of the pump house until the end of the maternity roosting season. 3. Demolition of the pump house can be conducted outside of the maternity roosting and hibernation seasons (during the months of September, October and March) without performing preconstruction bat surveys. e) Less than Significant. The City of San Rafael provides for the protection of street trees along any public street, sidewalk or walkway in the city (Ord. 972 § 2, 1970; Ord. 865 § 2, 1966: Ord. 609). The project site is not along any public street, sidewalk or walkway, and is not expected to impact or require the removal of any protected trees. If a protected tree must be removed or impacted, it would be replaced in accordance with the municipal code. Tree removal as a result of project implementation would not conflict with any local provisions for tree protection, and no significant impacts are anticipated. f) No Impact. No state, regional, or federal habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans have been adopted for the project site. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 49 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Source a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 1,2,14 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 1,2,14 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,2,14 The following analysis of cultural resource impacts is based on a report compiled by Alta Archaeological Consulting in May, 2019, which is included as Appendix C. Sources consulted for the report included a records search with the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), review of historic registers and maps, literature review, and a field survey. Environmental Setting The project area is situated within the Coast Range geologic province (Jenkins 1969). The northern Coast Ranges are a geologic province comprised of numerous rugged north-south trending ridges and valleys that run parallel to a series of faults and folds. Formation of these ranges is generally attributed to events associated with subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath the western border of North America. The bedrock that underlies the region is a complex assemblage of highly deformed, fractured, and weathered sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks. The bedrock geology of the project area consists of Jurassic-Cretaceous age Franciscan Formation rock (Schoenherr 1995:7). Rocks of this formation, the oldest in the area, are often weakly metamorphosed, and consist of greywacke shale interspersed with discontinuous bodies of ultramafic rock such as greenstone, schist, and serpentine. The repeated folding and faulting is reflected in the complex structure of Franciscan rocks and area topography (Schoenherr 1995:265). The project area is situated on a wetland flat bordering the San Rafael Bay on the north side of the San Quentin Peninsula. The vegetation community surrounding the project area consists mainly of high grasses with sparse deciduous forest. Common hardwood trees in the region include California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica), Valley oak (Quercus lobata), Interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), and Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Softwoods include Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata). Throughout the North Coast Ranges, many trees imported into the region have thrived, particularly blue-gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) (Little 1980). The project area is situated in the southern portion of highly-developed □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ ~ □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 50 San Rafael. The parcel is surrounded on three sides by industrial parks and housing developments. Regulatory Setting Federal and state criteria have been established for the determination of historical resource significance as defined in National Register (NR) criteria contained in National Register Bulletin 16 (U.S. Department of the Interior 1986:1) and for the purposes of CEQA under Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resource Code and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The NHPA applies to certain projects undertaken requiring approval by federal agencies. Property owners, planners, developers, as well as State and local agencies are responsible for complying with NHPA’s requirements regarding the identification and treatment of historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Under NHPA, cultural resources must be evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the NR. If an archaeological resource is determined ineligible for listing on the NR, then the resource is released from management responsibilities and a project can proceed without further cultural resource considerations. Similarly, the CEQA applies to certain projects undertaken requiring approval by State and/or local agencies. Under CEQA, cultural resources must be evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). If a cultural resource is determined ineligible for listing on the CRHR the resource is released from management responsibilities and a project can proceed without further cultural resource considerations. The San Quentin Pump Station was evaluated for eligibility for listing on the NRHP per the four criteria established in 36 CFR 60.4: Criteria for evaluation and for listing on the CRHR per Sections 15064.5 (b), 21083.2, and 21084.1 of the Public Resource Code (PRC) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 15064.5). As set forth in Title 36, Part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations, for a cultural resource to be deemed significant under the NHPA and thus eligible for listing on the NR, it must meet at least one of the following criteria: (A) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (B) associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (C) embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (D) yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Furthermore, in order to be considered eligible for listing on the NR, a property must retain aspects of integrity, or its ability to convey its historical significance. These aspects are as follows: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 51 As set forth in Section 5024.1(c) of the Public Resources Code for a cultural resource to be deemed “important” under CEQA and thus eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), it must meet at least one of the following criteria: (1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California History and cultural heritage; or (2) is associated with the lives of persons important to our past; or (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic value; or (4) has yielded or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. Archaeological resources are commonly evaluated with regard to Criteria D/4 (research potential). Historic-era structures older than 50 years are most commonly evaluated in reference to Criteria 1/A (important events), Criteria B/2 (important persons) or Criteria C/3 (architectural value). To be considered eligible under these criteria the property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its important qualities. Integrity is judged in relation to seven aspects including: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to State CEQA guideline 15064.5, the City’s General Plan (Culture and Arts Element) was consulted to identify any National, State, or Local historical landmarks with the project site. The project site does not contain any resource listed as one of the 21 historic landmarks in the City’s General Plan. Review of historic registers and inventories indicate that no listed historical resources are present in the project area or located within the 0.5-mile visual area of the Area of Potential Effect (APE). A records search identified four cultural resources are present within the one-half mile records search radius. There are three prehistoric and one historic-era resources located between a quarter and half a mile to the north and southwest of the project site; however, no cultural resources are documented within the project area limits. ALTA staff archaeologists conducted a field survey of the project on January 17, 2019. Project design drawing, project maps and aerial imagery were used to correctly identify the project area. Ground surface visibility was moderate (25-30%) due to dense seasonal grasses and imported gravel road fill. The entire APE and the access road was surveyed using intensive survey coverage with transects no greater than 10 meter intervals. A total of about 5.2 acres of land was surveyed. Survey efforts included an evaluation of the current historic-era pump station to determine historical and/or architectural significance. The San Quentin Pump Station does not fulfill Criterion A/1 of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation or the California Register of Historical Resources Criteria for Designation. The pump station is associated with the reclamation of San Francisco Bay marshes and wetlands. This location is one of many wetlands reclaimed for urban San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 52 development in the 20th century. However, these events are not significant enough to national, state, or regional history to associate the pump station with a pattern of history significant to the cultural heritage of the United States or California. No documentation indicates the association of the pump station with significant local, state, or national persons. No architect or builder is known at present. Therefore, the pump station fails to fulfill Criterion B/2. The pump station does not demonstrate aesthetic qualities that speak to an investment of artistic consideration in its design. Rather, the design qualities and construction qualities indicate a primary emphasis on functionality. The pump station does not represent a type, period, region, or method of construction. With these considerations, the pump station fails to fulfill Criterion C/3. Considering its relatively recent construction and its location on relatively recently reclaimed land, the pump station and its vicinity are unlikely to yield any information important to the history of the region or the nation. In sum, the San Quentin Pump Station does not fulfill Criterion A/1 through D/4 of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation or the California Register of Historical Resources Criteria for Designation, nor does it retain enough integrity to convey its significance. The ALTA survey deems the pump station ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. Given the above-described studies to identify potential cultural resources and the lack of any such resources being identified, it is unlikely the proposed project would have a significant impact on cultural resources. In the event that cultural resources are uncovered in the course of construction, however, the following mitigation measure would ensure that impacts remained less than significant. Mitigation Measure CULT-1: If previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during project implementation, avoid altering the materials and their stratigraphic context. A qualified professional archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. The Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria shall be contacted to solicit their input with regard to proposed treatment and disposition of materials. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include, but are not limited to, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, pestles, and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or abode foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project area has a low sensitivity for archaeological resources. Historically, the project area was part of the waters of San Rafael bay. The area was diked and reclaimed during the mid-20th century as part of reclamation efforts (USGS 1956, 1960). As such, there is a low sensitivity for encountering either prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources. Additionally, all proposed project improvements would occur within existing rights-of-way and no improvements would require additional large-scale excavation. Furthermore, the areas San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 53 for which project work is proposed have already been disturbed as a result of the original construction of the existing pump station and storm drainage pipe. The previous construction activity would likely have reduced or eliminated the significance of archaeological resources if they were encountered. However, the City of San Rafael implements specific adopted archeological resource measures in the event resources are encountered during grading. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure CULT-2: The City or its contractor shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.5, 5097.9 et seq., regarding the discovery and disturbance of cultural materials, should any be discovered during project construction. In keeping with the CEQA guidelines, if archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery shall be halted immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds (§15064.5 [f]). Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements (e.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Midden soils may contain a combination of any of the previously listed items with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). c) Less than Significant Impact. There are no formal cemeteries on the site, nor are human remains likely to exist on the site. However, the possibility remains that a resource of cultural significance may be encountered. Per Public Resources Code 5097.98 and Health and Human Safety Code 7050.5, if human remains are encountered, excavation or disturbance of the location shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the County Coroner contacted. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent makes recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity. With the compliance of State law, a less-than-significant impact would result. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 54 VI. ENERGY — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Source a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 1, 2 b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 1, 2 Environmental Setting California Energy usage is typically quantified using the British thermal unit (“BTU”). As a point of reference, the approximate amount of energy contained in common energy sources are as follows: gasoline, 115,000 BTUs per gallon; diesel, 138,500 BTUs per gallon; natural gas, 21,000 BTUs per pound (“lb”); electricity, 3,414 BTUs per kilowatt-hour (“kWh”).13 Total energy usage in California was 7,640.8 trillion BTUs in 2012, which equates to an average of 201 million BTUs per capita. Of California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is 39 percent transportation, 23 percent industrial, 19 percent residential, and 19 percent commercial. Petroleum satisfies 55 percent of California’s energy demand, natural gas 32 percent, and electricity 12 percent. Coal fuel accounts for less than one percent of California’s total energy demand.14 Electric power and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary users, whereas petroleum consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use.15 The other sources are made up of renewable energy sources, which includes wind and solar power, among other uses. Given the nature of the proposed project, the main uses of energy would occur via construction vehicle fuel and electricity during operation. These two sources of energy are discussed in further detail below. City of San Rafael The City of San Rafael receives its electricity from Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), a 13 U.S. Department of Energy, 2014. Alternative Fuels Data Center – Fuel Properties Comparison. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf 14 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2014. “Official Energy Statistics from the U. S. Government,” http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA. 15 Ibid. □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 55 natural gas and electric utility, as well as Marin Clean Energy (MCE), which supplies customers with 50 to 100% renewable energy as an alternative to PG&E. MCE’s 100% renewable electricity program is called Deep Green, and it supplies non-polluting wind and solar power for public buildings, streetlights, and other civic accounts in Marin County. San Rafael chose to join the Deep Green program in 2018. Regulatory Setting Federal and state agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. At the federal level, the United States Department of Transportation, the United States Department of Energy, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are three federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. Generally, federal agencies influence and regulate transportation energy consumption through establishment and enforcement of fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, through funding of energy related research and development projects, and through funding for transportation infrastructure improvements. At the state level, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. The CPUC regulates privately owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields. The CEC collects and analyzes energy-related data, prepares statewide energy policy recommendations and plans, promotes, and funds energy efficiency programs, and adopts and enforces appliance and building energy efficiency standards. California is exempt under federal law from rules that otherwise would preempt setting state fuel economy standards for new on- road motor vehicles. Some of the more relevant federal and state energy-related laws and plans are discussed below. Federal Regulations Energy Policy Act of 2005 Passed by Congress in July 2005, the Energy Policy Act includes a comprehensive set of provisions to address energy issues. The act includes tax incentives for the following: energy conservation improvements in commercial and residential buildings; fossil fuel production and clean coal facilities; and construction and operation of nuclear power plants, among other things. Subsidies are also included for geothermal, wind energy, and other alternative energy producers. It directs the USDOE to study and report on alternative energy sources such as wave and tidal power, and includes funding for hydrogen research. The Act also increases the amount of ethanol required to be blended with gasoline, and extends daylight saving time (to begin earlier in spring and end later in fall) to reduce lighting requirements. It also requires the federal vehicle fleet to maximize use of alternative fuels. The Act further includes provisions for expediting construction San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 56 of major energy transmission corridors, such as high-voltage power lines, and fossil fuel transmission pipelines. These are just a few examples of the provisions contained in the Act.16 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 Signed into law in December 2007, this broad energy bill included an increase in auto mileage standards, and also addressed biofuels, conservation measures, and building efficiency. The U.S. EPA administers the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which determines vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with existing fuel economy standards. The bill amended the CAFE standards to mandate significant improvements in fuel efficiency (i.e., average fleet wide fuel economy of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020, versus the previous standard of 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 22.2 mpg for light trucks).17 Another provision includes a mandate to increase use of ethanol and other renewable fuels by 36 billion gallons by 2022, of which 21 million gallons is to include advanced biofuels, largely cellulosic ethanol, that have 50 to 60 percent lower GHG emissions. The bill also includes establishment of a new energy block grant program for use by local governments in implementing energy-efficiency initiatives, as well as a variety of green building incentives and programs, among other things.18 State Regulations Energy Action Plan In 2003, the three key energy agencies in California— the CEC, the California Power Authority (CPA), and the CPUC— jointly adopted an Energy Action Plan (EAP) that listed goals for California’s energy future and set forth a commitment to achieve these goals through specific actions. In 2005, the CPUC and the CEC jointly prepared the EAP II to identify the further actions necessary to meet California’s future energy needs. The EAP II describes the priority sequence for actions to address increasing energy needs, also known as “loading order.” The loading order identifies energy efficiency and demand response as the state’s preferred means of meeting growing energy needs. After cost-effective efficiency and demand response, the state is to rely on renewable sources of power and distributed generation, such as combined heat and power applications. To the extent that efficiency, demand response, renewable resources, and distributed generation are unable to satisfy increasing energy and capacity needs, the EAP II supports the use of clean and efficient fossil fuel-fired generation. In 2008, the CPUC and CEC released an Energy Action Plan Update using information and analysis prepared for the Energy Commission’s 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). 16 United States Congress, Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58), passed July 29, 2005. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6 17 EPA. 2007. Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/laws- regulations/summary-energy-independence-and-security-act 18 Ibid 33 San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 57 The Update was partially written in response to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (discussed below), intended to keep the EAP I and EAP II process alive while capturing changes in the policy landscape and describing intended activities to accomplish those policies. The focus areas included: energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, electricity reliability and infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas supply and infrastructure, research and development, and climate change.19 The EAP identifies key actions to be taken in all of these areas in order to meet the state’s growing energy requirements. The plan recommendations are implemented by the governor through executive orders, by the legislature through new statutes, and by the responsible state agencies through regulations and programs. Title 24 (California Energy Code) The California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California. The provisions of the California Energy Code apply to the building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and water-heating and lighting systems of buildings and appliances; they also give guidance on construction techniques to maximize energy conservation. Minimum efficiency standards are given for a variety of building elements, including appliances; water and space heating and cooling equipment; and insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings. The CEC adopted the 2005 changes to the Building Efficiency Standards, which emphasized saving energy at peak periods and seasons, and improving the quality of installation of energy-efficiency measures. It is estimated that implementation of the 2005 Title 24 standards have resulted in an increased energy savings of 8.5 percent relative to the previous Title 24 standards. Compliance with Title 24 standards is verified and enforced through the local building permit process.20 The 2008 Title 24 Standards, which had an effective date beginning August 1, 2009, include added provisions that require, for example, “cool roofs” on commercial buildings; increased efficiency in heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems; and increased use of skylights and more efficient lighting systems.21 Title 24 Standards were further updated with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are estimated to lead to 25 percent less energy consumption for residential buildings and 30 percent savings for nonresidential buildings over 2008 Energy Standards. 2013 standards, which updated codes for lighting, space heating and cooling, ventilation, and water heating, took effect on July 1st 2014. 19 State of California, Energy Commission and Public Utilities Commission, “Energy Action Plan 2008 Update,” February 2008. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/Utilities_and_Industries/Energy_- _Electricity_and_Natural_Gas/2008%20Energy%20Action%20Plan%20Update.pdf 20 California Energy Commission (2016) Web site (Building Efficiency Standards), http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 21 Ibid. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 58 California Green Building Standards Code All new construction must adhere to the California Green Building Standards Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11) in place at the time of construction. As an example, the 2013 Title 24 California Green Building Standards, referred to as CALGreen: x Sets a threshold of a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use and includes voluntary goals for reductions of 30 percent, 35 percent, and 40 percent. x Requires separate meters for indoor and outdoor water use at nonresidential buildings; and at those sites, irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas must be moisture- sensing. x Calls for 50 percent of construction waste to be diverted from the landfills and lists higher, voluntary diversion amounts of 65 percent to 75 percent for new homes, and 80 percent for commercial construction. x Mandates inspections of energy systems -- such as the heat furnace, air conditioning, and mechanical equipment -- for nonresidential buildings that are larger than 10,000 square feet to "ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to design efficiencies." x Requires that paint, carpet, vinyl flooring, particle board, and other interior finish materials be low-emitting in terms of pollutants. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In September 2006, the governor signed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates that California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The act directs the California EPA to work with state agencies to implement a cap on GHG emissions (primarily carbon dioxide) from stationary sources of such as electric power generation facilities, and industrial, commercial, and waste-disposal sectors. Since carbon dioxide emissions are directly proportional to fossil fuel consumption, the cap on emissions is expected to have the incidental effect of forcing a reduction in fossil fuel consumption from these stationary sources. Specifically, AB 32 directs the California EPA to work with other state agencies to accomplish the following: 1) promulgate and implement GHG emissions cap for the electric power, industrial, and commercial sectors through regulations in an economically efficient manner; 2) institute a schedule of greenhouse gas reductions; 3) develop an enforcement mechanism for reducing GHG; 4) establish a program to track and report GHG emissions.22 Senate Bill 32 Enacted in 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 (Pavley, 2016) codifies the 2030 GHG emissions reduction goal of Executive Order B-30-15 by requiring CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Similar to AB 32, a reduction in GHG emissions typically corresponds with a reduction in energy usage as the bulk of GHGs result from the 22 Assembly Bill 32, Passed August 31, 2006, http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/docs/ab32text.pdf. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 59 combustion of fossil fuel. SB 32 was coupled with a companion bill: AB 197 (Garcia, 2016). Designed to improve the transparency of CARB’s regulatory and policy-oriented processes, AB 197 created the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, a committee with the responsibility to ascertain facts and make recommendations to the Legislature concerning statewide programs, policies and investments related to climate change. AB 197 also requires CARB to make certain GHG emissions inventory data publicly available on its web site; consider the social costs of GHG emissions when adopting rules and regulations designed to achieve GHG emission reductions; and, include specified information in all Scoping Plan updates for the emission reduction measures contained therein. Local Regulations In addition to federal and state regulations and guidelines, the following is a synopsis of local City of San Rafael regulations and goals relative to reducing or avoiding significant impacts on energy use. City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 Policy SU-6 Resource Efficiency in Site Development. Encourage site planning and development practices that reduce energy demand, support transportation alternatives and incorporate resource and energy-efficient infrastructure. Policy SU-6a. Site Design. Evaluate as part of development review, proposed site design for energy-efficiency, such as shading of parking lots and summertime shading of south-facing windows. Policy SU-14d. City Electricity. Participate in the Marin Energy Authority by switching all City accounts over to the Light Green option in 2010 and the Deep Green option (100% renewable power) by 2020. Consider the use of renewable energy technology such as solar, cogeneration and fuel cells in the construction or retrofitting of City facilities. Policy SU-14l. Backup Energy Provision. Evaluate backup energy provisions for critical city facilities and upgrade as needed. Encourage the use of alternatives, such as fuel cell and solar generator backups, to the sustained use of gasoline-powered generators. City of San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2011 LF11: Adopt a Zero Waste Goal and adopt a Zero Waste Strategic Plan for San Rafael. LF15: Adopt a construction debris recycling and reuse ordinance. EN7: Develop a program of levee analysis, including inventorying heights, testing and maintaining public and private levees. Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require the use of diesel and other fuels for trucks and equipment during construction, but these activities would be San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 60 short-term and completed as efficiently as possible for practical and financial reasons, among other considerations. The only ongoing energy consumption in the operational phase of the project would be from a City-supplied portable generator, very similar to, or the same as, the one used by the existing pump station. Given the important flood control functions of the pump station, the relatively minor amount of energy used to power the vertical pumps is not wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Furthermore, any energy usage increase from the baseline condition would be very minor, if anything. Impacts in this regard would therefore be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would replace an existing pump station with a similarly sized station. The degree of energy consumption due to the new station would therefore not be changed from current baseline conditions. While the proposed pump station may not necessarily advance state and local renewable energy plans, it certainly would not hinder or obstruct such plans either. Furthermore, given San Rafael’s enrollment in the Deep Green 100% renewable program, electricity from the generator could be from renewable sources. Impacts would be less than significant. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 61 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 1,10 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,10 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1,6,10 iv) Landslides? 1,6,10 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1,6,15 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 1,6,15 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 1,6 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 1,15 □ □ □ ~ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ ~ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 62 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1 Environmental Setting Regional Geologic Setting The project site lies within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. Regional topography within the Coast Ranges province is characterized by northwest-southeast trending mountain ridges and intervening valleys that parallel the major geologic structures, including the San Andreas Fault System. The province is also generally characterized by abundant landsliding and erosion, owing in part to its typically high levels of precipitation and seismic activity. Earthquakes are the product of the build-up and sudden release of strain along a “fault” or zone of weakness in the earth's crust. Stored energy may be released as soon as it is generated or it may be accumulated and stored for long periods of time. Faults are seldom single cracks in the earth's crust but are typically comprised of localized shear zones which link together to form larger fault zones. Within the Bay Area, faults are concentrated along the San Andreas fault system, which extends nearly 700 miles along a northwest trend from Mexico to offshore northern California. The movement between rock formations along either side of a fault may be horizontal, vertical, or a combination and is radiated outward in the form of energy waves. The amplitude and frequency of earthquake ground motions partially depends on the material through which it is moving. The earthquake force is transmitted through hard rock in short, rapid vibrations, while this energy becomes a long, high-amplitude motion when moving through soft ground materials, such as Bay Mud. An “active” fault is one that shows displacement within the last 11,000 years (i.e. Holocene) and has a reported average slip rate greater than 0.1 mm per year. The California Division of Mines and Geology (1998) has mapped various active and inactive faults in the region. The nearest known active faults to the site are the San Andreas and Hayward Faults. Local Geologic Setting The project site is located immediately west of San Pablo Bay. Regional geologic mapping (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1976) indicates that the site is underlain by artificial fill over Bay Mud with marsh deposits mapped directly to the north. A Regional Geologic Map and descriptions of the mapped geologic units are shown on Figure 3 of Appendix A, Sub-Appendix A (Draft Geotechnical Investigation Report). The project site, like all properties in the San Francisco Bay area, is situated in a seismically active area. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Andreas fault system includes the San Andreas, □ □ [8J □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 63 Hayward, Calaveras, and other related faults in the San Francisco Bay area. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 2003), there is a 62% chance of at least a magnitude 6.7 (or greater) earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region between 2003 and 2032. The Biological Study Area is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for active faulting and no active faults are mapped on the property. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 16.2 kilometers (10 miles) southwest of the site whereas the Hayward Fault is located approximately 11.4 kilometers (7 miles) to the northeast. Discussion of Impacts a-i,) No Impact. The project site is not located within a State of California designated Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Department of Conservation, 1974). Earthquake fault zones are regulatory zones that encompass surface traces of active faults that have a potential for future surface fault rupture. The closet active faults to the site are the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 10 miles to the west-southwest of the project site at its closest point, and the Hayward Fault, approximately 7 miles northeast at its closest point. No faults cross through the project site, and surface rupture associated with a fault is not anticipated in the City. No impacts would occur. a-ii) Less than Significant Impact. The potential for seismic ground-shaking at the project site is “very strong” according to the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Resilience Program hazards map, but seismic-related ground failure is not anticipated. The project site’s proximity to two active bay area faults (San Andreas and Hayward) leaves it vulnerable to some degree of ground shaking, which is common in the Bay Area. The proposed project would not create a need or opportunity for people to reside on-site and thus be exposed to such ground shaking long-term. If an earthquake were to occur during the construction phase, it could create a risk for workers on-site, but under the obligation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), construction workers would be trained to take the necessary precautions to maintain worker safety in the event of an earthquake. Structures associated with the proposed work would be designed to conform to the most recent edition of the California Building Code (2016) with flexible connections and CBC design features as discussed in the geotechnical report compiled for the project (Appendix A, Sub-Appendix A). Given these legal obligations, the impacts related to this topic would be less than significant. a-iii) Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when a saturated or partially saturated soil substantially loses strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress, such as seismic shaking, which causes a solid to behave like a liquid. Soils susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, granular deposits. Liquefaction can result in flow failure, lateral spreading, ground movement, settlement, and other related effects. Buried pipelines embedded within liquefied soils may also experience uplift due to buoyancy. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 64 According to ABAG’s Resilience Program hazards map, the project site has a moderate susceptibility to liquefaction; however, according to the geologic mapping and the results of subsurface exploration completed for the proposed work, the project site is underlain by relatively thick deposits of bay mud which are not susceptible to liquefaction. The fill material is mostly comprised of clayey soils that are not susceptible to liquefaction either. Therefore, the likelihood of damage to the new pump station and outfall pipe due to liquefaction is low. In addition, the project would be subject to all Federal, State, and local regulations for seismic conditions, including the CBC. Impacts would be less than significant. a-iv) Less than Significant Impact. Landslides are frequently triggered by strong ground motions. They are an important secondary earthquake hazard. The term landslide includes a wide range of ground movement, such as rock falls, deep failure of slopes, and shallow debris flows. Landslides from seismic activity are a very low risk at the project site given its flat topography and general lack of slopes, cliffs, or flowing water. The project is subject to all Federal, State, and local regulations and standards for seismic conditions, including the CBC, and would be designed to conform to all building requirements. Given the low risk of landslides at the project site and the legal obligations associated with seismic building design, impacts associated with seismic landslides would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction would involve limited soil disturbance, which could temporarily expose soils to wind and water erosion. However, the project would not cause a substantial change to erosion and accretion patterns of the area long-term because the pump station improvements would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. Temporary construction impacts related to run-off from the cut soil stored on-site could occur, but standard measures from the Marin Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program and from the State Water Board’s General Permit would be implemented to ensure impacts from runoff would remain less than significant. Additionally, there would be almost no disturbance of native topsoil, as construction activities would take place mainly within existing paved roads and the soil in the area is non-native fill material. The fill material cut for the new pump station and stockpiled on- site would be wet and therefore unsusceptible to soil erosion, and would then be naturally vegetated over time, further reducing erosion risk. BAAQMD construction measures would be implemented to minimize the potential for erosion and indirect effects associated with soil erosion (i.e., water quality impacts, fugitive dust). Impacts on soil would therefore be less than significant. c, d) Less than Significant Impact. The potential for geologic and soil hazards from unstable or expansive soils in the project site is considered low based on the geologic units, soil types, and flat topography discussed previously. The ground disturbance associated with the proposed project would cause soil disturbance but these actions would not result in substantial changes in topography, ground surface relief features, or geologic San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 65 substructures, and would therefore not change the stability of the soil conditions. The pump station itself would be designed to “float” on a concrete slab on top of the soil to avoid settlement over time, and the outfall pipe would mainly be sliplined into existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the project is subject to all Federal, State, and local regulations and standards for seismic conditions including the California Building Code (CBC) and would be designed to conform to all building requirements. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts would not destabilize the soil or expose human life or structures to increased risk of on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Impacts in these areas would be less than significant. e) No Impact. The project does not involve construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. f) Less than Significant Impact. The project site follows mainly existing rights-of-way on graveled and previously disturbed land. Excavation of soil would be required, but the soil would be non-native fill and is unlikely to contain any paleontological resources. The ground disturbance associated with the project would not change the topography or geologic substructures of the vicinity, and would therefore not change any unique geologic features. The project area was historically part of the waters of the San Rafael Bay and was diked and reclaimed in the mid-20th century, covered in fill material. Unique paleontological or geologic features would therefore only exist in the deeper layers of soil and would remain undisturbed. Impacts would be less than significant. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 66 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1 b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1,11 Environmental Setting Assembly Bill 32, adopted in 2006, established the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which requires the State to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill 97, adopted in 2007, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop CEQA guidelines “for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions,” and the Resources Agency certified and adopted the amendments to the guidelines on December 30, 2009. GHGs are recognized by wide consensus among the scientific community to contribute to global warming/climate change and associated environmental impacts. The major GHGs released from human activity are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2008). The primary sources of GHGs are vehicles (including planes and trains), energy plants, and industrial and agricultural activities (such as dairies and hog farms). Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact. GHG emissions from the project would be produced from construction-related equipment emissions. Based on the nature of the project and short duration of construction, GHG emissions resulting from construction activities would be both minor and temporary. While the project would have an incremental contribution to GHG emissions within the City and region, the individual impact is less than significant. During the operational phase, the pump station would utilize a City-supplied portable generator, which would emit small amounts of greenhouse gases from diesel fuel usage. However, the current station already uses a portable generator and there would be no change in greenhouse gas emissions over current baseline conditions. Less than significant impacts would occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. GHG emissions from off-road equipment and utility electrical usage are identified and planned for in the BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan as well as the BAAQMD’s Source □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 67 Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions (BAAQMD 2010a and 2010b). A primary objective of the 2010 Clean Air Plan is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40% below 1990 levels by 2035. The project would generate emissions similar to existing conditions and, therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 68 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? 1 f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 1 □ □ ~ □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 69 The following Hazards and Hazardous Materials Appendix G thresholds analysis was prepared by hazardous materials specialists at Baseline Environmental Consulting. Environmental Setting The site is located on relatively flat land adjacent to the San Rafael Bay. Regional geologic mapping indicates that the site is underlain by artificial fill over Bay Mud with marsh deposits mapped directly to the north.23 The proposed pump station site and outfall pipe alignment are located immediately north of a former landfill (referred to as the San Quentin Landfill). The San Quentin Landfill is a closed, unlined Class III landfill that operated from 1968 to 1987. The site was used for the disposal of non-hazardous solid wastes such as construction debris. No waste has been disposed of at the landfill since 1987.24 In 1987 the landfill began final closure. Final cover of the landfill consisted of approximately 1 foot of foundation soil, a minimum of at least 1 foot of low hydraulic conductivity layer, and approximately 3 feet of topsoil. Several separate monitoring programs are being implemented for the site including groundwater monitoring, leachate monitoring, and surface water monitoring and are being performed under the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) Order No. R2-2012-0064. Groundwater conditions at the landfill are monitored by eight monitoring wells (generally located around the perimeter of the landfill). The monitoring program requires the dischargers to monitor groundwater levels quarterly and groundwater chemistry semi-annually in the eight monitoring wells. Constituents of Concern (COCs, considered potential contaminants given the nature of the waste and are monitored once every five years) include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compound (SVOCs), organochlorine pesticides and poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). According to Order R2-2012-0064, the groundwater quality in the monitoring wells has consistently shown no significant impacts from the landfill.25 The landfill contains six leachate monitoring wells. Monitoring parameters include field parameters (pH, EC, groundwater elevation) and inorganics (TDS, ammonia, nitrate). COCs include VOCs, SVOCs, organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs. Anthropogenic compounds have been detected in leachate at the landfill, but the frequency of their detection is low. According to Order R2-2012- 0064, the concentrations of the compounds do not exceed the Water Board’s Environmental Screening Levels and do not pose significant risk to either human health or the environment. 23 California Division of Mines and Geology, “Geology for Planning in Central and Southeastern Marin County, California, OFR 76-2 S.F. Plate 1D, South Central Marin Geology”, 1976. 24 CSS Environmental Services, 2019. First Semi-Annual 2019 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former San Quentin Landfill 1615 East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, California, March 5. 25 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2012. Updated Waste Discharge Requirements and Rescission of Order No. 01-022 for: San Quentin Solid Waste Disposal Landfill, Order No. R2-2012-0064. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 70 Landfills are known to generate methane gas as the waste in the landfill breaks down. The Water Board order R2-2012-0064 specifies that “methane and other landfill gases shall be adequately vented, removed from the landfill, or otherwise controlled to minimize the danger of explosion, adverse health effects, nuisance conditions and the impairment of beneficial uses of water due to gas migration.”26 However, no monitoring data or information on the methane venting systems is included in the order. Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant Impact. Project construction activities are expected to involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials (e.g., motor fuels, paints, oils, and grease) that could pose a significant threat to human health or the environment if not properly managed. Although small amounts of these materials would be transported, used, and disposed of during project construction, these materials are typically used in construction projects and are not considered acutely hazardous. Workers who handle hazardous materials are required to adhere to health and safety requirements enforced by the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). Hazardous materials must be transported to and from the project site in accordance with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. Hazardous materials must also be disposed of in accordance with RCRA regulations at a facility that is permitted to accept the waste. Because compliance with existing regulations is mandatory, project construction is not expected to create a significant hazard to public health or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. During project operation, it is anticipated that the project would involve the use of hazardous materials that are typical of stormwater pumping facilities (e.g., oil and grease, hydraulic fluid). These materials would be used in small and localized amounts. As described above, the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are subject to federal and State regulations. On the local level, the County of Marin, Waste Management Division is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) that implements regulatory programs for sites that routinely use relatively large quantities of hazardous materials to ensure the safe storage, management, and disposal of such materials in accordance with the Unified Program. While the project is not expected to handle large quantities of hazardous materials, compliance with existing laws, regulations, and CUPA programs, as applicable, would be mandatory; therefore, project operations are not expected to create a significant hazard to public health or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 26 Ibid, page 12. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 71 As a result, impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project construction and operation would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Potential accident and upset conditions resulting in the release of hazardous materials used or encountered during general project construction and operation activities are discussed below. Accidental Hazardous Materials Release Related to Undocumented Fill and the Closed Landfill during Project Construction and Operation Surface soils at the project site are comprised of undocumented fill. The quality of this fill is unknown and may contain elevated levels of contaminants, including metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and PCBs. In addition, the precise limits of the former landfill in relation to the project alignment are not known. It is possible that contaminants associated with the landfill have affected the project site (both the new pump station site and the outfall pipeline alignment). Contaminants from the landfill may have affected the project site in the following ways: x Solids (including contaminated soils) may have been spread onto the site during landfill operation and/or closure, or migrated onto the site as a result of erosion; x Affected groundwater, potentially containing VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs may have migrated off the landfill site to the surrounding area. VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs have been identified in landfill leachate wells.27 x Soil and landfill gas (including methane and VOCs) could migrate through the soil column and affect off-site areas. Excavation of material from the project site during grading activities could potentially expose workers and the surrounding public to hazardous materials in dust or vapors that could be released if the excavated fill material is contaminated. Re-use of the fill material as engineered fill could potentially expose future maintenance workers to hazardous materials if contaminated material is re-used on-site. Dewatering during construction could generate contaminated effluent that could potentially expose workers to hazardous materials if not characterized, handled, and disposed of correctly. Elevated concentrations of methane in soil gas can potentially pose explosion hazards, as vapor intrusion from the subsurface could cause methane to accumulate in potentially explosive concentrations in the proposed pump station, subsurface utility conduits, vaults, or other poorly ventilated/confined spaces that may be subject to vapor intrusion. The potential for accidental hazardous materials release is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that potential hazardous materials in the landfill and groundwater effluent are properly identified through sampling and removed and/or addressed in accordance with applicable regulations during construction and operation. 27 CSS Environmental Services, 2016. First Semi-Annual 2016 and 5-Year Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former San Quentin Landfill 1615 East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, California., March 4. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 72 With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the project would create a less-than- significant impact related to accidental releases of hazardous materials during construction and operation. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Phase II environmental site assessment (ESA) sampling of soil, groundwater, and soil gas shall be performed at the project site by a qualified environmental professional to evaluate potential impacts from hazardous materials in soil, groundwater, and soil gas, and potential elevated methane levels in soil gas. This information shall also be used to characterize and properly manage any dewatering effluent that would be generated during project construction. A work plan for the proposed sampling activities shall be prepared by the qualified environmental professional and submitted to the City for review and approval. The work plan shall outline the proposed sampling locations and the proposed sample collection procedures and laboratory analytical methods. At a minimum, laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater samples shall include Title 22 metals, petroleum hydrocarbons (gasoline, diesel, and motor oil), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs. Soil gas samples shall be analyzed for VOCs and methane. Soil and groundwater sampling and analysis shall be performed in accordance with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SW-846 guidelines. Sampling of soil gas shall be performed in accordance with State Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) Active Soil Gas Investigations Advisory and analysis of methane in soil gas shall be performed in accordance with DTSC’s Guidance for Evaluation of Biogenic Methane. A Phase II ESA report documenting the results of the sampling and analysis activities shall be prepared by the qualified environmental professional and submitted to the City for review and approval. The report shall document the sampling activities performed and subsurface characteristics observed, and shall evaluate sample results based on applicable regulatory agency screening levels and guidance documents (e.g., the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Environmental Screening Levels for soil, groundwater, and soil gas, and the DTSC’s methane guidance). The report shall include recommendations for the following: further investigation if warranted; soil handling, disposal, and potential re-use options; and groundwater handling and discharge/disposal options. If soil, groundwater, or soil gas sample analytical results exceed ESLs for unrestricted land use and naturally-occurring background concentrations for metals in soil, and/or if elevated methane is detected in soil gas, the applicant shall prepare and implement health and safety procedures and worker training requirements; a soil management plan; and/or methane management measures (e.g., installation of vapor barriers and/or other soil gas mitigation systems for the proposed new pump house and any other utility vaults where vapors could collect). San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 73 Accidental Hazardous Materials Release during Building Demolition The existing San Quentin Pump Station was constructed in 1972 and may contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-based-paint (LBP), and/or PCBs. Asbestos is a known human carcinogen that was commonly used in building materials until the early 1980s. Lead is a suspected human carcinogen, a known teratogen, and a reproductive toxin, and was widely used as an additive in paints prior to 1978. PCBs are known to cause cancer as well as other adverse health effects, and were used as additives to building materials (e.g. caulking, light ballasts, electrical equipment) prior to 1979. The removal of hazardous building materials prior to demolition is governed by federal and State laws and regulations. Workers who conduct hazardous materials abatement and demolition activities must be trained in accordance with OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements. Hazardous building materials removed during construction must be transported in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations and disposed of in accordance with RCRA, the California Code of Regulations, and/or the California Universal Waste Rule at a facility permitted to accept the wastes. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requires notification from contractors and/or building owners 10 working days prior to renovation of buildings that contain asbestos. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would ensure that potential hazardous building materials are properly identified and removed in accordance with applicable regulations prior to renovation. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, the project would create a less-than-significant impact related to accidental releases of hazardous materials during building demolition. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Prior to demolition of the existing pump station, the project contractor shall submit a comprehensive assessment report to the City, signed by a qualified environmental professional, documenting the presence or lack thereof of ACMs, LBP, PCBs, and any other hazardous building materials. If hazardous building materials are present, the contractor shall submit specifications prepared and signed by a qualified environmental professional, for the stabilization and/or removal and disposal of the identified hazardous materials in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The contractor shall implement the approved recommendations and submit to the City evidence of any proposed remedial actions. c) No Impact. There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impacts on schools. d) No Impact. The provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5 require the State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Department of Health Services, and California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to submit information to the California Environmental Protection Agency pertaining to sites that were associated with solid waste disposal, hazardous waste disposal, and/or hazardous materials releases. The compilation of hazardous materials release sites that meet criteria specified in Section 65962.5 of the California Government San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 74 Code is known as the Cortese List. The State Water Board’s Geotracker website lists the off-site San Quentin Landfill site, which is adjacent to the project site, as a “Land Disposal Site.” There are currently no hazardous materials release sites on the project site that meet the criteria for inclusion on the Cortese List. Therefore, the project would have no impacts related to development on a hazardous materials release site included on the Cortese List. e) No Impact. The project site is located more than four miles south of the nearest airport, the San Rafael Airport (a private use airport). Gnoss Field is the nearest public use airport, located over 12 miles to the north of the project site. The project site is not located within an airport influence area; therefore, project structures would not be considered a potential obstruction to aircraft. Furthermore, the project would not result in a substantial increase in bird populations, solar glare, misleading lighting, or other visual impairments in proximity to the airport’s approach and departure zones. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on the navigable airspace of public use airports and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. f) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located at the end of a private dirt road and is not near or within any designated emergency access routes. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not temporarily block or impair any existing emergency evacuation routes. Based on the project design, the project would have a less- than-significant impact on the implementation of any emergency response and evacuation plans. g) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is surrounded by paved urbanized uses, marshland, and an open body of water (the San Rafael Bay) and is not located in an area mapped as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.28 Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to wildland fire hazards. 28 CAL FIRE, 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Adopted by Cal FIRE on November 7, 2007. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 75 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? 1 b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? 1 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: 1,15 (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1,15 (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 1,15 (iii) create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1,15 (iv) impede or redirect flood flows? 1,7,15 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? 1,11 e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 1 □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 76 Environmental Setting According to the RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Basin, the project site is located in the Marin Coastal Basin and discharges to the San Rafael Bay. The San Rafael Creek watershed is 403 acres, consisting of urban/commercial development, hillside woods, and wetlands. The wetlands act as a storage basin for the pump station. The watershed is bisected by Interstate 580, which includes large roadside ditches for drainage that are inundated during rain events. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the parcels on the west side of Interstate 580 flood as a result of the existing pump flow rates. This evidence indicates that the existing pump system is insufficient. The at-risk properties are located at an elevation of four feet. See Appendix A, Sub- Appendix C for the full Drainage Study. The project site is covered with pervious surfaces in the form of gravel/dirt roadways and marshland, with drainage flowing into the existing detention basins adjacent to the current pump station. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), the project site is in flood zone AE, which is defined as an area within the 100- year flood zone where a base flood elevation has been determined (FEMA, 2019). Regulatory Setting The City of San Rafael is part of the Marin Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (MCSTOPPP) whose goals are to: prevent stormwater pollution, protect and enhance water quality in creeks and wetlands, preserve beneficial uses of local waterways, and comply with State and Federal regulations. MCSTOPPP staff implement permit compliance and track stormwater regulations on behalf of the member agencies. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402, promulgated by rules developed by the US EPA in 1990, establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program. The program requires that urban stormwater runoff pollution of the nation’s water be regulated for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board issued one Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) in 2015 covering MS4s that serve populations of 100,000 or greater. For smaller MS4s, such as the City of San Rafael, discharges are currently regulated under a General Permit renewal issued by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2013 for Storm Water Discharges from Small MS4s (Water Quality Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004). Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would require ground disturbance for excavation, demolition, grinding and paving, and retaining for pump station installation. The net cut of these activities is expected to be 312 cubic yards. Soil removed would be stockpiled at the project site and, if not properly controlled, soil particles and other materials could be carried in stormwater runoff to drainage facilities, which could degrade water quality in the San Rafael Bay. Standard construction measures recommended by the Marin Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program would be implemented to minimize pollutants carried from the project site in runoff. The project would comply with San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 77 terms of the State Water Board’s Storm Water Discharges from Small MS4s General Permit. Water quality impacts during construction would therefore be less than significant, and operational water quality impacts would not change from current baseline conditions. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project would not require use of groundwater supplies or affect groundwater recharge in the area. The project would install a new pump station, creating impervious surface, but it would demolish and remove the existing station. Any impacts to wetland land cover would be mitigated pursuant to the measures listed in Section IV (Biological Resources). The pump station pumps surface water, as opposed to groundwater, that collects in the adjacent detention ponds and discharges it to the San Rafael Bay. This function is unchanged from the current condition and would not impede or interfere with groundwater recharge or groundwater management. c-i-iv) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river, nor would it add substantial impervious surface. The project would install a new pump station, creating impervious surface, but it would demolish and remove the existing station and any impacts to wetland land cover would be mitigated pursuant to the measures listed in Section IV (Biological Resources). Therefore the project would not result in an increase in impermeable surfaces or an increase in runoff compared to existing conditions. The project would not cause a substantial change to the erosion and accretion patterns long-term because the pump station improvements would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. Temporary construction impacts related to run-off from the cut soil stored on-site could occur, but standard measures from the Marin Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program and from the State Water Board’s General Permit would be implemented to ensure impacts from runoff would remain less than significant. The proposed project is located with the 100-year flood zone, however it would not impede flood flow; as the pump station’s purpose is to reduce stormwater and increase flood conveyance in the surrounding areas, flood flows would be benefited. Impacts would be less than significant. d, e) Less than Significant Impact. The project would not have other water quality or groundwater sustainability impacts beyond those discussed under items a) and b) above. Due to its proximity to the San Rafael Bay, the proposed project site is located in a tsunami inundation area; however, the operational project would leave the area very similar to its current condition with no additional risk of pollutants being released due to inundation. The project would comply with the Marin Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program and the State Water Board’s General Permit. Impacts would be less than significant. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 78 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Physically divide an established community? 1 b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 2 Environmental Setting The project site is in a commercial portion of the City of San Rafael. Existing land uses adjacent to the project site consist of open space, single and multi-family residences, recreational uses, and commercial retail uses. The project site is within existing roads and access routes and their associated rights-of-way. The City of San Rafael General Plan, adopted in 2004 with various subsequent chapter amendments, provides policies and implementation strategies for management of the resources and land uses in the City, and the City Codes provide restrictions and requirements to protect resources and comply with local, state, and federal laws. Applicable General Plan policies are listed below. No habitat conservation plans have been adopted for the area. Regulatory Setting San Rafael General Plan Land Use Element LU-1. Planning Area and Growth to 2020. Plan the circulation system and infrastructure to provide capacity for the total development expected by 2020. Safety Element S-2. Location of Public Improvements. Avoid locating public improvements and utilities in areas with identified flood, geologic and/or soil hazards to avoid any extraordinary maintenance and operating expenses. When the location of public improvements and utilities in such areas cannot be avoided, effective mitigation measures will be implemented. S-10. Location of Public Improvements. To minimize threat to human health or any extraordinary construction and monitoring expenses, avoid locating improvements and utilities in areas with dangerous levels of identified hazardous materials. When the location of public improvements and utilities in such areas cannot feasibly be avoided, effective mitigation measures will be implemented. □ □ □ ~ □ □ ~ □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 79 S-17a. Title 18 Flood Protection Standards. Evaluate and revise the City’s Title 18 flood protection standards for new development based on Federal and regional criteria. S-18 Storm Drainage Improvements. Require new development to improve local storm drainage facilities to accommodate site runoff anticipated from a “100-year” storm. S-19a. Incremental Flood Control Improvements. Where needed and possible, new development/redevelopment projects shall include measures to improve area flood protection. Such measures would be identified and required through the development review process. S-22a. Erosion Control Programs. Review and approve erosion control programs for projects involving grading one acre or more or 5,000 square feet of built surface as required by Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plans. Evaluate smaller projects on a case-by-case basis. 2-22b. Grading During the Wet Season Discourage grading during the wet season and require that development projects implement adequate erosion and/or sediment control and runoff discharge measures. S-25. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Requirements. Continue to work through the Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program to implement appropriate Watershed Management plans as dictated in the RWQCB general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for Marin County and the local stormwater plan. Discussion of Impacts a) No Impact. The project involves replacement of a pump station within an adjacent footprint to that of the existing station. The project location is mainly in a previously developed, gravel access road surrounded by open marsh land. The project would not physically divide an established community. No impacts would occur. b) Less than Significant Impact. A proposed project would have a significant impact if it were to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed project is subject to several local policies, plans, and regulations, as described above. The primary objective of the proposed project is to replace the dilapidated existing pump station to improve storm water conveyance and reduce flooding in the surrounding areas. The project therefore meets General Plan policies related to safety via storm drainage improvements and flood control. The proposed project would be subject to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) approved by the RWQCB, which would outline all appropriate erosion control best practices. The proposed project would not conflict with the City of San Rafael General Plan or other applicable land use plans or policies. Impacts would be less than significant. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 80 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2,12 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 2,12 Discussion of Impacts a, b) No Impact. The project site is not in or adjacent to any important mineral resource areas. Furthermore, the development of the proposed project would not preclude future excavation of oil or minerals should such extraction become viable. As such, there would be no loss of availability of known mineral resources and no impacts to mineral resources. □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 81 XIII. NOISE — Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1,2, 9 b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 Environmental Setting The City of San Rafael Noise Ordinance limits construction hours to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer may grant exemptions. Noise in the project site and vicinity is primarily from commercial development, residences, and vehicular traffic along roads. There are no schools or nursing homes adjacent to the project site. The nearest sensitive noise receptors are residences in the community 0.31 miles north of the proposed project site and students attending Bahia Vista Elementary school, located approximately 0.75 miles north-northwest of the site. However, shoppers at the commercial retail centers along Shoreline Parkway could also be potentially impacted by project-induced noise. Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. □ [8J □ □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ □ [8J San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 82 Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows: x Leq – A Leq, or equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. x Lmax – The maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. x Lmin – The minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. x CNEL – The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL. Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. For residential uses, environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60–70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA.29 Noise levels greater than 85 dBA can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet suburban residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55–60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher 29 Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October 2003 (in coordination with the California Department of Health Services). San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 83 levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60– 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65–80 dBA). It is widely accepted that in the community noise environment the average healthy ear can barely perceive CNEL noise level changes of 3 dBA. CNEL changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA CNEL increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA CNEL increase as a doubling of sound. Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or barriers, also help intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically “hard” locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or has vegetation, including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels are also generally reduced by 1 dBA for each 1,000 feet of distance due to air absorption. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures – generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The normal noise attenuation within residential structures with open windows is about 17 dBA, while the noise attenuation with closed windows is about 25 dBA.30 Table 2 lists the Federal Transit Administrations typical construction equipment noise levels at 50 feet. Table 2. Construction Equipment Noise Generation Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source Air Compressor 81 Jack Hammer 88 Backhoe 80 Loader 85 Ballast Equalizer 82 Paver 89 Ballast Tamper 83 Pile-driver (Impact) 101 Compactor 82 Pile-driver (Sonic) 96 30 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, 1971. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 84 Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source Concrete Mixer 85 Pneumatic Tool 85 Concrete Pump 82 Pump 76 Concrete Vibrator 76 Roller 74 Crane, Derrick 88 Saw 76 Crane, Mobile 83 Scarifier 83 Dozer 85 Scraper 89 Generator 81 Shovel 82 Grader 85 Spike Driver 77 Impact Wrench 85 Truck 88 Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 Construction activities would generate temporary noise from equipment use; the most common noise generated would be from mobile diesel equipment such as excavators, dozers, trucks, front end loaders and compactors. Activities would be restricted to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director of Public Works. Table 2 illustrates typical noise levels from construction equipment at a reference distance of 50 feet. Noise levels from construction equipment attenuate at a rate of six dBA per doubling of distance. Therefore, the noise levels at a distance of 100 feet would be 6 dBA less than those shown in Table 2. Construction equipment would generate maximum noise levels of approximately 101 decibels (dB) at 50 feet. Construction noise levels may periodically exceed noise standards in the existing Noise Ordinance, but the temporary noise from construction would not cause a substantial increase in ambient noise or expose sensitive receptors to unacceptable noise levels for long periods of time. Impacts associated with construction noise would cause a potentially significant, temporary increase in noise levels, but incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Long-term operational noise impacts would be less than significant because the conditions would be similar to existing noise levels. Mitigation Measure NOISE–1: The City shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor: San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 85 x Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director of Public Works. x Notify businesses, residences, and noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to construction sites of the construction schedule in writing. Designate the City’s construction manager as responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The construction manager shall determine the cause of the noise complaints (for example starting too early, or a bad muffler) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the construction manager at the construction site. x Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: ƒ Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; ƒ Where feasible, use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; ƒ Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and ƒ Minimize backing movements of equipment. x Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. x Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. x Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. b) Less than Significant Impact. Ground-borne vibration and noise is typically associated with blasting operations, the use of pile drivers, and large-scale demolition activities. The proposed project would require driving sheet piles around the new pump station location to exclude water from entering the wet well during construction. This work would be very short-term, most likely being completed in two work days. The short-term use of pile drivers in soft ground would not generate noise that would be considered excessive, especially given the project location in open space, over 0.3 miles (1,600 feet) south of the closest residence and 0.75 miles southeast of the nearest school. As such, no excessive ground-borne vibrations would be generated by the proposed project and these impacts would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The nearest public airport to the project site is the Marin County Airport (Gnoss Field), located approximately 13 miles to the north-northwest. The project site is also located approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the private San Rafael airport. This distance precludes the possibility that the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise in combination with aviation noise. No impacts in this regard would occur. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 86 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 Environmental Setting The project site is in an open marshland area of the City of San Rafael, zoned for conservation, and surrounded by commercial, light industry, and residential land uses. There are no homes located within the project site. Discussion of Impacts a, b) No Impact. The project would replace an existing pump station with a new pump station directly adjacent to the current location. The pump station would improve stormwater conveyance and flood control in the surrounding commercial areas and on Highway 580 as it leads to the Richmond Bridge. The project would be constructed mainly within a previously developed gravel road and turnaround area and would not displace people or housing. As the project does not include new housing, it would not result in a substantial increase in population or housing units in the City. No impacts would occur. □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 87 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 1 Police protection? 1 Schools? 1 Parks? 1 Other public facilities? 1 Environmental Setting San Rafael Fire Department The San Rafael Fire Department provides life safety emergency and non-emergency services in the areas of fire protection, technical rescue, emergency medical services, and disaster response. The Department operates 7 Fire Stations with 90 personnel 24/7 that provide these services within the City limits and other areas as defined through contracts and mutual aid agreements with bordering areas. San Rafael Police Department The San Rafael Police Department has been in existence since 1855. In its current configuration, the Chief of Police directs a staff of 65 sworn and 24 non-sworn employees. Patrol is the largest division led by a Captain and includes the Traffic Unit, SWAT team, and Foot-beat. The Support Services Captain oversees Investigations, which is comprised of one lieutenant, one sergeant and four detectives, one School Resource Officer, a one sergeant-two officer Directed Patrol Unit, Youth Services Counseling, Records, Property Evidence, Dispatch, Permits and Personnel and Training. □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 88 San Rafael City Schools The San Rafael City Schools (SRCS) includes the San Rafael Elementary School District and the San Rafael High School District, with a total student population of nearly 7,000. The two districts are governed by one school board and one district office administration. The Elementary District is composed of nine schools. The High School District provides secondary education to students residing in two elementary districts: Dixie School District and San Rafael Elementary District. The High School District has two comprehensive 9-12 high schools (San Rafael High and Terra Linda High) and a continuation high school (Madrone High). Parks and Recreational Facilities The City of San Rafael has 25 City-owned parks totaling 140 acres, eight county parks totaling 532 acres, one State park with 1,640 acres and three community centers. There are 3,285 acres of open space within the city limits of San Rafael, or approximately 25 percent of the City’s land area, which is owned or in part by the City of San Rafael. There is almost 7,300 acres of combined City and County open space within San Rafael’s Sphere of Influence. Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant Impact. Given the proposed project would not permanently increase the existing residential or employment population in the City, the project would not result in a long-term increase in the demand for public services or require construction of new governmental facilities. The purpose of the project is to improve stormwater conveyance and flood control in the surrounding commercial and residential areas. Therefore, no impacts related to schools, parks or other public facilities would occur. There is some potential for construction activities to slow emergency response times in a temporary and minor way; however this is very unlikely given the project’s location in an open area away from major roads or emergency routes. Impacts to public services would therefore be less than significant. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 89 XVI. RECREATION — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1 b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1 Environmental Setting No parks or recreational facilities are located in the project site. The San Francisco Bay Trial is located approximately 920 feet east of the current pump station and runs over the outfall pipe as it connects to the bay. Discussion of Impacts a, b) No Impact. Given the proposed project would not permanently increase the existing residential or employment population in the City, the project would not increase the use of nearby recreational facilities. The purpose of the project is to improve stormwater conveyance and flood control in the surrounding commercial and residential areas and it does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Construction activities along the outfall pipe (excavating a pit to install a pressure vault at the end of the new pipe) could potentially occur within 70 feet of the San Francisco Bay Trail, but these activities would be temporary and would not disrupt or preclude recreational activities on the trail or cause frequent recreators to seek other recreational outlets. No impacts would occur. □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 90 XVII. TRANSPORTATION — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? 1,2 b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 1,2 c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1,2 d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2 Environmental Setting The project site is located in uninhabited open space north of the Target store on Shoreline Parkway in the City of San Rafael. The current pump station is located on an unnamed, graveled turnaround area off of a levee road that connects to Francisco Boulevard East, along which an associated stormwater discharge pipe runs toward the San Rafael Bay. The area does not contain other structures or attractions that create utilization of the gravel levee road. However, the intersection of the levee road with Francisco Boulevard East is often highly trafficked, especially due to its proximity to Shoreline Boulevard and the commercial shopping centers that run along it, including Home Depot and Target, and its connection to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. The only pedestrian or bicyclist facility in the vicinity of the project area is the San Francisco Bay Trail, which runs along the east side of the project site adjacent to San Rafael Bay; however, the proposed work would be contained to an area outside of the 100-foot shoreline band, and would therefore stop short of the bay trail. The San Rafael General Plan 2020 Circulation Element calls out San Rafael’s circulation needs in the following categories: roadway improvements, school transportation, transit users, transit services, paratransit services, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking facilities, airport facilities, and funding needs. It also identifies the City’s main highways and arterials. Highway 580, 0.32 miles southwest of the project site, is the closest highway. Francisco Boulevard East (0.3 miles southwest) and Bellam Boulevard (0.5 miles northwest) are the closest major arterial roads to the project site. Bellam Boulevard is the main route allowing vehicles access to the residential neighborhood to the north of the open marsh area in which the project site is located, and Francisco Boulevard is the only road to which the levee road used for accessing the project site □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ □ [8J □ □ [8J □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 91 actually connects. Lastly, Kerner Boulevard, which creates access to the commercial and light industrial areas to the northwest and southeast of the project vicinity, is a minor arterial road. Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the adopted California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Marin County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) thresholds for a significant project impact would be exceeded. To address the increasing public concern that traffic congestion is impacting the quality of life and economic vitality of the State of California, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) was enacted by Proposition 111. The CMP designated a transportation network including all State highways and some arterials within the County to be monitored by local jurisdictions. If the LOS standard deteriorates on the CMP network, then local jurisdictions must prepare a deficiency plan to be in conformance with the CMP program. As discussed above, the proposed project would not permanently increase traffic on local roads or highways. The project would maintain all lanes of traffic on all main roads at all times during construction. The proposed project would not result in long-term traffic increases. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to be inconsistent with provisions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), which sets forth criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Under the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including a qualitative analysis. The proposed project would have no impacts whatsoever on vehicle miles traveled in and around the project site on an operational level. The pump station would require very little maintenance once it is operational, and that which it would require would be consistent with current baseline conditions. Construction traffic (equipment and materials transport and daily worker traffic) would slightly increase traffic on local roads during the temporary construction phase of the proposed project. Temporary construction traffic would be limited to equipment delivery and material transport, and a few employee vehicles on a daily basis, which would be parked on-site at the gravel turnaround and out of the way of main streets. The temporary construction-related traffic would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic on local roads. Vehicles transporting equipment and materials to the project site could cause slight delays for travelers as the construction vehicles slow to turn onto the levee access road from Francisco Boulevard East, but no temporary lane closures or detours would be required. Control measures to warn pedestrians and bicyclists that use the gravel levee road for recreational purposes, as described in the project description, would be in place during the construction phase to alert motorists to potential delays. These measures would include advance warnings signs such as reflective signs, changeable message boards, San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 92 cones, and/or barricades. With these measures and the temporary nature of construction- related traffic, impacts on traffic would be less than significant. c) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to include a new roadway design, introduce a new land use or permanent project features into an area with specific transportation requirements and characteristics that have not been previously experienced in that area, or if project access or other features were designed in such a way as to create hazardous conditions. The proposed project does not require features or structures that are not already characteristic of the baseline condition. The project site already contains a pump station, and the new pump station would be placed immediately adjacent in the same uninhabited, open space, gravel area off of main roads. The outfall pipe would be sliplined into the existing pipe, such that no changes to the character of the area would be created. The proposed work would not bring new traffic or travel to the area or introduce design features that are not already present, and the proposed uses are the same as those that area already in place and are therefore compatible. No impacts would occur in this area. d) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located at the end of a private dirt road and is not near or within any designated emergency access routes. During the temporary construction period, minor delays due to slower moving construction vehicle traffic may be experienced for emergency access to the residences to the north of the open marshland in which project work would occur. All lanes would remain open on all roads and no detours would be required, as all work is contained in the isolated gravel turnaround of the current pump station. As stated in the standard construction BMPs outlined in the Project Description, the City or its contractor would notify and coordinate with law enforcement and emergency service providers prior to the start of construction to ensure minimal disruption to service during construction. Due to this and the short-term nature of the construction, impacts would be less than significant. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 93 XVIII.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Source a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? 1 ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 1 Environmental Setting The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted via email to request a review of the Sacred Lands file and to request a list of Native American contacts in this area. The response letter dated March 4, 2019 by Steven Quinn (NAHC Staff Services Analyst) indicated that the search of the Sacred Lands File had a positive result. The NAHC response letter identified two Native American individuals (Gene Buvelot and Greg Sarris) associated with the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria (FIGR) that may have knowledge of cultural resources within the project area. Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria 6400 Redwood Drive, Suite 300 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 94 On January 31, 2019 consultation letters were sent to both Native American individuals listed by the NAHC; as the City has worked with FIGR on other projects, they had contact information to send letters before hearing back from the NAHC. In a letter dated February 28, 2019, Buffy McQuillen, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer with the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria, responded to state that the Tribe requests formal consultation for the project. On April 23, 2019, Theo Sanchez, City of San Rafael, provided the draft Archaeological Survey Report to Buffy McQuillen for review and comment. Later that day, Buffy McQuillen replied by email to provide comments on the draft report. On May 7, 2019, Alex DeGeorgey spoke with Buffy McQuillen over the phone to discuss her comments on the draft report. Buffy stated that the positive results from the Sacred Lands File are the prehistoric shell mound sites that are documented in the vicinity of the project area. No Sacred Sites are present within the project area proper. Ms. McQuillen requested that the tribe be contacted if previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during project implementation. To date, no additional communications have been completed. Attachment B (Native American Consultation) of Appendix C (Archaeological Survey Report and Historic Resource Evaluation Report) provides documentation of Native American correspondences. Regulatory Setting Assembly Bill 52 In September 2014, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 52, which added provisions to the Public Resources Code (“PRC”) concerning the evaluation of impacts on tribal cultural resources under CEQA, and consultation requirements with California Native American tribes. In particular, AB 52 now requires lead agencies to analyze a project’s impacts on “tribal cultural resources,” separately from archaeological resources (PRC Section 21074; 21083.09). Under AB 52, “tribal cultural resources” include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” that are either (1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the state or local register of historic resources; or (2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21074). AB 52 also requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3). If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document must discuss (1) whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource and (2) whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures avoid or substantially less the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21082.3(b)). Finally, AB 52 required the Office of Planning and Research to update Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines by July 1, 2016 to provide sample questions regarding impacts to tribal cultural resources (PRC Section 21083.09). AB 52’s provisions apply to projects that have a notice of preparation filed on or after July 1, 2015. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 95 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria for important historical resources on the California Register or historic properties on the National Register are as follows: 1 Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California. 2 Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California history. 3 Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possess high artistic values. 4 Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the pre-history or history of the local area or California. Discussion of Impacts a-i, ii) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Review of historic registers and inventories indicate that no historical resources are present in the project area. No state, local, or National Register-listed or eligible properties are located with the 0.5-mile visual area of the APE. Review of the Sacred Land file by the NAHC identified the presence of a cultural resource within the project vicinity and recommended consultation with FIGR for more information. This consultation was completed via phone calls, emails, and cultural report reviews with FIGR Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Buffy McQuillen. Consultation revealed that no Sacred Sites are present within the project area proper; however, as there is always some potential to uncover previously buried cultural resources, the tribe requested to be contacted if previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during proposed project activities. Furthermore, per Public Resources Code 5097.98 and Health and Human Safety Code 7050.5, if human remains are encountered, excavation or disturbance of the location shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the County Coroner contacted. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American in order to provide guidance on handling the remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 in Section V, along with compliance with State law, would ensure that impacts to tribal cultural resources remain less than significant. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 96 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? 1 c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1 d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 1 e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project calls for replacement of the deteriorated storm drainage pipe that discharges water pumped from the current pump station into the San Rafael Bay. The outfall pipe has leaks and breaks in two separate locations where trenches would need to be cut to repair the existing pipe. However, the rest of the pipe would be replaced via sliplining a new 48-inch-diameter drainage pipe inside the existing 60-inch-diameter pipe. The project therefore does not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage. The proposed project would not require much power, but an on-site □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 97 generator would provide any needed electricity. No other utilities or telecommunication facilities would be required or affected. Less that significant impacts would occur. b, c) Less than Significant Impact. Neither construction nor operation of the project would generate wastewater or consume potable water. The project would repair or replace a pump station and storm drainage pipe. As the proposed project does not have an element that would increase the residential or employment population of the area and, in essence, replaces structures and function that are currently present and operational, there would be less than significant impacts related to water supply, wastewater treatment capacity, or infrastructure. d, e) Less than Significant Impact. The project would generate soil spoils and solid waste from removal of pavement and concrete structures comprising the existing pump station to be demolished. The 312 cubic yards of net cut soil would be stored on-site and allowed to revegetate. Other solid waste would be properly disposed of or recycled in a nearby landfill or approved disposal facility with capacity to receive the waste. Any materials used during construction would be properly disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Impacts related to solid waste facilities, statutes, and regulations would be less than significant. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 98 XX. WILDFIRE — If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant No Impact Source a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1,2 b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? 1,10 c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? 1 d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 1,10 Environmental Setting The project site is not with the Wildland Urban Interface and is therefore not designated as a Very High Severity Zone per the San Rafael Fire Department.31 The proposed project site is within an open marshland area, with very little slope. Discussion of Impacts a-d) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan due to its location in an open area, away from residences, business, and major roads. The project site is flat, outside the Wildland Urban Interface, and is not considered a High Severity Zone for wildfire. The project is replacing an existing structure, and therefore does not require installation of additional utility infrastructure over the current baseline condition. The proposed project would pose less than significant impacts related to exacerbating or exposing people to wildfire risk. 31 https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/prepare-for-wildfire/. Accessed 4/30/2019. □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 99 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Source a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1 c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 Discussion of Impacts a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. The incorporation of the mitigation measures included in Section IV (Biological Resources) would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The project site does not contain any resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by, the State Historical Resource Commission and does not contain a resource included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey. Additionally, the project site does not contain any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. However, cultural resources could potentially be uncovered during construction. Mitigation measures included in Section V (Cultural Resources) would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. □ [8J □ □ □ [8J □ □ □ □ [8J □ San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 100 b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The analysis within this Initial Study demonstrates that the project would not have any individually limited, but cumulatively considerable impacts. As presented in the analysis in Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources sections, any potentially significant impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. Due to the limited scope of direct physical impacts to the environment associated with construction, the project’s impacts are project-specific in nature. Compliance with the conditions of approval issued for the proposed development would further assure that project-level impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Consequently, the project along with other cumulative projects would create a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to all environmental issues. c) Less Than Significant Impact. With implementation of the construction measures and BMPs discussed in the Project Description, the project would not result in substantial adverse effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 101 CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES 1. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental/technical specialists evaluating the project, based on a review of existing conditions and project details, including standard construction measures and technical reports 2. City of San Rafael General Plan, 2004 3. California Department of Transportation, 2012 4. California Department of Conservation, 2016 5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Native Plant Society species lists 6. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2017 7. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2016 8. California Department of Conservation, 2015 9. City of San Rafael Noise Ordinance 10. ABAG Hazards Mapping, 2019 11. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010 12. USGS Mineral Resources Data System, 2011 13. Biological Resources Memorandum, WRA 2019 14. Archaeological Survey Report and Historic Resource Evaluation Report, Alta 2019 15. San Quentin Pump Station Basis of Design Report and Appendices, CSW|Stuber-Stroeh, 2018 San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 102 REFERENCES ALTA Archaeological Consulting, 2019. Archaeological Survey Report and Historic Resource Evaluation Report, San Quentin Pump Station Reconstruction Project, Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, Marin County, CA. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Earthquake and Hazards Program. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=femaZones Accessed May 2015. Baseline Environmental Consulting, 2019. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010a. Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD, Planning Rules and Research Division, Plans. October 4, 2010 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010b. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, San Francisco, CA. February 2010 CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, Adopted by Cal FIRE on November 7, 2007. California Department of Conservation, 2015. State of California Seismic Hazard map. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ Accessed April 2019. California Department of Conservation, 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: Marin County Important Farmland 2016. Accessed April 2019. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2018. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). RareFind 5. Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. Accessed: November 2018. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2018. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data California Department of Transportation, 2012. Scenic highways: Marin County. Accessed May 2019. California Division of Mines and Geology, “Geology for Planning in Central and Southeastern Marin County, California, OFR 76-2 S.F. Plate 1D, South Central Marin Geology”, 1976. California Native Plant Society. 2018a. Online Rare Plant Inventory. Available at: http://rareplants.cnps.org/ CSS Environmental Services, 2016. First Semi-Annual 2016 and 5-Year Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former San Quentin Landfill 1615 East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, California. CSS Environmental Services, 2019. First Semi-Annual 2019 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former San Quentin Landfill 1615 East Francisco Boulevard San Rafael, California. CSW|Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, 2018. San Quentin Pump Station Basis of Design. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 103 Eddleman, W.R., R.E. Flores and M. Legare. 1994. Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/123. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2016. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06041C0478E, Available at: https://p4.msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/ nfhlprinttool2_gpserver/j11e81a32ed724f87b495f4b445e76200/scratch/FIRMETTE_365 46f70-71c5-11e9-b8c0-001b21b31e35.pdf. Accessed May 2019. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2008. Technical advisory: CEQA and climate change: Addressing climate change through California Environmental Quality Act Review. Sacramento, CA. Available at: <http://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf >. June 19, 2008. Accessed May 2015. Historical Aerials. 2018. Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/ Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2017. Web Soil Survey for the San Rafael Area. Available at: <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm>. Accessed May 2019. Richmond, O.M., J. Tecklin, and S.R. Beissinger. 2008. Distribution of California Black Rails in the Sierra Nevada Foothills. J. of Field Ornithology 79(4): 381-390. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2012. Updated Waste Discharge Requirements and Rescission of Order No. 01-022 for: San Quentin Solid Waste Disposal Landfill, Order No. R2-2012-0064. Smith, Katherine R, Melissa K Riley, Laureen Barthman–Thompson, Mark J Statham, Sarah Estrella, and Douglas Kelt. 2018. Towards Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Recovery: Research Priorities. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 16, no. 2. Smith, Katherine R, Melissa K Riley, Laureen Barthman–Thompson, Isa Woo, Mark J Statham, Sarah Estrella, and Douglas A Kelt. 2018. Towards Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Recovery: A Review. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 16, no. 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Five Year Review for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Information for Planning and Consultation. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ U.S. Geologic Society.1980. San Rafael 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. WRA, 2019. Biological Resources at the San Quentin Pump Station Project Technical Memorandum. San Rafael, CA. San Quentin Pump Station Replacement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of San Rafael November 2019 104 REPORT PREPARATION City of San Rafael – CEQA Lead Agency Hunter Young, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer CSW|Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. – Project Engineer Rich Souza, P.E., Project Manager WRA, Inc. – CEQA and Regulatory Permits Consultant Justin Semion, Principal Geoff Reilly, Project Manager Rachael Carnes, Environmental Planner Elan Alford, Environmental Permitting Specialist Rhiannon Korhummel, Biologist Katie Smith, Biologist Neal Jander, GIS Professional ALTA Archaeological Consultants – CEQA Cultural Resources Subconsultant Risa DeGeorgey, Principal Alex DeGeorgey, Principal Baseline Environmental Consulting – CEQA Hazardous Materials Subconsultant Bruce Abelli-Amen, Principal APPENDIX A:APPENDIX A:APPENDIX A:APPENDIX A: San Quentin Substation Basis of Design Report This page intentionally left blank. CSW|STUBER STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP Email: richs@cswst2.com Website: www.cswst2.com SAN QUENTIN PUMP STATION BASIS OF DESIGN Tel: 415 883-9850 45 Leveroni Court, Novato CSW S1 2 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _________________________________________________ 2 INTRODUCTION ________________________________ Error! BookmarkError! BookmarkError! BookmarkError! Bookmark not defined.not defined.not defined.not defined.4 Figure 1: Watershed Map ______________________________________________ 4 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC STUDY ___________________________________ 5 Table 1: 24-Hour Rain Event Peak Discharge Rates _________________________ 5 Table 2: Pump Analysis Results _________________________________________ 5 PUMP SELECTION _____________________________________________________ 6 Table 3: Vertical Pump Review __________________________________________ 6 Table 4: Submersible Pump Review ______________________________________ 6 PUMP STATION LOCATION AND LAYOUT _________________________________ 7 Figure 2: Aerial Map __________________________________________________ 7 DISCHARGE PIPE _____________________________________________________ 9 OPINION OF PROBALE CONSTRUCTION COST ___________________________ 12 Table 5: Alternatives Cost Analysis for New Pump Station near Bay ____________ 12 Table 6: Alternatives Cost Analysis for New Pump Station near Existing Station ___ 12 Table 7: Layout Option 1 (3-Pumping Units) _______________________________ 12 Table 8: Layout Option 2 (3-Pumping Units) _______________________________ 13 RECOMMENDATIONS _________________________________________________ 14 APPENDICESAPPENDICESAPPENDICESAPPENDICES A. Draft Geotechnical Investigation Report - San Quentin Pump Station Reconstruction B. Environment Technical Memorandum C. Drainage Study D. Vertical Pump Specification E. Submersible Pump Specification F. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost G. Schematic Layout Options H. Concept Plan 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of San Rafael retained CSW|StuberStroeh Engineering Group (CSW|ST2) to provide a Basis of Design and Concept Plan to replace the San Quentin pump station and portions of the 60inch diameter outfall pipe. The pump stations was built in 1972 and has been operational for 46 years. During that time the outfall pipe deteriorated to the point where leaks are noticeable at the ground surface when the pumps are in use. The pumps have been maintained, but are passed the efficient operating life and need to be repaired. Furthermore the station itself shows signs of age and continues to settle differentially relative to the outfall pipe and site. Repairing the structure is anticipated to be more expensive than replacement of the pump station. The purpose of the Concept Plan is to review the various options to replace the pump station and outfall pipe and set parameters under which the design will be completed. The Concept Plan provides a visual aid for pump station alternatives, whereas the Basis of Design provides the foundation for future construction documents. CSW|ST2 completed a field and boundary survey to use as a base map in the design. The survey information includes existing site features, limits of wetland boundary, and property lines. The information may be utilized in future construction documents and for temporary construction easement and/or right of entry determinations. CSW|ST2 coordinated the City’s maintenance staff to better understand existing pump station conditions and flooding concerns within the watershed during large storm events. We subsequently modeled significant storm events to determine appropriate pump alternatives and pipe types and sizes. To establish the physical constraints and opportunities of the site the CSW|ST2 team studied the geotechnical and environmental conditions for inclusion within the Basis of Design and future construction documents. The intent of the Basis of Design is to give City staff an opportunity to review and comment on the preferred alternatives and layout prior to completing construction documents. As shown in Appendix G, three (3) pump station layouts were considered in two (2) locations. In addition to the alternatives and layouts included herein, we considered relocating the pump station closer to the Bay (Option 2 in Appendix G). This option, however, proved to have significant costs resulting from environmental impacts, mitigation and monitoring, and land acquisition from neighboring private landowner(s). The relocated pump station option is not financially feasible as indicated in Table 7. Further discussion of the environmental challenges are listed in the WRA technical memorandum (Appendix B). As indicated in the Concept plan, locating the new pump station as close to the existing pump station as possible provides the following benefits: ·Maintains existing low point in the channel and lagoon drainage system ·Minimizes impacts to sensitive habitat areas ·Provides close proximity to the existing electrical service resulting in no electrical service relocation ·Provides sufficient area for construction staging ·Provides better access and staging areas including a turnaround for maintenance vehicles Locating the new pump station in close proximity to the existing is not without some challenges. Those challenges include potential longterm settlement, a greater length of outfall pipe and minimizing the backwater to 3 the outfall pipe and pump caused by tidal fluctuation. CSW|ST2 feels these challenges can be mitigated by including the following in the design: ·Design structural elements to provide a floating foundation for the pump station and distribute loads to the soft underlying bay muds thus minimizing additional settlement and allowing more consistent settlement between the pump station and the outfall pipe. ·Utilize lightweight back fills to decrease the trench loading and settlement. ·Install flap gates to prevent intrusion of bay water into the new storm drain pipe. Pump station layout is based on recommendations listed in the Hydraulic Institute Standards to increase pump efficiency. Per the findings of the Drainage Study report, either two (2) pumps each with a 100 cfs or three (3) pumps each with a 66 cfs capacity will provide approximately 1foot freeboard elevation to the maximum water surface elevation indicated by staff (Appendix G). Utilizing three (3) 100 cfs pumps will further increase the freeboard to 2foot and increase the time between pump runs. The pump type will be axial flow vertical pumps. Additionally, a smaller submersible pump will be utilized for nuisance water between storms and through the dry months. Benefits and constraints for the feasible pump types are listed in Tables 3 and 4. Opinion of probable construction costs for the pump station based on relocating closer to the Bay or adjacent to the existing pump station are listed in Tables 7 and 8. Differential costs associated with utilizing either a (2) or (3) pump configuration with either a pump vault or pressure chamber are indicated in Tables 5 and 6. 4 INTRODUCTION The San Quentin Pump Station was constructed over 40 years ago to serve a portion of east San Rafael that was envisioned as a major light industrial area extending toward the Richmond San Rafael Bridge from the canal area. The pump station lifts storm water from the large lowlying detention ponds through the levee for discharge to San Rafael Bay. Under the current pump system, if the pump station loses power or one of the two pumps fail, then flooding occurs in the industrial areas and along Highway 580 leading to the Richmond San Rafael Bridge. Regional geologic mapping (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1976) indicates the project site is underlain by artificial fill over Bay Mud with marsh deposits to the north. The pump station is located on former marshland that was reportedly filled in the 1960s and was developed as a pump station in 1973 as a part of the East San Rafael Drainage Assessment District. The surface elevations at the site generally range between +2 and +5 and are protected from the bay by a levee along the San Rafael Bay. At the east end of the site the outfall pipe lies under the levee (elevation +9) before terminating in the outboard bank of the levee. The adjacent ±20foot high embankment was constructed for the Target store in 2013 and is located immediately south of the outfall pipeline. The San Quentin Disposal Site (SQDS), located immediately south of the site was a permitted Class III landfill that accepted construction and landscape debris from 1968 to 1987. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) landfill closure report (2001) indicates the landfill does not extend onto the pump station site. Drainage AreaDrainage AreaDrainage AreaDrainage Area Figure 1: Figure 1: Figure 1: Figure 1: Watershed Watershed Watershed Watershed MapMapMapMap Pt Sn Quen tin 5 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC STUDY The San Quentin Pump Station watershed is approximately 403 acres (see Figure 1) and flows into a storage basin created as part of the East San Rafael Drainage Assessment. The watershed consists of Hydrologic Soil Groups “B” and “undefined” (which is assumed to be Group “D”) according to the USDA Soil Survey. Hydrologic models were developed for a double storm event to determine potential flooding of atrisk properties if the detention basin is partially filled from a smaller significant storm which is preceded by a large storm event. Given the slow percolation of the bay muds, we assumed the detention basin will be partially filled. Consequently, we modeled a 5year, 24hour storm event followed by the 100year, 24hour storm event with a two hour overlap between the two events. Results of the 5 and 100year peak discharge rates for the 24hour storm event are indicated below and in the Drainage Study. Table 1: 24Hour Rain Event Peak Discharge Rates Recurrence Interval Time to Peak (hours) Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) 5 Year 3.1 153.28 100 Year 3.1 329.10 Anecdotal evidence indicates the parcels on the west side of Highway 101 flood since the current pumps only yield 50 cfs at their peak discharge flows. The atrisk properties are located at an elevation of approximately 4.0 foot (NAVD 88). This elevation was used as the allowable peak water elevation in developing the hydraulic model for the pond and pumps. Results of four (4) different pump sizing configurations based on the maximum 4.0 foot water surface elevation (WSEL) are indicated below and in the Drainage Study. Table 2: Pump Analysis Results Pump Flow Rate Maximum WSEL Constraints / Benefits Freeboard Pump On Pump Off (2) 50 cfs 3.9 N/A 24 hrs N/A (3) 66 cfs 2.9 1’ 8 hrs 2 hrs (2) 80 cfs 3.9 N/A 17 hrs 1 hr (2) 100 cfs 2.9 1’ 10 hrs 2 hrs (3)100 cfs 2.1 2’ 6 hrs 3 hrs The analysis indicates that either a three (3) 66 cfs pump system or a two (2) 100 cfs pump system has sufficient capacity to convey the peak discharge rate from the 5year 24hour and 100year 24hour storm in series while maintaining a 1’ freeboard above the WSEL and allowing for pump rest periods. 6 PUMP SELECTION The pump station will house two (2) or three (3) Cascade vertical axial flow pumps. To provide enough head/pressure for the storm water discharged from the pumps to reach the bay, water will be pumped into a pressure chamber which will be connected to the outfall pipe. The pump efficiency for (3) 200 HP pumps capable of 66 cfs is over 81%. The pump efficiency for (2) 300 HP pumps capable of 100 cfs is approximately 80%. The proposed discharge assembly, pressure box will be configured to better drive the outflow from the pump discharges to the outfall pipe through directed discharge assemblies and other miscellaneous equipment housed in the pump station and pressure chamber. These improvements will improve normal operations as well. In our opinion, using (3) vertical axial flow pumps is the preferred option. Utilizing (3) smaller 66 cfs pumps provides flexibility and increase efficiency for the more frequent, smaller storm events while also having the capacity for the 100year storm event. Utilizing (3) 100 cfs pumps provides more flexibility on larger storm events with increased pump rest time and a higher freeboard over the maximum 4.0 foot water surface elevation. The benefits and constraints of the vertical pump are listed below. Table 3: Vertical Pump Review Benefits Constraints Low Maintenance Unsuitability of Shallow Sumps Easy Access Headloss in Suction & Discharge Assembly Freshwater Flushing of Bearings Limited Pump Access Small Floor Area Noise Level Options reviewed for submersible pumps are shown in Appendix E. Flygt pumps capable of handling either 66 or 100 cfs were reviewed. Pump efficiency for (3) 185 HP pump capable of 66 cfs is approximately 81%. The pump efficiency for (2) 230 HP pump capable of 100 cfs is approximately 81%. A smaller 3 HP submersible pump shall be included in the final documents for nuisance water during dry weather season and maintenance purposes. The benefits and constraints of the submersible pump are listed below. Table 4: Submersible Pump Review Benefits Constraints Availability of Pump Sizes More Expensive Pump & Motor Natural Cooling by Stormwater Need to Submerge Pump Easy to Remove for Repairs Limited Motor Sizes Protection from Dry Well Flooding 7 PUMP STATION LOCATION AND LAYOUT The most cost efficient pump station location is typically at the low point of the watershed. As indicated in the environmental technical memorandum (Appendix B), the existing pump station is already located at the low point. As part of the East San Rafael Drainage Assessment District project, the area was excavated to create a low point at the existing pump station. The area excavated for the lagoon is now considered to be sensitive habitat area (wetland) with special status plant and animal species. Relocating the pump station closer to the bay, as indicated in Option 2 (Appendix G), requires excavation and a net loss of wetlands area for a new drainage channel. Recent Corps regulations favor purchase of credits in mitigation banks over projectsponsored mitigation. The cost of these credits are expected to run approximately $1 million. This cost does not include monitoring requirements or land acquisition costs, which will be required if this option is considered. Locating the pump station closer to the bay places the station between the toe of the building pad for the Target store and the top of the bank of the storage pond. This is a narrow area and does not provide an easy staging area from which to build the station. Locating a new pump station south of the existing pump station minimizes wetland disturbance and provides the benefit of a relative large construction staging area with good access. As indicated in Options 1 and 3 (Appendix G), the pump station will be located near the existing PG&E power pole. The proximity to the current station should not significantly affect the operation of the existing pump station during construction. As indicated in the Concept plan, CSW|ST2 recommends the new pump station be located close to the existing watershed low point, south of the existing pump station. As indicated in the geotechnical report, the planned pump station is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The weight of the new pump station is anticipated to be less than the weight of the excavated soil to build the station. , Figure 2: Aerial MapFigure 2: Aerial MapFigure 2: Aerial MapFigure 2: Aerial Map (E)Drainage Channel (E) Pump Station (N) Pump Station Location Options 8 The weight of the removed soil will offset the weight of the new station, minimizing additional settlement of the structure. Primary geotechnical considerations for the project include: ·Excavation through soft Bay Mud ·Providing appropriate temporary support for excavations ·Providing appropriate seismic and structural design for any new structures ·Providing for proper bedding and trench backfill ·Minimizing the extent of excavation and associated backfills for new manholes and other belowgrade structures that are underlain by Bay Mud As indicated in the geotechnical report, the planned pump station is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The weight of the new pump station is anticipated to be less than the weight of the excavated soil to build the station. The weight of the removed soil will offset the weight of the new station, minimizing additional settlement of the structure. Primary geotechnical considerations for the project include: The Motor Control Center and other electrical components are housed outside the pump station. An electrical instrumentation and controls design will be incorporated in the final pump station design. Based upon initial review of the PG&E electrical facilities, the existing transformer will be a ground mounted transformer. As indicated in the Concept plan, an area will be designated for an existing City supplied portable generator. Alarm monitoring and controls will be determined by City staff and incorporated in the final design plans. 9 DISCHARGE PIPING Discharge piping and miscellaneous equipment housed in the pump station will be necessary for normal operations. Options for use of a pressure vault or a manifold discharge assembly were reviewed. The current pump station utilizes a pressure vault which connects to a 60inch diameter outfall pipe. A pressure vault minimizes pressure loss, construction costs, and future maintenance. Figure 3: Pressure Vault Hydraulic calculations for a pressurized manifold system revealed high headloss through the bends and valves, which would require larger pumps further increasing costs. Consequently, the pressure vault is recommended to be used for the final design of the pump station. Figure 4: Pressure Manifold 10 As indicated in the Concept plan, the pressure vault will connect to a pressurized outfall pipe. Based on discussion with City maintenance crews, the existing 60inch RCP outfall pipe leaks and has settled unevenly in the bay mud causing sags. Due to poor access and presence of water in the existing outfall pipe, TV inspection was not a viable option to determine the existing pipe condition. CSW|ST2 retained Bess Test Lab to utilize Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and potholing to help locate the size and magnitude of potential pipe sags. GPR is limited in moist clays as the electromagnetic signal is weak and the results are approximate. Based on results of the GPR, our preliminary opinion is that there are three (3) sags and either a dislocated or broken pipe segment. The magnitude of the sags appears to be less than 12inches. CSW|ST2 looked at three potential options to improve the 900 feet of discharge outfall pipe. These options include 1) slip lining the existing 60inch RCP with the new 48inch diameter HDPE, 2) installing a Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) within the 60inch RCP, and 3) open trench removal of the existing pipe and installing in a new 48 inch diameter HDPE pipe. Given the narrow (25foot) work area and insignificant headloss, a larger diameter pipe was not considered for open trench construction. The following includes the benefits and constraints of each option. Option 1 – Slip Line Slip lining the existing pipe may be feasible if the existing pipe sags and any dislocation(s) are repaired. Location of the existing pipe deficiencies and anomalies are approximate due to limited access. The contractor will be required to dewater the existing storm drain and maintain operation of the existing pump station while thoroughly cleaning and installing the new pipe inside of the existing pipe. The benefits of this option include a smoother lining and less headloss. Slip line rehabilitation technology has been historically successful and works well with long straight pipe segments. Given the environmentally sensitive habitat and limited work area (25foot wide), slip lining provides a viable solution. Option 2 – Cured in Place Pipe The second option, CIPP, requires fixing existing sags and dislocation and then placement of one or two layers of carbon fiber with thermosetting resin inside the existing 60inch RCP. The impregnated liner is then filled with hot ,PR , our pre li mina ry opi nion is tha t the re are three (3) sags an d either a di sloca ted or mag1nitu de of the sagIs appears to be less than 12-in ches . . ed at th ree potential options. to improve th e 900 feet of disch arge outfa ll pipe . These li nin g the ex isting 60 ai nch RCP wi th th e new 4'8--i nch diamete r HDPE, 2) in sta llin g a C 11 water or steam and held at a temperature above 180°F until the resin chemically reacts, curing to form a new pipe inside the old pipe. Ultraviolet light is an alternative method for curing the CIPP liner. Major factors impacting the thickness of the CIPP liner include the extent of deterioration of the existing pipe, the depth of cover, and the presence of storm and/or groundwater. The advantage of this method is the liner is thinner than the pipeline materials used for slip lining. The new pipeline is mechanically bonded to the host pipe and movement of the cured pipe is not likely to occur. Since the CIPP pipe essentially coats the existing pipe with a very smooth wall, the outfall pipe will more efficiently convey the storm water to the bay, reducing the headloss in the outfall pipe. CIPP is typically costcompetitive with slip lining. One major drawback with the CIPP method is the potential release of styrene from curing water to the bay. Special catchment may be required to mitigate the potential environmental impact. In addition, the existing outfall discharge pipe requires repairs and dewatering during the CIPP process. Given the environmentally sensitive habitat and potential release of styrene, this option is not included in the Concept plan. Option 3 – Open Trench for Pipe Replacement Opencut replacement of the existing discharge pipe with a new 48inch HDPE pipe is a viable option. As indicated in the Concept plan, a new manhole located outside the 100foot BCDC shoreline band is recommended to provide access for future maintenance and to allow installation of a flap gate to prevent tidal water from the bay to enter the outfall pipe. Using a smaller 48inch HDPE will have an equivalent head loss through the outfall pipe as compared with the existing 60inch diameter RCP. Hazen Williams Equation where Hf = headloss, ft V = velocity, ft/s Hf = 3.022 * V1.85 * L C = roughness coefficient C1.85 * D1.165 D = pipe diameter, ft Hf = 3.022 * 10.21.85 * 986 = 6.1 ft 48 inch HDPE 1301.85 * 41.165 Hf = 3.022 * 10.21.85 * 986 = 6.7 ft 60 inch RCP 1001.85 * 51.165 Disadvantages of installing a new pipe is the limited, narrow length of property and construction cost. A temporary construction easement or RightofEntry may be required by the adjacent private land owners. Geotechnical review indicates the bottom of the new outfall pipeline excavation will typically not extend through the fill soils and into the underlying Bay Mud. Where excavations extend into soft, loose, or otherwise unstable soils, the trench bottoms will be overexcavated a minimum of 18 inches below the planned pipe invert and backfilled with a light weight backfill and/or drain rock. 12 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Throughout the Basis of Design, CSW|ST2 explored a variety of design options with varying approaches to the number and type of pumps, design of the pressure chamber or manifold at the pumps discharge, replacing the outfall, and location of the pump station. The following matrices show the options which could be considered from the various combinations of approaches. Within each cell we have identified a relative cost to the 3pump with pressure chamber and 48” opencut outfall pipe scenario indicated in the opinions of probable construction cost in Tables 7 and 8. Table 5: Alternatives Cost Analysis for New Pump Station Near Bay Pumps/Discharge 48" Open-Cut 48" Slip Line 60" CIPP 2 Pumps w/manifold +75,000 +63,750 +58,750 2 Pumps w/pressure chamber -237,500 -248,750 -253,750 3 Pumps w/manifold +312,500 +301,250 +296,250 3 Pumps w/pressure chamber - -11,250 -16,250 Table 6: Alternatives Cost Analysis for New Pump Station Near Existing Station Pumps/Discharge 48" Open-Cut 48" Slip Line 60" CIPP 2 Pumps w/manifold -237,500 -300,000 -325,000 2 Pumps w/pressure chamber +75,000 +12,500 -12,500 3 Pumps w/manifold +312,500 +250,000 +225,000 3 Pumps w/pressure chamber - -62,500 -87,500 The matrices demonstrate the relative values of various combinations. In our opinion, the largest variables are the pump station location, use of a pressurized manifold, and use of CIPP in the existing outfall pipe. To explore the pump station location further, we included the anticipated incidental costs which include mitigation, monitoring, and property acquisition. As indicated in Tables 5 and 6, locating the pump station closer to the bay significantly increases the incidental costs. Utilizing a pressurized manifold significantly increases the construction cost and future maintenance cost to maintain the valves. Use of CIPP in the outfall pipe in Tables 5 and 6 does not show the potential high incidental cost for mitigation and monitoring. As previously indicated, use of CIPP is not anticipated due to the sensitive habitat and release of chemicals in the CIPP process. The Concept plan of the three (3) pump station options are depicted in Appendix (H). The first layout option assumes locating the new pump station adjacent to the existing pump station. This option assumes the use of three (3) vertical axial flow pumps and provides two (2) alternatives for repair/replacement of the existing outfall discharge pipe outside the 100foot BCDC shoreline band. The second option assumes a similar pump layout (three (3) axial flow pumps) and also provides two alternatives for the repair/replacement of the existing out fall. The following two tables show the opinion of probable construction and incidental costs for Option 1 and Option 2: Table 7: Layout Option 1 (3-Pumping Units) Construction Cost = $ 2,940,000 Incidental Expenses = $ 2,691,640 Total = $ 5,631,640 13 Table 8: Layout Option 2 (3-Pumping Units) Construction Cost = $ 2,981,250 Incidental Expenses = $ 254,000 Total = $ 3,235,250 The two tables show a significant difference between probable costs: $3.2 to $5.6 million. While the outfall pipe line item cost for locating the pump station near the existing station is much higher, the cost is more than offset by the incidental costs of land acquisition and environmental mitigation. Additionally, there is an increase in cost for locating the new pump station closer to the bay resulting from a very confined site. 14 RECOMENDATIONS The Basis of Design report covered the following items pertinent to the San Quentin pump station construction and outfall pipe repair/replacement. ·Defined the watershed basin size draining to the San Quentin Pump Station ·Quantified the storm water runoff with the watershed basin based on a 5year storm event followed by a 100year storm event ·Confirmed the storage volume within the existing lagoon ·Defined options for locating the new pump station various layout configurations ·Defined the pump unit type, capacity, size, and quantity based on the design WSEL ·Identified existing conditions of the 60inch RCP ·Identified Repair/replacement options for the pump station outfall discharge piping ·Developed opinions of probable construction and incidental costs for the new pump station Of the two (2) potential pump station locations, the anticipated incidental cost for environmental mitigation and land acquisition to locate the pump station near the bay is nearly equivalent to the construction cost, which significantly increases the overall project cost. As a result, we recommend relocating the pump station within City lands at the low point of the watershed. There are two (2) potential pump types appropriate for this application: Vertical axial flow and submersible. Based on lower maintenance requirements, ease of access, and physical site features, we recommend use of vertical axial flow pumps for the main pumps, while utilizing a smaller submersible pump for nuisance water during the dry weather season. The report reviews the use of two (2) and three (3) pumping units in the new pump station. We recommend using three (3) vertical axial flow pumps either with a 66 or 100 cfs capacity. Three (3) pumps provides more flexibility for operation and maintenance for the more frequent, smaller storm events and larger storm events than options with two (2) pumps. In the three pump system, one (1) pump could be out of operation, and the remaining two pumps could handle a single 100year storm event without exceeding the 4.0 maximum water surface elevation. As discussed herein, the outfall can be improved in several ways. At this time we propose bringing both the slip lining and open trench approaches forward into the first construction document phase to best asses the City’s options. As we identify whether or not land acquisition is required, we can determine the best outfall pipe option. This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX A, SUB-APPENDIX A: Draft Geotechnical Investigation Report This page intentionally left blank. 504 Redwood Blvd., Suite 220 Novato, California 94947 T (415) 382-3444 F (415) 382-3450 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP SAN QUENTIN PUMP STATION RECONSTRUCTION SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA March 30, 2018 Job No. 737.299 Prepared For: CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group 45 Leveroni Court Novato, California 94949 CERTIFICATION This document is an instrument of service, prepared by or under the direction of the undersigned professionals, in accordance with the current ordinary standard of care. The service specifically excludes the investigation of polychlorinated byphenols, radon, asbestos or any other hazardous materials. The document is for the sole use of the client and consultants on this project. No other use is authorized. If the project changes, or more than two years have passed since issuance of this report, the findings and recommendations must be updated. MILLER PACIFIC ENGINEERING GROUP REVIEWED BY (a California corporation) DRAFT DRAFT Eric Dabanian Scott Stephens Geotechnical Engineer No. 2526 Geotechnical Engineer No. 2398 (Expires 6/30/19) (Expires 6/30/19) GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP SAN QUENTIN PUMP STATION RECONSTRUCTION SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 1 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Regional Geology ........................................................................................................ 2 3.2 Seismicity .................................................................................................................... 2 3.3 Surface Conditions & Site History ................................................................................ 3 3.4 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing ...................... ................................................3 3.5 Subsurface Conditions and Groundwater ...................... ................................................4 3.6 Previous Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................................ 4 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Seismic Shaking .......................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Liquefaction and Related Effects .................................................................................. 5 4.3 Settlement ................................................................................................................... 5 4.4 Corrosive Soils ............................................................................................................. 6 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 6 5.1 Seismic Design ............................................................................................................ 6 5.2 Earthwork .................................................................................................................... 7 Excavations .......................................................................................................... 7 Trench Bottom Stabilization .................................................................................. 7 Fill Materials.......................................................................................................... 8 Fill Placement and Compaction ............................................................................ 8 5.3 Foundation and Pump Station Structural Design ........................................................10 5.4 Temporary Support of Excavations .............................................................................11 6.0 SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ...........................................................11 7.0 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................12 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 MllllR PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FIGURE 3: REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 4: ACTIVE FAULT MAP FIGURE 5: TUNNELMAN’S GROUND CLASSIFICATION FOR SOILS FIGURE 6: PUMP STATION DESIGN CRITIERIA TABLE 1: 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA TABLE 2: GRADATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT FILL TABLE 3: PUMP STATION DESIGN CRITERIA TABLE 4: SHORING DESIGN CRITERIA APPENDIX A: SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING MllllR PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP SAN QUENTIN PUMP STATION RECONSTRUCTION SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation for the San Rafael Department of Public Works’ San Quentin Pump Station Reconstruction Project in San Rafael, California. The site is located east of Francisco Boulevard East and immediately north of the Target Store, as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. Our work was performed in accordance with our Agreement for Professional Services dated January 10, 2018. The purpose of our Geotechnical Investigation was to explore subsurface conditions and to develop geotechnical criteria for design and construction of the pump station improvements and associated new sewer pipeline. The scope of our services includes: Review of geotechnical reference documents regarding development of the existing pump station and the adjacent Target Store. Exploration of subsurface conditions with one test boring located within the footprint of the planned pump station. Geotechnical laboratory testing to estimate pertinent engineering properties of the soils encountered during our exploration. Evaluation of relevant geologic hazards including seismic shaking, settlement, and other hazards. Preparing geotechnical recommendations and design criteria related to foundations, lateral pressures, temporary support of excavations, trench backfill, seismic design, and other geotechnical-related items. Preparation of this report which summarizes our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing programs, evaluation of relevant geologic hazards, including settlement, and geotechnical recommendations and design criteria. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project generally consists of replacing the existing pump station and 1,000 feet of discharge pipe with a new pump station located immediately south of the existing pump station. The site is located immediately north of a closed landfill and is underlain by relatively thick deposits of weak, compressible bay mud. We understand the ground around the pump station has experienced roughly 2-feet of settlement since it was constructed in 1972. Repairs have been made to the pump station/discharge pipe connection which continues to settle. The existing pump station is supported on deep driven piles and therefore is likely not experiencing settlement. The proposed improvements are shown on the Preliminary Site Plan, Figure 2. MllllR PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Regional Geology The project site lies within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. Regional topography within the Coast Ranges province is characterized by northwest-southeast trending mountain ridges and intervening valleys that parallel the major geologic structures, including the San Andreas Fault System. The province is also generally characterized by abundant landsliding and erosion, owing in part to its typically high levels of precipitation and seismic activity. The oldest rocks in the region are the sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks of the Jurassic-Cretaceous age (190- to 65-million years old) Franciscan Complex. Within Marin County, a variety of sedimentary and volcanic rocks of Tertiary (1.8- to 65-million years old) and Quaternary (less than 1.8-million years old) age locally overlie the basement rocks of the Franciscan Complex. Tectonic deformation and erosion during late Tertiary and Quaternary time (the last several million years) formed the prominent coastal ridges and intervening valleys typical of the Coast Ranges province. The youngest geologic units in the region are Quaternary-age (last 1.8 million years) sedimentary deposits, including alluvial deposits which partially fill most of the valleys and colluvial deposits which typically blanket the lower portions of surrounding slopes. The project site is located immediately west of San Pablo Bay. Regional geologic mapping (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1976) indicates that the site is underlain by artificial fill over Bay Mud with marsh deposits mapped directly to the north. A Regional Geologic Map and descriptions of the mapped geologic units are shown on Figure 3. 3.2 Seismicity The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area and will therefore experience the effects of future earthquakes. Earthquakes are the product of the build-up and sudden release of strain along a “fault” or zone of weakness in the earth's crust. Stored energy may be released as soon as it is generated or it may be accumulated and stored for long periods of time. Individual releases may be so small that they are detected only by sensitive instruments, or they may be violent enough to cause destruction over vast areas. Faults are seldom single cracks in the earth's crust but are typically comprised of localized shear zones which link together to form larger fault zones. Within the Bay Area, faults are concentrated along the San Andreas Fault zone. The movement between rock formations along either side of a fault may be horizontal, vertical, or a combination and is radiated outward in the form of energy waves. The amplitude and frequency of earthquake ground motions partially depends on the material through which it is moving. The earthquake force is transmitted through hard rock in short, rapid vibrations, while this energy becomes a long, high-amplitude motion when moving through soft ground materials, such as Bay Mud. An “active” fault is one that shows displacement within the last 11,000 years (i.e. Holocene) and has a reported average slip rate greater than 0.1 mm per year. The California Division of Mines and Geology (1998) has mapped various active and inactive faults in the region. These faults, MllllR PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 3 defined as either California Building Code Source Type “A” or “B,” are shown in relation to the project site on the attached Active Fault Map, Figure 4. The nearest known active faults to the site are the San Andreas and Hayward Faults. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 16.2 kilometers (10 miles) southwest of the site whereas the Hayward Fault is located approximately 11.4 kilometers (7 miles) to the northeast. 3.3 Surface Conditions and Site History The existing San Quentin Pump Station is located on former marshland that was reportedly filled in the 1960s and was developed as a pump station in 1973 as a part of the East San Rafael Drainage Assessment District. The surface elevations at the site generally range between about +2 and +3, except for the east end of the site where the outfall pipe levee terminates at the shoreline levee which is at elevation +9. An approximately 20-foot high embankment constructed for the Target store is located immediately south of the outfall pipeline. Topographic mapping by the USGS (1948) shows the site and vicinity as being within the San Francisco Bay. Topographic mapping by the USGS (1959) shows the existing shoreline perimeter levee is in place, extending to Murphy Rock where it makes a 90 degree bend and terminates east of Highway 17. In 1969 additional grading was performed to raise the grades of the existing levees on which the pump station and outfall pipe were constructed. Additional fill was placed in 1972 and 1973 for development of the pump station and outfall pipe. Construction documentation for the pump station, including site grading is included in a report prepared by Harding Lawson Associates (HLA, 1974). The San Quentin Disposal Site (SQDS), located immediately south of the site was a permitted Class III landfill that accepted construction and landscape debris from 1968 to 1987. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) landfill closure report (2001) indicates the landfill does not extend onto the pump station site. The Shoreline Center, located south and southwest of the site was developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the Home Depot and other commercial developments. The Target store was developed about 4 or 5 years ago. Kleinfelder (2012) performed extensive subsurface exploration for the Target store and prepared a design level geotechnical report for the project. 3.4 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing We explored subsurface conditions at the proposed pump station on February 9, 2018 with one boring at the approximate location shown on Figure 2. The boring was excavated using truck- mounted drilling equipment equipped with 6-inch diameter hollow stem augers to a depth of 51.5 feet below the ground surface. The boring was logged by our engineer and samples were obtained for classification and laboratory testing. Upon completion of the drilling, the boring was backfilled with neat cement grout and/or bentonite chips. Brief descriptions of the terms and methodology used in classifying soils are shown on the Soil Classification Chart, Figure A-1 and the exploratory boring log is presented on Figures A-2 through A-4. Laboratory testing of relatively undisturbed samples included determination of moisture content, dry density, unconfined compressive strength, and consolidation in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. The results of moisture, density, and compressive strength tests are shown on MllllR PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 4 the boring log, while consolidation test results are presented on Figures A-5 through A-7. The subsurface exploration and geotechnical laboratory testing program is discussed in further detail in Appendix A. 3.5 Subsurface Conditions and Groundwater Based on our field exploration, subsurface conditions are generally consistent with geologic mapping and the previous subsurface exploration by Harding Lawson and Associates. Boring 1 is located immediately south of the existing pump station, as shown on Figure 2. The boring encountered about 3-feet of medium dense sandy fill over 9-feet of medium stiff clayey fill over weak, compressible bay mud to the maximum depth explored, 52.5 feet. Groundwater was encountered at Boring 1 at about 10 feet below ground surface. Because the boring was not left open for an extended period of time, a stabilized depth to groundwater may not have been observed. Groundwater elevations fluctuate seasonally and groundwater levels will likely be near the ground surface during periods of intense rainfall and/or high tides. 3.6 Previous Geotechnical Investigation Harding Lawson Associates (1972) performed a subsurface exploration of the site which included one exploratory boring at the location of the existing pump station and several other nearby borings for evaluation of improvements to the East San Rafael Drainage Assessment District. The Boring Log for the existing pump station is presented in Appendix A. HLA provided geotechnical recommendations for support of the pump station using deep driven piles that extend below the bottom of the bay mud into dense alluvium. Kleinfelder (2012) performed a subsurface investigation for the Target store site which included 5 test borings and 15 cone penetration tests (CPTs). The Kleinfelder exploration encountered 5 to 9 feet of landfill cover material comprised of clay, silt, sand and gravel over 21 to 48 feet of landfill material comprised of soil (mostly clay), construction debris (concrete, wood, metal and yard waste) over 49 to 72 feet of bay mud. Beneath the bay mud they encountered 8 to 46 feet of Old Bay Clay and alluvium over bedrock that was encountered at depths ranging from 110 to 153 feet below the ground surface. The Target store is supported on concrete piles that extend to bedrock. 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS This section summarizes our review of commonly considered geologic hazards and discusses their potential impacts on the planned improvements. The primary geologic hazards which could affect the proposed development include strong seismic ground shaking, settlement due to ongoing consolidation of the soft bay mud, potentially corrosive soil and shallow groundwater conditions. Other geologic hazards are judged less than significant with regard to the proposed project. Each significant geologic hazard considered is discussed in further detail in the following paragraph. MllllR PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 5 4.1 Seismic Shaking The project site will likely experience seismic ground shaking similar to other areas in the seismically active Bay Area. The intensity of ground shaking will depend on the characteristics of the causative fault, distance from the fault, the earthquake magnitude and duration, and site- specific geologic conditions. While a site specific seismic hazard analysis is beyond the scope of our work for this project, it should be noted that the potential for strong seismic shaking at the project site is high. Due to their proximity and historic rates of activity, the San Andreas and Hayward Faults present the highest potential for severe ground shaking. The significant adverse impact associated with strong seismic shaking is potential damage to the pump station, new pipelines and related improvements. Measures to mitigate the effects of ground shaking should, as a minimum, include using flexible connections and designing any new structures to resist seismic loads as discussed in Section 5.1. 4.2 Liquefaction and Related Effects Liquefaction refers to the sudden, temporary loss of soil strength during strong ground shaking. This phenomenon can occur in saturated, loose, granular deposits subjected to seismic shaking. Recent advances in liquefaction studies indicate that liquefaction can occur in granular materials with relatively high fines content provided the fines exhibit a plasticity index less than 7. Liquefaction can result in flow failure, lateral spreading, ground movement, settlement, and other related effects. Buried pipelines embedded within liquefied soils may also experience uplift due to buoyancy. Geologic mapping and the results of our subsurface exploration indicate the project site is underlain by relatively thick deposits of bay mud which are not susceptible to liquefaction. The fill material is mostly comprised of clayey soils and not susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, we judge the likelihood of damage to the new pump station and outfall pipe due to liquefaction is low. 4.3 Settlement Significant settlement can occur when new loads are applied to soft, compressible soils such as the bay mud that exists beneath the project site. The rate and magnitude of potential settlements are dependent on the new loads that are applied, the thickness of compressible material and the inherent compressibility properties of the bay mud. We anticipate loads associated with the new pump station and pipeline and will generally be roughly balanced by the soil that is removed during excavation. However, ongoing settlements from fill placement performed in the 1960s and fills placed in 1972 for development of the existing pump station and discharge pipeline are expected to impact the project. Fills from development of the adjacent Target Store are not expected to impact the pump station but will cause additional settlement of the levee that supports the outfall pipeline. Raising grades at the site will also induce additional settlement but we understand that grades will remain as is. Construction of new below-grade pump station may reduce surface loading and future long-term settlement near the structure, and some minor differential settlements may therefore occur between the pump station and the outfall pipeline. The pump station and pipeline may experience MllllR PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 6 an additional 2 to 4-feet of settlement over the next 30 to 70 years. The pipeline should consist of a flexible material such as HDPE that tolerate differential settlements and should be attached to the pump station with a flexible connection. Future maintenance and repair of the pipeline should be expected as differential settlements occur. Additional mitigation measures should include minimizing the extent of the excavation and required backfill to reduce the potential for new loads associated with compacted backfill. Lightweight backfill materials should be considered for excavations. 4.4 Corrosive Soils Corrosive soil can damage buried metallic structures, cause concrete spalling, and deteriorate rebar reinforcement. The project site is underlain by bay mud which typically exhibits high chloride concentrations and low electrical resistivity, each of which are indicators of soluble salts and a higher susceptibility to corrosion. We therefore judge there is a moderate to high risk of damage to new buried facilities and corrosion should be considered during design of the site improvements. Minimum mitigation measures should include designing concrete structures in accordance with applicable durability requirements outlined in ACI 318. Metallic components should incorporate protective coatings or other measures aimed at improving corrosion resistance. A qualified corrosion engineer should be retained to provide additional mitigation measures as required. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our subsurface exploration, we judge that the planned pump station and outfall pipeline are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Primary geotechnical considerations for the project include: excavation through soft Bay Mud; providing appropriate temporary support for excavations; providing appropriate seismic and structural design for any new structures; providing for proper bedding and trench backfill; and minimizing the extent of excavation and associated backfills for new manholes and other below-grade structures that are underlain by Bay Mud. Additional discussion and recommendations addressing these and other considerations are presented in the following sections. 5.1 Seismic Design Minimum mitigation of ground shaking includes seismic design of new structures in conformance with the provisions of the most recent edition (2016) of the California Building Code. The magnitude and character of these ground motions will depend on the particular earthquake and the site response characteristics. Based on the interpreted subsurface conditions and proximity of the San Andreas and Hayward Faults, we recommend the CBC coefficients and site values shown in Table 1 be used to calculate the design base shear of the new pump station improvements as applicable. MllllR PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 7 Table 1 – 2016 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria Parameter Design Value Site Class E Site Latitude 37.956°N Site Longitude -122.493°W Spectral Response (short), SS 1.500 g Spectral Response (1-sec), S1 0.600 g Site Coefficient, Fa 0.9 Site Coefficient, FV 2.4 Reference: USGS US Seismic Design Maps accessed on March 16, 2018. 5.2 Earthwork Earthwork for the pump station improvements and new outfall pipeline should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations: Excavations Excavations for the pump station and discharge pipeline will generally encounter medium stiff clayey fill over soft bay mud. Shallow groundwater should also be expected and the contractor should anticipate the need for dewatering and shoring all excavations. In general, Bay Mud deposits are expected below the pump station but are not anticipated along the new outfall pipeline alignment. While not encountered in our borings, the backfill around and below the existing pump station may also include relatively permeable materials which may need to be dewatered prior to construction. Based on our subsurface exploration, we judge the majority of site excavation can be performed with typical equipment, such as medium-size excavators. In unsupported excavations, the clayey fill soils will be susceptible to caving/sloughing below groundwater and the bay mud will be susceptible to squeezing. Definitions of the various ground behaviors are presented in the Tunnelman’s Ground Classification for Soils, Figure 5. In accordance with OSHA soil type designations, the fill and bay mud are considered “Type C” soils. Temporary support for excavations should be installed prior to or during excavation to ensure the safety of workers and to reduce the potential for trench failure and damage to surrounding areas. Shoring and temporary support of excavations is discussed in further detail in Section 5.3 Trench Bottom Stabilization Based on planned pipeline invert depths and the fill thicknesses observed during our subsurface exploration, we anticipate the bottom of excavations for the new outfall pipeline will typically not extend through the fill soils and into the underlying Bay Mud. However, in areas where excavations extend into soft, loose, or otherwise unstable soils, we recommend the trench bottoms be overexcavated a minimum of 12 inches below the planned pipe invert and backfilled with drain rock. The drain rock should be completely wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric consisting of Mirafi FW300 or an approved equivalent. 5.2.1 5.2.2 MILLER PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 8 Fill Materials Unless otherwise recommended by SRDPW or the pipe manufacturer, pipe bedding and embedment materials should consist of well-graded sand with 90 to 100 percent of particles passing the No. 4 sieve and no more than 5 percent finer than the No. 200 sieve. Provide the minimum bedding thickness beneath the pipe in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations (typically 3 to 6 inches). Fill materials used for pipe backfill should consist of non-expansive materials that are free of organic matter, have a Liquid Limit of less than 40 (ASTM D 4318), a Plasticity Index of less than 20 (ASTM D 4318), and have a minimum R-value of 20 (California Test 301). The fill material should contain no more than 50 percent of particles passing a No. 200 sieve and should have a maximum particle size of 4 inches. Some of the onsite fill soils may be suitable for re-use as trench backfill. The Bay Mud is not suitable for use as backfill and should be removed from the site. In areas in which the pipe invert elevation is greater than 3 feet below the top of Bay Mud, we recommend using lightweight fill for backfilling to minimize new loads and the potential for settlement. The lightweight fill should be placed up to the top of Bay Mud and should consist of naturally-occurring volcanic rock with a maximum unit weight of 65 pounds per cubic foot, minimum Durability Index of 35 (California Test 229), minimum R-Value of 50 (California Test 301), and should meet the gradation requirements outlined below in Table 2. The lightweight fill should be completely wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric consisting of Mirafi FW300 or an approved equivalent. Table 2 – Gradation Requirements for Lightweight Fill Sieve Size Percentage Passing 1-1/2 inch 100 1 inch 95 to 100 3/4 inch 90 to 100 3/8 inch 15 to 85 No. 4 0 to 9 Reference: Gradation to be determined in conformance with the requirements of California Test 202, except shaking in the sieves must be limited to 5 minutes. Fill Placement and Compaction Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to near the optimum moisture content prior to compaction. Properly moisture conditioned fill materials should subsequently be placed in loose, horizontal lifts of 8 inches-thick or less and uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. In pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of fill materials should be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. Where lightweight fill is used, 5.2.3 5.2.4 MILLER PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 9 the fill should be placed in loose, horizontal lifts which are lightly compacted using vibratory equipment to avoid crushing of the individual aggregate pieces. 5.3 Foundation and Pump Station Structural Design The weight of the new pump station will likely be less than the weight of the excavated soil and relatively small volume of crushed rock backfill, so new settlement of the structure is not considered to be a significant issue. If the new improvements will weigh more than the excavated soils, deep foundations may be required. The vertical load of the structure will need to be resisted by a 300-psf skin friction on the sides and a 500 psf soil bearing capacity below the structure. Design criteria for the pump station are summarized in Table 3 and detailed on Figure 6. A buoyant uplift force will develop when the water level within the pump station is lower than the exterior groundwater level. Under “wintertime” (rainy season) conditions or during a flood event, the groundwater elevation should be assumed to be at the ground surface for design purposes. The design engineer will need to determine the maximum differential between the exterior and interior water levels. Resistance to uplift includes the weight of the structure plus the skin friction on the exterior of the structure. If necessary, the uplift resistance can be increased by structurally extending the foundation beyond the limits of the walls. The buoyant weight of soil above the footing extensions could also be included in the total weight of the structure. Alternatively, helical anchors could be utilized to provide uplift resistance. The walls of the pump station are expected to be restrained at the top and bottom which prevents lateral deflection of the wall. This type of wall is subject to a uniform lateral pressure distribution instead of the equivalent fluid pressure normally used for cantilevered walls. In addition, the walls need to withstand seismic loading and hydrostatic forces due to potential differential water levels inside and outside of the wet well. Design criteria for the pump station structure walls is presented in Table 4 and detailed on Figure 6. MllllR PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 10 Table 3 – Pump Station Design Criteria Condition Value Allowable dead load bearing pressure1: 500 psf Base friction: 0.30 Restrained Active Soil Pressure2,3,4: Above the groundwater table: 35 H psf Below the groundwater table: 15 H psf Traffic Loading2 0 to 5 feet below the ground surface 200 psf 5 to 10 feet below the ground surface 50 psf Hydrostatic Pressure Difference2,5: (63 x Hw) psf Earthquake Surcharge2, 4, 6: 15 H psf Passive Soil Pressure7: 300 pcf (1) May increase design values by 1/3 for total design loads, including wind and seismic. (2) Uniform, rectangular lateral pressure distribution. (3) For compacted soil conditions. (4) H = Total height of wall (in feet). (5) Hw = Difference in water level (in feet). (6) Design for a factor of safety of 1.1 or greater for seismic conditions. (7) Equivalent Fluid Pressure The Structural Engineer should design the concrete slab floors to resist the external hydrostatic pressures, as shown on Figure 6. Deep foundations, while they would limit or eliminate settlement of the new pump station, have been considered but are not recommended due to expected differential settlement between the pump station and the outfall pipe. 5.4 Temporary Support of Excavations Temporary support of excavations will be required to ensure the safety of workers and to reduce the potential for trench failure and damage to surrounding areas. Shoring types may include trench boxes or shields, driven sheetpiles, vertical hydraulic shores, or other systems. While a variety of systems are available, shoring that applies positive pressure to the side walls of the excavation will be more effective in controlling ground movements and reducing the risk of damage to nearby utilities and structures. The selected support system should be designed to resist lateral pressures from earth and construction surcharge loads. Watertight shoring systems (e.g. interlocking sheetpiles) which do not allow for drainage should also be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. As a minimum, shoring systems should be designed based on the criteria provided in Table 4. MILLER PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 11 Table 4 – Shoring Design Criteria Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure, Unrestrained1 45 pcf Active Earth Pressure, Restrained2 35 x H psf Ultimate Passive Resistance, Bay Mud1 250 pcf Minimum Surcharge Pressure2,3 125 psf Notes: (1) Equivalent fluid pressure. (2) Rectangular distribution, H is wall height in feet (3) Apply to upper 10 feet of trench shoring. Surcharge load to be adjusted at the discretion of the Contractor’s shoring designer. Temporary dewatering will be required where excavations extend below the groundwater table. While various systems are available, dewatering would most likely consist of sumps or wells spaced as needed to keep the groundwater level below the excavation bottom. The selection, design, installation, monitoring, and removal of temporary shoring and dewatering should be the responsibility of the Contractor in accordance with their means and methods. The Contractor should be required to submit dewatering plans for review by SRDPW prior to implementation. 6.0 SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES We must review the plans and specifications when they are nearing completion to confirm that the intent of our recommendations has been incorporated and to provide supplemental recommendations as needed. During construction, we must inspect geotechnical items relating to earthwork and new pavement construction. We should observe trench excavations, proper moisture conditioning of soils, fill placement and compaction, and other geotechnical-related work items. MILLER PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 12 7.0 LIST OF REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010), “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures” (2010 ASCE-7), Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. American Concrete Institute, “318-14: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary”. American Society for Testing and Materials, (2009) “2009 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4, Construction, Volume 4.08, Soil and Rock; Dimension Stone; Geosynthetics,” ASTM, Philadelphia. California Building Code, 2016 Edition, California Building Standards Commission/International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California. California Code of Regulations, Title 22. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (2015), 2015 Standard Specifications. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (2015, Highway Design Manual California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (2015), “Caltrans ARS Online, V 2.3.06” (web- based deterministic acceleration response spectra calculator tool), http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS_Online/, accessed March 20, 2016. California Division of Mines and Geology, “Geology for Planning in Central and Southeastern Marin County, California, OFR 76-2 S.F. Plate 1D, South Central Marin Geology”, 1976. Harding Lawson Associates, “Soil Engineering Services, East San Rafael Drainage Assessment District No. 1, Part A – Jacoby Street Extension, Part B – Drainage Facilities, Part C – Bay Front Levee”, 1971. Harding Lawson Associates, “Final Report, Soil Engineering Services During Construction, Flood Control Facilities, East San Rafael Drainage Assessment District No. 1”, 1974. Kleinfelder, “Design Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Target Store, 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, CA”, 2012 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)(2005), Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1926 (www.OSHA.gov). United States Geological Survey, “San Rafael Quadrangle, California-Marin Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic)”, 1948. United States Survey, “San Rafael Quadrangle, California-Marin Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic)”, 1959. MILLER PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP 13 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING A. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION We explored subsurface conditions with one exploratory boring drilled with truck-mounted equipment on February 9, 2018 at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The exploration was conducted under the technical supervision of our Field Engineer who examined and logged the soil materials encountered and obtained samples. The subsurface conditions encountered in the test boring is summarized and presented on the Boring Log, Figures A-2 through A-4. “Undisturbed” samples were obtained using a 3-inch diameter, split-barrel Modified California Sampler with 2.5 by 6-inch tube liners or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler. The samplers were driven by a 140-pound hammer at a 30-inch drop. The number of blows required to drive the samplers 18 inches was recorded and is reported on the boring logs as blows per foot for the last 12 inches of driving. Bay Mud was sampled with 30-inch long, 3-inch diameter thin- walled “Shelby” tube sampler which is pushed directly into soft soils rather than driven with a sampling hammer. The samples obtained were examined in the field, sealed to prevent moisture loss, and transported to our laboratory B. GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING We conducted geotechnical laboratory tests on selected intact samples to classify soils and to estimate engineering properties. The following laboratory tests were conducted in general accordance with the ASTM standard test method cited: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture Content) of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures, ASTM D 2216 Density of Soil in Place by the Drive-Cylinder Method, ASTM D 2937 Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil, ASTM D 2166 One-Dimensional Consolidation, ASTM D 2435. The moisture content, dry density and unconfined compression test results are shown on the exploratory boring log, Figures A-2 through A-4 while consolidation test results are shown on Figures A-5 through A-7. The exploratory boring logs, description of soils encountered and the laboratory test data reflect conditions only at the location of the boring at the time they were excavated or retrieved. Conditions may differ at other locations and may change with the passage of time due to a variety of causes including natural weathering, climate and changes in surface and subsurface drainage. MllllR PACIFIC INGINIIRING GROUP REFERENCE: Google Earth, 2018 SITE LOCATION N.T.S.NORTHSITE FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/26/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 Figures.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1 SITE LOCATION MAP CSW/Stuber-Stroeh San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 NGK SITE COORDINATES LAT. 37.9559° LON. -122.4931° MILLER PAC If IC -----------r---------.--------t • INGINHRING GROUP --D - This page intentionally left blank. B1DrawnCheckedDesignedProject No.Date: 8/3/2016FIGURE504 Redwood Blvd.Suite 220Novato, CA 94947T 415 / 382-3444F 415 / 382-3450www.millerpac.comA CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2016, ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDFILE: 739.299 Figures.dwgCSW/Stuber-StroehSan Quentin Pump StationSan Rafael, California739.299SITE PLANNGKEADEAD2SCALE04080160 FEETREFERENCE: Option 1 Site Plan Provided by CSW/Stuber-StroehApproximate location of MPEG Boring, February 2018SITE PLAN VIEW 1 inch= 40 ft. MllllR PACIF INGINIIBING m\~ ---\ \ This page intentionally left blank. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP (NOT TO SCALE) REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Reference: Rice, Salem J., et al (1976), "Geology of the Eastern Part of the San Rafael Area, Marin County, California." California Department of Conservation, California Department of Mines and Geology, Open File Report OFR 76-2, Scale 1:12,000. LEGEND Qaf Artificial Fill - Deposits of rock, soil, garbage and trash, or bay mud placed my man upon natural surfaces. Qm Bay Mud - Marshlands, former marshlands, and mudflats bordering San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Consist of thick deposits of unconsolidated, low-density, semi-fluid, highly compressible, highly impermeable silty clay. SITE NORTHFIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/26/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 Figures.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP CSW/Stuber-Stroeh San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 NGK Qrn SCALE 0 12.5 25 50 MILES DATA SOURCE: 1) U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, "Earthquake Outlook for the San Francisco Bay Region 2014-2043", Map of Known Active Faults in the San Francisco Bay Region, Fact Sheet 2016-3020, Revised August 2016 (ver. 1.1). SITE COORDINATES LAT. 37.9559° LON. -122.4931° SITE 2 5 M I L E S 5 0 M I L E S NORTHFIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/26/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 Figures.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 4 ACTIVE FAULT MAP CSW/Stuber-Stroeh San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 NGK ' \ \ \ \ 1 W~ay \._f/ t.• 2 Collat _m1 '. 7 \ 3 Mysteriou~ Ridge \ 4 Benntlt Valley \ \ 5 West f'li pa \ \ 6 Trout Cr ~k \ \,, 7 PoiJTI Re~ s ' 8 Gonion Va ley '-\ -.......... 9 Midland \ '-'ti' 10 franklin ~- 11 Southampto11 '-~ 12 LosMedanos-Roe ~sr1d \.~lfA4QQL 13 Pittsburg-Kirby Hills ' \ Bny 14 Clayton '-~ 15 Mt Diablo North ~ 16 Mt Diablo South ~-- 17 Pifarc itos ~ 18 Las Positas '. 19 Orestimba ' 20 Monte Vista-Shannon \. 21 Silver Creek \ 22 Ortigalita North \ 23 Ortigalita Soutti 24 Sargent 25 Zayante-Vergeles 76 San Joaquin Z7 Reliz 2a Uuien Sabe 29 Monterey Bay-Tularcitos JO Mission 31 Butane 32 Dunnigan Hills I' I <' I !' I < < J (. I I \' ' ' ' ' \ ' ' \ \ ' ' \ ' ' ' . ' \ \9 \ I ' 72% probabil ity of one or more M ~ 6.7 earthquakes fr om 2014 to 2043 in the San Franc isco Bay Reg io111 EXPLANATION -Major plate boundary faults Urb an areas ' ' ' ' ' \ ,, \ \ ' ' '. ' \ ' . ' ' ' ' \ ' ' ' ~ MllllR PACIFIC --t-------,-----------.---------1 ~INGINEIRING GROUP ---D FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/26/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 Figures.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 5 TUNNELMAN'S GROUND CLASSIFICATION CSW/Stuber-Stroeh San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 NGK Tunnelman's Ground Classification for Soils 1 Classification Behavior Typical Soil Types Firm Heading can be advanced without initial support, Loess above water table; hard clay, marl, and final lining can be constructed before cemented sand and gravel when not highly ground starts to move. overstressed. Raveling Slow Chunks or flakes of material begin to drop out of Residual soils or sand with small amounts of raveling the arch or walls sometime after the ground has binder may be fast raveling below the water -----been exposed, due to loosening or to over-tale, slow raveling above. Stiff fissured clays Fast stress and "brittle" fracture (ground separates or may be slow or fast raveling depending upon raveling breaks along distinct surfaces, opposed to degree of overstress. squeezing ground). In fast raveling ground, the process starts within a few minutes, otherwise the ground is slow raveling Squeezing Ground squeezes or extrudes plastically into Ground with low frictional strength . Rate of tunnel, without visible fracturing or loss of squeeze depends on degree of overstress continuity, and without perceptible increase in Occurs at shallow to medium depth in clay of water content. Ductile, plastic yield and flow due very soft to medium consistency. Stiff to hard to overstress. clay under high cover may move in combination of raveling at excavation surface and squeezing at depth behind surface. Running Cohesive-Granular materials without cohesion are Clean, dry granular materials. Apparent running unstable at a slope greater than their angle of cohesion in moist sand, or weak cementation -----repose(+/-30° -35°). When exposed at steeper in any granular soil, may allow the material to Running slopes they run like granulated sugar or dune stand for a brief period of ra veling before it sand until the slope flattens to the angle of breaks down and runs Such behavior is repose. cohesive-running. Flowing A mixture of soil and water flows into the tunnel Below the water table in silt, sand, or gravel like a viscous fluid. The material can enter the without enough clay content to give significant tunnel from the invert as well as from the face , cohesion and plasticity. May also occur in crown, and walls, and can flow for great highly sensitive clay when such material is distances, completely filling the tunnel in some disturbed . cases. Swelling Ground absorbs water, increases in volume , and Highly preconsolidated clay with plasticity expands slowly into the tunnel. index in excess of about 30, generally containing significant percentages of montmorillonite. 1 Modified by Heuer (1974) from Terzaghi (1950) !j MllLIR PACIFIC INGINEIRING GROUP D H H20 Traffic Surcharge = 200 psf (from Oto 5 ft below ground surface) Active Soil Pressure = 35 * H psf Above Water Table Hw Water Level Inside -WetWell Passive Pressure j .. Ali~wabiese~rin~-Pre~sur~i 500. psf .. Base Friction : 0 .30 Hydrostatic H20 Traffic Surcharge = 50 psf (5 to 10 ft below ground surface) Hydrostatic Surcharge (63 * Hw) Surcharge (63 * Hw) Active Soil Pressure = 15 * H psf Below Water Table Notes: Active Seismic WALL DESIGN PRESSURES (NO SCALE) Surcharge = 15 * H psf 1.) For seismic conditions , include a uniform seismic surcharge pressure of 15*H psf over wall height (H). Passive resistance may be increased by 1/3 for short term seismic conditions. Design Factor of Safety should be greater than 1.1. 2 .) Differential water level (Hw) to be determined by Civil Engineer . 504 Redwood Blvd. MILLER PACIFIC Suite220 LATERAL WALL PRESSURE DIAGRAM Novato, CA 94947 CSW /Stuber-Stroeh lNGINHRING GROUP Drawn T 415 / 382-3444 San Quentin Pump Station NGK Checked F 415 / 382-3450 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION.© 2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED San Rafael, California I Fl~RE I FILE: 739.299 Wall Pressures.dwg www .millerpac .com Project No . 739 .299 Date : 3/26/18 MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COARSE GRAINED SOILSover 50% sand and gravelCLEAN GRAVEL GW Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GRAVEL with fines CLEAN SAND SAND with fines GP GM GC SW SP SM SC Poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures FINE GRAINED SOILSover 50% silt and claySILT AND CLAY liquid limit <50% SILT AND CLAY liquid limit >50% ML CL OL MH CH OH PTHIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ROCK Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravely clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat, muck, and other highly organic soils Undifferentiated as to type or composition KEY TO BORING AND TEST PIT SYMBOLS CLASSIFICATION TESTS PI SA HYD P200 P4 PLASTICITY INDEX SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE PERCENT PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE STRENGTH TESTS TV UC TXCU TXUU FIELD TORVANE (UNDRAINED SHEAR) LABORATORY UNCONFINED COMPRESSION CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL UNCONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL UC, CU, UU = 1/2 Deviator Stress SAMPLER TYPE MODIFIED CALIFORNIA STANDARD PENETRATION TEST X DISTURBED OR THIN-WALLED / FIXED PISTON HAND SAMPLER ROCK CORE SAMPLER DRIVING RESISTANCE BULK SAMPLE Modified California and Standard Penetration Test samplers are driven 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches per blow. Blows for the initial 6-inch drive seat the sampler. Blows for the final 12-inch drive are recorded onto the logs. Sampler refusal is defined as 50 blows during a 6-inch drive. Examples of blow records are as follows: 25 sampler driven 12 inches with 25 blows after initial 6-inch drive 85/7" sampler driven 7 inches with 85 blows after initial 6-inch drive 50/3" sampler driven 3 inches with 50 blows during initial 6-inch drive or beginning of final 12-inch drive NOTE: Test boring and test pit logs are an interpretation of conditions encountered at the excavation location during the time of exploration. Subsurface rock, soil or water conditions may vary in different locations within the project site and with the passage of time. Boundaries between differing soil or rock descriptions are approximate and may indicate a gradual transition. LL LIQUID LIMIT FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/27/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 BL.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A-1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 ZMS ~1~~·· ---------, i-----------t-------Jftl:ffl:flll.-ttffln II -,I[ rll I•• II" •If 111 : u: t .. ' I l!I" I II 11111 II 11111 II 11111 II 11111 II ----------------------------- 1-------------DC>U-GCJOCJC,L_ ___ ------------l ~ MlllER PACIFIC --------------.-----r----------1 _,, .. ,Pl INGINHRING GROUP -----D SAMPLEBLOWS / FOOT (1)*REFERENCE: Google Earth, 2018 ELEVATION: 5 - feet* DATE: 02/09/18 EQUIPMENT: Truck-Mounted Drill Rig with 8.0-inch Hollow Flight Auger SYMBOL (4)DEPTHfeetmetersWEIGHT pcf (2)DRY UNITCONTENT (%)MOISTURESTRENGTH psf (3)SHEAROTHER TEST DATABORING 1 3 00 5 1 2 103 4 5 15 20 NOTES: 6 (3) METRIC EQUIVALENT STRENGTH (kPa) = 0.0479 x STRENGTH (psf) (2) METRIC EQUIVALENT DRY UNIT WEIGHT kN/m = 0.1571 x DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) (4) GRAPHIC SYMBOLS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY (1) UNCORRECTED FIELD BLOW COUNTS CLAY (CH) Gray, wet, soft, highly plastic, highly compressible, impermeable, trace shells, characteristic sulphuric odor, trace silt [Bay Mud]OTHER TEST DATA21 117 10.8 SAND with Gravel (SC) Dark to light gray, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse grained sand with varying amounts of 3 4" angular gravel, lens of low plasticity clay present from 0.5 to 1.0 [Fill] Water level encountered during drilling Water level measured after drilling FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/27/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 BL.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A-2 BORING LOG San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 ZMS 10 4 Gravelly CLAY (CL) Dark gray with red mottling, moist, medium stiff, low plasticity, ~15-30% angular gravel, typical diameter varies from 14"- 3 4", brick and debris present [Fill] Grades to ~30-50% angular gravels Auger chattering on large gravels/cobbles at 8.5' Cont. on next page I I I MllllR PACIFIC --------~~-------1 , INGINEIRING GROUP --_ □ SYMBOL (4)SAMPLEDEPTHfeetmetersWEIGHT pcf (2)DRY UNITCONTENT (%)MOISTUREBLOWS / FOOT (1)STRENGTH psf (3)SHEAROTHER TEST DATABORING 1 3 NOTES: (3) METRIC EQUIVALENT STRENGTH (kPa) = 0.0479 x STRENGTH (psf) (2) METRIC EQUIVALENT DRY UNIT WEIGHT kN/m = 0.1571 x DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) (4) GRAPHIC SYMBOLS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY (1) UNCORRECTED FIELD BLOW COUNTS OTHER TEST DATA2 7 8 30 35 40 9 10 11 12 25 20 (CONTINUED) Water level encountered during drilling Water level measured after drilling FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/27/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 BL.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A-3 BORING LOG San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 ZMS 60.5 67.0 CLAY (CH) Gray, wet, soft, highly plastic, highly compressible, impermeable, trace shells, characteristic sulphuric odor, trace silt [Bay Mud] As above, Bay Mud Cont. on next page CONSOL~Mlllll PACIFIC -------~-~-------1 __,.,,;, INGINEIRING GROUP__ _ □ SYMBOL (4)SAMPLEDEPTHfeetmetersWEIGHT pcf (2)DRY UNITCONTENT (%)MOISTUREBLOWS / FOOT (1)STRENGTH psf (3)SHEAROTHER TEST DATABORING 1 3 NOTES: (3) METRIC EQUIVALENT STRENGTH (kPa) = 0.0479 x STRENGTH (psf) (2) METRIC EQUIVALENT DRY UNIT WEIGHT kN/m = 0.1571 x DRY UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) (4) GRAPHIC SYMBOLS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY (1) UNCORRECTED FIELD BLOW COUNTS OTHER TEST DATA(CONTINUED) 45 13 50 55 60 40 14 15 16 17 18 Water level encountered during drilling Water level measured after drilling FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/27/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 BL.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A-4 BORING LOG San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 ZMS 65.5 54.2 67.3 54.2 CLAY (CH) Gray, wet, soft, highly plastic, highly compressible, impermeable, trace shells, characteristic sulphuric odor, trace silt [Bay Mud] End of boring at 52.5 feet Groundwater encountered at 10.5 feet As above, Bay Mud CONSOLCONSOL,... ~Mlllll PACIFIC -------~-~-------1 __,.,,;, INGINEIRING GROUP__ _ □ FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/27/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 BL.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A-5 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 ZMS Consolidation Test Report (ASTM D2435) Strain Log P-Curve I N I I l . \ I I \ I, ' I '---~'~ \ -I I I h I ..... i ry ~~ I ' I \ ... I I\ I ! ! I' I I C I I ! I I \l I I I I ,l I I I I I I I I 11 ~ I! I I I \\ I I 1''~ I I i cJ... lL I It \ t ' I I I ........____ ' 1\..) I I I I .r---o..... I I ~ ,\ I 11 I ---~ ~-I I ~ I ~ •n ; ~: \' I I T"""'-. b I ,, I ..... ....... ' I I I I I I _)) I 10 100 1000 10000 Applied Pressure (Effective Stress) -psf TEST DATA Specimen Height, range (in): 1.00-0. 7931 Total/Water Volumes , finals (cc): Specimen Diameter (in): 2.42 Void Ratio , initial (calc): Area (sq in): 4.60 Void Ratio, final (calc): Sample Mass, wet, range (gm): 121.9-106.7 Dry Weight, total (final): Void Ratio, range: 1.889-1.044 Compression, loading, total(%) -Moisture, range(%): 67.0-46.2 Specific Gravity (gm/cc) [assumedJ: Saturation , range %: 99.2-100.0 SAMPLE INFORMATION Dry Density, range (lbs/cuft): 60.5-76.2 Wet Density, range (lbs/cuft): 101 .0-11 1.4 Sample No.: Matrix Porosity , range(%): 65.4-56.4 Sample ID: Volume, total, range (cc): 75.37-59.78 Sample Condition : 2 .00 I 1.75 I 1.50 I I I I I 1.25 ! ' 1.00 100000 59.78/33.71 1.891 1.293 72.99 -- 44.73 2.80 07668-1 8-1 @30'-32.5' Shelby Tube Volume, soil , range (cc): 26.07-26.07 Consolidometer Test Method: ASTM D2435 -4 pt unload Volume , void, range (cc): 49.31-33. 71 Gross Soil/SedimentT exture: Greenish Gray Clay . MllllR PACIFIC --1---------.--------r-------t INGINHRING GROUP D FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/27/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 BL.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A-6 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 ZMS Consolidation Test Report (ASTM D2435) Strain Log P-Curve w 11 -I I I 11 I I • ; ~-~ I: ~ l I ~ i---o I ~ ~\ I I I ! ~ l I I I \ ! I I I I ,~ I 11 I \ I I I I 111 I \~ I ' I I i I I I I I I\ I I I I I ---, I ' I I I I I ' I l :~ ~i-. I ~~ I r---....... l . I """"~ .... , \ l I r-... ...... - ~ --..... ~ ....... (i, 11 I I I r ... I I 1ti---1' I -• 10 100 1000 10000 Applied Pressure (Effective Stress) -psf TEST DATA Specimen Height, range (in): 1.00-0. 7995 Total/Water Volumes, finals (cc): Specimen Diameter (in): 2.42 Void Ratio, initial (calc): Area (sq in): 4.60 Void Ratio, final (calc): Sample Mass, wet, range (gm): 124.3-110.6 Dry Weight, total: Void Ratio, range: 1.610-0.9271 Compression, loading, total(%) Moisture, range(%): 57.1-39.8 Specific Gravity (gm/cc) [assumed]: Saturation, range%: 97.0-100.0 SAMPLE INFORMATION Dry Density, range (lbs/cuft): 65.5-81.9 Wet Density, range (lbs/cuft): 102.9-114.6 Sample No.: Matrix Porosity, range(%): 61.8-52.3 Sample ID: Volume , total, range (cc): 75.37-60.26 Sample Condition: 1 .65 1.40 1.15 0 .90 100000 60.26/31.50 1.620 1.095 79.10 42.42 2.80 07668-2 8-1 @ 40' -42.5' Shelby Tube Volume, soil, range (cc): 28. 76-28. 76 Consolidometer Test Method: ASTM D2435 -4 pt unload Volume, void, range (cc): 46.61-31.50 Gross Soil/SedimentTexture: Greenish Gray Clay -I I MllllR PACIFIC --1----------r--------r-------t INGINHRING GROUP D FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/27/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 BL.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A-7 CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 ZMS I I Li 1-------+-----1-----l-~-----I i I I ' I I I Consolidation Test Report {ASTM D2435) Strain Log P-Curve I\ I ' I ! r- ~, I I I \ 1 1 I ~--~ 1.65 I , , 1.40 1.15 I I' ,~r--1 \ l---.----r--~'-l--+--l~1W1--l--~~---!----l----+--1---.-+1 +1 -1---l---t--++---.-!-.. i--..... ;...::i· .....__~~~--1-+-~-+-+-+-I ' ' • ' I 0.90 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Applied Pressure (Effective Stress) -psf TEST DATA Specimen Height, range (in): 1.00-0.8196 Total/Water Volumes, finals (cc): 61.77/31 :70 Specimen Diameter (in): 2.42 Void Ratio , initial (calc): 1.506 Area (sq in): 4.60 Void Ratio , final (calc): 1.054 §ample Mass, wet, range (gm): 125.2-112.9 Dry Weight, total: 81.20 Void Ratio, range : 1.506-0.911 Compression, loading, total(%) 39.51 Moisture, range(%): Specific Gravity (gm/cc) [assumed]: -54.2-39.0 2.80 Saturation , range%: 97.1-100.0 SAMPLE INFORMATION Dry Dens ity, range (lbs/cuft): 67.3-82.1 Wet Density, range (lbs/cuft): 103.7-114.1 Sample No .: 07668-3 Matrix Porosity, range(%): 60.1-51.3 Sample ID: B-1 @ 50' -52.5' Volume, total, range (cc): 75.37-61.77 Sample Condition : Shelby Tube Volume, soil , range (cc): 30.07-30.07 Consolidometer Test Method: ASTM D2435 -4 pt unload Volume, void , range (cc): 45.30-31. 70 Gross Soil/SedimentT exture: Greenish Gray Clay MllllR PACIFIC --1----------r--------r-------l INGINHRING GROUP D FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/27/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 BL.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A-8 REFERENCE BORING LOG San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 ZMS ~ ,-.----------------~-----------------------, ... a:: 0 0 IJ'l "" Shear Strength (lbs /sq ft) 0 0 C "' 0 g 8 11"1 i_ u -~-:::"' " -.. -c J;--G> .2 ~ ~ .,,. ,: -~ ~ ~ ·-C >-C ~ E ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ Equipment __ .;.:...;;_..;.~_,__.;;_... ___ _ Elevation _______ _ LOG OF BORING 0 ..... ------------------....- u 36 6 8? u 41 3 77 L 6, 6 6 60 UU IS 77 5 19 0 0 "- J 66 __.___.____.___ l MILLER PACIFIC INGINHRING GROUP --- ----- 5 10 IS 20 30 .35 45 BRONN SILT (M'-i/ 01 901 tc •no• , cl.Jr c al 6 ' G /.V LT ( '-I \0 I, Cl I 01901 I. not re, , fl -' L.. D FIGURE Drawn Checked Project No.Date: 3/27/2018 504 Redwood Blvd. Suite 220 Novato, CA 94947 T 415 / 382-3444 F 415 / 382-3450 www.millerpac.comFILENAME: 739.299 BL.dwg A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, © 2018, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A-9 REFERENCE BORING LOG San Quentin Pump Station San Rafael, California 739.299 ZMS Shea Streng th (lbs/sq ft} ~ IJ"I 0 0 0 ll'l l Ill -... C: ,2 Ill (Con•i n uo t i on of log ) s---..----------------- U 2 0 ~ 8 67 60 6J 1.3 62 ·-T, __ 7:J 31 ~ 64.8 58 80 85 .6 116 90 l ,: • <! 123 95 10 HARDINO, MILLER, LAWSON & ASSOCIATES App•. • Date 8 6 --------- MILLER PACIFIC INGINHRING GROUP --- ----- rned"u , 1frc16"1 ·v EEN [Y ND SC IT cdi ur de e 0 ted er (' . ,, ol,i..noon o e ol B~O , N Sf. NOS10 E A. D S !ALE mo e a te y ho·d r-iodNat ly ~ co e e LOG OF B O R ING 12 Ea I Son o'oe D oincg A essMC"l' D 11 ici I o 1 PLA TE 35 D This page intentionally left blank. APPENDIX A, SUB-APPENDIX B: Environmental Technical Memorandum This page intentionally left blank. Memorandum To: Rich Souza, P.E. CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc From: Justin Semion, PWS, Principal Geoff Reilly, AICP, Sr. Associate Environmental Planner Jordan Rosencranz, PWS, Regulatory Permitting Specialist Cc: Date: Subject: April 20, 2018 Overview of San Quentin Pump Station Project Alternatives The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of wetlands and biological resources constraints that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed Alternatives for the San Quentin Pump Station Project, in San Rafael, Marin County, California (Project; Appendix A, Figures 1 and 2). The third Alternative is a No-Project Alternative, which would not result in any adverse effects to wetlands and biological constraints to the study area, and is therefore not analyzed in this memo. This memo provides analysis for the following components : 1. Biological and Wetlands Constraints: Biological and wetlands constraints are the basis for most of the regulatory permitting requirements examined in this memo, and inform some of the logistical construction constraints (such as schedule and mitigation) that can affect overall project cost. The constraints for the Project are reviewed here to provide that background. 2. Effects Analysis Overview for Two Alternative Pump Station Locations: This memo presents the two proposed Project Alternatives relative to their potential impacts to wetlands and sensitive species . Indirect Project-related effects are briefly discussed, as well as general avoidance and minimization measures that could be prescribed during the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process or subsequent permitting processes. 3. Permitting Approach Overview: Finally, this memo discusses potential permitting process that could result from Project implementation. Any critical differences in required permits across the Alternatives are discussed. O)wra ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 2169-G East Francisc o Blvd ., Son Rafael, CA 94901 (415 ) 454-8868 tel (415) 454-0129 fox info@wro-co .com www.wro-co .com 2 This memo provides these analyses based on the professional experience and judgment of WRA. WRA focuses on wetland resources and permit requirements that have the potential to materially affect project design, feasibility, cost, and timeline, and does not provide a complete analysis of biological resources required to support permitting or CEQA environmental review documentation. The analysis of biological resources constraints is developed based on WRA’s expertise surrounding the Project Area, but does not constitute any formal survey, determination of species presence or absence, or jurisdictional delineation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of San Rafael proposes to remove and construct a stormwater pump station, a drainage channel, and pipeline in San Rafael, California (Project). The Project is located on City lands in the first alternative (Figure 1) and on both City and lands of Kerner Blvd, LLC in the s econd alternative (Figure 2). The reconstruction is intended to reduce flood risk to parcels and Highway 580 during a significant storm event. Project Alternatives Two Alternative pump station locations have been explored as possible solutions for meeting the Project’s purpose and need. The two Alternative locations are described below. As previously mentioned, the No -Project Alternative is not assessed, or discussed further in this memo. The area of potential affect for the two Alternatives are depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Alternative 1 (Figure 1) – This Alternative proposes : • Removing and replacing an existing pump station • Replacing or lining approximately 1,000 linear feet of 60” RCP outfall within a Gravel Road • Wetlands would be avoided but a minor portion of waters could be impacted by removal and replacement of the pump station Alternative 2 (Figure 2) – This Alternative proposes : • Removing and replacing existing pump s tation • Abandoning portions of a 60” RCP Outfall • Add new drainage channel within adjacent wetlands • Approximately 0.55 acre of impacts to waters/wetlands would occur REGULATORY BACKGROUND The following sections explain the regulatory context of the biological asses sment, including applicable laws and regulations that were applied to the field investigations and analysis of potential Project impacts and mitigation requirements . Sensitive Biological Communities: Sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, or riparian habitat. These habitats are protected under federal regulations such as the Clean Water Act; state regulations such as the Porter-Cologne Act, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Program, and CEQA; or local ordinances or policies such as city or county tree ordinances, Special Habitat Management Areas, and General Plan Elements. 3 Waters of the United States The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a sufficient duration to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as “other waters” and are often characterized by an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Other waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into Waters of the U.S generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the State The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter -Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protects all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction includes “isolated” wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact Waters of the State, are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit, but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements. San Francisco Bay and Shoreline The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has regulatory jurisdiction, as defined by the McAteer-Petris Act, over the Bay and its shoreline, which generally consists of the area between the shoreline and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel to the shoreline. BCDC has two areas of jurisdiction: San Francisco Bay and the Shoreline Band. Definitions of these areas, as described in the McAteer-Petris Act (PRC Section 66610), are given below. San Francisco Bay: all areas that are subject to tidal action from the south end of the Bay to the Golden Gate (Point Bonita-Point Lobos) and to the Sacramento River line (a line between Stake Point and Simmons Point, extending northeasterly to the mouth of Marshall Cut), including all sloughs, and specifically, the marshlands lying between mean high tide and five feet above mean sea level; tidelands (land lying between mean high tide and mean low tide); and submerged lands (land lying below mean low tide). 4 Shoreline Band: all territory located between the shoreline of San Francisco Bay as defined above and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with that line, but excluding any portions of such territory which are included in other areas of BCDC jurisdiction, provided that the Commission may, by resolution, exclude from its area of jurisdiction any area within the shoreline band that it finds and declares is of no regional importance to the Bay. Other Sensitive Biological Communities Other sensitive biological communities not discussed above include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW. CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2018). Sensitive plant communities are also identified by CDFW (CNPS 2018a). CNDDB vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 based on NatureServe's (2010) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identified by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Specific habitats may also be identified as sensitive in city or county general plans or ordinances. Sensitive Special-Status Species: Special-status species include those plants and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These acts afford protection to both listed species and those that are formal candidates for listing. Additionally, CDFW Species of Special Concern, CDFW California Fully Protected species, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW Special-status Invertebrates are all considered special-status species. Although these aforementioned species generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most native birds in the United States (including non-status species) are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), i.e., sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under these laws, deliberately destroying active bird nests, eggs, and/or young is illegal. Critical Habitat: Critical habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific and designated geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. In consultation for those species with critical habitat, federal agencies must also ensure that their activities or projects do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species’ recovery. In many cases, this level of protection is similar to that already provided to species by the ESA jeopardy standard. However, areas that are currently unoccupied by the species but which are needed for the species’ rec overy are protected by the prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat. 5 BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS The Project site is located within San Rafael, Marin County. Sensitive areas adjacent to the Project are salt marshes (coastal wetlands), waters adjacent to the pump station, and shoreline of San Rafael Bay. The primary biological constraints for the Project are the adjacent salt marshes and waters, and threatened and endangered mammal species that may reside in the adjacent salt marshes (Table 1). Table 1. Summary of Key Biological Constraints for the San Quentin Pump Station Project Biological Constraint Responsible Agency Location(s) in Project Area Project Considerations Jurisdictional waters /wetlands Corps, RWQCB, BCDC Salt marsh and waters surrounding and/or in the Project area Impacts to jurisdictional areas require a permit; permanent loss of waters requires mitigation. The BCDC shoreline band extends 100 feet inward from the edge of the Bay and is also subject to BCDC permit requirements. However, Project Alternatives improvements are just outside of the 100-foot shoreline band. Salt marsh Harvest Mouse USFWS, CDFW Saltmarsh vegetation (specifically pickleweed) and immediately adjacent upland or fringe habitats. Direct or indirect effects require a USFWS Biological Opinion. Permanent or temporary loss of habitat requires mitigation. Hand removal of vegetation, wildlife exclusion fencing, and biological monitoring likely required. Non-listed Special -status Plant and Wildlife Species CEQA, USFWS, CDFW Entirety of the Project Area USFWS , CDFW , and CEQA regulations prohibit the removal of active bird nests. To avoid disturbance to active nests, preconstruction surveys and bird deterrence measures may be implemented. Avoidance or minimization measures for other wildlife to be determined during CEQA review. 6 Jurisdictional Wetlands/Waters and BCDC Shoreline Band Alternative 1 is primarily located within an existing developed area and would avoid the wetlands to the north; however, the removal of the pump station may result in minor impacts to waters. Alternative 2 would result in direct impacts to 0.55 acre of salt marsh and possibly minor impacts to waters due to the removal of the pump station and installation of the new culvert. Special-status Species There are various special-status species that could potentially occur within the Study Area. This memo does not assess the potential for all possible species that could be considered constraints under CEQA. Instead, this memo only addresses species listed under the Federal and/or State Endangered Species Acts which may present construction, feasibility, or permitting constraints for the Project. Special-status species are known from the area, though generally the species present would be addressed during the CEQA process. Species that have potential to occur are discussed below. Salt marsh harvest mouse, (Reithrodontomys raviventris) Federal Endangered, State Endangered and CDFW Fully Protected. The salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) is a relatively small rodent found only in suitable salt- and brackish-marsh habitat in the greater San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Suisun Bay areas. The habitat associated with SMHM has been described as pickleweed-dominated vegetation (Fisler 1965), though more recent studies have shown that SMHM is supported equally in pickleweed-dominated and mixed vegetation (including native and non-native salt- and brackish-marsh species) (Sustaita et al. 2005, Sustaita et al. 2011). SMHM prefers deep, dense vegetative cover between 11.8 and 23.6 inches height (USFWS 1984), though there are indications that shorter stands (5.9 inches is the shortest commonly used) of pickleweed may also support an abundance of this species (Fisler 1965; Shellhammer et al. 1982; USFWS 2013). Another key habitat requirement for this species is upland or tidal refuge habitat, which is used to escape high tides and storm events. Persistent, low numbers of SMHM are also found in grasslands at least 330 feet (100 meters) from the edge of marsh habitat, though their presence in grasslands may be seasonal and opportunistic (USFWS 2013). This species has the potential to be present in or adjacent to the Project site. Nesting Birds and other Special-Status Wildlife Most nesting birds in California are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). As a result of these protections, the removal and disturbance of active nests is prohibited. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, project improvements can occur between September 1 and February 15. Another common measure to avoid impacts to nesting birds is to complete pre-construction surveys for breeding birds prior to construction during the breeding season. The risk of relying on preconstruction s urveys is that if nesting birds are found, those nests cannot be removed and are at minimum required to be monitored during construction to ensure that construction is not affecting nesting success. Bird deterrence measures, such as netting, acoustic disturbance mechanisms, and reflective materials, can be put in place to deter bird nesting prior to construction. Experience has shown that these measures can help prevent some nesting, but are somewhat unreliable at completely preventing nest establishment, and consistent (sometimes daily) active management of bird nests as they are created can sometimes be necessary. 7 CEQA may identify additional species listed by CDFW as species of special concern, whereby the level of impact associated with the preferred alternative may exceed the significance threshold. Generally CEQA mitigation measures require surveys with appropriate performance standards , work windows, biological monitoring or other similar measures to avoid or reduce the impact to a less -than-significant level. PERMITTING APPROACH OVERVIEW Table 2 below summarizes the biological and permitting constraints for the Project site. These constraints are discussed in more detail in the text below. Table 2. Summary of Permit Requirements and Key Biological and Permitting Constraints Anticipated Permit Requirements Key Biological and Permitting Constraints • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 • San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Certification • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 Consultation • Agency requirements to minimize fill • Potential effects on federally threatened and endangered bird and mammal species • Potential effects on State threatened and endangered bird and mammal species As discussed above, based on the current Project description and materials provided to WRA, the following permits may be required from the following agencies for the two Alternatives : • Corps Section 404 Permit • RWQCB Water Quality Certification • USFWS Section 7 Consultation Corps Individual Permit and RWQCB Water Quality Certification Alternative 2 would result in impacts to potentially jurisdictional wetlands/waters that exceed the ½-acre threshold to qualify for a Nationwide Permit. Therefore this Alternative would require an Individual Permit. For the Corps to issue an Individual Permit, the Project design is required to meet the standard of the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” as determined by an alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis requires the examination of technically and economically feasible 1 alternatives and gives the Corps the authority to determine the most appropriate design to minimize environmental impacts. In addition, Individual Permits often require NEPA documentation in the form of an Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI). Similarly, the RWQCB may exert pressure to reduce fill, even if the Nationwide Permit standards are met. RWQCB regulations are much less clear on the requirements to minimize fill and standards applied to examine acceptable levels of fill, which gives much more leeway for staff to make their own decisions regarding acceptability of fill placed in the Bay. The Alternatives would need to provide substantial evidence as to the need for the impacts to jurisdictional areas, and demonstrate that impacts have been avoided to the greatest extent feasible. There is not a known recent precedent for a project of this size and natur e 1 Corps regulations do include economic feasibility, but no regulatory standards are established to determine what constitutes economic feasibility. 8 receiving authorization for the amount of fill potentially involved for each Alternative. Last, the Corps and RWQCB would require mitigation for all jurisdictional areas lost as a result of fill placed by the Project. As discussed further below, the cost for mitigation can be substantial. For these reasons, it is recommended that the total area of impacted waters /wetlands be reviewed to identify means by which fill can be avoided or minimized. Conversely, Alternative 1 would avoid the wetlands to the north but could result in minor impacts to waters due to the removal of the pump station. As such, this Alternative would avoid the need for an Individual Permit from the Corps, and far less mitigation costs for waters/wetlands, if at all, compared to Alternative 2. USFWS Section 7 Consultation The Corps would formally consult with the USFWS in order to determine impacts and mitigation of impacts to species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (e.g., Salt marsh harvest mouse). Other Considerations Mitigation Cost For projects that result in a net loss of jurisdictional waters, the Corps and RWQCB require mitigation in the form of project-sponsored habitat creation or purchase of credits in a mitigation bank. Recent Corps regulations favor purchase of credits in mitigation banks over project-sponsored mitigation. The price for mitigation is based on recent sales of credits and price quotes from the San Francisco Bay Mitigation Bank, which does offer credits that would be available for purchase for the Project. The cost of those credits is anticipated to be approximately $950,000- 1,100,000 per acre, depending on the final impact area. For this reason, it is recommended that Project Alternatives be reviewed to identify means by which impacts to wetlands and other jurisdictional areas can be minimized. REFERENCES Fisler, GF. 1965. Adaptations and speciation in harvest mice of the marshes of San Francisco Bay. University of California Publications in Zoology 77: 1-108. Geissel, W., H. Shellhammer, and H. T. Harvey. 1988. The Ecology of the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris ) in a Diked Salt Marsh. J. of Mammalogy 69(4): 696- 703. Shellhammer, H.S., Jackson, R., Davilla, W., Gilroy, A.M., Harvey, H.T., and Simons, L. 1982. Habitat Preferences of Salt Marsh Harvest Mice (Reithrodontomys raviventris ). The Wasmann Journal of Biology. Vol: 40(1-2). pp. 102-144. Shuford, W . D. 1993. The Marin County Breeding Bird Atlas: A Distributional and Natural History of Coastal California Birds. Bushtit Books, Bolinas, CA. Sustaita, D, L Barthman-Thompson, P Quickert, L Patterson, and S Estrella. 2005. Annual Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Demography and Habitat Use in Suisun Marsh Conservation Areas. Presentation at the CALFED Science Conference. 9 Sustaita, D, PF Quickert, L Patterson, L Barthman-Thompson, S Estrella. 2011. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Demography and Habitat Use in the Suisun Marsh, California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(6): 1498-1507. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Salt marsh harvest mouse and California clapper rail recovery plan. Portland, Oregon. This page intentionally left blank. 10 APPENDIX A. FIGURES This page intentionally left blank. Map Report This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 2,191 © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. 365.2 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet Feet365.20182.59 Legend Parcel Note easement centerline Parcel Trail Address Parcel Condominium Common Area Mobile Home Pad City Community Marin County Legal Boundary Other Bay Area County Ocean and Bay 2-foot Elevation NAVD88 Interior Index Figure 1 - Alternative 1 I Marin Map ~ 11 a □ □ □ I-, L - □ Map Report This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 2,191 © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. 365.2 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet Feet365.20182.59 Legend Parcel Note easement centerline Parcel Trail Address Parcel Condominium Common Area Mobile Home Pad City Community Marin County Legal Boundary Other Bay Area County Ocean and Bay 2-foot Elevation NAVD88 Interior Index Figure 2 - Alternative 2 I Marin Map ~ 11 a □ □ □ I-, L - □ APPENDIX A, SUB-APPENDIX C: Drainage Study This page intentionally left blank. DRAINAGE STUDY FOR SAN QUENTIN PUMP STATION Prepared For: City of San Rafael Department of Public Works 111 Morphew Street San Rafael, CA 94901 Prepared By: CSW/Stuber)Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 45 Leveroni Court Novato, California 94949 (415)8839850 Prepared: April 20, 2018 CSW|ST2 File No.: 4.1133.02 CSW ST 2 Drainage Study April 20, 2018 P:\04\4113302\Calculations_and_Spreadsheets\Hydrology\2018"04"20 Drainage Study.docx Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 1 3. Scenario Analyzed ................................................................................................................................ 1 4. Method of Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 2 5. Factors Used in Analysis .................................................................................................................... 2 a. Subbasins b. Pump System c. Available Storage d. Hydrographs 6. Results and Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 3 7. Appendices 7.1 Maps H1 – Drainage Area Study (Detention Volumes) H2 – Existing Condition Hydrology Map 7.2 Precipitation Data 7.3 NRCS Worksheets 7.4 5"Year and 100"Year Storm Event Hydraflow Hydrograph Output 7.5 Storage Analysis Drainage Study April 20, 2018 C:\Users\harja\Desktop\San Quentin Pump Station\20180420 Drainage Study.docx Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION In this Drainage Study, the existing condition hydrology was analyzed for the San Quentin Pump Station watershed with the intent to size the proposed pump station such that flooding risk to upstream properties is limited. This Study includes an analysis of the watershed, pump system alternatives and available storage. 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS The San Quentin Pump Station is located in San Rafael, Marin County. The existing pump station consists of two (2) 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) pumps. The pump station discharges to San Francisco Bay. The San Quentin Pump Station watershed is approximately 403 acres, consisting of urban/commercial development, hillside woods and wetlands. The wetlands act as a storage basin for the pump station. The watershed is bisected by Interstate 580, which includes large roadside ditches for drainage that are inundated during rain events. The watershed consists of Hydrologic Soil Groups “B” and “undefined” (which is assumed to be Group “D”) according to the USDA Soil Survey. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the parcels on the west side of Interstate 580 flood as a result of the existing pump flow rates. This evidence indicates that the existing pump system is insufficient. The atrisk properties are locate d at an elevation of 4.0’. See Appendix 7.1 for the Existing Conditions Hydrology Map. 3. SCENARIO ANALYZED The anecdotal evidence indicates that the existing pump system is insufficient. As such, the proposed design storm was assumed to be the 100yea r, 24hour storm event. However, due to the historic weather patterns for the region, which sees storm events occur in succession, an assumption of a 5year, 24hour storm event occu rred prior to the 100year, 24hour storm event. A storm series, described below, was developed to size the pump station alternatives. Storm Series: The proposed storm series analyzed was the 5year, 24hour storm event followed by the 100year, 24hour storm event with a two hour overl ap between the two events. Assumptions: The proposed pump systems will include a two (2) or dual pump alternating system. The existing wetlands and highway swales can be utilized for runoff storage. Storage available between elevation 2.0 and 1.0 i s already filled with water and not available for storage during the storm series. Drainage Study April 20, 2018 C:\Users\harja\Desktop\San Quentin Pump Station\20180420 Drainage Study.docx Page 2 Pump Parameters: Parameter Value Flood elevation of concern 4.0’ Freeboard Elevation 3.0’ Pump 1 on elevation 0.5’ Pump 2 on elevation 0.5’ Pump off elevation 1.0’ 4. METHOD OF ANALYSIS The existing watershed was analyzed using the National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservations Survey or SCS) TR 55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds methodology (see Appendix 7.3NRCS Works heets). Hydrographs were created for the 5year, 24hour storm event and 100year, 2 4hour storm and combined to create the analyzed storm series. 5. FACTORS USED IN ANALYSIS a. Subbasins: The subbasin identified in these calculations was determined from topographic information, storm drain information and aerial photography taken from Marin Maps Geographical Information System (GIS). See Appendix 7.1 for the Existing Hydrology Maps. b. Pump System: Three pump system scenarios were analyzed; two (2) 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) pumps, two (2)80 cfs pumps, and two (2) 100 cfs pumps. See Appendix 7.5 for the pump analysis. c. Available Storage: The available storage in the wetlands and swales was determined from available topographic information taken from the Marin Maps GIS. See Appendix 7.1 for sheet H1Drainage Area Study. d. Hydrographs: The hydrographs for the 5year 24hour and 100year 24hour storm events were determined using the computer modeling program Hydraflow Hydrograph Extension for AutoCAD Civil3D 2016. The computer model utilized the NRCS TR 55 methodology to create the hydrographs. The hydrographs were exported and utilized for the pump sizing calculations. The hydrograph flow data was calculated at 15 minute intervals. Precipitation data was taken from the NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates (See Appendix 7.2Precipication Data). See Appendix 7.4 the 5Year and 100Year Storm Even t Hydraflow Hydrograph Output. Drainage Study April 20, 2018 C:\Users\harja\Desktop\San Quentin Pump Station\20180420 Drainage Study.docx Page 3 6. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Results: Table 6.1 depicts the 5 and 100year peak discharg e rates for the 24hour storm event. Table 6.2 indicates the results of the pump sizing analysis in maximum water surface elevation (WSEL). Table 6.1: 24)Hour Rain Event Peak Discharge Rates Recurrence Interval Time to Peak (hours) Peak Discharge Rate (cfs) 5Year 3.1 153.28 100Year 3.1 329.10 Notes: 1. See Appendix 7.3 for time of concentration calculations. 2. See Appendix 7.4 for hydrograph data. Table 6.2: Pump Analysis Results Pump Flow Rate Maximum WSEL Constraints/Benefits (2) 50 cfs 3.9 No freeboard, no rest periods for pump (2) 80 cfs 3.9 No freeboard/allows rest periods for pump (3) 66 cfs 2.9 Allows 1’ freeboard and rest periods for pump (2) 100 cfs 2.9 Allows 1’ freeboard and rest periods for pump Notes: 1. The elevation where the properties of concern begin to flood is elevation 4.0. 2. Analysis was performed assuming a 5year, 24hour event and a 100year, 24hour event in series. 3. Storm series duration is 52 hours. Conclusion: The analysis indicates that a three (3) 66 cfs pump system and a two (2) 100 cfs pump system has sufficient capacity to convey the peak discharge rate form the 5year 24 hour, 100year 24hour storm series maintaining a 1 ’ freeboard below the elevation of concern and allowing for pump rest periods. This page intentionally left blank. 7.0 APPENDICES This page intentionally left blank. Appendix 7.1 Maps This page intentionally left blank. Prepared Under the Direction of: California State Of Marin County Of San Rafael City Of CITY OF SAN RAFAELDRAINAGE AREA STUDYSAN QUENTIN PUMP STATIONP:\04\4113302\DWG\Exhibit\H.1 DRAINAGE AREA.dwg 01/19/2018 . 12:07 PM salsa 1:1H1 Sheet Plan File: Project Number: D. 4.113.302 Scale: Date: 1" = 200' 01/18/18Rev DateDescriptionDesigned DrawnCheckedGraphic Scale (in feet) 0 1 inch = 200 ft. 200 DETENTION VOLUMES ELEVATION RANGE (NGVD 88)STORAGE (CUBIC FEET) ELEVATION 3 TO 4 4,381,182 ELEVATION 2 TO 3 4,213,701 ELEVATION 1 TO 2 4,073,139 ELEVATION 0 TO 1 3,811,185 ELEVATION .1 TO 0 2,827,278 ELEVATION .2 TO .1 906,849 \La,,- ., -- -- .... , _,,, 0 _,.. -= - 0 _.., _.,. --, _,., 0 _,,, - 0 • -,n _.,, ..., ..,, 0 _,.. C) C "">_ ::, - G ... 0 _,. ___...,. .., ... ~~ . "' "" =• I ... <5 - / / / I -- - 11 ~ I I \ I I ' ' ,., I I I I \ I I .. \ I I - I I I I I I \ I I \ I I _J " " ~ I CSW ST 2 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 45 Leveroni Court Novato, CA 94949 tel· 415.883.9850 lex: 415.883.9835 Clvll & Structural Eng_lneers Surveying & Mapp1~g Environmental Planning Land Planning Management Construction http:f/www.cswst2.com @2013 PT. B ELEV. 162 PT. A ELEV. 222 PT. C ELEV. 6 PT. D ELEV. 4 PT. E ELEV. 2 Graphic Scale (in feet) 0 1 inch = 400 ft. 400 WATERSHED BOUNDARY Prepared Under the Direction of: California State Of Marin County Of SAN RAFAEL City OfSAN QUENTIN PUMP STATION1 XX/XX/XX XXXXXX XXX XXXW:\AD1NOV\WP\7\7776357\Hydrology\H11Existing Conditions Hydrology Map.dwg 01/05/2018 1 11:08 AM BRIBR 1:1H1 Sheet Plan File: Project Number: D1XXXX1XX 7.7763.57 Scale: Date: 1" = 400' XX/XX/XXRev DateDescriptionDesigned DrawnCheckedEXISTING CONDITIONSHYDROLOGY MAPDRAFT H2 ·-,· ' t:.-, "',.,:_;.,' ,-. I ,. ~ • CSW ST 2 CSW/Stuber-Stroe~nc. ·neering Group, Engl 45 Leveroni c~i Novato, CA 94 tel: 415883:~~ lex: 415.883. Engineers Clvll & Structural ·ng ing & Mapp1 Su~vey ental Planning Env1ronm . Land Planning t Managemen Construction http:f/www.cswst2.com @2014 Appendix 7.2 Precipitation Data This page intentionally left blank. NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2 Location name: San Rafael, California, USA* Latitude: 37.9553°, Longitude: -122.4913° Elevation: 26.42 ft** * source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration Average recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 5-min 0.155 (0.138-0.175) 0.192 (0.171-0.218) 0.244 (0.217-0.278) 0.289 (0.254-0.333) 0.354 (0.299-0.424) 0.407 (0.335-0.500) 0.464 (0.370-0.586) 0.525 (0.405-0.686) 0.612 (0.450-0.841) 0.684 (0.483-0.978) 10-min 0.222 (0.197-0.251) 0.275 (0.245-0.313) 0.350 (0.311-0.399) 0.415 (0.364-0.477) 0.508 (0.428-0.608) 0.584 (0.480-0.717) 0.665 (0.531-0.840) 0.752 (0.581-0.983) 0.878 (0.645-1.21) 0.980 (0.692-1.40) 15-min 0.268 (0.239-0.304) 0.333 (0.296-0.378) 0.424 (0.376-0.482) 0.501 (0.440-0.577) 0.614 (0.518-0.735) 0.706 (0.580-0.867) 0.804 (0.642-1.02) 0.910 (0.703-1.19) 1.06 (0.780-1.46) 1.19 (0.837-1.70) 30-min 0.389 (0.347-0.441) 0.483 (0.430-0.549) 0.615 (0.545-0.700) 0.728 (0.639-0.837) 0.891 (0.752-1.07) 1.02 (0.842-1.26) 1.17 (0.932-1.48) 1.32 (1.02-1.73) 1.54 (1.13-2.12) 1.72 (1.22-2.46) 60-min 0.555 (0.495-0.629) 0.690 (0.614-0.783) 0.877 (0.778-0.999) 1.04 (0.912-1.20) 1.27 (1.07-1.52) 1.46 (1.20-1.80) 1.67 (1.33-2.11) 1.88 (1.46-2.46) 2.20 (1.62-3.02) 2.46 (1.73-3.51) 2-hr 0.826 (0.736-0.936) 1.02 (0.911-1.16) 1.30 (1.16-1.48) 1.54 (1.36-1.78) 1.89 (1.60-2.27) 2.18 (1.79-2.68) 2.49 (1.98-3.14) 2.82 (2.18-3.69) 3.30 (2.42-4.53) 3.69 (2.61-5.28) 3-hr 1.05 (0.935-1.19) 1.30 (1.16-1.48) 1.65 (1.46-1.88) 1.95 (1.72-2.25) 2.39 (2.02-2.87) 2.76 (2.27-3.39) 3.14 (2.51-3.98) 3.57 (2.76-4.66) 4.18 (3.07-5.73) 4.68 (3.30-6.69) 6-hr 1.54 (1.37-1.74) 1.90 (1.69-2.16) 2.41 (2.14-2.75) 2.85 (2.50-3.28) 3.48 (2.94-4.17) 4.00 (3.29-4.91) 4.54 (3.63-5.75) 5.14 (3.97-6.72) 5.99 (4.40-8.23) 6.69 (4.72-9.56) 12-hr 2.14 (1.91-2.43) 2.68 (2.39-3.05) 3.43 (3.04-3.90) 4.05 (3.56-4.66) 4.93 (4.16-5.91) 5.64 (4.64-6.93) 6.39 (5.10-8.08) 7.18 (5.55-9.39) 8.29 (6.10-11.4) 9.19 (6.49-13.1) 24-hr 2.89 (2.61-3.28) 3.67 (3.30-4.17) 4.72 (4.24-5.37) 5.59 (4.98-6.41) 6.80 (5.88-8.03) 7.76 (6.58-9.33) 8.75 (7.26-10.8) 9.79 (7.92-12.3) 11.2 (8.76-14.7) 12.4 (9.35-16.7) 2-day 3.84 (3.46-4.35) 4.88 (4.39-5.54) 6.27 (5.62-7.13) 7.41 (6.60-8.49) 8.99 (7.77-10.6) 10.2 (8.67-12.3) 11.5 (9.53-14.1) 12.8 (10.4-16.1) 14.6 (11.4-19.1) 16.0 (12.1-21.7) 3-day 4.40 (3.96-4.99) 5.60 (5.03-6.35) 7.18 (6.44-8.17) 8.48 (7.56-9.72) 10.3 (8.87-12.1) 11.6 (9.88-14.0) 13.1 (10.8-16.1) 14.5 (11.8-18.3) 16.6 (12.9-21.7) 18.1 (13.7-24.5) 4-day 4.87 (4.38-5.51) 6.19 (5.57-7.02) 7.95 (7.13-9.04) 9.38 (8.35-10.7) 11.3 (9.80-13.4) 12.8 (10.9-15.4) 14.4 (11.9-17.7) 16.0 (12.9-20.1) 18.1 (14.1-23.7) 19.8 (15.0-26.8) 7-day 5.92 (5.33-6.71) 7.56 (6.80-8.57) 9.69 (8.70-11.0) 11.4 (10.2-13.1) 13.8 (11.9-16.2) 15.6 (13.2-18.7) 17.4 (14.4-21.3) 19.2 (15.6-24.2) 21.7 (16.9-28.4) 23.7 (17.9-31.9) 10-day 6.89 (6.20-7.81) 8.81 (7.93-10.00) 11.3 (10.1-12.8) 13.3 (11.8-15.2) 16.0 (13.8-18.9) 18.0 (15.3-21.6) 20.0 (16.6-24.6) 22.1 (17.9-27.8) 24.8 (19.4-32.5) 26.9 (20.3-36.4) 20-day 9.01 (8.11-10.2) 11.6 (10.4-13.2) 14.9 (13.3-16.9) 17.4 (15.5-20.0) 20.7 (17.9-24.5) 23.2 (19.7-27.9) 25.6 (21.2-31.4) 27.9 (22.6-35.2) 31.0 (24.2-40.6) 33.2 (25.1-44.9) 30-day 10.9 (9.85-12.4) 14.1 (12.7-16.0) 18.0 (16.2-20.5) 21.0 (18.7-24.1) 24.9 (21.5-29.4) 27.7 (23.5-33.3) 30.3 (25.2-37.3) 32.9 (26.7-41.5) 36.2 (28.3-47.4) 38.6 (29.2-52.1) 45-day 13.5 (12.2-15.3) 17.4 (15.7-19.7) 22.1 (19.8-25.1) 25.6 (22.8-29.4) 30.1 (26.0-35.5) 33.3 (28.2-40.0) 36.3 (30.1-44.6) 39.1 (31.7-49.3) 42.7 (33.3-55.9) 45.2 (34.1-61.0) 60-day 16.2 (14.6-18.3) 20.7 (18.6-23.5) 26.2 (23.5-29.7) 30.2 (26.9-34.6) 35.2 (30.5-41.6) 38.8 (32.9-46.6) 42.0 (34.9-51.7) 45.2 (36.5-56.9) 49.0 (38.2-64.1) 51.6 (39.0-69.7) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top Page 1 of 4Precipitation Frequency Data Server 1/4/2018https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=37.9553&lon=-122.4913&dat... 01 II II II II II II II II I I I II I I I II I I I I DI II II II II II II I DI II II II II II II I I I I I I I DI II II II II II II I DI II II II II II II I I I I I I I DI II II II II II II I DI II II II II II II I I I I I I I I I I DI II II II Ir II II I I I I I I I PF graphical Back to Top Page 2 of 4Precipitation Frequency Data Server 1/4/2018https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=37.9553&lon=-122.4913&dat... '2 ::6 0. 41 -0 0 :c .l! ii ·o l 60 so 40 30 20 10 0 .!. I;: 11'1 60 50 10 0 l PDS-based depth-d uiration.-freque11cy (DDf), c u rves La,titude: 37.9553°, Longirude: --22.4913~ ' ' ' . ' .. . ' -- • -.... -••• - • -• ~ • - • - • ., • - • - • ~. -• ~ • -• - • ~ •• - • -·:-• - • - • I. ••• -• ~ • -• -• ~. - • -, _ --:· •• - ' ' ' . ' ' ' . . . . . . ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' . . . . . ............ ~ ' . . .... ,., ... , ....... , .. . . . ' . . ' ' . . . . ' . ' ' . . . . . . . . . ' . ' . . . . ' . . . -. . -. . . . -. --- • • • • & • • • • • • • • • L • • • • • .t • • • • • _, • • • ,t • • • • • ii•,. • • • ••• ~ • • • •-., ~ • • • • • • • • • • .,,, • • • • -. . -. . .. . -. - - • I • I I I I ■ I ■ • • • f .. f -••• I I I ■ I . . . -.. I I O • I . . . . ■ I I I I I · · · --· · ·r · · · · · r · • • • • • • • -• • ·,· • • ~ · • · • • •. • • • • • ·,· • • • • · • · e o I ■ ....................... , ....... , C _!;; ·i C .. ... ... .E ·~ .c .c .t;;. , ~ N ~ .t, 0 11"1 i ,,-i .-i Duration . . ' ' • 0 t -:•II •IOI• I•• t• ■ t • •I•:■ 0 • I t I O I IO ~ 0 • • • • • ■O •••••: I . . . . . . ' ' . ' . ' 2 5 10 25 50 100 Average rae currence interval (years) NOAA Al:las 14, volume 6, Version 2 500 1000 Ave rag e recurr e nce inle,val (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 Durai on 5-ml -2-<lay o-mln 3 -day 6-ml May -~ .Ill'! 7-<lay 110-,m 10-day 2 r 2o-dll 3~ 30-day &-hr ~ 2-tir 110-day l Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Large scale terrain Large scale map + – 3km 2mi + – 100km 60mi + – 100km 60mi Page 3 of 4Precipitation Frequency Data Server 1/4/2018https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=37.9553&lon=-122.4913&dat... HtllAve 4 11 .sr San Rafaet .Ross .Kentfield Greenbrae' I ..... ,_ II anautnlin. 'larks p lll\ ,.. s nr Ro • .., ":,.Sacramento Napa • • v;ac,1111 lie I '("' IFr d ln<ord Anti och -•-•· Sto ton San Fr nd s cj. • ,.,. -p • Mo d e,s;to 7 • L iv~m,or~ • 8 Fremont -p sa nJose "t- S nl ftoi , (I N I Cotn:or!I · iiiiiiliilliiiiii D O S m r.:m c1~J Fr1'moo Ji linas o 'Y Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov Disclaimer + – 100km 60mi Page 4 of 4Precipitation Frequency Data Server 1/4/2018https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=37.9553&lon=-122.4913&dat... Appendix 7.3 NRCS Worksheets This page intentionally left blank. Worksheet 2: Runoff curve number and runoff Project ~01-' Q_, e NT!» Pv!,A,P ST'-l'<'nov-> Location Check one: Qfusent D Developed 1. Runoff curve number Soil name Cover description and hydro logic group (cover type, treatment, and hydrologic condition; percent (appendix A) impervious; unconnected/connected impervious area ratio) V;,o=,= '-' 12-e 11-N p 's r{'-'<--r-·. C-OM,v..-f;;jl.(...\,f'>,(.. (, ,;\ss v rwi, C ) N'O B-,s, ~, s B ~o--o-G>-S 11 Use only one CN source per line CN (weighted)= total product = s s-'iSd~. S- , 2. Runoff total area t.-/o 3, '2 Frequency ................................................. yr Rainfall, P (24-hour) .................................. in Runoff, Q .................................................. in (Use P and CN with table 2-1, figure 2-1, or equations 2-3 and 2·4) Storm #1 D-2 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) ~ _., = ~ ctr 60 Date ?./Jf;/lr: C CN 11 Area Product of CN xarea ~ ~ ~es !!! !!! Omi2 ~ ~ ~ ~ □% [C [C 33;!.3 3\.,S/;_ l?" 70, q lrz--~c.,; Storm #2 Storm #3 lb C Worksheet 2: Runoff curve number and runoff Project By <I\" Qv-8/J'D JJ F'ufv\ f' S,A-Tl DP g~~ Location Checked Sr-i tv B A--'F ~ 0A I+ Check one: l:i!Present D Developed 1. Runoff curve number Soil name and hydro logic group (appendix A) u"' vio,..,,., eP C1t-ssu""r,; \)\ t) Cover description (cover type, treatment, and hydrologic condition; percent impervious; unconnected/connected impervious area rati()) \) 12-\5 f½v \) 1$ j (2..l C.-'f"'. Ll) M (V\,c,"-C.-l A-<-J i5 '-' > I /J /;; .S S uJ e> CJ f.> S j 1-A-I R ~ "' :0 ~ q~ bO CN 11 ~ ;I; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u:: u:: I Date ?./IS-/ft 07/f}.J/;i Area ~cres □mi 2 □% 552,3 11-0.9 Product of CN xarea ~ I 5"°68,;'" LJ Z~LJ ·f---------+----------------+--+--+---+--+-------1 11 Use only one CN source per line CN (weighted) = total product total area Use CN. 2. Runoff Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3 Frequency ................................................. yr ?. -S-/DO 1-------+--------+------l Rainfall, P (24-hour) .................................. in b. 8' D fs, r:). S""' e---------+-~------1-------l Runoff, Q .................................................. in S: $"".;l_ f. '--/ 3 (Use P and CN with table 2-1, figure 2-1, or '-------'-------'-------! equations 2-3 and 2-4) D-2 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) C (_ C C SW I S T ? 45 Leveroni Court , Novato, CA 94949 Tel 415 .883.9850 Fax 415.883.9835 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 1310 Redwood Way, Suite 220, Pe taluma, CA 94954 Tel 707.795.4764 www.cswst2 .com ~E8NO._~~---- JOBNO. lf//330';) JOB $,Ap Gvf:JJTJP PurvP <;"\A-'DOJJ BY \3f2-B DATE ?-/1'0/(t CLIENT _____ SUBJECT KuµofF Lu(Z.\/f;; JJv,-11f';E"?--l.P;u..., CHK'D J'"A t+ DATE ~/~111e 5 =' l~~o -JO IOOE;J s= ~ -10 ) p ( 'al-} l+ti) S---{R } = · '"/. 7 J.1µ j Pli",fH2 /0 '{~) ;:: ~ ~C/1~ f['v11vr-: ?.$"' '(n) r C:,,?.(Jo, fl 7'1Hfl-.; /00 ~'{I_·)::. e:."ts7,.. ~ Q -(?-o,-~s J · (p +o. '81 s ) 'l. Q _ (6.~-C>,';;{(l:~3)) zr-(G~ ~-to,2 (1,~=s'i) -I Gu-=_ 5. 6? ~ µ 1 Q :. (L-1 .1 ~ -o. ?._ (. L 2 s )) -i. ~ L/,7'?..➔D,'"C{l,Z,-$) 0. -='Ru1voFF L1N) p .:: RA1/0'F~LL L11,.>j 5" :: f OThf-J\'1 A-t.,. µ('<..X..1 µ. 0» 1(eli=')..>"f1 ON A pTE"fZ. ~u,-...,of'.='F 6'cGi1~s (,N) ? ('?Al N F (>r-L,,(,..) 'J A-1-, u & :; D 13 T?;'i/2-M I /..)i: D F f2..o J.A }JOAA A -rLAS. 1 t.../j Vot.-vME 6.,, ¥Efl..:S10J.J ~ us J J-.) 6i 1 ? S-5rl0 f?.c £-{ µ £ PK 1,0 'i 1 '5 A 1v v2-f>r-F At:?"l-,., ~A 9'-/901 1 us A po(2. TI-J-f5' t.-cic.A,1 ol-). Q -:.{s~e:r-o ?.(J,?..S:iJ1.. Lt:> _),f9 t-◊,<?(/,':13'') Hydrologic Soil Group—Marin County, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/4/2018 Page 1 of 44199300419980042003004200800420130042018004199300419980042003004200800420130042018004202300541900542400542900543400543900544400544900545400545900546400 541900 542400 542900 543400 543900 544400 544900 545400 545900 546400 37° 58' 2'' N 122° 31' 28'' W37° 58' 2'' N122° 28' 13'' W37° 56' 22'' N 122° 31' 28'' W37° 56' 22'' N 122° 28' 13'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 1000 2000 4000 6000 Feet 0 300 600 1200 1800 Meters Map Scale: 1:21,800 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Marin County, California Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 14, 2017 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 2009—Mar 16, 2017 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydrologic Soil Group—Marin County, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/4/2018 Page 2 of 4□ □ ( illll I □ □□□□□□□□ l l : □ ■ ■ Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 105 Blucher-Cole complex, 2 to 5 percent slopes C/D 7.1 0.3% 157 Pits, quarries 43.0 2.1% 162 Saurin-Bonnydoon complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes C 74.0 3.6% 165 Saurin-Urban land- Bonnydoon complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 5.7 0.3% 179 Tocaloma-McMullin complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes B 1.3 0.1% 182 Tocaloma-McMullin- Urban land complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes B 179.5 8.7% 183 Tocaloma-Saurin association, steep B 242.3 11.7% 202 Urban land-Xerorthents complex, 0 to 9 percent slopes 416.3 20.1% 203 Xerorthents, fill 316.5 15.3% 204 Xerorthents-Urban land complex, 0 to 9 percent slopes 75.3 3.6% 210 Water 709.9 34.3% Totals for Area of Interest 2,071.0 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—Marin County, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/4/2018 Page 3 of 4 USDA = Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Marin County, California Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/4/2018 Page 4 of 4~ C Worksheet 3: Time of Concentration (Tc) or travel time (Tt) Project By Date 'SA-µ C'Jve1v,1lv PuMf' Y\Pnt ~J1 15\2.'(s ?.-/1~/I& Location '5 Checked Date Aw ~ ~ {:' Pr--e-L J-Al-1 ?-7--1/rc Check one: IE-Present D Developed Check one: □Tc D Tt through subarea Notes: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for each worksheet. Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments_ , I Sheet flow (Applicable to Tc only) l - Segment ID A\5 1 _ Surface description (table 3-1) [Doot>~ 2. Manning's roughness coefficient, n (table 3-1) ......... . 0,,.../0 3. Flow length, L (total Lt 300 ft) ................................. ft 300 4. Two-year 24-hour rainfall, P 2 .•.••..•..................•.•••.•• in 3, b 9-- 5. Land slope, s ........................................................ ft/ft O,~O 6. Tt = 0.007 {nl) o.s Compute Tt ......... hr o. 3?-. I+ I P2 o.s s0.4 Shallow concertrated flow I Segment ID 6C.. 7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) .................... . f A--vl?D 8. Flow length, L ........................................................... ft i, 1 /..JC) 9. Watercourse slope, s ............................................ ft/ft o.1LJ 1 O. Average velocity, V (figure 3-1) ............................. ft/s ':/-.1> 11. Tt = L Compute Tt ........... hr o. 0 1.../ 3600 V I+ I =I o.o'--/ I Channel fl@W Segment ID ~D DE' 12. Cross sectional flow area, a ................................. 112 1~.'5""'1 1L/D. '8 13. Wetted perimeter, Pw .............................................. ft .1 ?-. S-11--'-10.1,r 14. Hydraulic radius, r= ~ Compute r ......................... ft 1. 0 J. 'i 7- Pw 15 Channel slope, s ..................................................... ft/ft 0.003 0,001 16. Manning's roughness coefficient, n ........................... . 0, 01 !.,/ o, '-/ 17. v -1.49 r 213 s 112 Compute V ................ ft/s s, e 3 o, 'J.. r:i- '/-30 ?.6 ~ o n 18. Ftowiength, L ..................... : .................................... ft 1 9. T t = __ L-----,--,- 3600 V Compute T1 .............. hr o. 0:55" I+ I ~-"+o ······················································· Hr I ;~1~ I 20. Watershed or subarea Tc orT1 (add T1 in steps 6, 11, and 19) (210-VI-TR-55. Second F.d .. .Tum~ 19Rfi) CS W I ST 2 45 Leveroni Court, Novato, CA 94949 Tel 415.883.9850 Fax 415.883.9835 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc . 1310 Redwood Way, Suite 220, Petaluma , CA 94954 Te l 707.795.4764 www.cswst2.com SHEET NO. ,j__/,6 -~~--- CLIENT SUBJECT ~M ~ o F Couc.£'P\ l\'LA\1 OP CHK'D 'J" A\-t ----- DATE_~~/~l~S )~'/-~-- DATE_W.,___;;.1_,_/;_~-- et-Ev. A== 1?-J-tt '/31.-e-v. {3 -: l 6?. f;;t, t... -:.. 5oo~b L,4, JJ o s t,....c, p & : _ .S -:--'F~t:3u. A -Ft-ev, B )__ $::. ?.??. -)6?.... '5 06 F011.. f-t-l...,L-"$ ec:..:r-,oµ s: I"'\ "'MAAI/JIJJC:\~ C...0GF-Flc...1e1u, s (!}f;J= s t-o Pe R l11J=-RA1J-' fA-L-(__. \/ (FY~ J :: V c,t.-OC.. I -,y A(n-1 )::. 0~".>-$l;;Z-llo/Jl't-L ~A Pw (r,):: \iJc:171?D ?e-ttt.J-A t,TE"R ) r\_ , .,, n-i--e--r wo -'<eF'IR ~ 1,..,1 H-\"1-?A ,;vi==A-L.L rft-.o"-" })o A k )\ n .-A S / 1-t 'v O 1.,..uM f; b/ V ef2--S ID}..) '() -;.Q,/.,/0 j (f\ZOM ,f'..)~L-6 ~-i> WC>o-Q~ \J,J1TI-\ L,6,1-H· U"'IQG°'l2-€12'..>$i-1) i) ET8f2.J..1 L )..J"tf'D ~ 1-:: O.oeic+ }0,'10><500)0 ·~, t; ls,67 o. )( o::io0 '"') I it :: o. 3?. ~ft. Sri6iM'f?JJT ~G.: L :: 1, i 1-1of, f:1..-l:i"\J. (3 ::. ) 6 ? r, EL.~-l:: G fT C SW I S T 2 45 Leveroni Court, Novato, CA 94949 Tel 415.883.9850 Fax 415 .883.9835 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 1310 Redwood Way, Suite 220, Petaluma , CA 94954 Tel 707.795.4764 www.cswst2.com SHEET NO. J/ 6 ------ JOB NO. 1-/JJ33o :;1. JOB '$"'IN C?v~,-.,TlJJ ?vMP 'S1~0J.-' BY G (L(3 CHK'D J" A 1-t- DATE 'J./10 /; ff DATE ;;_/,;l,IJg CLIENT _____ SUBJ ECT T,.v~ o P L01vc...l.2Ni--fLAn vN L --:. t3or-r Ft.,'Fv.' l,, :: b FT Ct,,£3"\/. D = '-1 FT D -::: 1-/'? 11 == Lf r=-r n -::: 0 . OJ'-/ (__fo{Z. \Zl.-f>) ) C..~oss-,;et-;-,o,-,,-..,L ~AJA L\:,"l..); A-:::n ~ {;:::n-{Y,½,) LA :: I ?i, S-9 F-T 'L lv e-TTI? o 'Pe f2.1 M E::n--r:z.. Pl fr)' f,., lu..., J PW:: i D J = ~(LI) \1~=\-Z.,S-1 F-,J ij 'f L)\<-ltV l.-1 (.... )<, A-{)1 I..>';; '(' j -A ' -?.,,, \'Z .. $""9- \ -;: 12,S-'r 1 r := 1.. \ 1; -l Sboo \J 1 -i,1.1.-10 t;; -'6 Goo ( 1, ~) D = D,A,.,,_~ o ,:c P1P~ LF,) n '.: f-/\A\.)tJIIJC,,$ ~ovGiHµt;"~'i l"fiFH'-1£-,!JT 1-~ )..~µ 6-.rH /.\-::: LC\--0'$S-S€C..TIO/vAt. ~EA fw ;: W-erri?O Pc ("2.1 M. t~ I k: ~ ~ ~~_/✓---"-- C S W I S T 2 45 Leveroni Court, Novato , CA 94949 Tel 415.883.9850 Fax 415.883.9835 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 1310 Redwood Way, Suite 220, Peta luma , CA 94954 Tel 707. 795.4764 www .cswst2.com SHEET NO. 3/ b ---'--'----- JOBNO.l.f/133 o ~ JOB ),t.v Qvc,..,;,n,1v Pvl>AP STP-;-nu,>-> BY 612-B DATE ?...J/c;/18 CLIENT _____ SUBJECT Ti MG" o e Co,__,_ <--13,-...,Tl'LA-n c,,~ CHK'D :J" A H DATE ?,_/;;,.; /1'6 O.o o 5 V &~ OC-1TY) \] ( f¼).) y = /. t...;9 r ?/~ s v.,_ Y) .) V : /. L/Cf (1)o/'?,{o,005)'1?-- o.01 '-/ 1 = \·h<Of2.f\-\)j...lC... P-~1 v.s '5 :;:: c. H1>11J~. S £_..of€ V\ ;;:.,N1,'\,',INIA>6-,J' \(.c.,\J(;.HµG::':,5 C.uEPrt'-1eµ T C S W I S T 2 45 Leveroni Court, Novato, CA 94949 Tel 415.883.9850 Fax 415.883.9835 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 1310 Redwood Way, Suite 220, Petaluma , CA 94954 Te l 707.795.4764 www.cswst2.com JOBNO,t...//J33'o-;;I JOB SA1v Qve1vnN Pu/'.Ap 'S1A-nu0 CLIENT SUBJECT T,.,v\.,e-or Coµ ~;-.,T"fl--A-'n.v..v ----- Ct,£"V, \) := '-I F-1 EL-GV, E =-~ FT j_ :: ~~JO FT 343:::--:x+b,c- 3 ?,_::: Xi c )(::-S~-:z: l CRo~S-$',e(....TlOlv.'\'1-A-ow ~i"l1 A (H'"); SHEET NO. _L-~f/2~'6~--- DATE ?../!~/It BY 6 a.,13 CHK'D J A1-\- ---~-- DATE_'J_/_J-_I /;_'It __ A ::: b,;0-z_ (~ ') ) vJl-f-tj"(Z.-€ h:: dep-1-h A -::. 6 t-; s ( 6, .. , ) 0 :: b~$-e.. (t-<Jp and. 'ooii--OM) C SW I S T 2 45 Leveroni Cour t, Novato, CA 94949 Te l 415.883.9850 Fax 415 .883.9835 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 1310 Redwood Way, Su ite 220 , Petaluma , CA 94954 Te l 707. 795.4764 www.cswst2 .com JOB NO. 1--//13'30 ~ JOB $",,i,-., OvB'--'\\.JJ PvM'P 51t'ii10N CLIENT _____ SUBJECT T1AA--e: o~ CoNC-£:-N~A-"Dt>"-' WeTTVD Pg{Z-JME.'TI?~ Pw (Fi); ~ =-b~ ~d JH ~,._l ~ ~ 6 t" 6 , '-/ Ji+ il. l t 6, '-f J ~ t 3 '- 1 \-i'{Qf2-f-jv1.--1t-RA-D1v5j ( (FT)) A r-::. ~ I'-/ o. Jf r -::. '-I cJ. S-~- o. oo 1... F1/P, I SHEET NO. ~ / ,6 -~~---- BY 13 lZ. B DATE ?./ 1) //1l --~---- CHK'D ~ A 14 DATE ?/-;;_1/JZ --~---- C S W I S T 2 45 Le veron i Cou rt, Novato, CA 94949 Tel 415.883.9850 Fax 415 .883.9835 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 1310 Redwood Way, Su ite 220, Pe taluma , CA 94954 Te l 707 .795.4764 www.cswst2.com JOBNO.'1//530~ JOB 'Sf.\J-J Que~-n.N Fl,i"".., '::n 'A'TJON CLIENT SUBJECT T,MG' o F C.0µc....£:f..J'Ti2-J'ril oP ----- V e L-O c:.-, l'1:; -r l r½ J ~ I '-'ta Y3 1/"'2. • I (' $ 'rL I. '1 1 ( 5, ¼ 1) 1/s ( D.001 't'2- d, L/ o T1Ml:" C>F T IL A-\,J"f;"7,_..) Ti. ( rtn-) _; TJ; \,... -:=. SbOO 'v l -?.620 -15;,oo (o.~1) \ T{; -= -;?,70 H17-I Tc.-~ ~ Tc ,L ::: 0,5?.-+ 0.0'-/-10, DI~-+ ~.'9-0 / 1c, :::-3, 1-o l SHEET NO. __ 6,_/6=------- BY \3 (Z... 8 DATE_?._;,_/_l _;,S-)_'/_t __ CHK'D J A I ➔ DATE ?-./-J-J/F6 ------ Worksheet 4: Graphical Peak Discharge method Project By Date ).q.,., Ou/Juno pl,IM,j? 5'N¥nolv ~\LR '}__/ft,//~ Location S 'RA-f~ Checked Date f\fJ ~ A-1-1 -J../,J.,I/;? C Check one: ®resent D Developed 1. Data Drainage area .......................................... Am= 0,6 s mi 2 (acres/640) Runoff curve number ................................. CN-"?19 (From worksheet 2) Time of concentration ................................. Tc -3. lb hr (From worksheet 3) Rainfall distribution ....................................... -1A (I, IA, 11111) Pond and swamp areas sprea O,?. 3 q 'd._,,:u:.acres or mi 2 covered) throughout watershed ................................... -percent of Am ( Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3 2. Frequency .................................................................................... yr ) lO 3. Rainfall, P (24-hour) .................................................................... in l-/,'}?_ 5,fC/ 4. Initial abstraction, la ..................................................................... in I 0, Z,'i 7-I o. z,..1 ?-I I C (Use CN with table 4-1) 5. Compute la/ P ·················································································· I CJ.6s-?.. I 0, 0'11,,I I I 6. Unit peak discharge, qu ........................................................ csm/in I 71-- (Use Tc and la/P with exhibit 4-'.!:A ) I 'll d-I I 7. Runoff, Q ...................................................................................... in I 3,o'.L I 't '3 l-/ I I (From worksheet 2) Figure 2-6 8. Pond and swamp adjustment factor, Fp I ci,'11-I CJ,c/7-I I ........................................... (Use percent pond and swamp area with table 4-2. Factor is 1.0 for zero percent pond ans swamp area.) 9. Peak discharge, qp ..................................................................... ft3/s 11 G D. ?-I ?, If. s-:: I I (Where qp = quAmOFp) C D-4 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., JW1e 1986) Worksheet 4: Graphical Peak Discharge method Project By Date s~.., d?v-e,-.,.-, J.J PuM fl $ "~' C,.,::, J:)(2... \s ?._/ 1-C /1 ff Location Checked "J A I+ Date 'SA->-' f\A-Pkel--7 .. /;z,, //~ C Check one: BPresent D Developed 1. Data Drainage area ··········································Am= 0,(:, 3 mi2 (acres/640) Runoff curve number ................................. CN= 1]Cf (From worksheet 2) Time of concentration ................................. Tc -3.10 hr (From worksheet 3) Rainfall distribution ....................................... = 'IA (I, IA, II Ill) Pond and swamp areas sprea o.~-::, q;i, throughout watershed ................................... -percent of Am ( ~or mi 2 covered) Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3 2. Frequency .................................................................................... yr ~-s-10-0 3. Rainfall, P (24-hour) .................................................................... in 6. go -&.7-s 4. Initial abstraction, la ..................................................................... in lo.2'17-I O,J ~; ':J. I I (Use CN with table 4-1) C 5. Compute la/P ·················································································· lo,o 5 G 10.0~8' I I 6. Unit peak discharge, qu ........................................................ csm/in I ~G (Use Tc and la/P with exhibit 4-__ ) I 9o I I 7. Runoff, Q ...................................................................................... in I 1).:,~ I 7-. "I s I I ' (From worksheet 2) Figure 2-6 8. Pond and swamp adjustment factor, Fp I 0.11--I o/t 1--I I ··········································· (Use percent pond and swamp area with table 4-2. Factor is 1.0 for zero percent pond ans swamp area.) 9. Peak discharge, qp ..................................................................... ft3/s I di °IO• IO I ~/D"/.6 I I ( Where qp = quAmQFp) C D-4 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) Chapter 4 Graphical Peak Dischage Method Technical Release 55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds Exhibit 4-IA Unit peak discharge (q.,) for NRCS (SCS) type IA rainfall distribution Time of concentration (Tc>' (hours) (210-VI-TR-56, Second Ed., June 1986) 4-5 C SW I S T 2 45 Leveroni Court, Novato , CA 94949 Tel 415.883.9850 Fax 415.883.9835 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 1310 Redwood Way, Suite 220 , Peta luma , CA 94954 Tel 707.795.4764 www.cswst2.com JOB NO. 1...1r1-s3 o 'A JOB S1:,-..; Qv&'J.J71,0 PuMP ::n--A,, o 10 CLIENT SUBJECT ?&A K D I$ l, HA I<-(,, G CP>. '-(_, ----- PeA 1,,,_ ~1$CliP1-{LG€:i 9,p (H½) 9.P = 1 !A_ A rt\ Q r;, > r (Lo M W o-12-K S H-@?r i..j (6f1../\-\>tt-tll\-t.. Pe"H"-D,s~,6 /1£:;T}/-O'(J J AM :: 0' 6 s w,.; 2 CN = iiq Tl-==-3. , o KA-1>-> Ffn..t.--\:), S'i{LI ~v":l 0~ "-TA BY \511-8 CHK'D J'A H- SHEET NO. i/3' _ _,__ ____ _ DATE 7../I') /lg DATE ')/~r/; ~ ft, ~ Po.vO A1-1tl ';'.:,,.1HA\l A\:>JVHME;IJ, fA c..-,OR. /2 0 \-AM ~ ?ols)o /,.NI) 'SvJA.w-'1 ~Pr lo, F>rt... A-a.-e-l"r lo oF A,.._ 9 ?A-c. =- l/03,JAc... 1.% oi=-A'/V'-= o.?, ~ /<2_J C SW I S T 2 45 Leveroni Court, Novato , CA 94949 Tel 415.883.9850 Fax 415.883.9835 CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 1310 Redwood Way, Suite 220, Petaluma, CA 94954 Tel 707 .795.4764 www.cswst2 .com SHEET NO. ?-../3 --~---- JOB NO. Lf II 3 3D?. JOB 'SA I,,) Ove-1-.ry,,10 yu,_, {) Sr, r-,..-,-\0 N BY _S_tz-._~---DATE ?../1'(;/l<J CLIENT _____ SUBJECT Y~1+1<.. D,s~,-1~fl-t.-.e-GA-1--c.... CHK'D .::T A +\-DATE ?/J.1/;~ S-'t' <Z. Io '1 ri. '1'1/c ::: (), 'J '1 '1 p 1-1.1--a. ¼;:: O,;;l"!.}. If> D-S-Cf t 1-,,_lr ;: o. os-;;! ) ] ~/p ::. o.o'-/1--/ ) UN,-r ?eA-~ D,sc..1-1r--""-~~1 °I,-"" (c..~M/,1v); 1-S--ya. ~/ -0,:1'i'1 ;p-~ [ ¾ ~0.03b 1 /00 '( R '.¼fip: 0.2'i 't </, 't ~ L \ 1/p = o.o~ '8' Ust Tc..=3.1-0h-(l.. (r\2-oM. Wcr-r,..1-.;'&\-1-e"D'Tj)) .h)l-rn -;:,.,,/p \>.Jll\7 8x1t11:> 1r L-J -TA $'<{( \ 17r+1 (."o/i1v) cswlsr2 . CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. 45 Leveroni Court. Novato, CA 94949 Tel 415.883.9850 Fax 415.883.9835 1310 Redwood Way, Suite 220, Petaluma, CA 94954 Tel 707.795.4764 www.cswst2.com JOBN0.'11/330? JOB S>t/J Q,v?"'TlJJ fui-AI' STfY11UJ,..> CLIENT _____ .SUBJECT PEtrr-D1sc...~G" C..P,t--L. 1··-I C---l-_j_._el ! I i _ , , ,__ ____ 1 1 fe''tk 1 _12:,iJ~-~ 1 1 p i(~~iJ_ 1-----··r--"-_ I_._J __ , __ : ___ . --~---:--'---'---__ _J ___ Q~ ::_aJ~=!Q rf0-__ _ • ! I I ,-;,, I -;-: ! i ' L.. I ! ! ' ' I ' I I I __ _ I ! i .I -,----------i · __ i __ i __ ; __ I _____ 1 ___ _ ' ' ' ' ' -__ ' __ ,_ ' _____ _ __ ! __ : ___ :_ ' I '---1,---- , ---,----- ------- --;------+-'-- ___ ! __ _ SHEET N0.~°5~/=3 ___ _ BY \s ~ DATE ?-/I'S /'l'8 CHK'D 'J I/ I+- -----,- I i -_ I -- _._,__.c_., __ J I I I ' _I ---'---'--_J --,_ ____ ! __ ' __ , ______ _ --, ' __ , _____ , __ ! ! I ; ; ,_1__: __ i____ I ' ' ; , ' I i ! ! i i I -l--!----]--i----1- -i-i I I 1 I I I --! - I I -I __ _ I __ , _____ [ __ I I : ; : ' ' i _,___,_· -_J1--~~ L :···- j. --~- __ i ___ I 1 · ---' , I I --1--i_ ' I ' ' ; ; ------ I . -i-- _: __ ; _J ____ ' I ! I i I i" I I ! }_ :-----i- i I I I I ·-'-·-· ------,-- ' ' --------- Appendix 7.4 5)Year and 100)Year Storm Event Hydraflow Hydrograph Output Hydraflow Table of ContentsP:\04\4113302\Calculations_and_Spreadsheets\Hydrology\Hydrographs\San Quentin Pump Station15 min Inte rval.gpw Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Thursday, 02 / 22 / 2018 5 , Year Summary Report......................................................................................................................... 1 Hydrograph Reports................................................................................................................... 2 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, Existing Condition................................................................. 2 100 , Year Summary Report......................................................................................................................... 3 Hydrograph Reports................................................................................................................... 4 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, Existing Condition................................................................. 4 Hydrograph Summary Report 1 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 153.28 15 600 5,048,861 Ex isting Condition P:\04\4113302\Calculations_and_Spreadsheets\Hydrology\Hydrographs\San Quentin Pump Station15 min Inte rval.gpwReturn Period: 5 Year Thursday, 02 / 22 / 2018 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Thursday, 02 / 22 / 2018 Hyd. No. 1 Existing Condition Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 153.28 cfs Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 600 min Time interval = 15 min Hyd. volume = 5,048,861 cuft Drainage area = 403.200 ac Curve number = 89 Basin Slope = 0.0 %Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 186.00 min Total precip.= 4.72 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 2 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 60.00 60.00 80.00 80.00 100.00 100.00 120.00 120.00 140.00 140.00 160.00 160.00 Q (cfs) Time (min) Existing Condition Hyd. No. 1 5 Year Hyd No. 1 - - - --1 ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---~\ - - - - - - - - ---_, - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - \ - - - - - -t - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - __ \ - - - - - - - - --"'-j -............. ~ - - -7 - - - -- - - ---............... .........__ - - -L - - - - - - - -~-- - - - -~ - -~ - - - - - - - - - -~ - ~ ... Hydrograph Summary Report 3 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 329.10 15 585 10,695,580 E xisting Condition P:\04\4113302\Calculations_and_Spreadsheets\Hydrology\Hydrographs\San Quentin Pump Station15 min Inte rval.gpwReturn Period: 100 Year Thursday, 02 / 22 / 2018 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD® Civil 3D® 2016 by Autodesk, Inc. v10.5 Thursday, 02 / 22 / 2018 Hyd. No. 1 Existing Condition Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 329.10 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 585 min Time interval = 15 min Hyd. volume = 10,695,580 cuft Drainage area = 403.200 ac Curve number = 89 Basin Slope = 0.0 %Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 186.00 min Total precip.= 8.75 in Distribution = Type IA Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 4 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 1800 Q (cfs) 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 200.00 200.00 250.00 250.00 300.00 300.00 350.00 350.00 Q (cfs) Time (min) Existing Condition Hyd. No. 1 100 Year Hyd No. 1 - - - -:7 1\-= - - - - - - - - -, - - - -~\ - - - - - - - - - -- -, - - ---- - - - - - - - - - -- - ---- -\--- - - - - - - - - - - - - -~ - - - - - - - -- - - - j --t ~ ~ - - - - -- - - - - - - -I r-----:::. ~ f _ ~-.............. ......... - - - - - - - - -- - - --, - - - - - - - -~~ /-' \.. -/ - - - - - - - - - - -- Appendix 7.5 Storage Analysis This page intentionally left blank. TWO (2) 50 CFS PUMP SCENARIO Pump AssumptionsAssume Pump off at elev. =-1.0Pump Rate =50cfsx 2 =100cfsAssume Pump 1 on at elev. =-0.5Assume Pump 2 on at elev. =0.5Time (hr)Time (min)Flow In (cfs)Volume In (cf)Volume In (acre-ft)Cumulative Volume (acre-ft)Cumulative WSELStart Pump Sequence WSELPump 1 On?Volume Out (cf)Volume Out (ac-ft)Pump 2 On?Volume Out (cf)Volume Out (ac-ft)Volume in Pond (ac-ft)Modeled WSEL000.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00150.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00300.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00450.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001600.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00750.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00900.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001050.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.0021200.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001350.0180.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001500.07600.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001650.211920.000.01-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.01-1.0031800.484340.010.02-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.02-1.001950.908130.020.03-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.03-1.002101.5113600.030.07-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.07-1.002252.3521160.050.11-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.11-1.0042403.4731210.070.19-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.19-1.0002554.8843940.100.29-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.29-1.0002706.5759110.140.42-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.42-1.0002858.5176630.180.60-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.60-1.00530010.7296480.220.82-0.99No-1.0No450001.03No00.00-0.21-1.0031513.21118890.271.09-0.99No-1.0No450001.03No00.00-0.97-1.0033015.99143900.331.42-0.99No-1.0No450001.03No00.00-1.68-1.0034519.03171240.391.82-0.98No-1.0No450001.03No00.00-2.32-1.01636022.33200970.462.28-0.98No-1.0No450001.03No00.00-2.89-1.0137525.97233750.542.81-0.97No-1.0No450001.03No00.00-3.38-1.0239029.96269630.623.43-0.97No-1.0No450001.03No00.00-3.80-1.0340534.19307680.714.14-0.96No-1.0No450001.03No00.00-4.12-1.04742038.68348100.804.94-0.94No-0.9No450001.03No00.00-4.36-1.0543543.53391730.905.84-0.93No-0.9No450001.03No00.00-4.49-1.0645048.95440531.016.85-0.92No-0.9No450001.03No00.00-4.51-1.0746557.30515731.188.03-0.90No-0.9No450001.03No00.00-4.36-1.08848068.82619401.429.46-0.88No-0.9No450001.03No00.00-3.97-1.0949581.49733381.6811.14-0.85No-0.9No450001.03No00.00-3.32-1.1051094.51850611.9513.09-0.82No-0.8No450001.03No00.00-2.40-1.10 525107.90971092.2315.32-0.79No-0.8No450001.03No00.00-1.21-1.109540121.251091232.5117.83-0.75No-0.7No450001.03No00.000.26-1.10555134.041206352.7720.60-0.70No-0.7No450001.03No00.002.00-1.10570145.681311143.0123.61-0.65No-0.6No450001.03No00.003.98-1.09585152.281370483.1526.75-0.59No-0.6No450001.03No00.006.09-1.0810600153.281379543.1729.92-0.52No-0.5No450001.03No00.008.22-1.06615151.651364893.1333.05-0.45No-0.4No450001.03No00.0010.32-1.03630148.481336293.0736.12-0.36No-0.4No450001.03No00.0012.36-1.01645143.891294992.9739.09-0.28No-0.3No450001.03No00.0014.30-0.9711660138.271244472.8641.95-0.18No-0.2No450001.03No00.0016.12-0.94675131.991187922.7344.68-0.08No-0.1No450001.03No00.0017.82-0.90690125.251127222.5947.260.03YesNoNo450001.03No00.0019.37-0.85705118.111062972.4449.700.14No450001.03No00.0020.78-0.8112720110.59995332.2851.990.26No450001.03No00.0022.03-0.76735102.84925542.1254.110.38No450001.03No00.0023.12-0.7175095.09855831.9656.080.50No450001.03No450001.0323.02-0.6576587.50787491.8157.890.64No450001.03No450001.0322.76-0.601378081.59734291.6959.570.77No450001.03No450001.0322.38-0.5579577.65698831.6061.180.91No450001.03No450001.0321.92-0.5081074.58671241.5462.721.05Yes450001.03No450001.0321.40-0.4582572.03648291.4964.211.19Yes450001.03No450001.0320.82-0.411484069.98629841.4565.651.34Yes450001.03No450001.0320.20-0.3685568.28614511.4167.061.49Yes450001.03No450001.0319.54-0.3287066.75600751.3868.441.65Yes450001.03No450001.0318.86-0.2788565.39588551.3569.791.81Yes450001.03No450001.0318.14-0.231590064.19577741.3371.121.97Yes450001.03No450001.0317.40-0.1991563.09567781.3072.422.13Yes450001.03No450001.0316.64-0.1693062.09558801.2873.712.30Yes450001.03No450001.0315.85-0.1294561.19550681.2674.972.46Yes450001.03No450001.0315.05-0.091696060.39543511.2576.222.64Yes450001.03No450001.0314.23-0.0697559.66536981.2377.452.81Yes450001.03No450001.0313.40-0.0399058.99530921.2278.672.99Yes450001.03No450001.0312.550.00100558.35525151.2179.873.17Yes450001.03No450001.0311.690.0317102057.71519431.1981.073.35Yes450001.03No450001.0310.820.050103557.08513701.1882.253.54Yes450001.03No450001.039.930.080105056.44508001.1783.413.73Yes450001.03No450001.039.030.100106555.83502491.1584.573.92Yes450001.03No450001.038.120.1218108055.22496961.1485.714.11Yes450001.03No450001.037.190.13109554.60491411.1386.844.31Yes450001.03No450001.036.260.15111054.00485981.1287.954.50Yes450001.03No450001.035.310.16112553.39480551.1089.054.71Yes450001.03No450001.034.340.1719114052.78475061.0990.144.91Yes450001.03No450001.033.370.17115552.17469491.0891.225.11Yes450001.03No450001.032.380.18117051.54463891.0692.295.32Yes450001.03No450001.031.380.18118550.92458261.0593.345.53Yes450001.03No450001.030.360.1820120050.29452611.0494.385.75Yes450001.03No450001.03-0.660.18121549.66446931.0395.405.96Yes450001.03No450001.03-1.700.18123049.03441231.0196.426.18Yes450001.03No450001.03-2.760.17 124548.39435511.0097.426.40Yes450001.03No450001.03-3.820.1621126047.75429770.9998.406.62Yes450001.03No450001.03-4.900.15127547.11424010.9799.386.85Yes450001.03No450001.03-5.990.14129046.47418220.96100.347.07Yes450001.03No450001.03-7.100.12130545.82412420.95101.287.30Yes450001.03No450001.03-8.220.1022132045.18406600.93102.227.53Yes450001.03No450001.03-9.350.08133544.53400770.92103.147.76Yes450001.03No450001.03-10.500.06135043.88394920.91104.048.00Yes450001.03No450001.03-11.660.03136543.23389050.89104.948.23Yes450001.03No450001.03-12.830.0023138042.57383170.88105.828.47Yes450001.03No450001.03-14.02-0.03139541.92377270.87106.688.71Yes450001.03No450001.03-15.22-0.06141041.26371360.85107.548.96Yes450001.03No450001.03-16.43-0.10142540.60365430.84108.379.20Yes450001.03No450001.03-17.66-0.1424144039.94359500.83109.209.45Yes450001.03No450001.03-18.90-0.18145538.88349960.80110.009.70Yes450001.03No450001.03-20.16-0.23147037.43336880.77110.789.95Yes450001.03No450001.03-21.45-0.27148535.60320360.74111.5110.20Yes450001.03No450001.03-22.79-0.3325150033.38300440.69112.2010.45Yes450001.03No450001.03-24.16-0.38151530.80277220.64112.8410.71Yes450001.03No450001.03-25.59-0.44153027.86250750.58113.4110.96Yes450001.03No450001.03-27.08-0.50154524.57221120.51113.9211.22No450001.03No450001.03-28.64-0.5626156020.93188390.43114.3511.48No450001.03No450001.03-30.27-0.63157517.60158440.36114.7211.74No450001.03No450001.03-31.98-0.70159014.63131680.30115.0211.99No450001.03No450001.03-33.74-0.78160512.12109090.25115.2712.25No450001.03No450001.03-35.56-0.8627162010.1791560.21115.4812.52No450001.03No450001.03-37.41-0.9516358.8980020.18115.6612.78No450001.03No450001.03-39.29-1.0316508.3675250.17115.8413.04No450001.03No450001.03-41.19-1.1316658.6577850.18116.0213.30No450001.03No450001.03-43.08-1.222816809.8288360.20116.2213.56No450001.03No450001.03-44.94-1.33169511.91107170.25116.4613.82No450001.03No450001.03-46.76-1.43171014.91134150.31116.7714.09No450001.03No450001.03-48.52-1.54172518.73168600.39117.1614.35No450001.03No450001.03-50.20-1.6529174023.31209780.48117.6414.62No450001.03No450001.03-51.78-1.77175528.51256610.59118.2314.88No450001.03No450001.03-53.26-1.89177034.03306280.70118.9315.15No450001.03No450001.03-54.62-2.01178539.85358640.82119.7615.42No450001.03No450001.03-55.86-2.1430180045.97413770.95120.7115.70No450001.03No450001.03-56.98-2.27181552.48472351.08121.7915.97No450001.03No450001.03-57.96-2.40183059.38534401.23123.0216.25No450001.03No450001.03-58.80-2.53184566.55598951.37124.3916.53No450001.03No00.00-58.46-2.6631186074.01666101.53125.9216.81No450001.03No00.00-57.96-2.79187581.93737391.69127.6117.10No450001.03No00.00-57.30-2.92189090.31812801.87129.4817.39No450001.03No00.00-56.47-3.05190598.92890302.04131.5217.69No450001.03No00.00-55.46-3.18321920107.87970832.23133.7517.99No450001.03No00.00-54.26-3.301935117.411056692.43136.1818.30No450001.03No00.00-52.87-3.421950128.061152552.65138.8218.61No450001.03No00.00-51.26-3.53 1965144.891304002.99141.8218.93No450001.03No00.00-49.30-3.64331980168.141513263.47145.2919.26No450001.03No00.00-46.86-3.751995193.471741224.00149.2919.60No450001.03No00.00-43.89-3.852010219.251973214.53153.8219.94No450001.03No00.00-40.40-3.942025245.532209735.07158.8920.30No450001.03No00.00-36.36-4.02342040271.502443515.61164.5020.67No450001.03No00.00-31.78-4.092055296.092664816.12170.6221.06No450001.03No00.00-26.69-4.152070318.062862556.57177.1921.46No450001.03No00.00-21.16-4.202085329.102961876.80183.9921.87No450001.03No00.00-15.39-4.24352100328.462956106.79190.7822.30No450001.03No00.00-9.64-4.262115322.502902496.66197.4422.75No450001.03No00.00-4.01-4.272130313.532821736.48203.9223.21No450001.03No00.001.44-4.262145301.852716616.24210.1523.68No450001.03No00.006.64-4.25362160288.262594355.96216.1124.17No450001.03No00.0011.56-4.222175273.502461505.65221.7624.67No450001.03No00.0016.18-4.192190258.012322055.33227.0925.18No450001.03No00.0020.48-4.142205241.912177225.00232.0925.71No450001.03No00.0024.45-4.09372220225.232027104.65236.7426.24No450001.03No00.0028.07-4.022235208.251874214.30241.0526.78No450001.03No00.0031.34-3.952250191.461723163.96245.0027.34No450001.03No00.0034.26-3.872265175.191576703.62248.6227.90No450001.03No00.0036.84-3.79382280162.681464153.36251.9828.47No450001.03No00.0039.17-3.702295154.391389553.19255.1729.04No450001.03No00.0041.33-3.612310147.961331623.06258.2329.63No450001.03No00.0043.35-3.512325142.611283472.95261.1830.21No450001.03No00.0045.27-3.41392340138.301244692.86264.0330.81No450001.03No00.0047.09-3.302355134.711212422.78266.8231.41No450001.03No00.0048.84-3.192370131.501183472.72269.5332.02No450001.03No00.0050.53-3.082385128.641157792.66272.1932.63No450001.03No00.0052.15-2.96402400126.111135032.61274.8033.25No450001.03No00.0053.72-2.842415123.791114082.56277.3533.88No450001.03No00.0055.25-2.722430121.691095172.51279.8734.51No450001.03No00.0056.73-2.592445119.781078062.47282.3435.15No450001.03No450001.0357.14-2.46412460118.101062902.44284.7835.79No450001.03No450001.0357.51-2.332475116.571049092.41287.1936.44No450001.03No450001.0357.85-2.202490115.141036262.38289.5737.09No450001.03No450001.0358.17-2.072505113.791024072.35291.9237.75No450001.03No450001.0358.45-1.94422520112.451012032.32294.2538.41No450001.03No450001.0358.71-1.802535111.111000022.30296.5439.08No450001.03No450001.0358.94-1.672550109.79988132.27298.8139.76No450001.03No450001.0359.14-1.542565108.52976652.24301.0540.44No450001.03No450001.0359.32-1.40432580107.24965192.22303.2741.12No450001.03No450001.0359.47-1.272595105.97953712.19305.4641.81No450001.03No450001.0359.59-1.132610104.73942532.16307.6242.50No450001.03No450001.0359.69-1.002625103.49931382.14309.7643.20No450001.03No450001.0359.76-0.86442640102.24920142.11311.8743.91No450001.03No450001.0359.81-0.732655100.98908782.09313.9644.62No450001.03No450001.0359.83-0.59267099.71897402.06316.0245.33Yes450001.03No450001.0359.82-0.46 268598.44885992.03318.0546.05Yes450001.03No450001.0359.79-0.3245270097.17874572.01320.0646.77Yes450001.03No450001.0359.73-0.19271595.90863131.98322.0447.50Yes450001.03No450001.0359.64-0.06273094.63851681.96324.0048.23Yes450001.03No450001.0359.530.08274593.36840211.93325.9248.96Yes450001.03No450001.0359.400.2146276092.08828721.90327.8349.70Yes450001.03No450001.0359.230.35277590.80817221.88329.7050.44Yes450001.03No450001.0359.040.48279089.52805701.85331.5551.19Yes450001.03Yes450001.0358.830.61280588.24794171.82333.3851.95Yes450001.03Yes450001.0358.580.7447282086.96782631.80335.1752.70Yes450001.03Yes450001.0358.310.88283585.67771071.77336.9453.46Yes450001.03Yes450001.0358.021.01285084.39759501.74338.6954.23Yes450001.03Yes450001.0357.691.14286583.10747921.72340.4054.99Yes450001.03Yes450001.0357.351.2748288081.81736331.69342.0955.77Yes450001.03Yes450001.0356.971.40289580.53724731.66343.7656.54Yes450001.03Yes450001.0356.571.52291079.24713121.64345.3957.32Yes450001.03Yes450001.0356.141.65292577.94701501.61347.0158.10Yes450001.03Yes450001.0355.681.7749294076.65689871.58348.5958.89Yes450001.03Yes450001.0355.201.90295574.60671371.54350.1359.68Yes450001.03Yes450001.0354.682.02297071.79646121.48351.6160.47Yes450001.03Yes450001.0354.092.14298568.25614271.41353.0261.27Yes450001.03Yes450001.0353.442.2750300064.00575961.32354.3562.07Yes450001.03Yes450001.0352.692.38301559.04531341.22355.5762.87Yes450001.03Yes450001.0351.852.50303053.39480531.10356.6763.68Yes450001.03Yes450001.0350.882.62304547.08423680.97357.6464.48Yes450001.03Yes450001.0349.792.7351306040.10360940.83358.4765.29Yes450001.03Yes450001.0348.552.84307533.73303530.70359.1766.10Yes450001.03Yes450001.0347.182.94309027.93251370.58359.7466.91Yes450001.03Yes450001.0345.693.05310522.71204390.47360.2167.73Yes450001.03Yes450001.0344.103.1552312018.05162480.37360.5968.54Yes450001.03Yes450001.0342.403.24313513.95125580.29360.8769.35Yes450001.03Yes450001.0340.633.33315010.4093580.21361.0970.17Yes450001.03Yes450001.0338.783.4231657.3866420.15361.2470.98Yes450001.03Yes450001.0336.863.515331804.8943990.10361.3471.80Yes450001.03Yes450001.0334.903.5831952.9126220.06361.4072.61Yes450001.03Yes450001.0332.893.6632101.4513030.03361.4373.43Yes450001.03Yes450001.0330.853.7332250.484310.01361.4474.25Yes450001.03Yes450001.0328.803.79 TWO (2) 80 CFS PUMP SCENARIO Pump AssumptionsAssume Pump off at elev. =-1.0Pump Rate =80cfsx 2 =160cfsAssume Pump 1 on at elev. =-0.5Assume Pump 2 on at elev. =0.5Time (hr)Time (min)Flow In (cfs)Volume In (cf)Volume In (acre-ft)Cumulative Volume (acre-ft)Cumulative WSELStart Pump Sequence WSELPump 1 On?Volume Out (cf)Volume Out (ac-ft)Pump 2 On?Volume Out (cf)Volume Out (ac-ft)Volume in Pond (ac-ft)Modeled WSEL000.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00150.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00300.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00450.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001600.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00750.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00900.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001050.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.0021200.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001350.0180.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001500.07600.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001650.211920.000.01-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.01-1.0031800.484340.010.02-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.02-1.001950.908130.020.03-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.03-1.002101.5113600.030.07-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.07-1.002252.3521160.050.11-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.11-1.0042403.4731210.070.19-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.19-1.0002554.8843940.100.29-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.29-1.0002706.5759110.140.42-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.42-1.0002858.5176630.180.60-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.60-1.00530010.7296480.220.82-0.99No-1.0No00.00No00.000.82-0.9931513.21118890.271.09-0.99No-1.0No00.00No00.001.09-0.9933015.99143900.331.42-0.99No-1.0No00.00No00.001.42-0.9934519.03171240.391.82-0.98No-1.0No00.00No00.001.82-0.98636022.33200970.462.28-0.98No-1.0No00.00No00.002.28-0.9837525.97233750.542.81-0.97No-1.0No00.00No00.002.81-0.9739029.96269630.623.43-0.97No-1.0No00.00No00.003.43-0.9740534.19307680.714.14-0.96No-1.0No00.00No00.004.14-0.96742038.68348100.804.94-0.94No-0.9No00.00No00.004.94-0.9443543.53391730.905.84-0.93No-0.9No00.00No00.005.84-0.9345048.95440531.016.85-0.92No-0.9No00.00No00.006.85-0.9246557.30515731.188.03-0.90No-0.9No00.00No00.008.03-0.90848068.82619401.429.46-0.88No-0.9No00.00No00.009.46-0.8849581.49733381.6811.14-0.85No-0.9No00.00No00.0011.14-0.8551094.51850611.9513.09-0.82No-0.8No00.00No00.0013.09-0.82 525107.90971092.2315.32-0.79No-0.8No00.00No00.0015.32-0.799540121.251091232.5117.83-0.75No-0.7No00.00No00.0017.83-0.75555134.041206352.7720.60-0.70No-0.7No00.00No00.0020.60-0.70570145.681311143.0123.61-0.65No-0.6No00.00No00.0023.61-0.65585152.281370483.1526.75-0.59No-0.6No00.00No00.0026.75-0.5910600153.281379543.1729.92-0.52No-0.5No00.00No00.0029.92-0.52615151.651364893.1333.05-0.45No-0.4Yes720001.65No00.0031.40-0.45630148.481336293.0736.12-0.36No-0.4Yes720001.65No00.0032.81-0.37645143.891294992.9739.09-0.28No-0.3Yes720001.65No00.0034.13-0.3011660138.271244472.8641.95-0.18No-0.2Yes720001.65No00.0035.34-0.22675131.991187922.7344.68-0.08No-0.1Yes720001.65No00.0036.41-0.14690125.251127222.5947.260.03YesNoYes720001.65No00.0037.35-0.05705118.111062972.4449.700.14Yes720001.65No00.0038.130.0312720110.59995332.2851.990.26Yes720001.65No00.0038.770.12735102.84925542.1254.110.38Yes720001.65No00.0039.240.2175095.09855831.9656.080.50Yes720001.65No00.0039.550.3076587.50787491.8157.890.64Yes720001.65No00.0039.710.391378081.59734291.6959.570.77Yes720001.65No00.0039.740.4879577.65698831.6061.180.91Yes720001.65Yes720001.6538.040.5681074.58671241.5462.721.05Yes720001.65Yes720001.6536.270.6582572.03648291.4964.211.19Yes720001.65Yes720001.6534.450.721484069.98629841.4565.651.34Yes720001.65Yes720001.6532.590.8085568.28614511.4167.061.49Yes720001.65Yes720001.6530.700.8787066.75600751.3868.441.65Yes720001.65Yes720001.6528.770.9388565.39588551.3569.791.81Yes720001.65Yes720001.6526.820.991590064.19577741.3371.121.97Yes720001.65Yes720001.6524.841.0591563.09567781.3072.422.13Yes720001.65Yes720001.6522.841.1093062.09558801.2873.712.30Yes720001.65Yes720001.6520.811.1594561.19550681.2674.972.46Yes720001.65Yes720001.6518.771.191696060.39543511.2576.222.64Yes720001.65Yes720001.6516.711.2397559.66536981.2377.452.81Yes720001.65Yes720001.6514.641.2699058.99530921.2278.672.99Yes720001.65Yes720001.6512.551.29100558.35525151.2179.873.17Yes720001.65Yes720001.6510.451.3117102057.71519431.1981.073.35Yes720001.65Yes720001.658.341.330103557.08513701.1882.253.54Yes720001.65Yes720001.656.211.340105056.44508001.1783.413.73Yes720001.65Yes720001.654.071.350106555.83502491.1584.573.92Yes720001.65Yes720001.651.921.3618108055.22496961.1485.714.11Yes720001.65Yes00.001.411.36109554.60491411.1386.844.31Yes720001.65Yes00.000.881.36111054.00485981.1287.954.50Yes720001.65Yes00.000.351.36112553.39480551.1089.054.71Yes00.00Yes00.001.451.3719114052.78475061.0990.144.91Yes00.00Yes00.002.541.37115552.17469491.0891.225.11Yes00.00Yes00.003.621.38117051.54463891.0692.295.32Yes00.00Yes00.004.681.39118550.92458261.0593.345.53Yes720001.65Yes00.004.081.4020120050.29452611.0494.385.75Yes720001.65Yes00.003.471.41121549.66446931.0395.405.96Yes720001.65Yes00.002.841.42123049.03441231.0196.426.18Yes720001.65Yes00.002.201.42 124548.39435511.0097.426.40Yes720001.65Yes00.001.551.4221126047.75429770.9998.406.62Yes720001.65Yes00.000.881.43127547.11424010.9799.386.85Yes00.00Yes00.001.861.43129046.47418220.96100.347.07Yes00.00Yes00.002.821.44130545.82412420.95101.287.30Yes00.00Yes00.003.761.4522132045.18406600.93102.227.53Yes00.00Yes00.004.701.46133544.53400770.92103.147.76Yes00.00Yes00.005.621.47135043.88394920.91104.048.00Yes720001.65Yes00.004.871.48136543.23389050.89104.948.23Yes720001.65Yes00.004.111.4923138042.57383170.88105.828.47Yes720001.65Yes00.003.341.50139541.92377270.87106.688.71Yes720001.65Yes00.002.551.50141041.26371360.85107.548.96Yes720001.65Yes00.001.751.51142540.60365430.84108.379.20Yes720001.65Yes00.000.941.5124144039.94359500.83109.209.45Yes720001.65Yes00.000.111.51145538.88349960.80110.009.70Yes00.00Yes00.000.911.51147037.43336880.77110.789.95Yes00.00Yes00.001.691.51148535.60320360.74111.5110.20Yes00.00Yes00.002.421.5225150033.38300440.69112.2010.45Yes00.00Yes00.003.111.53151530.80277220.64112.8410.71Yes00.00Yes00.003.751.53153027.86250750.58113.4110.96Yes00.00Yes00.004.321.54154524.57221120.51113.9211.22Yes00.00Yes00.004.831.5626156020.93188390.43114.3511.48Yes00.00Yes00.005.261.57157517.60158440.36114.7211.74Yes00.00Yes00.005.631.58159014.63131680.30115.0211.99Yes720001.65Yes00.004.281.59160512.12109090.25115.2712.25Yes720001.65Yes00.002.871.6027162010.1791560.21115.4812.52Yes720001.65Yes00.001.431.6016358.8980020.18115.6612.78Yes00.00Yes00.001.611.6016508.3675250.17115.8413.04Yes00.00Yes00.001.791.6116658.6577850.18116.0213.30Yes00.00Yes00.001.971.612816809.8288360.20116.2213.56Yes00.00Yes00.002.171.62169511.91107170.25116.4613.82Yes00.00Yes00.002.411.62171014.91134150.31116.7714.09Yes00.00Yes00.002.721.63172518.73168600.39117.1614.35Yes00.00Yes00.003.111.6429174023.31209780.48117.6414.62Yes00.00Yes00.003.591.64175528.51256610.59118.2314.88Yes00.00Yes00.004.181.65177034.03306280.70118.9315.15Yes00.00Yes00.004.881.66178539.85358640.82119.7615.42Yes00.00Yes00.005.711.6830180045.97413770.95120.7115.70Yes720001.65Yes720001.653.351.68181552.48472351.08121.7915.97Yes720001.65Yes720001.651.131.69183059.38534401.23123.0216.25Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-0.951.68184566.55598951.37124.3916.53Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-2.881.6831186074.01666101.53125.9216.81Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-4.661.67187581.93737391.69127.6117.10Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-6.271.65189090.31812801.87129.4817.39Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-7.711.64190598.92890302.04131.5217.69Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-8.971.62321920107.87970832.23133.7517.99Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-10.051.591935117.411056692.43136.1818.30Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-10.931.571950128.061152552.65138.8218.61Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-11.591.54 1965144.891304002.99141.8218.93Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-11.901.52331980168.141513263.47145.2919.26Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-11.731.491995193.471741224.00149.2919.60Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-11.041.462010219.251973214.53153.8219.94Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-9.821.442025245.532209735.07158.8920.30Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-8.051.42342040271.502443515.61164.5020.67Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-5.751.412055296.092664816.12170.6221.06Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-2.931.402070318.062862556.57177.1921.46Yes720001.65Yes720001.650.331.402085329.102961876.80183.9921.87Yes720001.65Yes720001.653.831.41352100328.462956106.79190.7822.30Yes720001.65Yes720001.657.311.432115322.502902496.66197.4422.75Yes720001.65Yes720001.6510.661.452130313.532821736.48203.9223.21Yes720001.65Yes720001.6513.841.492145301.852716616.24210.1523.68Yes720001.65Yes720001.6516.771.52362160288.262594355.96216.1124.17Yes720001.65Yes720001.6519.421.572175273.502461505.65221.7624.67Yes720001.65Yes720001.6521.761.622190258.012322055.33227.0925.18Yes720001.65Yes720001.6523.791.672205241.912177225.00232.0925.71Yes720001.65Yes720001.6525.481.73372220225.232027104.65236.7426.24Yes720001.65Yes720001.6526.831.792235208.251874214.30241.0526.78Yes720001.65Yes720001.6527.821.852250191.461723163.96245.0027.34Yes720001.65Yes720001.6528.471.912265175.191576703.62248.6227.90Yes720001.65Yes720001.6528.791.98382280162.681464153.36251.9828.47Yes720001.65Yes720001.6528.842.042295154.391389553.19255.1729.04Yes720001.65Yes720001.6528.732.112310147.961331623.06258.2329.63Yes720001.65Yes720001.6528.482.172325142.611283472.95261.1830.21Yes720001.65Yes720001.6528.122.24392340138.301244692.86264.0330.81Yes720001.65Yes720001.6527.672.302355134.711212422.78266.8231.41Yes720001.65Yes720001.6527.152.362370131.501183472.72269.5332.02Yes720001.65Yes720001.6526.562.422385128.641157792.66272.1932.63Yes720001.65Yes720001.6525.912.48402400126.111135032.61274.8033.25Yes720001.65Yes720001.6525.212.542415123.791114082.56277.3533.88Yes720001.65Yes720001.6524.462.592430121.691095172.51279.8734.51Yes720001.65Yes720001.6523.672.642445119.781078062.47282.3435.15Yes720001.65Yes720001.6522.842.70412460118.101062902.44284.7835.79Yes720001.65Yes720001.6521.972.752475116.571049092.41287.1936.44Yes720001.65Yes720001.6521.082.792490115.141036262.38289.5737.09Yes720001.65Yes720001.6520.152.842505113.791024072.35291.9237.75Yes720001.65Yes720001.6519.192.88422520112.451012032.32294.2538.41Yes720001.65Yes720001.6518.212.922535111.111000022.30296.5439.08Yes720001.65Yes720001.6517.202.962550109.79988132.27298.8139.76Yes720001.65Yes720001.6516.173.002565108.52976652.24301.0540.44Yes720001.65Yes720001.6515.103.03432580107.24965192.22303.2741.12Yes720001.65Yes720001.6514.013.062595105.97953712.19305.4641.81Yes720001.65Yes720001.6512.893.092610104.73942532.16307.6242.50Yes720001.65Yes720001.6511.753.122625103.49931382.14309.7643.20Yes720001.65Yes720001.6510.593.14442640102.24920142.11311.8743.91Yes720001.65Yes720001.659.393.172655100.98908782.09313.9644.62Yes720001.65Yes720001.658.173.18267099.71897402.06316.0245.33Yes720001.65Yes720001.656.933.20 268598.44885992.03318.0546.05Yes720001.65Yes720001.655.653.2145270097.17874572.01320.0646.77Yes720001.65Yes720001.654.363.22271595.90863131.98322.0447.50Yes720001.65Yes720001.653.033.23273094.63851681.96324.0048.23Yes720001.65Yes720001.651.683.23274593.36840211.93325.9248.96Yes720001.65Yes720001.650.303.2346276092.08828721.90327.8349.70Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-1.103.23277590.80817221.88329.7050.44Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-2.533.22279089.52805701.85331.5551.19Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-3.983.22280588.24794171.82333.3851.95Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-5.473.2047282086.96782631.80335.1752.70Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-6.983.19283585.67771071.77336.9453.46Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-8.513.17285084.39759501.74338.6954.23Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-10.073.15286583.10747921.72340.4054.99Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-11.663.1248288081.81736331.69342.0955.77Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-13.283.09289580.53724731.66343.7656.54Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-14.923.06291079.24713121.64345.3957.32Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-16.593.02292577.94701501.61347.0158.10Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-18.282.9849294076.65689871.58348.5958.89Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-20.012.93295574.60671371.54350.1359.68Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-21.772.88297071.79646121.48351.6160.47Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-23.592.83298568.25614271.41353.0261.27Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-25.492.7750300064.00575961.32354.3562.07Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-27.472.71301559.04531341.22355.5762.87Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-29.562.64303053.39480531.10356.6763.68Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-31.762.57304547.08423680.97357.6464.48Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-34.092.4951306040.10360940.83358.4765.29Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-36.572.41307533.73303530.70359.1766.10Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-39.182.32309027.93251370.58359.7466.91Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-41.912.23310522.71204390.47360.2167.73Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-44.752.1352312018.05162480.37360.5968.54Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-47.682.02313513.95125580.29360.8769.35Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-50.701.91315010.4093580.21361.0970.17Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-53.791.7931657.3866420.15361.2470.98Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-56.941.665331804.8943990.10361.3471.80Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-60.141.5231952.9126220.06361.4072.61Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-63.391.3832101.4513030.03361.4373.43Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-66.671.2332250.484310.01361.4474.25Yes720001.65Yes720001.65-69.961.07 TWO (2) 100 CFS PUMP SCENARIO Pump AssumptionsAssume Pump off at elev. =-1.0Pump Rate =100cfsx 2 =200cfsAssume Pump 1 on at elev. =-0.5Assume Pump 2 on at elev. =0.5Time (hr)Time (min)Flow In (cfs)Volume In (cf)Volume In (acre-ft)Cumulative Volume (acre-ft)Cumulative WSELStart Pump Sequence WSELPump 1 On?Volume Out (cf)Volume Out (ac-ft)Pump 2 On?Volume Out (cf)Volume Out (ac-ft)Volume in Pond (ac-ft)Modeled WSEL000.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00150.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00300.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00450.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001600.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00750.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.00900.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001050.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.0021200.0000.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001350.0180.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001500.07600.000.00-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.00-1.001650.211920.000.01-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.01-1.0031800.484340.010.02-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.02-1.001950.908130.020.03-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.03-1.002101.5113600.030.07-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.07-1.002252.3521160.050.11-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.11-1.0042403.4731210.070.19-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.19-1.0002554.8843940.100.29-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.29-1.0002706.5759110.140.42-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.42-1.0002858.5176630.180.60-1.00No-1.0No00.00No00.000.60-1.00530010.7296480.220.82-0.99No-1.0No00.00No00.000.82-0.9931513.21118890.271.09-0.99No-1.0No00.00No00.001.09-0.9933015.99143900.331.42-0.99No-1.0No00.00No00.001.42-0.9934519.03171240.391.82-0.98No-1.0No00.00No00.001.82-0.98636022.33200970.462.28-0.98No-1.0No00.00No00.002.28-0.9837525.97233750.542.81-0.97No-1.0No00.00No00.002.81-0.9739029.96269630.623.43-0.97No-1.0No00.00No00.003.43-0.9740534.19307680.714.14-0.96No-1.0No00.00No00.004.14-0.96742038.68348100.804.94-0.94No-0.9No00.00No00.004.94-0.9443543.53391730.905.84-0.93No-0.9No00.00No00.005.84-0.9345048.95440531.016.85-0.92No-0.9No00.00No00.006.85-0.9246557.30515731.188.03-0.90No-0.9No00.00No00.008.03-0.90848068.82619401.429.46-0.88No-0.9No00.00No00.009.46-0.8849581.49733381.6811.14-0.85No-0.9No00.00No00.0011.14-0.8551094.51850611.9513.09-0.82No-0.8No00.00No00.0013.09-0.82 525107.90971092.2315.32-0.79No-0.8No00.00No00.0015.32-0.799540121.251091232.5117.83-0.75No-0.7No00.00No00.0017.83-0.75555134.041206352.7720.60-0.70No-0.7No00.00No00.0020.60-0.70570145.681311143.0123.61-0.65No-0.6No00.00No00.0023.61-0.65585152.281370483.1526.75-0.59No-0.6No00.00No00.0026.75-0.5910600153.281379543.1729.92-0.52No-0.5No00.00No00.0029.92-0.52615151.651364893.1333.05-0.45No-0.4Yes900002.07No900002.0728.92-0.45630148.481336293.0736.12-0.36No-0.4Yes900002.07No900002.0727.86-0.39645143.891294992.9739.09-0.28No-0.3Yes900002.07No900002.0726.70-0.3311660138.271244472.8641.95-0.18No-0.2Yes900002.07No900002.0725.42-0.27675131.991187922.7344.68-0.08No-0.1Yes900002.07No900002.0724.02-0.22690125.251127222.5947.260.03YesNoYes900002.07No900002.0722.47-0.17705118.111062972.4449.700.14Yes900002.07No900002.0720.78-0.1212720110.59995332.2851.990.26Yes900002.07No900002.0718.93-0.08735102.84925542.1254.110.38Yes900002.07No900002.0716.92-0.0475095.09855831.9656.080.50Yes900002.07No900002.0714.76-0.0176587.50787491.8157.890.64Yes900002.07No900002.0712.430.021378081.59734291.6959.570.77Yes900002.07No900002.079.990.0479577.65698831.6061.180.91Yes900002.07No900002.077.460.0681074.58671241.5462.721.05Yes00.00No900002.076.930.0882572.03648291.4964.211.19Yes00.00No900002.076.350.091484069.98629841.4565.651.34Yes00.00No900002.075.730.1085568.28614511.4167.061.49Yes00.00No900002.075.080.1187066.75600751.3868.441.65Yes00.00No900002.074.390.1288565.39588551.3569.791.81Yes00.00No00.005.740.141590064.19577741.3371.121.97Yes00.00No00.007.070.1591563.09567781.3072.422.13Yes00.00No00.008.370.1793062.09558801.2873.712.30Yes00.00No00.009.660.1994561.19550681.2674.972.46Yes900002.07No00.008.850.211696060.39543511.2576.222.64Yes900002.07No00.008.040.2397559.66536981.2377.452.81Yes900002.07No00.007.200.2599058.99530921.2278.672.99Yes900002.07No00.006.360.26100558.35525151.2179.873.17Yes900002.07No00.005.490.2717102057.71519431.1981.073.35Yes900002.07No00.004.620.28103557.08513701.1882.253.54Yes900002.07No00.003.730.29105056.44508001.1783.413.73Yes900002.07No00.002.830.30106555.83502491.1584.573.92Yes900002.07No00.001.920.3018108055.22496961.1485.714.11Yes900002.07No00.001.000.31109554.60491411.1386.844.31Yes900002.07No00.000.060.31111054.00485981.1287.954.50Yes00.00No00.001.170.31112553.39480551.1089.054.71Yes00.00No00.002.280.3119114052.78475061.0990.144.91Yes00.00No00.003.370.32115552.17469491.0891.225.11Yes00.00No00.004.450.33117051.54463891.0692.295.32Yes00.00No00.005.510.34118550.92458261.0593.345.53Yes00.00No00.006.560.3620120050.29452611.0494.385.75Yes900002.07No00.005.540.37121549.66446931.0395.405.96Yes900002.07No00.004.500.38123049.03441231.0196.426.18Yes900002.07No00.003.440.39 124548.39435511.0097.426.40Yes900002.07No00.002.380.3921126047.75429770.9998.406.62Yes900002.07No00.001.300.40127547.11424010.9799.386.85Yes00.00No00.002.270.40129046.47418220.96100.347.07Yes00.00No00.003.230.41130545.82412420.95101.287.30Yes00.00No00.004.180.4222132045.18406600.93102.227.53Yes00.00No00.005.110.43133544.53400770.92103.147.76Yes00.00No00.006.030.44135043.88394920.91104.048.00Yes00.00No00.006.940.46136543.23389050.89104.948.23Yes00.00No00.007.830.4823138042.57383170.88105.828.47Yes900002.07No00.006.640.49139541.92377270.87106.688.71Yes900002.07Yes00.005.440.51141041.26371360.85107.548.96Yes900002.07Yes00.004.230.51142540.60365430.84108.379.20Yes900002.07Yes00.003.000.5224144039.94359500.83109.209.45Yes900002.07Yes00.001.760.53145538.88349960.80110.009.70Yes900002.07Yes00.000.500.53147037.43336880.77110.789.95Yes00.00Yes00.001.270.53148535.60320360.74111.5110.20Yes00.00Yes00.002.010.5325150033.38300440.69112.2010.45Yes00.00Yes00.002.700.54151530.80277220.64112.8410.71Yes00.00Yes00.003.330.55153027.86250750.58113.4110.96Yes00.00Yes00.003.910.56154524.57221120.51113.9211.22Yes00.00Yes00.004.420.5726156020.93188390.43114.3511.48Yes00.00Yes00.004.850.58157517.60158440.36114.7211.74Yes00.00Yes00.005.210.59159014.63131680.30115.0211.99Yes00.00Yes00.005.520.60160512.12109090.25115.2712.25Yes00.00Yes00.005.770.6127162010.1791560.21115.4812.52Yes00.00Yes00.005.980.6316358.8980020.18115.6612.78Yes00.00Yes00.006.160.6416508.3675250.17115.8413.04Yes00.00Yes00.006.330.6616658.6577850.18116.0213.30Yes900002.07Yes00.004.450.672816809.8288360.20116.2213.56Yes900002.07Yes00.002.580.67169511.91107170.25116.4613.82Yes00.00Yes00.002.830.68171014.91134150.31116.7714.09Yes00.00Yes00.003.140.69172518.73168600.39117.1614.35Yes00.00Yes00.003.520.6929174023.31209780.48117.6414.62Yes00.00Yes00.004.000.70175528.51256610.59118.2314.88Yes00.00Yes00.004.590.71177034.03306280.70118.9315.15Yes00.00Yes00.005.300.72178539.85358640.82119.7615.42Yes900002.07Yes00.004.050.7330180045.97413770.95120.7115.70Yes900002.07Yes00.002.940.74181552.48472351.08121.7915.97Yes900002.07Yes00.001.960.75183059.38534401.23123.0216.25Yes00.00Yes00.003.180.75184566.55598951.37124.3916.53Yes00.00Yes00.004.560.7631186074.01666101.53125.9216.81Yes00.00Yes00.006.090.78187581.93737391.69127.6117.10Yes00.00Yes00.007.780.79189090.31812801.87129.4817.39Yes900002.07Yes00.007.580.81190598.92890302.04131.5217.69Yes900002.07Yes900002.075.490.82321920107.87970832.23133.7517.99Yes900002.07Yes900002.073.590.831935117.411056692.43136.1818.30Yes900002.07Yes900002.071.880.841950128.061152552.65138.8218.61Yes900002.07Yes900002.070.400.84 1965144.891304002.99141.8218.93Yes900002.07Yes00.001.320.84331980168.141513263.47145.2919.26Yes900002.07Yes00.002.730.851995193.471741224.00149.2919.60Yes900002.07Yes00.004.660.862010219.251973214.53153.8219.94Yes900002.07Yes00.007.130.872025245.532209735.07158.8920.30Yes900002.07Yes900002.078.070.89342040271.502443515.61164.5020.67Yes900002.07Yes900002.079.540.912055296.092664816.12170.6221.06Yes900002.07Yes900002.0711.530.942070318.062862556.57177.1921.46Yes900002.07Yes900002.0713.970.972085329.102961876.80183.9921.87Yes900002.07Yes900002.0716.641.01352100328.462956106.79190.7822.30Yes900002.07Yes900002.0719.291.052115322.502902496.66197.4422.75Yes900002.07Yes900002.0721.821.102130313.532821736.48203.9223.21Yes900002.07Yes900002.0724.171.152145301.852716616.24210.1523.68Yes900002.07Yes900002.0726.271.21362160288.262594355.96216.1124.17Yes900002.07Yes900002.0728.091.282175273.502461505.65221.7624.67Yes900002.07Yes900002.0729.611.342190258.012322055.33227.0925.18Yes900002.07Yes900002.0730.811.412205241.912177225.00232.0925.71Yes900002.07Yes900002.0731.681.48372220225.232027104.65236.7426.24Yes900002.07Yes900002.0732.201.562235208.251874214.30241.0526.78Yes900002.07Yes900002.0732.371.632250191.461723163.96245.0027.34Yes900002.07Yes900002.0732.191.702265175.191576703.62248.6227.90Yes900002.07Yes900002.0731.681.77382280162.681464153.36251.9828.47Yes900002.07Yes900002.0730.911.842295154.391389553.19255.1729.04Yes900002.07Yes900002.0729.971.912310147.961331623.06258.2329.63Yes900002.07Yes900002.0728.891.982325142.611283472.95261.1830.21Yes900002.07Yes900002.0727.702.04392340138.301244692.86264.0330.81Yes00.00Yes900002.0728.502.102355134.711212422.78266.8231.41Yes00.00Yes900002.0729.212.172370131.501183472.72269.5332.02Yes00.00Yes900002.0729.862.242385128.641157792.66272.1932.63Yes00.00Yes900002.0730.462.31402400126.111135032.61274.8033.25Yes900002.07Yes900002.0728.932.372415123.791114082.56277.3533.88Yes900002.07Yes900002.0727.352.432430121.691095172.51279.8734.51Yes900002.07Yes900002.0725.742.492445119.781078062.47282.3435.15Yes900002.07Yes900002.0724.082.55412460118.101062902.44284.7835.79Yes900002.07Yes900002.0722.392.602475116.571049092.41287.1936.44Yes900002.07Yes900002.0720.662.642490115.141036262.38289.5737.09Yes900002.07Yes900002.0718.912.692505113.791024072.35291.9237.75Yes900002.07Yes900002.0717.132.72422520112.451012032.32294.2538.41Yes900002.07Yes900002.0715.322.762535111.111000022.30296.5439.08Yes900002.07Yes900002.0713.482.792550109.79988132.27298.8139.76Yes900002.07Yes900002.0711.622.812565108.52976652.24301.0540.44Yes900002.07Yes900002.079.732.84432580107.24965192.22303.2741.12Yes900002.07Yes900002.077.812.852595105.97953712.19305.4641.81Yes900002.07Yes900002.075.872.872610104.73942532.16307.6242.50Yes900002.07Yes900002.073.902.882625103.49931382.14309.7643.20Yes900002.07Yes900002.071.912.88442640102.24920142.11311.8743.91Yes900002.07Yes900002.07-0.112.882655100.98908782.09313.9644.62Yes900002.07Yes00.00-0.092.88267099.71897402.06316.0245.33Yes900002.07Yes00.00-0.102.88 268598.44885992.03318.0546.05Yes900002.07Yes00.00-0.132.8845270097.17874572.01320.0646.77Yes900002.07Yes00.00-0.192.88271595.90863131.98322.0447.50Yes900002.07Yes00.00-0.272.88273094.63851681.96324.0048.23Yes900002.07Yes00.00-0.382.88274593.36840211.93325.9248.96Yes900002.07Yes00.00-0.522.8846276092.08828721.90327.8349.70Yes900002.07Yes00.00-0.692.88277590.80817221.88329.7050.44Yes900002.07Yes00.00-0.882.87279089.52805701.85331.5551.19Yes900002.07Yes00.00-1.092.87280588.24794171.82333.3851.95Yes900002.07Yes00.00-1.332.8747282086.96782631.80335.1752.70Yes900002.07Yes00.00-1.602.86283585.67771071.77336.9453.46Yes900002.07Yes00.00-1.902.86285084.39759501.74338.6954.23Yes00.00Yes00.00-0.162.86286583.10747921.72340.4054.99Yes00.00Yes00.001.562.8648288081.81736331.69342.0955.77Yes00.00Yes00.003.252.87289580.53724731.66343.7656.54Yes00.00Yes00.004.912.88291079.24713121.64345.3957.32Yes900002.07Yes00.004.492.89292577.94701501.61347.0158.10Yes900002.07Yes00.004.032.9049294076.65689871.58348.5958.89Yes900002.07Yes00.003.552.91295574.60671371.54350.1359.68Yes900002.07Yes00.003.022.92297071.79646121.48351.6160.47Yes900002.07Yes00.002.442.92298568.25614271.41353.0261.27Yes900002.07Yes00.001.782.9350300064.00575961.32354.3562.07Yes900002.07Yes00.001.042.93301559.04531341.22355.5762.87Yes900002.07Yes00.000.192.93303053.39480531.10356.6763.68Yes00.00Yes00.001.302.93304547.08423680.97357.6464.48Yes00.00Yes00.002.272.9451306040.10360940.83358.4765.29Yes00.00Yes00.003.102.94307533.73303530.70359.1766.10Yes00.00Yes00.003.792.95309027.93251370.58359.7466.91Yes00.00Yes00.004.372.96310522.71204390.47360.2167.73Yes00.00Yes00.004.842.9752312018.05162480.37360.5968.54Yes00.00Yes00.005.212.98313513.95125580.29360.8769.35Yes00.00Yes00.005.503.00315010.4093580.21361.0970.17Yes00.00Yes00.005.723.0131657.3866420.15361.2470.98Yes00.00Yes00.005.873.025331804.8943990.10361.3471.80Yes00.00Yes00.005.973.0431952.9126220.06361.4072.61Yes00.00Yes00.006.033.0532101.4513030.03361.4373.43Yes900002.07Yes00.003.993.0632250.484310.01361.4474.25Yes900002.07Yes00.001.943.06 APPENDIX A, SUB-APPENDIX D: Vertical Pump Specification This page intentionally left blank. 28 26 1-24 w w LI. ii!: 22 :::i' ~ f!!.20 C c( w ::c: 18 0 :i c( Z 16 ► C ..J c( b 14 I- 12 10 8 6 3 I-w 2 w LI. ii!: C 1 c( w ::c: ~ 0 u 0 ..J w > CASCADE PUMP COMPANY 10107 South Norwalk Boulevard • PO Box 2767 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670-0767 350 BHP 300 B HP 70% 250 BHP 200 BHP 70% 75% 80% 150 BHP 84% 85% 80% 75% .80 70% .60 75% 1.0 36" 20000 28000 36000 44000 CURVE NUMBER AP4212 03-88 SUPERCEDES NEW ISSUE 75% 70% 1.30 42" 48" 52000 CAPACITY -U.S. GALLONS PER MINUTE [ill IAPI (];] A. :E I-:::, w w A. LI. ii!: I ..J ..J 0 w m ..I z II. 0 ..I j:: 0 cc 20 =, -rn = w ~ 10 m w c( a w 0 cc 0 z CJ w C> en a:: w cc :!! CJ m :) rn :!! :) ~ z :i CURVE CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON PUMP PERFORMANCE WITH SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF CLEAR, NON-AERATED, FRESH COLD WATER. THIS PERFORMANCE CURVE IS FOR ESTIMATING ONLY. CURVE SHOWS SINGLE STAGE PERFORMANCE. FOR MULTIPLE, VAR- IABLE AND OTHER SPEED APPLICATIONS, CONSULT FACTORY. 28 1-24 w w LI. ii!: :::i' ~ f!!.20 C ~ ::c: 0 :i cC Z 16 ~ ..J ~ 12 8 3 I-lit 2 LI. ii!: C ~ 1 ::c: ~ u 0 0 ..J w > CASCADE PUMP COMPANY 10107 South Norwalk Boulevard • PO Box 2767 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670-0767 CURVE NUMBER AP4814 07-92 SUPERCEDES NEW ISSUE 70 INCHES MINIMUM SUBMERGENCE ABOVE SUCTION BELL 70% 350 BHP 300 BHP 70% 75% 250 BHP , 75% 200 BHP 80% 75% 80% 70% 1.00 1.30 75% .80 70% .60 42" 48" 54" 60" 30000 38000 46000 54000 62000 70000 CAPACITY -U.S. GALLONS PER MINUTE [ID IAPI ~ A. :E :::, A. ~ ..I II. ..I cc = w a ~ ! CURVE CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON PUMP PERFORMANCE WITH SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF CLEAR, NON-AERATED, FRESH COLD WATER. THIS PERFORMANCE CURVE IS FOR ESTIMATING ONLY. CURVE SHOWS SINGLE STAGE PERFORMANCE. FOR MULTIPLE, VAR- IABLE AND OTHER SPEED APPLICATIONS, CONSULT FACTORY. APPENDIX A, SUB-APPENDIX E: Submersible Pump Specification This page intentionally left blank.