Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. Ace Metal Corporation

Filing 19

CONSENT DECREE re parties' 17 Joint Motion, signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

HON. THOMAS S. ZILLY

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
ACE METAL CORPORATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
CONSENT DECREE

16
17
I.

18

STIPULATIONS

19

Plaintiff Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (“Soundkeeper”) sent a sixty day notice of intent to

20

sue letter to defendant Ace Metal Corporation (“Ace”) on or about January 30, 2017, and filed a

21

complaint on April 4, 2017, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.,

22

relating to discharges of stormwater from Ace’s facility in Mukilteo, Washington and seeking

23

declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

24

Soundkeeper and Ace agree that settlement of these matters is in the best interest of the

25

parties and the public, and that entry of this Consent Decree is the most appropriate means of

26

resolving this action.

CONSENT DECREE: No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
1

Smith & Lowney, p.l.l.c.
2317 East John St.
Seattle, Washington 98112
[phone]

1
2
3

Soundkeeper and Ace stipulate to the entry of this Consent Decree without trial,
adjudication, or admission of any issues of fact or law regarding Soundkeeper’s claims or
allegations set forth in its complaint and its sixty-day notice.

4

DATED this 15th day of June, 2018

5
GORDON & REES

SMITH & LOWNEY PLLC

By /s/Elizabeth Morrison__________
Elizabeth Morrison, WSBA #43042
Donald Verfurth, WSBA #15554
Attorneys for Defendant
Ace Metal Corporation

By /s/Alyssa Englebrecht
Alyssa Englebrecht, WSBA #46773
Richard Smith, WSBA #21788
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance

ACE METAL CORPORATION

PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE

By /s/James Yoo_________________
James Yoo
President

By /s/Chris Wilke_______________
Chris Wilke
Soundkeeper Executive Director

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

II.

15

ORDER AND DECREE

16

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Consent

17

Decree, docket no. 17 (the “Motion”) and the foregoing Stipulations of the parties. Having

18

considered the Stipulations and the promises set forth below, and the July 31, 2018, letter submitted

19

by the U.S. Department of Justice, docket no. 18, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion and

20
ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES as follows:
21
1.

23
24

Each signatory for the parties certifies for that party that he or she is authorized to

enter into the agreements set forth below.

25
26

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action.

2.

22

3.

This Consent Decree applies to and binds the parties and their successors and

assigns.
CONSENT DECREE: No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
2

Smith & Lowney, p.l.l.c.
2317 East John St.
Seattle, Washington 98112
[phone]

4.

1
2
3
4

This Consent Decree and any injunctive relief ordered within applies to the

operation, oversight, or both by Defendant Ace Metal Corporation (“Ace”) of its Facility at
11110 Mukilteo Speedway #202, Mukilteo, WA 98275 (the “Facility”), which is subject to
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. WAR125520 (the “NPDES

5
6

permit”).
5.

7

This Consent Decree is a full and complete settlement and release of all the claims

8

in the complaint, the sixty-day notice and all other claims known and unknown existing as of the

9

date of entry of this Consent Decree that could be asserted under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.

10

§§ 1251-1387, arising from operations of the Facility. These claims are released and dismissed with

11

prejudice.

Enforcement of this Consent Decree is Plaintiff Puget Soundkeeper Alliance’s

12
(“Soundkeeper”) exclusive remedy for any violation of its terms.
13
6.

14

This Consent Decree is a settlement of disputed facts and law. It is not an admission

15

or adjudication regarding any allegations by Soundkeeper in this case or of any fact or conclusion

16

of law related to those allegations, nor evidence of any wrongdoing or misconduct on the part of

17

Ace.

18
19

7.

Ace agrees to the following terms and conditions in full and complete satisfaction

of all the claims covered by this decree:

20
a.

Ace will comply fully with all conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge

21
Elimination System Permit No. WAR125520 and any successor, modified, or replacement

22
23

permit authorizing discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activity from the

24

Facility.

25

b.

26

For a period of eighteen (18) months after the entry of this Consent Decree,

Ace shall, on a quarterly basis, electronically forward to Soundkeeper copies of all
CONSENT DECREE: No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
3

Smith & Lowney, p.l.l.c.
2317 East John St.
Seattle, Washington 98112
[phone]

1

communications to and/or from the Washington Department of Ecology related to its

2

NPDES permit or stormwater discharges from the facility;

3

c.

4

By September 30, 2018, Ace will install and have operational the

stormwater treatment system proposed and selected in Ace’s May 15, 2018, Engineering

5
Report, attached hereto as Attachment A. The stormwater treatment system will treat

6

not only runoff from all of the facility, but for a portion of the entrance accessway, as

7
8

well as runoff from certain upstream parcels occupied by other businesses. Ace will

9

reimburse Soundkeeper’s reasonable expenses for its expert review of the May 15, 2018,

10

Engineering Report up to $3,000. Soundkeeper will provide Ace with any comments

11

and/or revisions to the May 15, 2018, Engineering Report not later than fourteen (14)

12
days of entry of this Consent Decree. Within thirty (30) days of completion of
13
construction of the treatment system, Ace will update its stormwater pollution

14

prevention plan (“SWPPP”) to reflect the new structure and practices.

15

d.

16

Within ninety (90) days of receiving all necessary permitting from the

17

City of Mukilteo, Ace will install a covered structure in the southwest corner of the

18

Facility to prevent exposure of bins in this area to precipitation and runoff. Once

19

installed, Ace will store the “Boeing bins” and “5x5 bins” under this covered structure.

20
Within thirty (30) days of completion of construction, Ace will update its stormwater
21
pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”) to reflect the new structure and practices. Until

22
23

the covered structure is completed and commencing immediately upon entry of this

24

Consent Decree, Ace will place covers on these bins.

25

e.

26

Within three (3) months of execution of this Consent Decree, Ace will

sample and analyze the stormwater runoff from its roof for the parameters required in
CONSENT DECREE: No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
4

Smith & Lowney, p.l.l.c.
2317 East John St.
Seattle, Washington 98112
[phone]

1

Tables 2 and 3 of NPDES Permit (turbidity, pH, oil sheen, copper, zinc, lead, and

2

petroleum hydrocarbons). If a rain event sufficient to cause a discharge from the roof

3

does not occur within three (3) months of execution of this Consent Decree, Ace will

4

sample and analyze the stormwater runoff from the first such rain event which occurs.

5
Ace will provide the sample results to Soundkeeper within seven (7) days of receiving

6

those results. If the sample results reflect any exceedance(s) of the NPDES Permit

7
8

benchmarks for any of the parameters in Tables 2 and 3, Ace will install roof downspout

9

filters at each of the three downspouts at the Facility within thirty (30) days of receiving

10

the sample results. Such downspout filters must be of a type reasonably expected to

11

remove pollutants exceeding benchmarks from the roof runoff and to thus reduce

12
pollutant concentrations to below benchmarks. Thereafter, Ace will continue to monitor
13
its roof discharges (whether treated or not) as a separate and distinct point of discharge

14
15

from its site, and report the results on its quarterly discharge monitoring reports, as

16

required by the Permit.

17

f.

18

Ace will work with its qualified stormwater consultant to update its

SWPPP to reflect the additional BMPs required by this Consent Decree. Initial updates

19

will be completed no later than October 1, 2018. Ace will provide Soundkeeper with an

20
electronic copy of the SWPPP within thirty (30) days of the initial update and any
21
subsequent revisions. Soundkeeper will thereafter have thirty (30) days to provide

22
23

comments and/or proposed revisions to the revised SWPPP. Ace will consider

24

Soundkeeper’s comments in good faith and respond in writing, if a response is required.

25

8.

26

Not later than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Consent Decree by this Court,

Ace will pay $5,000 (FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS) to the Edmonds Community College
CONSENT DECREE: No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
5

Smith & Lowney, p.l.l.c.
2317 East John St.
Seattle, Washington 98112
[phone]

1

Foundation for a project being conducted by a group of local students regarding prespawn mortality

2

surveys of salmon in Big Gulch Creek, as described in Attachment B to this Consent Decree. The

3
4

check will be made to the order of Edmonds Community College Foundation and delivered to:
Thomas Murphy, Chair of the Dept. of Anthropology, Edmonds Community College, 20000 68th

5
6
7

Avenue W, Lynnwood, WA 98036. Payment will include the following reference in a cover letter
or on the check: “Consent Decree, Soundkeeper v. Ace Metal, Case No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ.” A

8

copy of the check and cover letter, if any, will be sent simultaneously to Soundkeeper and its

9

counsel.

10
11

9.

Within thirty (30) days of entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, Ace will

pay $35,000 (THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS) dollars to cover Soundkeeper’s

12
litigation fees, expenses, and costs (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) by
13
14

check payable and mailed to Smith & Lowney, PLLC, 2317 East John St., Seattle, WA 98112,

15

attn: Richard Smith. Ace’s payment will be in full and complete satisfaction of any claims

16

Soundkeeper has or may have, either legal or equitable, and of any kind or nature whatsoever,

17

for fees, expenses, and costs incurred in the Litigation.

18
19

10.

A force majeure event is any event outside the reasonable control of Ace that

causes a delay in performing tasks required by this decree that cannot be cured by due diligence.

20
Delay in performance of a task required by this decree caused by a force majeure event is not a
21
22

failure to comply with the terms of this decree, provided that Ace timely notifies Soundkeeper

23

of the event; the steps that Ace will take to perform the task; the projected time that will be

24

needed to complete the task; and the measures that have been taken or will be taken to prevent

25

or minimize any impacts to stormwater quality resulting from delay in completing the task.

26

Ace will notify Soundkeeper of the occurrence of a force majeure event as soon as
CONSENT DECREE: No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
6

Smith & Lowney, p.l.l.c.
2317 East John St.
Seattle, Washington 98112
[phone]

1

reasonably possible but, in any case, no later than fifteen (15) days after Ace becomes aware of the

2

event. In such event, the time for performance of the task will be extended for a reasonable period

3

of time following the force majeure event.

4

By way of example and not limitation, force majeure events include

5
a.

Acts of God, war, insurrection, or civil disturbance;

b.

Earthquakes, landslides, fire, floods;

8

c.

Actions or inactions of third parties over which defendant has no control;

9

d.

Unusually adverse weather conditions;

10

e.

Restraint by court order or order of public authority;

f.

Strikes;

g.

Any permit or other approval sought by Ace from a government authority to

6
7

11
12
13

implement any of the actions required by this consent decree where such

14
15

approval is not granted or is delayed, and where Ace has timely and in good

16

faith sought the permit or approval; and

17

h.

18
19

11.

Litigation, arbitration, or mediation that causes delay.

This Court retains jurisdiction over this matter. And, while this Consent Decree

remains in force, this case may be reopened without filing fee so that the parties may apply to the

20
Court for any further order that may be necessary to enforce compliance with this decree or to
21
22

resolve any dispute regarding the terms or conditions of this Consent Decree. In the event of a

23

dispute regarding implementation of, or compliance with, this Consent Decree, the parties must

24

first attempt to resolve the dispute by meeting to discuss the dispute and any suggested measures

25

for resolving the dispute. Such a meeting should be held as soon as practical, but must be held

26

within thirty (30) days after notice of a request for such a meeting to the other party and its counsel
CONSENT DECREE: No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
7

Smith & Lowney, p.l.l.c.
2317 East John St.
Seattle, Washington 98112
[phone]

1

of record. If no resolution is reached at that meeting or within thirty (30) days of the Notice, either

2

party may file a motion with this Court to resolve the dispute. The provisions of section 505(d) of

3
4

the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d), regarding awards of costs of litigation (including
reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any prevailing or substantially prevailing party, will

5
6

apply to any proceedings seeking to enforce the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree.
12.

7

The parties recognize that, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(3), no consent judgment

8

can be entered in a Clean Water Act suit in which the United States is not a party prior to forty-five

9

(45) days following the receipt of a copy of the proposed consent judgment by the U.S. Attorney

10

General and the Administrator of the U.S. EPA. Therefore, upon the filing of this Consent Decree

11

by the parties, Soundkeeper will serve copies of it upon the Administration of the U.S. EPA and

12
the Attorney General, with a copy to Ace.
13
13.

14

This Consent Decree will take effect upon entry by this Court. It terminates two

15

years after that date, or upon completion of all obligations imposed by this Consent Decree,

16

whichever is later.

17

14.

Both parties have participated in drafting this Consent Decree.

18

15.

This Consent Decree may be modified only upon the approval of the Court.

16.

If for any reason the Court should decline to approve this Consent Decree in the

19
20

form presented, this Consent Decree is voidable at the discretion of either party. The parties agree
21
22
23

to continue negotiations in good faith in an attempt to cure any objection raised by the Court to
entry of this Consent Decree.
17.

24
25
26

Notifications required by this Consent Decree must be in writing. The sending party

may use any of the following methods of delivery: (1) personal delivery; (2) registered or certified
mail, in each case return receipt requested and postage prepaid; (3) a nationally recognized
CONSENT DECREE: No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
8

Smith & Lowney, p.l.l.c.
2317 East John St.
Seattle, Washington 98112
[phone]

1

overnight courier, with all fees prepaid; or (4) email. For a notice or other communication regarding

2

this decree to be valid, it must be delivered to the receiving party at the one or more addresses listed

3
4

below or to any other address designated by the receiving party in a notice in accordance with this
paragraph 17.

5
If to Soundkeeper:

6

Katelyn Kinn
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance
130 Nickerson Street, Suite 107
Seattle, WA 98109
Email: [e-mail]

7
8
9
10

And to:

11

Alyssa Englebrecht
Richard Smith
Smith & Lowney PLLC
2317 East John St.
Seattle, WA 98112
email: [e-mail], [e-mail]

12
13
14
15

If to Ace:

16

19

James Yoo
Ace Metal Corporation
1110 Mukilteo Speedway, #202
Mukilteo, WA 98275
Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]

20

And to:

21

24

Donald Verfurth
Elizabeth Morrison
Gordon & Rees, LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98104
Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]

25

A notice or other communication regarding this Consent Decree will be effective when

17
18

22
23

26

received unless the notice or other communication is received after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, or
CONSENT DECREE: No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
9

Smith & Lowney, p.l.l.c.
2317 East John St.
Seattle, Washington 98112
[phone]

1

on a day that is not a business day, then the notice will be deemed received at 9:00 a.m. on the next

2

business day. A notice or other communication will be deemed to have been received: (a) if it is

3
4

delivered in person or sent by registered or certified mail or by nationally recognized overnight
courier, upon receipt as indicated by the date on the signed receipt; or (b) if the receiving party

5
6
7

rejects or otherwise refuses to accept it, or if it cannot be delivered because of a change in address
for which no notice was given, then upon that rejection, refusal, or inability to deliver; or (c) for

8

notice provided by e-mail, upon receipt of a response by the party providing notice or other

9

communication regarding this Consent Decree.

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
DATED this 10th day of August, 2018.
12
13

A

14
15

Thomas S. Zilly
United States District Judge

16
17

Presented by:

18
GORDON & REES

SMITH & LOWNEY PLLC

By s/Elizabeth Morrison_____________
Elizabeth Morrison, WSBA #43042
Donald Verfurth, WSBA #15554
Attorneys for Defendant
Ace Metal Corporation

By s/Alyssa Englebrecht
Alyssa Englebrecht, WSBA #46773
Richard Smith, WSBA #21788
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1133933/38647452v.1

CONSENT DECREE: No. 2:17-cv-00524-TSZ
10

Smith & Lowney, p.l.l.c.
2317 East John St.
Seattle, Washington 98112
[phone]

Attachment A

FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT
Prepared for:

Ace Metal Company
11110 Mukilteo Speedway #202, Mukilteo, WA 98275
For submittal to:

Washington Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452

Prepared by: Aspect Consulting, LLC

May 15, 2018

ASPECT CONSULTING

CERTIFICATION
The technical material and data contained in this document were prepared under the
supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seals, as a professional engineer
licensed to practice as such, are affixed below.

Owen G. Reese, PE
Sr. Associate Water Resources Engineer
[e-mail]

Aspect Consulting, LLC
V:\170124 Ace Metal\Deliverables\Engineering Report\Ace Metal Engineering Report_2018515.docx

earth+water

Aspect Consulting, LLC 401 2nd Avenue S. Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104 206.328.7443 www.aspectconsulting.com

ASPECT CONSULTING

Contents

1

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Document Organization ........................................................................... 2

2

Facility Information ..................................................................................... 3
2.1 Facility Operation Information ................................................................. 3
2.2 Contact Information .................................................................................. 4
2.3 Potential Stormwater Pollutants .............................................................. 4
2.2 Existing Stormwater Management System Information ....................... 4
2.3 Water Quality Monitoring ........................................................................ 5

3

Stormwater Treatment Alternatives Considered and Selected Option . 7
3.1 Target Treatment System Performance .................................................. 7
3.2 Alternatives Considered ........................................................................... 7
3.2.1
Combined Wet Pond/Detention Pond ................................................ 7
3.2.2
StormwateRx Aquip ........................................................................... 8
3.2.3
BioClean Environmental Modular Wetland System ......................... 8
3.2.4
Chitosan Enhanced Sand Filtration (CESF) ....................................... 8
3.2.5
Electrocoagulation .............................................................................. 8
3.3 Selected Option ...................................................................................... 10

4

Information on Proposed Stormwater Management System ............... 12
4.1 Site Layout .............................................................................................. 12
4.2 Hydrologic Analyses ............................................................................... 12
4.3 Treatment System Information.............................................................. 13
4.4 Amount and Type of Chemical Used in Treatment Process ................ 14
4.5 Provisions for Emergency Overflow ...................................................... 14
4.6 Constituent Removal and Disposal ....................................................... 14
4.7 Anticipated Results ................................................................................. 14
4.8 Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 15

5

Implementation Schedule ........................................................................ 16

6

References.................................................................................................. 17

7

Limitations ................................................................................................. 18
i

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

i

ASPECT CONSULTING

List of Tables
1

Summary of Potential Stormwater Pollutant Sources... ........................4

2

Ace Metal Historical Sampling Results (attached)

3

Targets for Treatment System Performance ..........................................7

4

Treatment Alternatives Comparison Matrix .........................................10

5

Hydrologic Modeling Results.................................................................13

List of Figures
1

Site Location Map

2

Facility Stormwater Map

3

Proposed Treatment System

List of Appendices
A
B

Roof Downspout Filter Information

C

ii

Hydrologic Analyses Information

Modular Wetland System Operation and Maintenance Manual

FINAL

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

ASPECT CONSULTING

Acronyms
Ace Metal

Ace Metal Corporation, dba Ace Metal Company

Aspect

Aspect Consulting, LLC

BMP

best management practice

cfs

cubic feet per second

CESF

Chitosan Enhanced Sand Filtration

DMR

discharge monitoring report

EC

electrocoagulation

Ecology

Washington State Department of Ecology

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

gpm

gallons per minute

gpm/sf

gallons per minute per square foot

GULD

General Use Level Designation

HSPF

Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran

ISGP

Industrial Stormwater General Permit

µg/L

micrograms per liter

MWS

Modular Wetland System

mg/L

milligrams per liter

O&M

operations and maintenance

NPDES

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NTU

Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

SIC

Standard Industrial Classification

SWMMWW

Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington

WWHM

Western Washington Hydrology Model 3

iii

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

iii

ASPECT CONSULTING

1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Ace Metal Corporation, dba Ace Metal Company (Ace Metal), operates a ferrous and
nonferrous scrap recycling center, including consumer electronics, located at 11110
Mukilteo Speedway, #202 in Mukilteo, Washington (Facility). On January 1, 2010, the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISGP) Number
WAR-125520 to the Facility (Ecology, 2014a). The permit covers stormwater discharges
associated with industrial activity at the Facility.
In 2014, the Facility’s stormwater quality at monitoring point A2 exceeded the ISGP
benchmarks for copper and zinc in three quarters. Accordingly, the ISGP required
completion of a Level 3 Corrective Action by September 30, 2015.
The ISGP requires that Ecology review and approve an Engineering Report describing
the planned Level 3 Corrective Action prior to implementation. The ISGP requires that an
Engineering Report provide the following:
•

A brief summary of the treatment alternatives considered, and why the proposed
option was selected.

•

The basic design data and sizing calculations of the treatment units.

•

A description of the treatment process and operation, including a flow diagram.

•

The amount and kind of chemicals used in the treatment process, if any.

•

Results to be expected from the treatment process, including the predicted
stormwater discharge characteristics.

•

A statement expressing sound engineering justification through the use of pilot
plant data, results from similar installations, and/or scientific evidence that the
proposed treatment is reasonably expected to meet the permit benchmarks.

•

An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual.

•

Certification by a licensed professional engineer.

This Engineering Report was prepared by Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect) in
accordance with the Guidelines for the Preparation of Industrial Stormwater General
Permit Engineering Reports (Ecology, 2013).
Ace Metal has reviewed the Level 3 Corrective Action alternatives and selected BioClean
Environmental’s Modular Wetland Systems (MWS) as the preferred technology for
treating stormwater runoff at the Facility. In addition, roof runoff will be evaluated, and if

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

1

ASPECT CONSULTING

concentrations exceed ISGP benchmarks, roof downspout treatment system will be
installed. This Engineering Report describes the proposed Level 3 Corrective Action.

1.2 Document Organization
This document is organized into five main sections. Section 1 provides an introduction
and background information. Section 2 provides information on the Facility and the
existing stormwater management system. Section 3 summarizes the stormwater treatment
alternatives that were considered and the option that was selected. Section 4 provides
information on the new stormwater management system, including Facility layout and
sizing analyses. Section 5 provides the implementation schedule.
The report also contains three appendices:
•
•

Appendix B— Roof Downspout Filter Information

•

2

Appendix A—Hydrologic Analyses Information

Appendix C— Modular Wetland System Operation and Maintenance Manual

FINAL

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

ASPECT CONSULTING

2 Facility Information
2.1 Facility Operation Information
Ace Metal’s Facility is located in a commercial and light industrial area of Mukilteo
(Figure 1). Ace Metal operates under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 5093
– Scrap and Waste Metals.
Ace Metal recycles ferrous and nonferrous scrap metal, including consumer electronics.
The Mukilteo location is open to the public for drop off of metals and electronics for
recycling. The facility also offers container services for businesses recycling bulk
amounts of scrap metals. A small fleet of vehicles transports the containers back to the
facility for consolidation before shipment off-site for recycling.
The Facility layout, stormwater system, and location of industrial activities performed
outdoors are shown on Figure 2. Scrap metals and appliances are received, temporarily
stored, and then shipped offsite; these materials are generally not processed (e.g.,
shredded, disassembled, crushed, etc.) on site. Electronics, particularly TVs and
computers, are received on site and are processed. Processing occurs inside the building
and consists of disassembly and sorting, as well as draining of lamps from projection
TVs. Plastics and circuit boards are baled in a covered location located just outside the
building. Glass, plastic cases, and electronics are separated and packaged for off-site
recycling. Mercury containing LCD bulbs are removed from TVs and consolidated for
shipment in a separate room inside the building. Vehicle recycling is not performed at the
facility.
The Facility entrance is located off Mukilteo Speedway on the northeastern side of the
Facility. The Facility shares an entrance with several adjacent businesses, including a
small retail shop located in the same building. A fence with a gate separates the industrial
operations from the neighboring businesses. Traffic enters through the gate and is
unloaded near the building.
Recyclables brought in by public customers are transferred to bins. Scrap metal and
appliances are weighed at one of two scales – one outside for heavier materials and a
smaller scale inside the building. Materials are sorted into bins of various sizes and
temporarily stored.
Televisions and computers are disassembled inside the building, and plastic, glass,
electronic components and lamps are sorted. Projection TV lamps are further
disassembled for recycling, including draining them of oil. The waste oil is collected in
drums for recycling. LCD lamps containing mercury are removed in a separate room and
packaged for recycling off site. All disassembly work occurs inside the building.
Once sorted, plastic cases and electronic components (e.g., circuit boards) are baled,
wrapped, and temporarily stored for recycling. Storage occurs within the building and in
containers located in the storage yard. Baled plastics are stored outside.
The building roof is flat and surfaced with thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO). The roof has
several skylights and a ventilation fan that is no longer used. Ecology conducted an

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

3

ASPECT CONSULTING

assessment of roofing materials, including TPO, in 2013 and 2014 and concluded that
concentrations of copper (0.25 J1 to 0.76 µg/L) and zinc (2.6 J to 7.6 µg/L) in runoff from
the TPO panel were well below ISGP benchmarks (Ecology, 2014).

2.2 Contact Information
Contact information for the Facility owner and operator is as follows:
Ace Metal Company
11110 Mukilteo Speedway, #202, Mukilteo, WA
Facility Contact: James Yoo (owner)
o Office: [phone]
o Email: [e-mail]

2.3 Potential Stormwater Pollutants
Table 1 below summarizes likely stormwater pollutants, identifies potential sources, and
rates their potential to come into contact with stormwater.
Table 1. Summary of Potential Stormwater Pollutant Sources
Pollutant

Potential Sources

Potential Contact with
Stormwater

Metals accepted for recycling
Copper, Zinc

Trucks, customer vehicles, and forklifts, including
tire and brake pad wear

High

Zinc

Rooftop materials1

High

Oil and
Grease,
NWTPH-DX

Incidental drips or leakage from vehicles and
equipment

Moderate

Turbidity

Particulates tracked on site, carried on by wind,
or associated with scrap metal.

Moderate

Note:
1) Roofing materials are unlikely to be a source of metals, but roof runoff has not been separately
characterized and the ventilation fan and skylights may be potential sources.

2.2

Existing Stormwater Management System
Information

The layout of the stormwater management system is shown on Figure 2. Facility
stormwater discharges to the City of Mukilteo’s municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) in Mukilteo Speedway. The City’s drainage system conveys water north and
ultimately discharges to Big Gulch Creek.

1

4

J qualifier indicates that the concentration is an estimate.

FINAL

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

ASPECT CONSULTING

The Facility receives off-site stormwater from an approximately 2-acre
industrial/commercial development located to the southwest. The stormwater is piped
into catch basin A3 as shown on Figure 2. The adjacent development was constructed in
1998, and construction plans obtained from the City of Mukilteo show that the drainage
system consists of a pipe and catch basin network that drains to an off-line coalescing
plate oil/water separator, then a 194-foot-long, 60-inch-diameter corrugated metal pipe
(CMP) detention pipe. The outlet control structure for the detention pipe is located near
the western corner of Ace Metal facility, as is connected by pipe to catch basin A3.
The Facility’s stormwater system consists of three catch basins and two detention
facilities arranged in two branches (as shown on Figure 2). The main branch consists of
catch basins A3 and A2 and receives runoff from the majority of the industrial area at the
Facility. The pipe between A3 and A2 is designed for detention, and an outlet control
structure is located in A2. The outlet control structure consists of a single orifice tee,
designed to provide spill control [previously known as a Flow Restrictor Oil Pollution
control tee (FROP-T)]. Flows released from A2 travel in a pipe to A1.
The second branch of the stormwater system begins at a detention pond located in the
northern corner of the Facility. The detention pond receives limited surface inflows from
the vegetated area in front of the buildings and the main facility roof. The main facility
roof drains to three downspouts on the northern side of the building. The downspouts are
connected to a below-grade pipe that drains toward the detention pond. The detention
pond drains to A1.
A second FROP-T style outlet control structure is located in catch basin A1. It detains
flows and backs them up to the detention pond and a small portion of the pipe between
A2 and A1. The slope between A2 and A1 is moderate (4.8 percent) and there is 2.3 feet
of head between the top of the riser and the pipe invert, so water can only back up about
50 feet (approximately 1/3 of the pipe length) toward A2.
The outlet pipe from A1 is connected to the City of Mukilteo’s MS4 in Mukilteo
Speedway.

2.3

Water Quality Monitoring

Stormwater quality at the Facility is monitored quarterly as required by the ISGP. Prior to
2017, monitoring was conducted at catch basins A1, A2, and A3. In May 2017, Ace
Metal updated the sampling program to monitor only at A1, which receives stormwater
from all areas of the Facility and is most representative of the discharge from the Facility.
Monitoring results are shown in Table 2. The data shown in Table 2 are based on the
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted by Ace Metal, but have been checked
against the original laboratory reports and corrections made, where necessary. In
particular, Facility personnel incorrectly interpreted the laboratory reports for total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (NWTPH-Dx) and consistently reported concentrations that
were higher than actual by a factor of 1,000. The error occurred because staff did not
convert from the report reported in in micrograms per liter (µg/L) on the laboratory report
to concentrations in milligrams per liter (mg/L) for the DMR. As a result, the actual
NWTPH-Dx concentrations are much lower than represented on the DMRs.

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

5

ASPECT CONSULTING

As indicated in Table 2, copper and zinc concentrations have typically exceeded
benchmarks, with median concentrations at A1 of 22 µg/L of copper and 240 µg/L of
zinc. Turbidity has increased over time, and the four of the last five samples from A1
have exceeded the benchmark of 25 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU), although two
of those samples were only slightly above. Results from the first quarter of 2017 sample
appear anomalously high relative to typical conditions and it is likely that conditions
during this sampling event are not representative of normal operations.
Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations have consistently been below benchmarks.
Facility staff reportedly marked Yes for Visible Oil Sheen even though the sampler did
not identify sheen, because they felt sheen had to be present based on their
misinterpretation of the NWTPH-Dx concentrations relative to benchmark. Thus, the oil
sheen results were not reviewed in evaluating stormwater treatment technologies.

6

FINAL

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

ASPECT CONSULTING

3 Stormwater Treatment Alternatives Considered
and Selected Option
3.1 Target Treatment System Performance
Targets for treatment system performance are shown in Table 3. These targets were
developed based on the highest pollutant concentrations experienced in the past three
years of monitoring at A1, excluding the anomalous event in first quarter of 2017.
Table 3. Targets for Treatment System Performance

Parameter

Units

Maximum
Concentration in
Last 3 Years

ISGP
Benchmark

Target
Percent
Reduction

Turbidity
Copper

NTU
µg/L

53
86

25
14

53%
84%

Lead

µg/L

94

81.6

13%

Zinc

µg/L

380

117

69%

3.2 Alternatives Considered
The following treatment best management practices (BMPs) were screened for the
Facility:
•
•
•
•
•

Storage and settling with either aboveground ponds and/or tanks
StormwateRx Aquip
BioClean Environmental Modular Wetland System
Chitosan Enhanced Sand Filtration (CESF)
Electrocoagulation (EC)

These treatment alternatives are discussed below, and a treatment alternatives comparison
matrix is provided in Table 4.

3.2.1 Combined Wet Pond/Detention Pond
Retrofit of the existing stormwater detention pond into a combined wet pond/detention
pond was evaluated as a passive, nonproprietary treatment technology. The wet pond
function would be designed consistent with BMP T10.40 of the 2014 Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW; Ecology, 2014c);
however, the detention function would remain as designed for compliance with the
applicable stormwater regulations for site development in the 1980s.
Creating a combined wet pond/detention pond would require installation of a flow splitter
below A2, conveyance of stormwater to the wet pond location, and construction of the
wet pond. The wet pond would require excavating to a depth of at least 5 feet and a total
volume of 1,700 cubic feet (approximately 13,000 gallons). Treatment performance of a
wet pond would likely not be sufficient at the Facility to achieve the target removal rates

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

7

ASPECT CONSULTING

identified in Table 3, particularly for copper and zinc. Therefore, this technology was
eliminated based on treatment performance.

3.2.2 StormwateRx Aquip
StormwateRx’s Aquip technology is a patented, enhanced media filtration system that
removes both fine particulates and dissolved pollutants in simple and easy-to-use
configurations. Based on Aquip’s demonstrated track record successfully treating sites
with influent water quality similar to or worse than the Facility; the ease of installation;
and relatively low costs, Aquip is a viable treatment alternative at the Facility. However,
an Aquip system would require an aboveground installation and pump station, which
adds cost, reduces available space, and requires additional maintenance. Ecology has
approved the Aquip as a Conditional Use Level Designation (CULD) technology for
Enhanced Treatment.

3.2.3 BioClean Environmental Modular Wetland System
BioClean Environmental’s Modular Wetland System (MWS) is a media filtration system
using horizontal flow to maximize the surface area exposed to stormwater flow, which
reduces the footprint required. MWS uses a proprietary biofiltration media named
Wetland Media™. The technology also includes a pretreatment chamber with prefiltration cartridges with BioMediaGREEN media. The pretreatment chamber removes
sediment and hydrocarbons through separation, settling, and filtration, extending the life
of the primary media. Flow rate through an MWS is controlled by an orifice at the outlet.
MWSs can be configured with, or without, an internal high flow bypass weir to provide
flow splitting. Plants are not necessary for treatment system performance, so MWSs can
be installed below grade. Ecology has approved MWS as a General Use Level
Designation (GULD) technology for Enhanced Treatment. It is anticipated that an MWS
would result in consistent achievement of ISGP benchmarks. Given the treatment
performance, hydraulic feasibility, and relative low cost, a MWS is a viable treatment
alternative at the Facility.

3.2.4 Chitosan Enhanced Sand Filtration (CESF)
CESF relies on chemical and physical processes to coagulate fine solids-containing
contaminants such as metals, which can then be settled and/or filtered. Liquid chitosan
acetate is added as a coagulant at controlled dosing rates depending on the turbidity of the
influent water. Ecology has approved CESF as a General Use Level Designation
(GULD) technology for Erosion and Sediment Control. It is anticipated that CESF
treatment would result in ISGP benchmarks being achieved; however, CESF was not
further considered as a treatment alternative at the Facility since it is relatively expensive
compared to other viable treatment options.

3.2.5 Electrocoagulation
Electrocoagulation (EC) systems generate a coagulation process by passing electrical
current across sacrificial steel or aluminum electrodes. In addition to coagulating solids
and precipitating metals, the process can electrochemically oxidize metals and organics.
The coagulated solids are subsequently settled and/or filtered using a sand filter. Ecology
has approved Water Tectonic’s implementation of electrocoagulation as a GULD
technology for Erosion and Sediment Control. It is anticipated that EC treatment would

8

FINAL

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

ASPECT CONSULTING

result in ISGP benchmarks at the Facility being achieved; however, EC was not further
considered since it is relatively expensive compared to other viable treatment options.

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

9

ASPECT CONSULTING

Table 4. Treatment Alternatives Comparison Matrix
Combined Wet
Pond/Detention
StormwateRx
Pond
Aquip
Expected
• Could lower turbidity • Would lower
Water Quality and possibly help
turbidity and
Performance
with metals
metals
concentrations
Advantages

Risks

• Passive operation
• Relatively lower
capital costs
• Proven for turbidity
in stormwater

Chemicals

• Generally passive • Passive operation
operation
• Relatively lower
• Relatively lower
capital costs
capital costs
• Proven for turbidity
and metals in
stormwater
• Portable

• Not proven for
• Susceptible to oil
metals
and solids fouling
• Relatively large
• Requires pump
space requirements station
• Significant
• No backwash
earthwork
mechanism

Maintenance • Periodic solids
removal and
vegetation
maintenance

• None

ChitosanModular Wetland
Enhanced
System
Sand Filtration Electrocoagulation
• Would lower
• Would lower
• Would lower
turbidity and metals turbidity and
turbidity and
concentrations
metals
metals
concentrations
concentrations
• Generally
unaffected by oils
or heavy solids
load
• Proven for turbidity
and metals in
stormwater
• Portable

• Not portable
• Relatively active • Relatively active
• Excavation required control required
control required
• Requires pump • Requires pump
station
station
• Susceptible to oil • Relatively higher
and solids
capital costs
fouling
• Relatively higher
capital costs

• Solids removal and • Solids removal,
media replacement periodic media
replacement, and
vegetation
management (if
planted)
• None

Estimated $75,000
Approximate
Capital Cost
Additional • Not selected Comments
performance

• Generally
passive
operation
• Proven for
turbidity and
metals in
stormwater
• Portable

• None

$150,000

$125,000

• Not selected – cost • Recommended
and space
treatment method

• Solids removal
and media
replacement

• Cell replacement
(approximately
every 1 million
gallons)
• Solids removal and
media
replacement
• Chitosan acetate • NaOH
• Brine (if needed)
$250,000

$250,000

• Not selected –
cost and space

• Not selected – cost
and space

Notes:
N/A = not applicable

3.3 Selected Option
MWS was selected as the preferred treatment technology based on anticipated treatment
performance, passive (gravity-driven) operations, lack of chemical addition, and cost.

10

FINAL

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

ASPECT CONSULTING

Ecology’s GULD approval for the MWS included findings of fact documenting the
following pollutant removal rates:
•

Total Suspended Solids: removal ranged from 99 percent in laboratory testing to
85 percent in field testing;

•

Copper: Dissolved copper removal ranged from 93 percent in laboratory testing
(at an influent concentration of 757 µg/L) to a lower 95th percentile confidence
level of 32.5 percent in field testing (at influent concentrations ranging from 5 to
20 µg/L); and

•

Zinc: Dissolved zinc removal ranged from 80.5 percent in laboratory testing (at
an influent concentration of 950 µg/L) to a lower 95th percentile confidence level
of 65 percent (at influent concentrations of 20 to 300 µg/L).

Removal efficiencies for total copper and zinc will meet or exceed the treatment
performance for dissolved metals.
Based on these results and the source controls being implemented by Ace Metal, the
MWS technology is anticipated to be able to meet ISGP benchmarks.

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

11

ASPECT CONSULTING

4 Information on Proposed Stormwater
Management System
This section describes the stormwater infrastructure modifications and stormwater
treatment system selected for the Facility. The design of the new stormwater management
system has been prepared following guidance presented in the Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington (Ecology, 2014c).
Additional information related to the design of the stormwater management system is
provided in Appendix A, Hydrologic Analyses Information.

4.1 Site Layout
The treatment system would be located in a parking space between catch basins A1 and
A2, as shown on Figure 3. The treatment system would receive detained runoff from the
off-site neighbor (2 acres), detained runoff from A2 and A3, and undetained runoff
flowing to a new inlet installed in the treatment system lid. Thus, the treatment system
would treat runoff from all industrial areas of the Facility (0.48 acres total) including
catch basins A3, A2, and the Facility entrance and loading and unloading area.

4.2 Hydrologic Analyses
The Western Washington Hydrology Model 2012 (WWHM2012) was used to simulate
stormwater runoff from the treatment drainage basin (0.48 acres) to determine the
required design flow rate for the treatment system and the neighboring property (1.97
acres) to design the diversion system.
WWHM2012 is a continuous-simulation hydrologic model developed by Ecology and
based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Hydrologic Simulation
Program Fortran (HSPF). The model simulates the hydrology of an area on a 15-minute
time-step basis, based on historical precipitation data and user inputs about the land
characteristics.
The key model inputs are the location (to determine the most appropriate historical
precipitation series) and land-use characteristics of the Facility. Precipitation used to
represent conditions at the Facility was from the Everett weather station, with a scaling
factor determined by WWHM2012 of 0.8.
The pipe storage detention systems on the neighboring property and at A2 were simulated
in WWHM as custom Stage-Storage-Discharge (SSD) tables based on the design shown
on their respective record drawings.
WWHM2012 was used to evaluate the following design parameters:
•

Water quality treatment flow rate (as required by the 2014 SWMMWW) as the
sum of:
o The 2-year release from the off-site neighbor’s detention system,
o The 2-year release from the A2 detention system, and

12

FINAL

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

ASPECT CONSULTING

o The off-line water quality treatment flow rate (i.e., the rate necessary to treat
91 percent of the total stormwater runoff) for the un-detained runoff entering
the new inlet at the treatment system.
•

Peak flow rates to evaluate the hydraulic capacity of the diversion piping and
internal flow splitter.

The water quality treatment design rate for the Facility is 183 gpm (0.41 cubic feet per
second [cfs]). A summary of the hydrologic modeling results is provided in Table 5.
Table 5. Hydrologic Model Results
Parameter

Treatment Basin

Facility:
Water Quality Flow

0.41 cfs (183 gpm)

100-year Peak Flow

0.45 cfs

Neighboring Property:
100-year Peak Flow

1.61 cfs

Notes:
cfs = cubic feet per second
gpm = gallons per minute

Details of the hydrologic analysis are provided in Appendix A.

4.3 Treatment System Information
The proposed treatment system is a Modular Wetland System, model number
MWS-L-8-16. The treatment system would be located at the downgradient edge of the
area of industrial activity at the Facility, as shown on Figure 3.
The treatment system would include the following components:
•

Inlet grate in the lid of the pre-treatment chamber;

•

Inlet pipe originating from A2;

•

Prefiltration cartridge containing a proprietary media, BioMediaGreen;

•

Internal flow splitting weir to direct flows in excess of the design flow rate
directly to the outlet chamber;

•

Biofiltration chamber consisting of:
o Perimeter void area – after passing through the prefiltration cartridges, flow
enters a perimeter void area that distributes water around the sides of the
biofiltration media;
o Biofiltration media, a proprietary blended biofiltration media named Wetland
Media™;

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

13

ASPECT CONSULTING

o Vertical underdrain system – creates horizontal flow through the biofiltration
media;
o An outlet orifice to control the flow rate through the treatment system; and
o Optional lid or vegetative cover. Vegetation is not required for treatment
system performance.
•

Outlet chamber where treated stormwater and bypassed high flows would
reconnect with the drainage system and travel to A1.

The exterior dimensions of treatment unit are about 9 feet wide, 17 feet long, and 7.5 feet
deep. The unit contains 7.3 cubic feet of wetland media with a treatment surface area of
~207 square feet. At a hydraulic loading of 1 gpm per square foot (sf), the MWS-L-8-16
is rated for a treatment flow rate of 207 gpm or 0.462 cfs.
In addition to the Modular Wetland System, roof runoff will be monitored. If
concentrations exceed the ISGP benchmarks, Grattix roof downspout filters will be
installed on the three downspouts from the main building roof. Additional information
about Grattix filters is presented in Appendix B.

4.4 Amount and Type of Chemical Used in Treatment
Process
No chemicals are proposed in the treatment process.

4.5 Provisions for Emergency Overflow
Stormwater events exceeding the water quality design flow will bypass treatment by
flowing over a high-flow bypass weir internal to the treatment system vault.

4.6 Constituent Removal and Disposal
Sediment, media, and other materials collected in the treatment system will be profiled
and disposed at a properly licensed off-site disposal facility.

4.7 Anticipated Results
Assuming proper installation, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Level 3
Corrective Action, it is anticipated that effluent concentrations will meet ISGP
benchmark values.

14

FINAL

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

ASPECT CONSULTING

4.8 Operation and Maintenance
O&M requirements for MWSs are described in the O&M Manual presented in Appendix
C. The primary maintenance requirements are:
1) Removing trash and debris from the pretreatment chamber;
2) Periodically replacing pre-treatment media (typically every 1 to 2 years); and
3) Trimming vegetation.
Replacement of biofiltration media is not anticipated to be routinely required.

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

15

ASPECT CONSULTING

5 Implementation Schedule
The primary components of implementation involve:
•

Obtain Ecology approval of the Engineering Report;

•

Local permitting with City of Mukilteo;

•

Material procurement and construction planning; and

•

Construction of the new treatment system and related infrastructure.

The target schedule would result in construction completed within 4.5 months, according
to the following breakdown: Ecology approval within 60 days of submittal, local
permitting concurrent with Ecology’s review, then 1 month for contracting and
procurement, and finally 1A month for construction and about 15 days of contingent time
for schedule delays.
The construction activities will be conducted during summer 2018 with the goal of
having the new stormwater treatment system installed and operational by September 30,
2018.
After construction, Ace Metal will own, operate, and maintain the stormwater
management system.
Ace Metal does not currently have any future plans for expansion of their Facility, but is
pursuing a building permit to construct a covered area to further reduce exposure of
stormwater to pollutants. The roof will be located over an existing paved area, so no
changes will be necessary to the hydrologic calculations or treatment facility sizing.
The proposed treatment system will comply with all local, state, and federal water
pollution control acts or plans, and will improve the quality of stormwater discharged
from the Facility by reducing input levels of metals and turbidity.

16

FINAL

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

ASPECT CONSULTING

6 References
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2013, Guidelines for the
Preparation of Industrial Stormwater General Permit Engineering Reports,
Publication no. 13-10-007, Water Quality Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, February 2013.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2014a, Industrial Stormwater
General Permit, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2014b, Roofing Materials
Assessment, Investigation of Toxic Chemicals in Roof Runoff, Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Pub No. 14-03-003. February 2014.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2014c, Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington. Publication No. 04-10-076. Water Quality
Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

FINAL

17

ASPECT CONSULTING

7 Limitations
Work for this project was performed for Ace Metals Company (Client), and this report
was prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature
and conditions of work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work
was performed. This report does not represent a legal opinion. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made.
All reports prepared by Aspect Consulting for the Client apply only to the services
described in the Agreement(s) with the Client. Any use or reuse by any party other than
the Client is at the sole risk of that party, and without liability to Aspect Consulting.
Aspect Consulting’s original files/reports shall govern in the event of any dispute
regarding the content of electronic documents furnished to others.

18

FINAL

PROJECT NO 170124  MAY 15, 2018

TABLE

Table 2. Ace Metal Historical Sampling Results
Project No: 170124 - Ace Metal, Mukilteo, WA
Sampling Point - A1
Turbidity
in NTU

pH
in S.U.

NWTPHDx
in mg/L

Total
Copper in Total Lead Total Zinc Visible Oil
sheen
µg/L
in µg/L
in µg/L

Year Qtr. Sample Date
2
No Sample
3
No Sample
2012 4
10/30/2012
7.15
0.3
26
No
36
310
1
3/27/2013
6.52
0.25 U
6.2
3.7
50
No
47
2
6/20/2013
11
6.65
1.1
26
No
140
570
3
No Sample
2013 4
10/2/2013
6.9
6.56
0.25
10
4.3
No
220
1/7/2014
14
6.69
0.54
16
8.3
140
No
1
3/28/2014
0U
6.52
0.57
25
14
120
No
Average
14
N/A
0.555
11.15
N/A
20.5
130
2
No Sample
3
7/24/2014
4.5
6.57
0.36
8.3
40
330
Yes
12/19/2014
3.8
6.53
11
5
87
No
2014 4
1
3/16/2015
6.1
6.32
3.4
15
Yes
22
240
2
No Sample
3
No Sample
2015 4
12/22/2015
4.8
6.65
0.61
9.8
86
Yes
15
1
No Sample
2
No Sample
3
9/30/2016
7.24
0.78
1.2
54
Yes
53
15
2016 4
No Sample
3/29/2017
100
8.32
20
1300
2300
3400
1
Yes
32
5.5
52
45
250
2
5/11/2017
2
No
3
No Sample
11/9/2017
27
4
2.36
86
94
380
No
2017 4
2018 1
2/2/2018
19
5.5
39
35
280
1.8
No
Benchmark Value
25
5 to 9
10
14
81.6
117
No
Maximum
100
8.32
20
1300
2300
3400
Yes
Average
25
6.42
2.6
128
185
456
N/A
Median
14
6.55
1.1
22
11.2
240
No
Minimum
3.8
4
0.25
6.2
1.2
50
No
Number of Samples
14
15
14
15
15
15
15
Notes:
- = No Sample or Not Analyzed
Bold = Benchmark Exceedance
N/A = Not applicable - averaging pH and Oil Sheen is not allowed under the ISGP.
NWTPH-Dx = Northwest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Diesel extended range. NWTPH-Dx results shown are
the sum of oil- and diesel-range hydrocarbons.
NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit
mg/L = milligrams per liter
S.U. = standard pH units
U = Not detected at given detection limit. Half detection limit used for summary statistics.
µg/L = micrograms per liter

Aspect Consulting
5/15/2018
V:\170124 Ace Metal\Deliverables\Engineering Report\Table 2 - Monitoring Results.xlsx

Table 2
Engineering Report
Page 1 of 3

Table 2. Ace Metal Historical Sampling Results
Project No: 170124 - Ace Metal, Mukilteo, WA
Sampling Point - A2
Turbidity
in NTU

pH
in S.U.

Year Qtr. Sample Date
2
No Sample
3
No Sample
2012 4
10/30/2012
7.15
1
3/27/2013
6.48
45
2
6/20/2013
11
6.63
3
No Sample
2013 4
10/2/2013
7
6.62
1/7/2014
13
6.73
1
3/28/2014
14
6.54
Average
13.5
N/A
2
No Sample
3
7/24/2014
5.5
6.62
12/19/2014
5.2
6.53
2014 4
1
3/16/2015
4.4
6.36
2
No Sample
3
No Sample
2015 4
12/22/2015
5.3
6.68
1
No Sample
2
No Sample
3
9/30/2016
7.17
36
2016 4
No Sample
3/29/2017
1
2 No Sample - Monitoring Point Removed
3 No Sample - Monitoring Point Removed
2017 4 No Sample - Monitoring Point Removed
Benchmark Value
25
5 to 9
45
7.17
Maximum
Average
15
N/A
Median
7
6.62
Minimum
4.4
6.36
Number of Samples
10
11

NWTPHDx
in mg/L

Total
Copper in Total Lead Total Zinc Visible Oil
sheen
µg/L
in µg/L
in µg/L

0.34
0.25 U
1.3
0.33
0.51
1.07
0.79
0.51
4.3
0.46
0.84
-

42
7.8
26
24
14
25
19.5
50
23
11
17
85
-

30
5.5
3.6
14
7.5
14
10.75
12
23
5.8
12
43
-

300
56
410
250
140
120
130
390
130
140
89
290
-

No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
-

10
4.3
1.11
0.65
0.33
10

14
85
31
23.5
7.8
11

81.6
43
16
12
3.6
11

117
410
219
195
56
11

No
Yes
N/A
No
No
11

Notes:
- = No Sample or Not Analyzed
Bold = Benchmark Exceedance
N/A = Not applicable - averaging pH and Oil Sheen is not allowed under the ISGP.
NWTPH-Dx = Northwest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Diesel extended range. NWTPH-Dx results shown are
the sum of oil- and diesel-range hydrocarbons.
NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit
mg/L = milligrams per liter
S.U. = standard pH units
U = Not detected at given detection limit. Half detection limit used for summary statistics.
µg/L = micrograms per liter

Aspect Consulting
5/15/2018
V:\170124 Ace Metal\Deliverables\Engineering Report\Table 2 - Monitoring Results.xlsx

Table 2
Engineering Report
Page 2 of 3

Table 2. Ace Metal Historical Sampling Results
Project No: 170124 - Ace Metal, Mukilteo, WA
Sampling Point - A3
Turbidity
in NTU

pH
in S.U.

NWTPHDx
in mg/L

Total
Copper in Total Lead Total Zinc Visible Oil
sheen
µg/L
in µg/L
in µg/L

Year Qtr. Sample Date
1
3/16/2015
13
6.72
1.7
17
No
71
180
2
No Sample
3
No Sample
2015 4
12/22/2015
5.8
6.69
0.2
13
91
Yes
19
1
No Sample
2
No Sample
3
9/30/2016
7.13
0.34
14
1.2
51
Yes
43
2016 4
No Sample
1
No Sample
2 No Sample - Monitoring Point Removed
3 No Sample - Monitoring Point Removed
2017 4 No Sample - Monitoring Point Removed
Benchmark Value
25
5 to 9
10
14
81.6
117
No
Maximum
43
7.1
2
71
17
180
Yes
Average
21
N/A
0.75
35
10
107
N/A
Median
13
6.7
0.34
19
13.0
91
No
Minimum
5.8
6.69
0.20
14
1.2
51
No
Number of Samples
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Notes:
- = No Sample or Not Analyzed
Bold = Benchmark Exceedance
N/A = Not applicable - averaging pH and Oil Sheen is not allowed under the ISGP.
NWTPH-Dx = Northwest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Diesel extended range. NWTPH-Dx results shown are
the sum of oil- and diesel-range hydrocarbons.
NTU = nephelometric turbidity unit
mg/L = milligrams per liter
S.U. = standard pH units
µg/L = micrograms per liter

Aspect Consulting
5/15/2018
V:\170124 Ace Metal\Deliverables\Engineering Report\Table 2 - Monitoring Results.xlsx

Table 2
Engineering Report
Page 3 of 3

FIGURES

Puget
Sound

Langley

WHIDBEY
ISLAND

!

Possession
Sou nd

Kingston
!

Pu ge t
Sound

Everett

Mukilteo

!

SITE
LOCATION

!

Marysville

(
!
!

Mill Creek

Lynnwood

Edmonds
!

!

!

Shoreline

!

Bothell

Woodinville

!

!

GIS Path: T:\projects_8\AceMetalSWPPP_170124\Delivered\Engineering Report\Site Location Map.mxd

!

||
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet

^

||

SITE
LOCATION

Date Saved: 12/14/2017
||
User: rpepin
||
Print Date: 12/15/2017

0

2,000

4,000

Feet
!

!

Bellingham

Port Angeles

(
!

# Seattle

Olympia

!

SITE
LOCATION

Tacoma

!

Wenatchee

!

Site Location Map
Engineering Report
Ace Metal Company
Mukilteo, Washington

Spokane

W A S H I N G T O N
!

!

Yakima

DEC-2017
C O N SU LTI N G

PROJECT NO.

BY:

OGR / KES / RAP
REVISED BY:

FIGURE NO.

1

170124
--Basemap Layer Credits || Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,
MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Copyright:© 2014 Esri

x

x

x

x

x

x

(
!

x

G

G

x

x

Computer
Disassembly

Parking

30
Feet

Aluminum

G
G

Gate
x

x

x

x

x

Trash

Steel Cans

x

x

x

s

G

Flat TV Processing

Office

Liquids
Storage

!

x

0

G

Baler

Waste Oil
Storage
Parking

Cardboard

Rollup Door

TV Deconstruction
Loading/
Unloading
x

C an

Fleet
Parking
x

x

x

x

Tax Parcel

G

Fence

Print Date: 12/15/2017

Engineering Report
Ace Metal Company
Mukilteo, Washington

G

x

x

User: rpepin ||

Facility Stormwater Map

x

Storm Pipe
x

To Big
Gulch
Creek

60

BY:

DEC-2017
C O N SU LTI N G

OGR / RAP

170124

---

PROJECT NO.

REVISED BY:

||

Notes:
1) Vehicle maintenance is limited to incidental forklift maintenance
performed inside the building.
2) No conditionally approved non-stormwater discharges (Condition
S5.D) occur on site.

(
!

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 12/14/2017

Shared
Driveway

G

x

x

x

x

x

x

Yard

Outlet Control
Structure

G

Manhole

"
)

G

(
!

A1
"
)
! G

G

G

Sidewalk/Walkway

G

1
ll 00
Outfa

||

G

Catch Basin

x

"
)

x

Detention Pond Facility

Paved

G

G

G

Parking

x

Sample Point

G

x

G

x

!

Property Boundary

G

!

Site Feature

Spill Kit

G

x

G

Large Recyclables

!
?

First Floor
Retail Not
Included
in Permit

City of
Mukilteo
MS4

G

x

G Empty G
Bins

x

"
)

Outlet Control
Structure

Empty
Pallets/Bins

Steel

A2

Rollup Door

x

G

Paved

x

G

Rollup Door
Scale

Trash

Storage

G

Scale

!

Glass

Plastic

"
)

G

Moveable
Loading Ramp

(1)

G

G

Storage
Bin

Vegetation

MUKILTEO SPEEDWAY

G

Storage
Bin

Detention
Pond
Facility

G

G

Detention
Pipe

G

A3 "
)

!
?

!

x

Covered Storage

GIS Path: T:\projects_8\AceMetalSWPPP_170124\Delivered\Engineering Report\02 Stormwater Site Map.mxd

x

x

G

(
!

Stormwater piped onto site
from ~2ac of adjacent
industrial/commercial
property

FIGURE NO.

2

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(
!

x

G

G

x

x

Office

Computer
Disassembly

G

Gate
Aluminum

Steel Cans

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Property Boundary

Storm Pipe

Tax Parcel
0

30
Feet

Engineering Report
Ace Metal Company
Mukilteo, Washington

G

Fence

G

Parking

Parking

Liquids
Storage

!

x

Manhole

x

G

Loading/
Unloading
x

(
!

x

G

Flat TV Processing

Waste Oil
Storage

TV Deconstruction

Rollup Door

Cardboard

Glass

Plastic

Fleet
Parking
x

Sidewalk/Walkway

Proposed Treatment System

60

MAY-2018
C O N SU LTI N G

PROJECT NO.

170124

BY:

OGR / RAP
REVISED BY:

---

FIGURE NO.

3

Print Date: 12/15/2017

Drainage Basin for Proposed Treatment System

||

Catch Basin

|| User: rpepin

"
)

G

Detention Pond Facility

To Big
Gulch
Creek

G

Proposed Treatment System Feature

G

Sample Point

(
!

Date Saved: 12/15/2017

x

!

Spill Kit

||

Trash

x

x

Can
s

Outlet Control
Structure

Paved

Shared
Driveway

Site Feature

Yard

A1
"
)
! G

"
)

G

x

Proposed Modular Wetland
Treatment System

G

G

G

G

ll 001
Outfa

!

Moveable
Loading Ramp

Baler

G

Parking

G

G

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet

G

x

G

!

Drainage Basin for Proposed
Treatment System (0.45 acres)

G

G

x

G

Large Recyclables

!
?

First Floor
Retail Not
Included
in Permit

City of
Mukilteo
MS4

G

x

G Empty G
Bins

x

"
)

Rollup Door

x

G

A2

x

G

Rollup Door

Outlet Control
Structure

Empty
Pallets/Bins

Storage

G

Scale

Scale
Paved

MUKILTEO SPEEDWAY

"
)

G

Storage
Bin

Trash

Steel

Vegetation

G

G

Storage
Bin

Detention
Pond
Facility

G

G

Detention
Pipe

G

G

Stormwater piped
A3 "
onto site from ~2ac
)
of adjacent
industrial/commercial
property

!
?

!

x

Covered Storage

GIS Path: T:\projects_8\AceMetalSWPPP_170124\Delivered\Engineering Report\03 Proposed Treatment System.mxd ||

G

(
!

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Hydrologic Analyses Information

WWHM2012
PROJECT REPORT
___________________________________________________________________
Project Name: Ace Metal Level 3
Site Name: Ace Metal Company
Site Address: 11110 Mukilteo Speedway
City
: Mukilteo WA
Report Date: 12/15/2017
Gage
: Everett
Data Start : 1948/10/01
Data End : 2009/09/30
Precip Scale: 0.80
Version Date: 2017/04/14
Version : 4.2.13
___________________________________________________________________
Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year
___________________________________________________________________
High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year
___________________________________________________________________
Low Flow Threshold for POC 2 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year
___________________________________________________________________
High Flow Threshold for POC 2: 50 year
___________________________________________________________________
Low Flow Threshold for POC 3 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year
___________________________________________________________________
High Flow Threshold for POC 3: 50 year
___________________________________________________________________
Low Flow Threshold for POC 4 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year
___________________________________________________________________
High Flow Threshold for POC 4: 50 year
___________________________________________________________________
Low Flow Threshold for POC 5 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year
___________________________________________________________________
High Flow Threshold for POC 5: 50 year
___________________________________________________________________
PREDEVELOPED LAND USE
Name
: West Neighbor
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
C, Lawn, Flat

acre
.067

Pervious Total
Impervious Land Use
ROOF TOPS FLAT
PARKING FLAT

0.067
acre
0.829
1.076

Impervious Total

1.905

Basin Total

1.972

___________________________________________________________________
Element Flows To:
Surface
Interflow
Groundwater
SSD Table 1
SSD Table 1
___________________________________________________________________
Name
: A2&A3
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
Pervious Total
Impervious Land Use
ROADS MOD

acre
0
acre
0.326

Impervious Total

0.326

Basin Total

0.326

___________________________________________________________________
Element Flows To:
Surface
Interflow
Groundwater
SSD Table 2
SSD Table 2
___________________________________________________________________
Name
: SSD Table 1
Depth:
542.5895 ft.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1
Outlet 2
SSD Table 2
___________________________________________________________________

Stage
(feet)

SSD Table Hydraulic Table
Area
Volume
(ac.)
(ac-ft.) Manual NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed

536.5
536.6
536.7
536.7
536.8
536.8
536.9
536.9
537.0
537.0
537.1
537.2
537.2
537.3
537.3
537.4
537.4
537.5
537.7
537.8
537.9
538.0
538.1
538.2
538.3
538.4
538.5
538.6
538.8
538.9
539.0
539.1
539.2
539.3
539.4
539.5
539.6
539.8
539.9
540.0
540.1
540.2
540.3
540.4
540.5
540.6
540.8
540.9
541.0
541.1
541.2
541.3
541.4
541.5
541.6
541.6
541.7

0.000
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
0.011
0.013
0.015
0.017
0.019
0.021
0.024
0.026
0.028
0.031
0.033
0.036
0.038
0.041
0.043
0.046
0.048
0.051
0.053
0.056
0.058
0.061
0.063
0.065
0.068
0.070
0.072
0.074
0.076
0.078
0.080
0.082
0.084
0.085
0.087
0.088
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.089

0.000
0.007
0.010
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.019
0.020
0.022
0.023
0.024
0.025
0.026
0.027
0.028
0.029
0.031
0.032
0.034
0.035
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.041
0.042
0.043
0.044
0.046
0.047
0.048
0.049
0.050
0.051
0.052
0.053
0.054
0.055
0.056
0.057
0.058
0.058
0.059
0.060
0.061
0.062
0.063
0.064
0.064
0.065
0.066
0.067
0.068
0.068
0.185
0.421
0.730

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

541.8
0.025
0.089
1.096
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
541.8
0.025
0.089
1.511
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
541.9
0.025
0.090
1.968
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
541.9
0.025
0.090
2.464
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.0
0.025
0.090
2.994
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.0
0.025
0.090
3.556
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.1
0.025
0.090
4.148
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.1
0.025
0.091
4.767
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.2
0.025
0.091
5.413
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.3
0.025
0.091
6.082
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.3
0.025
0.091
6.775
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.4
0.025
0.092
7.489
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.4
0.025
0.092
8.223
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.5
0.025
0.092
8.977
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.5
0.025
0.093
9.750
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
542.6
0.025
0.093
10.47
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
___________________________________________________________________
Name
: SSD Table 2
Depth:
110.3 ft.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1

Outlet 2

___________________________________________________________________

Stage
(feet)
106.1
106.1
106.1
106.1
106.1
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.4
106.4
106.4

SSD Table Hydraulic Table
Area
Volume
(ac.)
(ac-ft.) Manual NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.025
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.032
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.035
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.037
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.039
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.040
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.042
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.045
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.046
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.047
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.049
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.051
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.053
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.054
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.055
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.056
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

106.4
106.4
106.4
106.4
106.4
106.4
106.5
106.5
106.5
106.5
106.5
106.6
106.6
106.6
106.6
106.6
106.6
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.8
106.8
106.8
106.8
106.9
106.9
106.9
106.9
106.9
107.0
107.0
107.0
107.0
107.1
107.1
107.1
107.2
107.4
107.6
107.8
108.0
108.2
108.4
108.6
108.8
108.9
109.0
109.1
109.2
109.3
109.4
109.5
109.6
109.7
109.8

1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009

0.057
0.058
0.059
0.060
0.061
0.062
0.064
0.066
0.068
0.070
0.071
0.072
0.073
0.073
0.075
0.077
0.078
0.080
0.082
0.083
0.085
0.086
0.087
0.089
0.090
0.092
0.093
0.094
0.096
0.097
0.098
0.100
0.101
0.102
0.103
0.104
0.106
0.107
0.112
0.122
0.131
0.139
0.147
0.155
0.162
0.169
0.175
0.179
0.182
0.509
1.102
1.866
2.764
3.777
4.888
6.088
7.366

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

109.9
1.000
0.010
8.716
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
110.0
1.000
0.011
10.13
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
110.1
1.000
0.012
11.61
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
110.2
1.000
0.013
13.14
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
110.3
1.000
0.014
14.71
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
___________________________________________________________________
Name
: Portion of A1 to Treatment
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
Pervious Total
Impervious Land Use
ROADS MOD

acre
0
acre
0.146

Impervious Total

0.146

Basin Total

0.146

___________________________________________________________________
Element Flows To:
Surface

Interflow

Groundwater

___________________________________________________________________
MITIGATED LAND USE
Name
: West Neighbor
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
C, Lawn, Flat
Pervious Total
Impervious Land Use
ROOF TOPS FLAT
PARKING FLAT

acre
.067
0.067
acre
0.829
1.076

Impervious Total

1.905

Basin Total

1.972

___________________________________________________________________
Element Flows To:
Surface

Interflow

Groundwater

SSD Table 1
SSD Table 1
___________________________________________________________________
Name
: A2&A3
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use

acre

Pervious Total

0

Impervious Land Use
ROADS MOD

acre
0.326

Impervious Total

0.326

Basin Total

0.326

___________________________________________________________________
Element Flows To:
Surface
Interflow
Groundwater
SSD Table 2
SSD Table 2
___________________________________________________________________
Name
: SSD Table 1
Depth:
542.5895 ft.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1

Outlet 2

___________________________________________________________________

Stage
(feet)
536.5
536.6
536.7
536.7
536.8
536.8
536.9
536.9
537.0
537.0
537.1
537.2
537.2
537.3
537.3

SSD Table Hydraulic Table
Area
Volume
(ac.)
(ac-ft.) Manual NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.001
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.001
0.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.001
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.002
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.003
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.003
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.004
0.020
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.005
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.006
0.023
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.006
0.024
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.007
0.025
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.008
0.026
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.009
0.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

537.4
537.4
537.5
537.7
537.8
537.9
538.0
538.1
538.2
538.3
538.4
538.5
538.6
538.8
538.9
539.0
539.1
539.2
539.3
539.4
539.5
539.6
539.8
539.9
540.0
540.1
540.2
540.3
540.4
540.5
540.6
540.8
540.9
541.0
541.1
541.2
541.3
541.4
541.5
541.6
541.6
541.7
541.8
541.8
541.9
541.9
542.0
542.0
542.1
542.1
542.2
542.3
542.3
542.4
542.4
542.5
542.5

0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025

0.010
0.011
0.013
0.015
0.017
0.019
0.021
0.024
0.026
0.028
0.031
0.033
0.036
0.038
0.041
0.043
0.046
0.048
0.051
0.053
0.056
0.058
0.061
0.063
0.065
0.068
0.070
0.072
0.074
0.076
0.078
0.080
0.082
0.084
0.085
0.087
0.088
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.089
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.091
0.091
0.091
0.091
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.093

0.028
0.029
0.031
0.032
0.034
0.035
0.037
0.038
0.039
0.041
0.042
0.043
0.044
0.046
0.047
0.048
0.049
0.050
0.051
0.052
0.053
0.054
0.055
0.056
0.057
0.058
0.058
0.059
0.060
0.061
0.062
0.063
0.064
0.064
0.065
0.066
0.067
0.068
0.068
0.185
0.421
0.730
1.096
1.511
1.968
2.464
2.994
3.556
4.148
4.767
5.413
6.082
6.775
7.489
8.223
8.977
9.750

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

542.6
0.025
0.093
10.47
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
___________________________________________________________________
Name
: SSD Table 2
Depth:
110.3 ft.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1

Outlet 2

___________________________________________________________________

Stage
(feet)
106.1
106.1
106.1
106.1
106.1
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.2
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.3
106.4
106.4
106.4
106.4
106.4
106.4
106.4
106.4
106.4
106.5
106.5
106.5
106.5
106.5
106.6
106.6
106.6
106.6

SSD Table Hydraulic Table
Area
Volume
(ac.)
(ac-ft.) Manual NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed NotUsed
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.025
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.032
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.035
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.037
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.039
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.040
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.042
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.045
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.046
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.047
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.049
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.051
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.053
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.054
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.055
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.056
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.057
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.058
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.059
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.060
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.061
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.062
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.064
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.066
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.068
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.070
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.071
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.072
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.073
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.073
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.001
0.075
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

106.6
1.000
0.001
0.077
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.6
1.000
0.001
0.078
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.7
1.000
0.001
0.080
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.7
1.000
0.001
0.082
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.7
1.000
0.001
0.083
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.7
1.000
0.001
0.085
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.7
1.000
0.001
0.086
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.8
1.000
0.001
0.087
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.8
1.000
0.001
0.089
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.8
1.000
0.001
0.090
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.8
1.000
0.001
0.092
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.9
1.000
0.001
0.093
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.9
1.000
0.001
0.094
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.9
1.000
0.001
0.096
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.9
1.000
0.002
0.097
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
106.9
1.000
0.002
0.098
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.0
1.000
0.002
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.0
1.000
0.002
0.101
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.0
1.000
0.002
0.102
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.0
1.000
0.002
0.103
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.1
1.000
0.002
0.104
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.1
1.000
0.002
0.106
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.1
1.000
0.002
0.107
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.2
1.000
0.002
0.112
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.4
1.000
0.002
0.122
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.6
1.000
0.002
0.131
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
107.8
1.000
0.002
0.139
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
108.0
1.000
0.002
0.147
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
108.2
1.000
0.002
0.155
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
108.4
1.000
0.002
0.162
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
108.6
1.000
0.002
0.169
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
108.8
1.000
0.002
0.175
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
108.9
1.000
0.002
0.179
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
109.0
1.000
0.002
0.182
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
109.1
1.000
0.003
0.509
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
109.2
1.000
0.004
1.102
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
109.3
1.000
0.004
1.866
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
109.4
1.000
0.005
2.764
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
109.5
1.000
0.006
3.777
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
109.6
1.000
0.007
4.888
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
109.7
1.000
0.008
6.088
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
109.8
1.000
0.009
7.366
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
109.9
1.000
0.010
8.716
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
110.0
1.000
0.011
10.13
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
110.1
1.000
0.012
11.61
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
110.2
1.000
0.013
13.14
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
110.3
1.000
0.014
14.71
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
___________________________________________________________________
Name
: Portion of A1 to Treatment
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use
Pervious Total

acre
0

Impervious Land Use
ROADS MOD

acre
0.146

Impervious Total

0.146

Basin Total

0.146

___________________________________________________________________
Element Flows To:
Surface

Interflow

Groundwater

___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
ANALYSIS RESULTS
Stream Protection Duration
___________________________________________________________________
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area:0.067
Total Impervious Area:1.905
___________________________________________________________________
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area:0.067
Total Impervious Area:1.905
___________________________________________________________________
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped.
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.612179
5 year
0.835595
10 year
1.000083
25 year
1.227556
50 year
1.411799
100 year
1.609172

POC #1

Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.612179
5 year
0.835595
10 year
1.000083
25 year
1.227556
50 year
1.411799
100 year
1.609172
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated.
Year
Predeveloped
Mitigated

POC #1

1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

0.570
0.768
0.651
0.558
0.763
0.955
0.713
0.337
0.576
1.385
0.587
0.511
1.869
0.689
0.832
0.439
0.437
0.447
1.271
0.684
1.228
0.485
0.710
0.909
0.727
0.919
0.696
0.483
0.485
0.379
0.852
0.435
0.484
0.489
0.643
0.576
0.904
0.806
0.719
0.559
0.610
0.415
0.572
0.554
0.434
0.422
0.472
0.586
0.733
0.815
0.377
1.146
0.458
0.426
0.579
1.097
0.521

0.570
0.768
0.651
0.558
0.763
0.955
0.713
0.337
0.576
1.385
0.587
0.511
1.869
0.689
0.832
0.439
0.437
0.447
1.271
0.684
1.228
0.485
0.710
0.909
0.727
0.919
0.696
0.483
0.485
0.379
0.852
0.435
0.484
0.489
0.643
0.576
0.904
0.806
0.719
0.559
0.610
0.415
0.572
0.554
0.434
0.422
0.472
0.586
0.733
0.815
0.377
1.146
0.458
0.426
0.579
1.097
0.521

2006
0.641
0.641
2007
0.613
0.613
2008
0.505
0.505
2009
0.540
0.540
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated.
Rank
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1
1.8693
1.8693
2
1.3846
1.3846
3
1.2710
1.2710
4
1.2284
1.2284
5
1.1457
1.1457
6
1.0967
1.0967
7
0.9552
0.9552
8
0.9185
0.9185
9
0.9085
0.9085
10
0.9038
0.9038
11
0.8519
0.8519
12
0.8322
0.8322
13
0.8150
0.8150
14
0.8056
0.8056
15
0.7684
0.7684
16
0.7625
0.7625
17
0.7333
0.7333
18
0.7269
0.7269
19
0.7190
0.7190
20
0.7134
0.7134
21
0.7099
0.7099
22
0.6964
0.6964
23
0.6890
0.6890
24
0.6837
0.6837
25
0.6511
0.6511
26
0.6430
0.6430
27
0.6410
0.6410
28
0.6132
0.6132
29
0.6103
0.6103
30
0.5874
0.5874
31
0.5864
0.5864
32
0.5786
0.5786
33
0.5763
0.5763
34
0.5762
0.5762
35
0.5721
0.5721
36
0.5700
0.5700
37
0.5591
0.5591
38
0.5580
0.5580
39
0.5544
0.5544
40
0.5396
0.5396
41
0.5209
0.5209
42
0.5110
0.5110
43
0.5050
0.5050
44
0.4885
0.4885
45
0.4851
0.4851
46
0.4846
0.4846
47
0.4839
0.4839
48
0.4834
0.4834

POC #1

49
0.4724
0.4724
50
0.4582
0.4582
51
0.4470
0.4470
52
0.4390
0.4390
53
0.4373
0.4373
54
0.4346
0.4346
55
0.4345
0.4345
56
0.4263
0.4263
57
0.4223
0.4223
58
0.4153
0.4153
59
0.3789
0.3789
60
0.3770
0.3770
61
0.3369
0.3369
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
POC #1
The Facility PASSED
The Facility PASSED.
Flow(cfs)
0.3061
0.3173
0.3284
0.3396
0.3508
0.3619
0.3731
0.3843
0.3954
0.4066
0.4178
0.4289
0.4401
0.4513
0.4625
0.4736
0.4848
0.4960
0.5071
0.5183
0.5295
0.5406
0.5518
0.5630
0.5741
0.5853
0.5965
0.6076
0.6188
0.6300
0.6412
0.6523
0.6635
0.6747
0.6858

Predev
1295
1138
995
901
786
703
620
553
492
447
407
365
318
288
264
247
222
205
183
158
146
139
128
113
104
99
92
87
81
80
74
69
67
64
60

Mit Percentage Pass/Fail
1295
100
Pass
1138
100
Pass
995
100
Pass
901
100
Pass
786
100
Pass
703
100
Pass
620
100
Pass
553
100
Pass
492
100
Pass
447
100
Pass
407
100
Pass
365
100
Pass
318
100
Pass
288
100
Pass
264
100
Pass
247
100
Pass
222
100
Pass
205
100
Pass
183
100
Pass
158
100
Pass
146
100
Pass
139
100
Pass
128
100
Pass
113
100
Pass
104
100
Pass
99
100
Pass
92
100
Pass
87
100
Pass
81
100
Pass
80
100
Pass
74
100
Pass
69
100
Pass
67
100
Pass
64
100
Pass
60
100
Pass

0.6970
0.7082
0.7193
0.7305
0.7417
0.7528
0.7640
0.7752
0.7863
0.7975
0.8087
0.8199
0.8310
0.8422
0.8534
0.8645
0.8757
0.8869
0.8980
0.9092
0.9204
0.9315
0.9427
0.9539
0.9650
0.9762
0.9874
0.9986
1.0097
1.0209
1.0321
1.0432
1.0544
1.0656
1.0767
1.0879
1.0991
1.1102
1.1214
1.1326
1.1437
1.1549
1.1661
1.1773
1.1884
1.1996
1.2108
1.2219
1.2331
1.2443
1.2554
1.2666
1.2778
1.2889
1.3001
1.3113
1.3224

57
53
48
45
42
40
34
30
30
27
26
25
23
21
19
19
19
17
17
13
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3

57
53
48
45
42
40
34
30
30
27
26
25
23
21
19
19
19
17
17
13
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass

1.3336
3
3
100
Pass
1.3448
3
3
100
Pass
1.3560
3
3
100
Pass
1.3671
3
3
100
Pass
1.3783
3
3
100
Pass
1.3895
1
1
100
Pass
1.4006
1
1
100
Pass
1.4118
1
1
100
Pass
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1
On-line facility volume: 0.1551 acre-feet
On-line facility target flow: 0.2357 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0.2357 cfs.
Off-line facility target flow: 0.1342 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0.1342 cfs.

___________________________________________________________________
LID Report
LID Technique
Percent
Water Quality

Used for
Total Volumn
Volumn
Percent
Comment
Treatment? Needs
Through
Volumn
Water Quality
Treatment
Facility
Infiltrated
Treated
(ac-ft)
(ac-ft)
Total Volume Infiltrated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0%
No Treat. Credit
Compliance with LID Standard 8
Duration Analysis Result = Passed

Infiltration

Cumulative

Volumn

Volumn

(ac-ft.)

Infiltration
Credit

0.00

___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
___________________________________________________________________
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2
Total Pervious Area:0.067
Total Impervious Area:1.905
___________________________________________________________________
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2
Total Pervious Area:0.067
Total Impervious Area:1.905
___________________________________________________________________
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped.
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.296064
5 year
0.523815
10 year
0.678232
25 year
0.868255
50 year
1.003332
100 year
1.131761
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated.

POC #2

POC #2

Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.296064
5 year
0.523815
10 year
0.678232
25 year
0.868255
50 year
1.003332
100 year
1.131761
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated.
Year
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1949
0.272
0.272
1950
0.343
0.343
1951
0.290
0.290
1952
0.065
0.065
1953
0.062
0.062
1954
0.202
0.202
1955
0.450
0.450
1956
0.305
0.305
1957
0.576
0.576
1958
0.770
0.770
1959
0.362
0.362
1960
0.447
0.447
1961
0.604
0.604
1962
0.512
0.512
1963
0.346
0.346
1964
0.337
0.337
1965
0.149
0.149
1966
0.066
0.066
1967
0.769
0.769
1968
0.519
0.519
1969
0.442
0.442
1970
0.105
0.105
1971
0.250
0.250
1972
0.737
0.737
1973
0.064
0.064
1974
0.289
0.289
1975
0.156
0.156
1976
0.434
0.434
1977
0.340
0.340
1978
0.059
0.059
1979
0.856
0.856
1980
0.242
0.242
1981
0.143
0.143
1982
0.389
0.389
1983
0.448
0.448
1984
0.325
0.325
1985
0.404
0.404
1986
0.563
0.563
1987
0.709
0.709
1988
0.259
0.259
1989
0.057
0.057
1990
0.169
0.169
1991
0.283
0.283
1992
0.068
0.068
1993
0.253
0.253

POC #2

1994
0.203
0.203
1995
0.268
0.268
1996
0.541
0.541
1997
0.734
0.734
1998
0.151
0.151
1999
0.195
0.195
2000
0.351
0.351
2001
0.060
0.060
2002
0.256
0.256
2003
0.135
0.135
2004
0.829
0.829
2005
0.269
0.269
2006
0.392
0.392
2007
0.459
0.459
2008
0.506
0.506
2009
0.293
0.293
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated.
Rank
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1
0.8563
0.8563
2
0.8289
0.8289
3
0.7703
0.7703
4
0.7689
0.7689
5
0.7374
0.7374
6
0.7337
0.7337
7
0.7094
0.7094
8
0.6041
0.6041
9
0.5765
0.5765
10
0.5627
0.5627
11
0.5411
0.5411
12
0.5193
0.5193
13
0.5118
0.5118
14
0.5057
0.5057
15
0.4592
0.4592
16
0.4500
0.4500
17
0.4484
0.4484
18
0.4466
0.4466
19
0.4418
0.4418
20
0.4337
0.4337
21
0.4039
0.4039
22
0.3916
0.3916
23
0.3888
0.3888
24
0.3625
0.3625
25
0.3505
0.3505
26
0.3462
0.3462
27
0.3428
0.3428
28
0.3405
0.3405
29
0.3372
0.3372
30
0.3245
0.3245
31
0.3049
0.3049
32
0.2932
0.2932
33
0.2897
0.2897
34
0.2885
0.2885
35
0.2825
0.2825
36
0.2716
0.2716

POC #2

37
0.2688
0.2688
38
0.2677
0.2677
39
0.2587
0.2587
40
0.2563
0.2563
41
0.2527
0.2527
42
0.2502
0.2502
43
0.2422
0.2422
44
0.2026
0.2026
45
0.2023
0.2023
46
0.1947
0.1947
47
0.1686
0.1686
48
0.1562
0.1562
49
0.1513
0.1513
50
0.1489
0.1489
51
0.1428
0.1428
52
0.1353
0.1353
53
0.1048
0.1048
54
0.0682
0.0682
55
0.0656
0.0656
56
0.0649
0.0649
57
0.0638
0.0638
58
0.0618
0.0618
59
0.0602
0.0602
60
0.0590
0.0590
61
0.0573
0.0573
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
POC #2
The Facility PASSED
The Facility PASSED.
Flow(cfs)
0.1480
0.1567
0.1653
0.1740
0.1826
0.1912
0.1999
0.2085
0.2171
0.2258
0.2344
0.2431
0.2517
0.2603
0.2690
0.2776
0.2863
0.2949
0.3035
0.3122
0.3208
0.3295
0.3381

Predev
1129
1041
934
853
767
686
617
559
518
489
452
409
386
362
340
304
283
265
245
217
199
181
167

Mit Percentage Pass/Fail
1129
100
Pass
1041
100
Pass
934
100
Pass
853
100
Pass
767
100
Pass
686
100
Pass
617
100
Pass
559
100
Pass
518
100
Pass
489
100
Pass
452
100
Pass
409
100
Pass
386
100
Pass
362
100
Pass
340
100
Pass
304
100
Pass
283
100
Pass
265
100
Pass
245
100
Pass
217
100
Pass
199
100
Pass
181
100
Pass
167
100
Pass

0.3467
0.3554
0.3640
0.3727
0.3813
0.3899
0.3986
0.4072
0.4159
0.4245
0.4331
0.4418
0.4504
0.4591
0.4677
0.4763
0.4850
0.4936
0.5022
0.5109
0.5195
0.5282
0.5368
0.5454
0.5541
0.5627
0.5714
0.5800
0.5886
0.5973
0.6059
0.6146
0.6232
0.6318
0.6405
0.6491
0.6578
0.6664
0.6750
0.6837
0.6923
0.7010
0.7096
0.7182
0.7269
0.7355
0.7442
0.7528
0.7614
0.7701
0.7787
0.7873
0.7960
0.8046
0.8133
0.8219
0.8305

155
137
127
116
102
92
78
72
69
62
58
56
48
42
38
35
35
32
30
26
24
21
21
20
19
19
18
17
17
17
16
15
15
15
14
13
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
9
9
8
7
7
6
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1

155
137
127
116
102
92
78
72
69
62
58
56
48
42
38
35
35
32
30
26
24
21
21
20
19
19
18
17
17
17
16
15
15
15
14
13
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
9
9
8
7
7
6
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass

0.8392
1
1
100
Pass
0.8478
1
1
100
Pass
0.8565
1
1
100
Pass
0.8651
0
0
100
Pass
0.8737
0
0
0
Pass
0.8824
0
0
0
Pass
0.8910
0
0
0
Pass
0.8997
0
0
0
Pass
0.9083
0
0
0
Pass
0.9169
0
0
0
Pass
0.9256
0
0
0
Pass
0.9342
0
0
0
Pass
0.9429
0
0
0
Pass
0.9515
0
0
0
Pass
0.9601
0
0
0
Pass
0.9688
0
0
0
Pass
0.9774
0
0
0
Pass
0.9861
0
0
0
Pass
0.9947
0
0
0
Pass
1.0033
0
0
0
Pass
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #2
On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet
On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.
Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.

___________________________________________________________________
LID Report
LID Technique
Percent
Water Quality
Volumn
Infiltrated

Used for
Total Volumn
Percent
Comment
Treatment? Needs
Water Quality
Treatment
Treated
(ac-ft)
N
207.40

SSD Table 1 POC
0.00
Total Volume Infiltrated
0.00
0.00
0%
Compliance with LID Standard 8
Duration Analysis Result = Passed

Volumn

Infiltration

Cumulative

Through

Volumn

Volumn

Facility

(ac-ft.)

(ac-ft)

207.40
0.00
No Treat. Credit

Infiltration
Credit
N

0.00

___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
___________________________________________________________________
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #3
Total Pervious Area:0
Total Impervious Area:0.326
___________________________________________________________________
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #3
Total Pervious Area:0

Total Impervious Area:0.326
___________________________________________________________________
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped.
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.129539
5 year
0.174392
10 year
0.207064
25 year
0.251863
50 year
0.287874
100 year
0.326221

POC #3

Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #3
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.129539
5 year
0.174392
10 year
0.207064
25 year
0.251863
50 year
0.287874
100 year
0.326221
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated.
Year
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1949
0.130
0.130
1950
0.135
0.135
1951
0.169
0.169
1952
0.127
0.127
1953
0.148
0.148
1954
0.201
0.201
1955
0.163
0.163
1956
0.071
0.071
1957
0.109
0.109
1958
0.287
0.287
1959
0.120
0.120
1960
0.121
0.121
1961
0.370
0.370
1962
0.149
0.149
1963
0.145
0.145
1964
0.084
0.084
1965
0.114
0.114
1966
0.114
0.114
1967
0.237
0.237
1968
0.121
0.121
1969
0.250
0.250
1970
0.104
0.104
1971
0.129
0.129
1972
0.174
0.174
1973
0.141
0.141
1974
0.171
0.171
1975
0.138
0.138
1976
0.101
0.101
1977
0.102
0.102
1978
0.077
0.077
1979
0.157
0.157
1980
0.133
0.133

POC #3

1981
0.102
0.102
1982
0.112
0.112
1983
0.137
0.137
1984
0.126
0.126
1985
0.171
0.171
1986
0.166
0.166
1987
0.151
0.151
1988
0.132
0.132
1989
0.115
0.115
1990
0.102
0.102
1991
0.134
0.134
1992
0.126
0.126
1993
0.101
0.101
1994
0.109
0.109
1995
0.098
0.098
1996
0.164
0.164
1997
0.140
0.140
1998
0.167
0.167
1999
0.067
0.067
2000
0.291
0.291
2001
0.082
0.082
2002
0.089
0.089
2003
0.123
0.123
2004
0.230
0.230
2005
0.099
0.099
2006
0.144
0.144
2007
0.133
0.133
2008
0.118
0.118
2009
0.099
0.099
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated.
Rank
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1
0.3704
0.3704
2
0.2913
0.2913
3
0.2874
0.2874
4
0.2499
0.2499
5
0.2367
0.2367
6
0.2297
0.2297
7
0.2006
0.2006
8
0.1742
0.1742
9
0.1715
0.1715
10
0.1709
0.1709
11
0.1686
0.1686
12
0.1665
0.1665
13
0.1664
0.1664
14
0.1642
0.1642
15
0.1630
0.1630
16
0.1570
0.1570
17
0.1509
0.1509
18
0.1488
0.1488
19
0.1476
0.1476
20
0.1447
0.1447
21
0.1436
0.1436
22
0.1410
0.1410
23
0.1404
0.1404

POC #3

24
0.1384
0.1384
25
0.1371
0.1371
26
0.1350
0.1350
27
0.1344
0.1344
28
0.1333
0.1333
29
0.1330
0.1330
30
0.1315
0.1315
31
0.1301
0.1301
32
0.1291
0.1291
33
0.1267
0.1267
34
0.1259
0.1259
35
0.1257
0.1257
36
0.1231
0.1231
37
0.1212
0.1212
38
0.1211
0.1211
39
0.1202
0.1202
40
0.1184
0.1184
41
0.1145
0.1145
42
0.1142
0.1142
43
0.1138
0.1138
44
0.1125
0.1125
45
0.1087
0.1087
46
0.1086
0.1086
47
0.1043
0.1043
48
0.1024
0.1024
49
0.1023
0.1023
50
0.1017
0.1017
51
0.1011
0.1011
52
0.1008
0.1008
53
0.0993
0.0993
54
0.0990
0.0990
55
0.0978
0.0978
56
0.0890
0.0890
57
0.0838
0.0838
58
0.0821
0.0821
59
0.0771
0.0771
60
0.0710
0.0710
61
0.0672
0.0672
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
POC #3
The Facility PASSED
The Facility PASSED.
Flow(cfs)
0.0648
0.0670
0.0693
0.0715
0.0738
0.0760
0.0783
0.0805
0.0828
0.0851

Predev
888
784
705
624
561
505
441
397
367
334

Mit Percentage Pass/Fail
888
100
Pass
784
100
Pass
705
100
Pass
624
100
Pass
561
100
Pass
505
100
Pass
441
100
Pass
397
100
Pass
367
100
Pass
334
100
Pass

0.0873
0.0896
0.0918
0.0941
0.0963
0.0986
0.1008
0.1031
0.1053
0.1076
0.1098
0.1121
0.1143
0.1166
0.1189
0.1211
0.1234
0.1256
0.1279
0.1301
0.1324
0.1346
0.1369
0.1391
0.1414
0.1436
0.1459
0.1482
0.1504
0.1527
0.1549
0.1572
0.1594
0.1617
0.1639
0.1662
0.1684
0.1707
0.1729
0.1752
0.1774
0.1797
0.1820
0.1842
0.1865
0.1887
0.1910
0.1932
0.1955
0.1977
0.2000
0.2022
0.2045
0.2067
0.2090
0.2113
0.2135

298
279
252
240
221
203
189
168
150
142
132
123
114
108
101
97
90
84
77
68
63
56
52
47
44
41
37
34
32
31
31
29
27
26
23
21
18
17
14
13
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8

298
279
252
240
221
203
189
168
150
142
132
123
114
108
101
97
90
84
77
68
63
56
52
47
44
41
37
34
32
31
31
29
27
26
23
21
18
17
14
13
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass

0.2158
8
8
100
Pass
0.2180
8
8
100
Pass
0.2203
8
8
100
Pass
0.2225
8
8
100
Pass
0.2248
8
8
100
Pass
0.2270
8
8
100
Pass
0.2293
8
8
100
Pass
0.2315
7
7
100
Pass
0.2338
7
7
100
Pass
0.2360
6
6
100
Pass
0.2383
5
5
100
Pass
0.2405
5
5
100
Pass
0.2428
5
5
100
Pass
0.2451
5
5
100
Pass
0.2473
5
5
100
Pass
0.2496
5
5
100
Pass
0.2518
4
4
100
Pass
0.2541
4
4
100
Pass
0.2563
4
4
100
Pass
0.2586
4
4
100
Pass
0.2608
4
4
100
Pass
0.2631
4
4
100
Pass
0.2653
4
4
100
Pass
0.2676
4
4
100
Pass
0.2698
4
4
100
Pass
0.2721
4
4
100
Pass
0.2744
4
4
100
Pass
0.2766
4
4
100
Pass
0.2789
4
4
100
Pass
0.2811
4
4
100
Pass
0.2834
4
4
100
Pass
0.2856
4
4
100
Pass
0.2879
3
3
100
Pass
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #3
On-line facility volume: 0.0385 acre-feet
On-line facility target flow: 0.0671 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0671 cfs.
Off-line facility target flow: 0.038 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0.038 cfs.

___________________________________________________________________
LID Report
LID Technique
Percent
Water Quality

Used for
Total Volumn
Volumn
Percent
Comment
Treatment? Needs
Through
Volumn
Water Quality
Treatment
Facility
Infiltrated
Treated
(ac-ft)
(ac-ft)
Total Volume Infiltrated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0%
No Treat. Credit
Compliance with LID Standard 8
Duration Analysis Result = Passed

Infiltration

Cumulative

Volumn

Volumn

(ac-ft.)

Infiltration
Credit

0.00

___________________________________________________________________

Stream Protection Duration
___________________________________________________________________
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #4
Total Pervious Area:0.067
Total Impervious Area:2.231
___________________________________________________________________
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #4
Total Pervious Area:0
Total Impervious Area:0.326
___________________________________________________________________
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped.
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.35069
5 year
0.582626
10 year
0.755356
25 year
0.992065
50 year
1.180333
100 year
1.37787

POC #4

Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #4
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.104036
5 year
0.144787
10 year
0.17651
25 year
0.222429
50 year
0.261178
100 year
0.304091
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated.
Year
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1949
0.310
0.095
1950
0.368
0.134
1951
0.334
0.127
1952
0.140
0.090
1953
0.175
0.127
1954
0.221
0.159
1955
0.536
0.126
1956
0.343
0.063
1957
0.686
0.089
1958
0.934
0.262
1959
0.441
0.088
1960
0.512
0.087
1961
0.711
0.364
1962
0.622
0.114
1963
0.419
0.146
1964
0.383
0.073
1965
0.165
0.085
1966
0.112
0.087
1967
0.876
0.212
1968
0.614
0.113

POC #4

1969
0.529
0.228
1970
0.121
0.078
1971
0.292
0.116
1972
0.860
0.174
1973
0.164
0.116
1974
0.337
0.156
1975
0.164
0.110
1976
0.509
0.077
1977
0.386
0.077
1978
0.110
0.064
1979
1.023
0.144
1980
0.280
0.096
1981
0.157
0.077
1982
0.486
0.082
1983
0.529
0.101
1984
0.368
0.106
1985
0.468
0.154
1986
0.651
0.136
1987
0.793
0.124
1988
0.294
0.093
1989
0.149
0.095
1990
0.191
0.078
1991
0.333
0.104
1992
0.134
0.089
1993
0.290
0.076
1994
0.237
0.080
1995
0.317
0.076
1996
0.633
0.112
1997
0.861
0.122
1998
0.198
0.153
1999
0.228
0.061
2000
0.413
0.215
2001
0.130
0.078
2002
0.306
0.075
2003
0.163
0.099
2004
1.027
0.192
2005
0.304
0.089
2006
0.457
0.108
2007
0.509
0.100
2008
0.589
0.088
2009
0.328
0.086
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated.
Rank
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1
1.0274
0.3636
2
1.0232
0.2625
3
0.9336
0.2283
4
0.8761
0.2150
5
0.8611
0.2123
6
0.8601
0.1921
7
0.7926
0.1735
8
0.7112
0.1594
9
0.6865
0.1559
10
0.6508
0.1537
11
0.6327
0.1529

POC #4

12
0.6221
0.1464
13
0.6140
0.1438
14
0.5890
0.1364
15
0.5364
0.1338
16
0.5288
0.1273
17
0.5286
0.1273
18
0.5116
0.1259
19
0.5090
0.1237
20
0.5090
0.1220
21
0.4862
0.1160
22
0.4681
0.1158
23
0.4566
0.1140
24
0.4410
0.1132
25
0.4186
0.1117
26
0.4125
0.1103
27
0.3855
0.1080
28
0.3830
0.1064
29
0.3679
0.1036
30
0.3678
0.1014
31
0.3427
0.0996
32
0.3367
0.0989
33
0.3339
0.0956
34
0.3333
0.0952
35
0.3281
0.0949
36
0.3171
0.0931
37
0.3098
0.0896
38
0.3061
0.0894
39
0.3037
0.0894
40
0.2941
0.0893
41
0.2919
0.0882
42
0.2905
0.0882
43
0.2797
0.0874
44
0.2373
0.0868
45
0.2276
0.0865
46
0.2210
0.0847
47
0.1983
0.0823
48
0.1909
0.0798
49
0.1751
0.0785
50
0.1653
0.0784
51
0.1642
0.0781
52
0.1638
0.0772
53
0.1625
0.0768
54
0.1567
0.0767
55
0.1486
0.0763
56
0.1396
0.0763
57
0.1343
0.0754
58
0.1301
0.0734
59
0.1210
0.0640
60
0.1121
0.0627
61
0.1102
0.0612
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
POC #4
The Facility PASSED
The Facility PASSED.

Flow(cfs)
0.1753
0.1855
0.1956
0.2058
0.2160
0.2261
0.2363
0.2464
0.2566
0.2667
0.2769
0.2870
0.2972
0.3073
0.3175
0.3276
0.3378
0.3479
0.3581
0.3682
0.3784
0.3885
0.3987
0.4088
0.4190
0.4291
0.4393
0.4494
0.4596
0.4697
0.4799
0.4900
0.5002
0.5103
0.5205
0.5306
0.5408
0.5509
0.5611
0.5712
0.5814
0.5916
0.6017
0.6119
0.6220
0.6322
0.6423
0.6525
0.6626
0.6728
0.6829
0.6931
0.7032
0.7134
0.7235

Predev
1126
1029
914
833
752
646
587
548
509
474
449
408
383
342
318
297
273
260
231
208
193
177
163
148
131
119
108
99
90
79
75
66
59
54
48
45
41
39
34
33
32
27
25
25
22
21
20
18
18
18
18
16
15
14
14

Mit Percentage Pass/Fail
15
1
Pass
12
1
Pass
9
0
Pass
8
0
Pass
4
0
Pass
4
0
Pass
2
0
Pass
2
0
Pass
2
0
Pass
1
0
Pass
1
0
Pass
1
0
Pass
1
0
Pass
1
0
Pass
1
0
Pass
1
0
Pass
1
0
Pass
1
0
Pass
1
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass
0
0
Pass

0.7337
14
0
0
Pass
0.7438
14
0
0
Pass
0.7540
14
0
0
Pass
0.7641
14
0
0
Pass
0.7743
14
0
0
Pass
0.7844
12
0
0
Pass
0.7946
11
0
0
Pass
0.8047
10
0
0
Pass
0.8149
10
0
0
Pass
0.8250
9
0
0
Pass
0.8352
8
0
0
Pass
0.8453
8
0
0
Pass
0.8555
8
0
0
Pass
0.8656
6
0
0
Pass
0.8758
6
0
0
Pass
0.8859
4
0
0
Pass
0.8961
4
0
0
Pass
0.9062
4
0
0
Pass
0.9164
4
0
0
Pass
0.9265
4
0
0
Pass
0.9367
3
0
0
Pass
0.9469
3
0
0
Pass
0.9570
2
0
0
Pass
0.9672
2
0
0
Pass
0.9773
2
0
0
Pass
0.9875
2
0
0
Pass
0.9976
2
0
0
Pass
1.0078
2
0
0
Pass
1.0179
2
0
0
Pass
1.0281
0
0
0
Pass
1.0382
0
0
0
Pass
1.0484
0
0
0
Pass
1.0585
0
0
0
Pass
1.0687
0
0
0
Pass
1.0788
0
0
0
Pass
1.0890
0
0
0
Pass
1.0991
0
0
0
Pass
1.1093
0
0
0
Pass
1.1194
0
0
0
Pass
1.1296
0
0
0
Pass
1.1397
0
0
0
Pass
1.1499
0
0
0
Pass
1.1600
0
0
0
Pass
1.1702
0
0
0
Pass
1.1803
0
0
0
Pass
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #4
On-line facility volume: 0.1379 acre-feet
On-line facility target flow: 0.088 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0.088 cfs.
Off-line facility target flow: 0.0554 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0554 cfs.

___________________________________________________________________
LID Report

LID Technique
Percent
Water Quality
Volumn
Infiltrated

Used for
Total Volumn
Percent
Comment
Treatment? Needs
Water Quality
Treatment
Treated
(ac-ft)
N
35.82

SSD Table 2 POC
0.00
Total Volume Infiltrated
0.00
0.00
0%
Compliance with LID Standard 8
Duration Analysis Result = Passed

Volumn

Infiltration

Cumulative

Through

Volumn

Volumn

Facility

(ac-ft.)

(ac-ft)

35.82
0.00
No Treat. Credit

Infiltration
Credit
N

0.00

___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
___________________________________________________________________
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #5
Total Pervious Area:0
Total Impervious Area:0.146
___________________________________________________________________
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #5
Total Pervious Area:0
Total Impervious Area:0.146
___________________________________________________________________
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped.
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.058014
5 year
0.078102
10 year
0.092734
25 year
0.112797
50 year
0.128925
100 year
0.146099

POC #5

Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #5
Return Period
Flow(cfs)
2 year
0.058014
5 year
0.078102
10 year
0.092734
25 year
0.112797
50 year
0.128925
100 year
0.146099
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated.
Year
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1949
0.058
0.058
1950
0.060
0.060
1951
0.076
0.076
1952
0.057
0.057
1953
0.066
0.066
1954
0.090
0.090
1955
0.073
0.073

POC #5

1956
0.032
0.032
1957
0.049
0.049
1958
0.129
0.129
1959
0.054
0.054
1960
0.054
0.054
1961
0.166
0.166
1962
0.067
0.067
1963
0.065
0.065
1964
0.038
0.038
1965
0.051
0.051
1966
0.051
0.051
1967
0.106
0.106
1968
0.054
0.054
1969
0.112
0.112
1970
0.047
0.047
1971
0.058
0.058
1972
0.078
0.078
1973
0.063
0.063
1974
0.077
0.077
1975
0.062
0.062
1976
0.045
0.045
1977
0.046
0.046
1978
0.035
0.035
1979
0.070
0.070
1980
0.060
0.060
1981
0.046
0.046
1982
0.050
0.050
1983
0.061
0.061
1984
0.056
0.056
1985
0.077
0.077
1986
0.075
0.075
1987
0.068
0.068
1988
0.059
0.059
1989
0.051
0.051
1990
0.046
0.046
1991
0.060
0.060
1992
0.056
0.056
1993
0.045
0.045
1994
0.049
0.049
1995
0.044
0.044
1996
0.074
0.074
1997
0.063
0.063
1998
0.075
0.075
1999
0.030
0.030
2000
0.130
0.130
2001
0.037
0.037
2002
0.040
0.040
2003
0.055
0.055
2004
0.103
0.103
2005
0.044
0.044
2006
0.064
0.064
2007
0.060
0.060
2008
0.053
0.053
2009
0.044
0.044
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration

Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated.
Rank
Predeveloped
Mitigated
1
0.1659
0.1659
2
0.1305
0.1305
3
0.1287
0.1287
4
0.1119
0.1119
5
0.1060
0.1060
6
0.1029
0.1029
7
0.0898
0.0898
8
0.0780
0.0780
9
0.0768
0.0768
10
0.0766
0.0766
11
0.0755
0.0755
12
0.0746
0.0746
13
0.0745
0.0745
14
0.0735
0.0735
15
0.0730
0.0730
16
0.0703
0.0703
17
0.0676
0.0676
18
0.0666
0.0666
19
0.0661
0.0661
20
0.0648
0.0648
21
0.0643
0.0643
22
0.0632
0.0632
23
0.0629
0.0629
24
0.0620
0.0620
25
0.0614
0.0614
26
0.0604
0.0604
27
0.0602
0.0602
28
0.0597
0.0597
29
0.0596
0.0596
30
0.0589
0.0589
31
0.0583
0.0583
32
0.0578
0.0578
33
0.0567
0.0567
34
0.0564
0.0564
35
0.0563
0.0563
36
0.0551
0.0551
37
0.0543
0.0543
38
0.0542
0.0542
39
0.0538
0.0538
40
0.0530
0.0530
41
0.0513
0.0513
42
0.0512
0.0512
43
0.0509
0.0509
44
0.0504
0.0504
45
0.0487
0.0487
46
0.0487
0.0487
47
0.0467
0.0467
48
0.0459
0.0459
49
0.0458
0.0458
50
0.0456
0.0456
51
0.0453
0.0453
52
0.0451
0.0451
53
0.0445
0.0445
54
0.0443
0.0443
55
0.0438
0.0438

POC #5

56
0.0399
0.0399
57
0.0375
0.0375
58
0.0368
0.0368
59
0.0345
0.0345
60
0.0318
0.0318
61
0.0301
0.0301
___________________________________________________________________
Stream Protection Duration
POC #5
The Facility PASSED
The Facility PASSED.
Flow(cfs)
0.0290
0.0300
0.0310
0.0320
0.0330
0.0341
0.0351
0.0361
0.0371
0.0381
0.0391
0.0401
0.0411
0.0421
0.0431
0.0441
0.0452
0.0462
0.0472
0.0482
0.0492
0.0502
0.0512
0.0522
0.0532
0.0542
0.0552
0.0563
0.0573
0.0583
0.0593
0.0603
0.0613
0.0623
0.0633
0.0643
0.0653
0.0664
0.0674
0.0684
0.0694
0.0704

Predev
888
784
705
625
561
505
441
397
367
334
299
279
253
241
221
204
189
167
150
142
131
123
114
108
101
97
89
84
77
68
63
56
52
47
44
40
37
34
32
31
31
29

Mit Percentage Pass/Fail
888
100
Pass
784
100
Pass
705
100
Pass
625
100
Pass
561
100
Pass
505
100
Pass
441
100
Pass
397
100
Pass
367
100
Pass
334
100
Pass
299
100
Pass
279
100
Pass
253
100
Pass
241
100
Pass
221
100
Pass
204
100
Pass
189
100
Pass
167
100
Pass
150
100
Pass
142
100
Pass
131
100
Pass
123
100
Pass
114
100
Pass
108
100
Pass
101
100
Pass
97
100
Pass
89
100
Pass
84
100
Pass
77
100
Pass
68
100
Pass
63
100
Pass
56
100
Pass
52
100
Pass
47
100
Pass
44
100
Pass
40
100
Pass
37
100
Pass
34
100
Pass
32
100
Pass
31
100
Pass
31
100
Pass
29
100
Pass

0.0714
0.0724
0.0734
0.0744
0.0754
0.0764
0.0775
0.0785
0.0795
0.0805
0.0815
0.0825
0.0835
0.0845
0.0855
0.0865
0.0875
0.0886
0.0896
0.0906
0.0916
0.0926
0.0936
0.0946
0.0956
0.0966
0.0976
0.0986
0.0997
0.1007
0.1017
0.1027
0.1037
0.1047
0.1057
0.1067
0.1077
0.1087
0.1097
0.1108
0.1118
0.1128
0.1138
0.1148
0.1158
0.1168
0.1178
0.1188
0.1198
0.1209
0.1219
0.1229
0.1239
0.1249
0.1259
0.1269
0.1279

27
26
23
20
18
17
14
13
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

27
26
23
20
18
17
14
13
13
13
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass

0.1289
3
3
100
Pass
_____________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #5
On-line facility volume: 0.0119 acre-feet
On-line facility target flow: 0.0207 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0207 cfs.
Off-line facility target flow: 0.0117 cfs.
Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0117 cfs.

___________________________________________________________________
LID Report
LID Technique
Percent
Water Quality

Used for
Total Volumn
Volumn
Percent
Comment
Treatment? Needs
Through
Volumn
Water Quality
Treatment
Facility
Infiltrated
Treated
(ac-ft)
(ac-ft)
Total Volume Infiltrated
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0%
No Treat. Credit
Compliance with LID Standard 8
Duration Analysis Result = Passed

Infiltration

Cumulative

Volumn

Volumn

(ac-ft.)

Infiltration
Credit

0.00

___________________________________________________________________
Perlnd and Implnd Changes
No changes have been made.
___________________________________________________________________
This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind.
The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User.
Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties,
either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and
accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any
damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of
business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or
inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized
representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by :
Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2017; All Rights Reserved.

APPENDIX B
Roof Downspout Filter Information

grattix

rain garden in a box
3103 NW Lower River Road, Vancouver, WA 98660 T: 360.693.3611 F: 360.735.1565 E: [e-mail] www.portvanusa.com

Two talented port employees invented what is basically a rain garden in a box. It’s an innovative system
that removes zinc pollution in stormwater from galvanized metal roofs and downspouts on the terminal.
Matt Graves and Mary Mattix, both members of the port’s environmental team, call the new stormwater
treatment system the Grattix (a combination of their last names), but many others in the environmental
world are calling it innovative, inexpensive, and effective.

Cross Section of a Grattix
Plant rushes and
sedges, 2 each
3-4 large river
rocks (splash pad)

2-3 inches of
hardwood mulch

10 inches bioretention soil mix
(40% compost
and 60% sand)

6 inches of sand
Pet-proof window
screening

Pet-proof window
screening

6 inches of pea gravel

12 inches of 2-3
inch drain rock

Food grade plastic tote,
approximately 325 gallon
capacity.

Perforated 2-inch PVC pipe
underdrain system

The Grattix is built using a food grade plastic tote, approximately 325 gallons. Inside, a perforated underdrain system is
installed, followed by a layer of drain rock. A layer of screen is added to maintain a separation between layers. On top
of the screen is a layer of pea gravel, followed by another layer of screen. Sand is then added followed by a bioretention
soil mix. The finishing touches include adding plantings, a river rock splash pad and bark mulch. The plantings used are
rushes and sedges, which can dry out in the summer months and withstand ponding in the winter months. If you have
any questions about stormwater protection at the port, please contact Matt Graves at 360-693-3611 or mgraves@
portvanusa.com.

Building a Grattix

A 10-step guide to constructing your own rain garden in a box

u

step 1

step 6

Obtain a food
grade plastic tote,
approximately 325
gallon capacity.

Place another
layer of pet-proof
window screening
over the pea gravel.

step 2

step 7

Install a perforated
2-inch PVC pipe
underdrain system.

On top of the
screening, add 6
inches of sand.

step 3

step 8

Add 12 inches of
2-3 inch drain rock,
double-washed to
prevent turbidity/
clogging.

Then add 10 inches
of bio-retention
soil mix (40 percent
compost and 60
percent sand).

step 4

step 9

Place a layer of
pet-proof window
screening.

step 5
Next comes 6 inches
of pea gravel.

Plant rushes and sedges,
2 each, and then place 2-3
inches of hard-wood mulch
around plants. Position 3-4
large river rocks to create a
splash pad.

step 10
Position your Grattix
under a down
spout. For a more
finished look, add a
wooden exterior.

APPENDIX C
Modular Wetland System Operation
and Maintenance Manual

1

Maintenance Guidelines for
Modular Wetland System - Linear
Maintenance Summary
o

Remove Trash from Screening Device – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months.


o

Remove Sediment from Separation Chamber – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months.


o

(10-15 minute per cartridge average service time).

Replace Drain Down Filter Media – average maintenance interval is 12 to 24 months.


o

(10 minute average service time).

Replace Cartridge Filter Media – average maintenance interval 12 to 24 months.


o

(5 minute average service time).

(5 minute average service time).

Trim Vegetation – average maintenance interval is 6 to 12 months.


(Service time varies).

System Diagram
Access to screening device, separation
chamber and cartridge filter

Access to drain
down filter

Inflow Pipe
(optional)

Pre-Treatment
Chamber
Biofiltration Chamber
Discharge
Chamber

www.modularwetlands.com

Outflow
Pipe

Maintenance Procedures
Screening Device
1. Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the PreTreatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance
can be performed without entry.
2. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done
manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not
damage the screening device.
3. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain
access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole
cover when completed.
Separation Chamber
1. Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before
maintaining the separation chamber.
2. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge
filters.
3. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace
screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed.
Cartridge Filters
1. Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber
before maintaining cartridge filters.
2. Enter separation chamber.
3. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid.
4. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place.
5. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants.
6. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants.
7. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside
supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase.
8. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device, grate or
manhole cover when completed.
Drain Down Filter
1. Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber.
2. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with
new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place.
3. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover.
www.modularwetlands.com

Maintenance Notes
1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance
operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any
maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and
condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms.
2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five
years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to
the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time.
3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal
in accordance with local and state requirements.
4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local
regulations.
5. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber.
6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape
architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants
may require irrigation.

www.modularwetlands.com

Maintenance Procedure Illustration

Screening Device
The screening device is located directly
under the manhole or grate over the
Pre-Treatment Chamber. It’s mounted
directly underneath for easy access
and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by
hand or with a vacuum truck.

Separation Chamber
The separation chamber is located
directly beneath the screening device.
It can be quickly cleaned using a
vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure
washer is useful to assist in the
cleaning process.

www.modularwetlands.com

Cartridge Filters
The cartridge filters are located in the
Pre-Treatment chamber connected to
the wall adjacent to the biofiltration
chamber. The cartridges have
removable tops to access the
individual media filters. Once the
cartridge is open media can be
easily removed and replaced by hand
or a vacuum truck.

Drain Down Filter
The drain down filter is located in the
Discharge Chamber. The drain filter
unlocks from the wall mount and hinges
up. Remove filter block and replace with
new block.

www.modularwetlands.com

Trim Vegetation
Vegetation should be maintained in the
same manner as surrounding vegetation
and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall
be used on the plants. Irrigation
per the recommendation of the
manufacturer and or landscape
architect. Different types of vegetation
requires different amounts of
irrigation.

www.modularwetlands.com

Inspection Form

Modular Wetland System, Inc.
P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. [e-mail]
www.modularwetlands.com

Inspection Report
Modular Wetlands System
Project Name

For Office Use Only

Project Address
(city)

(Reviewed By)

(Zip Code)

Owner / Management Company
Contact

Phone (

)

_

Inspector Name

Date

/

(Date)
Office personnel to complete section to
the left.

/

Type of Inspection

Routine

Follow Up

Complaint

Weather Condition

Storm

Time

AM / PM

Storm Event in Last 72-hours?

No

Yes

Additional Notes

Inspection Checklist
Size (22', 14' or etc.):

Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault):
Structural Integrity:

Yes

No

Comments

Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting
pressure?
Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting
pressure?
Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)?
Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly?

Working Condition:
Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging the
unit?
Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period?
Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system?
Depth:

Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes,
specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber.
Chamber:

Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber?
Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section.

Other Inspection Items:
Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)?
Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below.
Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system?

Waste:

Yes

No

Recommended Maintenance

Sediment / Silt / Clay

No Cleaning Needed

Trash / Bags / Bottles

Schedule Maintenance as Planned

Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage

Needs Immediate Maintenance

Damage to Plants
Plant Replacement
Plant Trimming

Additional Notes:

2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058

Plant Information

P [phone]

F [phone]

Maintenance Report

Modular Wetland System, Inc.
P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. [e-mail]
www.modularwetlands.com

Cleaning and Maintenance Report
Modular Wetlands System

Project Name

For Office Use Only

Project Address
(city)

(Reviewed By)

(Zip Code)

Owner / Management Company
Contact

Phone (

)

Inspector Name

Date

/

(Date)
Office personnel to complete section to
the left.

_

/

Type of Inspection

Routine

Follow Up

Complaint

Weather Condition

GPS Coordinates
of Insert

Site
Map #

Lat:

Storm

Time
Storm Event in Last 72-hours?

AM / PM
No

Yes

Additional Notes

Manufacturer /
Description / Sizing

Trash
Accumulation

Foliage
Accumulation

Sediment
Accumulation

Total Debris
Accumulation

Condition of Media
25/50/75/100
(will be changed
@ 75%)

MWS
Catch Basins

Long:

MWS
Sedimentation
Basin
Media Filter
Condition

Plant Condition

Drain Down Media
Condition
Discharge Chamber
Condition
Drain Down Pipe
Condition
Inlet and Outlet
Pipe Condition
Comments:

2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176

Operational Per
Manufactures'
Specifications
(If not, why?)

Addendum - Revised Page 13

ASPECT CONSULTING

o The off-line water quality treatment flow rate (i.e., the rate necessary to treat
91 percent of the total stormwater runoff) for the un-detained runoff entering
the new inlet at the treatment system.
•

Peak flow rates to evaluate the hydraulic capacity of the diversion piping and
internal flow splitter.

The water quality treatment design rate for the treatment facility is 183 gallons per
minute (gpm; 0.41 cubic feet per second [cfs]). A summary of the hydrologic model
results is provided in Table 5.
Table 5. Hydrologic Model Results
Parameter

Treatment Basin

Portion of Facility Tributary to Treatment System:
Water Quality Flow

0.112 cfs (50 gpm)

100-year Peak Flow

0.45 cfs

Neighboring Property:
Water Quality Flow

0.296 cfs (133 gpm)

100-year Peak Flow

1.61 cfs

Details of the hydrologic analysis are provided in Appendix A.

4.3 Treatment System Information
The proposed treatment system is a Modular Wetland System, model number
MWS-L-8-16. The treatment system would be located at the downgradient edge of the
area of industrial activity at the Facility, as shown on Figure 3.
The treatment system would include the following components:
•

Inlet grate in the lid of the pre-treatment chamber;

•

Inlet pipe originating from A2;

•

Prefiltration cartridge containing a proprietary media, BioMediaGreen;

•

Internal flow splitting weir to direct flows in excess of the design flow rate
directly to the outlet chamber;

•

Biofiltration chamber consisting of:
o Perimeter void area – after passing through the prefiltration cartridges, flow
enters a perimeter void area that distributes water around the sides of the
biofiltration media;
o Biofiltration media, a proprietary blended biofiltration media named Wetland
Media™;

PROJECT NO 170124  JUNE 5, 2018

FINAL

13

Attachment B