Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6280 Stormwater Drainage Plan
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS SPECIAL AND GENERAL CONDITIONS S1. PERMIT COVERAGE AREA AND PERMITTEES ........................................................ 1 S2. AUTHORIZED DISCHARGES ......................................................................................... 6 S3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERMITTEES .......................................................................... 7 S4. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS .............................................................................. 7 S5. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR CITIES, TOWNS AND COUNTIES ....................................................................................................................... 10 S6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR SECONDARY PERMITTEES 24 S7. COMPLIANCE WITH TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD REQUIREMENTS ........ 31 S8. MONITORING ................................................................................................................. 32 S9. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 34 G1. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS .......................................................................................... 38 G2. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................ 38 G3. NOTIFICATION OF DISCHARGE, INCLUDING SPILLS .......................................... 38 G4. BYPASS PROHIBITED ................................................................................................... 38 G5. RIGHT OF ENTRY .......................................................................................................... 39 G6. DUTY TO MITIGATE ..................................................................................................... 39 G7. PROPERTY RIGHTS ....................................................................................................... 39 G8. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES ............................................ 39 G9. MONITORING ................................................................................................................. 39 G10. REMOVED SUBSTANCES ............................................................................................ 40 G11. SEVERABILITY .............................................................................................................. 41 G12. REVOCATION OF COVERAGE .................................................................................... 41 G13. TRANSFER OF COVERAGE ......................................................................................... 41 G14. GENERAL PERMIT MODIFICATION AND REVOCATION ..................................... 41 G15. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION ......................... 42 G16. APPEALS ......................................................................................................................... 42 G17. PENALTIES ..................................................................................................................... 42 G18. DUTY TO REAPPLY ...................................................................................................... 43 G19. CERTIFICATION AND SIGNATURE ........................................................................... 43 G20. NON-COMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION ......................................................................... 43 G21. UPSETS ............................................................................................................................ 44 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ 45 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1. Minimum Technical Requirements APPENDIX 2. TMDL Requirements APPENDIX 3. Annual Report Form for County, Town and City Permittees APPENDIX 4. Annual Report Form for Secondary Permittees APPENDIX 5. Notice of Intent APPENDIX 6. Street Waste Disposal APPENDIX 7. Determining Construction Site Damage Transport Potential THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 1 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 SPECIAL CONDITIONS Notice: If legislation related to this Permit is passed into law, Ecology will, as necessary, modify, revoke and re-issue or terminate this Permit to carry out legislative requirements. Any such modification will be in accordance with G14 General Permit Modification and Revocation and the provisions of WAC 173-226-230. S1. PERMIT COVERAGE AREA AND PERMITTEES A. Geographic Area of Permit Coverage This Permit is applicable to owners or operators of regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) located west of the eastern boundaries of the following counties: Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Lewis and Skamania. 1. For all cities required to obtain coverage under this permit, the geographic area of coverage is the entire incorporated area of the city. 2. For all counties required to have coverage under this Permit, the geographic area of coverage is the urbanized areas and urban growth areas associated with cities under the jurisdictional control of the county. The geographic area of coverage also includes any urban growth area contiguous to urbanized areas under the jurisdictional control of the county. 3. For secondary permittees required to obtain coverage under this permit, the minimum geographic area of coverage is all areas identified under S1.A.1. and S1.A.2. At the time of permit coverage, Ecology may establish a geographic area of coverage specific to an individual secondary permittee. 4. All regulated small MS4s owned or operated by the permittees named in S1.D.2.a. and located in another city or county area requiring coverage under either the Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit or the Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit are also covered under this permit. B. Regulated Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) All operators of regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are required to apply for and obtain coverage under this Permit or be permitted under a separate individual permit, unless waived or exempted in accordance with condition S1.C. 1. A regulated small MS4: a. Is a “Small MS4” as defined in the Definitions and Acronyms section at the end of this Permit; and b. Is located within, or partially located within, an urbanized area as defined by the latest decennial census conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Census, or designated by the Department pursuant to 40 CFR 123.35(b) or 40 CFR 122.26(f); and c. Discharges stormwater from the MS4 to a surface water of Washington State; and Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 2 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 d. Is not eligible for a waiver or exemption under S1.C. below. 2. All other operators of MS4s, including special purpose districts, which meet the criteria for a regulated small MS4 shall obtain coverage under this Permit. Other operators of municipal separate storm sewers may include, but are not limited to: flood control, or diking and drainage districts, schools including universities, and correctional facilities that own or operate a small MS4 serving non-agricultural land uses. 3. Any other operators of small MS4s may be required by the Department to obtain coverage under this permit or an alternative NPDES permit if the Department determines the small MS4 is a significant source of pollution to surface waters of the state. Notification of the Department’s determination that permit coverage is required will be through the issuance of an Administrative Order issued in accordance with RCW 90.48. 4. The owner or operator of a regulated small MS4 may obtain coverage under this Permit as a permittee, co-permittee, or secondary permittee as defined in S1.D.1. below. 5. Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(f), any person or organization may petition Ecology to require that additional municipal separate storm sewers obtain coverage under this permit. The process for petitioning Ecology is: a. The person or organization shall submit a complete petition in writing to Ecology. A complete petition shall address each of the relevant factors for petitions outlined on Ecology’s website. b. In making its determination on the petition, Ecology may request additional information from either the petitioner or the jurisdiction. c. Ecology will make a final determination on a complete petition within 180 days of receipt of the petition and inform both the petitioner and the municipal separate storm sewer of the decision, in writing. d. If Ecology’s final determination is that the candidate municipal separate storm sewer will be regulated, Ecology will issue an order to the municipal separate storm sewer requiring them to obtain coverage under this Permit. The order will specify: i. The geographic area of permit coverage for the municipal separate storm sewer system; ii. Any modified dates or deadlines for developing and implementing the Stormwater Management Program in S5. or S6., as appropriate to the municipal separate storm sewer system, and for submitting their first annual report; and iii. A deadline for the operator of the municipal separate storm sewer system to submit a complete Notice of Intent (see Appendix 5) to Ecology. C. Owners and operators of an otherwise regulated small MS4 are not required to obtain coverage under this Permit if: Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 3 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 1. The small MS4 is operated by: a. The federal government on military bases or other federal lands; or by the United States Military, the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Park Service or other federal agencies; b. Federally recognized Indian Tribes located within Indian Country Lands; or c. The Washington State Department of Transportation. or: 2. The portions of the small MS4 located within the census defined urban area(s) serve a total population of less than 1000 people and a, b, and c, below all apply: a. The small MS4 is not contributing substantially to the pollutant loadings of a physically interconnected MS4 that is regulated by the NPDES stormwater program. b. The discharge of pollutants from the small MS4 have not been identified as a cause of impairment of any water body to which the MS4 discharges. c. In areas where an EPA approved TMDL has been completed, stormwater controls on the MS4 have not been identified as being necessary. In determining the total population served both resident and commuter populations shall be included. For example: • For publicly operated school complexes including universities and colleges the total population served would include the sum of the average annual student enrollment plus staff. • For flood control, diking, and drainage districts the total population served would include residential population and any non-residents regularly employed in the areas served by the small MS4. D. Obtaining coverage under this Permit All operators of regulated small MS4s are required to apply for and obtain coverage in accordance with this section, unless waived or exempted in accordance with section S1.C. 1. Permittees: unless otherwise noted, the term “Permittee” shall include Permittee, Co-Permittee, and Secondary Permittee, as defined below: a. “Permittee” is a city, town, or county owning or operating a regulated small MS4 applying and receiving a permit as a single entity. b. “Co-Permittee” is any operator of a regulated small MS4 that is applying jointly with another applicant for coverage under this Permit. Co-Permittees own or operate a regulated small MS4 located within or adjacent to another regulated small MS4. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 4 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 c. A “Secondary Permittee” is an operator of regulated small MS4 that is not a city, town or county. Secondary Permittees include special purpose districts and other MS4s that meet the criteria for a regulated small MS4 in S1.B. above. 2. Operators of regulated small MS4s shall submit either an individual application to the Department or a Notice of Intent (NOI). Applications submitted after January 17, 2007 must be made using the NOI provided in Appendix 5. The NOI is also available on Ecology’s website. a. All cities, towns and counties listed in i and ii below and operating regulated small MS4s shall apply as either a Permittee or Co-Permittee. i. Cities of: Aberdeen, Algona, Anacortes, Arlington, Auburn, Bainbridge Island, Battle Ground, Bellevue, Bellingham, Black Diamond, Bonney Lake, Bothell, Bremerton, Brier, Buckley, Burien, Burlington, Camas, Centralia, Clyde Hill, Covington, Des Moines, DuPont, Duvall, Edgewood, Edmonds, Enumclaw, Everett, Federal Way, Ferndale, Fife, Fircrest, Gig Harbor, Granite Falls, Issaquah, Kelso, Kenmore, Kent, Kirkland, Lacey, Lake Forest Park, Lake Stevens, Lakewood, Longview, Lynnwood, Maple Valley, Marysville, Medina, Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Milton, Monroe, Mountlake Terrace, Mount Vernon, Mukilteo, Newcastle, Normandy Park, Oak Harbor, Olympia, Orting, Pacific, Port Orchard, Port Angeles, Poulsbo, Puyallup, Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, SeaTac, Sedro-Woolley, Shoreline, Snohomish, Steilacoom, Sumner, Tukwila, Tumwater, University Place, Vancouver, Washougal, Woodinville, and Yarrow Point. ii. Counties: Cowlitz, Kitsap, Thurston, Skagit, and Whatcom. b. All other regulated small MS4s shall apply as a Secondary Permittee or as a Co-Permittee. c. The following cities, towns and counties submitted either an application or a NOI for coverage to Ecology prior to January 17, 2007: i. Cities and towns: Aberdeen, Algona, Arlington, Auburn, Bainbridge Island, Battle Ground, Bellevue, Bellingham, Black Diamond, Bonney Lake, Bothell, Bremerton, Brier, Buckley, Burien, Burlington, Camas, Centralia, Clyde Hill, Covington, Des Moines, DuPont, Duvall, Edgewood, Edmonds, Enumclaw, Everett, Federal Way, Ferndale Fife, Fircrest, Gig Harbor, Granite Falls, Issaquah, Kelso, Kenmore, Kent, Kirkland, Lacey, Lake Forest Park, Lake Stevens, Lakewood, Longview, Lynnwood, Maple Valley, Marysville, Medina, Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Milton, Monroe, Mountlake Terrace, Mount Vernon, Mukilteo, Newcastle, Normandy Park, Oak Harbor, Olympia, Orting, Pacific, Port Orchard, Poulsbo, Puyallup, Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, SeaTac, Sedro-Woolley, Shoreline, Snohomish, Steilacoom, Sumner, Tukwila, Tumwater, University Place, Vancouver, Washougal, Woodinville, and Yarrow Point ii. Counties: Cowlitz, Kitsap, Thurston, Skagit, and Whatcom. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 5 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 d. All operators of regulated small MS4s located in jurisdictions listed in S1.D.2.a. shall submit to Ecology a NOI or individual permit application before the effective date of this permit, with the following exceptions: i. Operators of regulated small MS4s located in the Cities of Aberdeen, Anacortes, Centralia, Oak Harbor, and Port Angeles shall submit a NOI or application to Ecology no later than 30 days after the effective date of this permit. ii. Operators of regulated small MS4s listed in S1.D.2.c. do not need to submit a new application to be covered under this permit. e. For operators of regulated small MS4s listed in S1.D.2.c., coverage under this permit is automatic and begins on the effective date of this permit, unless: i. The operator chooses to reapply before the effective date of this permit; or ii. The operator will be relying on another entity to satisfy one or more of their permit obligations in accordance with S1.D.2.g. and S1.D.3.d. below; or iii. The operator chooses be a Co-Permittee in accordance with S1.D.2.f. and S1.D.3.c. below; or iv. The operator chooses to opt out of this General Permit. Any operator of a regulated small MS4 that is opting out of this permit shall submit an application for an individual MS4 permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.33(b)(2)(ii) no later than the effective date of this permit. f. Operators of regulated small MS4s which want to be covered under this permit as Co-Permittees shall submit to Ecology a joint NOI. g. Operators of regulated small MS4s which are relying on another entity to satisfy one or more of their permit obligations shall submit a NOI to Ecology. h. Operators of small MS4s designated by Ecology pursuant to S1.B.3. of this permit shall submit a NOI to Ecology within 120 days of receiving notification from Ecology that permit coverage is required. 3. Application Requirements a. NOIs shall be submitted to: Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Municipal Stormwater Permits P.O. Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 b. For NOIs submitted after January 17, 2007, the permit applicant shall provide public notice of the application in accordance with WAC 173-226-130(5). The applicant or co-applicant shall include a certification that the public notification requirements of WAC 173-226-130(5) have been satisfied. Unless Ecology responds in writing, coverage under this Permit will be effective 60 days after Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 6 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 receipt of a complete NOI. A complete NOI shall include the certification of public notice. c. Permittees applying as co-applicants shall submit a joint NOI. The joint NOI shall clearly identify the areas of the MS4 for which each of the co-applicants are responsible. d. Permittees relying on another entity or entities to satisfy one or more of their permit obligations shall notify Ecology in writing. The notification shall include a summary of the permit obligations that will be carried out by another entity. The summary shall identify the other entity or entities and shall be signed by the other entity or entities. During the term of the permit, permittees may terminate or amend shared responsibility arrangements by notifying Ecology, provided this does not alter implementation deadlines. e. Secondary permittees required to have coverage under this Permit, and the NPDES and State Waste Discharge Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewers in Eastern Washington or the NPDES and State Waste Discharge Permit for Discharges from Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewers, may obtain coverage by submitting a single NOI. S2. AUTHORIZED DISCHARGES A. This Permit authorizes the discharge of stormwater to surface waters and to ground waters of the state from municipal separate storm sewer systems owned or operated by each Permittee covered under this permit, in the geographic area covered pursuant to S1.A. These discharges are subject to the following limitations: 1. Discharges to ground waters of the state through facilities regulated under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, Chapter 173-218 WAC, are not covered under this Permit. 2. Discharges to ground waters not subject to regulation under the federal Clean Water Act are covered in this permit only under state authorities, Chapter 90.48 RCW, the Water Pollution Control Act. B. This Permit authorizes discharges of non-stormwater flows to surface waters and to ground waters of the state from municipal separate storm sewer systems owned or operated by each Permittee covered under this permit, in the geographic area covered pursuant to S1.A, only under the following conditions: 1. The discharge is authorized by a separate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State Waste Discharge permit. 2. The discharge is from emergency fire fighting activities. 3. The discharge is from another illicit or non-stormwater discharge that is managed by the Permittee as provided in Special Condition S5.C.3.b. or S6.C.3.b. These discharges are also subject to the limitations in S2.A.1. and S.2.A.2. above. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 7 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 C. This Permit does not relieve entities that cause illicit discharges, including spills, of oil or hazardous substances, from responsibilities and liabilities under state and federal laws and regulations pertaining to those discharges. D. Discharges from municipal separate storm sewers constructed after the effective date of this permit shall receive all applicable state and local permits and use authorizations, including compliance with Chapter 43.21C RCW (the State Environmental Policy Act). E. This Permit does not authorize discharges of stormwater to waters within Indian Reservations except where authority has been specifically delegated to Ecology by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The exclusion of such discharges from this Permit does not waive any rights the State may have with respect to the regulation of the discharges. S3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERMITTEES A. Each Permittee covered under this Permit is responsible for compliance with the terms of this Permit for the regulated small MS4s that they own or operate. Compliance with (1) or (2) below is required as applicable to each permittee, whether the permittee has applied for coverage as a permittee, co-permittee, or secondary permittee. 1. All city, town and county permittees are required to comply with all conditions of this Permit, including any appendices referenced therein, except for Special Condition S6 Stormwater Management Program for Secondary Permittees. 2. All secondary permittees are required to comply with all conditions of this Permit, including any appendices referenced therein, except for Special Conditions S8.C. Monitoring and S5 Stormwater Management Program for Cities, Towns and Counties. B. Permittees may rely on another entity to satisfy one or more of the requirements of this Permit. Permittees that are relying on another entity to satisfy one or more of their permit obligations remain responsible for permit compliance if the other entity fails to implement permit conditions. Permittees may rely on another entity provided all the requirements of 40 CFR 122.35(a) are satisfied, including but not limited to: 1. The other entity, in fact, implements the Permit requirements. 2. The other entity agrees to take on responsibility for implementation of the Permit requirement(s) as indicated on the NOI. S4. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS A. In accordance with RCW 90.48.520, the discharge of toxicants to waters of the state of Washington which would violate any water quality standard, including toxicant standards, sediment criteria, and dilution zone criteria is prohibited. The required response to such discharges is defined in section S4.F., below. B. This Permit does not authorize a discharge which would be a violation of Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), Sediment Management Standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC), or human health-based criteria in the national Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Vol. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 8 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 57, NO. 246, Dec. 22, 1992, pages 60848-60923). The required response to such discharges is defined in section S4.F., below. C. The Permittee shall reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). D. The Permittee shall use all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART) to prevent and control pollution of waters of the state of Washington. E. In order to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act, and comply with S4.A., S4.B., S4.C., and S4.D. each Permittee shall comply with all of the applicable requirements of this Permit as identified in S3 Responsibilities of Permittees. F. A Permittee remains in compliance with S4. despite any discharges prohibited by S4.A. or S4.B., when the Permittee undertakes the following response toward long-term water quality improvement: 1. A Permittee shall notify Ecology in writing within 30 days of becoming aware, based on credible site-specific information, that a discharge from the municipal separate storm sewer owned or operated by the Permittee is causing or contributing to a known or likely violation of Water Quality Standards in the receiving water. Written notification provided under this subsection shall, at a minimum, identify the source of the site-specific information, describe the nature and extent of the known or likely violation in the receiving water, and explain the reasons why the MS4 discharge is believed to be causing or contributing to the problem. For ongoing or continuing violations, a single written notification to Ecology will fulfill this requirement. 2. In the event that Ecology determines, based on a notification provided under S4.F.1. or through any other means, that a discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer owned or operated by the Permittee is causing or contributing to a violation of Water Quality Standards in a receiving water, Ecology will notify the Permittee in writing that an adaptive management response outlined in S4.F.3. below is required, unless Ecology also determines that (a) the violation of Water Quality Standards is already being addressed by a Total Maximum Daily Load or other enforceable water quality cleanup plan; or (b) Ecology concludes the violation will be eliminated through implementation of other permit requirements. 3. Adaptive Management Response a. Within 60 days of receiving a notification under S4.F.2., or by an alternative date established by Ecology, the Permittee shall review its Stormwater Management Program and submit a report to Ecology. The report shall include: i. A description of the operational and/or structural BMPs that are currently being implemented to prevent or reduce any pollutants that are causing or contributing to the violation of Water Quality Standards, including a qualitative assessment of the effectiveness of each BMP. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 9 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 ii. A description of potential additional operational and/or structural BMPs that will or may be implemented in order to apply AKART on a site-specific basis to prevent or reduce any pollutants that are causing or contributing to the violation of Water Quality Standards. iii. A description of the potential monitoring or other assessment and evaluation efforts that will or may be implemented to monitor, assess, or evaluate the effectiveness of the additional BMPs. iv. A schedule for implementing the additional BMPs including, as appropriate: funding, training, purchasing, construction, monitoring, and other assessment and evaluation components of implementation. b. Ecology will, in writing, acknowledge receipt of the report within a reasonable time and notify the Permittee when it expects to complete its review of the report. Ecology will either approve the additional BMPs and implementation schedule or require the Permittee to modify the report as needed to meet AKART on a site-specific basis. If modifications are required, Ecology will specify a reasonable time frame in which the Permittee shall submit and Ecology will review the revised report. c. The Permittee shall implement the additional BMPs, pursuant to the schedule approved by Ecology, beginning immediately upon receipt of written notification of approval. d. The Permittee shall include with each subsequent annual report a summary of the status of implementation and the results of any monitoring, assessment or evaluation efforts conductedduring the reporting period. If, based on the information provided under this subsection, Ecology determines that modification of the BMPs or implementation schedule is necessary to meet AKART on a site-specific basis, the Permittee shall make such modifications as Ecology directs. In the event there are ongoing violations of water quality standards despite the implementation of the BMP approach of this section, the Permittee may be subject to compliance schedules to eliminate the violation under WAC 173-201A-510(4) and WAC 173-226-180 or other enforcement orders as Ecology deems appropriate during the term of this permit. e. Provided the Permittee is implementing the approved adaptive management response under this section, the Permittee remains in compliance with Condition S4., despite any on-going violations of Water Quality Standards identified under S4.F.A or B above. f. The adaptive management process provided under Section S.4.F is not intended to create a shield for the Permittee from any liability it may face under 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. or RCW 70.105D. G. Ecology may modify or revoke and reissue this General Permit in accordance with G14 General Permit Modification and Revocation, if Ecology becomes aware of additional control measures, management practices or other actions beyond what is required in this Permit that are necessary to: Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 10 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 1. Reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MEP, 2. Comply with the state AKART requirements, or 3. Control the discharge of toxicants to waters of the State of Washington. S5. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR CITIES, TOWNS AND COUNTIES A. Each Permittee shall develop and implement a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). A SWMP is a set of actions and activities comprising the components listed in S5.B. and S5.C.1. through S5.C.5., and any additional actions necessary to meet the requirements of applicable TMDLs (see S7). The SWMP shall be designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the regulated small MS4 to the maximum extent practicable and to protect water quality. This section applies to all cities, towns and counties covered under this Permit, including cities, towns and counties that are co-permittees. Where the term “Permittee” is used in this section the requirements apply to all cities, towns and counties covered under this Permit. 1. The SWMP shall be developed and implemented in accordance with the schedules contained in this section and shall be fully developed and implemented no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date of this Permit. At a minimum the Permittee’s SWMP shall be implemented throughout the geographic area subject to this Permit as described in S1.A. 2. Each Permittee shall prepare written documentation of the SWMP. The SWMP documentation shall be organized according to the program components in S5.C. and shall be updated at least annually for submittal with the Permittee’s annual reports to Ecology (see S9 Reporting and Record Keeping). The SWMP documentation shall include: a. A description of each of the program components included in S5.C., and b. Any additional actions implemented by the Permittee pursuant to S5.C., and c. Any additional actions necessary to meet the requirements of applicable TMDLs pursuant to S7 Compliance with Total Maximum Daily Load Requirements. 3. The SWMP shall include an ongoing program for gathering, tracking, maintaining, and using information to evaluate SWMP development, implementation and permit compliance and to set priorities. a. Beginning no later than January 1, 2009, each Permittee shall track the cost or estimated cost of development and implementation of each component of the SWMP. This information shall be provided to Ecology upon request. b. Each Permittee shall track the number of inspections, official enforcement actions and types of public education activities as stipulated by the respective program component. This information shall be included in the annual report. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 11 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 4. The SWMP described herein supersedes SWMP descriptions provided by permit applicants in individual applications submitted to the Department prior to the effective date of this permit. Notwithstanding the schedules for implementation of SWMP components contained in this permit, Permittees that are already implementing some or all of the SWMP components in this section shall continue implementation of those components of their SWMP. Permittees shall not repeal existing local requirements to control stormwater that go beyond the requirements of this permit for new development and redevelopment sites. 5. Coordination among permittees a. Coordination among entities covered under municipal stormwater NPDES permits may be necessary to comply with certain conditions of the SWMP. The SWMP should include, when needed, coordination mechanisms among entities covered under a municipal stormwater NPDES permit to encourage coordinated stormwater-related policies, programs and projects within adjoining or shared areas. i. Coordination mechanisms shall clarify roles and responsibilities for the control of pollutants between physically interconnected MS4s permittees covered by a municipal stormwater permit. ii. Coordination mechanisms shall coordinate stormwater management activities for shared water bodies among permittees to avoid conflicting plans, policies and regulations. b. The SWMP should include coordination mechanisms among departments within each jurisdiction to eliminate barriers to compliance with the terms of this permit. B. The SWMP shall be designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from regulated small MS4s to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), meet state AKART requirements, and protect water quality. Notwithstanding the schedules for implementation of SWMP components contained in this Permit, permittees who are implementing some or all of the SWMP components in this section shall continue implementation of those components of their SWMP. C. The SWMP shall include the components listed below. To the extent allowable under state or federal law, all components are mandatory for city, town or county permittees covered under this Permit. In accordance with 40 CFR 122.35(a) and Special Condition S3, a city, town or county may rely on another entity to implement one or more of the components in this section. 1. Public Education and Outreach The SWMP shall include an education program aimed at residents, businesses, industries, elected officials, policy makers, planning staff and other employees of the Permittee. The goal of the education program is to reduce or eliminate behaviors and Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 12 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 practices that cause or contribute to adverse stormwater impacts. An education program may be developed locally or regionally. The minimum measures are: a. No later than two years after the effective date of this Permit, the Permittee shall provide an education and outreach program for the area served by the MS4. The outreach program shall be designed to achieve measurable improvements in the target audience’s understanding of the problem and what they can do to solve it. Education and outreach efforts shall be prioritized to target the following audiences and subject areas: i. General public • General impacts of stormwater flows into surface waters. • Impacts from impervious surfaces. • Source control BMPs and environmental stewardship actions and opportunities in the areas of pet waste, vehicle maintenance, landscaping and buffers. ii. General public, businesses, including home-based and mobile businesses • BMPs for use and storage of automotive chemicals, hazardous cleaning supplies, carwash soaps and other hazardous materials. • Impacts of illicit discharges and how to report them. iii. Homeowners, landscapers and property managers • Yard care techniques protective of water quality. • BMPs for use and storage of pesticides and fertilizers. • BMPs for carpet cleaning and auto repair and maintenance. • Low Impact Development techniques, including site design, pervious paving, retention of forests and mature trees. • Stormwater pond maintenance. iv. Engineers, contractors, developers, review staff and land use planners • Technical standards for stormwater site and erosion control plans. • Low Impact Development techniques, including site design, pervious paving, retention of forests and mature trees. • Stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs. b. Each Permittee shall measure the understanding and adoption of the targeted behaviors for at least one targeted audience in at least one subject area. The resulting measurements shall be used to direct education and outreach resources most effectively, as well as to evaluate changes in adoption of the targeted behaviors. c. Each Permittee shall track and maintain records of public education and outreach activities. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 13 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 2. Public Involvement and Participation The SWMP shall include ongoing opportunities for public involvement through advisory councils, watershed committees, participation in developing rate-structures, stewardship programs, environmental activities or other similar activities. Each Permittee shall comply with applicable State and local public notice requirements when developing their SWMP. The minimum performance measures are: a. No later than one year from the effective date of this Permit, all permittees shall create opportunities for the public to participate in the decision-making processes involving the development, implementation and update of the Permittee’s entire SWMP. Each Permittee shall develop and implement a process for consideration of public comments on their SWMP. b. Each Permittee shall make their SWMP, the annual report required under S9.A and all other submittals required by this Permit, available to the public. The annual report, and SWMP that was submitted with the latest annual report, shall be posted on the permittee’s website. To comply with the posting requirement, a permittee that does not maintain a website may submit the updated SWMP in electronic format to the Department for posting on the Department’s website. 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination The SWMP shall include an ongoing program to detect and remove illicit connections and discharges as defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(2), including any spills not under the purview of another responding authority, into the municipal separate storm sewers owned or operated by the Permittee. Permittees shall fully implement an ongoing illicit discharge detection and elimination program no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date of this Permit. The minimum performance measures are: a. A municipal storm sewer system map shall be developed no later than four years from the effective date of this permit. Municipal storm sewer system maps shall be periodically updated and shall include the following information: i. The location of all known municipal separate storm sewer outfalls and receiving waters and structural stormwater BMPs owned, operated, or maintained by the Permittee. Each Permittee shall map the attributes listed below for all storm sewer outfalls with a 24 inch nominal diameter or larger, or an equivalent cross-sectional area for non-pipe systems: • Tributary conveyances (indicate type, material, and size where known). • Associated drainage areas. • Land use. ii. Each Permittee shall initiate a program to develop and maintain a map of all connections to the municipal separate storm sewer authorized or allowed by the Permittee after the effective date of this Permit. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 14 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 iii. Geographic areas served by the Permittee’s MS4 that do not discharge stormwater to surface waters. iv. Each Permittee shall make available to Ecology, upon request, municipal storm sewer system map(s) depicting the information required in S5.C.3.a.i. through iii above. The preferred format of submission will be an electronic format with fully described mapping standards. An example description is provided on Ecology WebPages under Core Services, GIS Data. v. Upon request, and to the extent appropriate, permittees shall provide mapping information to co-permittees and secondary permittees. b. Each Permittee shall develop and implement an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to effectively prohibit non-stormwater, illicit discharges into the Permittee’s municipal separate storm sewer system to the maximum extent allowable under State and Federal law. The ordinance or other regulatory mechanism shall be adopted no later than 30 months from the effective date of this Permit. i. The regulatory mechanism does not need to prohibit the following categories of non-stormwater discharges: • Diverted stream flows. • Rising ground waters. • Uncontaminated ground water infiltration (as defined at 40 CFR 35.2005(20)). • Uncontaminated pumped ground water. • Foundation drains. • Air conditioning condensation. • Irrigation water from agricultural sources that is commingled with urban stormwater. • Springs. • Water from crawl space pumps. • Footing drains. • Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands. • Non-stormwater discharges covered by another NPDES permit. • Discharges from emergency fire fighting activities in accordance with S2 Authorized Discharges. ii. The regulatory mechanism shall prohibit the following categories of non- stormwater discharges unless the stated conditions are met: • Discharges from potable water sources, including water line flushing, hyperchlorinated water line flushing, fire hydrant system flushing, and pipeline hydrostatic test water. Planned discharges shall be de- chlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH-adjusted, if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent re- suspension of sediments in the MS4. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 15 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 • Discharges from lawn watering and other irrigation runoff. These shall be minimized through, at a minimum, public education activities (see section S5.C.1) and water conservation efforts. • Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges. The discharges shall be dechlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH-adjusted and reoxygenized if necessary, volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent re-suspension of sediments in the MS4. Swimming pool cleaning wastewater and filter backwash shall not be discharged to the MS4. • Street and sidewalk wash water, water used to control dust, and routine external building wash down that does not use detergents. The Permittee shall reduce these discharges through, at a minimum, public education activities (see section S5.C.1.) and/or water conservation efforts. To avoid washing pollutants into the MS4, Permittees must minimize the amount of street wash and dust control water used. At active construction sites, street sweeping must be performed prior to washing the street. • Other non-stormwater discharges. The discharges shall be in compliance with the requirements of a stormwater pollution prevention plan reviewed by the Permittee, which addresses control of such discharges. iii. The Permittee’s SWMP shall, at a minimum, address each category in ii above in accordance with the conditions stated therein. iv. The SWMP shall further address any category of discharges in i or ii above if the discharges are identified as significant sources of pollutants to waters of the State. v. The ordinance or other regulatory mechanism shall include escalating enforcement procedures and actions. vi. The Permittee shall develop an enforcement strategy and implement the enforcement provisions of the ordinance or other regulatory mechanism. c. Each Permittee shall develop and implement an ongoing program to detect and address non-stormwater discharges, including spills, and illicit connections into the Permittee’s municipal separate storm sewer system. The program shall be fully implemented no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date of this Permit and shall include: i. Procedures for locating priority areas likely to have illicit discharges, including at a minimum: evaluating land uses and associated business/industrial activities present; areas where complaints have been registered in the past; and areas with storage of large quantities of materials that could result in spills. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 16 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 ii. Field assessment activities, including visual inspection of priority outfalls identified in i, above, during dry weather and for the purposes of verifying outfall locations, identifying previously unknown outfalls, and detecting illicit discharges. • Receiving waters shall be prioritized for visual inspection no later than three years from the effective date of this Permit, with field assessments of three high priority water bodies made no later than four years from the effective date of this Permit. Field assessments on at least one high priority water body shall be made each year thereafter. • Screening for illicit connections shall be conducted using: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: A Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical Assessments, Center for Watershed Protection, October 2004, or another methodology of comparable effectiveness. iii. Procedures for characterizing the nature of, and potential public or environmental threat posed by, any illicit discharges found by or reported to the Permittee. Procedures shall include detailed instructions for evaluating whether the discharge must be immediately contained and steps to be taken for containment of the discharge. Compliance with this provision shall be achieved by investigating (or referring to the appropriate agency) within 7 days, on average, any complaints, reports or monitoring information that indicates a potential illicit discharge, including spills; and immediately investigating (or referring) problems and violations determined to be emergencies or otherwise judged to be urgent or severe. iv. Procedures for tracing the source of an illicit discharge; including visual inspections, and when necessary, opening manholes, using mobile cameras, collecting and analyzing water samples, and/or other detailed inspection procedures. v. Procedures for removing the source of the discharge; including notification of appropriate authorities; notification of the property owner; technical assistance for eliminating the discharge; follow-up inspections; and escalating enforcement and legal actions if the discharge is not eliminated. Compliance with this provision shall be achieved by initiating an investigation within 21 days of a report or discovery of a suspected illicit connection to determine the source of the connection, the nature and volume of discharge through the connection, and the party responsible for the connection. Upon confirmation of the illicit nature of a storm drain connection, Permittees shall use their enforcement authority in a documented effort to eliminate the illicit connection within 6 months. d. Permittees shall inform public employees, businesses, and the general public of hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 17 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 i. No later than 180 days prior to the expiration date of this Permit, distribute appropriate information to target audiences identified pursuant to S5.C.1. ii. No later than two years from the effective date of this Permit, publicly list and publicize a hotline or other local telephone number for public reporting of spills and other illicit discharges. Keep a record of calls received and follow-up actions taken in accordance with S5.C.3.c.ii. through v. above; include a summary in the annual report (see section S9 Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements). e. Permittees shall adopt and implement procedures for program evaluation and assessment, including tracking the number and type of illicit discharges, including spills, identified; inspections made; and any feedback received from public education efforts. A summary of this information shall be included in the Permittee’s annual report (see section S9 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements). f. Each Permittee will provide appropriate training for municipal field staff on the identification and reporting of illicit discharges into MS4s. i. No later than thirty months after the effective date of this Permit, each Permittee shall ensure that all municipal field staff who are responsible for identification, investigation, termination, cleanup, and reporting illicit discharges, including spills, and illicit connections are trained to conduct these activities. Follow-up training shall be provided as needed to address changes in procedures, techniques or requirements. Permittees shall document and maintain records of the training provided and the staff trained. ii. No later than three years after the effective date of this Permit, an ongoing training program shall be developed and implemented for all municipal field staff, which, as part of their normal job responsibilities, might come into contact with or otherwise observe an illicit discharge or illicit connection to the storm sewer system shall be trained on the identification of an illicit discharge/connection, and on the proper procedures for reporting and responding to the illicit discharge/connection. Follow-up training shall be provided as needed to address changes in procedures, techniques or requirements. Permittees shall document and maintain records of the training provided and the staff trained. 4. Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment and Construction Sites Each Permittee shall develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff to a regulated small MS4 from new development, redevelopment and construction site activities. This program shall be applied to all sites that disturb a land area 1 acre or greater, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of the development or sale. The program shall apply to private and public development, including roads. The “Technical Thresholds” in Appendix 1 shall be applied to all sites 1 acre or greater, including Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 18 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of the development or sale. The minimum performance measures are: a. The program shall include an ordinance or other enforceable mechanism that addresses runoff from new development, redevelopment, and construction site projects. Pursuant to S5.A.4., in adopting this ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, existing local requirements to apply stormwater controls at smaller sites, or at lower thresholds than required pursuant to S5.C.4., shall be retained. The ordinance or other enforceable mechanism shall be adopted and effective no later than February 16, 2010. The ordinance or other enforceable mechanism shall include, at a minimum: i. The Minimum Requirements, technical thresholds, and definitions in Appendix 1 or an equivalent approved by Ecology under the NPDES Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit, for new development, redevelopment, and construction sites. Adjustment and variance criteria equivalent to those in Appendix 1 shall be included. More stringent requirements may be used, and/or certain requirements may be tailored to local circumstances through the use of basin plans or other similar water quality and quantity planning efforts. Such local requirements shall provide equal protection of receiving waters and equal levels of pollutant control to those provided in Appendix 1. ii. A site planning process and BMP selection and design criteria that, when used to implement the minimum requirements in Appendix 1 (or equivalent approved by Ecology under the Phase I Permit) will protect water quality, reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and satisfy the State requirement under Chapter 90.48 RCW to apply all known, available and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART) prior to discharge. Permittees shall document how the criteria and requirements will protect water quality, reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfy State AKART requirements. Permittees who choose to use the site planning process and BMP selection and design criteria in the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, or an equivalent manual approved by the Department under the Phase I Permit, may cite this choice as their sole documentation to meet this requirement. iii. The legal authority, through the approval process for new development, to inspect private stormwater facilities that discharge to the Permittee’s MS4. iv. Provisions to allow non-structural preventive actions and source reduction approaches such as Low Impact Development Techniques (LID), measures to minimize the creation of impervious surfaces and measures to minimize the disturbance of native soils and vegetation. Provisions for LID should take into account site conditions, access and long term maintenance. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 19 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 v. If the Permittee chooses to allow construction sites to apply the “Erosivity Waiver” in Appendix 1, Minimum Requirement #2, the ordinance or regulatory mechanism shall include appropriate, escalating enforcement sanctions for construction sites that provide notice to the Permittee of their intention to apply the waiver but do not meet the requirements (including timeframe restrictions, limits on activities that result in non-stormwater discharges, and implementation of appropriate BMPs to prevent violations of water quality standards) to qualify for the waiver. b. The program shall include a permitting process with plan review, inspection and enforcement capability to meet the standards listed in (i) through (iv) below, for both private and public projects, using qualified personnel (as defined in Definitions and Acronyms). At a minimum, this program shall be applied to all sites that disturb a land area 1 acre or greater, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of the development or sale. The process shall be in place no later than February 16, 2010. i. Except as provided in S5.C.4.b.vii. below, review of all stormwater site plans for proposed development activities. ii. Except as provided in S5.C.4.b.vii. below, inspect, prior to clearing and construction, all known development sites that have a high potential for sediment transport as determined through plan review based on definitions and requirements in Appendix 7 Determining Construction Site Sediment Damage Potential. iii. Except as provided in S5.C.4.b.vii. below, inspect all known permitted development sites during construction to verify proper installation and maintenance of required erosion and sediment controls. Enforce as necessary based on the inspection. iv. Inspect all permitted development sites upon completion of construction and prior to final approval or occupancy to ensure proper installation of permanent stormwater controls such as stormwater facilities and structural BMPs. Also, verify a maintenance plan is completed and responsibility for maintenance is assigned. Enforce as necessary based on the inspection. v. Compliance with the inspection requirements in (ii), (iii) and (iv) above shall be determined by the presence and records of an established inspection program designed to inspect all sites. Compliance during this permit term shall be determined by achieving at least 80% of scheduled inspections. vi. An enforcement strategy shall be developed and implemented to respond to issues of non-compliance. vii. If the Permittee chooses to allow construction sites to apply the “Erosivity Waiver” in Appendix 1, Minimum Requirement #2, the Permittee is not required to review the construction stormwater pollution prevention plans as part of the site plan review in (i) above, and is not required to perform Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 20 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 the construction phase inspections identified in (ii) and (iii) above related to construction sites which are eligible for the erosivity waiver. c. The program shall include provisions to verify adequate long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) of post-construction stormwater facilities and BMPs that are permitted and constructed pursuant to (b) above. These provisions shall be in place no later than February 16, 2010 and shall include: i. Adoption of an ordinance or other enforceable mechanism that clearly identifies the party responsible for maintenance, requires inspection of facilities in accordance with the requirements in (ii) through (iv) below, and establishes enforcement procedures. ii. Each Permittee shall establish maintenance standards that are as protective or more protective of facility function than those specified in Chapter 4 of Volume V of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. For facilities which do not have maintenance standards, the Permittee shall develop a maintenance standard. (1) The purpose of the maintenance standard is to determine if maintenance is required. The maintenance standard is not a measure of the facilities required condition at all times between inspections. Exceeding the maintenance standard between the period of inspections is not a permit violation. (2) Unless there are circumstances beyond the Permittee’s control, when an inspection identifies an exceedence of the maintenance standard, maintenance shall be performed: • Within 1 year for typical maintenance of facilities, except catch basins. • Within 6 months for catch basins. • Within 2 years for maintenance that requires capital construction of less than $25,000. Circumstances beyond the Permittee’s control include denial or delay of access by property owners, denial or delay of necessary permit approvals, and unexpected reallocations of maintenance staff to perform emergency work. For each exceedence of the required timeframe, the Permittee must document the circumstances and how they were beyond their control. iii. Annual inspections of all stormwater treatment and flow control facilities (other than catch basins) permitted by the Permittee according to S5.C.4.b. unless there are maintenance records to justify a different frequency. The Permittee shall take appropriate maintenance actions in accordance with the adopted maintenance standards. Reducing the inspection frequency shall be based on maintenance records of double the length of time of the proposed inspection frequency. In the absence of maintenance records, the Permittee may substitute written Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 21 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 statements to document a specific less frequent inspection schedule. Written statements shall be based on actual inspection and maintenance experience and shall be certified in accordance with G19 Certification and Signature. iv. Inspections of all new flow control and water quality treatment facilities, including catch basins, for new residential developments that are a part of a larger common plan of development or sale, every 6 months during the period of heaviest house construction (i.e., 1 to 2 years following subdivision approval) to identify maintenance needs and enforce compliance with maintenance standards as needed. d. The program shall include a procedure for keeping records of inspections and enforcement actions by staff, including inspection reports, warning letters, notices of violations, and other enforcement records. Records of maintenance inspections and maintenance activities shall be maintained. Permittees shall keep records of all projects disturbing more than one acre, and all projects of any size that are part of a common plan of development or sale that is greater than one acre that are approved after the effective date of this Permit. e. The program shall make available copies of the "Notice of Intent for Construction Activity" and copies of the "Notice of Intent for Industrial Activity" to representatives of proposed new development and redevelopment. Permittees will continue to enforce local ordinances controlling runoff from sites that are also covered by stormwater permits issued by Ecology. f. No later than February 16, 2010, each Permittee shall verify that all staff responsible for implementing the program to control stormwater runoff from new development, redevelopment, and construction sites, including permitting, plan review, construction site inspections, and enforcement, are trained to conduct these activities. Follow-up training shall be provided as needed to address changes in procedures, techniques or staffing. Permittees shall document and maintain records of the training provided and the staff trained. 5. Pollution Prevention and Operation and Maintenance for Municipal Operations Within three years of the effective date of this Permit, each Permittee shall develop and implement an operations and maintenance (O&M) program that includes a training component and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations. The minimum performance measures are: a. Each Permittee shall establish maintenance standards that are as protective, or more protective, of facility function than those specified in Chapter 4 of Volume V of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. For facilities which do not have maintenance standards, the Permittee shall develop a maintenance standard. i. The purpose of the maintenance standard is to determine if maintenance is required. The maintenance standard is not a measure of the facilities Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 22 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 required condition at all times between inspections. Exceeding the maintenance standard between inspections and/or maintenance is not a permit violation. ii. Unless there are circumstances beyond the Permittees control, when an inspection identifies an exceedence of the maintenance standard, maintenance shall be performed: • Within 1 year for typical maintenance of facilities, except catch basins. • Within 6 months for catch basins. • Within 2 years for maintenance that requires capital construction of less than $25,000. Circumstances beyond the Permittee’s control include denial or delay of access by property owners, denial or delay of necessary permit approvals, and unexpected reallocations of maintenance staff to perform emergency work. For each exceedence of the required timeframe, the Permittee shall document the circumstances and how they were beyond their control. b. Annual inspection of all municipally owned or operated permanent stormwater treatment and flow control facilities, other than catch basins, and taking appropriate maintenance actions in accordance with the adopted maintenance standards. The annual inspection requirement may be reduced based on inspection records. Reducing the inspection frequency shall be based on maintenance records of double the length of time of the proposed inspection frequency. In the absence of maintenance records, the Permittee may substitute written statements to document a specific less frequent inspection schedule. Written statements shall be based on actual inspection and maintenance experience and shall be certified in accordance with G19 Certification and Signature. c. Spot checks of potentially damaged permanent treatment and flow control facilities (other than catch basins) after major (greater than 24-hour-10-year recurrence interval rainfall) storm events. If spot checks indicate widespread damage/maintenance needs, inspect all stormwater treatment and flow control facilities that may be affected. Conduct repairs or take appropriate maintenance action in accordance with maintenance standards established above, based on the results of the inspections. d. Inspection of all catch basins and inlets owned or operated by the Permittee at least once before the end of the permit term. Clean catch basins if the inspection indicates cleaning is needed to comply with maintenance standards established in the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Decant water shall be disposed of in accordance with Appendix 6 Street Waste Disposal. Inspections may be conducted on a “circuit basis” whereby a sampling of catch basins and inlets within each circuit is inspected to identify maintenance needs. Include in the sampling an inspection of the catch basin immediately upstream of any system outfall. Clean all catch basins within a given circuit for which the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 23 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 inspection indicates cleaning is needed to comply with maintenance standards established under S5.C.4.c., above. As an alternative to inspecting catch basins on a “circuit basis,” the Permittee may inspect all catch basins, and clean only catch basins where cleaning is needed to comply with maintenance standards. e. Compliance with the inspection requirements in b, c and d above shall be determined by the presence of an established inspection program designed to inspect all sites. Compliance during this permit term shall be determined by achieving an annual rate of at least 95% of inspections no later than 180 days prior to the expiration date of this permit. f. Establishment and implementation of practices to reduce stormwater impacts associated with runoff from streets, parking lots, roads or highways owned or maintained by the Permittee, and road maintenance activities conducted by the Permittee. The following activities shall be addressed: • Pipe cleaning • Cleaning of culverts that convey stormwater in ditch systems • Ditch maintenance • Street cleaning • Road repair and resurfacing, including pavement grinding • Snow and ice control • Utility installation • Pavement striping maintenance • Maintaining roadside areas, including vegetation management • Dust control g. Establishment and implementation of policies and procedures to reduce pollutants in discharges from all lands owned or maintained by the Permittee and subject to this Permit, including but not limited to: parks, open space, road right- of-way, maintenance yards, and stormwater treatment and flow control facilities. These policies and procedures shall address, but are not limited to: • Application of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides including the development of nutrient management and integrated pest management plans. • Sediment and erosion control. • Landscape maintenance and vegetation disposal. • Trash management. • Building exterior cleaning and maintenance. h. Develop and implement an on-going training program for employees of the Permittee whose construction, operations or maintenance job functions may impact stormwater quality. The training program shall address the importance of protecting water quality, the requirements of this Permit, operation and maintenance standards, inspection procedures, selecting appropriate BMPs, ways to perform their job activities to prevent or minimize impacts to water quality, and procedures for reporting water quality concerns, including potential illicit Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 24 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 discharges. Follow-up training shall be provided as needed to address changes in procedures, techniques or requirements. Permittees shall document and maintain records of training provided. i. Development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for all heavy equipment maintenance or storage yards, and material storage facilities owned or operated by the Permittee in areas subject to this Permit that are not required to have coverage under the General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities or another NPDES permit that covers stormwater discharges associated with the activity. Implementation of non-structural BMPs shall begin immediately after the pollution prevention plan is developed. A schedule for implementation of structural BMPs shall be included in the SWPPP. Generic SWPPPs that can be applied at multiple sites may be used to comply with this requirement. The SWPPP shall include periodic visual observation of discharges from the facility to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMP. j. Records of inspections and maintenance or repair activities conducted by the Permittee shall be maintained in accordance with S9 Reporting Requirements. S6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR SECONDARY PERMITTEES A. This section applies to all secondary permittees, whether coverage under this Permit is obtained individually or as a co-permittee with a city, town or county or another secondary permittee. 1. To the extent allowable under state, federal or local law, all components are mandatory for each Secondary Permittee covered under this Permit, whether covered as an individual permittee or as a co-permittee. 2. Each Secondary Permittee shall develop and implement a stormwater management program (SWMP). The SWMP shall be designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from regulated small MS4s to the maximum extent practicable and protect water quality. 3. Unless an alternate implementation schedule is established by Ecology as a condition of permit coverage, the SWMP shall be developed and implemented in accordance with the schedules contained in this section and shall be fully developed and implemented no later than180 days before the expiration date of this Permit. Notwithstanding the schedules in this Permit, secondary permittees that are already implementing some or all of the required SWMP components shall continue implementation of those components. 4. Secondary permittees may implement parts of their SWMP in accordance with the schedule for cities, towns and counties in S5, provided they have signed a memorandum of understanding or other agreement to jointly implement the activity or activities with one or more jurisdictions listed in S1.D.2.a., and submitted a copy of the agreement to Ecology. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 25 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 5. Each Secondary Permittee shall prepare written documentation of the SWMP. The SWMP documentation shall be organized according to the program components in S6.D below and shall be updated at least annually for submittal with the Permittee’s annual reports to Ecology (see S9 Reporting Requirements). The SWMP documentation shall include: a. A description of each of the program components included in S6.D.1. through S6.D.6., and b. Any additional actions necessary to meet the requirements of applicable TMDLs pursuant to S7 Compliance with Total Maximum Daily Load Requirements. B. Coordination The SWMP shall include mechanisms to encourage coordinated stormwater-related policies, programs and projects within a watershed and interconnected MS4s. Where relevant and appropriate, the SWMP shall also include coordination among departments of the Secondary Permittee to ensure compliance with the terms of this Permit. C. Legal Authority To the extent allowable under state law and federal law, each Secondary Permittee shall be able to demonstrate that they can operate pursuant to legal authority which authorizes or enables the Secondary Permittee to control discharges to and from municipal separate storm sewers owned or operated by the Secondary Permittee. This legal authority may be a combination of statutes, ordinances, permits, contracts, orders, interagency agreements, or similar instruments. D. Stormwater Management Program for Secondary Permittees The term “Secondary Permittees” means drainage, diking, flood control, or diking and drainage districts, ports (other than the ports of Seattle and Tacoma), public colleges and universities, and any other owners or operators of municipal separate storm sewers located within the municipalities that are listed as permittees in S1.B. SWMP components 1. Public Education and Outreach Each Secondary Permittee shall implement the following stormwater education strategies: a. Storm drain inlets owned and operated by the Secondary Permittee that are located in maintenance yards, in parking lots, along sidewalks, and at pedestrian access points shall be clearly and permanently labeled with the message “Dump no waste” and indicating the point of discharge as a river, lake, bay, or groundwater. i. No later than three years from the date of permit coverage, at least 50 percent of these inlets shall be labeled. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 26 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 ii. No later than 180 days prior expiration date of this Permit, or as established as a condition of coverage by Ecology, all of these inlets shall be labeled. iii. As identified during visual inspection and regular maintenance of storm drain inlets per the requirements of S6.D.3.d. and S6.D.6.a.i. below, or as otherwise reported to the Secondary Permittee, any inlet having a label that is no longer clearly visible and/or easily readable shall be re-labeled within 90 days. b. Each year beginning no later than three years from the date of permit coverage, public ports, colleges and universities shall distribute educational information to tenants and residents on the impact of stormwater discharges on receiving waters, and steps that can be taken to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Different combinations of topics shall be addressed each year, and, before the expiration date of this Permit, where relevant, tenants and residents shall receive educational information about the following topics: i. How stormwater runoff affects local waterbodies ii. Proper use and application of pesticides and fertilizers iii. Benefits of using well-adapted vegetation iv. Alternative equipment washing practices including cars and trucks that minimize pollutants in stormwater v. Benefits of proper vehicle maintenance and alternative transportation choices; proper handling and disposal of vehicle wastes, including the location of hazardous waste collection facilities in the area vi. Hazards associated with illicit connections vii. Benefits of litter control and proper disposal of pet waste Compliance with this requirement can be achieved through participation in the local jurisdiction’s public education and outreach programs. 2. Public Involvement and Participation No later than 180 days before the expiration date of this Permit, or as established as a condition of coverage by the Ecology, each Secondary Permittee shall: a. Publish a public notice in the local newspaper or on the Permittee’s website and solicit public review of their SWMP. b. Make the latest updated version of the SWMP available to the public. If the Secondary Permittee maintains a website, the SWMP shall be posted on the Secondary Permittee’s website. 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Each Secondary Permittee shall: Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 27 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 a. From the date of permit coverage, comply with all relevant ordinances, rules, and regulations of the local jurisdiction(s) in which the Secondary Permittee is located that govern non-stormwater discharges. b. No later than one year from the date of permit coverage, develop and adopt appropriate policies prohibiting illicit discharges, and identify possible enforcement mechanisms for those policies. No later than eighteen months from the date of permit coverage, develop and implement an enforcement plan using these mechanisms to ensure compliance with illicit discharge policies. These policies shall address, at a minimum: illicit connections and non- stormwater discharges, including spills of hazardous materials and improper disposal of pet waste and litter. i. Non-stormwater discharges covered by another NPDES permit and discharges from emergency fire fighting activities are allowed in the MS4 in accordance with S2 Authorized Discharges. ii. The policies do not need to prohibit the following categories of non- stormwater discharges: • Diverted stream flows • Rising ground waters • Uncontaminated ground water infiltration (as defined at 40 CFR 35.2005(20)) • Uncontaminated pumped ground water • Foundation drains • Air conditioning condensation • Irrigation water from agricultural sources that is commingled with urban stormwater • Springs • Water from crawl space pumps • Footing drains • Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands iii. The policies shall prohibit the following categories of non-stormwater discharges unless the stated conditions are met: • Discharges from potable water sources, including water line flushing, hyperchlorinated water line flushing, fire hydrant system flushing, and pipeline hydrostatic test water. Planned discharges shall be de- chlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH-adjusted if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent resuspension of sediments in the MS4. • Discharges from lawn watering and other irrigation runoff. These discharges shall be minimized through, at a minimum, public education activities and water conservation efforts conducted by the Secondary Permittee and/or the local jurisdiction. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 28 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 • Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges. The discharges shall be dechlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH-adjusted and reoxygenated if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent resuspension of sediments in the MS4. Swimming pool cleaning wastewater and filter backwash shall not be discharged to the MS4. • Street and sidewalk wash water, water used to control dust, and routine external building wash down that does not use detergents. The Secondary Permittee shall reduce these discharges through, at a minimum, public education activities and/or water conservation efforts conducted by the Secondary Permittee and/or the local jurisdiction. To avoid washing pollutants into the MS4, the Secondary Permittee shall minimize the amount of street wash and dust control water used. At active construction sites, street sweeping shall be performed prior to washing the street. • Other non-stormwater discharges shall be in compliance with the requirements of a stormwater pollution prevention plan reviewed by the Permittee which addresses control of such discharges. iv. The Secondary Permittee’s SWMP shall, at a minimum, address each category in iii above in accordance with the conditions stated therein. v. The SWMP shall further address any category of discharges in ii or iii above if the discharge is identified as a significant source of pollutants to waters of the State. c. No later than 180 days before the expiration date of this Permit, or as established as a condition of coverage by Ecology, develop a storm sewer system map showing the locations of all known storm drain outfalls, labeled receiving waters and delineated areas contributing runoff to each outfall. Make the map (or completed portions of the map) available on request to the Department and/or to other Permittees or Secondary Permittees. The preferred, but not required, format of submission will be an electronic format with fully described mapping standards. An example description is provided on Ecology WebPages. d. Conduct field inspections and visually inspect for illicit discharges at all known outfalls that discharge to surface waters. Visually inspect at least one third (on average) of all known outfalls each year beginning no later than two years from the date of permit coverage. Develop and implement procedures to identify and remove any illicit discharges. Keep records of inspections and follow-up activities. e. No later than 180 days before the expiration date of this Permit, or as established as a condition of coverage by the Ecology, develop and implement a spill response plan that includes coordination with a qualified spill responder. f. No later than two years from permit coverage date, provide staff training or coordinate with existing training efforts to educate relevant staff on proper best Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 29 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 management practices for preventing illicit discharges, including spills. All relevant staff shall be trained. 4. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control From the date of permit coverage, each Secondary Permittee shall: a. Comply with all relevant ordinances, rules, and regulations of the local jurisdiction(s) in which the Secondary Permittee is located that govern construction phase stormwater pollution prevention measures. b. For all construction projects under the control of the Secondary Permittee which, require a construction stormwater permit, Secondary Permittees shall obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities or an alternative individual NPDES permit prior to discharging construction related stormwater. c. Coordinate with the local jurisdiction regarding projects owned and operated by other entities which discharge into the Secondary Permittee’s MS4, to assist the local jurisdiction with achieving compliance with all relevant ordinances, rules, and regulations of the local jurisdiction(s). d. Provide training or coordinate with existing training efforts to educate relevant staff in erosion and sediment control BMPs and requirements, or hire trained contractors to perform the work. e. Coordinate as requested with the Department or the local jurisdiction to provide access for inspection of construction sites or other land disturbances, which are under the control of the Secondary Permittee during the active grading and/or construction period. 5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment From the date of permit coverage, each Secondary Permittee shall: a. Comply with all relevant ordinances, rules and regulations of the local jurisdiction(s) in which the Secondary Permittee is located that govern post- construction stormwater pollution prevention measures. b. Coordinate with the local jurisdiction regarding projects owned and operated by other entities which discharge into the Secondary Permittee’s MS4, to assist the local jurisdiction with achieving compliance with all relevant ordinances, rules, and regulations of the local jurisdiction(s). 6. Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Each Secondary Permittee shall: a. No later than three years from the date of permit coverage, develop and implement a municipal operation and maintenance (O&M) plan to minimize stormwater pollution from activities conducted by the Secondary Permittee. The O&M Plan shall include appropriate pollution prevention and good Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 30 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 housekeeping procedures for all of the following operations, activities, and/or types of facilities that are present within the Secondary Permittee’s boundaries. i. Stormwater collection and conveyance system, including catch basins, stormwater sewer pipes, open channels, culverts, structural stormwater controls, and structural runoff treatment and/or flow control facilities. The O&M Plan shall address, but is not limited to: scheduled inspections and maintenance activities, including cleaning and proper disposal of waste removed from the system. Secondary Permittees shall properly maintain stormwater collection and conveyance systems owned or operated by the Secondary Permittee and regularly inspect and maintain all structural post- construction stormwater BMPs to ensure facility function. For facilities located in Western Washington, Secondary Permittees shall establish maintenance standards that are as protective or more protective of facility function than those specified in Chapter 4 Volume V of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, For facilities located in Eastern Washington, Secondary Permittees shall establish maintenance standards that are as protective or more protective of facility function than those specified in Chapters 5, 6 and 8 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (2004), Secondary Permittees shall conduct spot checks of stormwater treatment and flow control facilities following a 24 hour storm event with a 10-year or greater recurrence interval. ii. Roads, highways, and parking lots. The O&M Plan shall address, but is not limited to: deicing, anti-icing, and snow removal practices; snow disposal areas; material (e.g. salt, sand, or other chemical) storage areas; all-season BMPs to reduce road and parking lot debris and other pollutants from entering the MS4. iii. Vehicle fleets. The O&M Plan shall address, but is not limited to: storage, washing, and maintenance of Secondary Permittee vehicle fleets; and fueling facilities. Secondary Permittees shall conduct all vehicle and equipment washing and maintenance in a self-contained covered building or in designated wash and/or maintenance areas. iv. External building maintenance. The O&M Plan shall address, building exterior cleaning and maintenance including cleaning, washing, painting and other maintenance activities. v. Parks and open space. The O&M Plan shall address, but is not limited to: proper application of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides; sediment and erosion control; BMPs for landscape maintenance and vegetation disposal; and trash management. vi. Material storage areas, heavy equipment storage areas, and maintenance areas. Secondary Permittees shall develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to protect water quality at each of these facilities Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 31 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 owned or operated by the Secondary Permittee and not covered under the General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities or under another NPDES permit that covers stormwater discharges associated with the activity. vii. Other facilities that would reasonably be expected to discharge contaminated runoff. The O&M Plan shall address proper stormwater pollution prevention practices for each facility. b. From the date of coverage under this Permit, Secondary Permittees shall also have permit coverage for all facilities operated by the Secondary Permittee that are required to be covered under the General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities. c. The O&M Plan shall include sufficient documentation and records as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the O&M Plan requirements in S6.D.6.a.i through vii above. d. Train all employees whose construction, operations, or maintenance job functions may impact stormwater quality. The training shall address: i. The importance of protecting water quality, ii. The requirements of this Permit, iii. Operation and maintenance requirements, iv. Inspection procedures, v. Ways to perform their job activities to prevent or minimize impacts to water quality, and vi. Procedures for reporting water quality concerns, including potential illicit discharges. S7. COMPLIANCE WITH TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD REQUIREMENTS The following requirements apply if an applicable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is approved for stormwater discharges from MS4s owned or operated by the Permittee. Applicable TMDLs are TMDLs which have been approved by EPA on or before the date permit coverage is granted. A. For applicable TMDLs listed in Appendix 2, affected permittees shall comply with the specific requirements identified in Appendix 2. Each Permittee shall keep records of all actions required by this Permit that are relevant to applicable TMDLs within their jurisdiction. The status of the TMDL implementation shall be included as part of the annual report submitted to Ecology. Where monitoring is required in Appendix 2, the Permittee shall conduct the monitoring according to a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) approved by Ecology. B. For applicable TMDLs not listed in Appendix 2, compliance with this Permit shall constitute compliance with those TMDLs. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 32 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 C. For TMDLs that are approved by EPA after this Permit is issued, Ecology may establish TMDL related permit requirements through future permit modification if Ecology determines implementation of actions, monitoring or reporting necessary to demonstrate reasonable further progress toward achieving TMDL waste load allocations, and other targets, are not occurring and shall be implemented during the term of this Permit or when this Permit is reissued. Permittees are encouraged to participate in development of TMDLs within their jurisdiction and to begin implementation. S8. MONITORING A. Permittees are not required to conduct water sampling or other testing during the effective term of this Permit, with the following exceptions: 1. Any water quality monitoring required for compliance with TMDLs, pursuant to section S7 Compliance with Total Maximum Daily Load Requirements and Appendix 2 of this Permit, and 2. Any sampling or testing required for characterizing illicit discharges pursuant to section S5.C.3. or S6.D.3. of this Permit. B. The Permittee shall provide the following information in each annual report: 1. A description of any stormwater monitoring or studies conducted by the Permittee during the reporting period. If stormwater monitoring was conducted on behalf of the Permittee, or if studies or investigations conducted by other entities were reported to the Permittee, a brief description of the type of information gathered or received shall be included in the annual report(s) covering the time period(s) the information was received. 2. An assessment of the appropriateness of the BMPs identified by the Permittee for each component of the SWMP; and any changes made, or anticipated to be made, to the BMPs that were previously selected to implement the SWMP, and why. 3. Information required pursuant to S8.C.2. below. C. Preparation for future, long-term monitoring This section does not apply to secondary permittees. However, secondary permittees are required to provide information, maps and access for sampling efforts, as necessary. Secondary permittees are encouraged to participate in the monitoring program. 1. All cities, towns and counties shall prepare to participate in the implementation of a comprehensive long-term monitoring program. The monitoring program will include two components: stormwater monitoring and targeted Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) effectiveness monitoring. Stormwater monitoring is intended to characterize stormwater runoff quantity and quality at a limited number of locations in a manner that allows analysis of loadings and changes in conditions over time and generalization across the permittees’ jurisdictions. Stormwater program effectiveness monitoring is intended to improve stormwater management efforts by evaluating issues that significantly affect the success of, or confidence in, stormwater controls. The monitoring program can include long-term monitoring Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 33 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 and short-term studies. The results of the monitoring program will be used to support the adaptive management process and lead to refinements of the SWMP. a. Stormwater monitoring Cities having a population greater than 10,000 and counties having a population greater than 25,000 shall identify sites for long-term stormwater monitoring. Adequate sites will be those completely mapped as required in S5.C.3.a. and be suitable for permanent installation and operation of flow-weighted composite sampling equipment. No later than December 31, 2010: i. Each county having a population greater than 100,000 shall identify three outfalls or conveyances where stormwater sampling could be conducted. One outfall or conveyance shall represent commercial land use, the second shall represent low-density residential land use and the third will represent medium-to-high density residential land use. ii. Each city having a population greater than 75,000 shall identify three outfalls or conveyances where stormwater sampling could be conducted. One outfall or conveyance shall represent commercial land use, the second shall represent high-density residential land use and the third will represent industrial land use. iii. Each county having a population between 25,000 and 100,000 shall identify two outfalls or conveyances where stormwater sampling could be conducted. One outfall shall represent commercial land use and the second one will represent low-density residential land use. iv. Each city having a population between 10,000 and 75,000 shall identify two outfalls or conveyances where stormwater sampling could be conducted. One outfall shall represent commercial land use and the second will represent high-density residential land use. v. Permittees shall select outfalls or conveyances based on known water quality problems and/or targeted areas of interest for future monitoring. The Permittee shall document: • Why sites were selected; • Possible site constraints for installation of and access to monitoring equipment; • A brief description of the contributing drainage basin including size in acreage, dominant land use, and other contributing land uses; • Any water quality concerns in the receiving water of each selected outfall or conveyance. b. SWMP effectiveness monitoring i. Each city, town and county shall prepare to conduct monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the Permittee’s SWMP at controlling stormwater-related problems that are directly addressed by actions in the SWMP. This Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 34 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 component of the monitoring program shall be designed to answer the following types of questions: • How effective is a targeted action or narrow suite of actions? • Is the SWMP achieving a targeted environmental outcome? ii. No later than December 31, 2010, each city, town and county shall identify at least two suitable questions and select sites where monitoring will be conducted. This monitoring shall include, at a minimum, plans for stormwater, sediment or receiving water monitoring of physical, chemical and/or biological characteristics. This monitoring may also include data collection and analysis of other measures of program effectiveness, problem identification and characterizing discharges for planning purposes. iii. For each question, the Permittee shall develop a monitoring plan containing the following elements: • A statement of the question, an explanation of how and why the issue is significant to the Permittee, and a discussion of whether and how the results of the monitoring may be significant to other MS4s. • A specific hypothesis about the issue or management actions that will be tested. • Specific parameters or attributes to be measured. • Expected modifications to management actions depending on the outcome of hypothesis testing. 2. Monitoring program reporting requirements a. The fourth annual report shall: i. Describe the status of identification of sites for stormwater monitoring, if required for the Permittee. ii. Include a summary of proposed questions for the SWMP effectiveness monitoring and describe the status of developing the monitoring plan, including the proposed purpose, design, and methods. b. To comply with the requirements of all or part(s) of this section, permittees in a single Urbanized Area or WRIA may choose to submit a collaborative report or reports in lieu of separate reports. S9. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A. No later than March 31 of each year beginning in 2008, each Permittee shall submit an annual report. The reporting period for the first annual report will be from the effective date of this permit through December 31, 2007. The reporting period for all subsequent annual reports will be the previous calendar year. B. Two printed copies and an electronic (PDF) copy of each document shall be submitted to Ecology. All submittals shall be delivered to: Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 35 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Municipal Stormwater Permits P.O. Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 C. Each Permittee is required to keep all records related to this permit and the SWMP for at least five years. Except for the requirements of the annual reports described in this permit, records shall be submitted to Ecology only upon request, D. Each Permittee shall make all records related to this permit and the Permittee’s SWMP available to the public at reasonable times during business hours. The Permittee will provide a copy of the most recent annual report to any individual or entity, upon request. 1. A reasonable charge may be assessed by the Permittee for making photocopies of records. 2. The Permittee may require reasonable advance notice of intent to review records related to this Permit. E. The annual report for cities, towns, and counties Each annual report shall include the following: 1. A copy of the Permittee’s current Stormwater Management Program as required by S5.A.2. 2. Submittal of Appendix 3 – Annual Report Form for Cities, Towns, and Counties, which is intended to summarize the Permittees compliance with the conditions of this permit, including: a. Status of implementation of each component of the SWMP in section S5 Stormwater Management Program for Cities, Towns and Counties. b. An assessment of the Permittee’s progress in meeting the minimum performance standards established for each of the minimum control measures of the SWMP. c. A description of activities being implemented to comply with each component of the SWMP, including the number and type of inspections, enforcement actions, public education and involvement activities, and illicit discharges detected and eliminated. d. The Permittee’s SWMP implementation schedule and plans for meeting permit deadlines, and the status of SWMP implementation to date. If permit deadlines are not met, or may not be met in the future, include: reasons why, corrective steps taken and proposed, and expected dates that the deadlines will be met. e. A summary of the Permittee’s evaluation of their SWMP, according to sections S5.A.4. and S8.B.2. f. If applicable, notice that the MS4 is relying on another governmental entity to satisfy any of the obligations under this permit. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 36 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 g. Updated information from the prior annual report plus any new information received during the reporting period, pursuant to S8.B.2. above. h. Certification and signature pursuant to G19.D, and notification of any changes to authorization pursuant to G19.C. 3. Permittees shall include with the annual report, notification of any annexations, incorporations or jurisdictional boundary changes resulting in an increase or decrease in the Permittee’s geographic area of permit coverage during the reporting period, and implications for the SWMP. 4. Permittees shall include with the annual report submitted no later than March 31, 2011 information that at a minimum includes: a. A summary of identified barriers to the use of low impact development (LID) within the area covered by the permit and measures to address the barriers. Each individual Permittee must complete this summary. b. A report completed by an individual Permittee or in cooperation with multiple Permittees describing, at a minimum: i. LID practices that are currently available and that can reasonably be implemented within this permit term. ii. Potential or planned non-structural actions and LID techniques to prevent stormwater impacts. iii. Goals and metrics to identify, promote, and measure LID use. iv. Potential or planned schedules for the Permittee(s) to require and implement the non-structural and LID techniques on a broader scale in the future. F. Annual report for Secondary Permittees All Secondary Permittees shall complete the Annual Report Form for Secondary Permittees (Appendix 4) and submit it along with any supporting documentation to Ecology. 1. The Annual Report Form for Secondary Permittees is intended to summarize the Permittees compliance with the conditions of this permit, including: a. Status of implementation of each component of the SWMP in section S6 Stormwater Management Program for Secondary Permittees of this permit. b. An assessment of the Permittee’s progress in meeting the minimum performance standards established for each of the minimum control measures of the SWMP. c. A summary of the Permittee’s evaluation of their SWMP, according to section S8.B.2. d. If applicable, notice that the MS4 is relying on another governmental entity to satisfy any of the obligations under this permit. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 37 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 e. Updated information from the prior annual report plus any new information received during the reporting period pursuant to S8.B.1 and S8.B.2. f. Certification and signature pursuant to G19.D, and notification of any changes to authorization pursuant to G19.C. 2. Secondary Permittees shall include with the annual report a notification of any jurisdictional boundary changes resulting in an increase or decrease in the Permittee’s geographic area of permit coverage during the reporting period, and implications for the SWMP. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 38 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 GENERAL CONDITIONS G1. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS All discharges and activities authorized by this Permit shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this Permit. G2. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of collection, treatment, and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee for pollution control to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this Permit. G3. NOTIFICATION OF DISCHARGE, INCLUDING SPILLS If a Permittee has knowledge of a discharge, including spills, into or from a municipal storm sewer which could constitute a threat to human health, welfare, or the environment, the Permittee shall A. Take appropriate action to correct or minimize the threat to human health, welfare and/or the environment, and, B. Notify the Ecology regional office and other appropriate spill response authorities immediately but in no case later than within 24 hours of obtaining that knowledge. The Ecology Northwest Regional Office 24-hour number is 425-649-7000 and for the Southwest Regional Office the number is 360-407-6300. C. Immediately report discharges, including spills, which might cause bacterial contamination of shellfish, such as might result from broken sewer lines and failing onsite septic systems, to the Ecology regional office and to the Department of Health, Shellfish Program. The Department of Health's shellfish 24-hour number is 360-236- 3330. D. Immediately report spills or discharges of oils or hazardous materials to the Ecology regional office and to the Washington Emergency Management Division at 1-800-258- 5990. G4. BYPASS PROHIBITED The intentional bypass of stormwater from all or any portion of a stormwater treatment BMP whenever the design capacity of the treatment BMP is not exceeded, is prohibited unless the following conditions are met: A. Bypass is: (1) unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; or (2) necessary to perform construction or maintenance-related activities essential to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA); and B. There are no feasible alternatives to bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated stormwater, or maintenance during normal dry periods. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 39 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which would cause them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. G5. RIGHT OF ENTRY The permittee shall allow an authorized representative of Ecology, upon the presentation of credentials and such other documents as may be required by law at reasonable times: A. To enter upon the Permittee's premises where a discharge is located or where any records must be kept under the terms and conditions of this Permit; B. To have access to, and copy at reasonable cost and at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the terms of the Permit; C. To inspect at reasonable times any monitoring equipment or method of monitoring required in the Permit; D. To inspect at reasonable times any collection, treatment, pollution management, or discharge facilities; and E. To sample at reasonable times any discharge of pollutants. G6. DUTY TO MITIGATE The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in violation of this Permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. G7. PROPERTY RIGHTS This permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege. G8. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES Nothing in the Permit shall be construed as excusing the Permittee from compliance with any other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. G9. MONITORING A. Representative Sampling: Samples and measurements taken to meet the requirements of this Permit shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge, including representative sampling of any unusual discharge or discharge condition, including bypasses, upsets, and maintenance-related conditions affecting effluent quality. B. Records Retention: The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original recordings for continuous monitoring Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 40 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this Permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at least five years. This period of retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by the permittee or when requested by the Ecology. On request, monitoring data and analysis shall be provided to Ecology. C. Recording of Results: For each measurement or sample taken, the Permittee shall record the following information: (1) the date, exact place and time of sampling; (2) the individual who performed the sampling or measurement; (3) the dates the analyses were performed; (4) who performed the analyses; (5) the analytical techniques or methods used; and (6) the results of all analyses. D. Test Procedures: All sampling and analytical methods used to meet the monitoring requirements in this permit shall conform to the Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants contained in 40 CFR Part 136, unless otherwise specified in this permit or approved in writing by Ecology. E. Flow Measurement: Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated, and maintained to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements are consistent with the accepted industry standard for that type of device. Frequency of calibration shall be in conformance with manufacturer's recommendations or at a minimum frequency of at least one calibration per year. Calibration records should be maintained for a minimum of three years. F. Lab Accreditation: All monitoring data, except for flow, temperature, conductivity, pH, total residual chlorine, and other exceptions approved by Ecology, shall be prepared by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories, Chapter 173-50 WAC. Soils and hazardous waste data are exempted from this requirement pending accreditation of laboratories for analysis of these media by Ecology. G. Additional Monitoring: Ecology may establish specific monitoring requirements in addition to those contained in this permit by administrative order or permit modification. G10. REMOVED SUBSTANCES With the exception of decant from street waste vehicles, the Permittee shall not allow collected screenings, grit, solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of stormwater to be resuspended or reintroduced to the storm sewer system or to waters of the state. Decant from street waste vehicles resulting Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 41 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 from cleaning stormwater facilities may be reintroduced only when other practical means are not available and only in accordance with the Street Waste Disposal Guidelines in Appendix 4. G11. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Permit are severable, and if any provision of this Permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this Permit shall not be affected thereby. G12. REVOCATION OF COVERAGE The director may terminate coverage under this General Permit in accordance with Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 173-226 WAC. Cases where coverage may be terminated include, but are not limited to the following: A. Violation of any term or condition of this general permit; B. Obtaining coverage under this general permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; C. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge; D. A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment, or contributes significantly to water quality standards violations; E. Failure or refusal of the permittee to allow entry as required in Chapter 90.48.090 RCW; F. Nonpayment of permit fees assessed pursuant to Chapter 90.48.465 RCW; Revocation of coverage under this general permit may be initiated by Ecology or requested by any interested person. G13. TRANSFER OF COVERAGE The director may require any discharger authorized by this General Permit to apply for and obtain an individual permit in accordance with Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 173-226 WAC. G14. GENERAL PERMIT MODIFICATION AND REVOCATION This General Permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated in accordance with the provisions of WAC 173-226-230. Grounds for modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination include, but are not limited to the following: A. A change occurs in the technology or practices for control or abatement of pollutants applicable to the category of dischargers covered under this General Permit; Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 42 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 B. Effluent limitation guidelines or standards are promulgated pursuant to the CWA or Chapter 90.48 RCW, for the category of dischargers covered under this General Permit; C. A water quality management plan containing requirements applicable to the category of dischargers covered under this General Permit is approved; or D. Information is obtained which indicates that cumulative effects on the environment from dischargers covered under this General Permit are unacceptable. E. Changes in state law that reference this permit. G15. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION A Permittee who knows or has reason to believe that any activity has occurred or will occur which would constitute cause for modification or revocation and reissuance under Condition G12, G14, or 40 CFR 122.62 must report such plans, or such information, to Ecology so that a decision can be made on whether action to modify, or revoke and reissue this Permit will be required. Ecology may then require submission of a new or amended application. Submission of such application does not relieve the Permittee of the duty to comply with this Permit until it is modified or reissued. G16. APPEALS A. The terms and conditions of this General Permit, as they apply to the appropriate class of dischargers, are subject to appeal within thirty days of issuance of this General Permit, in accordance with Chapter 43.21B RCW, and Chapter 173-226 WAC. B. The terms and conditions of this General Permit, as they apply to an individual discharger, are appealable in accordance with chapter 43.21B RCW within thirty days of the effective date of coverage of that discharger. Consideration of an appeal of General Permit coverage of an individual discharger is limited to the General Permit's applicability or nonapplicability to that individual discharger. C. The appeal of General Permit coverage of an individual discharger does not affect any other dischargers covered under this General Permit. If the terms and conditions of this General Permit are found to be inapplicable to any individual discharger(s), the matter shall be remanded to Ecology for consideration of issuance of an individual permit or permits. D. Modifications of this Permit are appealable in accordance with Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 173-226 WAC. G17. PENALTIES 40 CFR 122.41(a)(2) and (3), 40 CFR 122.41(j)(5), and 40 CFR 122.41(k)(2) are hereby incorporated into this Permit by reference. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 43 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 G18. DUTY TO REAPPLY The Permittee must apply for permit renewal at least 180 days prior to the specified expiration date of this permit. G19. CERTIFICATION AND SIGNATURE All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Department shall be signed and certified. A. All permit applications shall be signed by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. B. All reports required by this Permit and other information requested by the Department shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: 1. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to the Department, and 2. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall development and implementation of the stormwater management program. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.) C. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under condition G19.B.2 is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall development and implementation of the stormwater management program, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of condition G19.B.2 must be submitted to the Department prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative. D. Certification. Any person signing a document under this Permit shall make the following certification: “I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that Qualified Personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for willful violations.” G20. NON-COMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION In the event it is unable to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this permit, the Permittee must: Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 44 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 A. Notify Ecology of the failure to comply with the permit terms and conditions in writing within 30 days of becoming aware that the non-compliance has occurred. The written notification must include all of the following: 1. A description of the non-compliance, including dates. 2. Beginning and end dates of the non-compliance, and if the compliance has not been corrected, the anticipated date of correction. 3. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, or prevent reoccurrence of the non-compliance. B. Take appropriate action to stop or correct the condition of non-compliance. G21. UPSETS Permittees must meet the conditions of 40 CFR 122.41(n) regarding “Upsets.” The conditions are as follows: A. Definition. “Upset” means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. B. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph (C) of this condition are met. Any determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, will not constitute final administrative action subject to judicial review. C. Conditions necessary for demonstration of upset. A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset must demonstrate, through properly signed contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: 1. An upset occurred and that the Permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset; 2. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; and 3. The Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)(ii)(B) (24-hour notice of noncompliance). 4. The Permittee complied with any remedial measures required under 40 CFR 122.41(d) (Duty to Mitigate). D. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the Permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 45 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS AKART means all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment. All known, available and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment refers to the State Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48.010 and 90.48.520 RCW. Applicable TMDL means a TMDL which has been approved by EPA on or before the issuance date of this Permit, or prior to the date that the Permittee’s application is received by Ecology, or prior to a modification of this Permit, whichever is later. Beneficial Uses means uses of waters of the states which include but are not limited to use for domestic, stock watering, industrial, commercial, agricultural, irrigation, mining, fish and wildlife maintenance and enhancement, recreation, generation of electric power and preservation of environmental and aesthetic values, and all other uses compatible with the enjoyment of the public waters of the state. Best Management Practices ("BMPs") are the schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices approved by the Department that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State. BMP means Best Management Practice. Bypass means the diversion of stormwater from any portion of a stormwater treatment facility. Common plan of development or sale means a site where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules, but still under a single plan. Examples include: phased projects and projects with multiple filings or lots, even if the separate phases or filings/lots will be constructed under separate contract or by separate owners (e.g. a development where lots are sold to separate builders); a development plan that may be phased over multiple years, but is still under a consistent plan for long-term development; and projects in a contiguous area that may be unrelated but still under the same contract, such as construction of a building extension and a new parking lot at the same facility. If the project is part of a common plan of development or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan shall be used in determining permit requirements. Component or Program Component means an element of the Stormwater Management Program listed in S5 Stormwater Management Program for Cities, Towns, and Counties or S6 Stormwater Management Program for Secondary Permittees of this permit. Co-permittee means an operator of a regulated small MS4 which is applying jointly with another applicant for coverage under this permit. A co-permittee is an owner or operator of a regulated small MS4 located within or adjacent to another regulated MS4. A co-permittee is only responsible for complying with the conditions of this permit relating to discharges from the MS4 the co-permittee owns or operates. See also 40 CFR 122.26(b)(1) CWA means Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) Pub.L. 92-500, as amended Pub. L. 95-217, Pub. L. 95-576, Pub. L. (6-483 and Pub. L. 97-117, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et.seq. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 46 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 Detailed Implementation Plan means the formal implementation plan for a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or water quality clean-up plan. DIP means Detailed Implementation Plan. Director means the Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology, or an authorized representative. Discharge for the purpose of this permit means, unless indicated otherwise, any discharge from a MS4 owned or operated by the permittee. Entity means another governmental body, or public or private organization, such as another permittee, a conservation district, or volunteer organization. 40 CFR means Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. General Permit means a permit which covers multiple dischargers of a point source category within a designated geographical area, in lieu of individual permits being issued to each discharger. Ground water means water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface of the land or below a surface water body. Heavy equipment maintenance or storage yard means an uncovered area where any heavy equipment, such as mowing equipment, excavators, dump trucks, backhoes, or bulldozers are washed or maintained, or where at least five pieces of heavy equipment are stored. Hydraulically Near means runoff from the site discharges to the sensitive feature without significant natural attenuation of flows that allows for suspended solids removal. See Appendix 7 Determining Construction Site Sediment Damage Potential for a more detailed definition. Hyperchlorinated means water that contains more than 10 mg/Liter chlorine. Disinfection of water mains and appurtenances requires a chlorine residual of 10 mg/L at the end of the disinfection period. This level is well above the Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level of an annual average of 4 mg/Liter chlorine for potable water. Illicit connection means any man-made conveyance that is connected to a municipal separate storm sewer without a permit, excluding roof drains and other similar type connections. Examples include sanitary sewer connections, floor drains, channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets that are connected directly to the municipal separate storm sewer system. Illicit discharge means any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities. Large Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System means all municipal separate storm sewer systems located in an incorporated place with a population of 250,000 or more, a county with unincorporated urbanized areas with a population of 250,000 or more according to the 1990 decennial census by the Bureau of Census. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 47 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 Low Density Residential Land Use means, for the purpose of permit section S8 Monitoring, one unit per 1-5 acres. Low Impact Development (LID) means a stormwater management and land development strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision scale that emphasizes conservation and use of on-site natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls to more closely mimic pre-development hydrologic functions. Major Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Outfall means a municipal separate storm sewer outfall from a single pipe with an inside diameter of 36 inches or more, or its equivalent (discharge from a single conveyance other than circular pipe which is associated with a drainage area of more than 50 acres); or for municipal separate storm sewers that receive stormwater from lands zoned for industrial activity (based on comprehensive zoning plans or the equivalent), an outfall that discharges from a single pipe with an inside diameter of 12 inches or more or from its equivalent (discharge from other than a circular pipe associated with a drainage area of 12 acres or more). Material Storage Facilities means an uncovered area where bulk materials (liquid, solid, granular, etc.) are stored in piles, barrels, tanks, bins, crates, or other means. Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act which reads as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants. Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System means municipal separate storm sewer systems located in an incorporated place with a population of more than 100,000 but less than 250,000, or a county with unincorporated urbanized areas of more than 100,000 but less than 250,000 according to the 1990 decennial census by the Bureau of Census. MEP means Maximum Extent Practicable. MTRs means Minimum Technical Requirements. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) means a conveyance, or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains): (i) owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State Law) having jurisdiction over disposal of wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States. (ii) designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater. (iii) which is not a combined sewer; and (iv) which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 48 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking, and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the Federal Clean Water Act, for the discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the state from point sources. These permits are referred to as NPDES permits and, in Washington State, are administered by the Washington Department of Ecology. Notice of Intent (NOI) means the application for, or a request for coverage under this General Permit pursuant to WAC 173-226-200. Notice of Intent for Construction Activity and Notice of Intent for Industrial Activity mean the application forms for coverage under the Baseline General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities. Outfall means point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a municipal separate storm sewer discharges to waters of the State and does not include open conveyances connecting two municipal separate storm sewer systems, or pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other waters of the State and are used to convey waters of the State. Permittee unless otherwise noted, the term “Permittee” includes Permittee, Co-Permittee, and Secondary Permittee, as defined below: (i) A “Permittee” is a city, town, or county owning or operating a regulated small MS4 applying and receiving a permit as a single entity. (ii) A “Co-Permittee” is any operator of a regulated small MS4 that is applying jointly with another applicant for coverage under this Permit. Co-Permittees own or operate a regulated small MS4 located within or adjacent to another regulated small MS4. (iii) A “Secondary Permittee” is an operator of regulated small MS4 that is not a city, town or county. Physically Interconnected means that one MS4 is connected to a second MS4 in such a way that it allows for direct discharges to the second system. For example, the roads with drainage systems and municipal streets of one entity are physically connected directly to a MS4 belonging to another entity. Pollutant Generating Impervious Surfaces (PGIS) are surfaces considered to be significant sources of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those that are subject to vehicular use, industrial activities, or storage of erodible or leachable materials that receive direct rainfall or run-on or blow-in of rainfall. Metal roofs are considered to be PGIS unless coated with an inert, non-leachable material. Roofs that are subject to venting of indoor pollutants from manufacturing, commercial or other operations or processes are also considered PGIS. A surface, whether paved or not, shall be considered PGIS if it is regularly used by motor vehicles. The following are considered regularly-used surfaces: roads, unvegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unfenced fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 49 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 Process Wastewater means any water which, during manufacture or processing, comes into direct contact with or results form the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by product, or waste product. Qualified Personnel or Consultant means someone who has had professional training in the aspects of stormwater management for which they are responsible and are under the functional control of the Permittee. RCW means the Revised Code of Washington State. Regulated Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) means a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System which is automatically designated for inclusion in the Phase II stormwater permitting program by its location within an Urbanized Area, or by designation by the NPDES permitting authority and is not eligible for a waiver or exemption under S1.C. Replaced impervious surfaces means, for structures, the removal and replacement of any exterior impervious surfaces or foundation; or, for other impervious surfaces, the removal down to bare soil, or base course, and replacement. Exemptions and partial exemptions are defined in Appendix 1 of this Permit. Runoff is water that travels across the land surface and discharges to water bodies either directly or through a collection and conveyance system. See also “Stormwater.” Shared Waterbodies means waterbodies, including downstream segments, lakes and estuaries that receive discharges from more than one permittee. Secondary Permittee is an operator of regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system which is not a city, town or county. Secondary Permittees include special purpose districts and other MS4s that meet the criteria for a regulated small MS4 in S1.B. Significant contributor means a discharge contributes a loading of pollutants considered to be sufficient to cause or exacerbate the deterioration of receiving water quality or instream habitat conditions. Sediment/Erosion-Sensitive Feature means an area subject to significant degradation due to the effect of construction runoff or areas requiring special protection to prevent erosion. See Appendix 6 Determining Construction Site Sediment Transport Potential for a more detailed definition. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or Small MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels and/or storm drains which is: a. Owned or operated by a city, town, county, district, association or other public body created pursuant to State law having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer districts, flood control districts or drainage districts, or similar entity. b. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater. c. Not a combined sewer system, d. Not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 50 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 e. Not defined as “large” or “medium” pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(4) & (7) or designated under 40 CFR 122.26 (a)(1)(v). Small MS4s include systems similar to separate storm sewer systems in municipalities such as: universities, large publicly owned hospitals, prison complexes, highways and other thoroughfares. Storm sewer systems in very discrete areas such as individual buildings do not require coverage under this Permit. Small MS4s do not include storm drain systems operated by non-governmental entities such as: individual buildings, private schools, private colleges, private universities, and industrial and commercial entities. Stormwater means runoff during and following precipitation and snowmelt events, including surface runoff and drainage. Stormwater Associated with Industrial and Construction Activity means the discharge from any conveyance which is used for collecting and conveying stormwater, which is directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant, or associated with clearing grading and/or excavation, and is required to have an NPDES permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.26. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington means the 5-volume technical manual (Publication Nos. 99-11 through 15 for the 2001 version and Publication Nos. 05-10- 029-033 for the 2005 version (The 2005 version replaces the 2001 version) prepared by Ecology for use by local governments that contains BMPs to prevent, control, or treat pollution in storm water. Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) means a set of actions and activities designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the regulated small MS4 to the maximum extent practicable and to protect water quality, and comprising the components listed in S5 or S6 of this Permit and any additional actions necessary to meet the requirements of applicable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) means a water cleanup plan. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant’s sources. A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. The calculation must include a margin of safety to ensure that the water body can be used for the purposes the state has designated. The calculation must also account for seasonable variation in water quality. Water quality standards are set by states, territories, and tribes. They identify the uses for each water body, for example, drinking water supply, contact recreation (swimming), and aquatic life support (fishing), and the scientific criteria to support that use. The Clean Water Act, section 303, establishes the water quality standards and TMDL programs. Urbanized Area (UA) is a land area comprising one or more places and the adjacent densely settled surrounding area that together have a residential population of at least 50,000 and an overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. For the year 2000 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau classified "urban" as all territory, population, and housing units located within an Urbanized Area (UA) or an Urban Cluster (UC). It delineated UA and UC boundaries to encompass densely settled territory, which consists of: core census Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Page 51 of 51 Modified June 17, 2009 block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile. In addition, under certain conditions, less densely settled territory may be part of each UA or UC. The U.S. Census Bureau announced the “Census 2000 Urbanized Areas” on May 1, 2002. More information can be found at the U.S. Census Bureau website. Urban/higher density rural subbasins means any subbasin or portion thereof that is within or proposed to be within the urban growth area (UGA), or any rural area subbasin or portion thereof fifty percent or more of which is comprised of lots smaller than 5 acres in size. Vehicle Maintenance or Storage Facility means an uncovered area where any vehicles are regularly washed or maintained, or where at least 10 vehicles are stored. Waters of the State includes those waters as defined as "waters of the United States" in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the geographic boundaries of Washington State and "waters of the state" as defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW which includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the State of Washington. Water Quality Standards means Surface Water Quality Standards, Chapter 173-201A WAC, Ground Water Quality Standards, Chapter 173-200 WAC, and Sediment Management Standards, Chapter 173-204 WAC. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 1 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 APPENDIX 1 – Minimum Technical Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment Section 1. Exemptions Forest practices: Forest practices regulated under Title 222 WAC, except for Class IV General forest practices that are conversions from timber land to other uses, are exempt from the provisions of the minimum requirements. Commercial agriculture: Commercial agriculture practices involving working the land for production are generally exempt. However, the conversion from timberland to agriculture, and the construction of impervious surfaces are not exempt. Oil and Gas Field Activities or Operations: Construction of drilling sites, waste management pits, and access roads, as well as construction of transportation and treatment infrastructure such as pipelines natural gas treatment plants, natural gas pipeline compressor stations, and crude oil pumping stations are exempt. Operators are encouraged to implement and maintain Best Management Practices to minimize erosion and control sediment during and after construction activities to help ensure protection of surface water quality during storm events. Road Maintenance: The following road maintenance practices are exempt: pothole and square cut patching, overlaying existing asphalt or concrete pavement with asphalt or concrete without expanding the area of coverage, shoulder grading, reshaping/regrading drainage systems, crack sealing, resurfacing with in-kind material without expanding the road prism, and vegetation maintenance. The following road maintenance practices are considered redevelopment, and therefore are not categorically exempt. The extent to which this Appendix applies is explained for each circumstance. • Removing and replacing a paved surface to base course or lower, or repairing the roadway base: If impervious surfaces are not expanded, Minimum Requirements #1 - #5 apply. However, in most cases, only Minimum Requirement #2, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention, will be germane. Where appropriate, project proponents are encouraged to look for opportunities to use permeable and porous pavements. • Extending the pavement edge without increasing the size of the road prism, or paving graveled shoulders: These are considered new impervious surfaces and are subject to the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 2 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 minimum requirements that are triggered when the thresholds identified for redevelopment projects are met. • Resurfacing by upgrading from dirt to gravel, asphalt, or concrete; upgrading from gravel to asphalt, or concrete; or upgrading from a bituminous surface treatment (“chip seal”) to asphalt or concrete: These are considered new impervious surfaces and are subject to the minimum requirements that are triggered when the thresholds identified for redevelopment projects are met. Underground utility projects: Underground utility projects that replace the ground surface with in-kind material or materials with similar runoff characteristics are only subject to Minimum Requirement #2, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. All other new development is subject to one or more of the Minimum Requirements (see Section 3 of this Appendix). Section 2. Definitions Related to Minimum Requirements Arterial - A road or street primarily for through traffic. A major arterial connects an Interstate Highway to cities and counties. A minor arterial connects major arterials to collectors. A collector connects an arterial to a neighborhood. A collector is not an arterial. A local access road connects individual homes to a collector. Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) - means an individual who has current certification through an approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by the Department (see BMP C160 in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005)). A CESCL is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. The CESCL must have the skills to assess site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater and, the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. Certification is obtained through an Ecology approved erosion and sediment control course. Course listing are provided online at Ecology’s web site. Effective Impervious surface - Those impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete conveyance to a drainage system. Impervious surfaces on residential development sites are considered ineffective if the runoff is dispersed through at least one hundred feet of native vegetation in accordance with BMP T5.30 – “Full Dispersion,” as described in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005). Highway – A main public road connecting towns and cities Impervious surface - A hard surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A hard surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 3 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall not be considered as impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling. Land disturbing activity - Any activity that results in movement of earth, or a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is associated with stabilization of structures and road construction shall also be considered a land disturbing activity. Vegetation maintenance practices are not considered land-disturbing activity. Maintenance - Repair and maintenance includes activities conducted on currently serviceable structures, facilities, and equipment that involves no expansion or use beyond that previously existing and results in no significant adverse hydrologic impact. It includes those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation in the use of structures and systems. Those usual activities may include replacement of dysfunctional facilities, including cases where environmental permits require replacing an existing structure with a different type structure, as long as the functioning characteristics of the original structure are not changed. One example is the replacement of a collapsed, fish blocking, round culvert with a new box culvert under the same span, or width, of roadway. See also Road Maintenance exemptions in Section 1 of this Appendix. Native vegetation – Vegetation comprised of plant species, other than noxious weeds, that are indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Examples include trees such as Douglas Fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big-leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed. New development - Land disturbing activities, including Class IV -general forest practices that are conversions from timber land to other uses; structural development, including construction or installation of a building or other structure; creation of impervious surfaces; and subdivision, short subdivision and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter 58.17 RCW. Projects meeting the definition of redevelopment shall not be considered new development. Pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) - Those impervious surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to: vehicular use; industrial activities (as further defined in the glossary); or storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals, and which receive direct rainfall or the run- on or blow-in of rainfall. Erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals are those substances which, when exposed to rainfall, measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of the rainfall runoff. Examples include erodible soils that are stockpiled, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, and garbage dumpster leakage. Metal roofs are also considered to be PGIS unless they are coated with an inert, non-leachable material (e.g., baked-on enamel coating). Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 4 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 A surface, whether paved or not, shall be considered subject to vehicular use if it is regularly used by motor vehicles. The following are considered regularly-used surfaces: roads, unvegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways, parking lots, unfenced fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways. The following are not considered regularly-used surfaces: paved bicycle pathways separated from and not subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, fenced fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance access roads. Pollution-generating pervious surfaces (PGPS) - Any non-impervious surface subject to use of pesticides and fertilizers or loss of soil. Typical PGPS include lawns, landscaped areas, golf courses, parks, cemeteries, and sports fields. Pre-developed condition – The native vegetation and soils that existed at a site prior to the influence of Euro-American settlement. The pre-developed condition shall be assumed to be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic information is provided that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement. Project site - That portion of a property, properties, or right of way subject to land disturbing activities, new impervious surfaces, or replaced impervious surfaces. Receiving waters - Bodies of water or surface water systems to which surface runoff is discharged via a point source of stormwater or via sheet flow. Redevelopment - On a site that is already substantially developed (i.e., has 35% or more of existing impervious surface coverage), the creation or addition of impervious surfaces; the expansion of a building footprint or addition or replacement of a structure; structural development including construction, installation or expansion of a building or other structure;; replacement of impervious surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity; and land disturbing activities. Replaced impervious surface - For structures, the removal and replacement of any exterior impervious surfaces or foundation. For other impervious surfaces, the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement. Site – The area defined by the legal boundaries of a parcel or parcels of land that is (are) subject to new development or redevelopment. For road projects, the length of the project site and the right-of-way boundaries define the site. Source control BMP - A structure or operation that is intended to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with stormwater through physical separation of areas or careful management of activities that are sources of pollutants. This manual separates source control BMPs into two types. Structural Source Control BMPs are physical, structural, or mechanical devices, or facilities that are intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. Operational BMPs are non-structural practices that prevent or reduce pollutants from entering stormwater. See Volume IV of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) for details. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 5 of 29 Threshold Discharge Area - An onsite area draining to a single natural discharge location or multiple natural discharge locations that combine within one-quarter mile downstream (as determined by the shortest flowpath). The examples in Figure 2.1 below illustrate this definition. The purpose of this definition is to clarify how the thresholds of this manual are applied to project sites with multiple discharge points. Figure 2.1 Threshold Discharge Areas Wetland - Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 6 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 Section 3. Applicability of the Minimum Requirements 3.1 Thresholds Not all of the Minimum Requirements apply to every development or redevelopment project. The applicability varies depending on the type and size of the project. This section identifies thresholds that determine the applicability of the Minimum Requirements to different projects. The flow charts in Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 must be used to determine which of the Minimum Requirements apply. The Minimum Requirements themselves are presented in Section 4 of this Appendix. The thresholds below apply to new development, redevelopment, and construction site activities that result in land disturbance of equal or greater than one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale. This threshold is defined as the “regulatory threshold”. If as described above, the project exceeds the one acre regulatory threshold, the technical thresholds contained in this section (Section 3) shall be applied by the Permittee to determine which of the minimum requirements must be applied to the project. Permittees whose ordinances at the time of permit issuance, regulate new development and redevelopment at sites below the regulatory threshold must continue to regulate stormwater from these project sites. For these project sites below the regulatory threshold, the permittee must continue to apply the local stormwater requirements in effect at the time of permit issuance or apply the minimum requirements for new development and re-development contained in this Appendix. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 7 of 29 No Figure 3.1 Flow Chart for Determining Whether the Permittee Must Regulate the Project Continue with Figures 3.2 and 3.3 Will the project disturb 1 acre or more? Or If the project disturbs less than 1 acre, is it part of a larger common plan of development or sale? Yes Yes Permittee is not required to apply the Minimum Requirements to the project. No No Yes Continue to regulate stormwater from the project site under local stormwater requirements in effect at the time of permit issuance. Or Apply the minimum requirements for new development and redevelopment as outlined in Figures 3.2 and 3.3. No This permit does not require the Permittee to regulate stormwater from the site. Prior to the issuance of this permit did the Permittee regulate stormwater from project sites disturbing less than 1 acre? START Will the project site discharge stormwater either directly or indirectly into an MS4 owned or operated by the Permittee? Yes Is the project site exempt according to Section 1 of this Appendix? Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 8 of 29 Start Here Modified June 17, 2009 Does the site have 35% or more of isting impervious coverage? ex See Redevelopment Minimum Requirements and Flow Chart (Figure 2.3) Figure 3.2 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development Figure 3.2 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surfaces? Does the project convert ¾ acres of ative vegetation to wn or landscaped areas, or convert 2.5 acres of native egetation to pasture? n la v All Minimum Requirements apply to the new impervious surfaces and converted pervious surfaces. Yes No No Yes No Yes Does the project have 2,000 square feet or more of new, replaced, or new plus replaced impervious surfaces? Does the project have land-disturbing activities of 7,000 square feet or more? Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 apply to the new and replaced impervious surfaces and the land disturbed. See Minimum Requirement #2, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention No Yes Yes No See Redevelopment Minimum Requirements and Flow Chart (Figure 3.3) Does the project convert ¾ acres or more of native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 9 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 Figure 3.3 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Redevelopment Apply Minimum Requirement #2, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surfaces? OR Convert ¾ acres or more of native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 apply to the new and replaced impervious surfaces and the land disturbed. Do the new, replaced, or new plus replaced impervious surfaces total 2,000 square feet or more? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or more? Minimum Requirements #1 through #10 apply to the new impervious surfaces and the converted pervious surfaces. Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surfaces? Is the total of the new plus replaced impervious surfaces 5,000 square feet or more, AND does the value of the proposed improvements – including interior improvements – exceed 50% of the assessed value (or replacement value) of the existing site improvements? No additional requirements Do new impervious surfaces add 50% or more to the existing impervious surfaces within the project limits? No additional requirements Minimum Requirements #1 through #10 apply to the new and replaced impervious surfaces. Yes No Next Question Yes No Next Question Yes Yes Yes No No No Is this a road- related project? Yes Minimum Requirements #1 through #9 apply to the new impervious surfaces and the converted pervious surfaces No Minimum Requirements #1 through #9 apply to the new and replaced impervious surfaces Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 10 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 3.2 New Development All new development shall be required to comply with Minimum Requirement #2. The following new development shall comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 for the new and replaced impervious surfaces and the land disturbed: • Creates or adds 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new, replaced, or new plus replaced impervious surface area, or • Has land disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater, The following new development shall comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #10 for the new impervious surfaces and the converted pervious surfaces: • Creates or adds 5,000 square feet, or more, of new impervious surface area, or • Converts ¾ acres, or more, of native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or • Converts 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture. 3.3 Redevelopment All redevelopment shall be required to comply with Minimum Requirement #2. In addition, all redevelopment that exceeds certain thresholds shall be required to comply with additional Minimum Requirements as follows. The following redevelopment shall comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 for the new and replaced impervious surfaces and the land disturbed: • The new, replaced, or total of new plus replaced impervious surfaces is 2,000 square feet or more, or • 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activities. The following redevelopment shall comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #10 for the new impervious surfaces and converted pervious areas: • Adds 5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surfaces or, • Converts ¾ acres, or more, of native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or • Converts 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture. If the runoff from the new impervious surfaces and converted pervious surfaces is not separated from runoff from other surfaces on the project site, the stormwater treatment facilities must be sized for the entire flow that is directed to them. The local government may allow the Minimum Requirements to be met for an equivalent (flow and pollution characteristics) area within the same site. For public roads' projects, the equivalent area does not have to be within the project limits, but must drain to the same receiving water. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 11 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 3.4 Additional Requirements for Re-development Project Sites For road-related projects, runoff from the replaced and new impervious surfaces (including pavement, shoulders, curbs, and sidewalks) shall meet all the Minimum Requirements if the new impervious surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50% or more of the existing impervious surfaces within the project limits. The project limits shall be defined by the length of the project and the width of the right–of-way. Other types of redevelopment projects shall comply with all the Minimum Requirements for the new and replaced impervious surfaces if the total of new plus replaced impervious surfaces is 5,000 square feet or more, and the valuation of proposed improvements – including interior improvements – exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements. The Permittee may exempt or institute a stop-loss provision for redevelopment projects from compliance with Minimum Requirements for treatment, flow control, and wetlands protection as applied to the replaced impervious surfaces if the Permittee has adopted a plan and a schedule that fulfills those requirements in regional facilities. See also Sections 5, 6 and 7 of this Appendix. The Permittee may grant a variance/exception to the application of the flow control requirements to replaced impervious surfaces if such application imposes a severe economic hardship. See Section 6 of this Appendix. 3.5 Modification of the Minimum Requirements Basin Planning is encouraged and may be used to tailor Minimum Requirement #6 Runoff Treatment, Minimum Requirement #7 Flow Control, and/or Minimum Requirement #8 Wetlands Protection. Basin planning may be used to support alternative treatment, flow control, and/or wetland protection requirements to those contained in Section 4 of this Appendix. Basin planning may also be used to demonstrate an equivalent level of treatment, flow control, and/or wetland protection through the construction and use of regional stormwater facilities. See Section 7 of this Appendix for details on Basin Planning and how basin planning may be used to modify the Minimum Requirements is Section 4. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 12 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 Section 4. Minimum Requirements This Section describes the Minimum Requirements for stormwater management at development and redevelopment sites. Section 3 of this Appendix should be consulted to determine which of the minimum requirements below apply to any given project. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 should be consulted to determine whether the minimum requirements apply to new surfaces, replaced surfaces or new and replaced surfaces. 4.1 Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans The permittee shall require a Stormwater Site Plan from all projects meeting the thresholds in Section 3.1 of this Appendix. Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005). 4.2 Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Permittees may choose to allow compliance with this Minimum Requirement to be achieved for an individual site if the site is covered under Ecology’s General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities and fully implementing the requirements of that permit. Permittees may choose to allow site operators to apply an “Erosivity Waiver” to projects disturbing less than five acres that meet the requirements at the end of this section; such projects would be waived from the requirement that the Permittee review site plans for construction phase stormwater pollution prevention. The Permittee may develop an abbreviated SWPPP format to meet the SWPPP requirement under this permit for sites that are less than 1 acre. General Requirements All new development and redevelopment projects are responsible for preventing erosion and discharge of sediment and other pollutants into receiving waters. Permittees must require a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of the Stormwater Site Plan (see Minimum Requirement #1 above) for all projects which meet the thresholds in Section 3 of this Appendix. The SWPPP shall be implemented beginning with initial soil disturbance and until final stabilization. Sediment and Erosion control BMPs shall be consistent with the BMPs contained in chapters 3 and 4 of Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005), and/or other equivalent BMPs contained in technical stormwater manuals approved by the Department. The SWPPP shall include a narrative and drawings. All BMPs shall be clearly referenced in the narrative and marked on the drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation to explain and justify the pollution prevention decisions made for the project. Clearing and grading activities for developments shall be permitted only if Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 13 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 conducted pursuant to an approved site development plan (e.g., subdivision approval) that establishes permitted areas of clearing, grading, cutting, and filling. When establishing these permitted clearing and grading areas, consideration should be given to minimizing removal of existing trees and minimizing disturbance/compaction of native soils except as needed for building purposes. These permitted clearing and grading areas and any other areas required to preserve critical or sensitive areas, buffers, native growth protection easements, or tree retention areas as may be required by local jurisdictions, shall be delineated on the site plans and the development site. Seasonal Work Limitations - From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities may only be authorized by the Permittee if silt-laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through a combination of the following: 1. Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type and proximity to receiving waters; and 2. Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and 3. Proposed erosion and sediment control measures. Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the Permittee may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance. The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations: 1. Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs, 2. Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil, and 3. Activities where there is one hundred percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Elements The construction site operator shall include each of the twelve elements below in the SWPPP and ensure that they are implemented unless site conditions render the element unnecessary and the exemption from that element is clearly justified in the SWPPP. The SWPPP shall include both narrative and drawings. All BMPs shall be clearly referenced in the narrative and marked on the drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation to explain and justify the pollution prevention decisions made for the project. 1. Preserve Vegetation/Mark Clearing Limits: a. Prior to beginning land disturbing activities, including clearing and grading, clearly mark all clearing limits, sensitive areas and their buffers, and trees that are to be preserved within the construction area. b. The duff layer, native top soil, and natural vegetation shall be retained in an undisturbed state to the maximum degree practicable. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 14 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 2. Establish Construction Access: a. Construction vehicle access and exit shall be limited to one route, if possible. b. Access points shall be stabilized with quarry spalls, crushed rock or other equivalent BMP to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads. c. Wheel wash or tire baths shall be located on site, if the stabilized constructions entrance is not effective in preventing sediment from being tracked onto public roads. d. If sediment is tracked off site, roads shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day, or more frequently during wet weather. Sediment shall be removed from roads by shoveling or pickup sweeping and shall be transported to a controlled sediment disposal area. e. Street washing is allowed only after sediment is removed in accordance with 2.d, above. Street wash wastewater shall be controlled by pumping back on site or otherwise be prevented from discharging into systems tributary to waters of the state. 3. Control Flow Rates: a. Properties and waterways downstream from development sites shall be protected from erosion due to increases in the velocity and peak volumetric flow rate of stormwater runoff from the project site. b. Where necessary to comply with 3.a, above, stormwater retention or detention facilities shall be constructed as one of the first steps in grading. Detention facilities shall be functional prior to construction of site improvements (e.g., impervious surfaces). c. If permanent infiltration ponds are used for flow control during construction, these facilities should be protected from siltation during the construction phase. 4. Install Sediment Controls: a. Stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through a sediment pond, or other appropriate sediment removal BMP, prior to leaving a construction site or prior to discharge to an infiltration facility. Runoff from fully stabilized areas may be discharged without a sediment removal BMP, but shall meet the flow control performance standard of 3.a, above. b. Sediment control BMPs (sediment ponds, traps, filters, etc.) shall be constructed as one of the first steps in grading. These BMPs shall be functional before other land disturbing activities take place. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 15 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 c. BMPs intended to trap sediment on site shall be located in a manner to avoid interference with the movement of juvenile salmonids attempting to enter off- channel areas or drainages. 5. Stabilize Soils: a. Exposed and unworked soils shall be stabilized by application of effective BMPs that prevent erosion. b. No soils should remain exposed and unworked for more than the time periods set forth below to prevent erosion: • During the dry season (May 1 – September 30): 7 days • During the wet season (October 1 – April 30): 2 days c. The time period may be adjusted by the Permittee, if the Permittee can show that local precipitation data justify a different standard. d. Soils shall be stabilized at the end of the shift before a holiday or weekend if needed based on the weather forecast. e. Soil stockpiles must be stabilized from erosion, protected with sediment trapping measures, and where possible, be located away from storm drain inlets, waterways and drainage channels. 6. Protect Slopes: a. Design and construct cut and fill slopes in a manner that will minimize erosion. b. Off-site stormwater (run-on) or groundwater shall be diverted away from slopes and undisturbed areas with interceptor dikes, pipes and/or swales. Off-site stormwater should be managed separately from stormwater generated on the site. c. At the top of slopes, collect drainage in pipe slope drains or protected channels to prevent erosion. Temporary pipe slope drains shall handle the expected peak 10- minute flow velocity from a Type 1A, 10-year, 24-hour frequency storm for the developed condition. Alternatively, the 10-year, 1-hour flow rate predicted by an approved continuous runoff model, increased by a factor of 1.6, may be used. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition for predicting flow rates from tributary areas outside the project limits. For tributary areas on the project site, the analysis shall use the temporary or permanent project land cover condition, whichever will produce the highest flow rates. If using the Western Washington Hydrology Model to predict flows, bare soil areas should be modeled as “landscaped area.” d. Excavated material shall be placed on the uphill side of trenches, consistent with safety and space considerations. e. Check dams shall be placed at regular intervals within constructed channels that are cut down a slope. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 16 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 7. Protect Drain Inlets: a. Storm drain inlets made operable during construction shall be protected so that stormwater runoff does not enter the conveyance system without first being filtered or treated to remove sediment. b. Inlet protection devices shall be cleaned or removed and replaced when sediment has filled one-third of the available storage (unless a different standard is specified by the product manufacturer). 8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets: a. All temporary on-site conveyance channels shall be designed, constructed, and stabilized to prevent erosion from the following expected peak flows. Channels shall handle the expected peak 10-minute flow velocity from a Type 1A, 10-year, 24-hour frequency storm for the developed condition. Alternatively, the 10-year, 1-hour flow rate predicted by an approved continuous runoff model, increased by a factor of 1.6, may be used. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition for predicting flow rates from tributary areas outside the project limits. For tributary areas on the project site, the analysis shall use the temporary or permanent project land cover condition, whichever will produce the highest flow rates. If using the Western Washington Hydrology Model to predict flows, bare soil areas should be modeled as “landscaped area.” b. Stabilization, including armoring material, adequate to prevent erosion of outlets, adjacent stream banks, slopes, and downstream reaches shall be provided at the outlets of all conveyance systems. 9. Control Pollutants: a. All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur onsite shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. b. Cover, containment, and protection from vandalism shall be provided for all chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products, and other materials that have the potential to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On-site fueling tanks shall include secondary containment. c. Maintenance, fueling and repair of heavy equipment and vehicles shall be conducted using spill prevention and control measures. Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any spill incident. d. Wheel wash or tire bath wastewater shall be discharged to a separate on-site treatment system or to the sanitary sewer with local sewer district approval. e. Application of fertilizers and pesticides shall be conducted in a manner and at application rates that will not result in loss of chemical to stormwater runoff. Manufacturers’ label requirements for application rates and procedures shall be followed. f. BMPs shall be used to prevent or treat contamination of stormwater runoff by pH modifying sources. These sources include, but are not limited to: bulk cement, cement kiln dust, fly ash, new concrete washing and curing waters, waste streams Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 17 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 generated from concrete grinding and sawing, exposed aggregate processes, dewatering concrete vaults, concrete pumping and mixer washout waters. Permittees shall require construction site operators to adjust the pH of stormwater if necessary to prevent violations of water quality standards. g. Permittees shall require construction site operators obtain written approval from the Department prior to using chemical treatment other than CO2 or dry ice to adjust pH. 10. Control De-Watering: a. Foundation, vault, and trench de-watering water, which have similar characteristics to stormwater runoff at the site, shall be discharged into a controlled conveyance system prior to discharge to a sediment trap or sediment pond. b. Clean, non-turbid de-watering water, such as well-point ground water, can be discharged to systems tributary to, or directly into surface waters of the state, as specified in 8, above, provided the de-watering flow does not cause erosion or flooding of receiving waters. Clean de-watering water should not be routed through stormwater sediment ponds. c. Other de-watering disposal options may include: (i) infiltration; (ii) transport offsite in vehicle, such as a vacuum flush truck, for legal disposal in a manner that does not pollute state waters; (iii) on-site chemical treatment or other suitable treatment technologies approved by the Permittee; (iv) sanitary sewer discharge with local sewer district approval, if there is no other option; or (v) use of a sedimentation bag with outfall to a ditch or swale for small volumes of localized de-watering. d. Highly turbid or contaminated dewatering water shall be handled separately from stormwater. 11. Maintain BMPs: a. All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be inspected, maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function in accordance with BMP specifications. b. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. 12. Manage the Project: a. Development projects shall be phased to the maximum degree practicable and shall take into account seasonal work limitations. b. The Permittee must require construction site operators to maintain, and repair as needed, all sediment and erosion control BMPs to assure continued performance of their intended function. c. The Permittee must require construction site operators to periodically inspect their sites. For projects that disturb one or more acres, site inspections shall be Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 18 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 conducted by a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead who shall be identified in the SWPPP and shall be present on-site or on-call at all times. d. Permittee must require construction site operators to maintain, update and implement their SWPPP. Permittees shall require construction site operators to modify their SWPPP whenever there is a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. Erosivity Waiver Permittees may allow construction site operators to qualify for a waiver from the requirement to submit a SWPPP for review by the Permittee provided the following conditions are met: 1. The site will result in the disturbance of less than 5 acres; and the site is not a portion of a common plan of development or sale that will disturb 5 acres or greater; and 2. The project’s rainfall erosivity factor (“R” Factor) is less than 5 during the period of construction activity, as calculated using the Texas A&M University online rainfall erosivity calculator at: http://ei.tamu.edu/. The period of construction activity begins at initial earth disturbance and ends with final stabilization; and 3. The entire period of construction activity falls between June 15 and September 15; and 4. The site or facility has not been declared a significant contributor of pollutants; and 5. There are no planned construction activities at the site that will result in non- stormwater discharges; and 6. A waiver is allowed by the Permittee; and 7. The construction site operators notify the Permittee of the intention to apply this waiver at least one week prior to commencing land disturbing activities. The notification must include a summary of the project information used in calculating the project’s rainfall erosivity factor (see #2 above) and a certified statement that: • The operator will comply with applicable local stormwater requirements; and • The operator will implement appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs to prevent violations of water quality standards. 4.3 Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs must be required for all projects approved by the Permittee. Source control BMPs must be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume IV of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) or an approved equivalent manual approved by the Department. 4.4 Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 19 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the project site shall occur at the natural location, to the maximum extent practicable. The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site must not cause a significant adverse impact to downstream receiving waters and down gradient properties. All outfalls require energy dissipation. 4.5 Minimum Requirement #5: On-site Stormwater Management The Permittee must require On-site Stormwater Management BMPs to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff onsite to the maximum extent feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts. Roof Downspout Control BMPs, functionally equivalent to those described in Chapter 3 of Volume III of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005), and Dispersion and Soil Quality BMPs, functionally equivalent to those in Chapter 5 of Volume V, of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) shall be required to reduce the hydrologic disruption of developed sites. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 20 of 29 4.6 Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment Project Thresholds The following require construction of stormwater treatment facilities (see Table 4.1 below): • Projects in which the total of effective, pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) is 5,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area of the project, or • Projects in which the total of pollution-generating pervious surfaces (PGPS) is three- quarters (3/4) of an acre or more in a threshold discharge area, and from which there is a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site. Table 4.1 Treatment Requirements by Threshold Discharge Area < ¾ acres of PGPS > ¾ acres PGPS < 5,000 sf PGIS > 5,000 sf PGIS Treatment Facilities a b Onsite Stormwater BMPs a a b a PGPS = pollution-generating pervious surfaces PGIS = pollution-generating impervious surfaces sf = square feet Treatment-Type Thresholds 1. Oil Control: Treatment to achieve Oil Control applies to projects that have “high-use sites.” High-use sites are those that typically generate high concentrations of oil due to high traffic turnover or the frequent transfer of oil. High-use sites include: a. An area of a commercial or industrial site subject to an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count equal to or greater than 100 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross building area; b. An area of a commercial or industrial site subject to petroleum storage and transfer in excess of 1,500 gallons per year, not including routinely delivered heating oil; c. An area of a commercial or industrial site subject to parking, storage or maintenance of 25 or more vehicles that are over 10 tons gross weight (trucks, buses, trains, heavy equipment, etc.); d. A road intersection with a measured ADT count of 25,000 vehicles or more on the main roadway and 15,000 vehicles or more on any intersecting roadway, excluding projects proposing primarily pedestrian or bicycle use improvements. 2. Phosphorus Treatment: Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 21 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 The requirement to provide phosphorous control is determined by the local government with jurisdiction (e.g., through a lake management plan), or the Department of Ecology (e.g, through a waste load allocation). The local government may have developed a management plan and implementing ordinances or regulations for control of phosphorus from new/redevelopment for the receiving water(s) of the stormwater drainage. The local government can use the following sources of information for pursuing plans and implementing ordinances and/or regulations: a. Those waterbodies reported under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, and designated as not supporting beneficial uses due to phosphorous; b. Those listed in Washington State's Nonpoint Source Assessment required under section 319(a) of the Clean Water Act due to nutrients. 3. Enhanced Treatment: Enhanced treatment for reduction in dissolved metals is required for the following project sites that discharge to fish-bearing streams, lakes, or to waters or conveyance systems tributary to fish-bearing streams or lakes: Industrial project sites, Commercial project sites, Multi-family project sites, and High AADT roads as follows: Within Urban Growth Management Areas: • Fully controlled and partially controlled limited access highways with Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts of 15,000 or more • All other roads with an AADT of 7,500 or greater Outside of Urban Growth Management Areas: • Roads with an AADT of 15,000 or greater unless discharging to a 4th Strahler order stream or larger; • Roads with an AADT of 30,000 or greater if discharging to a 4th Strahler order stream or larger (as determined using 1:24,000 scale maps to delineate stream order). However, such sites listed above that discharge directly (or, indirectly through a municipal storm sewer system) to Basic Treatment Receiving Waters (Appendix I-C of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005)), and areas of the above-listed project sites that are identified as subject to Basic Treatment requirements, are also not subject to Enhanced Treatment requirements. For developments with a mix of land use types, the Enhanced Treatment requirement shall apply when the runoff from the areas subject to the Enhanced Treatment requirement comprise 50% or more of the total runoff within a threshold discharge area. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 22 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 4. Basic Treatment: Basic Treatment generally applies to: • Project sites that discharge to the ground, UNLESS: 1) The soil suitability criteria for infiltration treatment are met; (see Chapter 3 of Volume III of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) for soil suitability criteria) or 2) The project uses infiltration strictly for flow control – not treatment - and the discharge is within ¼-mile of a phosphorus sensitive lake (use a Phosphorus Treatment facility), or within ¼ mile of a fish-bearing stream, or a lake (use an Enhanced Treatment facility). • Residential projects not otherwise needing phosphorus control as designated by USEPA, the Department of Ecology, or by the Permittee; and • Project sites discharging directly to salt waters, river segments, and lakes listed in Appendix I-C of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005); and • Project sites that drain to streams that are not fish-bearing, or to waters not tributary to fish-bearing streams; • Landscaped areas of industrial, commercial, and multi-family project sites, and parking lots of industrial and commercial project sites that do not involve pollution-generating sources (e.g., industrial activities, customer parking, storage of erodible or leachable material, wastes or chemicals) other than parking of employees’ private vehicles. For developments with a mix of land use types, the Basic Treatment requirement shall apply when the runoff from the areas subject to the Basic Treatment requirement comprise 50% or more of the total runoff within a threshold discharge area. Treatment Facility Sizing Water Quality Design Storm Volume: The volume of runoff predicted from a 24-hour storm with a 6-month return frequency (a.k.a., 6-month, 24-hour storm). Wetpool facilities are sized based upon the volume of runoff predicted through use of the Natural Resource Conservation Service curve number equations in Chapter 2 of Volume III of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005), for the 6-month, 24- hour storm. Alternatively, the 91st percentile, 24-hour runoff volume indicated by an approved continuous runoff model may be used. Water Quality Design Flow Rate 1. Preceding Detention Facilities or when Detention Facilities are not required: Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 23 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 The flow rate at or below which 91% of the runoff volume, as estimated by an approved continuous runoff model, will be treated. Design criteria for treatment facilities are assigned to achieve the applicable performance goal at the water quality design flow rate (e.g., 80% TSS removal). 2. Downstream of Detention Facilities: The water quality design flow rate must be the full 2-year release rate from the detention facility. Alternative methods may be used if they identify volumes and flow rates that are at least equivalent. That portion of any development project in which the above PGIS or PGPS thresholds are not exceeded in a threshold discharge area shall apply On-site Stormwater Management BMPs in accordance with Minimum Requirement #5. Treatment Facility Selection, Design, and Maintenance Stormwater treatment facilities shall be: • Selected in accordance with the process identified in Chapter 4 of Volume I of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005), • Designed in accordance with the design criteria in Volume V of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005), and • Maintained in accordance with the maintenance schedule in Volume V of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005). Additional Requirements The discharge of untreated stormwater from pollution-generating impervious surfaces to ground water must not be authorized by the Permittee, except for the discharge achieved by infiltration or dispersion of runoff from residential sites through use of On-site Stormwater Management BMPs. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 24 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 4.7 Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control Applicability Except as provided below, the Permittee must require all projects provide flow control to reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and land cover conversions. The requirement below applies to projects that discharge stormwater directly, or indirectly through a conveyance system, into a fresh water. Flow control is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or indirectly through an MS4 to a water listed in Appendix I-E of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) subject to the following restrictions: • Direct discharge to the exempt receiving water does not result in the diversion of drainage from any perennial stream classified as Types 1, 2, 3, or 4 in the State of Washington Interim Water Typing System, or Types “S”, “F”, or “Np” in the Permanent Water Typing System, or from any category I, II, or III wetland; and • Flow splitting devices or drainage BMP’s are applied to route natural runoff volumes from the project site to any downstream Type 5 stream or category IV wetland: o Design of flow splitting devices or drainage BMP’s will be based on continuous hydrologic modeling analysis. The design will assure that flows delivered to Type 5 stream reaches will approximate, but in no case exceed, durations ranging from 50% of the 2-year to the 50-year peak flow. o Flow splitting devices or drainage BMP’s that deliver flow to category IV wetlands will also be designed using continuous hydrologic modeling to preserve pre-project wetland hydrologic conditions unless specifically waived or exempted by regulatory agencies with permitting jurisdiction; and • The project site must be drained by a conveyance system that is comprised entirely of manmade conveyance elements (e.g., pipes, ditches, outfall protection, etc.) and extends to the ordinary high water line of the exempt receiving water; and • The conveyance system between the project site and the exempt receiving water shall have sufficient hydraulic capacity to convey discharges from future build-out conditions (under current zoning) of the site, and the existing condition from non- project areas from which runoff is or will be collected; and • Any erodible elements of the manmade conveyance system must be adequately stabilized to prevent erosion under the conditions noted above. If the discharge is to a stream that leads to a wetland, or to a wetland that has an outflow to a stream, both this minimum requirement (Minimum Requirement #7) and Minimum Requirement #8 apply. Permittees may petition Ecology to exempt projects in additional areas. A petition must justify the proposed exemption based upon a hydrologic analysis that demonstrates that the potential stormwater runoff from the exempted area will not significantly increase the erosion forces on the stream channel nor have near-field impacts (see Section 7 of this Appendix). Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 25 of 29 Thresholds The following require construction of flow control facilities and/or land use management BMPs that will achieve the standard flow control requirement for western Washington (see Table 4.2): • Projects in which the total of effective impervious surfaces is 10,000 square feet or more in a threshold discharge area, or • Projects that convert ¾ acres or more of native vegetation to lawn or landscape, or convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture in a threshold discharge area, and from which there is a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site, or • Projects that through a combination of effective impervious surfaces and converted pervious surfaces cause a 0.1 cubic feet per second increase in the 100-year flow frequency from a threshold discharge area as estimated using the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other approved model. That portion of any development project in which the above thresholds are not exceeded in a threshold discharge area shall apply Onsite Stormwater Management BMPs in accordance with Minimum Requirement #5. Table 4.2 Flow Control Requirements by Threshold Discharge Area Flow Control Facilities On-site Stormwater Management BMPs < ¾ acres conversion to lawn/landscape, or < 2.5 acres to pasture a > ¾ acres conversion to lawn/landscape, or > 2.5 acres to pasture a a < 10,000 square feet of effective impervious area a > 10,000 square feet of effective impervious area a a > 0.1 cubic feet per second increase in the 100-year flood frequency a a Standard Flow Control Requirement Stormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre-developed durations for the range of pre-developed discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow. The pre-developed condition to be matched shall be a forested land cover unless: • Reasonable, historic information is available that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement (modeled as “pasture” in the Western Washington Hydrology Model); or • The drainage area of the immediate stream and all subsequent downstream basins have had at least 40% total impervious area since 1985. In this case, the pre- developed condition to be matched shall be the existing land cover condition. Where Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 26 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 basin-specific studies determine a stream channel to be unstable, even though the above criterion is met, the pre-developed condition assumption shall be the “historic” land cover condition, or a land cover condition commensurate with achieving a target flow regime identified by an approved basin study. This standard requirement is waived for sites that will reliably infiltrate all the runoff from impervious surfaces and converted pervious surfaces. Western Washington Alternative Requirement An alternative requirement may be established through application of watershed-scale hydrological modeling and supporting field observations. Possible reasons for an alternative flow control requirement include: • Establishment of a stream–specific threshold of significant bedload movement other than the assumed 50% of the 2-year peak flow; • Zoning and Land Clearing Ordinance restrictions that, in combination with an alternative flow control standard, maintain or reduce the naturally occurring erosive forces on the stream channel; or • A duration control standard is not necessary for protection, maintenance, or restoration of designated beneficial uses or Clean Water Act compliance. See Section 7 Basin/Watershed Planning of this Appendix for details on how alternative flow control requirements may be established. Additional Requirement Flow Control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume III of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) or an approved equivalent. 4.8 Minimum Requirement #8: Wetlands Protection Applicability The requirements below apply only to projects whose stormwater discharges into a wetland, either directly or indirectly through a conveyance system. These requirements must be met in addition to meeting Minimum Requirement #6, Runoff Treatment. Thresholds The thresholds identified in Minimum Requirement #6 – Runoff Treatment, and Minimum Requirement #7 – Flow Control shall also be applied for discharges to wetlands. Standard Requirement Discharges to wetlands shall maintain the hydrologic conditions, hydrophytic vegetation, and substrate characteristics necessary to support existing and designated uses. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition to determine the existing Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 27 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 hydrologic conditions unless directed otherwise by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction. A wetland can be considered for hydrologic modification and/or stormwater treatment in accordance with Guide Sheet 1B in Appendix I-D on the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005). Additional Requirements Stormwater treatment and flow control facilities shall not be built within a natural vegetated buffer, except for: • necessary conveyance systems as approved by the Permittee; or • as allowed in wetlands approved for hydrologic modification and/or treatment in accordance with Guidesheet 1B in Appendix I-D of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005). An adopted and implemented basin plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of this Appendix may be used to develop requirements for wetlands that are tailored to a specific basin. 4.9 Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance Permittees must require an operation and maintenance manual that is consistent with the provisions in Volume V of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) for all proposed stormwater facilities and BMPs. The party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified in the operation and maintenance manual. For private facilities approved by the Permittee, a copy of the manual shall be retained onsite or within reasonable access to the site, and shall be transferred with the property to the new owner. For public facilities, a copy of the manual shall be retained in the appropriate department. A log of maintenance activity that indicates what actions were taken shall be kept and be available for inspection by the local government. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 28 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 Section 5. Adjustments Adjustments to the Minimum Requirements may be granted by the Permittee provided that a written finding of fact is prepared, that addresses the following: • The adjustment provides substantially equivalent environmental protection. • Based on sound Engineering practices, the objectives of safety, function, environmental protection and facility maintenance, are met. Section 6. Exceptions/Variances Exceptions/variances (exceptions) to the Minimum Requirements may be granted by the Permittee following legal public notice of an application for an exception or variance, legal public notice of the Permittee’s decision on the application, and written findings of fact that documents the Permittees determination to grant an exception. Permittees shall keep records, including the written findings of fact, of all local exceptions to the Minimum Requirements. Project-specific design exceptions based on site-specific conditions do not require prior approval of the Department. The Permittee must seek prior approval by the Department for any jurisdiction-wide exception. The Permittee may grant an exception to the minimum requirements if such application imposes a severe and unexpected economic hardship. To determine whether the application imposes a severe and unexpected economic hardship on the project applicant, the Permittee must consider and document with written findings of fact the following: • The current (pre-project) use of the site, and • How the application of the minimum requirement(s) restricts the proposed use of the site compared to the restrictions that existed prior to the adoption of the minimum requirements; and • The possible remaining uses of the site if the exception were not granted; and • The uses of the site that would have been allowed prior to the adoption of the minimum requirements; and • A comparison of the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of the minimum requirements versus the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of requirements that existed prior to adoption of the minimum requirements; and • The feasibility for the owner to alter the project to apply the minimum requirements. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 1- Minimum Technical Requirements Page 29 of 29 Modified June 17, 2009 In addition any exception must meet the following criteria: • The exception will not increase risk to the public health and welfare, nor injurious to other properties in the vicinity and/or downstream, and to the quality of waters of the state; and • The exception is the least possible exception that could be granted to comply with the intent of the Minimum Requirements. Section 7. Basin/Watershed Planning Basin/Watershed planning may be used by the Permittee to tailor Minimum Requirement #6 Runoff Treatment, Minimum Requirement #7 Flow Control, and/or Minimum Requirement #8 Wetlands Protection. Basin planning may be used to support alternative treatment, flow control, and/or wetland protection requirements to those contained in Section 4 of this Appendix. Basin planning may also be used to demonstrate an equivalent level of treatment, flow control, and/or wetland protection through the construction and use of regional stormwater facilities. Basin planning provides a mechanism by which the minimum requirements and implementing BMP’s can be evaluated and refined based on an analysis of a basin or watershed. Basin plans are may be used to develop control strategies to address impacts from future development and to correct specific problems whose sources are known or suspected. Basin plans can be effective at addressing both long-term cumulative impacts of pollutant loads and short-term acute impacts of pollutant concentrations, as well as hydrologic impacts to streams, wetlands, and ground water resources. Basin planning will require the use of computer models and field work to verify and support the models. The USGS has developed software called “GenScn” (Generation and Analysis of Model Simulation Scenarios) that can facilitate basin planning. The program is a Windows-based application of HSPF that predicts water quality and quantity changes for multiple scenarios of land use and water management within a basin. Permittees who are considering the use of basin/watershed plans to modify or tailor one or more of the minimum requirements are encouraged to contact Ecology early in the planning stage. Some examples of how Basin Planning can alter the minimum requirements are given in Appendix I-A from the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005). In order for a basin plan to serve as a means of modifying the minimum requirements the following conditions must be met: • The plan must be formally adopted by all jurisdictions with responsibilities under the plan; and • All ordinances or regulations called for by the plan must be in effect; and • The basin plan must be reviewed and approved by Ecology. APPENDIX 2 – Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Requirements Additional permit requirements based on established TMDLs This Appendix contains the list of all TMDLs in Western Washington that include more specific requirements than those found in either the Phase I or Phase II permits. The potential permittees that these would apply to are listed with each TMDL. A complete list of all applicable TMDLs in Western Washington will be included in the Fact Sheet to each permit. The complete list will reflect all the TMDLs for which compliance with the permit constitutes compliance with the TMDL. Index 1. WRIA 1 - Nooksack River Watershed Bacteria Page 1 2. WRIA 7 - Snohomish River Tributaries Page 2 3. WRIA 8 - North Creek Page 5 4. WRIA 8 - Swamp Creek Page 9 5. WRIA 10 - South Prairie Creek Page 13 1. Name of TMDL: Nooksack River Watershed Bacteria Location of Original 303 (d) Listings – WA-01-1010, WA-01-1012, WA-01-1014, WA-01-1015, WA-01-1016, WA-01-1110, WA-01- 1111, WA-01-1115, WA-01-1116, WA-01-1117, WA-01-1118, WA-01-1119, WA-01-1120, WA-01-1125, AR42TO, BX84LO, UZ70KA, LLPL Drain Area where TMDL Requirements Apply: TMDL coverage includes areas draining to the Nooksack River or its tributaries between Cedarville and Marine Drive. Parameter Fecal Coliform Approval Date 8-Aug. 2000 Potential MS4 Permittees Phase II permit: Ferndale January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 1 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit Action Required 1. With each annual report submit an up to date Capitol Improvement Plan to address existing deficiencies in the stormwater treatment and conveyance system. 2. With the first annual report submit a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for monitoring fecal coliform trends in representative stormwater discharges. 3. Execute QAPP after approval by Ecology. 2. Name of TMDL: Snohomish River Tributaries Location of Original 303 (d) Listings WA-07-1012, WA-07-015, WA-07-1052, WA-07-1163WA-07-1163, WA-07-1030 and WA-07- 040 Area where TMDL Requirements Apply: For each waterbody listed, TMDL coverage includes areas draining to the WASWIS segment number, and all upstream tributaries within the jurisdiction of the Permittee and within the geographic area covered by this permit and contributing to the waterbody: Allen Creek, YT94RF: Quilceda Creek, TH58TS: French Creek, XZ24XU: Woods Creek, FZ74HO: Pilchuck River, NF79WA: Marshland Watershed, XW79FQ. TMDL coverage includes the areas indicated in the Lower Snohomish River Tributaries Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL Detailed Implementation Plan dated June 2003, Figure 3, page 7. This TMDL can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/watershed/tmdl_info- nwro.html Parameter Fecal Coliform Approval Date 9 – Aug. 2001 Potential MS4 Permittees Phase I permit: Snohomish County Phase II permit: Granite Falls, Lake Stevens, Monroe, Snohomish, Marysville, Arlington, Everett Action Required The ordinance or other regulatory mechanism (developed or updated pursuant to S5) that effectively prohibits non-stormwater, illegal discharges, and/or dumping into the Permittees MS4 also prohibits non-stormwater discharges from commercial animal handling areas and commercial composting facilities. Commercial animal handling areas are associated with Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 074 and 075 and include veterinary and pet care/boarding services, animal slaughtering, and support activities for animal production. Facilities where the degradation and transformation of organic solid waste takes place under controlled conditions designed to promote aerobic decomposition are considered commercial composting facilities (definition in accordance with Chapter 173-350 WAC). January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 2 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit No later than 30 months after the effective date of this permit, affected municipal permittees shall compile a list of the existing composting and animal waste handling facilities. This list shall be updated no later than 6 months prior to the expiration of the permit and submitted at the same time the permit renewal application is submitted. Starting no later than 30 months after the effective date of this permit, begin to conduct inspections for all the listed sites, with adequate enforcement capability to ensure implementation of source control BMPs. All facilities must be inspected with 46 months of the effective date of this permit. Monitoring and Implementation Requirements: Permittees shall choose one or both of the following monitoring strategies. Strategy A is the default implementation strategy unless the permittee chooses to implement Strategy B in all or part of the area subject to the TMDL: Strategy A, Targeted Implementation Approach • Within 4 months of permit issuance, prepare and submit to Ecology for review, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the sampling of streams and/or discharges from stormwater conveyances within the jurisdictions boundaries in order to determine areas with highest bacteria concentrations (high priority areas). Provisions for additional monitoring in high priority areas shall be included in order to locate pollution sources where they are not obvious. • The QAPP shall be prepared following Ecology’s “Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies, Ecology Publication No. 01-03-003 (or most recent version). Ecology will review and provide comments within 30 days of when the plan is received. The sampling plan shall include an adequate number of sampling points and adequate sampling frequency to reasonably characterize the receiving water or waste stream. Monitoring shall begin no later than nine months after permit issuance. Permittees may rely on another entity to satisfy the monitoring component required by this TMDL. Permit holders that are relying on another entity to satisfy this monitoring obligation remain responsible for permit compliance if the other entity fails to perform the required monitoring. • No later than 12 months prior to permit renewal application, a Bacterial Pollution Control Plan (BPCP) shall be developed. The BPCP shall, at a minimum, consider the use of the following approaches: 1) pet waste ordinance, 2) evaluation of water pollution control enforcement capabilities, 3) evaluation of the critical areas ordinance in relation to TMDL goals, 4) educational program directed at reducing bacterial pollution, January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 3 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit 5) investigation and implementation of methods that prevent additional stormwater bacterial pollution through stormwater treatment, reducing stormwater volumes, and preventing additional sources of stormwater in association with new development, 6) implementation of activities in the Quilceda/Allen or French Creek Watershed Management Plans (as applicable), 7) ambient water quality and stormwater quality sampling to specifically identify bacterial pollution sources, and 8) livestock ordinance and compost ordinance (Phase I Permittees only). • No later than 9 months prior to permit expiration, conduct public review of the BPCP. • Submit the final BPCP to Ecology at the time of permit renewal application. Strategy B: Early Action Approach. • Prepare an Early Action BMP plan within 12 months of permit issuance. The Early Action Plan shall contain those BMPs that the permittee believes will be effective in reducing bacteria levels within the MS4 (or otherwise in local waters). The Early Action Plan must include the schedule for the implementation of the required baseline requirements for this TMDL as previously discussed in this section. • The Early Action BMP Plan shall, at a minimum, consider the use of the following approaches: 1) pet waste ordinance, 2) evaluation of water pollution control enforcement capabilities, 3) evaluation of the critical areas ordinance in relation to TMDL goals, 4) educational program directed at reducing bacterial pollution, 5) investigation and implementation of methods that prevent additional stormwater bacterial pollution through stormwater treatment, reducing stormwater volumes, and preventing additional sources of stormwater in association with new development, 6) implementation of activities in Quilceda/Allen or French Creek Watershed Management Plans (as applicable) Watershed Management Plan, 7) ambient water quality and stormwater quality sampling to specifically identify bacterial pollution sources, and 8) livestock and compost ordinances (Phase I permittees only) • Conduct and complete public review of the Early Action BMP plan within 15 months of permit issuance. Permittees may satisfy this requirement by incorporating the Early Action BMP Plan into their Stormwater Management Plan as a separate and distinct chapter or section. January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 4 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit • Begin implementation of Early Action BMPs as specified in the plan within 18 months of permit issuance. BMPs shall be place within 36 months of permit issuance unless otherwise approved by Ecology. • Within 30 months of permit issuance, prepare and submit to Ecology for review, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the sampling of streams and/or discharges from stormwater conveyances within the jurisdictions boundaries in order to assess whether or not affected water bodies and/or stormwater discharges, are meeting state water quality standards. • The QAPP shall be prepared following Ecology’s “Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies, Ecology Publication No. 01-03-003 (or most recent version). Ecology will review and provide comments within 30 days of when the plan is received. The sampling plan shall include an adequate number of sampling points and adequate sampling frequency to reasonably characterize the receiving water or waste stream. Monitoring shall begin no later than 36 months after permit issuance. Permittees may rely on another entity to satisfy the monitoring component required by this TMDL. Permit holders that are relying on another entity to satisfy this monitoring obligation remain responsible for permit compliance if the other entity fails to perform the required monitoring. • No later than 9 months prior to permit renewal, permittees shall develop a Bacterial Pollution Control Plan (BPCP). The Plan shall consider all available monitoring data and the approaches noted for the Early Action BMP Plan above. • No later than 9 months prior to permit renewal application, conduct public review of the BPCP. Permittees that have already incorporated the Early Action BMP Plan into their Stormwater Management Plan during year two of the permit satisfy the public review requirement by incorporating the Bacterial Pollution Control Plan into that plan as a separate and distinct chapter or section. • Submit the BPCP to Ecology at the time of permit renewal application for review. 3. Name of TMDL: North Creek Location of Original 303 (d) Listings WA-08-1065 Area where TMDL Requirements Apply: TMDL coverage includes areas draining to the portion of the WASWIS segment SM74QQ starting at the confluence with the Sammamish River and including all upstream tributaries within the jurisdiction of the Permittee and within the geographic area covered by this permit and contributing to the North Creek segment of WASWIS SM74QQ. TMDL coverage includes the areas indicated in the North Creek Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL Detailed Implementation Plan dated September 2003, in Figure 1, page 3. This TMDL can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/watershed/tmdl_info-nwro.html . January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 5 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit Parameter Fecal Coliform Approval Date 2-Aug. 2002 Potential MS4 Permittees – Phase I permit: Snohomish County Phase II permit: Everett, Bothell, and Mill Creek Action Required The ordinance or other regulatory mechanism (developed or updated pursuant to S5) that effectively prohibits non-stormwater, illegal discharges, and/or dumping into the Permittees MS4 also prohibits non-stormwater discharges from commercial animal handling areas and commercial composting facilities. Commercial animal handling areas are associated with Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 074 and 075 and include veterinary and pet care/boarding services, animal slaughtering, and support activities for animal production. Facilities where the degradation and transformation of organic solid waste takes place under controlled conditions designed to promote aerobic decomposition are considered commercial composting facilities (definition in accordance with Chapter 173-350 WAC). No later than 30 months after the effective date of this permit, affected municipal permittees shall compile a list of the existing composting and animal waste handling facilities. This list shall be updated no later than 6 months prior to the expiration of the permit and submitted to Ecology with the permit renewal application. Starting no later than 30 months after the effective date of this permit, conduct an inspection program for all the listed sites, with adequate enforcement capability to ensure implementation of source control BMPs. All facilities must be inspected with 46 months of the effective date of this permit. Monitoring and Implementation Requirements: Permittees shall choose one or both of the following monitoring strategies. Strategy A is the default implementation strategy unless the permittee chooses to implement Strategy B in all or part of the area subject to the TMDL. Permittees may rely on another entity to satisfy the monitoring component required by this TMDL. Permittees that are relying on another entity to satisfy this monitoring obligation remain responsible for permit compliance if the other entity fails to perform the required monitoring. Strategy A, Targeted Implementation Approach • Within 4 months of permit issuance, prepare and submit to Ecology for review, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the sampling of streams and/or discharges from stormwater conveyances within the jurisdictions boundaries in order to determine areas with January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 6 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit highest bacteria concentrations (high priority areas). Provisions for additional monitoring in high priority areas shall be included in order to locate pollution sources where they are not obvious. • The QAPP shall be prepared following Ecology’s “Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies, Ecology Publication No. 01-03-003 (or most recent version). Ecology will review and provide comments within 30 days of when the plan is received. The sampling plan shall include an adequate number of sampling points and adequate sampling frequency to reasonably characterize the receiving water or waste stream. Monitoring shall begin no later than 9 months after permit issuance. • No later than 12 months prior to permit renewal application, a Bacterial Pollution Control Plan shall be developed. The Bacterial Pollution Control Plan shall, at a minimum, consider the use of the following approaches: 1) pet waste ordinance, 2) evaluation of water pollution control enforcement capabilities, 3) evaluation of the critical areas ordinance in relation to TMDL goals, 4) educational program directed at reducing bacterial pollution, 5) investigation and implementation of methods that prevent additional stormwater bacterial pollution through stormwater treatment, reducing stormwater volumes, and preventing additional sources of stormwater in association with new development, 6) implementation of activities in the North Creek Watershed Management Plan, 7) ambient water quality and stormwater quality sampling to specifically identify bacterial pollution sources, and 8) livestock ordinance and compost ordinance (Phase I Permittees only.) • No later than 9 months prior to permit renewal application, conduct public review of the Bacterial Pollution Control Plan. • Submit the final Bacterial Pollution Control Plan to Ecology at the time of permit renewal application. Strategy B: Early Action Approach. • Prepare an Early Action BMP plan within 12 months of permit issuance. The Early Action Plan shall contain those BMPs that the permittee believes will be effective in reducing bacteria levels within the MS4 (or otherwise in local waters). The Early Action Plan must include the schedule for the implementation of the required baseline requirements for this TMDL as previously discussed in this section. • The Early Action BMP Plan shall, at a minimum, consider the use of the following approaches: 1) pet waste ordinance, January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 7 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit 2) evaluation of water pollution control enforcement capabilities, 3) evaluation of the critical areas ordinance in relation to TMDL goals, 4) educational program directed at reducing bacterial pollution, 5) investigation and implementation of methods that prevent additional stormwater bacterial pollution through stormwater treatment, reducing stormwater volumes, and preventing additional sources of stormwater in association with new development, 6) implementation of activities in the North Creek Watershed Management Plans (as applicable) Watershed Management Plan, 7) ambient water quality and stormwater quality sampling to specifically identify bacterial pollution sources, and 8) livestock and compost ordinances (Phase I permittees only) • Conduct and complete public review of the Early Action BMP plan within 15 months of permit issuance. Permittees may satisfy this requirement by incorporating the Early Action BMP Plan into their Stormwater Management Plan as a separate and distinct chapter or section. • Begin implementation of Early Action BMPs as specified in the plan within 18 months of permit issuance. BMPs shall be place within 36 months of permit issuance unless otherwise approved by Ecology. • Within 30 months of permit issuance, prepare and submit to Ecology for review, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the sampling of streams and/or discharges from stormwater conveyances within the jurisdictions boundaries in order to assess whether or not affected water bodies and/or stormwater discharges, are meeting state water quality standards. • The QAPP shall be prepared following Ecology’s “Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies, Ecology Publication No. 01-03-003 (or most recent version). Ecology will review and provide comments within 30 days of when the plan is received. The sampling plan shall include an adequate number of sampling points and adequate sampling frequency to reasonably characterize the receiving water or waste stream. Monitoring shall begin no later than 36 months after permit issuance. • No later than 9 months prior to permit renewal, a Bacterial Pollution Control Plan shall be developed. The Plan shall consider all available monitoring data and the approaches noted for the Early Action BMP Plan above. • No later than 9 months prior to permit renewal application, conduct public review of the Bacterial Pollution Control Plan. Permittees that have already incorporated the Early Action BMP Plan into their Stormwater Management Plan during year two of the permit satisfy the public review requirement by incorporating the Bacterial Pollution Control Plan into that plan as a separate and distinct chapter or section. • Submit the Bacterial Pollution Control Plan to Ecology at the time of permit renewal application for review. January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 8 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit 4. Name of TMDL: Swamp Creek Location of Original 303 (d) Listings WA-08-1060 Area where TMDL Requirements Apply: TMDL coverage includes areas draining to the portion of the WASWIS segment SM74QQ starting at the confluence with the Sammamish River and including all upstream tributaries within the jurisdiction of the Permittee and within the geographic area covered by this permit contributing to the Swamp Creek segment of WASWIS GJ57UL. TMDL coverage includes the areas indicated in the Swamp Creek Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL Water Quality Improvement Report and Implementation Plan dated May 2006, in Figure 2, Appendix D. This TMDL can be found at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/watershed/tmdl_info-nwro.html. Parameter – Fecal Coliform Approval Date – 16-Aug. 2006 Potential MS4 Permittees – Phase I permit: Snohomish County Phase II permit: Everett, Bothell, Lynnwood, Brier, Mountlake Terrace, and Kenmore. WSDOT permit: WSDOT. Note: For WSDOT in the Swamp Creek Watershed area defined above, compliance with the WSDOT permit shall constitute compliance with the Swamp Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL. 1) Pollution Source Control Activities “The ordinance or other regulatory mechanism (developed or updated pursuant to S5) that effectively prohibits non-stormwater, illegal discharges, and/or dumping into the Permittees MS4 also prohibits non-stormwater discharges from commercial animal handling areas and commercial composting facilities. Commercial animal handling areas are associated with Standard Industrial Code (SIC) 074 and 075 and include veterinary and pet care/boarding services, animal slaughtering, and support activities for animal production. Facilities where the degradation and transformation of organic solid waste takes place under controlled conditions designed to promote aerobic decomposition are considered commercial composting facilities (definition in accordance with Chapter 173-350 WAC). Permittees shall require source control BMPs equivalent to those in the 2005 Western Washington Stormwater Manual Volume IV, pages 2-10, through 2-12 for these facility types.” January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 9 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit 2) Public Involvement All municipal stormwater permit holders shall prepare a Bacterial Pollution Control Plan (BPCP) as subsection of their Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) to facilitate the public’s participation in advising on the development, implementation, and update of TMDL-related portions of the SWMP. The BPCP shall include information on relevant activities being taken to reduce bacterial pollution including ordinances, inspection and enforcement resources and strategies, illicit discharge program elements, and water quality monitoring. Municipal stormwater permittees shall evaluate and document the applicability of the following approaches in the BPCP. • Receiving water sampling to identify bacterial pollution sources within targeted sub basins. • Development and implementation of a Pet Waste Ordinance or other equivalent mechanism. • Evaluation of current water pollution ordinance enforcement capabilities. • Evaluation of critical areas ordinance in relation to TMDL goals. • Implementation of an educational program for K-12 students to increase their awareness of bacterial pollution problems. • Investigation and implementation of methods that prevent additional stormwater bacterial pollution through stormwater treatment, reducing stormwater volumes from existing areas using low impact development retrofitting, and preventing additional sources of stormwater in association with new development using low impact development strategies. 3) TMDL Activity Documentation and Tracking All municipal stormwater permit holders shall discuss program changes and BPRP activities completed during the previous year in a subsection of their Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) annual report. The purpose of this requirement is to allow for the timely tracking and evaluation of TMDL-related permit requirements by Ecology and the public. 4) Public Outreach and Education All municipal stormwater permit holders shall increase awareness of bacterial pollution problems and the need to protect water quality by properly managing animal wastes. This requirement shall be considered an additional minimum measure to the Phase I permit (S5.C.10.(b)(ii)). This requirement shall be integrated into one or more of the minimum measures S5.C.1.(a)I through iv for applicable Phase II cities. 5) Water Quality Monitoring All municipal stormwater permittees must perform or contract out, water quality monitoring in accordance with either Options 1 or 2 below. This monitoring shall be described in a plan prepared in accordance with Ecology’s Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) for Environmental Studies (Ecology Publication No. 01-03-003 or most January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 10 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit current version). Phase II permittees shall submit their QAPP to Ecology for approval within 120 days of permit issuance. To ensure consistency in its county-wide TMDL monitoring program, Phase I permittee Snohomish County has the option of following monitoring timelines and dates for submitting their QAPP, BPCP, and Early Action Plan (if applicable) following the timelines set forth in the North Creek and Snohomish Tributaries TMDL Detailed Implementation Plans. Permitteees may rely on another entity to satisfy the required TMDL monitoring component. Permittees that are relying on another entity to satisfy this monitoring obligation remain responsible for permit compliance if the other entity fails to perform the required monitoring. TMDL related monitoring shall begin within 180 days of permit issuance. The monitoring start date will be extended day for day if Ecology requires more than 30 days to review the QAPP. Permittees shall choose one of the two options discussed below Option 1, Direct Measurement of Stormwater: Estimate the concentration and loading of bacteria to Swamp Creek from stormwater within the permit holder’s jurisdiction by sampling representative outfalls within the MS4. Specific sampling locations and frequencies of stormwater outfall monitoring will be determined during Ecology’s approval of a prepared QAPP. Option 2, Indirect Measurement of Pollution Sources (Recommended): Estimate changes in bacterial levels in Swamp creek as a result of stormwater inputs through receiving water monitoring coupled with flow duration or comparable analyses. Within Option 2, permittees may either a) measure water quality entering and leaving their jurisdiction or b) measure water quality at the locations specified in Figure 1 of the TMDL as follows: • Snohomish County shall monitor bacteria levels at sites SCLU and SCLD and perform flow monitoring at sites Sc and Sl. • The City of Everett shall monitor bacteria levels at site SCUP, which is in the vicinity of Avondale Road and 119th St SW. • The City of Kenmore shall monitor bacteria levels at site 0470 and perform flow monitoring at site 56b. • The Cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Brier shall monitor bacteria levels at site SRLD. SRLD shall be located at the stream crossing along Cypress Way, Oak Way, or another site approved by Ecology. Option 2 monitoring must be performed at a frequency that will produce at least 60 data points at each monitoring station over the five year permit cycle. Permittees must also perform continuous flow monitoring at each monitoring point, or a representative location January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 11 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit as approved by Ecology, to determine if a sampling event is affected, or dominated, by storm flows. 6) Coordination of Stormwater Management Activities In association with Phase I permit condition S5.C(3), Snohomish County shall include the discussion of TMDL-related activities as part of the stormwater management coordination activities for physically connected and shared water bodies. 7) Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination The schedule and activities identified for the illicit discharge detection and elimination program in both the Phase I and Phase II permits shall be sufficient to meet TMDL requirements with the following clarifying conditions: Phase I Permit—Snohomish County shall give strong consideration to prioritizing Outfall Reconnaissance Inventories (ORIs) in areas where bacterial TMDLs are in place. All ORIs conducted in area covered by this TMDL shall include bacteria source screening for sewage/septic sources. The County shall develop threshold values for responding to obvious bacterial pollution problems and initiating investigation/termination activities as defined in permit condition S5C8(b)(vii). Phase II Permit—Water bodies addressed by the TMDL shall be designated as high priority water bodies (see permit condition S.5.C.3.(c)(ii)) and shall receive field assessments and screening prior to other receiving water bodies unless approved in writing from Ecology. The presence of sewage/septic system sources shall be investigated as part of all screenings. 5. Name of TMDL: South Prairie Creek Bacteria and Temperature TMDL Location of Original 303(d) Listings – WA-10-1085, WA-10-1087 Area Where TMDL Requirements Apply: TMDL coverage includes South Prairie Creek, Spiketon Creek and Tributary One Parameter – Fecal Coliform Approval Date August 5, 2003 Potential MS4 Permittees Phase I Pierce County, Phase II Town of Buckley January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 12 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit Action Required The following implementation activities should be pursued in the time period from 2006 to 2009. Pierce County Increase review requirements and inspection frequency for permitted land conversions (clearing/grading/grubbing) and other land use actions where potential sediment loading to South Prairie Creek or tributaries could occur. (Planning and Land Services) Town of Buckley In cooperation with the Pierce Conservation District, investigate Spiketon Creek bacterial sources impacting the city’s stormwater drainage system adjacent to Spiketon Creek while it remains out of compliance with clean water standards. If necessary, identify activities impacting surface discharges to the drainage system and perform sampling to verify bacterial sources, determine the relative contributions of bacteria from these activities, and the combined contribution from the stormwater drainage system at their outfalls to Spiketon Creek. Assess current roadway maintenance practices adjacent to the city’s stormwater drainage system along Spiketon Road. Determine the type, frequency, and schedule of maintenance activity and identify those which indirectly support bacterial contributions. Revise or modify maintenance activities to minimize bacterial contributions. The following implementation activities should be pursued by Pierce County in the time period from 2010 to 2013. Investigate Tributary 1 bacterial sources impacting the county’s stormwater drainage system upstream of SR162. Identify activities impacting surface discharges to the drainage system and perform sampling to verify bacterial sources. Determine the contributions from the drainage system at their outfalls to Tributary 1 for both the growing season (May through October) and the non-growing season (November through April) periods. Investigate bacterial sources impacting the county’s stormwater drainage system upstream of SR165 along Spiketon Road, Mundy Loss Road, and Spiketon Ditch Road. Identify activities impacting surface discharges to the drainage system and perform sampling to verify bacterial sources. Determine the contributions from the drainage system at their outfalls to Spiketon Creek for both the growing season (May through October) and the non-growing season (November through April) periods. Assess current roadway maintenance practices adjacent to the county’s stormwater drainage system upstream of SR162. Determine the type, frequency, and schedule of maintenance activities and identify those which indirectly support bacterial contributions. Revise or modify roadway maintenance activities to minimize bacterial contributions. Distribute educational materials on stormwater source controls/best management practices to landowners adjacent to the county’s stormwater drainage system January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 13 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 2 – Total Maximum Daily Loads Page 14 of 14 Modified June 17, 2009 Refer landowners to the Pierce Conservation District for technical assistance where agricultural or livestock impacts contribute direct flows or sheet flows to the county stormwater drainage system upstream of SR162 or along Spiketson Ditch road. APPENDIX 3 – Annual Report Form for Cities, Towns and Counties Covered under the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report – Cities, Towns and Counties Modified June 17, 2009 January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report – Cities, Towns and Counties Modified June 17, 2009 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit Annual Report for Calendar Year_________. Two printed copies and one electronic copy of this report are due to Ecology by March 31, of the following calender year. For all annual reports complete sections I through VI. For the third and all following annual reports also complete section VII. Do not leave any questions blank. I. Permittee Information Permittee Name Permit Coverage Number Contact Name Phone Number Mailing Address City State Zip + 4 Email Address II. Regulated Small MS4 Location Jurisdiction Entity Type Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 2 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 III. Relying on another Governmental Entity If you are relying on another governmental entity to satisfy one or more of the permit obligations, list the entity and the permit obligation(s) they are implementing on your behalf below. Attach a copy of your agreement with the other entity. IV. Certification All annual reports must be signed and certified by the responsible official(s) of permittee or co-permittees I certify under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that Qualified Personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for willful violations. Name____________________________Title_________________Date______________ Name____________________________Title_________________Date_____________ Name____________________________Title_________________Date____________ V. Submittal Deliver two printed copies and one electronic copy (MS Word format or PDF, by email or on CD ROM) of this report by March 31 to: Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Municipal Stormwater Permits P.O. Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 3 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 VI. Status Report Covering Calendar Year______. Please label any attachments with corresponding question numbers. Note: Items that have future compliance dates must still be checked to indicate status. 1. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 4 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 7. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 5 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 14b. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 6 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 registered in the past; and areas with storage of large quantities of materials that could result in illicit discharges, including spills. (Required by August 19, 2011, S5.C.3.c.i) Comments: 22. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 7 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 notification of the property owner; technical assistance for eliminating the discharge; follow-up inspections; and escalating enforcement and legal actions if the discharge is not eliminated. (Required by August 19, 2011, S5.C.3.c.v.) Comments: 29. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 8 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 35. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 9 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 41. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 10 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 48. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 11 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 Comments: 53. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 12 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 Comments: 59. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 13 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 65. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 14 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 Comments: 71. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 15 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 76. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 16 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 82. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 17 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 89. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 18 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 VII. Information Collection, BMP Evaluation, and Monitoring Complete sections A for each annual report. Complete sections B and C for the Third and all following annual reports. Complete section D below for the fourth annual report only. A. Information Collection List below either the results of information collected and analyzed during the reporting period, including monitoring data (if any) and who to contact for additional information OR summarize the results of information collected and indicate how more complete information can be obtained. (S8.B.1., and S9) B. SWMP Evaluation You are required to assess the appropriateness of the BMPs you have selected to implement your SWMP. This evaluation is necessary to evaluate whether the MEP standard set by the permit is protective of water quality in your receiving water bodies. This assessment may be entirely qualitative. Select “NA” if you are not yet fully implementing the entire program of BMPs for a component of the SWMP. (S8.B.2. and S9) 1. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 19 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 4. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 3 – Annual Report for Cities, Towns and Counties Page 20 of 20 Modified June 17, 2009 D. Preparation for future, long-term monitoring Complete section D below for the fourth annual report only. 1. YES APPENDIX 4 – Annual Report Form for Secondary Permittees January 17, 2007 Appendix 4 – Secondary Permittees Annual Report Modified June 17, 2009 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK January 17, 2007 Appendix 4 – Secondary Permittees Annual Report Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit Annual Report for Calendar Year _________ Two printed copies and one electronic copy of this report are due to Ecology by March 31 following the reporting period (S9 Reporting Requirements). The reporting period is the previous calendar year. Complete sections I through VI. Do not leave any questions blank. I. Permittee Information Permittee Name Permit Coverage Number Contact Name Phone Number Mailing Address City State Zip + 4 Email Address: II. Regulated Small MS4 Location Jurisdiction Entity Type: Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit III. Relying on another Governmental Entity If you are relying on another governmental entity to satisfy one or more of the permit obligations, list the entity and the permit obligation they are implementing on your behalf below. Attach a copy of your agreement with the other entity (unless previously submitted). IV. Certification Must be signed by the responsible official(s) of permittee I certify under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that Qualified Personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for willful violations. Name____________________________Title_________________Date___________________ Name____________________________Title_________________Date___________________ Name____________________________Title_________________Date___________________ V. Submittal Deliver two printed and signed copies and one electronic copy (e-mail the report in Excel format from Ecology website or send CD ROM in MS Word format or PDF) of this report by March 31 to: Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Municipal Stormwater Permits P.O. Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 January 17, 2007 Appendix 4 – Secondary Permittees Annual Report Page 2 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit VI. Status Report Covering Calendar Year _____ Answer all the questions. If a requirement is not yet due based on your permit coverage date, answer “No” and note in Comments that the requirement is not yet due. The deadlines for specific requirements may vary from those shown as established by Ecology for individual permittees. For questions that allow for a NA (not applicable) answer, if the requirement does not apply to you, answer “NA.” Please label any attachments with corresponding question numbers. S6.D Stormwater Management Program 1. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit Comments: 6. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit 12. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit S6.D.4 Construction Site Stormwater Control 18. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit 24. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit 31. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit A. Information Collection (S8.A, S8.B & S9) List below either the results of information collected and analyzed during the reporting period, including monitoring data (if any) and how to contact for additional information OR summarize the results of information collected and indicate how more complete information can be obtained. B. Evaluation of your SWMP (S8.B & S9) Complete for the third and following annual reports. You are required to assess the appropriateness of the BMPs you have selected to implement your SWMP. This evaluation is necessary to evaluate whether the MEP standard set by the permit is protective of water quality in your receiving water bodies. This assessment may be entirely qualitative. Select “NA” if you are not yet fully implementing the entire program of BMPs for a component of the SWMP. 1. YES Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit 5. YES January 17, 2007 Appendix 5 – Notice of Intent for Coverage Page 1 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 APPENDIX 5 – Notice of Intent (NOI) for Coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater General Permit Introduction This form must be used by all entities seeking coverage under one or more of the following municipal separate storm sewer permits: Phase I Permit – “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Discharges from Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems” Phase II Permit for Western Washington – “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewers in Western Washington” Phase II Permit for Eastern Washington – “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewers in Eastern Washington” The Department of Ecology (Ecology) will use the information provided to determine if coverage under one or more of the above municipal stormwater general permits is required and/or appropriate. Please answer all questions accurately and completely. If a question does not apply, answer NA to that question. See instructions at the back of the form for more information. Operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) seeking permit coverage must complete this application and return it to Ecology. You may print this form and complete it by hand, or download the form from Ecology’s Web site and fill it out electronically. The form is available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/ecy070207.html. An authorized signature is needed to complete the application. Please reference supporting documents in the text and attach as necessary. Mail completed NOI to: Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Municipal Stormwater Permits P.O. Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 Ecology will send each applicant an acknowledgment of receipt. If you have questions about this application, please contact the appropriate Ecology employee listed in the instructions at the end of this form, or call Ecology’s Water Quality Program at 360-407-6600. Ecology is an equal opportunity agency. Municipal Stormwater Permits January 17, 2007 Appendix 5 – Notice of Intent for Coverage Page 2 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 Part 1 - Owner/Operator Information A. Applicant Information B. Responsible Official or Representative Name of city, county, or special district: Name Title Phone Email Mailing Address Mailing Address PO Box (Optional) PO Box (Optional) City State Zip City State Zip C. Billing Address, if different D. Contact Person Name Name Mailing Address Title PO Box (Optional) Phone No. Business Ext. City State Zip Email Fax No. (Optional) E. Ownership Status (check appropriate box) City or Town County Federal Tribal Special Purpose District:(secondary permittee) Diking/drainage district Port Flood control district University Public school district Park district State agency (give name) Other (please describe) Part 2 – Geographic Area Where the applicant’s MS4s are located (see instructions) Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit for Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit for Eastern Washington If you operate municipal separate storm sewer systems which are located in areas covered by more than one permit please list the locations of all of the municipal separate storm sewer systems for which you are requesting permit coverage. Municipal Stormwater Permits January 17, 2007 Appendix 5 – Notice of Intent for Coverage Page 3 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 Part 3 – Population served by the MS4 Estimated population (resident and commuter) served by the MS4 within the geographic area(s) covered by the permits: Part 4 – Map(s) A. Is part of the MS4 located on tribal lands (within a reservation or on land held in trust for a tribe)? For the Puyallup reservation only, check “yes” if MS4 is located on trust lands and “no” if any part of the MS4 is located on fee lands. Yes No B. For special purpose districts only, attach a map or maps delineating the geographic area served by the MS4. Attach map(s) to this form Not applicable Part 5 – Co-Permittee information Complete this part of the NOI only if you are co-applying with another entity to meet the requirements of the permit. Permittees that co-apply are responsible for meeting permit conditions related to their discharge(s). If you are co-applying with another entity or entities please include, as an attachment to this NOI, a summary of the permit obligations that will be carried out jointly among co-applicants. The summary must identify the other co-applicant(s) and must be signed by the other co-applicant(s). Attach a summary of joint permit obligations Summary is signed by all co-applicants Not Applicable Part 6 – Relying on another entity to satisfy permit requirement(s) Complete this part of the NOI only if you are relying on another entity to satisfy one or more of the requirements of the permit. Permittees that rely on another entity to satisfy one or more of their permit obligations remain responsible for permit compliance if the other entity fails to implement the permit conditions. Permittees may rely on another entity provided: 1. The other entity agrees to take on responsibility for implementation of the permit requirement(s), AND 2. The other entity implements the permit requirements. If you are relying on another entity or entities to satisfy one or more of the permit obligations, please include as an attachment to this NOI a summary of the permit obligations that will be carried out by another entity. The summary must identify the other entity or entities and must be signed by the other entity or entities. Attach summary of permit obligations carried out by another entity Summary is signed by all other entities Not Applicable Municipal Stormwater Permits January 17, 2007 Appendix 5 – Notice of Intent for Coverage Page 4 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 Part 7 – Public Notice A public notice must be published at least once each week for two consecutive weeks in a single newspaper of general circulation in the county or city in which the district or entity is located. See the NOI instructions for the public notice language requirements. Permit coverage will not be granted sooner than 31 days after the date of the second public notice. Submit the NOI and public notice to Ecology before the date of the first public notice. A copy of the NOI and public notice may be faxed to (360) 407-6426. Name of the newspaper that will publish the public notices: Provide the exact dates (mm/dd/yy) that the first and second public notices will appear in the newspaper: Date of the first notice / / Date of second notice / / Part 8 – Certification I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. The information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Print or type name of responsible official or representative Title / / Signature of responsible official or representative Date Municipal Stormwater Permits January 17, 2007 Appendix 5 – Notice of Intent for Coverage Page 5 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 INSTRUCTIONS These instructions will help you prepare an application, referred to as a Notice of Intent (NOI), for coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit and State Waste Discharge Permit for stormwater discharges associated with municipal separate storm sewer systems in Washington State. Questions? If you have questions, please contact the Ecology employee who manages the permit in the county or counties in which your facility or district is located: • Island, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties: contact Steve Hood at 360-738-6254 • King, Kitsap, and Snohomish Counties: contact Anne Dettelbach at 425-649-7093 • Clark, Cowlitz, Clallam, Grays Harbor, Lewis, Pierce, and Thurston Counties: contact Alison Chamberlin at 360-407-0245 • Benton, Chelan, Kittitas, Douglas, and Yakima Counties: contact Terry Wittmeier at 509-574-3991 • Asotin, Franklin, Grant, Spokane, Walla Walla, and Whitman Counties: contact Dave Duncan at 509-329-3554 Or, call Ecology’s Water Quality Program office at 360-407-6600, and the receptionist will direct you to another staff member who can assist you. Who must apply? Federal and state law requires all operators of regulated municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) to apply for and obtain coverage under this permit, or to be permitted under a separate individual permit, unless exempted in accordance with conditions described below. What is an MS4? A municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is a conveyance or system of conveyances including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels and/or storm drains which is: a. Owned or operated by a city, town, county, district, association, or other public body created pursuant to state law having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer districts, flood control districts or drainage districts, or similar entity. b. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater. c. Not a combined sewer system. d. Not part of a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) (see 40 CFR 122.2). Municipal Stormwater Permits January 17, 2007 Appendix 5 – Notice of Intent for Coverage Page 6 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 MS4s also include systems similar to separate storm sewer systems in municipalities such as: universities, prison complexes, highways and other thoroughfares, and flood control districts. Storm sewers in very discrete areas such as individual buildings do not require coverage under this permit. Storm drain systems operated by non-governmental, private entities such as: individual buildings; private schools, colleges, and universities; and industrial and commercial entities are not subject to these permits. Who needs a permit? 1. A regulated MS4 is a municipal separate storm sewer system that: • Is located within, or partially within, the unincorporated areas of Clark, King, Pierce or Snohomish counties; or • Is located within, or partially within, the cites of Seattle or Tacoma; or • Is located within the other areas defined in the permits. See list of cities and counties in Part 2 of the line-by-line instructions or Ecology’s maps of permit coverage www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/phase_2/maps.html for more information on these locations; or • Is designated by Ecology AND • Discharges stormwater from the MS4 to a surface water of Washington State; and • Is not eligible for an exemption. 2. All operators of municipal separate storm sewers which meet the criteria listed above must obtain coverage under this permit. Operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems may also include, but are not limited to: public flood control districts, public diking, and drainage districts, public schools including universities, and correctional facilities that own or operate an MS4 serving non-agricultural land uses. 3. If Ecology determines the MS4 is a significant source of pollution to surface waters of the state, Ecology may require any other operators of small municipal separate storm sewer systems to obtain permit coverage. Ecology will notify the affected MS4 that permit coverage is required by issuing an administrative order (see RCW 90.48). Who does not need to apply? State and federal laws do not require a regulated MS4 to obtain permit coverage, if either of the following conditions applies: The portions of the small MS4 located within the census defined urban area(s) serve a total population of less than 1000 people** and all the conditions below apply: • The small MS4 is not contributing substantially to the pollutant loadings of a physically interconnected MS4 that is regulated by the NPDES stormwater program. • The discharge of pollutants from the small MS4 has not been identified as a cause of impairment of any water body to which the MS4 discharges. • In areas where an EPA approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), or water quality improvement plan for impaired waters, has been completed, stormwater controls on the MS4 have not been identified as being necessary. Municipal Stormwater Permits January 17, 2007 Appendix 5 – Notice of Intent for Coverage Page 7 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 **In determining the total population served, include both resident and commuter populations as follows: • For publicly operated school complexes including universities and colleges, the total population served includes the sum of the average annual student enrollment plus staff. • For flood control, diking, and drainage districts, the total population served includes residential population and any non-residents regularly employed in the areas served by the small MS4. MS4s operated by: • The federal government on military bases or other federal lands; or by the United States Military, the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Park Service, or other federal agencies; or • Federally recognized tribes located within tribal lands Are not covered under this permit but may need coverage under a permit issued by the USEPA. When to apply Submit the NOI to the Department of Ecology on or before the date of the first public notice required in part 5 of this NOI. Ecology must have the permit application during the public comment period in order to provide the public access to the applications as required by state law (WAC 173-226-130(5)). Ecology cannot grant permit coverage until 31 days after the date of the second public notice. Upon receipt of a complete NOI, Ecology will notify the applicant by mail of confirmation of coverage under the permit. An NOI is deemed complete only after the 30-day public comment period and all other requested information has been supplied. Permit coverage will begin on the date specified in Ecology’s letter of confirmation. Where to apply Mail the signed NOI to: Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Municipal Stormwater Permits P.O. Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 Fees There is no application fee. Ecology will bill the applicant(s) for permit fees after permit coverage is issued. Call Bev Poston at 360-407-6425 or email bpos461@ecy.wa.gov for questions relating to fees. If you need this publication in an alternate format, please call the Water Quality Program at 360-407-6401. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. Municipal Stormwater Permits January 17, 2007 Appendix 5 – Notice of Intent for Coverage Page 8 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 Line-by-line Instructions Part 1 – Owner/Operator information A. Applicant information - Fill out the name and mailing address of the city, county, or public entity that will receive coverage under the permit. B. Responsible Official or Representative – Fill out the name, address and contact information for the principal executive officer or ranking elected official responsible for signing the application and all reports. See Part 8 for more information. C. Billing information - If a separate department or office handles billing, enter the appropriate contact information. There is an annual permit fee associated with this permit. D. Contact person - Enter the name, title, phone number, and email for the person who will be in charge of developing the stormwater management program and meeting the stormwater permit requirements. E. Ownership status - Check the appropriate box indicating the ownership status (e.g., city, county, or special district type). Part 2 – Permit(s) under which the applicant is requesting coverage Check the box that corresponds to the permit(s) under which you are applying for coverage. The geographic locations covered by each permit break down as follows: • Phase I – regulates entities within, or partially within the unincorporated areas of Clark, King, Pierce, or Snohomish counties; or the cities of Seattle or Tacoma. • Phase II Western Washington – regulates entities in the census-defined urban areas of western Washington and some cities with populations over 10,000. • Phase II Eastern Washington – regulates entities in the census-defined urban areas of eastern Washington and some cities with populations over 10,000. Note: Applicants may submit a single NOI to request coverage of all of the regulated MS4s which they operate. For example, a single NOI may be submitted to cover the main campus and any satellite campuses of a university which may require permit coverage. Applicants requesting coverage for multiple sites/locations must list the locations for each site/location for which coverage is being requested. When more than one permit is checked, Ecology will assign the permit that will provide coverage. Part 3 – Population served by the MS4 Provide an estimate of the population served by the MS4 within the geographic area(s) covered by the permits. The estimate must include both resident and commuter populations. For example, a university may have a resident population of students who live on campus and a commuter population of students and employees who commute to campus. Part 4 – Map requirements A. Is part of the MS4 located on tribal lands (within a reservation or on land held in trust for a tribe)? For the Puyallup reservation only, check “yes” if MS4 is located on trust lands and “no” if any part of the MS4 is located on fee lands. The portion of the MS4 that is located on tribal lands will not be covered under these permits. B. For special purpose districts only, attach a map or maps delineating the geographic area served by the MS4. Municipal Stormwater Permits Part 5 – Co-Permittee information Complete this part of the NOI only if you are co-applying with another entity to meet the requirements of this permit. Permittees that co-apply are responsible for meeting permit conditions related to their discharge(s). If you are co-applying with another entity or entities, please include as an attachment to this NOI a summary of the permit obligations that will be carried out jointly among co-applicants. The summary must identify the other co-applicant/s and must be signed by the other co-applicant/s. Part 6 - Relying on another entity to satisfy permit requirement(s) Complete this part of the NOI only if you are relying on another entity to satisfy one or more of the requirements of the permit. Permittees may rely on another entity provided the entity satisfies all of the requirements it agrees to undertake (see 40 CFR 122.35(a)). That other entity must agree to take responsibility and implement the permit requirement(s). Permittees that rely on another entity to satisfy one or more of their permit obligations remain responsible for permit compliance with those obligations if the other entity fails to implement the permit conditions. If you are relying on another entity or entities to satisfy one or more of the permit obligations, please include as an attachment to this NOI a summary of the permit obligations that will be carried out by another entity. The summary must identify the other entity or entities and must be signed by the other entity or entities. Part 7 – Public notice You must publish a public notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or city in which the district or entity is located. The following sample public notice contains the required public notice elements. Sample Public Notice (Name and address of municipality, district or other public entity) is seeking coverage under (select one of the following): Phase I Permit – “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Discharges from Large and Medium Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems” Phase II Permit for Western Washington – “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewers in western Washington” Phase II Permit for Eastern Washington – “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewers in eastern Washington” The proposed permit will regulate stormwater discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer system located in (city, town or county). The permit requires (Name of municipality, district or other public entity) to develop and implement a stormwater management program that: 1. Reduces the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. 2. Protects water quality. 3. Satisfies appropriate requirements of the Clean Water Act. January 17, 2007 Appendix 5 – Notice of Intent for Coverage Page 9 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 Municipal Stormwater Permits January 17, 2007 Appendix 5 – Notice of Intent for Coverage Page 10 of 10 Modified June 17, 2009 Any person desiring to present views to the Department of Ecology concerning this application may notify Ecology in writing within 30 days from the last date of publication of this notice. Submit comments to: Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Municipal Stormwater Permits P.O. Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 Fax: 360-407-6426 Part 8 - Certification An authorized person, such as a principal executive officer or ranking elected official, must sign the certification statement. OR A duly authorized representative of the executive officer (or ranking elected official) may sign the certification as long as: 1. The signator receives written authorization from the executive officer or ranking elected official. This document must be submitted to Ecology. 2. The authorization specifies an individual or position that has responsibility for the overall development and implementation of the stormwater management program. If you need this publication in an alternate format, please call the Water Quality Program at 360-407- 6401. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. APPENDIX 6 – Street Waste Disposal Street Waste Liquids General Procedures: Street waste collection should emphasize retention of solids in preference to liquids. Street waste solids are the principal objective in street waste collection and are substantially easier to store and treat than liquids. Street waste liquids require treatment before their discharge. Street waste liquids usually contain high amounts of suspended and total solids and adsorbed metals. Treatment requirements depend on the discharge location. Discharges to sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems must be approved by the entity responsible for operation and maintenance of the system. Ecology will not generally require waste discharge permits for discharge of stormwater decant to sanitary sewers or to stormwater treatment BMPs constructed and maintained in accordance with Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The following order of preference, for disposal of catch basin decant liquid and water removed from stormwater treatment facilities, is required. 1. Discharge of catch basin decant liquids to a municipal sanitary sewer connected to a Public Owned Treatment Works (POTW) is the preferred disposal option. Discharge to a municipal sanitary sewer requires the approval of the sewer authority. Approvals for discharge to a POTW will likely contain pretreatment, quantity and location conditions to protect the POTW. Following the conditions is a permit requirement. 2. Discharge of catch basin decant liquids may be allowed into a Basic or Enhanced Stormwater Treatment BMP, if option 1 is not available. Decant liquid collected from cleaning catch basins and stormwater treatment wetvaults may be discharged back into the storm sewer system under the following conditions: • The preferred disposal option of discharge to sanitary sewer is not reasonably available, and • The discharge is to a Basic or Enhanced Stormwater Treatment Facility. If pretreatment does not remove visible sheen from oils, the treatment facility must be able to prevent the discharge of oils causing a visible sheen, and • The discharge is as near to the treatment facility as is practical, to minimize contamination or recontamination of the collection system be, and • The storm sewer system owner/operator has granted approval and has determined that the treatment facility will accommodate the increased loading. Pretreatment January 17, 2007 Appendix 6 – Street Waste Disposal Page 1 of 2 Modified June 17, 2009 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit January 17, 2007 Appendix 6 – Street Waste Disposal Page 2 of 2 Modified June 17, 2009 conditions to protect the treatment BMP may be issued as part of the approval process. Following local pretreatment conditions is a requirement of this permit. • Flocculants for the pretreatment of catch basin decant liquids must be non-toxic under the circumstances of use and must be approved in advance by the Department of Ecology. The reasonable availability of sanitary sewer discharge will be determined by the Permittee, by evaluating such factors as distance, time of travel, load restrictions, and capacity of the stormwater treatment facility. 3. Water removed from stormwater ponds, vaults and oversized catch basins may be returned to the storm sewer system. Stormwater ponds, vaults and oversized catch basins contain substantial amounts of liquid, which hampers the collection of solids and pose problems if the removed waste must be hauled away from the site. Water removed from these facilities may be discharged back into the pond, vault or catch basin provided: • Clear water removed from a stormwater treatment structure may be discharged directly to a down gradient cell of a treatment pond or into the storm sewer system. • Turbid water may be discharged back into the structure it was removed from if − the removed water has been stored in a clean container (eductor truck, Baker tank or other appropriate container used specifically for handling stormwater or clean water); and − there will be no discharge from the treatment structure for at least 24 hours. • The discharge must be approved by the storm sewer system owner/operator. Resolution No. 4453 Exhibit “A” CITY OF AUBURN 2009 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM City of Auburn, WA March 2009 Table of Contents City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan ii P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Regulatory Background................................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 City of Auburn Regulated Area.....................................................................................................................1-2 1.4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Compliance..........................................................................................1-2 1.5 SWMP Implementation Responsibilities.......................................................................................................1-2 1.6 Document Organization................................................................................................................................1-3 2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION........................................................................2-1 2.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities.............................................................................................................2-1 3. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH...............................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities.............................................................................................................3-2 4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT........................................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities.............................................................................................................4-1 5. ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION........................................................................................5-1 5.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities.............................................................................................................5-2 6. CONTROLLING RUNOFF FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION SITES.6-1 6.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................6-2 6.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities.............................................................................................................6-2 7. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS............7-1 7.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................7-1 7.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities.............................................................................................................7-2 8. MONITORING.........................................................................................................................................................8-1 8.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................8-1 8.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................8-2 8.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities.............................................................................................................8-2 APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................................................................A-1 Table of Contents City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan iii P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc Acronyms and Definitions from Permit.................................................................................................................A-1 iv P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. 2009 Stormwater Management Administration Program Work Plan ……………………………..………2-2 Table 3-1. 2009 Public Education and Outreach Work Plan ……………………………..…………………………….3-2 Table 4-1. 2009 Public Involvement Work Plan…………………………..………………………………………. …….4-2 Table 5-1. 2009 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Work Plan ……………………………………………….5-2 Table 6-1. 2009 Controlling Runoff from Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites Work Plan……6-3 Table 7-1. 2009 Pollution Prevention and Operations and Maintenance Work Plan………………………………..7-2 Table 8-1. 2009 Water Quality Monitoring Work Plan…………………………………………………………………..8-2 1-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc CITY OF AUBURN 2009 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview This document presents the City of Auburn’s Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). Preparation and maintenance of this SWMP is required by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) as a condition of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (the Phase II Permit). The Phase II permit covers discharges from regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Based on criteria outlined in the Phase II Permit, Ecology considers the City of Auburn to be an operator of a small MS4, and therefore required to obtain permit coverage. Each municipality's permit for discharging stormwater is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants, protect water quality, and meet the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. Appendix A includes acronyms and definitions from the Permit to help the reader understand the City’s Stormwater Management Program. 1.2 Regulatory Background The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program is a requirement of the federal Clean Water Act, which is intended to protect and restore waters for “fishable, swimmable” uses. The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated permit authority to state environmental agencies, and these agencies can set permit conditions in accordance with and in addition to the minimum federal requirements. In Washington, the NPDES-delegated permit authority is the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Municipalities with a population of over 100,000 (as of the 1990 census) have been designated as Phase I communities and must comply with Ecology’s Phase I NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. With Auburn’s 1990 census falling below the 100,000 threshold, the City must comply with the Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. About 100 other municipalities in Washington must now comply with the Phase II Permit, along with Auburn, as operators of small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Ecology’s Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit is available on Ecology’s website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/phaseIIww/wwphiipermit.html The Permit allows municipalities to discharge stormwater runoff from municipal drainage systems into the state’s water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands) as long as municipalities implement programs to protect water quality by reducing the discharge of “non-point source” pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable” (MEP) through application of Permit-specified “best management practices” (BMPs). The BMPs specified in the Permit are collectively referred to as the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) and grouped under the following Program components: Public Education and Outreach Public Involvement Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 1: Introduction City of Auburn 2009 SWMP 1-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc Controlling Runoff from Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites Pollution Prevention and Municipal Operation and Maintenance Monitoring The Permit issued by Ecology became effective on February 16, 2007 and expires on February 15, 2012. The Permit requires the City to report annually (March 31st of each year) on progress in SWMP implementation for the previous year. The Permit also requires submittal of documentation that describes proposed SWMP activities for the coming year. This document contains the City’s proposed activities for 2009. Implementation of various Permit conditions is staggered throughout the five-year Permit term from February 16, 2007 through February 15, 2012. The Permit will be revised and reissued at the end of this period. 1.3 City of Auburn Regulated Area The Western Washington Phase II Permit applies to operators of regulated small MS4s that discharge stormwater to waters of Washington State located west of the crest of the Cascade Range (west of the eastern boundaries of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Lewis and Skamania counties). For cities, the Permit requirements extend to those areas of each City that drain to MS4s. Most of Auburn drains to MS4s that ultimately discharge into the Green River, the White River, or Mill Creek. In addition, some portions of the City drain to regional infiltration basins. 1.4 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Compliance The federal Clean Water Act requires that Ecology establish “Total Maximum Daily Loads” (TMDL) for rivers, streams, lakes, and marine waters that don’t meet water quality standards. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. After the TMDL has been calculated for a given water body, Ecology determines how much each source must reduce its discharges of the pollutant in order bring the water body back into compliance with the water quality standards. The Clean Water Act requires that TMDL requirements must be included in the NPDES permits for dischargers into the affected water bodies. Stormwater discharges covered under this permit are required to implement actions necessary to achieve the pollutant reductions called for in applicable TMDLs. Applicable TMDLs are those approved by the EPA before the issuance date of the Permit or which have been approved by the EPA prior to the date the permittee’s application was received by Ecology. Information on Ecology’s TMDL program is available on Ecology’s website at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl. The current permit does not contain any TMDL requirements for the City of Auburn. However, Ecology has identified several water bodies that do not appear to meet the water quality standards. If Ecology establishes TMDLs for one or more of these water bodies prior to 2012, the next version of the Permit may contain additional requirements specified in the TMDL. 1.5 SWMP Implementation Responsibilities The Utilities Engineering Division in the Public Works Department coordinates the overall administration of efforts to comply with Permit requirements. The work plan tables in each Chapter provide the lead departments for the associated task. Other major departments/divisions included in the 2009 SWMP implementation include Maintenance and Operations (M&O), Communications and Multimedia, Human Resources (HR), Development Engineering, Permit Center, Information services (IS), and Parks. 1: Introduction City of Auburn 2009 SWMP 1-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc 1.6 Document Organization The contents of this document are based upon Permit requirements and Ecology’s “Draft Guidance for City and County Annual Reports for Western Washington, Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permits.” The remainder of this SWMP is organized similarly to the Permit: Section 2.0 addresses Permit requirements for administering the City’s Stormwater Management Program for 2009. Section 3.0 addresses Permit requirements for public education and outreach for 2009. Section 4.0 addresses Permit requirements for public involvement and participation for 2009. Section 5.0 addresses Permit requirements for illicit discharge detection and elimination for 2009. Section 6.0 addresses Permit requirements for controlling runoff from new development, redevelopment, and construction sites for 2009. Section 7.0 addresses Permit requirements for pollution prevention and operations and maintenance for municipal operations for 2009. Section 8.0 addresses Permit requirements for the monitoring section of the Permit for 2009. Each section includes a summary of the relevant Permit requirements, a description of current activities, and a table showing the planned activities for 2009. This document also includes acronyms and definitions from the Permit in Appendix A for easy reference. 2-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc CITY OF AUBURN 2009 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION This section of the SWMP describes Permit requirements related to overall Stormwater Management Program administration, including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2009. 2.1 Permit Requirements The Permit (Section S5.A) requires the City to: Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Program and prepare written documentation for submittal to Ecology on March 31, 2008, and update the SWMP annually thereafter. The purpose of the SWMP is to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the municipal stormwater system to the maximum extent practicable and thereby protect water quality. Submit annual compliance reports (for the previous calendar year) to Ecology on March 31, beginning in 2008 that summarize the status of implementation and provide information from assessment and evaluation procedures collected during the reporting period. Coordinate with other permittees on stormwater related policies programs, and projects within adjacent or shared areas. 2.2 Current Compliance Activities The City has activities and programs that meet many of the Permit requirements. The current compliance activities associated with the Permit include: The City is on track to comply with Ecology requirements for submittal of SWMP documentation by March 31, 2009. The Utilities Engineering Division is currently leading the development of the future planned activities with input and support from several other departments. The City created an NPDES implementation management group. The City set up the systems for tracking training. The City has defined its strategy for cost tracking. The City is participating in a regional education and outreach consortium. The City is on track to comply with Ecology’s requirements for submittal of the second Annual Compliance Report by March 31, 2009. 2.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities Auburn has positioned itself well to maintain compliance as Ecology phases in the future Permit deadlines. Table 2-1 presents the proposed work plan for the 2009 SWMP administration activities. 2. Stormwater Management Program Administration City of Auburn 2009 SWMP 2-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc Table 2-1. 2009 Stormwater Management Administration Program Work Plan Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance Timeframe SWMP-1 Define NPDES training modules and staff attendance requirements. HR First training to be completed by 8/19/2009. SWMP-2 Define and implement strategy/system for managing standard practices and procedures that are used among multiple departments. Utilities Engineering SOPs and responsibilities should be established during the Permit term. SWMP-3 Refine and implement NPDES cost accounting strategy for time spent on each component of Permit. Finance New cost tracking procedures must be in place by 1/01/2009. SWMP-4 Summarize annual activities for "Stormwater Management Program" component of Annual Report; identify any updates to Program document. Define process and roles for annual updates for SWMP. Utilities Engineering The SWMP and Annual Compliance Report submittal is due on or before March 31st of each year. 3-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc CITY OF AUBURN 2009 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 3. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH This section describes the Permit requirements related to public education and outreach, including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2009. 3.1 Permit Requirements The Permit (Section S5.C.1) requires the City to: Prioritize and target education and outreach activities to specified audiences, including the general public, businesses, residents/homeowners, landscapers, property managers, engineers, contractors, developers, review staff and land use planners, and other City employees to reduce or eliminate behaviors and practices that cause or contribute to adverse stormwater impacts. Have an outreach program that is designed to improve the target audience’s understanding of the problem and what they can do to solve it. Track and maintain records of public education and outreach activities. 3.2 Current Compliance Activities The City has activities and programs that meet many of the Permit requirements. The current compliance activities associated with the Permit include: Collaboration with other NPDES municipalities through involvement in the Stormwater Outreach for Regional Municipalities (STORM) integrated public education campaign. Many of the current education and outreach activities that address stormwater management are targeted at the general public, residents/homeowners, and some industries. Some of these programs are listed below: · Natural yard care workshops · Car wash kits · Storm drain stenciling · Powerful Choices for the Environment · Used motor oil and household hazardous waste program · Residential hazardous waste newsletter · Kids day · Water Festival · Green Schools program (district-wide) · Household hazardous waste mobile · Spring Clean-up (curbside appliance pickup ) 3: Public Education and Outreach City of Auburn 2009 SWMP 3-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc · News letter (quarterly or biannually) for business The City conducts an annual phone survey that could be used to develop a stormwater quality “awareness baseline” from which to measure future improvements. The City tracks its education and outreach efforts. 3.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities While the City has an existing stormwater public education and outreach program that meets most of the Permit requirements, some additional elements will be required. The Permit requires prioritization of specific target audiences and subject areas. The target audiences are to include: The general public Businesses (including home-based and mobile businesses) Residents/homeowners Landscapers Property managers Engineers, contractors, and developers City plan review staff, land use planners, and other City employees. To comply with the Permit, the City will review all existing programs and determine if they can be modified to address all the target audiences and/or add additional programs to comply with Permit requirements. Auburn may be able to take advantage of regional efforts intended to meet NPDES permit requirements, thereby reducing City efforts and costs. Table 3-1 presents the work plan for the 2009 SWMP public education and outreach activities. Table 3-1. 2009 Public Education and Outreach Work Plan Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance Timeframe EDUC-1 Continue collaboration with other NPDES municipalities to identify appropriate program evaluation techniques. Communications and Multimedia EDUC-2 Refine education and outreach strategy to supplement existing education activities. Communications and Multimedia EDUC-3 Implement new or modify existing education and outreach activities. Communications and Multimedia EDUC-4 Develop strategy and process to evaluate understanding and adoption of target behaviors. Communications and Multimedia Refinements to existing public education and outreach activities to be in place by 02/16/2009. EDUC-5 Summarize annual activities for "Public Education and Outreach" component of Annual Report; identify any updates to SWMP. Communications and Multimedia The SWMP and Annual Compliance Report submittal is due on or before March 31st of each year. 4-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc CITY OF AUBURN 2009 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This section describes the Permit requirements related to public involvement, including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2009. 4.1 Permit Requirements The Permit (Section S5.C.2) requires the City to: Provide ongoing opportunities for public involvement through advisory boards or commissions and watershed committees, and public participation in developing rate structures and budgets, stewardship programs, environmental actions, or other similar activities. The public must be able to participate in the decision-making processes, including development, implementation, and update of the SWMP. Make the SWMP and Annual Compliance Report available to the public, by posting on the City’s website. Make any other documents required to be submitted to Ecology in response to Permit conditions available to the public. 4.2 Current Compliance Activities The City has activities and programs relevant to the public involvement requirement. These activities are summarized below. The City has defined a series of public involvement activities intended to meet the Permit requirements for public involvement in development of the first Stormwater Management Program. This process involves presenting the draft SWMP to the Planning and Community Development (PCDC) and Public Works (PWC) Committees. The City will then have a public hearing and presentation to the City Council. The City will make the Stormwater Management Program document and Annual Compliance Report available to the public on the City website. 4.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities The City of Auburn has a history of including the public in decision making. Table 4-1 below presents the work plan for the 2009 SWMP public involvement activities. 4: Public Involvement City of Auburn 2009 SWMP 4-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc Table 4-1. 2009 Public Involvement Work Plan Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance Timeframe PI-1 Provide public involvement opportunities for annual SWMP update. Utilities Engineering PI-2 Make SWMP document and Annual Compliance Report available to public by posting on the City website. Utilities Engineering Public involvement opportunities will be available before 3/31/2009 submittal. PI-3 Summarize annual activities for "Public Involvement and Participation" component of Annual Report; identify any updates to SWMP. Utilities Engineering The SWMP and Annual Compliance Report submittal is due on or before March 31st of each year. 5-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc CITY OF AUBURN 2009 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 5. ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION This section describes the Permit requirements related to illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE), including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2009. 5.1 Permit Requirements The Permit (Section S5.C.3) requires the City to: Implement an ongoing program to detect and remove illicit discharges, connections, and improper disposal, including any spills into the municipal separate storm sewers owned or operated by the City. Develop a storm sewer system map, have ordinances that prohibit illicit discharges, and create a program to detect and address illicit discharges. Publicly list and publicize a hotline or other local telephone number for public reporting of spills and other illicit discharges. Track illicit discharge reports and actions taken in response through close-out, including enforcement actions. Train staff on proper IDDE response SOPs and municipal field staff to recognize and report illicit discharges. Summarize all illicit discharges and connections reported to the City and response actions taken, including enforcement actions, in the Annual Compliance Report; identify any updates to the SWMP. 5.2 Current Compliance Activities The City currently has activities and programs that meet many of the Permit requirements. The current compliance activities associated with the Permit include: The City has completed some of the mapping required for the Permit. The City also has an SOP for keeping the municipal separate storm sewer system map and inventory up-to-date. City codes and standards already have sections that address some of the required illicit discharges and civil infractions. Citizens can report illicit discharges or illicit dumping using any of the phone numbers published by the City. The calls are routed to Operations and Maintenance where they are recorded and distributed to the appropriate response authority. The City tracks spills, illicit discharges, and inspections. The City has chosen to use CarteGraph as its issue tracking and resolution system. The City created an IDDE response and enforcement SOP. 5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination City of Auburn 2009 SWMP 5-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc 5.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities The City will need to update current IDDE efforts in order to maintain compliance as the Permit requirements take effect. Table 5-1 presents the work plan for 2009 SWMP illicit discharge detection and elimination activities. Table 5-1. 2009 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Work Plan Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance Timeframe IDDE-1 Define and implement City-wide IDDE Program and develop any necessary supplemental IDDE activities. Utilities Engineering Program development to be completed by 8/19/2011. IDDE-2 Continue to review and update storm system map to address data gaps and Permit requirements. Utilities Engineering Maps to be completed by 02/16/2011. IDDE-3 Update IDDE codes as needed to address Permit requirements. Utilities Engineering Ordinance and code updates to be complete and adopted by 8/16/2009. IDDE-4 Create a City-wide IDDE response and enforcement SOP. Utilities Engineering Enforcement strategy and implementation SOPs in place by 8/16/2009. IDDE-5 Implement use of hotline for public reporting of spills and other illicit discharges. CarteGraph will be tied into hotline for issue tracking and resolution. Utilities Engineering Implement tracking system by 2/16/2009. IDDE-6 Train municipal field staff on the identification, investigation, termination, cleanup, and reporting of illicit discharges, improper disposal and illicit connections. Utilities Engineering, HR Training program, including training tracking, must be developed by 8/16/2009. IDDE-7 Incorporate awareness of illicit discharges into public outreach and education program. Communications and Multimedia Refinements to existing public education and outreach activities to be in place by 02/16/2009. IDDE-8 Summarize annual activities for "Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination" component of Annual Report; identify any updates to SWMP. Utilities Engineering The SWMP and Annual Compliance Report submittal is due on or before March 31st of each year. 6-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc CITY OF AUBURN 2009 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 6. CONTROLLING RUNOFF FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION SITES This section describes the Permit requirements related to controlling runoff from new development, redevelopment, and construction sites, including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2009. 6.1 Permit Requirements The Permit (Section S5.C.4) requires the City to: Develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff (i.e., illicit discharges) to the municipal separate storm sewer system from new development, redevelopment, and construction site activities. The program must apply to both private and public projects, including roads, and address all construction/development-associated pollutant sources. Adopt regulations (codes and standards) and implement plan review, inspection, and escalating enforcement SOPs necessary to implement the program in accordance with Permit conditions, including the minimum technical requirements in Appendix 1 of the Permit. Provide provisions and (plan review, inspection, and enforcement) SOPs to allow non-structural preventive actions and source reduction approaches such as Low Impact Development techniques, measures to minimize the creation of impervious surfaces, and measures to minimize the disturbance of native soils and vegetation. Adopt regulations (codes and standards) and provide provisions to verify adequate long-term operations and maintenance of new post-construction permanent stormwater facilities and BMPs in accordance with Permit conditions, including an annual inspection frequency and/or approved alternative inspection frequency and maintenance standards for private drainage systems as protective as those in Chapter IV of the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Provide copies of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for construction or industrial activities to representatives of the proposed new development and redevelopment. Provide training to staff on the new codes, standards, and SOPs and create public education and outreach materials. Develop and define a process to record and maintain all inspections and enforcement actions by staff. Summarize annual activities for the “Controlling Runoff” component of the Annual Compliance Report; identify any updates to the SWMP. 6: Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment and Construction Sites City of Auburn 2009 SWMP 6-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc 6.2 Current Compliance Activities The City has activities and programs that meet many of the Permit requirements. The current compliance activities associated with the Permit include: The City has existing programs, codes, and standards that address many of the Permit requirements for management of stormwater runoff from development, redevelopment, and construction sites. The City already reviews all stormwater site plans for proposed development. The City has a site planning process for BMP selection and design criteria. The City inspects all permitted development sites during construction and after construction. The City clearly identifies the party responsible for operations and maintenance (O&M) and requires long-term O&M of permitted facilities and BMPs. The City tracks and records most inspections and enforcement actions by staff. The City provides copies of Notices of Intent (NOI) for construction and industrial activities in the pre-application meeting with developers. Construction inspectors and most building inspectors have the required erosion control training. 6.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities The City has a program to help reduce stormwater runoff from new development and construction sites, but updates will be necessary to maintain compliance as the Permit requirements take effect. Table 6-1 presents the work plan for 2009 SWMP activities related to runoff control for new development, redevelopment, and construction sites. 6: Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment and Construction Sites City of Auburn 2009 SWMP 6-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc Table 6-1. 2009 Controlling Runoff from Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites Work Plan Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance Timeframe CTRL-1 Select new Stormwater Manual and update necessary codes. Utilities Engineering Stormwater Manual adopted by 8/16/2009 including updates to codes and standards. CTRL-2 Create SOP(s) defining the City's stormwater permitting, plan review, inspection, enforcement and record keeping processes. Utilities Engineering SOPs completed by 8/16/2009. CTRL-3 Conduct staff training and public education and outreach on implementing new Stormwater Manual and new Permit requirements Communications and Multimedia Training completed by 8/16/2009. CTRL-4 Train staff responsible for implementing the controlling runoff program from new development, redevelopment, and construction sites. Utilities Engineering, Development Engineering Construction Inspection, Stormwater Inspection, Permit Center, HR Training completed by 8/16/2009. CTRL-5 Track and report construction, new development, and redevelopment permits, inspections, and enforcement actions. Planning/ Permit Center Tracking of inspections and enforcement actions by 8/16/2009. CTRL-6 Summarize annual activities for "Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites" component of Annual Report; identify any updates to SWMP. Utilities Engineering The SWMP and Annual Compliance Report submittal is due on or before March 31st of each year. 7-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc CITY OF AUBURN 2009 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 7. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS This section describes the Permit requirements related to pollution prevention and operations and maintenance for municipal operations, including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2009. 7.1 Permit Requirements The Permit (Section S5.C.5) requires the City to: Develop and implement an O&M program, with the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal separate stormwater system and municipal O&M activities. Establish maintenance standards for the municipal separate stormwater system that are at least as protective as those specified in the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Perform required inspection frequency of stormwater flow control and treatment facilities and catch basins, unless previous inspection data show that a reduced frequency is justified. Have SOPs in place to reduce stormwater impacts associated with runoff from municipal O&M activities, including but not limited to streets, parking lots, roads, or highways owned or maintained by the City, and to reduce pollutants in discharges from all lands owned or maintained by the City. Train staff to implement the modified SOPs and document that training. Prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) for all heavy equipment maintenance or storage yards identified for year-round facilities or yards, and material storage facilities owned or operated by the City. Summarize annual activities for the “Pollution Prevention and Operations and Maintenance for Municipal Operations” component of the Annual Compliance Report; identify any updates to the SWMP. 7.2 Current Compliance Activities The City has activities and programs that meet many of the Permit requirements. The current compliance activities associated with the above Permit requirements include: The City operates an O&M program intended to minimize pollutant runoff from municipal operations. The City conducts and records the necessary maintenance operations identified based on inspections of many stormwater control facilities. The City performs spot checks of potentially damaged permanent treatment and flow control facilities. M&O staff involved with pesticides, pest management, and erosion and sediment control, receive training in these areas. 7. Pollution Prevention and O&M for Municipal Operations City of Auburn 2009 SWMP 7-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc The City is working on a list of City-owned facilities that may need Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans. 7.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities Auburn performs many of the Permit required activities to limit stormwater pollution potential related to its municipal O&M program. However, updates will be necessary to maintain compliance as the Permit requirements take effect. No activities are required until 2010 but preparing for requirements due in early 2010 will be necessary. Table 7-1 presents the work plan for 2009 SWMP activities related to pollution prevention and operations and maintenance for municipal operations. Table 7-1. 2009 Pollution Prevention and Operations and Maintenance Work Plan Task ID Task Description Responsible Schedule Notes PPOM-1 Set up processes to adopt new Stormwater Manual maintenance standards. Utilities Engineering Standards to be adopted by 02/15/2010. PPOM-2 Refine data management systems to track maintenance activities and inspections. Utilities Engineering Tracking systems in place by 02/15/2010. PPOM-3 Begin creating Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for affected City facilities. Utilities Engineering Begin creating SWPPPs in 2009, implementing SWPPP SOPs by 02/15/2010. PPOM-4 Develop and establish policies and procedures to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges from lands owned or maintained by the City. Utilities Engineering Begin development in 2009; begin implementing SOPs by 02/15/2010. PPOM-5 Establish annual inspection program for City-owned flow control and runoff treatment facilities and perform identified maintenance within prescribed Permit timelines. Utilities Engineering Begin development in 2009; begin implementing SOPs by 02/15/2010. PPOM-6 Summarize annual activities for "Pollution Prevention and Operation and Maintenance" component of annual report; identify any updates to SWMP. Utilities Engineering The SWMP and Annual Compliance Report submittal is due on or before March 31st of each year. 8-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc CITY OF AUBURN 2009 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 8. MONITORING This section describes the Permit requirements related to water quality monitoring, including descriptions of the City’s current and planned compliance activities for 2009. 8.1 Permit Requirements The Permit (Section S8) does not require municipalities to conduct water quality sampling or other testing during this permit term, with the following exceptions: Sampling or testing required for characterizing illicit discharges pursuant to the SWMP’s IDDE conditions. Water quality monitoring required for compliance with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) conditions (water quality clean up plans). The current Permit does not require that Auburn perform TMDL-related monitoring because Ecology has not established TMDLs for water bodies that receive stormwater runoff from the City. Preparing future comprehensive, long-term water quality monitoring plan including two components: 1) stormwater monitoring and 2) targeted Stormwater Management Program effectiveness monitoring. By the 4th Annual Compliance Report (March 31, 2011), Auburn is required to identify two outfalls or conveyances where permanent stormwater sampling stations can be installed and operated for future monitoring. The City is also required to develop plans to monitor stormwater, sediment, and receiving water for physical, chemical, and/or biological characteristics. One outfall must represent high-density residential land use, and the other commercial land use. To monitor SWMP effectiveness, the City will need to identify two suitable Program questions and sites where targeted Program effectiveness monitoring can be conducted and develop a monitoring plan for these questions and sites. The proposed effectiveness monitoring is required to answer the following types of questions: · How effective is a specific targeted action or a narrow suite of actions? · Is the Stormwater Management Program achieving a targeted environmental outcome? In addition, the City is required to provide the following monitoring and/or assessment data in each annual report: A description of any stormwater monitoring or studies conducted by the City during the reporting period. If stormwater monitoring was conducted on behalf of the City, or if studies or investigations conducted by other entities were reported to the City, a brief description of the type of information gathered or received shall be included in the annual report. An assessment of the appropriateness of the best management practices identified by the City for each component of the SWMP; and any changes made, or anticipated to be made, to the BMPs that were previously selected to implement the SWMP and why. 8: Monitoring City of Auburn 2009 SWMP 8-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc 8.2 Current Compliance Activities The City developed a map of the significant municipal stormwater outfalls, but has not yet developed a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan to implement future Permit water quality monitoring requirements. 8.3 Planned 2009 Compliance Activities Auburn will likely need to create a Water Quality Monitoring Program to maintain compliance during the next Permit term. Except for summarizing monitoring activities no actions are required until 2010. Table 8-1 presents the work plan for 2009 SWMP monitoring activities. Table 8-1. 2009 Water Quality Monitoring Work Plan Task ID Task Description Lead Compliance Timeframe MNTR -1 Participate in regional and state monitoring forums and future legislative actions in order to influence development of feasible and effective alternative future monitoring requirements. Utilities Engineering Continue participation. MNTR -2 Summarize annual monitoring activities for the Annual Report; identify any updates to SWMP. Utilities Engineering The SWMP and Annual Compliance Report submittal is due on or before March 31st of each year. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc APPENDIX A Acronyms and Definitions from Permit Appendix A: Acronyms and Definitions City of Auburn 2009 SWMP A-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc The following definitions and acronyms are taken directly from the Phase II Permit and are reproduced here for the reader’s convenience. AKART means all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment. All known, available and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment refers to the State Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48.010 and 90.48.520 RCW. Basin Plan is a surface water management process consisting of three parts: a scientific study of the basin’s drainage features and their quality; developing actions and recommendations for resolving any deficiencies discovered during the study; and implementing the recommendations, followed by monitoring. Best Management Practices ("BMPs") are the schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices approved by the Department that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State. BMP means Best Management Practice. CFR means Congressional Federal Register. Component or Program Component means an element of the Stormwater Management Program listed in S5 Stormwater Management Program for Cities, Towns, and Counties or S6 Stormwater Management Program for Secondary Permittees of this permit. CWA means Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) Pub.L. 92-500, as amended Pub. L. 95-217, Pub. L. 95- 576, Pub. L. (6-483 and Pub. L. 97-117, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. Discharge for the purpose of this permit means, unless indicated otherwise, any discharge from a MS4 owned or operated by the permittee. Ecology’s Western Washington Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit regulates discharges from municipal separate storm sewers owned or operated by Clark, King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties, and the cities of Seattle and Tacoma. Ecology’s Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit covers certain "small" municipal separate stormwater sewer systems. Entity means another governmental body, or public or private organization, such as another permittee, a conservation district, or volunteer organization. Equivalent document means a technical stormwater management manual developed by a state agency, local government or other entity that includes the Minimum Technical Requirements in Appendix 1 of this Permit. The Department may conditionally approve manuals that do not include the Minimum Technical Requirements in Appendix 1; in general, the Best Management Practices included in those documents may be applied at new development and redevelopment sites, but the Minimum Technical Requirements in Appendix 1 must still be met. Heavy equipment maintenance or storage yard means an uncovered area where any heavy equipment, such as mowing equipment, excavators, dump trucks, backhoes, or bulldozers are washed or maintained, or where at least five pieces of heavy equipment are stored. Illicit connection means any man-made conveyance that is connected to a municipal separate storm sewer without a permit, excluding roof drains and other similar type connections. Examples include sanitary sewer Appendix A: Acronyms and Definitions City of Auburn 2009 SWMP A-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc connections, floor drains, channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets that are connected directly to the municipal separate storm sewer system. Illicit discharge means any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities. IDDE means Illicit discharge detection and elimination. Low Impact Development (LID) means a stormwater management and land development strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision scale that emphasizes conservation and use of on-site natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls to more closely mimic pre-development hydrologic functions. Major Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Outfall means a municipal separate storm sewer outfall from a single pipe with an inside diameter of 36 inches or more, or its equivalent (discharge from a single conveyance other than circular pipe which is associated with a drainage area of more than 50 acres); or for municipal separate storm sewers that receive stormwater from lands zoned for industrial activity (based on comprehensive zoning plans or the equivalent), an outfall that discharges from a single pipe with an inside diameter of 12 inches or more or from its equivalent (discharge from other than a circular pipe associated with a drainage area of 12 acres or more). Material Storage Facilities means an uncovered area where bulk materials (liquid, solid, granular, etc.) are stored in piles, barrels, tanks, bins, crates, or other means. Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act which reads as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants. MEP means Maximum Extent Practicable. MS4 – see Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. MTRs means Minimum Technical Requirements. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) means a conveyance, or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains): (i) owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to state law) having jurisdiction over disposal of wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States. (ii) designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater. (iii) which is not a combined sewer; and (iv) which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2. Appendix A: Acronyms and Definitions City of Auburn 2009 SWMP A-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking, and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the Federal Clean Water Act, for the discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the state from point sources. These permits are referred to as NPDES permits and, in Washington State, are administered by the Washington Department of Ecology. Notice of Intent (NOI) means the application for, or a request for coverage under this General Permit pursuant to WAC 173-226-200. Outfall means point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a municipal separate storm sewer discharges to waters of the State and does not include open conveyances connecting two municipal separate storm sewer systems, or pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other waters of the State and are used to convey waters of the State. O&M means Operations and Maintenance. Permittee unless otherwise noted, the term “Permittee” includes Permittee, Co-Permittee, and Secondary Permittee, as defined below: (i) A “Permittee” is a city, town, or county owning or operating a regulated small MS4 applying and receiving a permit as a single entity. (ii) A “Co-Permittee” is any operator of a regulated small MS4 that is applying jointly with another applicant for coverage under this Permit. Co-Permittees own or operate a regulated small MS4 located within or adjacent to another regulated small MS4. (iii) A “Secondary Permittee” is an operator of regulated small MS4 that is not a city, town, or county. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or Small MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances for municipalities having populations of less that 100,000 according to the 1990 US census. Such systems include road drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, and/or storm drains that are: a. Owned or operated by a city, town, county, district, association or other public body created pursuant to State law having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer districts, flood control districts or drainage districts, or similar entity. b. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater. c. Not a combined sewer system, d. Not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2. e. Not defined as “large” or “medium” pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(4) & (7) or designated under 40 CFR 122.26 (a)(1)(v). Small MS4s include systems similar to separate storm sewer systems in municipalities such as: universities, large publicly owned hospitals, prison complexes, highways and other thoroughfares. Storm sewer systems in very discrete areas such as individual buildings do not require coverage under this Permit. Small MS4s do not include storm drain systems operated by non-governmental entities such as: individual buildings, private schools, private colleges, private universities, and industrial and commercial entities. Appendix A: Acronyms and Definitions City of Auburn 2009 SWMP A-4 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix C - Auburn Drainage Plan - 2009 SWMP (Jun09).doc Stormwater means runoff during and following precipitation and snowmelt events, including surface runoff and drainage. Stormwater Associated with Industrial and Construction Activity means the discharge from any conveyance which is used for collecting and conveying stormwater, which is directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant, or associated with clearing grading and/or excavation, and is required to have an NPDES permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.26. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington means the 5-volume technical manual (Publication Nos. 99-11 through 15 for the 2001 version and Publication Nos. 05-10-029-033 for the 2005 version (The 2005 version replaces the 2001 version) prepared by Ecology for use by local governments that contains BMPs to prevent, control, or treat pollution in storm water. Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) means a set of actions and activities designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the regulated small MS4 to the maximum extent practicable and to protect water quality, and comprising the components listed in S5 or S6 of this Permit and any additional actions necessary to meet the requirements of applicable. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, Technical Memorandum 701 Pike St. Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: 206-624-0100 Fax: 206-749-2239 Prepared for: City of Auburn, WA Project Title: City of Auburn Drainage Comprehensive Plan Project No: 132802 and 135347 Technical Memorandum Subject: System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan Date: June 15, 2009 To: [Project File] From: Angela Dwyer (Brown and Caldwell) Tony Dubin (Brown and Caldwell) Nathan Foged (Brown and Caldwell) Copy to: Steve Anderson (Brown and Caldwell) Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 2 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 3 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................................3 1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................5 2. REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA...................................................................................................................................7 2.1 GIS DATA REVIEW.........................................................................................................................................7 2.2 XP-SWMM MODEL REVIEW..........................................................................................................................9 2.3 Summary of Findings.....................................................................................................................................14 2.4 Recommendations for Subsequent Modeling................................................................................................15 3. SYSTEM INVENTORY............................................................................................................................................17 3.1 Prioritization of System Inventory..................................................................................................................17 3.2 System Updating and Validation Procedure..................................................................................................18 4. MODEL BUILD.........................................................................................................................................................19 4.1 Model Build Process......................................................................................................................................19 4.2 Network Data.................................................................................................................................................20 4.2.1 Nodes................................................................................................................................................20 4.2.2 Conduits.............................................................................................................................................22 4.2.3 Pumping Stations...............................................................................................................................23 4.3 Hydrology Data..............................................................................................................................................24 4.3.1 Hydrologic Routing.............................................................................................................................24 4.3.2 Infiltration...........................................................................................................................................25 4.3.3 Boundary Conditions..........................................................................................................................25 5. MODELING ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................................27 5.1 Precipitation...................................................................................................................................................27 5.1.1 Historical Events................................................................................................................................27 5.1.2 Design Storm Events.........................................................................................................................27 5.2 Calibration......................................................................................................................................................27 5.3 Simulation......................................................................................................................................................28 6. FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................29 6.1 Future Data Inventory Activities.....................................................................................................................29 6.2 Flow Monitoring and Model Calibration..........................................................................................................29 Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 4 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 5 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc 1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The City of Auburn (City) is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan (Drainage Plan) for the stormwater drainage utility. The purpose of the Drainage Plan is to guide the City’s Stormwater Drainage Division with respect to future activities and improvements for the stormwater drainage utility. Two of the primary objectives of the Drainage Plan are stated as follows: · Create a comprehensive stormwater drainage system inventory that incorporates currently available infrastructure data into a digital database that can be directly linked with the hydraulic model used for analyzing the system. · Perform hydraulic modeling analyses to evaluate system capacity focusing on known problems and areas where data are available for model calibration. By meeting these objectives the City will enable the stormwater utility to meet regulatory requirements and achieve Level of Service (LOS) goals through capital improvements, repair and replacement, and operation and maintenance activities. To meet the above stated objectives, Brown and Caldwell (BC) performed the following activities: · Reviewed existing data, reports, models and other information to assess the quality and completeness of the available storm drainage infrastructure information. · Identified data gaps and deficiencies with regard to system inventory and hydraulic modeling needs. · Worked with the City to update and revise existing GIS databases to obtain an improved system inventory. · Used the revised GIS databases to develop MIKE URBAN hydraulic models and perform hydraulic modeling analyses. The following sections describe the above activities. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 6 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 7 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc 2. REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA The GIS data and XP-SWMM model files provided by the City were reviewed for consistency, potential gaps and errors, as well as recommended improvements for subsequent modeling work. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 describe the review of GIS data and XP-SWMM model files, respectively. Section 2.3 provides a summary of findings and recommendations from the review. 2.1 GIS DATA REVIEW The GIS data was not reviewed independently, but rather in conjunction with the model review. Therefore, an in-depth review was not performed on the entire GIS dataset, but only elements related to the drainage models. The City provided the GIS data shape files of the following features: Hydrology Ponds Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Parcels Buildings Zoning 10-ft Contours Auburn TAZ Streets Ditches Storm Lines Storm Manholes Storm Pump Stations Storm Stubs Water Lines Water Pump Stations Sewer Lines Sewer Manholes Sewer Pump Stations Sewer Service Lines Sewer Stub Except for the ponds and storm/sewer/water lines and manholes, the attribute tables of the rest of the shape files contain very limited information. The tables only contain one attribute such as name, length, type, elevation, zone, or parcel number. The storm manholes attribute table contains additional information such as: owner, structure number, sub- basin, rim elevation, surrounding pipe direction and invert elevations, and status. The structure number is believed to be the unique ID for each manhole. However, it was discovered that there are 90 manholes with duplicate IDs and 15 with no ID. In addition, there are 53 manholes with duplicate entries. The storm lines attribute table contains size, status and type, among other attributes. It was found that some of the lines are missing size information, some lines do not specify ownership, and in some cases manholes existed with no lines in between. Figure 1 shows the extent of the drainage conveyance system available in the City’s GIS data as of the data review (January 2008). Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 8 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc Figure 1. City of Auburn Drainage Conveyance System Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 9 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc 2.2 XP-SWMM MODEL REVIEW One of the objectives of the data review task is to evaluate the City’s existing XP-SWMM hydrologic and hydraulic drainage models constructed as part of the 2002 Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Detailed discussions of the models are presented in the City of Auburn 2002 Comprehensive Drainage Plan Report Volume 1 and 2 (Tetra Tech/KCM 2002). According to the 2002 Plan, there are 19 developed sub-basins, 3 developing areas and 3 annexation subareas within the study area. Some of the sub-basins are inter-connected and therefore were modeled together. No models were constructed for the developing areas or annexation areas. According to the 2002 Plan, analysis of these areas was limited to preliminary mapping and field inventory of stormwater conveyance systems. The XP-SWMM model files were received in a CD from the City on September 17, 2007. Some of the 19 developed sub-basins were modeled together, such as sub-basins A and Z; B and C; G and I; and V and HV; there are a total of 14 models. Most of the models were built with XP-SWMM version 2.04, except for models GHI and VHV which were built with version 6.00 and model P which was built with version 8.00. Each model was evaluated for the existing and future conditions, as well as the CIP alternatives. According to the 2002 Plan, some of the models reflected improvements completed since the 1990 Plan. For the purpose of this task, the 25-year existing condition model from each sub-basin was selected for review. For sub-basins F and W, the 25-year future condition model was reviewed, instead. No existing condition model was developed for sub-basin F under the 1994 Sub-basin F Storm Drain Upgrade Plan. Sub- basin W was not modeled for any existing condition because it was at full-build-out condition. For most of the models the existing condition reflected the 1990 land use and conveyance system condition, except when improvements had been completed since that time. As part of this data review model elements were to be compared with the GIS data. However, there was generally no correlation between the model and GIS IDs or coordinates. Some of the models show some correlation between the two, but not to the extent that would allow comparison of the two. Therefore, instead of reviewing the models against the GIS data, each model was reviewed individually within itself. A checklist of review items was developed as guidance in reviewing each of the selected models. The checklist items are presented below along with brief summary discussions of the general findings from the model reviews: 1. Determine the dates of the models. The models were built as part of the 2002 Comp Plan. According to the report, some of the models included improvements made since the 1990 Plan. The date of each model was obtained from the original model output file. Models AZ and F were dated 1998; V and HV were dated 2000; P was dated 2002; and the rest were dated 1999. 2. Determine if any improvements were made since the last date the model was modified, and if so, find out if any data (e.g., flow, infrastructure) are available. Improvements to the drainage system have occurred since the most recent model modification dates. Likely improvements and changes include, but are not limited to, improvements to the conveyance system, revisions to sub-basin delineation, changes to land use condition, or installation of flow meters. Such changes will need to be incorporated in subsequent modeling work. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 10 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc 3. Compare the model extent to the City’s drainage area and conveyance system. With the limited correlation between the models and GIS, an effort was made to compare the extent of each model to its approximate layout in GIS. Plots of the model extent and GIS layout were developed. At the time of the model review, the GIS file of modeled sub-catchments was not available from the City. Therefore, it was assumed that the modeled sub-catchments encompassed the entire City’s drainage area. However, subsequent modeling work would review the mapped sub-catchments and compare them to the City’s drainage area, making necessary revisions as appropriate. In terms of the conveyance system, the model and GIS layouts show that storm lines exist in the GIS but not in the model. This is most likely due to the assumption that only City-owned storm lines that are greater than 12 inches in diameter and located within the public Right-Of-Way (ROW) were included in the models (Tetra Tech/KCM 2002). However, at a number of locations the GIS shows storm lines meeting the modeling requirements and yet not modeled. It was also found that modeled conveyance elements did not always show up in GIS, which could indicate abandoned or revised system, provided the GIS data was assumed to reflect the most recent condition. Regardless, subsequent modeling efforts will require investigations into these discrepancies and making changes as appropriate. Figure 2 (see next page) shows the approximate boundary of the modeled conveyance within the City’s Urban Growth Area. 4. Identify if there was any inclusion of additional area to the City’s service area and if so, if any data is available. The 2002 Plan indicated additional developing and annexation subareas potentially impacting the City’s drainage system. The report also discussed the preliminary mapping and drainage inventory work completed for these areas. Subsequent modeling work will need to include identifying the potential connection points from these areas to the existing City’s conveyance system and constructing the models for these areas. 5. Verify sub-basin delineation. As mentioned earlier, the sub-catchments GIS file were not available at the time of the review; therefore, verification of the sub-basin delineations was not completed as part of the review. Topographic data with accuracy greater than what would be provided by 10-foot contours should be obtained to support future sub-basin delineation tasks. 6. Determine if the models were calibrated and if so, obtain the calibration report and summarize the observed data used in the calibration. According to the 2002 Plan, the models were only calibrated to anecdotal surface flooding locations, because flow and/or water surface elevation data were not available for specific locations within the City’s drainage conveyance system. Measured data were available only at the Green River, Mill Creek and White River. Tailwater elevations at these receiving water bodies, obtained from earlier studies in the area, were used as the boundary condition in the model. Subsequent modeling work will need to include identification of potential flow monitor locations. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 11 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc Figure 2. Approximate Boundary of Modeled Conveyance Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 12 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc 7. Determine if (potential) problem locations were included in the models, and if so, assess the level of detail in which those areas were modeled. The 2002 Plan reiterated the known problem areas identified in the 1990 Plan. The report also identified and mapped flooding locations identified through modeling simulations. Since the problem areas and simulated flooding locations are within the extent of the previously-developed models, the level of detail within these areas is reasonably good. Subsequent modeling work needs to include verification of the existing conditions in these areas in addition to examining other problem locations not previously identified in the 2002 Plan. 8. Determine physical mechanisms (infiltration, evaporation, routing method) used in the models. The Horton infiltration method was used in the models. The sub-catchments were generally assumed to have uniform infiltration characteristics, except for models AZ, BC, GI, K and L, where multiple sets of infiltration parameters were used. Subsequent modeling work should verify these parameters using soil data available in a GIS format. The models used the default evaporation rate of 0.1 inches/day and the SWMM Runoff non-linear reservoir routing method. 9. Determine if key parameters are reasonable. According to the 2002 Plan, parameters used in the models were selected following the guidelines in the XP-SWMM manual, and are therefore considered reasonable. The impervious and pervious areas were assigned Manning’s roughness coefficients of 0.014 for asphalt paving and 0.3 for average turf, respectively. A depression storage value of 0.1 inches and 0.2 inches was assumed for the impervious and pervious areas, respectively. As part of the Horton infiltration method, the recommended decay rate of infiltration value of 0.00115 per second was used. 10. Verify time steps against rain data interval. The dry, transition and wet timesteps used in the majority of the models are 86,400, 1,800 and 120 seconds, respectively, which are within a reasonable range. The rain data interval for most of the models was 10 minutes, except for models GHI and VHV, which used 20 minutes. The XP-SWMM manual suggested that the wet timestep is equal to or shorter than the rain data interval, which is expected to attain a more accurate result. Therefore, the wet timestep used in models W and O should be revised in subsequent modeling work to meet this condition. 11. Verify pipe and manhole invert elevations. Consistency of the manhole and pipe invert elevations was verified within each model and no anomaly was found in any of the models. The invert elevations were not verified against the GIS data due to the very limited correlation between the models and the GIS. In some cases, the modeled manholes have the same ID and/or somewhat similar location to those in the GIS, and therefore are assumed to exhibit the correlation between the two. A comparison of the invert elevation and rim elevations at several of these manholes indicated that the modeled elevations were 3.527 feet less than those shown in GIS, which suggested the data were on a different vertical datum. Subsequent modeling work needs to convert all elevation data to one consistent datum. 12. Verify pipe diameters and open channel cross sections. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 13 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc According to the 2002 Plan, pipes included in the models are those that are 12 inches or greater in diameter and located within public ROW, except for some rare cases where pipes were needed to maintain connectivity. The report also indicated that pipes on private property, parking lots and shopping centers were not included in the models. All City-owned detention and infiltration facilities were included, but not private ones. Comparing the individual model layouts and their approximate locations in GIS showed that there are instances where pipes meeting the modeling considerations were shown in GIS but not modeled, and vice versa. Subsequent modeling work needs to correct such inconsistencies. The 2002 Plan indicated that drainage ditches were modeled as open channels with estimated cross- section geometry, invert elevations and roughness. This approach is assumed to be reasonable, although subsequent modeling work could include obtaining more accurate dimensions through field survey. 13. Verify network connectivity. The models were checked for connectivity problems and none was found. However, some of the models showed questionable flow split and other locations. 14. Check for adverse slopes. A number of adverse and flat slopes were found in all of the models, except for models P and W. The associated invert elevations were checked against GIS data where available. 15. Check for large drops. For the purpose of this study, a large drop is assumed to occur when there is a difference of at least 0.5 feet between the inverts of incoming and outgoing pipes at a manhole. Based on this criterion, a number of drops were identified in all of the models, except for models F, K, L and P. The invert elevations around these drops were checked against the GIS data where available. 16. Check for shallow manholes. For the purpose of this study, a manhole is considered shallow when the depth from ground to the crown of any of the connected pipes is less than 2 feet. Based on this criterion, a number of shallow manholes were identified in all of the models, except for models AZ and P. 17. Run models and check for errors/warnings. The 2002 Plan indicated that the models did not produce a continuity error of more than 10 percent, which was confirmed for most of the reviewed models, except for model VHV. The original output file of model VHV showed a continuity error of 15 percent. The continuity error from re-running the models was less than 10 percent, except for models H and VHV. These models produced a continuity error of 12 and 19 percent, respectively. Further investigation indicated that the peak runoff flows as well as the hydraulic configurations were identical between the model re-run and original output files. Therefore, the higher continuity error was likely due to the different software version and/or simulation tolerances used in the models. Subsequent modeling work should include making the necessary adjustment to keep the continuity error less than 10 percent. 18. Verify model assumptions. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 14 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc The 2002 Plan indicated assumed pipe roughness of 0.011, 0.013 and 0.025 for plastic, concrete and corrugated metal, respectively, which are all reasonable. The same report indicated that large developments (>10 ac) within 5 years of the model construction were assumed to have on-site runoff control to keep the runoff rates the same as pre-development condition. These development sites were verified by City staff, therefore assumed correct. The on- site control systems were only included in the models when as-built information was available, otherwise the area was assumed to have pre-development runoff rates. 2.3 Summary of Findings The following are general recommendations based on the model review. Inconsistencies between GIS and Models: One common observation from our review of the GIS data and XP-SWMM model is that there is no consistent, direct correspondence between the GIS data and model data. For example: The location of pipes and nodes in the GIS (e.g., storm lines, storm manholes) and XP-SWMM model do not consistently match. The easting and northing coordinates of the pipes and manholes in the XP- SWMM model do not match the GIS data or mismatch by a consistent offset value. The “Node ID” names used in the XP-SWMM model do not consistently match those used in the GIS database. About 30 percent of the XP-SWMM model Node IDs are different from the corresponding GIS data. Inconsistencies in Model Input Data: The lack of a consistent correspondence between GIS data and XP- SWMM model data made the direct comparison of individual pipes and manholes challenging. Wherever we felt we could find corresponding structures in the GIS data and XP-SWMM model, we compared invert elevations, pipe diameters, slopes and flow connectivity. We made the following key observations about the XP-SWMM model: The XP-SWMM model consists of several standalone stormwater basin models and hydrologic parameters designed for event-based modeling (e.g., simulating the 25-year, 24 hour storm instead of simulating stormwater runoff for the entire period of available precipitation data). Determining the “level of service” provided by specific elements of the storm drainage system will require long-term simulations from a continuous hydrologic model. The series of standalone XP-SWMM stormwater basin models do not include all of the inter-ties between stormwater basins that are shown in the GIS data. Many of the XP-SWMM and GIS data node elevations are offset by about 3.5 feet. This difference is attributable to the different vertical reference data used by the XP-SWMM model and GIS data. The XP- SWMM model was referenced to the NAVD88 vertical data and the City GIS system is referenced to the NGVD291 vertical datum (the correction between the two vertical reference data is about 3.5 feet in the Auburn area). This could cause confusion or erroneous predictions if XP-SWMM model predictions of water surface elevation were compared to existing land marks. Of further concern, many but not all elevations are offset by 3.5 feet. This suggests some portions of the model were built in the NAVD88 datum and other parts were built on the NGVD29 datum. 1 The City moved to the NAVD88 datum as part of its design standards in 2001. Although the GIS data received from the City is in NGVD29, all final products should be converted to NAVD88 for final submittal. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 15 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc The XP-SWMM model represents a backbone version of the stormwater system. Simplifying a hydraulic model to improve performance without compromising the ability to predict flows in key portions of the system is a good approach, but in this case the simplifications are not consistent throughout the city and the correspondence between GIS and model is inconsistent (as noted above). Problems with GIS Datasets: The issues outlined above suggest we should reconstruct the storm drainage system model from the latest available GIS data. However, our review also indicated a few problems with the GIS data that should be addressed. For example: The “Storm Line” and “Storm Manhole” coverages do not “snap” together. This means the two datasets do not share a common spatial reference and limits the ability to perform GIS analysis involving the two datasets (e.g., using GIS to verify the upstream and downstream pipe segments for a particular manhole). The stormwater drainage infrastructure GIS data contained several duplicate entries, duplicate IDs and/or missing attributes. 2.4 Recommendations for Subsequent Modeling That following is a set of recommended modeling and GIS data improvements to be completed as part of subsequent system inventory and modeling tasks: A new system-wide, storm drainage model should be developed based on the GIS data infrastructure. The hydrology portion of the model should be designed for long-term, continuous simulation that can be used to determine the “level of service” provided in different sections of the storm drainage system. The new stormwater model should be based on the NGVD29 vertical datum to conform to other city datasets. The simplification/schematization in the existing XP-SWMM model can be used as a good guide to simplify the representation of the storm drainage system in the new model. The simplifications should be designed to preserve the accuracy of the overall model predictions in key, known flooding areas. Suspicious GIS data values (from the GIS data review) will be identified and modelers should work with City of Auburn field staff to resolve any questions (e.g., suggesting pipe diameters to verify, reviewing as- built drawings, etc.). This will include field visits to verify pipe diameters, measure down distances, etc. Focus should initially be placed on the portions of the system with known flooding problems, such as C Street, north of 30th Street near the airport. Even though a city-wide model will be built, prioritizing the data quality assurance checks on areas with known problems will enable modelers to evaluate and propose improvements to correct known problems while other data QA checks are ongoing. Modelers should work with Auburn staff to verify how the potential annexation areas are to be addressed in the storm drainage model. Pump stations that were added to the system after the XP-SWMM model was created should be included in the new storm drainage model. Modelers should develop a consistent naming convention that will link the storm pipes and manholes in the GIS data and the model. The manholes and pipes will be snapped spatially in GIS. Modelers should work with Auburn staff to fill in missing pipe and manhole attribute data in the GIS system. This information will be used during the asset criticality analysis. Modelers may use the city’s as- built drawings to verify pipe attributes. Modelers should verify the location and attributes of all outfalls and designed overflows in the storm drainage system. This information will prevent the incorrect loss of flow in the storm drainage model. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 16 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc A new modeling platform should be considered. It is recommended that future infrastructure data updates and hydraulic modeling be completed using MIKE URBAN2 software. This would allow the stormwater drainage system modeling methodology to be consistent with the City’s sanitary sewer model. In addition, MIKE URBAN uses common GIS data formats that allows for data to be easily transferred between the model and GIS maps. 2 MIKE URBAN is a GIS-integrated, modular software program developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute for modeling water distribution and collection systems. The stormwater module is internally powered by the SWMM5 engine, which is public domain software distributed by EPA. Information about MIKE URBAN software can be found at http://www.dhigroup.com/Software/Urban/MIKEURBAN.aspx. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 17 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc 3. SYSTEM INVENTORY The review found inconsistencies between GIS data files and hydraulic modeling data files, and numerous data gaps also were identified. These discrepancies prompted the effort to update the City’s system inventory. An updated system inventory will provide the City with a database of infrastructure assets which will achieve the following objectives: Help to meet regulatory requirements Provide input for hydraulic models to analyze system conveyance capacity Serve as a basis for an asset criticality database used to prioritize R&R activities Support the City’s M&O activities through the CMMS Link directly to geographic information systems (GIS) for use in mapping activities. Plan improvements and CIP projects 3.1 Prioritization of System Inventory Due to the immensity of the infrastructure system, the updating and validation of data for the storm drainage network was prioritized by drainage basins. At the commencement of the modeling phase, the basins were grouped into the following categories: · High Priority – Areas with known flooding problems were identified as a high priority; data updating and validation will be completed to support the development of a complete and functioning hydraulic model, model calibration, and modeling analyzes for CIP development. High priority drainage basins include Basins B, C, D, F, G, H, I, and P. · Medium Priority – Areas that do not experience flooding but are located in close proximity to basins with known flooding problems or areas with substantial development were identified as medium priority; data updating and validation will be completed to support the development of a complete and functioning hydraulic model. No model calibration will be performed. If the modeling results for Medium priority basins indicate the potential for flooding, these areas will be flagged for inclusion in the city’s Flow Monitoring Plan. Medium priority drainage basins include Basins A, AA, BB, DDD, E, HV, K, L, N, O, R, S, U, V, WC, X, and Z. · Low Priority – Areas within the previous city limits (i.e., not Lea Hill and West Hill annexations) that do not have known flooding problems and contain relatively little infrastructure. Data updating will be completed within the GIS database; however, no hydrologic model parameters will be developed for these basins and no modeling will be performed under this contract. Low priority drainage basins include Basins J, TT, PPP, and QQ. · Other – All other basins will be addressed through the future work plan. This includes basins covering the recently annexed areas of Lea Hill and West Hill. Future updating and validation efforts will become elements within the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan by formulating recommendations for a phased, multi-year approach to complete the data inventory (see Chapter 7 of the Drainage Plan). The Lea Hill basins include Basins AAA, CCC, W, UU, WW, AZ, YY, and ZZ. The West Hill basins include Basins M, OO, RR, and SS. The remaining basins include Basins BBB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH, II, JJ, KK, LL, LS, MM, NN, NNN, PP, QQ, T, YYY and ZZZ. During the course of the data inventory update process; some of the basin categories were modified. Basins BB and C were modeled with B, D and F in the high priority categories as the basins were hydraulically Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 18 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc connected. Basin N was modeled with GHI and QQ was modeled with L for the same reasons. Basin LS was moved from the medium priority category to the ‘other’ category due to the limited availability of network data. 3.2 System Updating and Validation Procedure The initial steps of the system updating were completed using ArcGIS3 software. Files can be easily imported and exported between MIKE URBAN and ArcGIS by associating the attributes in GIS with properties in MIKE URBAN. As outlined in Section 2.1, the GIS data was incomplete and required a number of modifications prior to proceeding with the model build. These modifications are outlined below: Pipes and manholes outside the area to be modeled were deleted. The storm manhole data contained many duplicate entries; those with the same name representing different manholes were renamed by adding “.1”, “.2.” and so forth. Duplicate entries were deleted. Manholes with no ID were assigned an ID, consisting of an ‘“ET” prefix and a unique number. New manholes were created for pipes with missing upstream or downstream manholes, and were assigned an “ET” ID. Many of the pipes were disconnected and not ‘snapped’ to manholes. A function was run to snap the pipes to the nearest manhole. Conduits for which the upstream and downstream node was reversed were flipped so that the flow direction is correct. Pipes names were assigned using manhole ID numbers separated by an underscore as follows: Upstream MH ID_Downstream Manhole ID. Duplicate entries were deleted. The modified data were imported into MIKE URBAN. The model did not generally include private pipes or pipes less than 10-inch diameter unless they were required to keep connectivity, or were connected to ponds, ditches, culverts or outfalls. Information on pumping stations, weirs, storage ponds and outfalls was also added to the model. Maps of the network were created and sent to the City. These maps highlighted pipe with missing diameters and invert levels, and manholes with missing surface and invert elevations. The City complied spreadsheets containing the missing data where those data were available from sources such as as-built drawings, storm cards and field inspections. Additional discussion regarding the process used for updating the models is contained in Section 4. 3 ArcGIS is a suite consisting of a group of geographic information system (GIS) software products produced by ESRI. http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/ Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 19 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc 4. MODEL BUILD Separate models were developed for each sub-basin in order to improve efficiency and model run times; however, sub-basins that are hydraulically connected were grouped together into one model. A total of 15 models were developed, as outlined in Table 1. Table 1 – Modeling Completed by Sub-basin Model Name Sub-basins Basin Area (acres) Outfall Location Assigned Priority BCDF B, C, D, F, BB, X 2,534 Green River High GHI G, H, I, N 942 Green River/ Mill Creek High P P 172 Mill Creek High AZ A,Z 535 White River Medium AA AA 411 Mill Creek Medium DDD DDD 57 Green River Medium OE O, E 927 Mill Creek Medium VHV V, HV 502 Mill Creek Medium K K 229 Mill Creek Medium L L, QQ 210 Mill Creek Medium R R 42 White River Medium S S, YYY 374 White River Medium T T 721 White River Medium U U 360 Mill Creek Medium WC WC 81 Unnamed stream (tributary to Green River) Medium No modeling was completed for sub-basins J and PPP, although the data inventory process (outlined in Section 3) was still completed for those sub-basins. High priority sub-basin models were validated and calibrated against measured pump run times and measured water depths during two storm events in which the City reported flooding. Medium priority sub-basin models run but were not calibrated at this stage. 4.1 Model Build Process The general process for performing hydraulic modeling is summarized in the following steps: Delineate sub-catchments. Preliminary drainage catchments were delineated in ArcGIS based on the drainage network and topography (2-foot contours). In very flat areas, or areas with large commercial lots, the aerial photos were used to make an assessment of where each area would drain based on building, lot and road layout. Sub-basins were imported to MIKE URBAN and separate models were setup using Scenario Manager. Incorporate tabulated infrastructure data from City. The models were updated using the information in the spreadsheets provided by the City. Prior to updating the model with the information from the spreadsheets, it was necessary to ascertain which datum the data used. The as-built drawings used either the 1929 or 1988 datum depending on the date of construction. It was therefore often necessary to convert the data from the 1988 datum to the 1929 datum for the model after verifying the date of construction. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 20 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc The spreadsheets provided by the City included the rim elevation (ground level) for the manholes, along with the invert elevation, size, pipe material and direction of the incoming and outgoing pipes. The invert level for the manhole was assumed to be equal to the lowest invert level of the connected pipes. Calculations were performed to convert the data into the format required by MIKE URBAN (see Section 4.2). Node rim elevations were estimated from the 2ft contour data if no other information was available. Incorporate pumps and hydraulic structures. Information on pumping stations, weirs, storage ponds, and channel geometry were also added to the model. Check for anomalies. The updated data were checked for anomalies. Profiles and maps were created in MIKE URBAN for questionable areas. Anomalies included pipes with negative gradients, pipe crowns that were above or within 2 feet of the ground surface, pipes that decrease in size or manholes with large drops. Manholes and pipes that still had no data were also highlighted at this stage. Areas where the connectivity was unclear were also identified. Submit profiles for review. The profiles were submitted to the City for investigation of questionable areas. The City obtained the information from as built drawings or Storm Cards, and field inspections of key sites where necessary. In some cases, the anomalies were confirmed in the field (e.g. negative slopes); others were updated with new information. Revise model inputs. The models were updated with the new data from the City. The updated data was entered into the model and an additional check was undertaken. New profiles were sent to the City if there were still question areas. Check sub-catchment delineations. The updated node and conduit information was exported to GIS and the preliminary sub-catchments delineations were checked based on the updated network data and revised if necessary. Develop sub-catchment inputs. The sub-catchments were parameterized with hydrology parameters, and the revised boundaries and parameters were imported into the model. Perform quality control checks and run simulations. The models were debugged, checked for errors, corrected as needed, and simulations were performed. 4.2 Network Data The general model build process was described in the previous section. This section provides additional information on the network components. 4.2.1 Nodes The models included three types of nodes: junctions, outfalls and storage. Manholes were modeled as junction nodes. Attribute data were developed for each node as follows: · Geospatial coordinates: based on surveys or best available location data. · Invert Elevation: based on best available data and in many cases field surveys. · Maximum Depth: calculated as the difference between the surface elevation and the invert elevation. · Ponded Area: assumed to be 10,000 cubic feet per node, except for outfalls, sealed manholes, and underground storage vaults, for which the ponded area was assumed to be zero. Junctions and tees were modeled as sealed nodes so that additional storage was not created in the system. · The type of outfall was specified (e.g., free, tidal, fixed) for outfall nodes. Additional parameters to define the outfall were included for all categories other than free outfalls. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 21 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc Storage nodes were used to represent of ponds, swales and pump station wells. The storage volume was input using either a fixed value or a curve specifying the surface area at various water levels. These data were provided by the City or obtained from as-built drawings. The details of the storage ponds in the modeled network are summarized in Table 2. The model includes some ponds which are privately owned and maintained. The model does not include all ponds owned by the City, as many of these are located outside the boundaries of the basin models. Some of the modeled ponds are infiltration ponds; the majority of the ponds are detention ponds. An outlet node was used to model the infiltration at each of the infiltration ponds. The outlet was given a rating curve, which relates flow through an outlet link to the head difference across the outlet. Table 2 – Storage Pond Summary Sub-basin Model Model ID Name/ Location Storage Capacity (cubic feet) Full Surface Area (acres) AA AA ET1874 Private pond located off D St NW, south of S 277th St 18,500 0.14 AA AA ET3517 Private pond located off D St NW, north of 44th St NW 80,000 0.37 AA AA ET3519 Private pond, located adjacent pond ET3517 19,500 0.09 AA AA ET3527 Private pond located at Frontage Rd near SR167 Exit Ramp 109,000 0.50 AA AA ET4030 227th West Pond 60,000 0.28 AZ AZ ET3234 31st and A St SE Pond 400,000 1.27 AZ AZ ET73 37th and M St Pond B BCDF ET3165 17th St and A St Pond* 320,000 1.76 B BCDF ET3894 21st St SE Pond* 200,000 2.34 E OE ET1925 Private Pond Off Hwy 18 between Supermall Dr SW and C St SW 182,000 1.04 E OE E160 Private pond near C St NW and N Division St 40,000 0.21 E OE ET2587 Private pond near 3rd St SE and E St SW 13,800 0.06 E OE ET150 3rd & A St SW Pond 17,000 0.06 E OE ET866 Private pond near H St NW and 6th St NW 260,000 1.18 H VHV ET1711 Velvet Sq N Pond 660,000 5.90 H VHV BarnPnd Private Pond located at B St NW and 37th Street NW 660,000 5.90 HV VHV ET1791 Wetland near Opus 40,000 0.17 HV VHV ET1779 Opus wet pond 550,000 1.84 I GHI I275 Private pond near 23rd SE NE near E ST NE 16,000 0.09 L LQQ ET3357 Dorie Lane Pond and BioSwale 7,000 0.03 L LQQ ET1035 Lloyds Pit South Pond 6,800 0.03 L LQQ ET937 Lloyds Pit North Wet Pond 68,000 0.31 L LQQ ET891 Private pond off West Valley Hwy NW south of 15th St NW 40,000 0.19 O OE ET1206 Private pond at rear of properties at 15th St NE near A St NE 24,500 0.13 Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 22 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc Table 2 – Storage Pond Summary Sub-basin Model Model ID Name/ Location Storage Capacity (cubic feet) Full Surface Area (acres) O OE ET802 Private pond off A St NE near 10th St NW 820,000 1.18 O OE DStPond Private pond near D St NE and 9th St NE 14,000 0.065 QQ LQQ ET993 Sunnung Hill/ Gaines Park Pond 127,000 0.58 S SYYY ET3892 Jansens Additional Pond 35,000 0.18 S SYYY ET2635 Swan Flats Pond 90,000 0.13 T T T19A Lakelands Hills Upper To be Obtained during Model Build U U U129 Private pond at Industry Drive SW 6,000 0.03 V VHV ET4041 227th East Pond 70,000 0.51 * Infiltration ponds 4.2.2 Conduits Link elements used to represent the drainage network consisted primarily of circular closed-conduit pipes, however, there were also open channels (i.e., drainage ditches). Input data were developed for each link as follows: · Conduit shape: based on best available data. · Length: based on drawings, survey, or interconnected node locations. · Geometric depth: based on pipe diameters for closed conduits or estimated channel depth for ditches. · Inlet invert: calculated as the difference between the invert elevation of the connected node and the inlet invert of the conduit. · Outlet invert: calculated as the difference between the invert elevation of the connected node and the outlet invert of the conduit. · Bottom width, left side slope and right side slope were estimated for all ditches assuming a trapezoidal channel shape. A width was estimated for rectangular channels and culverts based on the best available infrastructure data. · The pipe material was included in a descriptive field in the model and the roughness value was assigned based on the material. Conduit roughness values were assigned as shown in Table 3. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 23 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc Table 3 – Conduit Roughness Parameters Pipe Material1 Value PolyvinylChloride (PVC), Reinforced Polyvinyl Chloride (RPVC) and High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 0.0125 Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) 0.024 Ductile steel and ductile iron 0.013 Corrugated Polyethylene pipe (CPEP) or ADS (manufacturer of CPEP) 0.012 Force main 0.012 Culvert 0.013 Ditch 0.05 Concrete/ reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) 0.013 Material unknown 0.013 4.2.3 Pumping Stations The City provided data and as-built information for each pumping station in the storm drainage network. Pump station input data are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 – Pump Station Information Pump Station Name Model ID Sub- basin Location Discharge Location A Street (1 x lead, 2 x lag) AStPSLead, AStPSLag, AStPSLag2 B A Street SE between 3rd St SE and Hwy 18 Manhole B29 Auburn Way S (1 x lead, 1 x lag) AWSPSLead, AWSPSLag B Auburn Way S between 4th St SE and Hwy 18 Manhole B29 White River (1 x lead, 2 x lag) White River PSLead, White River PSLag, White River PSLag2 A River Drive White River Brannan Park BrannanPS1, Brannan PS2, Brannan PS3, Brannan PS4, Brannan PS5 I 30th St NE and John Reddington Drive Manhole I2A Emerald Park EmeraldParkPS1, EmeraldPark PS2 H 42nd St NW and C ST NW Opus Wet Pond West Main Street WMain PS P W Main St near Hwy 167 Manhole ET608 The pump station wells were modeled as storage nodes. The pumps were modeled as conduits between the pump station well and the discharge manhole. Force mains were not included in the model. Pumping station capacities and control levels are summarized in Table 5. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 24 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc Table 5 – Pump Station Capacities and Controls Pump ID Pump Capacity (cfs) Pump Start Level Pump Stop Level AStPSLead 2.228 4.8 2.5 AStPSLag 2.228 5 2.5 AStPSLag2 2.228 5.2 2.5 AWSPSLead 2.228 3.9 1.5 AWSPSLead 2.228 5.3 1.8 BrannanPS1 7.799 3.3 2 BrannanPS2 12.255 3.9 1.9 BrannanPS3 12.255 4.2 2.1 BrannanPS4 12.255 6.4 4 BrannanPS5 12.255 7 4.8 Emerald ParkPS1 14.483 11.517 6.767 EmeraldParkPS2 14.483 13.95 6.767 WMainPS 3.0 3.5 0.83 WhiteRiver PSLead 11.809 4.333 2.417 WhiteRiver PSLag 11.809 5.167 2.417 WhiteRiver PSLag2 11.809 6.417 2.417 Each pump had a capacity curve relating water depth in the pump station well to the flow rate. The initial pump status was set to ‘Off”. 4.3 Hydrology Data The drainage sub-catchments were delineated in ArcGIS based on the drainage network, topography (2-foot contours) and lot and road layout. The routing and infiltration parameters are described in the following section. 4.3.1 Hydrologic Routing The flow path for the time of concentration was manually drawn for each sub-catchment in ArcGIS, and the area, length, width and slope were calculated for each sub-catchment. The initial routing parameters used in the model are outlined in Table 6. Table 6 – Sub-catchment Routing Parameters Parameter Default Value for Models Impervious Manning Roughness 0.012 Pervious Manning Roughness 0.24 Impervious Depression Storage (inches) 0.07 Pervious Depression Storage (inches) 0.15 Percent of the impervious area without depression storage 100 The impervious area for each sub-catchment was estimated based on information from the City’s GIS shape files for tax parcels, buildings, streets and existing land use. The model used a Dynamic Wave routing simulation with a 20 second time step. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 25 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc 4.3.2 Infiltration The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method was used for modeling infiltration. Curve number, saturate hydraulic conductivity and drying time parameters were assigned to each sub-catchment based on the predominant land use type as shown on soil maps developed by King County and Pierce County. Where there were multiple soil types or land use within a sub-catchment, an areal-weighted average of the parameters was calculated. Saturated hydraulic conductivity and drying time were assigned based on the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) hydrologic soil group definitions. For the saturated hydraulic conductivity; a value in the middle of the range was used. Values near the higher end were assigned for the drying time to simulate conditions representative of winter months, when problems are more likely to occur. Table 7 shows the selected parameters by soil group. Table 7 – Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Values by Soil Group Group Assigned Saturate Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr) Assigned Drying Time (days) A 1 8 B 0.22 10 C 0.1 12 D 0.025 14 The SCS curve number was assigned based on both the land use and the soil type. The land use specified in the City’s zoning tables was associated with the land use definitions in MIKE URBAN. Table 8 shows the curve numbers assumed for each land use and soil type. Table 8 – Land Use Designations Hydrologic Soil Group Auburn Land Use Related MIKE URBAN Land Use A B C D Open Space Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf course, cemeteries, etc; Good condition: grass cover on 75 percent or more of the area 39 61 74 80 Public and Quasi-Public Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf course, cemeteries, etc; Fair condition: grass cover on 50-75 percent of the area 49 69 79 84 Heavy Commercial, Heavy Industrial, Downtown Commercial and business areas (85 percent impervious) 89 92 94 95 Light Commercial, Light Industrial, Neighborhood Commercial Industrial districts (72 percent impervious) 81 88 91 93 Office Residential Residential 1/8 acre or less lot (65 percent impervious) 77 85 90 92 High Density Residential, Moderate Density Residential Residential 1/4 acre lot (38 percent impervious) 61 75 83 87 Single Family Residential, City of Kent Residential 1/2 acre lot (25 percent impervious) 54 70 80 86 Rural Residential Residential 1 acre lot (20 percent impervious)51 51 68 79 84 Street Streets and roads; Paved with curbs and storm sewers 98 98 98 98 4.3.3 Boundary Conditions The majority of the outfalls were modeled as free outfalls, unless information on the tail water conditions was available, in which case the tail water level was input as a fixed level. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 26 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 27 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc 5. MODELING ANALYSIS Once the model of the drainage system had been constructed in MIKE URBAN, simulations we run to evaluate the system. Two types of storm events were simulated: recent historical events and frequency-based hypothetical events. Each simulation used a 15 minute time step for wet weather and a 1 hour time step for dry weather. The following sections describe the modeling simulations. 5.1 Precipitation Precipitation data for recent historical events were obtained from records collected at the Auburn City Hall rain gauge. Data are available at this gauge in hourly intervals from 1995 to present. Long-term precipitation records used to analyze precipitation frequency were obtained from the Seattle-Tacoma Airport weather station (NOAA Co-op Station No. 457473). 5.1.1 Historical Events Two recent storms event caused extensive flooding within the city: November 2006 and December 2007. During these events flooding conditions including estimated flooding depths were observed at several key locations. These locations correspond to known flooding problems and are the focus for near-term capital improvements. Table 9 contains a summary of the rainfall recorded at the Auburn City Hall gauge during these events. Table 9 – Modeled Storm Events Start Date and Time End Date and Time Duration (days) Total Rainfall (inches) Estimated Recurrence Interval 11/2/2006 6:00 11/16/2006 1:00 14 9.91 9 years 12/1/2007 15:00 12/4/2007 21:00 3.25 3.85 17 years 5.1.2 Design Storm Events A long-term precipitation time series was developed using precipitation data records from the Seattle-Tacoma Airport weather station covering a 60-year period. The precipitation time series was used to conduct long- term simulations that could be used to predict stormwater runoff rates over a long period of time. A long- term runoff time series for a particular location within the drainage system can be analyzed for flow frequency, which can be directly linked to capacity requirements for the system. 5.2 Calibration Data available for calibration was extremely limited. Some observed and measured data were available for the November 2006 and December 2007 storm events. These data included: · Observed flooding problems and approximate flooding depths (anecdotal) · Detention/infiltration pond depths · Pump station run time data High-priority sub-basin models were calibrated based on these limited data: Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 28 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc The BCDF model was calibrated using measured pond levels from the A Street and 21st Street ponds and the City’s observations of flooding at several locations in the sub-basins including the intersection of Auburn Way S and SR18, the intersection of 2nd Street SE and G Street SE, the intersection of F Street SE and SR18, and the intersection of 3rd Street SE and M Street SE. Model parameters were adjusted to replicate observed flooding conditions. The GHI model was calibrated using information from observed flooding at the intersection of 30th Street NE and C Street NE, and at C Street NE near 37th Street NE, which included inundation of the roadways, and observations of the airport ponds overflowing. The P sub-basin model was calibrated using information from observed property flooding from catch basins in West Main Street near SR167. The water level at the outfall to Mill Creek was adjusted so that the model replicated the street and property flooding that has occurred in recent storm events. These models should be refined in the future following completion of the City’s flow monitoring program, which is intended to provide detailed flow data for improved model calibration. 5.3 Simulation Modeling analyses focused on high-priority sub-basins where known drainage problems exist based on observations from recent storm events. Simulations were run for the November 2006 and December 2007 storm events in order to evaluate the performance of the existing storm drainage system and identify capacity limitations. Conceptual designs for capital improvement projects were developed to alleviate flooding within each of the high-priority sub-basins. Potential improvements include construction of stormwater pumping stations, the expansion of an existing detention pond, pipe upgrades and pipe diversions. In areas where pipe diversions are proposed, the models were used to identify other lines within the drainage system with the capacity to convey additional flows. An additional analysis was performed to size the improvements so that the capacities are sufficient to meet level of service goals (i.e., 25-year storm discharge). To accomplish this, a long-term simulation was performed for a sample sub-basin to create a long-term runoff time series. The runoff time series was converted to a partial duration series, which contains a series of discrete runoff events. Then a frequency analysis was performed on the partial duration series to find an event that approximately corresponds to a 25- year recurrence interval. The identified storm was then used to perform simulations for all high-priority sub- basin models. Sizing for each of the proposed capital improvement projects was adjusted to achieve conveyance of the 25-year discharge without surcharging of the system. Technical Memorandum System Inventory and Modeling for City of Auburn Stormwater Drainage Plan 29 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix D - Auburn Drainage Plan - Modeling (Aug09).doc 6. FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS This section describes the recommendations for future data inventory and modeling activities. 6.1 Future Data Inventory Activities The data inventory and update is an ongoing process. It has been completed for the high-priority basin and most of the medium-priority basins. The remaining medium-priority and low-priority basins will be updated with data as it is provided by the City. An estimate of the completeness of the data inventory process for each sub-basin updated as part of the current Drainage Plan is provided in Table 10. Table 10 – Status of Data Inventory Activities Model Sub-basins Data Inventory Status BCDF B, C, D, F, BB, X 100 percent complete GHI G, H, I 100 percent complete P P 100 percent complete AA AA 95 percent complete AZ A,Z 100 percent complete K K 100 percent complete L L, QQ 75 percent complete N N 95 percent complete OE O, E 90 percent complete R R 100 percent complete S S, YYY 75 percent complete T T 50 percent complete U U 95 percent complete VHV V, HV 100 percent complete WC WC 75 percent complete No Model J 75 percent complete No Model PPP 95 percent complete 6.2 Flow Monitoring and Model Calibration Flow monitoring activities are scheduled to commence in August 2009 (refer to Appendix C). The City will be collecting data in order to characterize the hydraulic and hydrologic performance of the storm drainage system. This includes flow data at selected locations within the drainage system, and level data in areas known to have flooding or backwater problems. Level data will also be collected from various storage facilities. Flow data will be collected for a period of up to two years; level data collection at some locations is recommended on an ongoing basis.. The data collected during the monitoring effort should be used to calibrate the sub-basin models. The calibrated sub-basin models will be used to verify that the proposed CIP alternatives are sufficient to reduce flooding, to meet the LOS goals and to meet various other goals outlined in Section 3. Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Draft\Appendices\Appendix C - DRAFT Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Jun09).doc ATTACHMENT 1 Equipment and Vendor Information for Precipitation Monitoring Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Draft\Appendices\Appendix C - DRAFT Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Jun09).doc [This page intentionally left blank] 16 RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l © 2 0 0 5 O n s e t C o m p u t e r C o r p o r a t i o n . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . On s e t a n d H O B O a r e r e g i s t e r e d t r a d e m a r k s o f O n se t C o m p u t e r C o r p o r a t i o n . O t h e r p r o d u c t s a n d br a n d n a m e s m a y b e t r a d e m a r k s o r r e g i s t e r ed t r a d e m a r k s o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e o w n e r s . Ma n u a l P a r t N o : M A N - R G 3 / R G 3 - M Do c N o : 1 0 2 4 1 - B DA T A L O G G I N G R A I N G A U G E RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M Us e r ’ s M a n u a l on s e t Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s We l c o m e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fu n c t i o n a l Ov e r v i e w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Ac c e s s i n g t h e L o g g e r .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Us i n g t h e L o g g e r f o r T e m pe r a t u r e M e a s u r e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Co n n e c t i n g t h e L o g g e r t o C o m p u t e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Lo g g e r T r i g g e r ed S t a r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 In t e r n a l E v e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Lo g g e r O p e r at i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Da t a S t o r a g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Pr o t e c t i n g th e L o g g er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Ba t t e r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Mo u n t i n g t h e R a in G a u g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Ma i n t e n a n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Fi e l d C a l i b r at i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Se r v i c e a n d Su p p o r t .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 2 RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l We l c o m e Th a n k y o u a n d c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s o n y o u r p u r c h a s e o f a D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e fr o m O n s e t C o m p u t e r C o r p o r a t i o n . W i t h pr o p e r c a r e , i t w i l l g i v e y o u y e a r s o f ac c u r a t e a n d r e l i a b l e m e a s u r e m e n t s . P l e a s e b e s u r e t h a t y o u r e a d a n d u n d e r s t a n d th i s m a n u a l b e f o r e o p e r a t i n g t h e R a i n G a u g e . Co n t e n t s o f T h i s P a c k a g e • Da t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e , O n s e t P a r t N o : R G 3 o r R G 3 - M • Mo u n t i n g A c c e s s o r i e s : 2 H o s e C l a m p s , 3 S c r e w s • Th i s U s e r ’ s M a n u a l Ad d i t i o n a l R e q u i r e d E q u i p m e n t • Op t i c U S B B a s e S t a t i o n a n d C o u p l e r , O n s e t P a r t N o : B A S E - U - 1 • On s e t H O B O w a r e s o f t w a r e v e r s i o n 2 . 1 o r l a t e r Fu n c t i o n a l O v e r v i e w Th e D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e c o n s i s t s o f t w o m a j o r c o m p o n e n t s : a Ti p p i n g - Bu c k e t R a i n f a l l C o l l e c t o r , a n d a HO B O E v e n t / T e m p e r a t u r e D a t a L o g g e r . Th e c o l l e c t o r c o n s i s t s o f a b l a c k - a n o d i z e d a l u m i n u m k n i f e - e d g e d r i n g , s c r e e n , an d f u n n e l a s s e m b l y t h a t d i v e r t s r a i n wa t e r t o a t i p p i n g - b u c k e t m e c h a n i s m lo c a t e d i n a n a l u m i n u m h o u s i n g . T h e h o u s i n g i s c o a t e d w i t h a w h i t e b a k e d en a m e l s u r f a c e d e s i g n e d t o w i t h s t a n d y e a r s o f e x p o s u r e t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e ti p p i n g - b u c k e t m e c h a n i s m i s d e s i g n e d s u c h t h a t o n e t i p o f t h e b u c k e t o c c u r s f o r ea c h 0 . 0 1 " ( R G 3 ) o r 0 . 2 m m ( R G 3 - M ) o f ra i n f a l l . E a c h b u c k e t t i p i s d e t e c t e d wh e n a m a g n e t a t t a c h e d t o t h e t i p p i n g bu c k e t a c t u a t e s a m a g n e t i c s w i t c h a s t h e bu c k e t t i p s , t h u s e f f e c t i n g a m o m e n t a r y sw i t c h c l o s u r e f o r e a c h t i p . T h e s p e n t ra i n w a t e r t h e n d r a i n s o u t o f t h e b o t t o m o f t h e h o u s i n g . T h e s w i t c h i s c o n n e c t e d to a H O B O E v e n t / T e m p e r a t u r e d a t a l o g g e r , w h i c h r e c o r d s t h e t i m e o f e a c h t i p . Th e d a t a l o g g e r i s a r u g g e d , w e a t h e r p r o o f e v e n t l o g g e r w i t h a 1 0 - b i t t e m p e r a t u r e se n s o r . I t c a n r e c o r d 1 6 , 0 0 0 o r m o r e m ea s u r e m e n t s a n d t i p s . I t u s e s a c o u p l e r an d o p t i c a l b a s e s t a t i o n w i t h U S B i n t e r f a c e f o r l a u n c h i n g a n d d a t a r e a d o u t b y a co m p u t e r . D a t a s h u t t l e o p t i o n s a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e . No t e : T h e H O B O E v e n t / T e m p e r a t u r e d a t a l o g g e r a n d t h e T i p p i n g - B u c k e t Co l l e c t o r e a c h h a v e t h e i r o w n s e r i a l n u m b e r . T h e l o g g e r s e r i a l n u m b e r i s v i s i b l e th r o u g h t h e l o g g e r h o u s i n g a n d i s a l s o r e c o r d e d i n t h e H O B O w a r e d a t a f i l e (. h o b o f i l e ) . T h e T i p p i n g - B u c k e t C o l l e c t o r s e r i a l n u m b e r i s f o u n d o n b o t h t h e co l l e c t o r h o u s i n g p r o d u c t l a b e l a n d t h e p a c k i n g b o x . T a k e a m o m e n t a n d r e c o r d th e s e r i a l n u m b e r s h e r e : HO B O E v e n t / T e m p e r a t u r e D a t a L o g g e r S e r i a l N o : Ti p p i n g - B u c k e t C o l l e c t o r S e r i a l N o : RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l 15 Re t u r n s Pl e a s e d i r e c t a l l w a r r a n t y c l a i m s a n d r e p a i r r e q u e s t s t o p l a c e o f p u r c h a s e . Be f o r e r e t u r n i n g a f a i l e d u n i t d i r e c t l y t o O n s e t , yo u m u s t o b t a i n a R e t u r n Merchandise Authorization (R M A ) n u m b e r f r o m O n s e t . Y o u m u s t p r o v i d e p r o o f t h a t y o u p u r c h a s e d t h e O n s e t p r o d u c t ( s ) di r e c t l y f r o m O n s e t ( p u r c h a s e or d e r n u m b e r o r O n s e t i n v o i c e n u mber). Onset will issue an RMA nu m b e r t h a t i s v a l i d f o r 3 0 d a y s . Y o u m u s t s h i p t h e p r o d u c t ( s ) , p r o p e r l y p a c k a g e d a g a i n s t f u r t h e r da m a g e , t o O n s e t ( a t y o u r e x p e n s e ) w i t h t h e R M A n u m b e r m a r k e d c l e a r l y o n t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e pa c k a g e . O n s e t i s n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a n y p a c k a g e th a t i s r e t u r n e d w i t h o u t a v a l i d R M A n u m b e r o r fo r t h e l o s s o f t h e p a c k a g e b y a n y s h i p p i n g c o m p a n y . L o g g e r s m u s t b e c l e a n b e f o r e t h e y a r e s e n t ba c k t o O n s e t o r t h e y m a y b e r e t u r n e d t o y o u . Re p a i r P o l i c y Pr o d u c t s t h a t a r e r e t u r n e d a f t e r t h e w a r r a n t y p e r i o d or a r e d a m a g e d b y t h e c u s t o m e r a s s p e c i f i e d i n th e w a r r a n t y p r o v i s i o n s c a n b e r e t u r n e d t o O n se t w i t h a v a l i d R M A n u m b e r f o r e v a l u a t i o n . AS A P R e p a i r P o l i c y . Fo r a n a d d i t i o n a l c h a r g e , O n s e t w i l l e x p e d ite the repair of a returned product. Da t a - b a c k ™ S e r v i c e . HO B O d a t a l o g g e r s s t o r e d a t a i n n o n v o l a t i l e E E P R O M m e m o r y . O n s e t w i l l , if p o s s i b l e , r e c o v e r y o u r d a t a . Tu n e U p S e r v i c e . On s e t w i l l e x a m i n e a n d r e t e s t a n y H O B O d a t a l o g g e r . 14 RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l Se r v i c e a n d S u p p o r t HO B O p r o d u c t s a r e e a s y t o u s e a n d r e l i a b l e . I n t h e u n li k e l y e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e a p r o b l e m w i t h t h i s in s t r u m e n t , c o n t a c t t h e c o m p a n y w h e r e y o u b o u g h t t h e lo g g e r : O n s e t o r a n O n s e t A u t h o r i z e d D e a l e r . Be f o r e c a l l i n g , y o u c a n e v a l u a t e a n d o f t e n s o l v e t h e pr o b l e m i f y o u w r i t e d o w n th e e v e n t s t h a t l e d t o th e p r o b l e m ( a r e y o u d o i n g a n y t h i n g d i f f e r e n t l y ? ) a nd i f y o u v i s i t t h e T e c h n i c a l S u p p o r t s e c t i o n o f th e O n s e t w e b s i t e a t w w w . o n s e t c o m p . c o m / s u p p o r t . h t ml . W h e n c o n t a c t i n g O n s e t , a s k f o r t e c h n i c a l su p p o r t a n d b e p r e p a r e d t o p r o v i d e t h e p r o d u c t n u m b er a n d s e r i a l n u m b e r f o r t h e l o g g e r , t h e t i p p i n g - bu c k e t c o l l e c t o r , a n d s o f t w a r e v e r s i o n i n q u e s t i on . A l s o c o m p l e t e l y d e s c r i b e t h e p r o b l e m o r qu e s t i o n . T h e m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n y o u p r o v i d e , t h e f a s t er a n d m o r e a c c u r a t e l y w e w i l l b e a b l e t o re s p o n d . On s e t C o m p u t e r C o r p o r a t i o n 47 0 M a c A r t h u r B l v d . , B o u r n e , M A 0 2 5 3 2 Ma i l i n g : P O B o x 3 4 5 0 , P o c a s s e t , M A 0 2 5 5 9 -34 5 0 Ph o n e : 1 -80 0 -LO G G E R S ( 1 -80 0 -56 4 -43 7 7 ) o r 5 0 8 -75 9 -95 0 0 Fa x : 5 0 8 -75 9 -91 0 0 E-ma i l : l o g g e r h e l p @ o n s e t c o m p . c o m In t e r n e t : w w w . o n s e t c o m p . c o m Wa r r a n t y On s e t C o m p u t e r C o r p o r a t i o n ( O n s e t ) w a r r a n t s t o t h e o r i g i n a l e n d - u s e r p u r c h a s e r f o r a p e r i o d o f on e ye a r fr o m t h e d a t e o f o r i g i n a l p u r ch a s e t h a t t h e H O B O ® p r o d u c t ( s ) pu r c h a s e d w i l l b e f r e e f r o m de f e c t i n m a t e r i a l a n d w o r k m a n s h i p . D u r i n g t h e w a rr a n t y p e r i o d O n s e t w i l l , a t i t s o p t i o n , e i t h e r re p a i r o r r e p l a c e p r o d u c t s t h a t p r o v e t o b e d e f e c t i v e i n m a t e r i a l o r w o r k m a n s h i p . T h i s w a r r a n t y s h a l l te r m i n a t e a n d b e o f n o f u r t h e r e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e t h e p r o d u c t i s ( 1 ) d a m a g e d b y e x t r a n e o u s c a u s e s u c h as f i r e , w a t e r , l i g h t n i n g , e t c . o r n o t m a i n t a i n e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e a c co m p a n y i n g d o c u m e n t a t i o n ; (2 ) m o d i f i e d ; ( 3 ) i m p r o p e r l y i n s t a l l e d ; ( 4 ) r e p a i r e d b y s o m e o n e o t h e r t h a n O n s e t ; o r ( 5 ) u s e d i n a ma n n e r o r p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h t h e p r o d u c t w a s n o t i n t e n d e d . TH E R E A R E N O W A R R A N T I E S B E Y O N D T H E E X P R E S S E D W A R R A N T Y A B O V E . I N NO E V E N T S H A L L O N S E T B E L I A B L E F O R L O S S O F P R O F I T S O R I N D I R E C T , CO N S E Q U E N T I A L , I N C I D E N T A L , S P E C I A L O R O T H E R S I M I L A R D A M A G E S AR I S I N G O U T O F A N Y B R E A C H O F T H I S C O N T R A C T O R O B L I G A T I O N S U N D E R TH I S C O N T R A C T , I N C L U D I N G B R E A C H O F W A R R A N T Y , N E G L I G E N C E , S T R I C T LI A B I L I T Y , O R A N Y O T H E R L E G A L T H E O R Y . Li m i t a t i o n o f L i a b i l i t y . Th e P u r c h a s e r ' s s o l e r e m e d y a n d t h e li m i t o f O n s e t ' s l i a bi l i t y f o r a n y l o s s wh a t s o e v e r s h a l l n o t e x c e e d t h e P u r c h a s e r ' s p r i c e o f t h e p r o d u c t ( s) . T h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f s u i t a b i l i t y of p r o d u c t s t o t h e s p e c i f i c n ee d s o f t h e P u r c h a s e r i s s o l e l y t h e P u r c h a s e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . TH E R E AR E N O W A R R A N T I E S B E Y O N D T H E E X P R E S S E D W A R R A N T Y O F F E R E D W I T H TH I S P R O D U C T . E X C E P T A S S P E C I F I C A L L Y P R O V I D E D I N T H I S D O C U M E N T , TH E R E A R E N O O T H E R W A R R A N T I E S E X P R E S S O R I M P L I E D , I N C L U D I N G B U T NO T L I M I T E D T O , A N Y I M P L I E D W A R R A N T I E S O F M E R C H A N T I B I L I T Y O R FI T N E S S F O R A P A R T I C U L A R P U R P O S E . NO I N F O R M A T I O N O R A D V I C E G I V E N B Y ON S E T , I T S A G E N T S O R E M P L O Y E E S S H A L L C R E A T E A W A R R A N T Y O R I N A N Y WA Y I N C R E A S E T H E S C O P E O F T H E E X P R E S S E D W A R R A N T Y O F F E R E D W I T H TH I S P R O D U C T . In d e m n i f i c a t i o n . Pr o d u c t s s u p p l i e d b y O n s e t a r e n o t d e s i g n e d , i n t e n d e d , o r a u t h o r i z e d f o r u s e a s co m p o n e n t s i n t e n d e d f o r s u r g i c a l i m p l a n t o r i n g e s t i on i n t o t h e b o d y o r o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g li f e - s u p p o r t , o r f o r a n y a p p l i c a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e f a il u r e o f t h e O n s e t - s u p p l i e d p r o d u c t c o u l d c r e a t e o r co n t r i b u t e t o a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e p e r s o n a l i n j u r y o r d e a t h m a y o c c u r . P r o d u c t s s u p p l i e d b y O n s e t a r e no t d e s i g n e d , i n t e n d e d , o r a u t h o r i z e d f o r u s e i n o r w i t h a n y n u c l e a r i n s t a l l a t i o n o r a c t i v i t y . P r o d u c t s su p p l i e d b y O n s e t a r e n o t d e s i g n e d , i n t e n d e d , o r a u th o r i z e d f o r u s e i n a n y a e r o n a u t i c a l o r r e l a t e d ap p l i c a t i o n . S h o u l d a n y O n s e t - s u p p l i e d p r o d u c t o r eq u i p m e n t b e u s e d i n an y a p p l i c a t i o n i n v o l v i n g su r g i c a l i m p l a n t o r i n g e s t i o n , l i f e - s u p p o r t , o r wh e r e f a i l u r e o f t h e p r o d u c t c o u l d l e a d t o p e r s o n a l in j u r y o r d e a t h , o r s h o u l d a n y O n s e t - s u p p l i e d p r o d u c t o r e q u i p m e n t b e u s e d i n o r w i t h a n y n u c l e a r in s t a l l a t i o n o r a c t i v i t y , o r i n o r w i t h a n y a e r o n a u t i c a l o r r e l a t e d a p p l i c a t i o n o r a c t i v i t y , P u r c h a s e r w i l l in d e m n i f y O n s e t a n d h o l d O n s e t h a r m l e s s f r o m a n y l i ab i l i t y o r d a m a g e w h a t s o e v e r a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e us e o f t h e p r o d u c t a n d / o r e q u i p m e n t i n s u c h m a n n e r . RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l 3 Ac c e s s i n g t h e L o g g e r To a c c e s s t h e l o g g e r , f i r s t r e m o v e t h e r i ng , s c r e e n , a n d f u n n e l a s s e m b l y b y si m p l y p u l l i n g u p t h e r i n g w h i l e h o l d i n g d o w n t h e r a i n g a u g e h o u s i n g . T h e lo g g e r c a n t h e n b e s e e n i n s t a l l e d i n i t s h o l d e r i n s i d e t h e r a i n g a u g e h o u s i n g ( s e e Fi g u r e 1 ) . Lo g g e r - t o - R a i n G a u g e C o n n e c t i o n Th e l o g g e r ’ s b l a c k a n d w h i t e i n p u t w i r e s a r e c o n n e c t e d t o t h e t i p p i n g - b u c k e t ou t p u t b y a t e r m i n a l b l o c k as s h o w n i n F i g u r e 1 . Lo g g e r D e p l o y m e n t Co n s i d e r a t i o n s • En s u r e l o g g e r c a b l e do e s n o t i n t e r f e r e wi t h t h e o p e r a t i o n o f th e t i p p i n g b u c k e t me c h a n i s m ! Wh e n lo g g e r i s n o t d e p l o y e d ou t s i d e o f t h e r a i n ga u g e h o u s i n g , c a b l e sh o u l d b e n e a t l y co i l e d w i t h n o s h a r p b e n d s , s e c u r e d wi t h c a b l e t i e s , a n d p l a c e d b e t w e e n ti p p i n g b u c k e t h o l d e r a n d l o g g e r h o l d e r ( s e e F i g u r e 1 ) . L o g g e r s h o u l d b e pl a c e d s e c u r e l y i n i t s h o l d e r . Us i n g t h e L o g g e r f o r T e m p e r a t u r e M e a s u r e m e n t To u s e t h e l o g g e r t o r e c o r d t e m p e r a t u r e , i t m u s t b e d e p l o y e d o u t s i d e o f t h e r a i n ga u g e h o u s i n g i n a s u i t a b l e s o l a r r a d i a t i o n s h i e l d ( s u c h a s t h o s e s u p p l i e d b y On s e t ) t o e n s u r e a c c u r a t e t e m p e r a t u r e m e a s u r e m e n t s . 1. If n o t a l r e a d y d o n e , l i f t o f f t h e r i n g , s c r e e n , an d f u n n e l a s s e m b l y a n d t h e n c a r e f u l l y cut an y c a b l e t i e s t h a t s e c u r e t h e c a b l e . 2. Un s c r e w t h e t w o t e r m i n a l b l o c k s c r e w s t h a t se c u r e t h e l o g g e r ’ s b l a c k a n d w h i t e i n p u t wi r e s . No t e : S c r e w s d o n o t h a v e t o b e co m p l e t e l y r e m o v e d — o n l y e n o u g h t o s l i d e ou t t h e t w o s p a d e t e r m i n a l s . 3. Re m o v e l o g g e r a n d c a b l e f r o m h o u s i n g . 4. Fr o m o u t s i d e o f h o u s i n g , f e e d t h e s p a d e te r m i n a l e n d o f c a b l e t h r o u g h t h e r u b b e r gr o m m e t a n d r e c o n n e c t t o t e r m i n a l b l o c k . T h e p o l a r i t y o f t h e i n p u t co n n e c t i o n i s n o t i m p o r t a n t . Ma k e s u r e a n y e x c e s s c a b l e i n s i d e o f ho u s i n g i s s e c u r e d s o t h a t i t d o e s n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e o p e r a t i o n o f th e t i p p i n g b u c k e t m e c h a n i s m ! I f p o s s i b l e , c r e a t e s e r v i c e l o o p f o r ca b l e b y u s i n g t w o s m a l l c a b l e t i e s t o l o o p a n d s e c u r e c a b l e t o c a b l e t i e mo u n t ( s e e F i g u r e 2 ) . Fi g u r e 1 : R a i n G a u g e I n t e r n a l V i e w (r i n g , s c r e e n , a n d f u n n e l a s s e m b l y r e m o v e d ) Data Logger Tipping-Bucket Mechanism Cable Ties Lo g g e r I n p u t Co n n e c t i o n s Gr o m m e t Figure 2: Service Loop Cable Ties 4 RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l Fi g u r e 3 : I n s e r t i n g L o g g e r i n t o B a s e S t a t i o n Lo g g e r Ma g n e t Ba s e s t a t i o n Co u p l e r Ri d g e Co n n e c t i n g t h e L o g g e r t o C o m p u t e r Th e H O B O E v e n t / T e m p e r a t u r e d a t a l o g g e r r e q u i r e s a n O n s e t -su p p l i e d O p t i c US B B a s e S t a t i o n a n d C o u p l e r ( p a r t no : B A S E - U - 1 ) , a n d H O B O w a r e v e r s i o n 2. 1 o r l a t e r s o f t w a r e t o c o n n e c t t o c o m p u t e r . I f p o s s i b l e , a v o i d c o n n e c t i n g a t te m p e r a t u r e s b e l o w 0 ° C ( 3 2 ° F ) o r a b o v e 5 0 ° C ( 1 2 2 ° F ) . 1. P l u g t h e U S B c o n n e c t o r o n t h e b a s e st a t i o n i n t o a n a v a i l a b l e U S B p o r t o n yo u r c o m p u t e r . 2. I n s e r t t h e l o g g e r a n d t h e b a s e s t a t i o n i n t o t h e c o u p l e r , a s s h o w n i n F i g u r e 3 . Ma k e s u r e t h a t t h e l o g g e r i s i n s e r t e d i n t h e e n d o f t h e c o u p l e r t h a t h a s t h e ma g n e t , a n d t h a t t h e r i d g e s o n t h e b a s e s t a t i o n a n d l o g g e r a r e a l i g n e d w i t h th e g r o o v e s i n t h e c o u p l e r . 3. I f t h e l o g g e r h a s n e v e r b e e n co n n e c t e d t o t h e c o m p u t e r be f o r e , i t m a y t a k e a f e w se c o n d s f o r t h e n e w ha r d w a r e t o b e d e t e c t e d . 4. U s e t h e l o g g e r s o f t w a r e t o la u n c h a n d r e a d o u t t h e lo g g e r . No t e : Yo u c a n r e a d o u t t h e l o g g e r o r c h e c k i t s s t a t u s w h i l e i t c o n t i n u e s t o l o g , st o p i t m a n u a l l y w i t h t h e s o f t w a r e , o r l e t i t r e c o r d d a t a u n t i l t h e m e m o r y i s f u l l . Re f e r t o t h e s o f t w a r e u s e r ’ s g u i d e f o r c o m p l e t e d e t a i l s o n l a u n c h i n g , r e a d i n g ou t , a n d v i e w i n g d a t a f r o m t h e l o g g e r . Lo g g e r T r i g g e r e d S t a r t Th e l o g g e r c a n b e c o n f i g u r e d t o s t a r t l o g g i n g a t y o u r c o m m a n d u s i n g t h e ma g n e t i n t h e c o u p l e r o r a n y s t r o n g m a g n e t t o t r i g g e r t h e s t a r t . 1. U s e t h e l o g g e r s o f t w a r e to l a u n c h t h e l o g g e r w i t h Tr i g g e r S t a r t s e l e c t e d f o r th e D e f a u l t L a u n c h T y p e . R e m o v e t h e l o g g e r f r o m t h e c o u p l e r . 2. B r i n g t h e l o g g e r a n d t h e e m p t y c o u p l e r , o r s t r o n g m a g n e t , t o t h e d e p l o y m e n t lo c a t i o n . Im p o r t a n t : A n y m a g n e t c a n t r i g g e r a s t a r t . T h i s c a n b e h e l p f u l , b u t i t ca n a l s o c a u s e a p r e m a t u r e s t a r t . Ke e p t h e l o g g e r a w a y f r o m s t r o n g ma g n e t i c f i e l d s u n t i l y o u ar e r e a d y t o b e g i n l o g g i n g . 3. W h e n y o u a r e r e a d y f o r t h e l o g g e r t o s t a r t l o g g i n g , i n s e r t t h e l o g g e r i n t o t h e em p t y c o u p l e r ( o r p l a c e i t n e x t t o a s t r o n g m a g n e t ) a n d r e m o v e i t a f t e r t h r e e se c o n d s . Im p o r t a n t : T h e l o g g e r w i l l n o t l a un c h i f t h e c o u p l e r i s a t t a c h e d to a b a s e s t a t i o n . 4. V e r i f y t h a t t h e l o g g e r ’ s l i g h t i s bl i n k i n g a t l e a s t e v er y f o u r s e c o n d s . In t e r n a l E v e n t s Li k e o t h e r U -Se r i e s l o g g e r s , t h i s l o g g e r s t o r e s in t e r n a l e v e n t s t h a t a r e u n r e l a t e d to t h e e x t e r n a l e v e n t i n p u t . I n t e r n a l e v e n t s a r e s t o r e d w h e n t h e c o u p l e r i s at t a c h e d o r d e t a c h e d , w h e n t h e b a t t e r y d r o p s b e l o w a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 . 7 V , w h e n th e b a t t e r y r i s e s a b o v e 2 . 8 V , w h e n a h o s t c o m p u t e r i s c o n n e c t e d , a n d w h e n t h e lo g g e r i s s t o p p e d b y a c o m m a n d f r o m t h e h o s t s o f t w a r e . RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l 13 Pa r t s L i s t It e m P a r t N o : D e s c r i p t i o n Q t y A T E - 9 7 5 B S c r e e n 1 B T E - 8 7 1 / 8 7 2 B C o l l e c t o r , 6 ” 1 C 6 3 2 3 8 P P S c r e w , 6 - 3 2 x 3 / 8 ” P a n H e a d , P h i l l i p s 7 D S 1 - 1 2 8 S w i t c h 1 E B - 1 0 2 B u c k e t , T i p p i n g 1 F M 2 - 1 0 1 M a g n e t 1 G 2 5 6 7 1 6 P P S c r e w , 2 - 5 6 x 7 / 1 6 ” P a n H e a d , P h i l l i p s 1 H 4 4 0 1 8 A S c r e w , 4 - 4 0 x 1 / 8 ” A l l e n S e t 2 J 6 S W a s h e r , N u m b e r 6 L o c k 6 K 6 3 2 S P N N u t , 6 - 3 2 S m a l l P a t t e r n 4 L T E - 8 2 3 B u s h i n g , S p a c e r 2 M T E - 7 7 9 H o l d e r , T i p p i n g B u c k e t 1 N T E - 9 6 1 P l a t e , B a s e 1 O T E - 8 2 5 S p a c e r 1 P 6 3 2 1 P P S c r e w , C a l i b r a t i n g 6 - 3 2 x 1 ” 2 Q O S - 7 7 5 C a s e , M a i n 1 R T E - 7 7 7 B F o o t 3 S T E - 7 7 6 B B r a c k e t , S i d e M o u n t i n g 1 T 6 3 2 1 4 P P S c r e w , 6 - 3 2 x 1 / 4 ” P a n H e a d , P h i l l i p s 3 U T E - 8 2 4 P S h a f t , P i v o t e d , S . S . 1 V 4 4 0 1 4 P P S c r e w , 4 - 4 0 x 1 / 4 ” P a n H e a d , P h i l l i p s 5 W 4 F W a s h e r , N u m b e r 4 F l a t 2 X 4 S W a s h e r , N u m b e r 4 L o c k 4 Y T E - 9 0 7 G a s k e t , T e r m i n a l S t r i p 1 AA T S - 1 0 1 T e r m i n a l S t r i p 1 BB 4 4 0 3 8 P P S c r e w , 4 - 4 0 x 3 / 8 ” P a n H e a d , P h i l l i p s 2 CC 6 F W a s h e r , N u m b e r 6 F l a t 3 DD C T M - 0 C a b l e T i e M o u n t 1 EE H - 2 0 9 P l u g , S c r e e n 1 FF T E - 9 1 1 B r a c k e t 1 HH I S - 0 0 9 7 C l i p 3 II 4 4 0 1 2 P P S S c r e w , 4 - 4 0 x 1 / 2 ” P a n H e a d , P h i l l i p s 2 JJ O S - 6 6 9 - 7 S p a c e r , 3 / 8 ” O D , 1/4” ID x 1/8” 2 KK 2 0 4 0 0 - S D D L o g g e r M o u n t i n g C l i p 1 LL U A - 0 0 3 - 6 4 H O B O E v e n t / T e m p e r a t u r e D a t a L o g g e r 1 MM W - 1 2 8 1 S c r e e n R e t a i n i n g C l i p 1 NN B G - 2 9 0 2 G r o m m e t , 1 / 2 ” O D , 1 / 4 ” I D 1 12 RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l Fi g u r e 7 : R a i n G a u g e A s s e m b l y RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l 5 Lo g g e r O p e r a t i o n A l i g h t ( L E D ) o n t h e f r o n t o f t h e l o g g e r c o n f i r m s l o g g e r o p e r a t i o n . T h e fo l l o w i n g t a b l e e x p l a i n s w h e n t h e l i g h t b l i n k s d u r i n g l o g g e r o p e r a t i o n . Wh e n : T h e l i g h t : Th e l o g g e r i s l o g g i n g Bl i n k s o n c e e v e r y o n e t o f o u r s e c o n d s (t h e s h o r t e r t h e l o g g i n g i n t e r v a l , t h e fa s t e r t h e l i g h t b l i n k s ) ; b l i n k s w h e n lo g g i n g a s a m p l e Th e l o g g e r i s a w a i t i n g a s t a r t b e c a u s e i t wa s l a u n c h e d i n S t a r t A t I n t e r v a l , De l a y e d S t a r t , o r T r i g g e r S t a r t m o d e Bl i n k s o n c e e v e r y e i g h t s e c o n d s u n t i l lo g g i n g b e g i n s Da t a S t o r a g e Th e d a t a l o g g e r h a s 6 4 , 0 0 0 b y t e s o f n o nv o l a t i l e d a t a s t o r a g e . T h e l o g g e r r e c o r d s a t i m e s t a m p f o r e a c h t i p p i n g - b u c k e t t i p . Da t a s t o r a g e r e q u i r e m e n t s p e r t i p a r e a fu n c t i o n o f e n a b l e d c h a n n e l s a n d l o g g i n g i n t e r v a l . W h e n t i p s a r e t h r e e t o 1 2 da y s a p a r t , 3 2 b i t s a r e r e q u i r e d t o r e c o r d a s i n g l e t i p ( 1 6 , 0 0 0 t i p s ) . W h e n t i p s a r e le s s t h a n 1 6 s e c o n d s a p a r t , o n l y 2 2 b i t s a r e r e q u i r e d t o r e c o r d a s i n g l e t i p (2 3 , 0 0 0 t i p s ) . I n m o s t c a s e s , 2 5 , 0 0 0 t o 3 0 , 0 0 0 d a t a p o i n t s ( i n c l u d i n g t i p s , te m p e r a t u r e , a n d / o r b a t t e r y m e a s u r e m e n t s ) c a n b e l o g g e d . F o r m o s t r a i n g a u g e ap p l i c a t i o n s , b a t t e r y l i f e , n o t m e m o r y c a p a c i t y , w i l l b e t h e f a c t o r t h a t l i m i t s de p l o y m e n t d u r a t i o n . Pr o t e c t i n g t h e L o g g e r Do n o t s t o r e t h e l o g g e r i n t h e c o u p l e r . R e m o v e t h e l o g g e r f r o m t h e c o u p l e r wh e n y o u a r e n o t u s i n g i t . W h e n t h e l o g g e r i s i n t h e c o u p l e r o r n e a r a m a g n e t , i t co n s u m e s m o r e p o w e r a n d w i l l d r a i n t h e b a t t e r y p r e m a t u r e l y . Ke e p t h e l o g g e r a w a y f r o m m a g n e t s . B e i n g n e a r a m a g n e t c a n c a u s e f a l s e co u p l e r e v e n t s t o b e l o g g e d . I t c a n a l s o l a u n c h t h e l o g g e r p r e m a t u r e l y i f i t w a s wa i t i n g f o r a t r i g g e r s t a r t . If t h e l o g g e r i s u s e d i n a h u m i d l o c a t i o n, p e r i o d i c a l l y i n s p e c t t h e d e s i c c a n t a n d dr y i t i f i t i s n o t b r i g h t b l u e . T o d r y t h e d e s i c c a n t , r e m o v e t h e d e s i c c a n t p a c k a n d le a v e t h e p a c k i n a w a r m , d r y l o c a t i o n u n t i l t h e b r i g h t b l u e c o l o r i s r e s t o r e d . (R e f e r t o t h e “ B a t t e r y ” s e c t i o n f o r i n s t ru c t i o n s o n r e m o v i n g a n d r e p l a c i n g t h e lo g g e r c a p . ) Te m p e r a t u r e r a n g e D e s i c c a n t m a i n t e n a n c e s c h e d u l e Le s s t h a n 3 0 ° C ( 8 6 ° F ) A p p r o x i m a t e l y o n c e p e r y e a r 30 ° t o 4 0 ° C ( 8 6 ° t o 1 0 4 ° F ) A p p r o x i m a t e l y e v e r y s i x m o n t h s Ov e r 4 0 ° C ( 1 0 4 ° F ) A p p r o x i m a t e l y e v e r y t h r e e m o n t h s No t e ! S t a t i c e l e c t r i c i t y m a y c a u s e t h e l o g g e r t o s t o p l o g g i n g . To avoid el e c t r o s t a t i c d i s c h a r g e , t r a n s p o r t t h e l o g g e r i n t h e r a i n g a u g e h o u s i n g o r i n a n an t i - s t a t i c b a g , a n d g r o u n d y o u r s e l f b y t o u c h i n g a n u n p a i n t e d m e t a l s u r f a c e be f o r e h a n d l i n g t h e l o g g e r . F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t e l e c t r o s t a t i c d i s c h a r g e , vi s i t h t t p : / / w w w . o n s e t c o m p .c o m / s u p p o r t / s u p p o r t . h t m l . 6 RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l Fi g u r e 4 : B a t t e r y R e p l a c e m e n t Ba t t e r y Th e l o g g e r r e q u i r e s o n e 3 -Vo l t C R -20 3 2 l i t h i u m b a t t e r y . B a t t e r y l i f e v a r i e s ba s e d o n t h e t e m p e r a t u r e a n d t h e f r e q u e n c y a t w h i c h t h e l o g g e r i s r e c o r d i n g d a t a (t h e l o g g i n g i n t e r v a l ) . A n e w b a t t e r y ty p i c a l l y l a s t s o n e y e a r w i t h l o g g i n g in t e r v a l s g r e a t e r t h a n o n e m i n u t e o r i f u s e d f o r r a i n f a l l l o g g i n g o n l y . De p l o y m e n t s i n e x t r e m e l y c o l d o r h o t t e m p e r a t u r e s , o r l o g g i n g i n t e r v a l s f a s t e r th a n o n e m i n u t e , m a y s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e b a t t e r y l i f e . C o n t i n u o u s l o g g i n g a t t h e fa s t e s t l o g g i n g r a t e o f o n e s e c o n d w i l l d e p l e t e t h e b a t t e r y i n a s l i t t l e a s t w o we e k s . To r e p l a c e t h e b a t t e r y : 1. S e e F i g u r e 4 . R e m o v e t h e t w o s c r e w s t h a t s e c u r e t h e e n d c a p t o t h e c a s e a n d re m o v e t h e c a p . T h e c i r c u i t b o a r d i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e c a p . 2. E x a m i n e t h e d e s i c c a n t p a c k t h a t i s t u ck e d b e l o w t h e b a t t e r y h o l d e r . I f t h e de s i c c a n t i s n o t b r i g h t b l u e , p u t t h e d e si c c a n t p a c k i n a w a r m , d r y p l a c e u n t i l th e b l u e c o l o r i s r e s t o r e d . 3. C a r e f u l l y p u s h t h e b a t t e r y o u t o f t h e h o l d e r w i t h a s m a l l , n o n m e t a l l i c b l u n t in s t r u m e n t . 4. I n s e r t a n e w b a t t e r y , p o s i t i v e ( + ) s i d e f a c i n g u p . 5. R e t u r n t h e c i r c u i t b o a r d , d e s i c c a n t pa c k , a n d l a b e l t o t h e c a s e , c a r e f u l l y al i g n i n g t h e c i r c u i t b o a r d w i t h t h e g r o o v e s i n t h e c a s e s o t h a t t h e b a t t e r y fa c e s t h e r i d g e d s i d e o f t h e c a s e . 6. R e p l a c e t h e e n d c a p , e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e o -ri n g i s s e a t e d i n t h e g r o o v e , a n d n o t pi n c h e d o r t w i s t e d . M a k e s u r e n o d i r t o r l i n t i s t r a p p e d o n t h e o -ri n g , a s t h i s co u l d r e s u l t i n a l e a k . 7. R e - f a s t e n t h e s c r e w s . D o no t o v e r - t i g h t e n t h e s c r e w s . WA R N I N G : Do n o t c u t o p e n , i n c i n e r a t e , h e a t a b o v e 8 5 ° C ( 1 8 5 ° F ) , o r re c h a r g e t h e l i t h i u m b a t t e r y . T h e b a t t e r y m a y e x p l o d e i f t h e l o g g e r i s e x p o s e d to e x t r e m e h e a t o r c o n d i t i o n s t h a t c o u l d d a m a g e o r d e s t r o y t h e b a t t e r y c a s e . Do n o t d i s p o s e o f t h e l o g g e r o r b a t t e r y i n f i r e . D o n o t e x p o s e t h e c o n t e n t s o f th e b a t t e r y t o w a t e r . D i s p o s e o f t h e b a tt e r y a c c o r d i n g t o l o c a l r e g u l a t i o n s f o r li t h i u m b a t t e r i e s . RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l 11 To C h e c k C a l i b r a t i o n 1. Ob t a i n a p l a s t i c o r m e t a l c o n t a i n e r o f at l e a s t o n e l i t e r c a p a c i t y . M a k e a v e r y sm a l l h o l e ( a p i n h o l e ) i n t h e b o t t o m o f t h e c o n t a i n e r . 2. Pl a c e t h e c o n t a i n e r i n t h e t o p f u n n e l o f t h e R a i n G a u g e . T h e p i n h o l e s h o u l d be p o s i t i o n e d s o t h a t t h e w a t e r d o e s n o t d r i p d i r e c t l y d o w n t h e f u n n e l or i f i c e . 3. Fo l l o w t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e R a i n G a u g e m o d e l y o u h a v e : • RG 3 : P o u r e x a c t l y 4 7 3 m l o f w a t e r i n t o t h e c o n t a i n e r . E a c h t i p o f t h e bu c k e t r e p r e s e n t s 0 . 0 1 i n c h o f r a i n f a l l . • RG 3 - M : P o u r e x a c t l y 3 7 3 m l o f w a t e r i n t o t h e c o n t a i n e r . E a c h t i p o f t h e bu c k e t r e p r e s e n t s 0 . 2 m m o f r a i n f a l l . 4. If i t t a k e s l e s s t h a n o n e h o u r f o r t h i s w a t e r t o r u n o u t , t h e n t h e h o l e ( f r o m s t e p 1) i s t o o l a r g e . R e p e a t t h e t e s t w i t h a s m a l l e r h o l e . 5. Su c c e s s f u l f i e l d c a l i b r a t i o n o f t h i s s o r t s h o u l d r e s u l t i n o n e h u n d r e d t i p s p l u s or m i n u s t w o . 6. Ad j u s t i n g s c r e w s a r e l o c a t e d o n t h e o u t s i d e b o t t o m o f t h e R a i n G a u g e ho u s i n g . T h e s e t w o s o c k e t h e a d s e t s c r e w s r e q u i r e a 5 / 6 4 i n c h A l l e n wr e n c h . T u r n i n g t h e s c r e w s c l o c k w i s e i n c r e a s e s t h e n u m b e r o f t i p s p e r me a s u r e d a m o u n t o f w a t e r . T u r n i n g t h e s c r e w s c o u n t e r c l o c k w i s e d e c r e a s e s th e n u m b e r o f t i p s p e r m e a s u r e d a m o u n t o f w a t e r . A 1 / 4 t u r n o n b o t h s c r e w s ei t h e r c l o c k w i s e o r c o u n t e r c l o c k w i s e in c r e a s e s o r d e c r e a s e s t h e n u m b e r o f ti p s b y a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e t i p . A d j u s t b o t h s c r e w s e q u a l l y ; i f y o u t u r n o n e a ha l f t u r n , t h e n t u r n t h e o t h e r a h a l f t u r n . 7. Re p e a t S t e p s 3 – 6 a s n e c e ss a r y u n t i l t h e R a i n G a u g e has been successfully ca l i b r a t e d . 10 RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l 0 0. 5 1 -2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 Te m p e r a t u r e ( ° C ) Accuracy/Resolution (°C) Ac c u r a c y Re s o l u t i o n -1 2 5 -1 0 0 -7 5 -5 0 -2 5 025 -2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 Te m p e r a t u r e ( ° C ) Timebase Error (ppm) Pl o t A P l o t B Ma i n t e n a n c e Cl e a n t h e f i l t e r s c r e e n , f u n n e l , a n d t i p p i n g - b u c k e t m e c h a n i s m w i t h m i l d s o a p an d w a t e r a n d a c o t t o n s w a b . T o r e m o v e s c re e n f o r c l e a n i n g , r e m o v e t h e s p r i n g cl i p f r o m i n s i d e t h e c o l l e c t o r . C l e a n t h e s c r e e n a n d f u n n e l . R e p l a c e t h e s c r e e n an d t h e s p r i n g c l i p . A n a c c u m u l a t i o n o f di r t , b u g s , e t c . o n t h e t i p p i n g b u c k e t wi l l a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t t h e c a l i b r a t i o n . O i l t h e n e e d l e b e a r i n g s w i t h l i g h t o i l o n a n an n u a l b a s i s . I n h a r s h e n v i r o n m e n t s , it i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t y o u l u b r i c a t e t h e ne e d l e b e a r i n g s m o r e f r e q u e n t l y . Fi e l d C a l i b r a t i o n Th e t i p p i n g - b u c k e t m e c h a n i s m i s a s i mp l e a n d h i g h l y r e l i a b l e d e v i c e . Ab s o l u t e l y a c c u r a t e r a i n g a u g e c a l i b r a t i o n ca n b e o b t a i n e d o n l y w i t h l a b o r a t o r y eq u i p m e n t , b u t a n a p p r o x i m a t e f i e l d c h e c k c a n b e e a s i l y d o n e . T h e r a i n g a u g e mu s t b e c a l i b r a t e d w i t h a c o n t r o l l e d r a t e o f f l o w o f w a t e r t h r o u g h t h e t i p p i n g - bu c k e t m e c h a n i s m . Th e m a x i m u m r a i n f a l l r a t e t h a t t h e r a in g a u g e s m a r t s e n s o r c a n a c c u r a t e l y me a s u r e i s o n e i n c h o f r a i n p e r h o u r ( 3 6 s e c o n d s b e t w e e n b u c k e t t i p s ) . Th e r e f o r e , t h e r a i n g a u g e s h o u l d b e f i e l d c a l i b r a t e d u s i n g a w a t e r f l o w r a t e eq u i v a l e n t t o , o r l e s s t h a n , o n e i n c h o f r a i n p e r h o u r ( m o r e t h a n 3 6 s e c o n d s be t w e e n b u c k e t t i p s ) . I f t h e f l o w r a t e i s i n c r e a s e d , a p r o p e r l y c a l i b r a t e d in s t r u m e n t w i l l r e a d l o w . D e c r e a s i n g t h e r a te o f f l o w w i l l n o t m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t th e c a l i b r a t i o n . T h e r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s o b vi o u s i f t h e t i p p i n g b u c k e t a s s e m b l y i s ob s e r v e d i n o p e r a t i o n . W i t h w a t e r f a l l i n g i n t o o n e s i d e o f t h e t i p p i n g b u c k e t , th e r e c o m e s a p o i n t w h e n t h e m a s s o f t h e w a t e r s t a r t s t o t i p t h e b u c k e t . S o m e ti m e i s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e b u c k e t t o t i p ( a f e w m i l l i s e c o n d s ) . D u r i n g t h e f i r s t 5 0 % of t h i s t i p p i n g t i m e w a t e r c o n t i n u e s t o f l o w i n t o t h e f i l l e d b u c k e t ; t h e l a s t 5 0 % of t h i s t i p p i n g t i m e w a t e r f l o w s i n t o t h e e m p t y b u c k e t . T h e a m o u n t o f w a t e r fl o w i n g d u r i n g t h e f i r s t 5 0 % o f t i m e i s e r r o r, t h e f a s t e r t h e f l o w r a t e t h e g r e a t e r th e e r r o r . A t f l o w r a t e s o f o n e i n c h p e r h o u r ( 2 0 m m / h r ) o r l e s s , t h e w a t e r ac t u a l l y d r i p s i n t o t h e b u c k e t s r a t h e r t h a n f l o w i n g . U n d e r t h i s c o n d i t i o n , t h e bu c k e t t i p s b e t w e e n d r i p s , a n d n o e r r o r w a t e r i s a d d e d t o a f u l l m o v i n g b u c k e t . RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l 7 Fi g u r e 5 : S u r f a c e M o u n t i n g Fi g u r e 6 : P o l e o r M a s t M o u n t i n g Optional Solar Radiation Shield Ho s e C l a m p s (S u p p l i e d ) Sc r e w s (S u p p l i e d ) Sc r e w P l u g I n s e r t (F o r C o n c r e t e S u r f a c e s ) Ensure top of Rain Gauge is above top of Pole Mo u n t i n g t h e R a i n G a u g e Th e r a i n g a u g e h a s p r o v i s i o n s f o r m o un t i n g t w o w a y s , s u r f a c e m o u n t i n g a n d po l e m o u n t i n g ( s e e F i g u r e s 5 a n d 6 ) . S u r f a c e m o u n t i n g i s r e c o m m e n d e d w h e r e po s s i b l e . No t e : F i g u r e 6 h a s l o g g e r d e p l o y e d o u t s i d e o f r a i n g a u g e h o u s i n g , mo u n t e d i n s i d e a n o p t i o n a l s o l a r r a d i a t i o n s h i e l d . No t i c e ! D u r i n g s h i p m e n t , t h e t i p p i n g a s s e m b l y h a s b e e n s e c u r e d t o a v o i d po s s i b l e d a m a g e t o t h e p i v o t a s s e m b l y . B e f o r e i n s t a l l a t i o n , l i f t o f f t h e c o l l e c t o r ri n g a s s e m b l y ( r i n g , s c r e e n , a n d f u n n e l ) , a n d r e m o v e t h e r u b b e r b a n d i n s i d e t h e ho u s i n g t o r e l e a s e t h e t i p p i n g - b u c k e t me c h a n i s m . A f t e r t h e r a i n g a u g e i s in s t a l l e d , r e m o v e t h e c o l l e c t o r r i n g a s s e m b l y a n d v e r i f y t h a t t h e t i p p i n g - b u c k e t me c h a n i s m i s n o t i n t h e d e a d - c e n t e r p o s it i o n . P r e s s e i t h e r e n d o f t h e t i p p i n g bu c k e t d o w n a g a i n s t t h e s t o p t o b e s u r e t h a t i t i s n o t c e n t e r e d . Ge n e r a l M o u n t i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s • Th e r a i n g a u g e h o u s i n g M U S T b e m o u n t e d i n a L E V E L p o s i t i o n . • A c l e a r a n d u n o b s t r u c t e d m o u n t i n g l o cation is necessary to obtain ac c u r a t e r a i n f a l l r e a d i n g s . T a l l o b j e c t s c a n i n t e r f e r e w i t h a c c u r a t e r a i n me a s u r e m e n t s . I t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h at you place the rain gauge away fr o m t h e o b s t r u c t i o n b y a d i s t a n c e g r e a t er than three times the height of th e o b s t r u c t i o n . I f t h a t i s n o t p o s s i b l e , r a i s e t h e r a i n g a u g e a s h i g h a s po s s i b l e t o a v o i d s h e d d i n g . • Av o i d s p l a s h i n g a n d p u d d l e s . B e s u r e t h e g a u g e i s h i g h e n o u g h a b o v e an y s u r f a c e t h a t r a i n w il l n o t s p l a s h i n t o t h e top of the collector. • Vi b r a t i o n c a n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e g r a d e a c c u r a c y o f t h e t i p p i n g b u c k e t me c h a n i s m . I n w i n d y l o c a t i o n s m a k e s u r e t h a t t h e b u c k e t w i l l b e vi b r a t i o n - f r e e . • Fo r m a x i m u m s e n s i t i v i t y i n l o w - m o i s t u r e e n v i r o n m e n t s y o u c a n re m o v e t h e c o l l e c t o r s c r e e n . T h i s e l i m i n a t e s w a t e r r e t e n t i o n o n t h e sc r e e n w h i c h c o u l d e v a p o r a t e b e f o r e being measured. The tradeoff is th a t w i t h o u t t h e s c r e e n , d e b r i s c a n g e t i n t o t h e f u n n e l a n d c l o g t h e or i f i c e . T o r e m o v e t h e s c r e e n y o u n e e d t o f i r s t r e m o v e t h e s p r i n g c l i p in s i d e t h e c o l l e c t o r . 8 RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l Ho r i z o n t a l S u r f a c e M o u n t i n g If m o u n t i n g t h e R a i n G a u g e o n a h o r i z o n t a l s u r f a c e ( r e c o m m e n d e d ) : 1. Th e r a i n g a u g e h o u s i n g M U S T b e m ou n t e d i n a L E V E L p o s i t i o n , c l e a r o f ov e r h e a d s t r u c t u r e s , a n d i n a lo c a t i o n f r e e f r o m v i b r a t i o n . 2. Us e t h e r a i n g a u g e a s a t e m p l a t e b y p l a c i n g t h e h o u s i n g o n t h e m o u n t i n g su r f a c e a n d m a r k i n g t h e h o l e s f o r t h e t h r e e m o u n t i n g ‘ f e e t ’ . No t e : T h e t h r e e mo u n t i n g h o l e s a r e e q u a l l y s p a c e d o n a 1 6 . 9 9 c m ( 6 . 6 8 8 i n . ) d i a m e t e r ci r c l e . 3. Fo r w o o d s u r f a c e s , d r i l l t h r e e 0 . 1 6 c m ( 1 / 1 6 i n . ) d i a m e t e r h o l e s . 4. Fo r c o n c r e t e , d r i l l t h r e e a p p r o p r i a t e l y s i z e d h o l e s w i t h a m a s o n r y b i t , a n d in s t a l l s c r e w p l u g i n s e r t s . 5. Us e s h i m s a s r e q u i r e d t o l e v e l t h e r a i n g a u g e . 6. Se c u r e t h e r a i n g a u g e m o u n t i n g f e e t w i t h t h e t h r e e s c r e w s s u p p l i e d w i t h t h e ra i n g a u g e . Po l e o r M a s t M o u n t i n g If m o u n t i n g t h e R a i n G a u g e o n a p o l e o r m a s t : 1. Th e r a i n g a u g e h o u s i n g M U S T b e m ou n t e d i n a L E V E L p o s i t i o n , c l e a r o f ov e r h e a d s t r u c t u r e s , a n d i n a lo c a t i o n f r e e f r o m v i b r a t i o n . 2. En s u r e t h a t t h e p o l e o r m a s t i s p r o p e r l y g u y e d s o t h a t v i b r a t i o n i n h i g h w i n d s is k e p t t o a m i n i m u m . 3. En s u r e t h a t t h e p o l e o r m a s t i s v e r t i c a l . 4. To p o f r a i n g a u g e s h o u l d b e a b o v e t o p o f p o l e . 5. Us e t h e t w o s u p p l i e d h o s e c l a m p s t o m o u n t t h e r a i n g a u g e o n p o l e o r m a s t : a. Op e n e a c h h o s e c l a m p a n d p l a c e i t a r o u n d t h e p o l e . b. Cl o s e t h e h o s e c l a m p s u n t i l t h e r a i n g a u g e s i d e b r a c k e t e a s i l y sl i d e s i n t o t h e c l a m p . c. Ho l d t h e r a i n g a u g e b r a c k e t a g a i n s t t h e p o l e w i t h t h e t o p o f t h e ra i n g a u g e a b o v e t h e t o p o f t h e p o l e . d. Sl i p t h e u p p e r c l a m p o v e r t h e s i d e b r a c k e t a n d t i g h t e n t h e c l a m p un t i l t h e r a i n g a u g e i s s e c u r e . N o t e : B e s u r e t h e c o l l e c t o r i s a b o v e th e t o p o f t h e m a s t s o y o u d o n ’ t g e t a n y s p l a s h i n g , w i n d , s h e d d i n g , or s h a d o w e f f e c t s . e. In s t a l l t h e l o w e r c l a m p . f. En s u r e t h a t t h e t o p o f t h e r a i n g a u g e i s l e v e l a n d a b o v e t h e t o p o f th e p o l e . RG 3 a n d R G 3 - M D a t a L o g g i n g R a i n G a u g e U s e r ’ s M a n u a l 9 Sp e c i f i c a t i o n s Ra i n G a u g e Ma x i m u m R a i n f a l l R a t e 12 7 c m ( 5 i n . ) p e r h o u r Ca l i b r a t i o n A c c u r a c y ± 1 . 0 % ( u p t o 1 i n . / h o u r f o r t h e R G 3 o r 2 0 m m / h o u r f o r t h e R G 3 - M ) Re s o l u t i o n 0. 0 1 i n . ( R G 3 ) o r 0 . 2 m m ( R G 3 - M ) Ca l i b r a t i o n Re q u i r e s a n n u a l c a l i b r a t i o n : c a n b e f i e l d c a l i b r a t e d o r r e t u r n e d t o t h e fa c t o r y f o r r e - c a l i b r a t i o n Op e r a t i n g T e m p e r a t u r e Ra n g e 0° t o + 5 0 ° C ( + 3 2 ° t o + 1 2 2 ° F ) St o r a g e T e m p e r a t u r e Ra n g e -2 0 ° t o + 7 0 ° C ( - 4 ° t o + 1 5 8 ° F ) En v i r o n m e n t a l R a t i n g W e a t h e r p r o o f Ho u s i n g 1 5 . 2 4 c m ( 6 - i n . ) a l u m i n u m b u c k e t Ti p p i n g B u c k e t Me c h a n i s m St a i n l e s s s t e e l s h a f t w i t h b r a s s b e a r i n g s Di m e n s i o n s 2 5 . 7 2 c m h e i g h t x 1 5 . 2 4 c m d i ameter (10.125 x 6 in.); 15.39 cm (6.06 in . ) r e c e i v i n g o r i f i c e We i g h t 1 . 2 K g ( 2 . 5 l b s ) Pa r t N u m b e r s R G 3 ( 0 . 0 1 i n . p e r t i p ) RG 3 - M ( 0 . 2 m m p e r t i p ) Th e C E M a r k i n g i d e n t i f i e s t h i s p r o d u c t a s c o m p l y i n g w i t h a l l re l e v a n t d i r e c t i v e s i n t h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n ( E U ) . Lo g g e r Ti m e s t a m p R e s o l u t i o n 1 . 0 s e c o n d Ti m e a c c u r a c y ± 1 m i n u t e p e r m o n t h a t 25°C (77°F), see Plot B on page 10. Op e r a t i n g r a n g e -20 ° t o 7 0 ° C ( -4° t o 1 5 8 ° F ) En v i r o n m e n t a l r a t i n g ( f o r lo g g e r u s e d o u t s i d e o f ra i n g a u g e ) Te s t e d t o N E M A 6 a n d I P 6 7 ; s u i t a b l e f o r d e p l o y m e n t o u t d o o r s NI S T t r a c e a b l e ce r t i f i c a t i o n Av a i l a b l e f o r t e m p e r a t u r e o n l y a t a d d i t i o n a l c h a r g e ; t e m p e r a t u r e ra n g e -20 ° t o 7 0 ° C ( -4° t o 1 5 8 ° F ) Ba t t e r y CR -20 3 2 3 V l i t h i u m b a t t e r y ; 1 y e a r t y p i c a l u s e Me m o r y 64 K b y t e s – 1 6 K t o 2 3 K w h e n r e c o r d i n g e v e n t s o n l y ; 2 5 K t o 3 0 K da t a p o i n t s w h e n r e c o r d i n g e v e n t s a n d t e m p e r a t u r e ; s e e Data storage on p a g e 5 . Ma t e r i a l s Po l y p r o p y l e n e c a s e ; s t a i n l e s s s t e e l s c r e w s ; B u n a -N o-ring; PVC cable in s u l a t i o n Th e C E M a r k i n g i d e n t i f i e s t h i s p r o d u c t a s c o m p l y i n g w i t h a l l re l e v a n t d i r e c t i v e s i n t h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n ( E U ) . Te m p e r a t u r e M e a s u r e m e n t ( s e e Us i n g t h e L o g g e r f o r T e m p e r a t u r e Me a s u r e m e n t o n p a g e 3 ) Me a s u r e m e n t r a n g e -20 ° t o 7 0 ° C ( -4° t o 1 5 8 ° F ) Ac c u r a c y ± 0 . 4 7 ° C a t 2 5 ° C ( ± 0 . 8 5 ° F a t 7 7 ° F ) , s e e P l o t A o n p a g e 1 0 . A s o l a r ra d i a t i o n s h i e l d i s r e q u i r e d f o r a c c u r a t e t e m p e r a t u r e m e a s u r e m e n t s i n su n l i g h t . Re s o l u t i o n 0 . 1 0 ° C a t 2 5 ° C ( 0 . 1 8 ° F a t 7 7 ° F ) , s e e P l o t A o n p a g e 1 0 . Dr i f t L e s s t h a n 0 . 1 ° C/ y e a r ( 0 . 2 ° F / y e a r ) Re s p o n s e t i m e A i r f l o w o f 1 m / s ( 2 . 2 m p h ) : 1 0 m i n u t e s , t y p i c a l t o 9 0 % Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Draft\Appendices\Appendix C - DRAFT Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Jun09).doc ATTACHMENT 2 Equipment and Vendor Information for Flow Monitoring Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Draft\Appendices\Appendix C - DRAFT Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Jun09).doc [This page intentionally left blank] HARDWARE About A leading technology and service provider, ADS Environmental Services® has established the industry standard for open channel flow monitoring and has the only ETV-verified flow monitoring technology for wastewater collection systems. These battery-powered monitors are specially designed to operate with reliability, durability, and accuracy in sewer environments. © 2008 ADS LLC. All Rights Reserved. • Two complete sensor arrays for a total of six sensors, measuring flow in two pipes - ideal for CSO monitoring. • Integrated wireless or telephone communication for field versatility. • Two 4-20 mA inputs for logging and reporting data from industry standard water quality primary sensing instruments. • Two 4-20 mA outputs for SCADA integration providing variables such as flow rate, depth, and velocity. • Industry leading 18 month battery life at 15 minute intervals when connected to a telephone modem. With a GSM/GPRS wireless connection at the standard 15 minute sample rate the battery life is 9 months. • Monitor-Level Intelligence (MLI®) improves accuracy and allows the FlowShark to operate in a wide range of hydraulic conditions. • Superior noise reduction design for maximizing acoustic signal detection from depth and velocity sensors. • Seven communication and reporting modes for accessing flow information including Profile® collection and reporting software; IntelliServe® web-based alarming, Sliicer.com® for I/I analysis, and FlowView Portal® for online access to flow data. • Intrinsically-Safe (IS) Certification to Class 1, Div. 1 (C & D) and ATEX Zone 0. • Armored marine-grade aluminum canister ensuring maximum protection and reliability in harsh sewer environments. • Supports MODBUS ASCII communications protocol over a serial connection. • Compatible with Telog’s TelogersTM Communications Module. The FlowShark is designed for a multitude of project applications, including: • Billing • Trending • Capacity Analysis • CSOs • SCADA networks • Annexation and planning studies • SSO monitoring • CMOM/Operations and Maintenance programs • Storm sewer/water quality characterization • I/I studies • Monitoring of selected pumping/treatment process variables • Driving process instruments with flow information DS-FLSK-10-04-08 FlowShark Features The FlowShark® from ADS® is an open channel flow monitor for use in sanitary, combined, and storm sewers. It is designed for ultimate performance and versatility, including single pipe or dual pipe flow measurement, small and large pipe application and industry-leading data collection, analysis, alarming, and collection system management. Applications A Division of ADS LLC ® HARDWARE www.adsenv.com 4940 Research Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805 Phone: 256-430-3366/ Fax: 256-430-6333 Toll Free: 1-800-633-7246 Specifications subject to change without notice. The following ADS sensors work interchangeably with the FlowShark and all ADS flow monitors. Together they provide a complete flow monitoring system with the highest accuracy and reliability. Detailed specifications for each sensor are also available from ADS. Quad-redundant Ultrasonic Level Sensor This non-intrusive, zero-drift sensing method results in a stable, accurate and reliable flow depth calculation. Four independent ultrasonic transceivers allow for independent crosscheck, which provides built-in confidence and reliability. Advanced software filtering helps compensate for adverse monitoring conditions such as waves, foam, debris, etc. Function: Measures elapsed time for an ultrasonic signal to travel to the flow surface and back and records the distance to the flow surface. The sensor is com- posed of 4 independent piezoelectric crystals. Resident software evaluates sensor readings and discards aberrant data. Range: Up to 12.5 ft (3.8 m) in typical installations. Pressure Depth Sensor This sensor is used to measure surcharge levels, or to provide a redundant depth reading when used in conjunction with the ultrasonic level sensor. Function: Measures depth of flow by recording the difference in atmospheric and water pressure. Range: 0.0 - 5.0 psi: up to 11.5 ft (3.5 m) 0.0 - 15.0 psi: up to 34.5 ft (10.5 m) 0.0 - 30.5 psi: up to 69.0 ft (21.0 m) Peak Velocity Sensor Readings from this sensor are used to calculate average flow velocity. Its miniature size and streamlined design minimize fouling and prevent flow disruption. Function: An ultrasonic signal is transmitted out into the flow. The reflected signal is digitally analyzed for Doppler shift to measure the peak flow velocity. Range: -20.0 to +20.0 feet/second (-6.1 to +6.1 meters/second) Monitor Interfaces Water Quality Sampler Interface • Flow proportional or time-based Rain Fall Measurement • Tipping bucket Analog Input • PH, salinity, conductivity, other flow device Analog Output • Flow, ultrasonic level, pressure level, velocity Available Sensors Product Specifications Housing 0.13 in. (0.30 cm) thick seamless marine-grade aluminum with stainless steel hardware Dimensions Cylinder is 20.0 in. long x 6.38 in. diameter (50.80 cm x 16.21 cm) Weight 35 lbs. Connectors U.S. Military spec. MIL-C 26482 series 1, for environmental sealing, with gold plated contacts Electronics Ultra-low power Digital Signal Processor architecture Power Battery pack can power unit for 18 months at the 15 minute sample rate when flow monitor is equipped with a land line telephone modem. With a GSM/GPRS wireless connection at the standard 15 minute sample rate the battery life is 9 months. Can also be powered with an external DC power source (10 - 12 vdc). Measurement Intervals A crystal oscillator timer activates depth intervals and velocity measurements at preset intervals such as 1, 2, 5, 10, and 15 minutes. Time is syn- chronized to a central station computer. Available Memory 1 Megabyte nonvolatile data storage and 512 kilobytes static RAM, furnishing up to 12 months of data storage capacity with full sensor configura- tion at 15 minute sample rate Intrinsic Safety Certification U.S.: Class 1, Division 1, Groups C & D International: ATEX Zone 0 Operating Temperature 32 degrees to 140 degrees F (0 degrees to 60 degrees C) Warranty One-Year Limited Warranty ADS. An IDEX Fluid & Metering Business. A Division of ADS LLC HARDWARE About A leading technology and service provider, ADS Environmental Services® has established the industry standard for open channel flow monitoring and has the only ETV verified flow monitoring technology for wastewater collection systems. These battery-powered monitors are specially designed to operate with reliability, durability, and accuracy in sewer environments. © 2008 ADS LLC. All Rights Reserved. • Utilizes the ultrasonic Doppler measurement principle • No mechanically moving parts like a propeller meter • Not effected by high solids content in the water, such as is found in wastewater collection systems • Long-life rechargeable battery pack (charger included) • Displays instantaneous reading and user selectable time period averages • Displays velocity spectrum diagnostics along with a signal quality reading to provide confidence in the reported reading • Sensor can be adjusted to differing angles using the flexible mounting bracket • Not effected by grease and oils in water • Does not require calibrations • Includes high quality telescoping aluminum wading rod • Easy operation with all functions performed on a six button touch- pad • Two year warranty on all components DS-FLHV-10-02-08 FlowShark HV Features The new FlowShark® HV from ADS® is a hand held velocity meter utiliz- ing ultrasonic Doppler technology. It is designed to be used in any open channel including wastewater collection pipes, irrigation channels, and streams. The unique application of ultrasonic Doppler technology gives the FlowShark HV advantages over magnetic sensors and propeller meters. Applications The FlowShark HV has a broad range of applications for anywhere that a point velocity measurement is required. Some common applications are: • Calibrations of flow meters, weirs, and flumes • Velocity profiles of streams and rivers • Spot checks of flow velocities in irrigation channels HV A Division of ADS LLC HARDWARE www.adsenv.com Specifications subject to change without notice. Ultrasonic Doppler Technology The ultrasonic sensor transmits a narrow high-frequency sound pulse along its horizontal axis. The sound pulse is reflected back to the sensor by particles and entrained air in the medium. These reflected echoes will be at a higher frequency than the transmit frequency in proportion to their velocity. The return echoes are precisely timed in order to isolate the measurement window at a point directly in front of the sensor face. It is this breakthrough in technology that allows Doppler technology to operate in a point velocity mode. The FlowShark HV adjusts for differences induced by water temperature using a built in temperature probe. The frequency spectrum is then processed digitally to translate frequency data into a highly accurate velocity measurement. FlowShark HVSpecifications • Measurement range: 0 – 9.8 fps • Accuracy: ± 1 % of the measurement range ± 0.03 fps (whichever is higher) • Power supply: rechargeable internal battery 12 V / 2 Ah • Battery life: 4 - 6 hours • Battery charger: primary: 115/230 V AC secondary: 12 V / 500 mA • Temperature range: electronics: 32°F to 140°F; sensor: -4°F to + 140°F • Display: LCD 4 x 20 characters • Keys: 6 membrane keys • Enclosure Dimensions: 7.08 x 4.33 x 8.66 in • Enclosure Weight: 8.25 lbs • Telescope length: 2.29 - 5.25 ft • Cable length: 20 ft (custom cable lengths available) • Enclosure rating: enclosure: IP65 (NEMA 4) sensor: IP68 (NEMA 6) • Sensor materials: High-grade steel and Polyurethane • Telescope materials: Aluminium • Electronics materials: Plastic housing FlowShark HV Advantage Telescoping Wading Rod Emitted signal f FlowShark HV Sensor Measurement window s Reflected signal fE V 4940 Research Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805 Phone: 256-430-3366/ Fax: 256-430-6333 Toll Free: 1-800-633-7246 ADS. An IDEX Fluid & Metering Business. A Division of ADS LLC HARDWARE About A leading technology and service provider, ADS Environmental Services® has established the industry standard for open channel flow monitoring and has the only ETV verified flow monitoring technology for wastewater collection systems. These battery-powered monitors are specially designed to operate with reliability, durability, and accuracy in sewer environments. © 2008 ADS LLC. All Rights Reserved. • Profiling sensor measures average velocity by integrating up to 16 discrete point velocities in every sample • Suitable for unusual or dynamic velocity profiles • One analog input, 2 analog outputs, and 2 relays • Built-in password protected Web server interface • No calibration required • No laptop required – all functions accessible from touchpad • No software required – data stored on Compact Flash Card in ASCII format readily opened in Excel • 128 MB memory card • Combination up looking ultrasonic depth, gated cross correlation velocity, and pressure depth sensor • 2 year warranty • Cable lengths up to 820 feet • All keypad functions and data collection available via Internet using connection to internal Web server DS-FSPOC-10-02-08 FlowShark Pulse Features The new FlowShark® Pulse for Open Channels from ADS® is a high performance liquid flow monitor for use in open channels of virtually any shape. It is de - signed for high accuracy and reliability, utilizing the most advanced velocity measurement technology available – gated cross correlation with digital pat- tern detection. Ease-of-use is also a design priority. Programming can be done completely on the built-in backlit display and data can be viewed and manipulated with any software that can read text files, such as Microsoft Excel. Applications The FlowShark Pulse is designed for the most demanding permanent monitoring applications where measurement accuracy is critical or where hydraulic conditions are not suited for general purpose moni- toring technologies. • Billing applications where data is used to bill other parties for whom the servicing agency provides transportation and/or treatment services or to verify billing from outside agencies. • System Management applications data is used for control systems, such as treatment plant operations, pump stations, inline storage controls, or collection system routing controls. • Optional insertion sensor for closed pipe applications. For Open Channels PULSE A Division of ADS LLC HARDWARE www.adsenv.com Specifications subject to change without notice. The FlowShark Pulse minimizes the cost and the footprint of underwater sensors by combining three sensor technologies within a single streamlined housing. This housing, measuring only 1.2”H x 1.6”W x 10”L contains the following sensors. Submerged Ultrasonic Depth Sensor The ultrasonic depth sensor transmits a high-frequency sound pulse along a verti- cal path from the sensor to the water surface. The water surface acts as a reflect- ing boundary to the sound pulse. The sensor measures the short time interval that the pulse of sound requires to travel to the water surface and reflect back to the sensor. The computed speed of sound is then used to calculate the depth of flow. Pressure Depth Sensor The pressure sensor is a piezoresistive device that converts the water pressure above the sensor to a depth of flow. The pressure sensor overrides the ultrasonic depth sensor in three conditions: (1) when the ultrasonic sensor cannot obtain a reliable measurement; (2) when the sensor cannot be installed on the bottom of the pipe; and (3) when the water column exceeds the height of the pipe, such as the case during surcharge conditions. Gated Cross Correlation Velocity Sensor The velocity sensor in the FlowShark Pulse is a state of the art advancement in velocity sensing technology. This complex technology tracks the movement of velocity particle signatures within 16 separate “gates” of the vertical cross section of the flow. These gates are integrated across a two-dimensional cross section in order to compute average velocity. FlowShark PulseSpecifications • 100-240 volts AC or 24 volts DC power • LAN/WAN Interface • Polycarbonate enclosure weighing 6.3 lbs • Back lit graphic display 128 x 128 pixels • 18 button touchpad • Data storage: 128 MB Compact Flash Card • Maximum 1 bar operating pressure (58 psi) • Cable length 33 feet extendable to 820 feet • Temperature compensation to adjust for the speed of sound in water Submerged Ultrasonic Depth Sensor • Submerged ultrasonic transit time technology • Range 0.16 to 6.56 ft. • Accuracy +/- 0.08 inches Pressure Depth Sensor • Piezoresistive pressure technology • Range 0 to 11.5 ft. • Error less than 0.5% final value Gated Cross Correlation Velocity Sensor • Gated cross correlation with digital pattern recognition technology operating at 1 MHz • Range -3.28 to 19.7 fps to maximum depths of 3.3 ft. (basic model) or 16.5 ft. (extended model) • 16 scan layers • Error less than 1% FlowShark Pulse Sensors Wedge Sensors Optional Air-Ultrasonic Level Sensor Water-Ultrasonic Combination Sensor ATEX 4940 Research Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805 Phone: 256-430-3366/ Fax: 256-430-6333 Toll Free: 1-800-633-7246 ADS. An IDEX Fluid & Metering Business. A Division of ADS LLC HARDWARE About A leading technology and service provider, ADS Environmental Services® has established the industry standard for open channel flow monitoring and has the only ETV verified flow monitoring technology for wastewater collection systems. These battery-powered monitors are specially designed to operate with reliability, durability, and accuracy in sewer environments. © 2008 ADS LLC, All Rights Reserved. • Profiling sensor measures average velocity by integrating up to 16 discrete point velocities in every sample • Suitable for unusual or dynamic velocity profiles • Powered by rechargeable batteries, battery pack, or permanent DC • 1 analog input, 1 relay output • No calibration required • No laptop required – all functions accessible from touchpad • No software required – data stored on Compact Flash Card in ASCII format readily opened in Excel • 8 MB internal storage plus up to 128 MB storage on Compact Flash Card • Combination up-looking ultrasonic depth, gated cross correlation velocity, and pressure depth sensor • 2 year warranty • Cable lengths up to 820 feet • Also available in Ex Certification DS-PFLP-10-04-08 Portable FlowShark Pulse Features The Portable FlowShark® Pulse from ADS® is a battery-powered high-perfor- mance liquid flow monitor for use in open and closed channels of virtually any shape. It is designed for high accuracy and reliability, utilizing the most advanced velocity measurement technology available – gated cross correlation with digi- tal pattern detection. Ease-of-use is also a design priority. Programming can be done completely on the built-in backlit display and data can be viewed and manipulated with any software that can read text files, such as Microsoft Excel. Applications The Portable FlowShark Pulse is designed for the most demanding temporary monitoring applications where measurement accuracy is most important or where hydraulic conditions are not suited for general purpose technologies. • Billing verifications • Performance studies for control systems, such as treatment plant operations, pump stations, inline storage controls, or collection system routing controls • Temporary flow monitoring to meet the requirements of regulatory agencies, such as the requirement to characterize combined sewer overflows • Hydraulic model calibration and verification • Rehabilitation measurement and impact analysis • Optional insertion sensor for closed pipe applications A Division of ADS LLC R PULSE PORTABLE HARDWARE www.adsenv.com Corporate Headquarters 4940 Research Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805 Phone: 256-430-3366/ Fax: 256-430-6333 Toll Free: 1-800-633-7246 Specifications subject to change without notice. The Portable FlowShark Pulse minimizes the cost and the footprint of underwa- ter sensors by combining three sensor technologies within a single streamlined housing. This housing, measuring only 1.2”H x 1.6”W x 10”L contains the following sensors. Submerged Ultrasonic Depth Sensor The ultrasonic depth sensor transmits a high-frequency sound pulse along a verti- cal path from the sensor to the water surface. The water surface acts as a reflect- ing boundary to the sound pulse. The sensor measures the short time interval that the pulse of sound requires to travel to the water surface and reflect back to the sensor. The computed speed of sound is then used to calculate the depth of flow. Pressure Depth Sensor The pressure sensor is a piezoresistive device that converts the water pressure above the sensor to a depth of flow. The pressure sensor overrides the ultrasonic depth sensor in three conditions: (1) When the ultrasonic sensor cannot obtain a reliable measurement, (2) When the sensor cannot be installed on the bottom of the pipe, and (3) When the water column exceeds the height of the pipe, such as the case during surcharge conditions. Gated Cross Correlation Velocity Sensor The velocity sensor in the Portable FlowShark Pulse is a state of the art advance- ment in velocity sensing technology. This complex technology tracks the move- ment of velocity particle signatures within 16 separate “gates” of the vertical cross section of the flow. These gates are integrated across a two-dimensional cross section in order to compute average velocity. Portable FlowShark Pulse Specifications • Rechargeable battery pack: 18 NiMH rechargeable batteries, 12 Ah capacity, 7.2 volts nominal (charger included) • Polypropylene enclosure weighing 4.4 lbs • Back-lit graphic display 128 x 128 pixels • 18 button touchpad • Data storage: 128 MB Compact Flash Card • Maximum 4 bar operating pressure • Cable length 33 feet extendable to 820 feet • Temperature compensation to adjust for the speed of sound in water Submerged Ultrasonic Depth Sensor • Submerged ultrasonic transit time technology • Range 0.16 to 6.56 ft. • Accuracy +/- 0.08 inches Pressure Depth Sensor • Piezoresistive pressure technology • Range 0 to 11.5 ft. • Error less than 0.5% final value Gated Cross Correlation Velocity Sensor • Gated cross correlation with digital pattern recognition technology operating at 1 MHz • Range -3.28 to 19.7 fps to maximum depths of 3.3 ft (1 meter) • 16 scan layers • Error less than 1% Portable FlowShark Pulse Sensors Wedge Sensors Air-ultrasonic level sensor Water-ultrasonic combination sensor ATEX ADS. An IDEX Fluid & Metering Business. A Division of ADS LLC DD aa tt aa GG aa tt oo rr SS yy ss tt ee mm SS pp ee cc ii ff ii cc aa tt ii oo nn ss Measurement Range: Pipe Size (inch) Maximum Flow (GPM) 6 450 8 760 10 1,400 12 2,260 15 4,130 18 6,700 24 14,000 30 17,800 Performance Accuracy: (NIST traceable) Flow Conditions Accuracy: Percent of Maximum Flow Open Channel Forward Flow +/-3% Reverse Flow +/-3% Full Pipe Forward Flow +/-3% *See note Reverse Flow +/-3% Full Pipe Below Transition +/-10% *See note Open Channel (>90% submergence) Forward Flow +/-5% Reverse Flow +/-5% * Note: Up to 10' surcharge Operating Temperature Range: Sensors 32° to 120°F (0° to 50°C) Electronics -5° to 120°F (-17° to 50°C) Power Requirements: Standard: Battery powered 8 each D-Cell alkaline; 1 each 9 volt alkaline (memory backup) (Minimum battery life of 90 days at 15 minute data logging intervals) Optional: 115/230VAC ±15%, 50/60Hz, 12VA, w/8 each D-Cell NiCd (primary backup) and 1 each 9 volt alkaline (memory backup) Electronics: Enclosure M aterial: Lightweight structural foam resin Rating: NEMA 6P submersible (6.0 ft. for 24 hours) D imensions: 12-5/8" x 13-1/4" x 5-7/8" deep Weight: 15 lbs. (6.8 kg) including standard batteries, sensors, and 25 ft. cable Desiccant protected Sensors T ype: Stainless steel submersible pressure transducers C able: 25 ft. (7.6 m), polyurethane outer jacket H ousing: Sealed, watertight PVC (submersible) O ver Range: 11 psi (25 ft. water) Air Intake: Atmospheric pressure reference protected by hydrophobic filter Flow Tube: (weights and dimensions shown below) Sizes: 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18 and 24 inches (consult factory for additional flow tube sizes) M aterial: fiberglass reinforced isophthalic polyester resin. Inside surface of white gelcoat Hardware: stainless steel, bubble level with aluminum bezel Inflatable rubber seal: brass stem, brass fittings, and stainless steel valve Operation: Flow Calculation Direct pressure to flow calculation through pre-calibrated flow tube. Independent of velocity profiles. Data Storage Memory Capacity: 90 days of flow rate at 15 minute intervals (optional 180 days) Measurement Intervals: Adjustable from 1 minute to 24 hours in 1 minute increments Delay Start Intervals: Adjustable from 0 to 1 week in 1 minute increments Data Types: Flow rate, transducer pressures, battery voltage, sampler event, and rainfall Storage Modes: Slate or wrap-around Input/Output Inputs: Rain gauge and Sampler events Outputs: Sampler contact closure (100–400 millisecond duration) Closes when total volume exceeds set point. Set point adjustable from 1 gallon to 9,999,999 gallons in 1 gallon increments. Output Data Types: Flow rate, velocity, transducer pressures, battery voltage, sampler event, and rainfall Communications Data Retrieval: IBM compatible computer Transfer Protocol: RS-232 at 9600 baud Optional: Modem at 1200 baud (9600 baud available) Software: CalcuFlow™ (for Windows®2000 and NT) Calibration: NO FIELD CALIBRATION OR FLOW PROFILING REQUIRED Flow tube pre-calibrated at an NIST traceable flow laboratory Flow Conditions: Open channel, Full Pipe, Surcharged, Submerged, and Reverse 2555 North IH-35, Suite 300 • Round Rock, TX 78664 • 512-388-9270 • Fax 512-388-9272 COMMUNICATION POWER DIRECT TO PC WIRED MODEM WIRELESS RF / CELL MODEM / CDPD,CDMA / SATELLITE DC EXTERNAL DC BATTERY AC POWER 4-20 MA RAINGAUGE PULSE OUTPUT AL ARM SAMPLER SOL AR PANEL I/O OTHER DATA LOGGER DISPL AYDISPLAY The accQmin Flow Meter brings unparalleled precision and accuracy to flow rate (Q) measurement in small pipes and channels, measuring rates in flow depths of 3 to 48 inches (75 to 1200 mm). Pulse-Doppler technology measures velocity distribution within the flow, providing extremely accurate flow measurement. Its unique ability makes the most suitable choice for sites with non-uniform, rapidly changing, backwatered, near zero, zero, or reverse flow conditions. Principles of Operation Three (3) piezoelectric ceramics in the sensor emit short pulses along narrow acoustic beams pointing in different directions, to measure velocity. A fourth ceramic mounted in the center of the sensor assembly, and aimed vertically, is used to measure the depth. Each acoustic beam measures velocity at multiple points, or “bins”, within the water column. The measured velocity data within each bin are very precise – to within 0.01 ft/s. The measurements are then used to determine the flow pattern over the entire flow cross-section. Since the flow pattern and measured velocity distribution are dependent on each other, the accQmin’s advanced flow algorithms automatically adapt to changing hydraulic conditions within the pipe. This removes the need for in-situ calibration and ensures accurate flow rate measurement over a host of different measurement environments and hydraulic conditions. Applications ♦ Wastewater collection systems ♦ Combined sewer systems and outfalls ♦ Wastewater treatment facilities ♦ Irrigation canals and channels ♦ Industrial process and discharges ♦ Stormwater conveyance and outfalls Standard Features ♦ Pulse Doppler velocity profiling technology ♦ Tri-redundant velocity sensors and depth sensor combined in a single, compact housing ♦ Upward-looking sensor mounts on a stainless steel band and is positioned in the channel invert. ♦ Data quality verification information (signal strength and correlation) ♦ In-situ calibration never required ♦ NEMA 6P electronics unit housing ♦ Real-time data output Options ♦ Industry standard communications protocol interfaces ♦ Secondary depth sensor – pressure or ultrasonic ♦ Unique Flow Conditioning Platform accQmin® Velocity Profiler Shallow Water / Small Pipe Specifications accQmin® Velocity Profiler Measurement Performance Bin Velocity Maximum Range: ±15.0 ft/s (±4.5 m/s) Velocity Bin Size: 0.4 in (10 mm) Vertical Profiling Range: 3 to 48 in (75 to 1000 mm) nominal, for particle concentrations of 50 to 1000 ppm Accuracy: 0.5% of reading ± 0.01 ft/s (3.0 mm/s) Water Level Measurement Range: 1.5 in to 39 in (40 to 1000 mm) Accuracy: 0.5% of reading ± 0.1 in (2.5 mm) Acoustic Frequency Frequency: 2.46 MHz Physical Electronics Unit Operating Temperature: -15 to 125º F (-26 to 52º C) Storage Temperature: -65 to 160º F (-54 to 71° C) Packaging: NEMA 6P (IP 68 ) Size (HxWxD) 15.6 x 9.4 x 5.9 in. (397 x 240 x 150 mm) Weight (with batteries): 16.4 lb (7.4 kg) accQmin Sensor Operating Temperature: 23 to 95º F (-5 to 35º C) Housing Material: Plastic Static Pressure: 250 psi Nominal Dimensions: 10.5 x 2.25 x 0.63 in (267 x 57 x 16 mm) Weight: 1 lb (0.5 kg) Sensor Signal Cable Operating Temperature: -40 to 125º F (-40 to 52º C) Material: Polyethylene Jacket Length: 33 ft (10 m) std. 150 ft length (45 m) available Minimum Bend Radius: 6 in (150 mm) Outer Diameter: 0.5 in (13 mm) nominal Data Management accQmin Velocity Profiler Data Types Q, V, D: Discharge, average velocity, depth Velocity: Velocity profile data (relative to acoustic beam directions) per beam and bin Echo Intensity: Echo intensity data (relative backscatter intensity) per beam and bin Data Quality: Profile data quality indicators (Correlation magnitude, % - Good) per beam and bin Temperature: Transducer temperature output, range 20 to 125º F (-7 to 52º C) Sound Speed: One output for speed of sound data Leader: Output of general leader information (time, data, record number, etc.), and for vertical beam data Data Storage and I/O Data Storage Capacity: 2 MB std. (2,000 measurements), slate or wrap Data I/O Interface: RS-232 standard. Multiple industry-standard protocols optional. Data Transfer Rate: Configurable to 115,200 bps Power Internal Battery Voltage: 18 VDC nominal Internal Battery Capacity: 26 Ah at 75º F (24º C) - Alkaline. Battery life 30 weeks at 15 minute sampling interval External DC: 12 - 24 VDC; 10 VDC absolute minimum; 28 VDC absolute maximum Software WinADFM Software for set-up, operation, data review, and data management. Teledyne Isco, Inc. 4700 Superior Street Lincoln NE 68504 USA Tel: (402) 464-0231 USA and Canada: (800) 228-4373 Fax: (402) 465-3022 E-Mail: iscoinfo@teledyne.com Internet: www.isco.com Teledyne Isco reserves the right to change specifications without notice. © 2007 Teledyne Isco, Inc. • L-2134 • Rev. 3/08 For measurement in challenging low-depth-of-flow conditions, the accQmin sensor can be mounted in our optional Flow Conditioning Platform. Specify desired pipe diameter when ordering. The platform effectively reduces velocity profile distortion and adverse effects caused by placing a sensor in the flow stream. The result is precise and accurate data even in flow depths as low as 3 inches (75 mm). Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Draft\Appendices\Appendix C - DRAFT Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Jun09).doc ATTACHMENT 3 Equipment and Vendor Information for Water Level Monitoring Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Draft\Appendices\Appendix C - DRAFT Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Jun09).doc [This page intentionally left blank] CS450 and CS455 Submersible Pressure Transducers Questions • Research • Pricing www.campbellsci.com/cs450 www.campbellsci.com/cs455 Campbell Scientifi c’s CS450 and CS455 submersible pres- sure transducers provide reliable, accurate pressure/level measurements that are fully temperature compensated. Th eir rugged construction makes them suitable for water level measurements in canals, wells, ponds, harbors, lakes, streams and tanks. An NTP fi tting allows the CS450 and CS455 to be used in closed-pipe applications. Both of these transducers output either a digital SDI-12 or RS-232 signal to indicate observed pressure/level. Th is output is acceptable for recording devices with SDI-12 or RS-232 capability including Campbell Scientifi c dataloggers. The CS450 and CS455 consist of a piezoresistive sensor housed in a metal case. The CS450 has a 316L stainless- steel case that can be submerged in most canals, wells, ponds, lakes, and streams. The CS455 has a rugged titanium case that allows it to be used in saltwater or other harsh environments. Th e transducers have a rugged Hytrel cable that remains flexible, even under harsh environmental conditions. The cable incorporates a vent tube to compensate for atmospheric pressure fluctuations. To prevent water vapor from entering the inner cavity of the transducer, the vent tube opening should terminate inside a desic- cated enclosure or a desiccant tube. Features/Benefi ts Output acceptable for recording devices with • SDI-12 or RS-232 capability including Campbell Scientific dataloggers. Static accuracy of ±0.1% FS over a 0° to 60°C • temperature range. Quality construction insures product reliability.• Rugged stainless steel or titanium case protects • piezoresistive sensor. Quick shipment aft er receipt of order (ARO).• Fully temperature compensated.• 24-bit A/D. • Simultaneous 50/60 Hz rejection.• Low power sleep state between measurements • reduces power consumption. 815 W. 1800 N. | Logan, Utah | 84321-1784 | USA | (435) 753-2342 | www.campbellsci.com Australia | Brazil | Canada | England | France | Germany | South Africa | Spain | USA [headquarters] Copyright © 2009 Campbell Scientifi c, Inc. Printed February 2009 Ordering Information Pressure Transducers CS450-L Pressure Transducer with Stainless Steel Case and user- specifi ed length. Enter length, in feet, after the -L. CS455-L Pressure Transducer with Titanium Case and user- specifi ed length. Enter length, in feet, after the -L. Range Options for CS450 and CS455 (choose one) -2 Pressure range of 0 to 2.9 psig (0 to 20 kPa) or up to 6.7 feet of fresh water. -7 Pressure range of 0 to 7.25 psig (0 to 50 kPa) or up to 16.7 feet of fresh water. -14 Pressure range of 0 to14.5 psig (0 to 100 kPa) or up to 33.4 feet of fresh water. -29 Pressure range of 0 to 29 psig (0 to 200 kPa) or up to 67.0 feet of fresh water. -72 Pressure range of 0 to 72.5 psig (0 to 500 kPa) or up to 167.0 feet of fresh water. -145 Pressure range of 0 to 145 psig (0 to 1000 kPa) or up to 334.5 feet of fresh water. Common Accessories 25431 Split Mesh Cable Grip 25366 Replacement Desiccant Tube Power Requirements: 6 to 18 Vdc Power Consumption Quiescent: < 80 µA Measurement/ Communication: 8 mA for 1-s measurement Maximum: 40 mA Measurement Time: < 1.5 seconds Outputs: SDI-12 (version 1.3) 1200 baud; RS-232 9600 baud Measurement Ranges: Pressure (PSIG)Pressure (kPa)ft of fresh water 0 to 2.9 0 to 200 to 6.7 0 to 7.25 0 to 500 to 16.7 0 to 14.5 0 to 1000 to 33.4 0 to 29 0 to 2000 to 67 0 to 72.5 0 to 5000 to 167 0 to 145 0 to 10000 to 334.5 Accuracy: ±0.1% FS TEB* Resolution: 0.0035% FS Overpressure: 2 x pressure range Operating Temperature: -10° to 80°C Compensated Temperature: 0° to 60°C Maximum Cable Length SDI-12: ~1500 ft (one sensor connected to a single port). 200 ft (10 sensors connected to a single port). RS-232: 200 ft. Cable Type: 5 Conductor, 26 AWG, Hytrel Jacket Top Cone and End Cone Assembly Material: Delrin Body Material CS450: 316L stainless steel CS455: Titanium Element Material CS450: 316L stainless steel CS455: Hastelloy Dimensions Length: 8.4 inches (21.34 cm) Diameter: 0.84 inches (2.13 cm) Weight CS450 (no cable): 0.40 lbs (0.18 kg) CS455 (no cable): 0.25 lbs (0.11 kg) Cable: 0.13 lbs/ft (0.19 kg/m) Specifi cations Above is the CS450 Submersible Pressure Transducer. The CS455 looks similar, but it has a titanium case that allows it to be used in saltwater or other harsh environments. *Total ERROR Band (TEB) includes the combined errors due to nonlinearity, hysteresis, nonrepeatability, and thermal effects over the compensated temperature range, per ISA S51.1. Stainless- Steel Case Overmolding Delrin Nose Cone Hytrel Cable CR200-Series Dataloggers / Wireless Sensors Small, Rugged, Lower-Cost Datatloggers 2 { Antenna Connector: Connects to a whip antenna or an antenna cable (CR206, CR211, and CR216 only). Input/Output Connections: Measure, commu- nicate with, and power sensors. LEDs: Indicate datalogger is scan- ning, transmitting, or receiving. RS-232 Port: Supports communications with a com- puter. The CR295 has a second serial port dedicated for satel- lite communications. CR200-Series1 Dataloggers / Wireless Sensors 1Th e CR206, CR211, and CR216 dataloggers replaced the CR205, CR210, and CR215 dataloggers on September 15, 2005. Th e newer dataloggers refl ect changes incorporated in the RF401, RF411, and RF416 Spread Spectrum Radios, which replaced the RF400, RF410, and RF415 radios in May 2005. Th e newer dataloggers can be confi gured to be used in systems that contain the retired dataloggers and retired radios. 2Campbell Scientifi c is increasing the fi nal storage memory from 128 kbytes to 512 kbytes. Dataloggers with the increased memory have 512k on their label. Features Campbell Scientifi c’s smallest, lowest cost datalogger• Optimal for measuring one or two simple sensors• 512 kbytes of Flash fi nal storage memory; approxi-• mately 128,000 data points2 Fastest scan rate of once per second• 12-bit analog to digital conversions• Gas Discharge Tube (GDT) protected inputs• Data values stored in tables with a time stamp and • record number Battery-backed SRAM and clock that ensure data, • programs, and accurate time are maintained while a CR200-series datalogger is disconnected from the main power source PakBus® communication protocol used, which is a • simplifi ed variation of Internet protocols. Input/Output Channels Gas discharge tubes provide rugged electrostatic discharge protection for the inputs. The CR200- series loggers have five single-ended analog inputs, one switch closure pulse input, one low level ac pulse input, two control ports, two excitation chan- nels (2.5 or 5 V), and one switched battery output. One of the control ports can be used as an SDI-12 port. Input voltage range is 0 to +2500 mV with 0.6 mV resolution. Please note that differential measurements are not supported. Program/Data Storage Programs and data are stored in a non-volatile Flash memory. Final storage has 512 kbytes of memory that provides approximately 128,000 data points in the table-based memory structure. 3 Models/Communications All of the models can communicate with a PC via direct connect, NL100 Ethernet Interface, MD485 multidrop modem, and our digital cellular modems. Data can also be viewed on the CD295 DataView II display or a PDA (PConnect or PConnectCE soft ware required). Other communications supported are model dependent: • CR200—base model (i.e, only supports direct connect, Ethernet, digital cellular modems, MD485 multidrop modems, CD295 DataView displays, and PDAs). CR206• —includes an internal 915 MHz spread spectrum radio that transmits data to another CR206 datalogger or an RF401 radio*. Th e 915 MHz frequency is used in the US/Canada. CR211• —includes an internal 922 MHz spread spectrum radio that transmits data to another CR211 datalogger or an RF411 radio*. Th e 922 MHz frequency is used in Australia/Israel. CR216• —includes an internal 2.4 GHz spread spectrum radio that transmits data to another CR216 datalogger or an RF416 radio*. Th e 2.4 GHz frequency can be used in many countries worldwide. CR295• —includes an additional 9-pin serial port and an instruction set that allows communications with the TX312 HDR GOES satellite transmitter. Th e CR295 does not support radio telemetry and calculation of evapotranspiration. Program Development Tools Th e programming language of the CR200-series dataloggers is CRBasic. Datalogger programs are developed using a program editor (programs cannot be created or edited in the datalogger). Program edi- tors that can be used with these dataloggers include the CRBasic editor and Short Cut. Th e CRBasic editor is included in our PC400 and LoggerNet Datalogger Support Soft ware. Short Cut can be obtained, at no charge, from: www.campbellsci.com/downloads Communication & Data Collection Tools PC200W PC200W, our starter communications soft ware, sup- ports direct communications between a PC and a CR200-series datalogger and provides numeric display of measurements PC200W can be obtained, at no charge, from: www.campbellsci.com/downloads PC400 PC400 Datalogger Support Software supports programming, manual data collection, and data display. Both direct and telemetry communications are supported. LoggerNet 2.1 or higher Besides providing all of PC400’s functions, LoggerNet Datalogger Support Soft ware supports automatic data collection and PakBus® routing. *Th e factory default settings for the logger do not match the settings for the RF401-series radio; therefore, the logger and radio must be reconfi g- ured before communications can take place. Th e "Quick Reference Guide for Setting Up RF401-to-CR206 Communications" application note provides more information (see www.campbellsci.com/app-notes). Short Cut is available from our website (at no charge) and Resource CD. It is also bundled with PC200W, PC400, and LoggerNet Software. The CR295 and our TX312 transmitter are used for stream stage (shown), water quality, and rainfall applications. 4 Enclosures Applications with minimal power requirements can use the ENC200 enclosure to house the datalogger and the #16869 sealed rechargeable battery. Th is 6.7” x 5.5” x 3.7” enclosure has one power connector, one antenna connector, and fi ve compression fi ttings. The ENC200 cannot house a barometer or a bat- tery that is larger than the #16869. However, an ENC10/12 or ENC12/14 enclosure is adequate for most CR200-, CR206-, CR211-, or CR216-based systems. An ENC16/18 enclosure can house a CR295-based system. Power Supply Sealed rechargeable battery options for the CR200, CR206, CR211, or CR216 include the #17365 7 Ahr battery and the #16869 0.8 Ahr battery. These bat- teries should be recharged either with a solar panel or ac wall charger. Campbell Scientific offers the SP5-L 5-Watt Solar Panel that attaches directly to the datalogger’s terminal strip, and the SP5 5-Watt Solar Panel that plugs into the ENC200’s power connector. AC wall charger options are the #15988 wall charger that attaches directly to the datalog- ger’s terminal strip, and the #16876 wall charger that plugs into the ENC200’s power connector. Typical power supply for a CR295-based system consists of a BP12 12 Ahr or BP24 24 Ahr battery pack, CH100 regulator, and SP10 10-Watt or SP20 20-Watt solar panel. Antennas and Antenna Accessories CR206 and CR211 Antennas 14204• —0 dBd, omnidirectional ½ wave whip, jointed, adjustable from 0° to 90°. Connects di- rectly to the datalogger; no antenna cable needed. 15970• —1 dBd, dipole supplied with window/ wall mount and a 10-foot RG-174 cable for con- necting to the datalogger. 14221• —3 dBd, omnidirectional with mounts; requires an antenna cable to connect to the datalogger. 14201• —9 dBd, Yagi with mounts; requires an antenna cable to connect to the datalogger. CR216 Antennas 16005• —0 dBd, ½ wave whip articulating. Connects directly to the datalogger; no antenna cable needed. 16755• —13 dBd, Yagi with mounts; requires an antenna cable to connect to the datalogger. Antenna Cables COAXRPSMA-L• —low-loss RG58 cable that is recommended for lengths less than 10 feet. COAXNTN-L• —low-loss RG8 cable that is recom- mended for lengths greater than 10 feet; requires a 14962 or 16982 surge protector kit. Antenna Surge Protector Kits 14462• —Surge Protector Kit for the CR211 or CR206; requires the COAXNTN-L cable. 16982• —Surge Protector Kit for CR216; requires the COAXNTN-L cable. The 14201 Yagi antenna is intended for longer transmission distances. The ENC200 can house one of the CR200-series dataloggers and one 16869 battery. It has connectors for the SP5 solar panel and an antenna for the CR206, CR211, or CR216. The SP5 and SP5-L capture solar energy via a 72-square inch surface area. These solar panels are suit- able for sites with good exposure to sunlight and systems with low power requirements. 5 Compatible Sensors** Th e CR200-series loggers can measure a variety of sen- sors including SDI-12 sensors and 4 to 20 mA sensors. Th e parameters and sensors in which the CR200-series dataloggers can measure are listed below: AC• Current—CS15 Current Transformer. Barometric• Pressure—CS100 and CS106 baro- metric pressure sensors. Evaporation• —255-100 Evaporation Gauge Leaf• Wetness—237 and LWS leaf wetness sensors. Multiparameter• —WXT520 Weather Transmitter. Precipitation• —TE525, TE525WS, TE525MM, TB4, TB4MM, CS700, and 385 tipping bucket rain gages. Relative• Humidity—CS215, HMP50, and HMP45C Air Temperature and Relative Humidity probes. Snow• Depth—SR50A Sonic Ranging Sensor. Soil• Volumetric Water Content—CS625 refl ectometer, EnviroSMART, and EasyAG. Our CS616 and CS620 sensors are not compatible. Solar• Radiation—CS300 Pyranometer. Our LI200X, LI190SB, LP02, CMP3, NR-LITE, NR01, CNR1, and CNR2 probes are not compatible. Temperature• —109 Temperature Probe and 109SS Temperature Probe for Harsh Environments. Other temperature probes listed on our price lists including our 107/108 thermistors and thermo- couples are not compatible. Water• Level—SR50A Sonic Ranging Sensor, CS410 Shaft Encoder, CS408 pressure transducer, and CS460 pressure transducer (requires 4-20 mA output option). Our DB1 Double Bubbler and CS431 pressure transducer are not compatible. Water• Quality—109 Temperature Probe, 109SS Temperature Probe for Harsh Environments, CS511 Dissolved Oxygen Probe, OBS-3+ Turbidity Probe, and SDI-12 water quality probes. Our CS547A, CSIM11, and CSIM11-ORP probes are not compatible. Wind• Speed and Direction—014A, 034B, 03101, 03002, 05103, 05106, 05305, and WindSonic4 sensors. The WindSonic1 and CSAT3 are not compatible. Sensors Developed for CR200-series Dataloggers **Th e CR200-series dataloggers cannot make diff erential measurements and are not compatible with the geographic position, fuel moisture/ temperature, surface temperature, strain soil matric water potential, and soil heat fl ux sensors listed on our price lists. Campbell Scientifi c’s SDM devices and multiplexers are also not supported. CS62 5 CS6 2 5 The CS15 consists of a CR Magnetic’s CR8459 Current Transformer that was modifi ed to measure the approximate current over a 0 to 125 A range. The CS625 Water Content Refl ectometer has a 0 to 3.3 V square wave frequency output. The 109 thermistor can measure air, water, or soil temperature from -50° to +70°C. This probe outputs a signal of 0 to 2.2 volts. 6 CR206/RF401-based Wireless Sensor Networks Computer Running LoggerNet 2.1 or higher Office Base Datalogger Wireless Interface Supported “Telemetry Links” include SC32B, RF401, COM220, SRM-5A, NL100, and some phone-to-RF combina- tions. Consult the factory for more details. RF401 CR206 CR800, CR850, CR1000, or CR3000 Computer Running LoggerNet 2.1 or higher Office Wireless Interface RF401 CR206In a simple network, the measurements are transmitted directly to the computer. Wireless Sensor Networks Th e CR206, CR211, and CR216 can be used in a wire- less sensor network. Wireless sensor networks are ap- pealing because they are oft en more economical than trenching, laying conduit, and pulling wire. In some applications, cabled sensors are impractical due to man-made or natural causes, including construction, lightning, moving platforms, agricultural production, or bodies of water. Th e diagrams at the top of the page depict our CR206/ RF401-based wireless sensor networks. Our CR211/ RF411-based and CR216/RF416-based networks are similar. All wireless sensor networks require Logger- Net 2.1 or higher soft ware. Th e base datalogger must use the PakBus communication protocol (e.g., CR800, CR850, CR1000, CR3000). Th e PakBus protocol was optional for our retired CR510, CR10X, and CR23X dataloggers; the PakBus operating system is available, at no charge, from www.campbellsci.com/downloads for these dataloggers. Other Applications Aquaculture• —monitors and records water qual- ity around the clock providing continuous data that can be used to identify trends and improve production. Rural• Water —provides continuous monitoring of the water system regardless of time of day or time of year. All monitored sites can be net- worked into one integrated system. Water Level/Flow• —measures level in many environments including wells, dams, streams, weirs, and water treatment or wastewater treat- ment plants. Compatible with shaft encoder, pressure transducers, and sonic ranging sensor. Water• Quality—monitors and records water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity. Wind• Energy—can be deployed in a wireless network confi guration to provide cost eff ective monitoring at each level of a wind assessment tower while avoiding long cables. Applications Telemetry Link 7 CR200-series Datalogger Specifi cations Electrical specifi cations are valid over a -40° to +50°C range unless otherwise specifi ed; non-condensing environment required. We recommend that you confi rm system confi guration and critical specifi cations with Campbell Scientifi c before purchase. ANALOG INPUTS; DIGITAL I/O Channels SE1 to SE5 can be individually configured for single-ended measurement or digital I/O. SINGLE-ENDED MEASUREMENT (SE1 TO SE5): Analog Input Range: 0 ≤ V < 2.5 Vdc Measurement Resolution: 0.6 mV Measurement Accuracy Typical: ±(0.25% of reading + 1.2 mV offset) over -40° to +50°C Worst-case: ±(1% of reading + 2.4 mV offset) over -40° to 50°C DIGITAL I/O (SE1 TO SE5): Input/Output High State: 2.1 to 3.3 Vdc Input/Output Low State: <0.9 Vdc Output High State: 3.3 V (no load) Drive Current: 220 µA @ 2.7 Vdc Maximum Input Voltage: 4 Vdc HALF BRIDGE MEASUREMENTS: Accuracy: Relative to the excitation. Using +2.5 Vdc excitation, is ±(0.06% of reading + 2.4 mV)/(2.5 Vdc) PERIOD AVERAGING (SE1 TO SE4): Maximum Input Voltage: 4 Vdc Frequency Range: 0 to 150 kHz Voltage Threshold: counts cycles on transition from <0.9 Vdc to >2.1 Vdc EXCITATION CHANNELS (EX1 AND EX2): Range: Programmable 0, 2.5, 5 Vdc, or off (floating) Accuracy: ±25 mV on +2.5 Vdc range, ±125 mV on +5.0 Vdc range Maximum Current: 25 mA on +2.5 Vdc range, 10 mA on +5.0 Vdc range CONTROL PORTS (C1 AND C2) DIGITAL I/O: Voltage Level When Configured as Input: <0.9 Vdc (low state) to >2.7 Vdc (high state) Voltage Level When Configured as Output: 0 V (low state), 5 Vdc (high state) (no load) Logic Level: TTL Drive Current: 1.5 mA @ 4.5 V SDI-12: SDI-12 sensors connect to C1 PULSE COUNTERS SWITCH CLOSURE (P_SW): Maximum Count Rate: 100 Hz Minimum Switch Open Time: 5 ms Minimum Switch Closed Time: 5 ms Maximum Bounce Time: 4 ms PULSE COUNT (P_SW, C1, AND C2): Voltage Threshold: count on transition from <0.9 V to >2.7 Vdc Minimum Pulse Width: 320 µs Maximum Input Frequency: 1 kHz Max Input Voltage: C1 & C2 (6.5 V), P_SW (4 Vdc) LOW LEVEL AC (P_LL): Voltage Threshold: <0.5 to >2 V Minimum Input: 20 mV RMS Maximum Frequency: 1 kHz Maximum Input: ±20 V Note: C1 and C2 can be used for switch closure using the battery voltage and a 100 kOhm pull-up resistor. If the dc offset is >0.5 V, then AC coupling is required. COMMUNICATIONS SERIAL INTERFACE: Female RS-232 9-pin interface for logger-to-PC communications ON-BOARD SPREAD SPECTRUM RADIO: Frequency: 915 MHz (CR206), 922 MHz (CR211), or 2.4 GHz (CR216) Transmission Range: 1 mile with 0 dBd ¼ wave antenna (line-of-sight) and 900 MHz radios; 0.6 miles (1 km) with 0 dBd ½ wave antenna (line-of-sight) and 2.4 GHz radio; up to 10 miles with higher gain antenna (line-of-sight) RF4XX used as a base station radio AVAILABLE RADIO TRANSMISSION MODES: Always on, program controlled Cycle Time: 1 or 8 s cycles; on for 100 ms every period; checks for incoming communication Scheduled Transmission Time: off until transmis- sion time PAKBUS® packet switching network protocol CLOCK ACCURACY 8.2 minutes/month @ -40° to +50°C; 1 minute/month @ +25°C CPU AND STORAGE FINAL STORAGE: 512 kbyte Flash, data format is 4 bytes per data point (table-based) PROGRAM STORAGE: 6.5 kbyte Flash FASTEST SCAN RATE: once per second SWITCHED BATTERY (SW BATTERY) Switched under program control; 300 mA minimum current available POWER BATTERY VOLTAGE RANGE: 7 to 16 Vdc (can program datalogger to measure internal battery voltage) MAX. CONTINUOUS BATTERY CHARGING CURRENT: 0.9 A @ 20°C; 0.65 A @ 50°C RECOMMENDED BATTERIES: 12 Vdc, 7 Ahr or smaller sealed rechargeable battery when connected to the on-board charging circuit. Using larger batteries with the datalogger's built-in charger may result in excessive PC board heating. This is especially a concern when the battery is deeply discharged or failing with a shorted cell. Alkaline cells, lithium, or other non-rechargeable battery types may be connected if the charging circuit is not used (i.e., nothing connected to Charge terminals). CHARGER INPUT VOLTAGE: 16 to 22 Vdc SOLAR PANEL: 10 W or smaller when using on-board charging circuit. WALL CHARGER: 1 A or smaller when using on- board charging circuit. SHELF LIFE OF CLOCK’S BACKUP BATTERY: 5 years CURRENT DRAIN (@12 V) QUIESCENT CURRENT DRAIN: No Radio or Radio Powered Off: ~0.2 mA ACTIVE CURRENT DRAIN: No radio ~3 mA Radio receive ~20 mA (CR206, CR211), ~36 mA (CR216) Radio transmit ~75 mA (CR206, CR211, CR216) AVERAGE CONTINUOUS CURRENT DRAIN: Radio always on ~20 mA (CR206, CR211), ~36 mA (CR216) Radio in 1 s duty cycle ~2.2 mA (CR206, CR211), ~4 mA (CR216) Radio in 8 s duty cycle ~0.45 mA (CR206, CR211), ~0.8 mA (CR216) CE COMPLIANCE (as of 03/02) CE COMPLIANT DATALOGGERS: CR200, CR206, CR211, CR216 STANDARD(S) TO WHICH CONFORMITY IS DECLARED: IEC61326:2002 EMI AND ESD PROTECTION IMMUNITY: Meets or exceeds following standards: ESD: per IEC 1000-4-2; ±8 kV air, ±4 kV contact discharge RF: per IEC 1000-4-3; 3 V/m, 80-1000 MHz EFT: per IEC 1000-4-4; 1 kV power, 500 V I/O Surge: per IEC 1000-4-5; 1 kV power and I/O Conducted: per IEC 1000-4-6; 3 V 150 kHz-80 MHz Emissions and immunity performance criteria avail- able on request. PHYSICAL CASE DESCRIPTION: Aluminum with spring-loaded terminals DIMENSIONS (including terminals): 5.5” x 3” x 2” (14.0 x 17.6 x 5.1 cm) WEIGHT: CR200 or CR295: 8.5 oz (242 g) CR206, CR211, or CR216: 9.5 oz (271 g) CUSTOM CASE: available for OEM applications; contact Campbell Scientific WARRANTY One year covering parts and labor. 815 W. 1800 N. | Logan, Utah | 84321-1784 | USA | (435) 753-2342 | www.campbellsci.com Australia | Brazil | Canada | England | France | Germany | South Africa | Spain | USA [headquarters] ® Copyright © 2001, 2009 Campbell Scientifi c, Inc. Printed January 2009 WL-16 Water Level Logger Pressure transducer and USB datalogger combination Description The WL16, Water Level Logger, is a datalogger and submersible pressure transducer combination designed for remote monitoring and recording of water level or pressure data. The water level logger can record over 81,000 readings and has four unique recording options, fast (10 samples per second), programmable interval (1 second to multiple years), logarithmic, and exception. Multiple depth ranges are available from 3’ to 500’ of water level change. A 25' vented cable is standard, and optional cable lengths are available from the factory up to 500'. The WL16, Water Level Logger, is housed in a weather-resistant cylindrical enclosure, which slips inside a standard 2-inch PVC pipe. The WL16 is easily adapted with standard hardware for wellhead mounting, stream, or other installations. Two internal 9 VDC alkaline batteries will typically power the WL16 for approximately one year even if one of the batteries fails. A third onboard battery ensures your data in the event both 9V batteries fail. The WL16 includes software for Windows computers and CE/Mobile based PDAs, allowing easy data transfer to a laptop, desktop or PDA. • Easy to operate and install • Four sample modes: 10 times per second, interval, logarithmic, and exception • PDA software simplifies field data collection • USB and Serial communication options available • Serial version is telemetry compatible • No need to remove sensor for data collection or battery change • Highly accurate water level measurements • User programmable start and stop alarms, engineering units, and field calibration setup • Unique 0-3’ range for shallow water • Wet-wet transducer eliminates vent tube concerns • Automatic barometric pressure and temperature compensation Applications Groundwater Monitoring, River/Stream Flow Studies, Lake/Pond Level Analysis, Flood Level Recording, Irrigation Canals, Infiltration/Inflow Studies, Wetland/Estuary Monitoring, Weirs and Flumes, Wave and Tidal Analysis, and MUCH MORE... The WL16, Water Level Logger's vented submersible pressure transducer is fully encapsulated with marine- grade epoxy. The electronics are encapsulated so that moisture can never leak in through O-ring seals or work its way into the vent tube and cause drift or sensor failure, as is the case with many other vented sensors. The vent tube is sealed directly to the wet-wet sensing element, and any moisture that may enter the vent tube from the housing will only contact the ceramic parts, not the electronics. Most federal agencies, universities, and environmental consultants recommend vented water level sensors for the best monitoring results. The vented submersible pressure transducer uses a unique silicon diaphragm to interface between your water and the sensing element. The diaphragm is highly flexible and touches the sensing element, producing a sensor with exceptional linearity and very low hysteresis. A stainless steel micro-screen cap protects the pressure transducer diaphragm. The micro-screen cap has hundreds of openings, making fouling the sensor with silt, mud or sludge virtually impossible. WL-16 Water Level Logger Global Water - Visit our complete web catalog at: www.globalw.com Specifications Pressure Transducer Sensor Element: Silicone Diaphragm, Wet/Wet Transducer Ranges: 0-3', 15', 30', 60', 120', 250', 500’ Overpressure: Not to exceed 2 x full scale range Accuracy: 0.1% of full scale at constant temperature, 0.2% over 35°F to 70°F range Compensation: Uses dynamic temperature compensation 30-70 F. Automatic barometric pressure compensation Housing: up to 7” long x 13/16" diameter (small enough for a 1" well) Materials: Stainless steel housing and microscreen (hundreds of holes prevent fouling), electronics are fully encapsulated in marine grade epoxy, guaranteed not to leak Vented Cable Conductors: 4 each 22 AWG Material: Marine grade polyurethane jacket, polyethylene vent tube, full foil shield Shield: Aluminum Mylar Outside Diameter: 3/16" Temperature Range: -22° to +185°F Length: Standard 25' (up to 500' from factory) WL16 Data Logger Memory: Non-volatile flash memory Power: Two 9VDC alkaline Batteries (Lithium recommended for cold environments) Battery Life: Up to 1 year (depending on recording intervals) Resolution: 12 bit Moisture Protection: Silicon coating (prevents damage to electronics from condensation) Temperature: -40° to +185°F Humidity: 0-95% non-condensing Storage Capacity: 81,759 time and date stamped data points including battery voltage Sample Modes: High Speed (10 samples per second), Fixed Interval (Programmable from 1 sec to >1 year), Logarithmic, Exception Data Overwrite: Select memory wrap or unwrap (unwrap will stop logging data once memory is full) Clock: Synchronizes to the time and date of user's computer Clock Accuracy: 0.0025% or 1 minute in 1 month Clock Format: Month/Day/Year Hour/Minute/Second Enclosure: 1 7/8" diameter x 11.5" length (fits inside a 2" well), stainless steel UV protected PVC vented for barometric pressure compensation Weight: 1.6 lbs (with battery and 25' cable) Communication Port: WL16S: RS-232 4-pin circular connector WL16U: USB Type B Selectable Baud Rates: 9600,19200,28800,38400,57600,115200 Global Water Software Compatible with Microsoft's Windows 98, ME, 2000, NT, and XP Windows and Excel are trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation. Tabular Display/Printout Data in standard spreadsheet format (.CSV) Programmable alarm start and stop times Field calibration software included Options and Accessories WL16 Water Level Logger Logger sits inside 2" well with enclosure rim on well casing top. Well cap completely hides logger. Includes software for Windows computers and CE/Mobile based PDAs. Water Level Range Options: 0-3', 15', 30', 60', 120', 250', and 500’. Includes 25' cable (Specify range and total cable length upon order placement) WLEXC Extra Cable Cable length is measured from top of logger to bottom of sensor. After 25', up to 500' (Specify total cable length upon order placement) Temperature Output Option 0-50° C, Accuracy: 1% of reading, over 19,000 time and date stamped readings with this option. Titanium Option Replace the standard stainless steel water level sensor housing with titanium Locking Well Cap Fits over a 2-inch pipe. INO Inside Well Option Entire logger fits inside the well. Provided with cable and hook to secure it to the well top. PRP Pressure Pipe Option Sensor is housed in a 6" tube with 3/4" NPT male thread for logging pressure in municipal water systems. 10' cable standard. Calibrated in psi with ranges of 30 psi, 60 psi, 100 psi available..... PVC or Stainless Steel SWO Sewer Flow Option Cover protects sensor from fouling and velocity effects in sewer, stormwater and irrigation pipe flows. Cover is attached to 6" X 24”' stainless steel strap for mounting sensor on pipe bottom CALL 1-800-446-7488 • 1-970-498-1500 • EXPERIENCE THE LEVEL TROLL AT WWW.IN-SITU.COM IN-SITU RELIABILITY AT OUR LOWEST PRICE! RUGGED AND DURABLE WITH FLEXIBLE COMMUNICATIONS! TOTAL CONFIDENCE IN ALL APPLICATIONS, EVEN MARINE ENVIRONMENTS! THE PROFESSIONAL’S CHOICE FOR HIGH-ACCURACY WATER LEVEL MONITORING! From the Level Experts: In-Situ ® Inc. From the Level Experts: In-Situ ® Inc. Level TROLL®Level TROLL® Level TROLL® Applications Long-Term Monitoring & Resource Management Long-Term Ground Water Monitoring – Develop historical data on ground water aquifers to determine water influences and usages for residential planning, water rate billing, contamination plume direction, ground water/surface water interaction, seasonal water demand, and other related issues. One or more monitoring wells are equipped with vented water level instruments. Each well will typically be measured for base-line water levels and temperature. The most common log type used is linear, typically at 15-minute intervals or longer. Lake and Reservoir Monitoring – Track water levels over extended periods of time to determine yearly demand and supply. Water level instrumentation is normally placed in a slotted PVC pipe or stilling well and vented to atmosphere. The most common log types used are linear and event. Flood and Storm Surge Monitoring – Gather data on flood events and their environmental impact. Instruments are placed in a stream, floodplain or area of interest and secured to prevent loss in a flood event. Absolute or non-vented instrumentation is often used due to concerns of flooding. Absolute pressure sensor data must be post corrected for barometric changes for accurate level data. The most common log types used are linear and event. Storm Water Monitoring – Collect data on amount and rate of storm water runoff to assess recharge rate into ground water aquifers and to monitor the impact of ground water/surface water interaction. Vented or gauged instruments are mounted in outfall basins, storm sewers or ground water wells near recharge area. The most common log types used are linear and event. Estuary Level and Tide Monitoring – Gather and report tidal changes and water level elevations in coastal areas. Instruments are mounted on fixed structures in PVC pipe or stilling wells and vented to atmosphere. The most common log type used is linear average. For maximum accuracy, tide gauge systems should compensate for water density. Wetlands Monitoring – Monitor long-term health and viability of coastal or inland marshes and wetlands. Vented or non-vented instruments are placed in a slotted and screened PVC pipe. Absolute pressure sensor data must be post corrected for barometric changes for accurate level data. The most common log types used are linear and event. River and Stream Gauging – Determine and track water level over extended periods of time and track impact of discharge, rainfall and runoff. The level instrumentation is usually placed in a slotted PVC pipe or stilling well with a vented cable. The most common log types used are linear and event. River Crest Stage Gauging – Determine and track high water levels or flood crest of streams and rivers. Absolute instrumentation is secured to a fixed structure, such as a bridge piling. Absolute pressure sensor data must be post corrected for barometric changes for accurate level data. The most common log types used are linear and event. CALL 1-800-446-7488 • 1-970-498 -1500 • EXPERIENCE THE LEVEL TROLL AT WWW.IN-SITU.COM Aquifer Characterization (Slug and Pumping Tests) Slug Test – Estimate hydraulic conductivity (K) in minutes as opposed to hours for a pump test. This method requires the depression or elevation of static water in a well, and the measurement of time it takes to equilibrate. This is done by inserting a slug into the well causing the water level to rise or by removing a slug causing the water level to fall. Time is measured until the level returns to its original static position. The most common log types used are logarithmic or fast linear. Pumping Test (step) – A well is pumped at different rates for short periods of time, and the aquifers response or drawdown is measured in a monitoring well to determine well efficiency and final pump rate for a constant rate pump test. The most common log types used are logarithmic in the pumping well and fast linear in the monitoring well. Pumping Test (constant rate) – Also known as a yield test, a constant rate pump test is typically performed after a step test. Pump tests deliver a more accurate hydraulic conductivity value (K) compared to slug tests. The pumping well is pumped at a constant rate for 24+ hours, and level data is collected in monitoring wells to determine the storage coefficient (S), radius of influence and other hydrologic parameters. The most common log types used are logarithmic or step linear. Ground water monitoring in a coastal zone using Level TROLL® 700 and RuggedReader® Stream gauging using Level TROLL® 500 and RuggedReader® For Detailed Application Notes visit the downloads section at www.in-situ.com Specialty Applications Dewatering – Monitor the removal of water when pumping a riverbed, construction site, mine, quarry or water well. Vented or non-vented instruments are placed in the appropriate areas to monitor the water level. The most common log type used is linear. Dual-Phase Extraction – Monitor ground water levels in a sealed well during remediation of contaminated soil. The most common log type used is linear. Landfill Monitoring – Determine the highest measured ground water level and rainfall/recharge relationships. Landfill design engineers and regulatory agencies use this data to determine landfill expansion feasibility and design requirements. The most common log types used are linear and event. Municipal and Process Monitoring – Monitor water levels in an established water system by attaching the logging instrument directly to a SCADA or PLC system. The most common log type used is linear. Level TROLL instruments (300, 500, 700) feature Modbus (RS485), SDI-12 and 4-20mA outputs and can be connected directly to a telemetry, SCADA or PLC system without any special adaptors. Level TROLL® Applications Recommended System by Application Application Level TROLL® 100 (Acetal alloy) Level TROLL® 300 (316 SS) Level TROLL® 500 (Titanium) Level TROLL® 700 (Titanium) Recommended cable type Aquifer characterization O X Vented Economical, long-term monitoring in fresh water O X Suspension wire High-accuracy, long-term monitoring in brackish, saltwater or fresh water X O Vented Lake and reservoir monitoring O X O Vented or non-vented Storm water monitoring X O Vented Tide/harbor fluctuations monitoring O X Vented Wetlands/estuaries monitoring O X O Vented or non-vented River and stream gauging O X O Vented or non-vented Crest stage gauging O X O O Non-vented or suspension wire Flood and storm surge monitoring O X O O Non-vented or suspension wire Dewatering O X O Vented or non-vented Landfill monitoring O X O O Non-vented Municipal and process monitoring (SCADA integration)O X O Vented or non-vented Real-time monitoring via telemetry O X O Vented or non-vented X = Recommended by In-Situ Inc. O = Can also be used CALL 1-800-446-7488 • 1-970-498 -1500 • EXPERIENCE THE LEVEL TROLL AT WWW.IN-SITU.COM Monitoring recharge rate in an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project using Level TROLL 700 For Detailed Technical Notes visit the downloads section at www.in-situ.com Gauged sensors eliminate the effect of varying atmospheric pressure on the measurement and the need for post-logging data compensation. Gauged systems are the most accurate. Absolute sensors will work for all applications, provided that a barometric record is kept and data is post corrected. All In-Situ® Level TROLL instruments are calibrated over the full pressure and temperature range of the instrument. Many other loggers on the market are calibrated at only 1 or 2 points. Level TROLL® Measurement Types Absolute (Non-Vented) vs. Gauged (Vented) Definition and Background Absolute (non-vented) sensors respond to atmospheric pressure and pressure head of water above the sensor. Its measurements are read in psia (pounds per square inch absolute) relative to zero pressure. PSIA sensors must be compensated for atmospheric pressure using a Baro TROLL®. Gauged (vented) sensors allows atmospheric pressure to be applied to the back of the pressure sensor, canceling out the effect of external atmospheric pressure fluctuations. Measurements are in psig (pounds per square inch gauged) relative to atmospheric pressure. PSIG sensors must be deployed on vented cable with desiccant. Accuracy Considerations: Total Cumulative Error CALL 1-800-446-7488 • 1-970-498 -1500 • EXPERIENCE THE LEVEL TROLL AT WWW.IN-SITU.COM Logging Types Linear – Measurements are logged at a fixed interval of 1 minute or more; commonly used in long-term monitoring applications. (Log with any Level TROLL instrument.) Linear Average – Each logged measurement is the average of several fast measurement; used for applications such as tide gauging. (Level TROLL 700 only.) Step Linear – Measurements are sampled and recorded on a user-defined schedule which may include multiple steps, each with a unique linear measurement interval and duration; most commonly used in pumping yield tests for high-capacity wells where the pumping rate remains constant. (Level TROLL 700 only.) Event – One parameter is checked for an event, and data is logged at a user-defined baseline rate in non-event conditions and at an increased user-defined rate when the event is occurring; used to catch events that are not predictable without logging unnecessary data, such as storm events. (Log with any Level TROLL instrument.) True Logarithmic – Measurements are logged on a logarithmically decaying schedule and gradually get further apart until they become linear; most commonly used in rapid drawdown pump, purging and slug tests. (Level TROLL 700 only.) Fast Linear – Measurements are logged at a fixed interval of 1 minute or less. The linear sample interval is very fast and the duration of the log is short. Alternatively used in rapid drawdown pump, purging and slug tests. (Log with any Level TROLL instrument.) Accuracy Comparisons of Absolute vs. Gauged Sensors Full Temperature Measuring Range Level Sensor +/- 0.1% FS +/- 0.42", 10.5 mm {{ {Baro Sensor +/- 0.2% FS +/-0.91", 23.2 mm Level Sensor +/- 0.1% FS +/-0.83", 21.1 mm Total Maximum Error +/- 1.74", 44.3 mm Total Maximum Error +/- 0.42", 10.5 mm Gauged/Vented System 15 psig (0-35 ft, 10.5 m) Absolute/Non-Vented System 30 psia (0-35 ft, 10.5 m) Win-Situ ® 5 and Win-Situ ® Mobile Software CALL 1-800-446-7488 • 1-970-498-1500 • EXPERIENCE THE LEVEL TROLL AT WWW.IN-SITU.COM Industry-leading Win-Situ software from In-Situ® is the communication platform used to set up, control and manage data from Level TROLL® instruments. The software has been designed to be powerful and easy-to-use. Win-Situ 5 software is included with the purchase of Level TROLL 300, 500 and 700 instruments. It’s also included with the purchase of the Level TROLL® 100 Docking Station. Win-Situ Mobile software is included with the purchase of an In-Situ RuggedReader® handheld PC. Win-Situ Mobile Software Features • The full power of Win-Situ 5 in a mobile format • Set up logs and download data • View real-time data numerically or graphically • Operates on the powerful RuggedReader handheld PC, even in the toughest field conditions Win-Situ 5 Software Features • Site data management • Wizards to guide equipment setup • Real-time indicators of instrument battery, memory and alarms • Graphical interface • Simple data export to Excel® and other analysis programs * Win-Situ 5 requires: Microsoft® Windows® 2000 Professional SP4 or higher; Windows® XP Professional SP1 or higher; or Windows Vista®; and Internet Explorer® 6.01 or higher Win-Situ BaroMergeTM – Simplifies post correction of data from absolute instruments using data from a Baro TROLL® or user-defined barometric readings. Win-Situ Software Manager – Keeps your software and instrument firmware up-to-date by automatically checking for the latest versions on the In-Situ web site – eliminating the need to manually keep track of and download software and firmware updates. Free updates available at www.in-situ.com Win-Situ Sync – Moves data and site files automatically between Win-Situ PC software and the RuggedReader handheld PC. This allows the rapid transfer of site and well information to field teams during monitoring projects. Software Utilities In addition to depth and pressure, water level measurements can be expressed in several ways. In-Situ offers multiple choices when setting a water level reference. 1. Depth to Water – Records the distance from the top of a well casing or other reference point down to the water surface. Logged readings increase as the water level decreases (i.e., as the water surface gets farther away from the reference point). This reference point measurement is commonly used to monitor drawdown in ground water wells. 2. Elevation – Relates the sensor measurements to mean sea level (MSL) or any other datum you choose. Logged readings increase as the water level increases. Elevation references are commonly used in surface water monitoring. 3. Gauge Height – Reports water level readings relative to a staff gauge. Useful for river and stream gauging. Setting Up a Water Level Reference Level TROLL® Instruments Level, Pressure, Temperature and Data Logging CALL 1-800-446-7488 • 1-970-498 -1500 • EXPERIENCE THE LEVEL TROLL AT WWW.IN-SITU.COM Level TROLL Advantages GUARANTEED BATTERY LIFE Only industry guarantee for battery life – 5 years or 2 million readings or free instrument replacement! SUPERIOR ACCURACY AND PERFORMANCE In-Situ® uses the newest sensor technologies. All instruments undergo an extensive full-scale calibration procedure for both pressure and temperature. A serialized calibration report comes with each instrument. RUGGED AND RELIABLE All Level TROLL sensors are designed for use in many applications. Deploy acetal alloy (100), 316 stainless steel (300) and titanium (500, 700) sensors into all types of environmental waters. For superior corrosion-resistance in brackish or saltwater, choose acetal alloy or titanium. FLEXIBLE COMMUNICATIONS The Level TROLL 300, 500 and 700 instruments feature Modbus (RS485), SDI-12 and 4-20mA outputs. Connect each of these units to a SCADA or PLC system without any special adaptors. FREE 24/7 TECHNICAL SUPPORT — ALWAYS! In-Situ’s friendly Technical Support experts are always available to help! They will assist you with instrument setup, calibration, trouble- shooting and application-related questions. Fast, friendly and always free of charge, technical answers are a phone call away! IN-SITU RELIABILITY AT OUR LOWEST PRICE! Non-vented (absolute) instrument Simple data download via docking station Linear, fast linear and event testing 1.03” diameter acetal alloy body – Corrosion-resistant RUGGED AND DURABLE WITH FLEXIBLE COMMUNICATIONS Non-vented (absolute) instrument Download data while deployed via direct read cable Linear, fast linear and event testing Standard outputs – Modbus (RS485), SDI-12 and 4-20mA 0.82” diameter stainless steel body TOTAL CONFIDENCE IN ALL APPLICATIONS, EVEN MARINE ENVIRONMENTS! Vented (gauged) or non-vented (absolute) instrument Accuracy +/- 0.05% at 15◦C Linear, fast linear and event testing Telemetry/SCADA ready – Modbus (RS485), SDI-12 and 4-20mA 0.72” diameter titanium body – Ideal for harsh environments THE PROFESSIONAL’S CHOICE FOR HIGH-ACCURACY WATER LEVEL MONITORING! Vented (gauged) or non-vented (absolute) instrument Accuracy +/- 0.05% at 15◦C Telemetry/SCADA ready – Modbus (RS485), SDI-12 and 4-20mA Professional logging types – Linear average, step linear and true logarithmic testing Logs as quickly as 4x/second 0.72” diameter titanium body – Easily fits down a 1” well Baro TROLL® Baro TROLL® 100 AUTO-COMPENSATION FOR BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES Recommended for barometric correction of non-vented instruments BaroMergeTM software automatically post corrects data from In-Situ Level TROLLs CALL 1-800-446-7488 • 1-970-498-1500 • EXPERIENCE THE LEVEL TROLL AT WWW.IN-SITU.COM VERSIONS 100 300 500 700 Operational Temp. Range Storage Temperature Diameter, OD Length Weight Output Options Housing Material Nose Cone Material Internal Battery Battery Life Cable Connect External Power Memory Data Records** Fastest Logging Rate Fastest Output Rate Modbus SDI-12 4-20 mA Update Rate Measurement Types Pressure Sensor Sensor Material Sensor Accuracy Full Scale Sensor Resolution Sensor Ranges Available Burst Pressure Units of Measure – Pressure Units of Measure – Level Calibrated Temperature Temperature Accuracy Temperature Resolution Units of Measure -20°C to 50°C -40°C to 80°C 1.03” (26.2mm) 5.5” (14.0cm) 6.0oz (170g) USB or RS232 via docking station Acetal Alloy Acetal Alloy 3.6V lithium 5 yrs or 2M readings* Wire Only No 0.5MB 32,000 1 per sec N/A N/A N/A Linear, Fast Linear, Event Silicon strain gauge Ceramic Typical +/-0.1% FS Maximum +/-0.3% FS +/- 0.01 or better Non-Vented*** 0-30ft (0-9.0m) 0-100ft (0-30m) 0-250ft (0-76m) 0-30ft: 60ft (18m) 0-100ft: 134ft (40.8m) 0-250ft: 368ft (112m) Psi, kPa, bar, mbar, mmHg, inHg, cmH2O, and inH2O m, mm, cm, in, ft 0°C to 50°C +/- 0.3°C 0.1°C Fahrenheit, Celsius -20°C to 80°C -40°C to 80°C 0.82” (20.82mm) 9.0” (22.9cm) 0.54lb (0.24kg) Modbus (RS485) SDI-12, 4-20mA Stainless Steel Black Delrin® 3.6V lithium 5 yrs or 2M readings* Direct Read or Wire 8-36VDC 1MB 50,000 1 per sec 2 per sec 2 per sec 2 per sec Linear, Fast Linear, Event Silicon strain gauge Stainless steel +/-0.1% @ 15°C +/- 0.1% over calibrated temperature range +/- 0.01% or better Non-Vented*** (30 psia) 0-35ft (10.5m) (100 psia) 0-200ft (60m) (300 psia) 0-650ft (200m) Maximum 2X range Burst 3X range Psi, kPa, bar, mbar, mmHg, inHg, cmH2O, and inH2O m, mm, cm, in, ft 0°C to 50°C +/- 0.3°C 0.1°C Fahrenheit, Celsius -20°C to 80°C -40°C to 80°C 0.72” (18.3mm) 8.5” (21.6cm) 0.43lbs (0.197kg) Modbus (RS485) SDI-12, 4-20mA Titanium Black Delrin® 3.6V lithium 5 yrs or 2M readings* Direct Read or Wire 8-36VDC 2MB 100,000 2 per sec 2 per sec 2 per sec 2 per sec Linear, Fast Linear, Event Silicon strain gauge Titanium +/-0.05% @ 15°C +/- 0.1% over calibrated temperature range +/- 0.005% or better Non-Vented*** (30 psia) 0-35ft (10.5m) (100 psia) 0-200ft (60m) (300 psia) 0-650ft (200m) (500 psia) 0-1100ft (340m Vented (5 psig) 0-11.5ft (3.5m) (15 psig) 0-35ft (11m) (30 psig) 0-70ft (21m) (100 psig) 0-230ft (70m) (300 psig) 0-700ft (210m) (500 psig) 0-1150ft (350m) Maximum 2X range Burst 3X range Psi, kPa, bar, mbar, mmHg, inHg, cmH2O, and inH2O m, mm, cm, in, ft -5°C to 50°C +/- 0.1°C 0.01° Fahrenheit, Celsius -20°C to 80°C -40°C to 80°C 0.72” (18.3mm) 8.5” (21.6cm) 0.43lbs (0.197kg) Modbus (RS485) SDI-12, 4-20mA Titanium Black Delrin® 3.6V lithium 5 yrs or 2M readings* Direct Read or Wire 8-36VDC 4MB 350,000 4 per sec 2 per sec 2 per sec 2 per sec Linear, Fast Linear, Linear Average, Step Linear, Event, and True Logarithmic Silicon strain gauge Titanium +/- 0.05% @ 15°C +/- 0.1% over calibrated temperature range +/- 0.005% or better Non-Vented*** (30 psia) 0-35ft (10.5m) (100 psia) 0-200ft (60m) (300 psia) 0-650ft (200m) (500 psia) 0-1100ft (340m) Vented (5 psig) 0-11.5ft (3.5m) (15 psig) 0-35ft (11m) (30 psig) 0-70ft (21m) (100 psig) 0-230ft (70m) (300 psig) 0-700ft (210m) (500 psig) 0-1150ft (350m) Maximum 2X range Burst 3X range Psi, kPa, bar, mbar, mmHg, inHg, cmH2O, and inH2O m, mm, cm, in, ft -5°C to 50°C +/- 0.1°C 0.01° Fahrenheit, Celsius SPECIFICATIONS * 1 reading = time and date plus all available parameters polled or logged from device ** Data records = one reading with time stamp *** Recommended for Baro TROLL® and Baro TROLL® 100 for post correcting non-vented instruments This information is subject to change without notice. Copyright © 2008 In-Situ Inc. All rights reserved. In-Situ, TROLL and Win-Situ are trademarks or registered trademarks of In-Situ Inc. Delrin and Teflon are registered trademarks of EI Dupont. Windows, Excel, and Internet Explorer are registered trademarks of Microsoft. Pentium is a registered trademark of Intel. NIST is a registered trademark of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. January 2008 1-970 -498 -1500 1-800 -446 -7488 WWW.IN-SITU.COM (international and domestic calls)(toll-free in US and Canada) 221 East Lincoln Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA Telephone: 970-498-1500 Fax: 970-498-1598 CALL FOR INFO OR TO PURCHASE THE LEVEL TROLL TODAY The Standard for Water Quality & Level Warranty ACCESSORIES The Level TROLL® comes with a one-year warranty. Extended warranties available: call or visit www.in-situ.com for information on our Assurance Plus service and warranty program. RuggedReader ® This ultra-rugged handheld PC ensures field-readiness with its waterproof, shockproof design. Collect, store, analyze and transfer data using the latest Microsoft® Windows® Mobile operating system and powerful Win-Situ® Mobile and Pocket-Situ 4 software. TROLL® Com TROLL Com offers either cable or direct connect options via USB or RS232. Establishes communication between the TROLL 300, 500 or 700 and a laptop, desktop or RuggedReader handheld PC. Access the Level TROLL® 100 using a docking station with either USB or RS232 connection. Level TAPE Choose from the economical Level TAPE 100 or the rugged Level TAPE 200 for accurate distance to water measurements in wells, bore holes and surface water applications. Scaled in feet or meters, with multiple lengths available. Telemetry Flexible and economical TROLL® Link Telemetry Systems offer reliable data retrieval from remote locations. TROLL Link Telemetry Systems provide: • Satellite or cellular options that guarantee communication from nearly any location. • Faster data access at a lower total cost than other data retrieval methods. • Full compatibility with Level TROLL® 300, 500, 700, Aqua TROLL® 200 or TROLL® 9500 instruments. • User-defined configuration options for monitoring and alarming. • A solar-powered option to eliminate on-site power supply. • Remote access to instruments using Win-Situ® Plus software or the secure In-Situ® Data Center. Cables and Suspension Wire • Twist-Lock RuggedCableTM—Titanium connectors offer reliability and ease-of-use. Choose from either durable polyurethane or Teflon® (FEP) jacketed cables. Two-year warranty. • Titanium cable extender—Twist-Lock connectors quickly join multiple lengths of RuggedCable for maximum flexibility on monitoring projects. • Stripped and tinned cables—Directly connect to SCADA or PLC systems via 4-20mA, Modbus (RS485) or SDI-12—no adapters required. • Suspension wire—Available in three standard lengths for deployment of absolute sensors. Additional Accessories Visit www.in-situ.com for a full range of accessories, including: • Well Caps—Choose from a selection of locking well caps, vented well caps and well docks. • NPT Adaptor—Install Level TROLL instrument into threaded process piping. • Desiccants—Vented cables require desiccants and In-Situ offers a variety of options. HOBO® Waterproof Shuttle (Part # U-DTW-1) © 2006 Onset Computer Corporation Part #: MAN-U-DTW-1, Doc #: 10264-D Inside this package: • HOBO Waterproof Shuttle • USB host cable • Set of couplers: - For UA Pendant (Part # COUPLER2-A) - For U20 Water Level (Part # COUPLER2-B) - For U22 Water Temp Pro v2 (Part # COUPLER2-C) - For UTBI TidbiT v2 (Part # COUPLER2-D) - For U23 HOBO Pro v2 (Part # COUPLER2-E) Doc # 10264-D MAN-U-DTW-1 Onset Computer Corporation Thank you for purchasing a HOBO Waterproof Shuttle. The HOBO Waterproof Shuttle performs several major functions: • Reads out all logger information (serial number, deployment number, data, etc.) from loggers in the field for transfer to host computer, and stores each logger’s data in a “bank” • Nonvolatile memory preserves data, even if batteries are depleted • Relaunches the logger, resetting the logger’s time to the shuttle’s time and synchronizing the logging interval on relaunch • Can be used as an optic-to-USB base station Although the HOBO Waterproof Shuttle is easy to use, Onset strongly recommends that you spend a few minutes reading this manual and trying out the procedures described here before taking the shuttle into the field. Specifications Compatibility All HOBO U-Series loggers with optic USB. Not compatible with the HOBO U-Shuttle (U-DT-1). Requirements HOBOware 2.2+; compatible logger and matching coupler Data capacity 63 logger readouts of up to 64K each Operating temperature 0° to 50°C (32° to 122°F) Storage temperature -20° to 50°C (-4° to 122°F) Wetted materials Polycarbonate case, EPDM o-rings and retaining loop Waterproof To 20 m (66 feet) Time accuracy ± 1 minute per month at 25°C (77°F); see Plot A -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 -200204060 Temperature (°C) Ti m e b a s e E r r o r ( p p m ) Plot A Logger-to-shuttle transfer speed Reads out one full 64K logger in about 30 seconds Shuttle-to-host transfer speed Full shuttle offload (4 MB) to host computer in 10 to 20 minutes, depending on computer Batteries 2 AA alkaline batteries required for remote operation Battery life One year or at least 50 complete memory fills, typical use Weight 150 g (4 oz) Dimensions 15.2 x 4.8 cm (6.0 x 1.9 inches) The CE Marking identifies this product as complying with the relevant directives in the European Union (EU). HOBO Waterproof Shuttle 2 HOBO Waterproof Shuttle features Preparing to go on location Before using the shuttle for the first time, you must launch it with HOBOware 2.2 or greater. You must also launch any compatible loggers that were last launched with an earlier version of HOBOware, or have never been launched at all. 1. Use HOBOware 2.2 or greater to launch each logger you wish to read out and relaunch with the shuttle later. (Read “Using the shuttle as a base station” for instructions if you do not have another base station for the loggers.) The shuttle cannot relaunch loggers that were last launched with an earlier version of HOBOware. (You only have to do this once for each logger.) 2. Plug the large end of a USB interface cable into a USB port on the computer. (Avoid using a USB hub, if possible.) 3. Unscrew the center cap on the shuttle. If the cap is too tight to loosen by hand, insert a screwdriver through the lanyard hole and rotate counterclockwise until the cap is loosened. 4. Plug the small end of the USB interface cable into the USB port in the shuttle. (If the shuttle has never been connected to the computer before, it may take a few seconds for the new hardware to be detected.) 5. Follow the instructions in the HOBOware User’s Guide to access the Manage Shuttle dialog. Make sure the battery level is good, and change the batteries now if they are weak. Important: If you change the batteries in the field, the shuttle’s clock will stop, and the shuttle will not read out loggers again until you relaunch it in HOBOware. 6. If you are using the shuttle for the first time, launch the shuttle as described in the HOBOware User’s Guide. Launching synchronizes the shuttle’s clock to the host computer and initializes the shuttle’s header. Important: The shuttle’s clock is used to set the logger’s clock at relaunch. For most accurate results, make sure the host computer’s clock is correct before launching the shuttle. If you need to adjust the computer’s clock, quit HOBOware, set the computer’s clock, then reopen HOBOware and launch the shuttle. 7. If you have used the shuttle before, make sure there are enough banks available to accommodate the loggers you plan to read out. 8. Disconnect the USB cable from the shuttle and replace the center cap securely. Reading out and relaunching loggers in the field After you have ensured that the shuttle’s batteries are good, there is sufficient memory available, and the shuttle’s clock is synchronized, follow these steps to read out and relaunch a logger in the field: 1. Make sure the shuttle’s large cap and center cap are closed securely. Tighten the center cap until it is just flush with the large cap, or until the O-ring is no longer visible. 2. Make sure the communication end of the shuttle is clean. Attach the correct coupler for the logger, and ensure that it is seated properly. 3. Insert the logger into the coupler, following the instructions that came with the coupler. 4. Momentarily press the coupler lever. Readout should begin immediately. The amber LED blinks continuously while readout and relaunch are in progress. Do not remove the logger when the amber LED is blinking. 5. After reading out the logger, the shuttle synchronizes the logger’s clock to the shuttle’s internal clock and relaunches the logger, using the description, channels to log, logging interval, and other settings that are already in the logger. (If the logger was launched with multiple logging intervals, the final defined logging interval will be used.) The logger is launched with a slight delay that causes its readings to be synchronized with those of the previous deployment, as shown in the following diagram. Important: If the logger was launched with multiple logging intervals, there will be no synchronizing delay. The HOBO Waterproof Shuttle 3 logger will start immediately with the last defined logging interval. 6. When the relaunch has completed, the green LED blinks for 15 minutes, or until you momentarily press the coupler lever to stop it. If the red LED blinks instead, there was an error, and the logger may have stopped. Refer to “Troubleshooting” in this manual for details. 7. Remove the logger from the coupler. Checking shuttle status in the field The shuttle’s memory has 63 “banks.” One logger readout can be stored in each bank. To check the shuttle’s memory and batteries in the field, remove the logger and press the coupler’s lever for at least three seconds. When you release the lever, the green LED blinks once for each unoccupied bank in the shuttle’s memory. (Press the lever momentarily to stop the blinking.) If the shuttle’s batteries are running low, all of the shuttle banks are full, or the clock has not been set, the red LED blinks. (Press the lever momentarily to stop the blinking.) Use HOBOware to check the shuttle’s battery level, available memory, and clock. You may need to change the batteries, or offload the datafiles to the host computer and delete them from the shuttle to free up memory before you can continue reading out loggers. Offloading data to the host computer You can offload the data stored in the shuttle even when the batteries are depleted. Take the following steps: 1. Connect the shuttle to a host computer running HOBOware. 2. Follow the instructions in the HOBOware User’s Guide to offload the new datafiles or access the Manage Shuttle dialog. The Manage Shuttle dialog shows you how many banks are occupied, and whether they have already been offloaded and saved to the host computer. 3. Offload and save data from the banks of your choice. Refer to the HOBOware User’s Guide for details on saving datafiles offloaded from the shuttle. 4. Review the list of banks and delete any that are no longer needed. Make sure the battery level is good, and change the batteries now if they are weak. (If you change the batteries in the field, the shuttle’s clock will stop, and the shuttle will not read out loggers.) Update the shuttle’s clock, if necessary. 5. When finished, disconnect the shuttle from the computer and close the center cap securely. Using the shuttle as a base station You can use the shuttle as a base station for any U-Series logger with an optic USB interface. (This function is available even when the batteries are depleted.) To use the shuttle as a base station: 1. Connect the shuttle to the host computer running HOBOware. 2. Attach a compatible logger and coupler. 3. Momentarily press the coupler’s lever. 4. The amber LED blinks momentarily, then the green LED should glow steadily to indicate that the logger is ready to communicate with HOBOware. (If the red LED blinks instead, the logger was not found. Make sure the logger and coupler are aligned and seated properly, and that there is no dirt or strong sunlight interfering with communications.) 5. When finished, remove the logger from the coupler. The green LED stops glowing when you disconnect the logger or the USB cable. Important: The Waterproof Shuttle cannot be used as a base station with Pendant logger models UA-001 and UA-003 (including rain gauges RG3 and RG3-M) with serial numbers less than 988278. These loggers require a BASE-U-1 for communication with the host computer. Indicator lights Green “OK” LED The green “OK” LED blinks when HOBOware recognizes it as a base station; when it finishes reading out and relaunching a logger; and when you press the coupler lever to check the shuttle’s status (see “Checking shuttle status in the field” for details). Momentarily press the coupler lever to stop the blinking. The green LED glows steadily when the shuttle is being used as a base station. Amber “Transfer” LED The amber “Transfer” LED blinks when the shuttle is reading out a logger and relaunching it. Do not remove the logger when the Transfer light is lit. Red “Fail” LED The red “Fail” LED blinks whenever the shuttle encounters an error condition. Refer to “Troubleshooting” for details. All LEDs All LEDs blink in unison when the shuttle has just been powered up, either by installing fresh batteries or (if batteries are not installed) by connecting to the computer’s USB port. HOBO Waterproof Shuttle 4 Troubleshooting This section describes problems you may encounter while using the shuttle. Shuttle is not recognized by host computer If HOBOware does not recognize the shuttle when you connect it to the computer, simply disconnect and reconnect the shuttle. Red “Fail” LED blinks The red “Fail” LED blinks (for 15 minutes, or until you press the coupler lever) whenever the shuttle encounters an error. There are several conditions that might cause an error: • Shuttle is full: If the red LED blinks when you try to read out a logger, check whether all of the banks are full, as described in “Checking shuttle status in the field.” Or, use HOBOware to check the shuttle’s memory. • Shuttle batteries are low: If you cannot read out any loggers at all, check the logger’s status, as described in “Checking shuttle status in the field,” or use HOBOware to check the shuttle’s batteries. The batteries may simply need to be replaced. • Compatibility: The shuttle cannot read out or relaunch loggers that were last launched from HOBOware prior to version 2.2. You will need to read out these loggers on the host computer and relaunch them in HOBOware 2.2 or greater before you can use them with the shuttle. • Shuttle clock is not set: The shuttle has experienced a power failure that caused the clock to reset. You must use HOBOware to offload the files that are already on the shuttle, then relaunch the shuttle before you can read out another logger. • Can’t communicate with logger: Remove the logger and coupler. Inspect them and the shuttle to ensure that all are free of dirt that could block the optic communication sensor. Carefully reassemble the shuttle, coupler, and logger, and make sure they are all seated properly. Shield the shuttle from strong sunlight, if applicable, which can interfere with optic communications. • Other logger problems: If you can read out some loggers but not others, or if you cannot read out any loggers even with fresh batteries in the shuttle, check the loggers in HOBOware. Make sure their batteries are at acceptable levels and that there is no “corrupted header” message. Amber “Transfer” LED stays on without blinking The amber light is magnetically activated when you press the coupler lever. If it glows steadily at any other time, the magnet in the lever may be too close to the magnetic switch in the shuttle, or another strong magnet may be present. Try bending the lever away from the coupler to reduce the magnet’s effect. LEDs do not function If the LEDs are not functioning at all, the batteries may be completely exhausted. To test this, attach the shuttle to the host computer and check the battery level. The shuttle should be able to communicate with the host computer, blink its LEDs normally, and perform as a base station even when the batteries are missing or depleted. Replacing the shuttle’s batteries The shuttle’s batteries should last about one year or at least 50 complete memory fills in typical conditions. When the shuttle’s batteries run low (2.2 V or less), any logger data that is already in the shuttle will remain safe, but the shuttle will not read out another logger until its batteries are replaced. To avoid battery problems, always check the shuttle’s batteries in HOBOware before going into the field, and replace them if needed. If you cannot replace the bad batteries right away, you should remove them as soon as possible to ensure that they do not leak and damage the shuttle. To change the shuttle’s batteries: 1. Work over a clean surface to provide a safe platform for the disassembly. 2. Unscrew the center cap on the shuttle. If the cap is too tight to loosen by hand, insert a screwdriver through the lanyard hole and rotate counterclockwise until the cap is loosened. 3. Use the center cap to help you carefully pull the rubber loop free of the large cap. The large cap cannot be removed while the rubber loop is in place. 4. Turn the large cap counter-clockwise slightly, then pull it off. (continued) HOBO Waterproof Shuttle 5 5. Turn the shuttle over and tap it gently. The circuit board should slide into your hand. 6. Remove the old batteries and install two new ones in the correct orientation. Both batteries should be turned the same way, with their positive ends facing the USB port on the board. (When the second battery makes contact, all of the shuttle’s LEDs will blink in unison.) 7. Put the board back into the case, taking care not to bend the communication LEDs. Align the circuit board with the runners in the case. The USB port should face the open end of the shuttle, and the LEDs should show through the window on the label. 8. Close the shuttle’s case. Line up the tabs on the large cap with the slots on the case, press gently, and turn slightly clockwise until the large cap is closed securely. 9. Replace the rubber loop and center cap. Tighten the center cap until it is just flush with the large cap, or until the O-ring is no longer visible. 10. Using HOBOware, offload any datafiles that are on the shuttle and launch the shuttle before going into the field again. The shuttle will not read out and relaunch loggers until the clock has been synchronized. WARNING: Do not install batteries backwards, recharge, put in fire, expose to extreme heat, or mix with other battery types, as the batteries may explode or leak. Contents of an open or leaking battery can cause chemical burn injuries. Replace all used batteries at the same time. Recycle or dispose of batteries according to applicable federal, state, and local regulations. HOBO Waterproof Shuttle 6 Service and Support As part of Onset’s ongoing efforts to provide 100% customer satisfaction, our Continuing Engineering Group constantly monitors and evaluates all of our products and software. In the unlikely event any significant defect is found, Onset will notify you. If you find a defect, please e-mail us at loggerhelp@onsetcomp.com. HOBO products are easy to use and reliable. In the unlikely event that you have a problem with this instrument, contact the company where you bought the logger: Onset or an Onset Authorized Dealer. Before calling, you can evaluate and often solve the problem if you write down the events that led to the problem (are you doing anything differently?) and if you visit the Technical Support section of the Onset web site at www.onsetcomp.com/support.html. When contacting Onset, ask for technical support and be prepared to provide the product number and serial number for the logger and software version in question. Also completely describe the problem or question. The more information you provide, the faster and more accurately we will be able to respond. Onset Computer Corporation 470 MacArthur Blvd., Bourne, MA 02532 Mailing: PO Box 3450, Pocasset, MA 02559-3450 Phone: 1-800-LOGGERS (1-800-564-4377) or 508-759-9500 Fax: 508-759-9100 E-mail: loggerhelp@onsetcomp.com Internet: www.onsetcomp.com Warranty Onset Computer Corporation (Onset) warrants to the original end-user purchaser for a period of one year from the date of original purchase that the HOBO® product(s) purchased will be free from defect in material and workmanship. During the warranty period Onset will, at its option, either repair or replace products that prove to be defective in material or workmanship. This warranty shall terminate and be of no further effect at the time the product is (1) damaged by extraneous cause such as fire, water, lightning, etc. or not maintained in accordance with the accompanying documentation; (2) modified; (3) improperly installed; (4) repaired by someone other than Onset; or (5) used in a manner or purpose for which the product was not intended. THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES BEYOND THE EXPRESSED WARRANTY ABOVE. IN NO EVENT SHALL ONSET BE LIABLE FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR OTHER SIMILAR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY BREACH OF THIS CONTRACT OR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS CONTRACT, INCLUDING BREACH OF WARRANTY, NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY. Limitation of Liability. The Purchaser's sole remedy and the limit of Onset's liability for any loss whatsoever shall not exceed the Purchaser's price of the product(s). The determination of suitability of products to the specific needs of the Purchaser is solely the Purchaser's responsibility. THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES BEYOND THE EXPRESSED WARRANTY OFFERED WITH THIS PRODUCT. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS DOCUMENT, THERE ARE NO OTHER WARRANTIES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. NO INFORMATION OR ADVICE GIVEN BY ONSET, ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES SHALL CREATE A WARRANTY OR IN ANY WAY INCREASE THE SCOPE OF THE EXPRESSED WARRANTY OFFERED WITH THIS PRODUCT. Indemnification. Products supplied by Onset are not designed, intended, or authorized for use as components intended for surgical implant or ingestion into the body or other applications involving life- support, or for any application in which the failure of the Onset- supplied product could create or contribute to a situation where personal injury or death may occur. Products supplied by Onset are not designed, intended, or authorized for use in or with any nuclear installation or activity. Products supplied by Onset are not designed, intended, or authorized for use in any aeronautical or related application. Should any Onset-supplied product or equipment be used in any application involving surgical implant or ingestion, life-support, or where failure of the product could lead to personal injury or death, or should any Onset- supplied product or equipment be used in or with any nuclear installation or activity, or in or with any aeronautical or related application or activity, Purchaser will indemnify Onset and hold Onset harmless from any liability or damage whatsoever arising out of the use of the product and/or equipment in such manner. Returns Please direct all warranty claims and repair requests to place of purchase. Before returning a failed unit directly to Onset, you must obtain a Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA) number from Onset. You must provide proof that you purchased the Onset product(s) directly from Onset (purchase order number or Onset invoice number). Onset will issue an RMA number that is valid for 30 days. You must ship the product(s), properly packaged against further damage, to Onset (at your expense) with the RMA number marked clearly on the outside of the package. Onset is not responsible for any package that is returned without a valid RMA number or for the loss of the package by any shipping company. Loggers must be clean before they are sent back to Onset or they may be returned to you. Repair Policy Products that are returned after the warranty period or are damaged by the customer as specified in the warranty provisions can be returned to Onset with a valid RMA number for evaluation. ASAP Repair Policy. For an additional charge, Onset will expedite the repair of a returned product. Data-back™ Service. HOBO data loggers store data in nonvolatile EEPROM memory. Onset will, if possible, recover your data. Tune Up Service. Onset will examine and retest any HOBO data logger. © 2006 Onset Computer Corporation. All rights reserved. Part #: MAN-U-DTW-1, Doc #: 10264-D Onset, HOBO, and HOBOware are registered trademarks of Onset Computer Corporation. Other products and brand names may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. Onset Computer Corporation - 1 - Inside this package: • HOBO U20 Water Level Logger • Calibration Certificate Doc #12315-C, MAN-U20 © 2008 Onset Computer Corporation. All rights reserved. Patent #: 6,826,664 Onset, HOBO, and HOBOware are registered trademarks of Onset Computer Corporation. Viton is a registered trademark of DuPont. Other products and brand names may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. ____________________________________________________ The HOBO U20 Water Level Logger is used for monitoring changing water levels in a wide range of applications including streams, lakes, wetlands, tidal areas and groundwater. The loggers are typically deployed in existing wells or stilling wells installed specifically for deploying the loggers. This logger features high accuracy at a great price and HOBO ease- of-use, with no cumbersome vent tubes or desiccants to maintain. The logger uses a maintenance-free absolute pressure sensor and features a durable stainless steel or titanium housing (depending on model) and ceramic pressure sensor. The HOBO Water Level Titanium is recommended for saltwater deployment for recording water levels and temperatures in wetlands and tidal areas. The logger uses precision electronics to measure pressure and temperature and has enough memory to record over 21,700 combined pressure and temperature measurements. Software HOBOware Pro® software is required for logger operation. Using a reference water level, HOBOware Pro automatically converts the pressure readings into water level readings. HOBOware Pro also supports compensation for temperature, fluid density, and barometric pressure. Communication For launching and reading out the Water Level logger in the field, you can use a laptop computer with HOBOware Pro and an Onset Optic USB Base Station (BASE-U-4), with a coupler (COUPLER2-B) or the HOBO Waterproof Shuttle (U-DTW-1) with a coupler (COUPLER2-B). The optical interface allows the logger to be offloaded without breaking the integrity of the seals. The USB compatibility allows for easy setup and fast downloads. Models The Water Level logger is available in the following models: • U20-001-01 (30 foot depth) and U20-001-01-Ti (30 foot depth/Titanium) • U20-001-02 (100 foot depth) • U20-001-03 (250 foot depth) • U20-001-04 (13 foot depth) and U20-001-04-Ti (13 foot depth/Titanium) Required/Recommended Accessories • Cable (CABLE-1-300 or CABLE-1-50) and Cable Crimp (CABLE-1-CRIMP) • Replacement Coupler (Coupler2-B) Barometric Compensation The HOBO Water Level Logger records absolute pressure, which is later converted to water level readings by the software. In this application, absolute pressure includes atmospheric pressure and water head. Atmospheric pressure is nominally 100 kPa (14.5 psi) at sea level, but changes with weather and altitude. Left uncompensated, barometric variations could result in errors of 0.6 m (2 ft) or more. To compensate for barometric pressure changes, you can use the HOBO U20 Water Level Logger as a barometric reference. The barometric reference is typically deployed in the same well or at the same location as the water level of interest, but rather than being placed in the water column, it is deployed above the water in air. Barometric pressure readings are consistent across a region (except during fast-moving weather events), so you can generally use barometric pressure readings that are taken within 15 km (10 miles) of the logger or more, without significantly degrading the accuracy of the compensation. Therefore, one U20 or weather station (HOBO U30 or H21-001 recommended) can be used to compensate all of the water level loggers in an area. The 0-9m (0-30 ft) HOBO Water Level Logger (U20-001-01) is a good barometric reference due to its smaller range, temperature-compensated accuracy, and rugged stainless steel case. HOBOware Pro includes a Barometric Compensation Assistant for easy and accurate barometric compensation. Onset Computer Corporation - 2 - LEDs A light (LED) in the communications window of the logger confirms logger operation. The following table explains when the logger blinks during logger operation: When: The light: The logger is logging Blinks once every one to four seconds (the shorter the logging interval, the faster the light blinks); blinks when logging a sample The logger is awaiting a start because it was launched in Start At Interval or Delayed Start mode Blinks once every eight seconds until logging begins Calibration The pressure sensor in each HOBO Water Logger is individually calibrated. During calibration, raw pressure sensor data is collected at multiple pressures and temperatures over the calibrated range of the logger (see the specifications table). This data is used to generate calibration coefficients that are stored in the logger’s non-volatile memory. The calibration coefficients are then checked to be sure that the logger meets its stated accuracy over the calibrated range. The pressure sensor can be used at pressures and temperatures that are outside of the calibrated range, but the accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Important: Never exceed the burst pressure of the sensor! Sleep Mode The logger consumes significantly more power when it is “awake” and connected to a base station or shuttle. To conserve power, the logger will go into a low-power (sleep) mode if there has been no communication with your computer for 30 minutes. To wake up the logger, remove the logger from the coupler, wait a moment, then re-insert the logger. Sample and Event Logging The logger can record two types of data: samples and events. Samples are the sensor measurements recorded at each logging interval (for example, the pressure every minute). Events are independent occurrences triggered by a logger activity, such as Bad Battery or Host Connected. Events help you determine what was happening while the logger was logging. The logger stores 64K of data, and can record over 21,700 samples of pressure and temperature. Setup Before you deploy the HOBO U20 Water Level Logger in the field, perform the following steps in the office: 1. Start HOBOware. 2. Connect the logger to the computer. See below. 3. Verify Status Click STATUS on toolbar and observe that the absolute pressure is near barometric pressure for the location and the temperature is near the actual temperature. 4. Launch the logger. See the HOBOware User’s Guide for details. • Make sure both Abs. Pressure and Temperature are selected (temperature is required for temperature compensation of pressure). • Logging Battery Voltage - is not essential since one can check the battery voltage using the “STATUS” screen at “LAUNCH” or “READOUT” of logger. Connecting the Logger to a Computer The HOBO Water Level Logger requires a coupler (Part # COUPLER2-B) and USB Optic Base Station (Part # BASE-U-4) or HOBO Waterproof Shuttle (Part # U-DTW-1) to connect to the computer. Steps 1. Follow the instructions that came with your base station or shuttle to attach the base station or shuttle to a USB port on the computer. 2. Unscrew the black plastic end cap from the logger by turning it counter-clockwise. 3. Attach the coupler to the base station or shuttle 4. Insert the logger into the coupler with the flat on the logger aligned with the arrow on the coupler label. Gently twist the logger to be sure that it is properly seated in the coupler (it should not turn). NOTE: If you are using the HOBO Waterproof Shuttle, briefly press the coupler lever to put the shuttle into base station mode. Onset Computer Corporation - 3 - If the logger has never been connected to the computer before, it may take a few seconds for the new hardware to be detected by the computer. Important: USB communications may not function properly at temperatures below 0°C (32°F) or above 50°C (122°F). Deploying the Logger The HOBO Water Level Logger is designed to be easy to deploy in many environments. The logger uses an absolute pressure sensor, so no vent tube is required. The small size of the logger is convenient for use in small wells and allows the logger to be mounted and/or hidden in the field. Deployment Guidelines Full Temperature Equilibrium The pressure sensor is temperature compensated over the range of 0° to 40°C (32° to 104°F). To obtain the highest level of accuracy, the logger should be allowed to come to full temperature equilibrium (approximately 30 minutes) before the reference level is recorded. Sudden Temperature Changes Sudden temperature changes should be avoided. When deploying a HOBO Water Level Logger for barometric pressure reference, some consideration should be made to minimize the rate of temperature fluctuations. Ideally, the barometric pressure reference logger should be hung several feet below ground level in an observation well where ground temperatures are stable (while making sure the logger remains above the water level). If that is not possible (or if a well is not used), try to put the logger in a location where it will not be subject to rapid daily temperature cycles. Venting When deploying a HOBO Water Level logger in a well, make sure the well is vented to the atmosphere. Typically, a small hole can be drilled in the well cap to ensure that the pressure inside and outside the well is at equilibrium. If this is not possible, the barometric pressure reference logger should be used inside the same well. Wire Use a no-stretch wire to hang the water level logger. Any change in length of the wire will result in a 1-to-1 corresponding error in the depth measurement. Always pull-test a cable prior to deploying a logger in a well to make sure it does not stretch. Stilling Well If you are deploying the logger in a lake, river, or stream, you must first build a stilling well to protect the logger from vibration, shock, and movement. A simple stilling well can be constructed with PVC or ABS pipe. A properly constructed stilling well helps to protect the logger from currents, wave action, and debris. Suspend the logger in the stilling well so it is always underwater, but not on the bottom to be buried by silt. For more information see Technical Application Note for Constructing a Stilling Well at: http://www.onsetcomp.com/water_level_stilling_well.html Burst Pressure Be very careful not to exceed the burst pressure for the logger. The pressure sensor will burst if the maximum depth is exceeded (see specifications table). The logger should be positioned at a depth where the logger will remain in the water for the duration of the deployment, but not exceed the rated bursting depth. Deployment Procedure Steps 1. Cut wire to suspend logger. a. Measure the physical depth to the surface of the water from the suspension point. b. Cut a piece of stranded, stainless steel wire (Teflon coated is best) so that the logger will hang about ½ of its measurement range (15 feet for a U20-001-01) below the water surface. 2. Attach the wire to the suspension point and to the logger cap. 3. Relaunch the logger if desired (if a PC or a HOBO U-Shuttle is available). 4. Lower the logger into the well or stilling well. Onset Computer Corporation - 4 - 5. Measure the water depth from the desired reference point (top of pipe, ground level, or sea level). • To maximize accuracy, allow 20 minutes after deploying the logger before measuring water depth to allow the logger to reach temperature equilibrium with the water. • If the well is too small in diameter to measure the water depth after deployment, measure the water depth before deployment, then deploy logger immediately and record deployment time. • For well deployments - if the water level surface is below the reference point (such as referencing groundwater measurements to the top of the well), record the water level as a negative number. If the water level surface is above the reference point (such as height above sea level), record the water level as a positive number. • For lake, stream, river deployments - if the water level is being referenced to some point above the logger (such as the top of the stilling well), record the water level as a negative number. If the water depth is being referenced to a point below the water surface such as the bottom of the stream, record the water level as a positive number. 6. Record the reference measurement date and time. Deploying a U20 Logger for Barometric Pressure Data (Optional) If you are using a U20 logger to record barometric pressure data, install one logger in one of the wells as follows: 1. Cut wire for suspending the logger. a. Measure the physical depth to the surface of the water from the suspension point. b. Cut a piece of stranded, stainless steel wire (Teflon coated is best) so that the logger will hang about 2 feet below the ground surface but always above the water surface. 2. Attach the wire to the suspension point and to the logger cap. 3. Relaunch the logger if desired (if a PC or a HOBO U-Shuttle is available) 4. Lower the logger into the well or stilling well. Make sure the logger does not go below the water surface. 5. Record the deployment time. Collecting Data For reading out the Water Level logger in the field, you can use either of the following: • Laptop computer with HOBOware Pro and an Optic USB Base Station (BASE-U-4), with a coupler (COUPLER2-B) • HOBO Waterproof Shuttle (U-DTW-1) with a coupler (COUPLER2-B) Steps 1. Measure the water depth using the original reference point with the correct sign. 2. Record depth and date and time. 3. Pull the logger out of the well. 4. Remove the logger from its cap, leaving the suspension undisturbed. 5. Readout the data using one of the options listed above. 6. Save the data in a test folder location. 7. Redeploy the logger (optional). See below. Barometric Pressure Data To readout a U20 logger used for barometric pressure data: 1. Remove the logger from the well. 2. Readout the data using one of the options listed above. 3. Save the data in a test folder location. 4. Redeploy the logger (optional). See below. Redeploying the Logger Relaunch the logger(s) with new Launch settings and a new water depth measurement with date/time recorded for the water level logger. The existing suspension can be reused as long as the water level logger remained in the water and the barometric logger remained out of the water for the entire test interval. Redeployment zeros all drift errors and begins anew. Onset Computer Corporation - 5 - Processing Data using Barometric Pressure Data To determine water level using barometric pressure data, use the Barometric Compensation Assistant in HOBOware Pro, as described below. If you are using barometric pressure data from a HOBO weather station, you can use the data file as if it were U20 barometric data. For data from sources other than Onset products, see Barometric Data from Other Sources below. Steps 1. In HOBOware Pro, open the water depth data file. The Plot Setup window appears. 2. Uncheck all boxes except Abs. Pressure. 3. Select the “Barometric Compensation Assistant” a. Click the Process button. b. Select the water density box that best describes the water that you are measuring or enter the actual water density. c. Check the Use a Reference Water Level box and enter the reference water level that you measured at the beginning of the deployment. d. Select the date and time from the pull-down menu that is closest to the recorded date/time for the measurement. If you measured the depth before deployment because of pipe size, then select a date/time after the deployment. e. Check Use Barometric Data file. f. Click the Choose button. This will generate a data file. 4. Select and Open the data file. 5. Click the Create New Series button. A new Plot Setup window appears. 6. Select the Water Level box and click the Plot button to obtain a plot of the resulting water level data. Measurement Error Measurement error can be caused by manual measurement error, sensor drift, or change in the suspension cable length. To quantify measurement error (which is ideally zero), compare the calculated water level at the end of the plot with the water level measured just before you removed the water level logger. Barometric Data from Other Sources Third Party Weather Station or Barometric Logger If you choose to use barometric pressure from a third party weather station or barometric logger, you need to convert the date, time, and pressure data to a text file with special header requirements. For information on how to set up the text file, see Header Formatting Requirements in the HOBOware Help or User Guide. It is easiest to do this work in EXCEL and then save it as a text file. On-line Weather Station If you choose to use barometric pressure from an on-line weather station, such as the National Weather Service, the measured barometric pressure is modified to be at sea level. This sea level pressure is useable since all pressure offsets are zeroed when you enter the reference measurement. In the Barometric Compensation Assistant, when you select the Barometric Data File, select the text file that you generated. HOBOware Pro will ask for the data format and data separation characters (tab or comma) and then import the barometric data. Maintenance Protecting the Logger Important! Do not attempt to open the logger housing! Unscrewing the metal nose cone of the logger will cause serious damage to the pressure sensor and logger electronics. There are no user serviceable parts inside the case. Contact Onset technical support if your logger requires servicing. This logger can be damaged by shock. Always handle the logger with care. The logger may lose its calibrated accuracy or be damaged if it is dropped. Use proper packaging when transporting or shipping the logger. Biofouling Periodically inspect the logger for fouling. Biological growth on the face of the pressure sensor will throw off the pressure sensor’s accuracy. Organisms that grow inside the sensor nose cone and on the sensor itself can interfere with the sensor’s operation and eventually make the sensor unusable. If the deployment area is prone to biofouling, check the logger periodically for marine growth. Onset Computer Corporation - 6 - Solvents Check a materials-compatibility chart before deploying the logger in locations where untested solvents are present: The logger is shipped with Viton O-rings installed. Viton has an excellent resistance to most solvents and is suitable for deployments in water that contain a mixture of most fuels, solvents and lubricants. However, the Viton O-rings are sensitive to polar solvents (acetone, ketone), ammonia, and brake fluids. The black acetyl cap is provided to help protect the communications window. Acetyl is resistant to most solvents, fuels, and lubricants. The polycarbonate communications window is sealed as an additional barrier to water and dirt entering the logger housing. Compensating for Drift All pressure sensors drift over time. The drift for the pressure sensor and electronics in the HOBO Water Level logger is less than 0.3% FS (worst case) per year. In most applications, drift is not a significant source of error, because the offset created by any drift is zeroed out when you take a manual reference level measurement and use the logger software to automatically calculate the level readings relative to the reference measurement. In effect, you are re-zeroing the sensor each time you apply a reference reading to the data file. Pressure sensor drift matters only when absolute pressure values are needed, or if there are no recent reference level or depth measurements available. For example, if the logger is deployed for one year and no new reference level readings are taken during the deployment, it is possible that the sensor could have drifted as much as 0.3% FS by the end of the deployment. It is possible to determine the actual amount of drift during a deployment if a reference level is taken at the beginning and the end of a long-term deployment. The results of applying the two different reference levels (once at the beginning of the data file, and again at the end of the data file) can be compared. Any difference between the files indicates the amount of sensor drift (assuming accurate reference levels). Verifying Accuracy You can check the differential accuracy of your loggers for water level measurements by deploying the loggers at two depths and comparing the difference in level readings. When verifying the accuracy this way, be sure to allow the loggers’ temperature to stabilize at each depth. Use the logger software to convert the readings from pressure to level. The level readings should be taken close enough together that the barometric pressure does not change. You can check the absolute pressure accuracy of your HOBO Water Level Logger by comparing its ambient pressure readings to a second HOBO logger. Their readings should be within each other’s specified accuracy. Alternatively, you can check the pressure reading against an accurate local barometer. If you use a non-local source of barometric information, such as the NOAA website, adjust for altitude. Recalibration If you would like to have your logger’s absolute accuracy verified against a NIST standard, or to have your logger recalibrated, contact Onset or your place of purchase for pricing and return arrangements. The Battery The battery in the HOBO Water Level Logger is a 3.6 Volt lithium battery. Battery Life The battery life of the logger should be about five years or more. Actual battery life is a function of the number of deployments, logging interval, and operation/storage temperature of the logger. Frequent deployments with logging intervals of less than one minute, and continuous storage/operation at temperatures above 35°C will result in significantly lower battery life. For example, continuous logging at a one-second logging interval will result in a battery life of approximately one month. To obtain a five-year battery life, a logging interval of one minute or greater should be used and the logger should be operated and stored at temperatures between 0° and 25°C (32° and 77°F). Voltage The logger can report and log its battery voltage. If the battery falls below 3.1 V, the logger will record a “bad battery” event in the datafile. If the datafile contains “bad battery” events, or if logged battery voltage repeatedly falls below 3.3 V, the battery is failing and the logger should be returned to Onset for battery replacement. Replacing the Battery To have your logger’s battery replaced, contact Onset or your place of purchase for return arrangements. Do not attempt to replace the battery yourself. Severe damage to the logger will result if the case is opened without special tools, and the warranty will be voided. WARNING: Do not cut open, incinerate, heat above 100°C (212°F), or recharge the lithium battery. The battery may explode if the logger is exposed to extreme heat or conditions that could damage or destroy the battery case. Do not dispose of the logger or battery in fire. Do not expose the contents of the battery to water. Dispose of the battery according to local regulations for lithium batteries. Onset Computer Corporation - 7 - Specifications Pressure and Water Level Measurements * Water Level Accuracy: With accurate reference water level measurement and Barometric Compensation Assistant data ** Raw Pressure Accuracy: Absolute pressure sensor accuracy includes all pressure drift, temperature, and hysteresis-induced errors *** Thermal Response Time: Maximum error due to rapid thermal changes is approximately 0.5% U20-001-01 and U20-001-01-Ti Operation range 0 to 207 kPa (0 to 30 psia); approximately 0 to 9 m (0 to 30 ft) of water depth at sea level, or 0 to 12 m (0 to 40 ft) of water at 3,000 m (10,000 ft) of altitude Factory calibrated range 69 to 207 kPa (10 to 30 psia), 0° to 40°C (32° to 104°F) Burst pressure 310 kPa (45 psia) or 18 m (60 ft) depth Water level accuracy* Typical error - 0.05% FS, 0.5 cm (0.015 ft) water Maximum error - 0.1% FS, 1.0 cm (0.03 ft) water Raw pressure accuracy** 0.3% FS, 0.62 kPa (0.09 psi) maximum error Resolution < 0.02 kPa (0.003 psi), 0.21 cm (0.007 ft) water Pressure response time 90% < 1 second Thermal response time (90%)*** Approximately 10 minutes in water to achieve full temperature compensation of the pressure sensor U20-001-02 Operation range 0 to 400 kPa (0 to 58 psia); approximately 0 to 30.6 m (0 to 100 ft) of water depth at sea level, or 0 to 33.6 m (0 to 111 ft) of water at 3,000 m (10,000 ft) of altitude Factory calibrated range 69 to 400 kPa (10 to 58 psia), 0° to 40°C (32° to 104°F) Burst pressure 500 kPa (72.5 psia) or 40.8 m (134 ft) depth Water level accuracy* Typical error - 0.05% FS, 1.5 cm (0.05 ft) water Maximum error - 0.1% FS, 3 cm (0.1 ft) water Raw pressure accuracy** 0.3% FS, 1.20 kPa (0.17 psi) maximum error Resolution < 0.04 kPa (0.006 psi), 0.41 cm (0.013 ft) water Pressure response time 90% < 1 second Thermal response time (90%)*** Approximately 10 minutes in water to achieve full temperature compensation of the pressure sensor U20-001-03 Operation range 0 to 850 kPa (0 to 123.3 psia); approximately 0 to 76.5 m (0 to 251 ft) of water depth at sea level, or 0 to 79.5 m (0 to 262 ft) of water at 3,000 m (10,000 ft) of altitude Factory calibrated range 69 to 850 kPa (10 to 123.3 psia), 0° to 40°C (32° to 104°F) Burst pressure 1200 kPa (174 psia) or 112 m (368 ft) depth Water level accuracy* Typical error - 0.05% FS, 3.8 cm (0.125 ft) water Maximum error - 0.1% FS, 7.6 cm (0.25 ft) water Raw pressure accuracy** 0.3% FS, 2.55 kPa (0.37 psi) maximum error Resolution < 0.085 kPa (0.012 psi), 0.87 cm (0.028 ft) water Pressure response time 90% < 1 second Thermal response time (90%)*** Approximately 10 minutes in water to achieve full temperature compensation of the pressure sensor U20-001-04 and U20-001-04-Ti Operation range 0 to 145 kPa (0 to 21 psia); approximately 0 to 4 m (0 to 13 ft) of water depth at sea level, or 0 to 7 m (0 to 23 ft) of water at 3,000 m (10,000 ft) of altitude Factory calibrated range 69 to 145 kPa (10 to 21 psia), 0° to 40°C (32° to 104°F) Burst pressure 310 kPa (45 psia) or 18 m (60 ft) depth Water level accuracy* Typical error - 0.075% FS, 0.3 cm (0.01 ft) water Maximum error - 0.15% FS, 0.6 cm (0.02 ft) water Raw pressure accuracy** 0.3% FS, 0.43 kPa (0.063 psi) maximum error Resolution < 0.014 kPa (0.002 psi), 0.14 cm (0.005 ft) water Pressure response time 90% < 1 second Thermal response time (90%)*** Approximately 10 minutes in water to achieve full temperature compensation of the pressure sensor - 8 - Temperature Measurements Operation range -20° to 50°C (-4° to 122°F) Accuracy 0.37°C at 20°C (0.67°F at 68°F), see Plot A Resolution 0.1°C at 20°C (0.18°F at 68°F) (10-bit), see Plot A Response time (90%) 3.5 minutes in water (typical) Stability (drift) 0.1°C (0.18°F) per year 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -2002040 Temperature (°C) Ac c u r a c y / R e s o l u t i o n ( ° C ) Accuracy Resolution Plot A Logger Real-time clock ± 1 minute per month 0° to 50°C (32° to 122°F) Battery 2/3 AA, 3.6 Volt Lithium, factory-replaceable Battery life (typical use) 5 years with 1 minute or greater logging interval Memory (non- volatile) 64K bytes memory (approx. 21,700 pressure and temperature samples) Dimensions 2.46 cm (0.97 inches) diameter, 15 cm (5.9 inches) length; mounting hole 6.3 mm (0.25 inches) diameter Weight Stainless Steel models: approximately 210 g (7.4 oz) Titanium models: approximately 140 g (4.8 oz) Wetted Materials Stainless Steel models: 316 Stainless Steel, Viton o-rings, acetyl cap, ceramic sensor Titanium models: Titanium, Viton® o-rings, acetyl cap, ceramic sensor Shock/drop Logger is sensitive to shocks. Handle with care and avoid any impact. Always use proper packaging when shipping the logger. Logging interval Fixed-rate or multiple logging intervals, with up to 8 user-defined logging intervals and durations; logging intervals from 1 second to 18 hours. Refer to HOBOware software manual. Launch modes Immediate start and delayed start Offload modes Offload while logging; stop and offload Battery indication Battery voltage can be viewed in status screen and optionally logged in datafile. Low battery indication in datafile. The CE Marking identifies this product as complying with the relevant directives in the European Union (EU). Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Draft\Appendices\Appendix C - DRAFT Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Jun09).doc ATTACHMENT 4 Example Forms for Field Work Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Draft\Appendices\Appendix C - DRAFT Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Jun09).doc [This page intentionally left blank] Lake and Tributary Monitoring - Continuous Monitoring Site__________________________Verification Sonde ID______________________ Personnel_____________________ Weather______________________ Arrival Date/Time Site Condition Channel Condition Any significant changes in channel? Stage Fouling check Verification SondeSite SondeVerification SondeSite Sonde Measurement Date/Time: Turbidity Conductivity Note any sensor fouling before cleaning Maintenance Probes Cleaned (Y/N) Battery Voltage Battery Changed (Y/N) New Voltage Data Downloaded (Y/N) File Name Memory Reset? Calibration Check USGS Calibration Criteria Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV)MeasurementCriteria ConductivityTurbidity CCv Standard Date Standard Value Measured Value % RPD Sonde Calibration ConductivityTurbidity Standard Date pH± 0.2 True Value Pre Calibration Value Post Calibration Value % Recovery (pre vs post) Final Readings Verification sondeSite Sonde Measurment Date/Time: Turbidity Conductivity Verification Sample CollectionTurbidityConductivityPre, During or Post Verification Samples Collected (Y/N) If Y, Sample Date/Time If Y, Sample Date/Time If Y, Sample Date/Time Before CleaningAfter Cleaning ± 0.5 NTU or ±5% of measured value, whichever is greater Turbidity Specific conductance ± 5 µs/cm or ±3% of measured value, whichever is greater 4/14/2009 C:\Documents and Settings\nfoged\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\Data sheets.xls MONITORING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN Prepared for City of Auburn, Washington Department of Public Works August 2009 [This page intentionally left blank] MONITORING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PL AN Prepared for City of Auburn, Washington Department of Public Works August 2009 701 Pike Street, Suite 1200 Seattle, Washington 98101 ii Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] iii Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................................................V LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS..........................................................................................................VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope......................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Document Organization................................................................................................................................1-1 2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................................2-1 3. CURRENT MONITORING ACTIVITIES..................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Overview of Storm Drainage System............................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Current Monitoring Activities at the City of Auburn .......................................................................................3-5 3.2.1 Precipitation......................................................................................................................................3-5 3.2.2 Flow..................................................................................................................................................3-5 3.2.3 Water Level.......................................................................................................................................3-5 3.3 Monitoring Activities by Outside Agencies....................................................................................................3-6 3.3.1 Precipitation......................................................................................................................................3-6 3.3.2 Stage and Streamflow.......................................................................................................................3-9 4. MONITORING METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Equipment and Measurement Recommendations........................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Precipitation Measurement...............................................................................................................4-1 4.1.2 Flow Measurement...........................................................................................................................4-3 4.1.3 Water Level Measurement................................................................................................................4-5 4.2 Data Management and Quality Control.........................................................................................................4-7 5. PROPOSED MONITORING LOCATIONS..............................................................................................................5-1 RG-01: Rain Gauge at City Hall (Main and Division Streets)................................................................................5-5 Q-Pipe-B4: Flow Meter at Parking Lot near Henry Road......................................................................................5-6 Q-Pipe-C346: Flow Meter at G Street and 2nd Street SE.......................................................................................5-7 Q-Pipe-B86: Flow Meter at B Street and 12th Street SE........................................................................................5-8 Q-Pipe-C26: Flow Meter at M Street and Auburn Way South...............................................................................5-9 Q-Pipe-C59: Flow Meter at Dogwood St. near Auburn Way S............................................................................5-10 Q-Pipe-P2: Flow Meter at West Main near State Route 167...............................................................................5-11 Q-Pipe-I10: Flow Meter at 30th Street NW near Airport.......................................................................................5-12 WL-Mill-01: Mill Creek at 37th Street NW.............................................................................................................5-13 WL-Mill-02: Mill Creek at 29th Street NW.............................................................................................................5-14 WL-Mill-03: Mill Creek at 15th Street NW.............................................................................................................5-15 WL-Mill-04: Mill Creek at West Main Street.........................................................................................................5-16 iv Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-01: Level at West Airport Pond at 30th Street NW..............................................................................5-17 WL-Pond-02: Level at A Street SE and 17th Street SE........................................................................................5-18 WL-Pond-03: Level at D Street SE and 21St Street SE........................................................................................5-19 WL-Pond-04: Level at South 296th Street Pond near 55th Ave. S........................................................................5-20 WL-Pond-05: Level at South 296th Street Pond near 57th Pl. S...........................................................................5-21 WL-Pond-06: Level at U Street SE and 29th Street SE........................................................................................5-22 WL-Pond-07: Level at M Street SE and 36th Street SE.......................................................................................5-23 WL-Pond-08: Level at Lakeland South Pond No. 1.............................................................................................5-24 WL-Pond-09: Level at Lakeland South Pond No. 2.............................................................................................5-25 WL-Pond-10: Level at Lakeland East Pond.........................................................................................................5-26 WL-Pond-11: Level at Mill Pond..........................................................................................................................5-27 6. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................6-1 7. LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................................................................................7-1 Limitations.............................................................................................................................................................7-1 ATTACHMENT 1............................................................................................................................................................1 Equipment and Vendor Information for Precipitation Monitoring..............................................................................1 ATTACHMENT 2............................................................................................................................................................1 Equipment and Vendor Information for Flow Monitoring ..........................................................................................1 ATTACHMENT 3............................................................................................................................................................1 Equipment and Vendor Information for Water Level Monitoring...............................................................................1 ATTACHMENT 4............................................................................................................................................................1 Example Forms for Field Work.................................................................................................................................1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1. Overview of the Stormwater Drainage System for the City.................................................................3-3 Figure 3-2. Existing Monitoring Locations.............................................................................................................3-7 Figure 4-1. Onset Model RG3 HOBO (Onset, 2009).............................................................................................4-2 Figure 4-2. ADS FlowShark Ultrasonic Flow Meter (ADS, 2009)..........................................................................4-4 Figure 4-3. Campbell Scientfic CR206 radio datalogger with solar panel and level sensor..................................4-6 Figure 5-1. Overview of Proposed Monitoring Locations.......................................................................................5-3 Figure 5-2. Continue Existing Rain Gauge at City Hall..........................................................................................5-5 Figure 5-3. Proposed Flow Monitoring at Henry Road in Basin B.........................................................................5-6 Figure 5-4. Proposed Flow Monitoring at 2nd Street and G Street SE in Basin B..................................................5-7 Figure 5-5. Proposed Flow Monitoring at 12th Street and B Street SE in Basin B.................................................5-8 Figure 5-6. Proposed Flow Monitoring at M Street SE and Auburn Way South in Basin C...................................5-9 Figure 5-7. Proposed Flow Monitoring at Dogwood Street SE near Auburn Way South in Basin C...................5-10 Figure 5-8. Proposed Flow Monitoring south of West Main near State Route 167.............................................5-11 Figure 5-9. Proposed Flow Monitoring at 30th Street NW near Airport................................................................5-12 v Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Figure 5-10. Proposed Flow Monitoring on Mill Creek at 37th Street NW............................................................5-13 Figure 5-11. Proposed Flow Monitoring on Mill Creek at 29th Street NW............................................................5-14 Figure 5-12. Proposed Flow Monitoring on Mill Creek at 15th Street NW............................................................5-15 Figure 5-13. Proposed Flow Monitoring on Mill Creek at West Main Street........................................................5-16 Figure 5-14. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in 30th Street NW Pond.............................................................5-17 Figure 5-15. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in 17th Street SE Pond..............................................................5-18 Figure 5-16. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in D Street and 21st Street SE Pond..........................................5-19 Figure 5-18. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in South 296th Street Pond near 55th Avenue S........................5-20 Figure 5-19. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in South 296th Street Pond near 57th Place S............................5-21 Figure 5-20. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in U Street SE and 29th Street SE Pond....................................5-22 Figure 5-21. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in M Street SE and 37th Street SE Pond...................................5-23 Figure 5-22. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in Lakeland South Pond No. 1..................................................5-24 Figure 5-23. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in Lakeland South Pond No. 2..................................................5-25 Figure 5-24. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in Lakeland East Pond..............................................................5-26 Figure 5-25. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in Mill Pond...............................................................................5-27 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1. Proposed Monitoring Sites and Data to be Collected...........................................................................2 Table 2-1. Percent Chance of Exceedance for 10- and 20-Year Periods of Record.............................................2-2 Table 2-2. Minimum Precipitation-Gauge Densities Recommended by the WMO (1974).....................................2-2 Table 3-1. NOAA Co-op Precipitation Gauges in the Region Surrounding City of Auburn....................................3-9 Table 3-2. King County Precipitation Gauges in the Vicinity of the City of Auburn................................................3-9 Table 3-3. King County Stage and Flow Gauges in the Vicinity of the City of Auburn........................................3-10 Table 4-1. Approximate Water Level Monitoring Durations...................................................................................4-7 Table 5-1. Proposed Monitoring Sites and Data Collection Recommendations....................................................5-1 vi Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] vii Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CIP: Capital improvement program CSI: Campbell Scientific, Inc. LOS: level of service NGVD: National Geodetic Vertical Datum NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PDA: person digital assistant QA/QC: quality assurance/quality control USB: Universal Serial Bus USGS: United States Geological Survey WMO: World Meterological Organization WSDOT: Washington Department of Transportation viii Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] ES-1 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc MONITORING PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document is a stormwater monitoring plan developed for the Stormwater Drainage Division of the City of Auburn (City) Public Works Department. The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for the Stormwater Monitoring and Inspection Program, which calls for monitoring of stormwater quantity for the storm drainage utility. This plan was developed concurrently with an updated Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan (Drainage Plan). This Monitoring Plan will be included in the Drainage Plan. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to the Auburn Public Works Department for the monitoring of stormwater quantity as it pertains to the storm drainage system operated by the City’s stormwater utility. To fulfill the stated purpose the following activities were completed: · Monitoring goals were identified and specific objectives for the Monitoring Plan were established. Objectives not only defined data needs, but also made consideration for constraints and limitations. · Current monitoring efforts and existing monitoring data were evaluated to utilize available knowledge, equipment, and resources where possible. · The storm drainage system was analyzed and field reconnaissance was conducted to identify potential monitoring locations, focusing on known problem areas. · Recommendations were made for proposed monitoring methods, selection of equipment, and data management. The first step in the development of the Monitoring Plan was to develop goals and objectives. Goals were identified in general terms, while objectives were described in detail. The goals of this Monitoring Plan are to: · Provide precipitation records to characterize storm events and analyze event frequency. · Characterize hydrologic conditions (rainfall-runoff) within the drainage system. · Characterize hydraulic conditions within the drainage system and receiving waters. · Observe frequency and severity of flooding problems. · Evaluate the performance of storm drainage facilities and identify maintenance priorities. · Provide data for calibration and verification of hydrologic and hydraulic models, which are used to develop and prioritize capital improvement projects. Objectives were organized into five areas with details provided as sub-objectives. The five principal objectives of the monitoring plan are: · Objective 1: Collect and record precipitation data for the City’s storm utility area. · Objective 2: Collect and record flow data at selected locations within the drainage system. · Objective 3: Collect and record level data in areas known to have flooding or backwater problems. · Objective 4: Monitoring methodologies must consider the potential for long-term operation. · Objective 5: Monitoring methodologies must account for constraints and limitations. Given the goals and objectives defined for the Monitoring Plan, a total of 23 monitoring locations are proposed for future monitoring activities. One site is proposed for precipitation monitoring, 7 sites are EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan ES-2 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc proposed for temporary flow monitoring, and 15 sites are proposed for water level monitoring. The proposed monitoring sites are listed in Table ES-1. Table ES-1. Proposed Monitoring Sites and Data to be Collected Site number Location Data to be collected Priority (Start Year) Duration Equipment Type RG-01 City Hall (Main and Division Street)1 Rainfall Tier 1 (current) Indefinite2 Tipping bucket rain gauge Q-Pipe-B4 Parking lot near Henry Road Depth, flow Tier 2 (2010) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-C346 G Street SE and 2nd Street SE Depth, flow Tier 2 (2010) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-B86 B Street SE and 12th Street SE Depth, flow Tier 1 (2009) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-C26 M Street SE and Auburn Way S Depth, flow Tier 1 (2009) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-C59 Dogwood Street near Auburn Way S Depth, flow Tier 3 (2011) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-P2 Near West Main and SR 167 Depth, flow Tier 2 (2010) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-I10 30th Street NE near airport Depth, flow Tier 1 (2009) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter WL-Mill-01 Mill Creek at 37th Street NW Water level Tier 3 (2011) 10 years4 Water level logger WL-Mill-02 Mill Creek at 29th Street NW Water level Tier 3 (2011) 10 years4 Water level logger WL-Mill-03 Mill Creek at 15th Street NW Water level Tier 3 (2011) 10 years4 Water level logger WL-Mill-04 Mill Creek at West Main St Water level Tier 3 (2011) 10 years4 Water level logger WL-Pond-01 West Airport Pond at 30th Street NW Water level Tier 1 (2009) 2 years3 Water level logger WL-Pond-02 A Street SE and 17th Street SE Water level Tier 1 (2009) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-03 D Street SE and 21St Street SE1 Water level Tier 1 (2009) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-04 South 296th Street near 55th Avenue S Water level Tier 3 (2011) 6 years3 Water level logger WL-Pond-05 South 296th Street near 57th Place S Water level Tier 4 (2012) 6 years3 Water level logger WL-Pond-06 U Street SE and 29th Street SE Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-07 M Street SE and 37th Street SE1 Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-08 Lakeland South Pond No. 16 Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-09 Lakeland South Pond No. 26 Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-10 Lakeland East Pond6 Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-11 Mill Pond (Oravetz Road SE) 6 Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger 1. Existing monitoring site; continue monitoring but consider equipment upgrades. 2. To be continually re-evaluated; however, data should be collected continuously for future monitoring needs. 3. Data to support CIP needs at least one wet season of good data; if this is accomplished in year one, then year two may not be necessary. 4. Based on need to examine backwater effects on system, if new capital improvements are identified for Mill Creek, additional years may be needed. 5. To be continually re-evaluated; if data indicate stormwater pond is performing adequately or has low risk of failure then monitoring could cease. 6. Water level monitoring for dam safety purposes. 1-1 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc MONITORING PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN 1. INTRODUCTION This document is a stormwater monitoring plan developed for the Stormwater Drainage Division of the City of Auburn (City) Public Works Department. The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for the Stormwater Monitoring and Inspection Program, which calls for monitoring of stormwater quantity for the storm drainage utility. This plan was developed concurrently with an updated Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan (Drainage Plan) and is included in the Drainage Plan. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to the Auburn Public Works Department for the monitoring of stormwater quantity as it pertains to the storm drainage system operated by the City’s stormwater utility. To fulfill the stated purpose the following activities were completed: · Monitoring goals were identified and specific objectives for the Monitoring Plan were established. Objectives not only defined data needs, but also made consideration for constraints and limitations. · Current monitoring efforts and existing monitoring data were evaluated to utilize available knowledge, equipment, and resources where possible. · The storm drainage system was analyzed and field reconnaissance was conducted to identify potential monitoring locations, focusing on known problem areas. · Recommendations were made for proposed monitoring methods, selection of equipment, and data management. 1.2 Document Organization The document is divided into the following chapters: Chapter 1 Introduction: states the purpose and scope of the plan and outlines the organizational framework for the document. Chapter 2 Goals and Objectives: lists the goals for the Monitoring Plan and describes specific objectives and sub-objectives for the development of the Monitoring Plan. Chapter 3 Current Monitoring Activities: provides an overview of the stormwater utility, drainage system, and receiving waters, as well as a description of current monitoring activities. Chapter 4 Monitoring Methodology: provides recommendations for the design and development of monitoring sites and equipment for measurement of precipitation, flow, and water level. Chapter 5 Proposed Monitoring Locations: provides maps and specific recommendations for each proposed site. Chapter 6 References Chapter 7 Limitations 1: Introduction Monitoring Plan: Comprehensive Stormwater Master Plan 1-2 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Attachment 1 – Equipment and Vendor Information for Precipitation Monitoring Attachment 2 – Equipment and Vendor Information for Flow Monitoring Attachment 3 – Equipment and Vendor Information for Water Level Monitoring Attachment 4 – Example Field Data Forms 2-1 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc MONITORING PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN 2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Collecting data without clear objectives leads to inefficiency, and often results in wasted effort and marginal or useless data. As an important first step to any monitoring effort, some general goals should be identified and then specific objectives should be defined in as much detail as possible. These objectives should not only reflect the data requirements, but also the acceptable level of uncertainty. Broadly stated, the goals of this Monitoring Plan are to: · Provide precipitation records to characterize storm events and analyze event frequency. · Characterize hydrologic conditions (rainfall-runoff) within the drainage system. · Characterize hydraulic conditions within the drainage system and receiving waters. · Observe frequency and severity of flooding problems. · Evaluate the performance of storm drainage facilities and identify maintenance priorities. · Provide data for calibration and verification of hydrologic and hydraulic models, which are used to develop and prioritize capital improvement projects. To achieve the goals described above, the following specific objectives have been developed for the Monitoring Plan: Objective 1: Collect and record precipitation data for the City’s storm utility area. Precipitation is the driving force behind stormwater. Precipitation intensity and duration data are needed to characterize rainfall-runoff processes and adequately design for drainage of stormwater runoff. Precipitation can be measured directly, as opposed to phenomena that require indirect measurement (e.g., flow can be estimated using depth-discharge relations). The following sub-objectives provide specifics for Objective 1. 1A) Precipitation data should be collected continuously. A continuous data record reflects all measurable precipitation that occurs over the period of record. If actual data are not logged during dry periods then the data should be qualified during the data processing stage to indicate that no precipitation occurred and to differentiate between such periods of zero precipitation and periods where no data are available. 1B) Precipitation data should be collected for a minimum of 20 complete seasons. Data should be collected for a period of time that is not only sufficient to capture precipitation events of substantial magnitude, but also to perform precipitation-frequency analyses. The former depends on the recurrence interval of an event that is considered to have substantial magnitude. Table 2-1 shows the likelihood that storm events of various recurrence intervals will be exceeded within 10- and 20-year periods of record. 2: Goals and Objectives Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 2-2 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Table 2-1. Percent Chance of Exceedance for 10- and 20-Year Periods of Record Recurrence interval for a precipitation event Annual chance of exceedance Chance of exceedance in 10 years of record Chance of exceedance in 20 years of record 2 years 50% 99.9% 99.9999% 10 years 10% 65% 88% 25 years 4% 34% 56% 50 years 2% 18% 33% 100 years 1% 10% 18% This information should be examined with respect to the level of service (LOS) goals for the stormwater utility to determine an appropriate duration for data collection. The most recent LOS goals for the utility include requirements for protection against flooding of 25-, 50-, and 100-year recurrence (Auburn, 2009). Table 2-1 indicates 10 years of record has only a 10 percent chance of capturing an event of 100-year recurrence or greater, an 18 percent chance of capturing a 50-year event, and a 34 percent chance of capturing a 25-year event. If the period of record is extended to 20 years, the chance of capturing large events increases; for example, the chance of capturing a 25- year event increases to 56 percent. Precipitation-frequency analyses require many years, if not decades, of data records. A conservative rule of thumb for frequency analyses states that the period of record used in a frequency analysis should be about one-half of the greatest recurrence interval to be estimated (Davie, 2003). This suggests that precipitation records should be collected for 50 years if the purpose of the record is to provide estimates for a 100-year storm event. However, precipitation records can be augmented for this purpose through correlation with other nearby gauges. Thus, a single long-term rain gauge could provide the data necessary to extend the period of record for other neighboring gauges. It should be noted that it is preferable to collect data for water years instead of calendar years because a water year represents one full wet season. A water year begins on October 1 of one year and extends to September 30 of the following year. 1C) The number and distribution of precipitation gauges should cover the entire storm drainage utility with a minimum gauge density of one gauge per 50 square miles. Precipitation can be highly spatially variable, particularly within a single storm event. However, random variation in rainfall patterns average out over long periods of time. Physical conditions within a drainage area can affect spatial variation of precipitation on a long-term basis. For example, variations in topography can cause orographic effects that lead to higher rates of precipitation at higher elevations. As a general rule, a greater variation in elevation leads to a greater variation in precipitation. To compensate for this a higher density of precipitation gauges is needed. Table 2-2 gives precipitation-gauge density recommendations for various climatic situations based on recommendations from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO, 1974). Table 2-2. Minimum Precipitation-Gauge Densities Recommended by the WMO (1974) Geographic region km2/gauge mi2/gauge Small mountainous islands with irregular precipitation 25 10 Temperate, mediterranean, and tropical mountainous regions 100–250 40–100 Flat areas in temperate, mediterranean, and tropical regions 600–900 230–350 Arid and polar regions 1,500–10,000 600–4,000 2: Goals and Objectives Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 2-3 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Most of the stormwater drainage area for the City lies along the floor of a wide flat valley. However, peripheral areas do lie at higher elevations, with a total variation of approximately 400 feet. Given the potential for variations in rainfall due to topographic variability in the area, a gauge density of approximately one gauge per 50 square miles is assumed to be sufficient for the purposes of this Monitoring Plan. 1D) The frequency (minimum time interval) of precipitation recordings should be less than the estimated time of concentration of the drainage areas to be monitored for flow. Small catchments will respond rapidly to short changes in rainfall intensity. According to Alley (1977) the ideal recording interval would not be greater than one-fifth to one-tenth of the time of concentration (as referenced in United States Geological Survey [USGS], 1999). One study showed that a 2-acre catchment responded to changes in a matter of minutes. 1E) Precipitation data should be measured to a precision of 0.01 inch. Runoff discharges and volumes are highly sensitive to precipitation intensity. Therefore, the precision of precipitation data measurement is important for rainfall-runoff modeling. Historically, a precision level of 0.01 inch is comparable with distortion levels, spatial variability, and the precision level of the equipment (USGS, 1999). 1F) Precipitation data should be collected on at least one recording gauge and should be supplemented by at least one manual gauge. Although a manual gauge does not provide timing, duration, or intensity, such a gauge does provide event totals, which can be used to verify recorded data. Manually recorded data also provides backup in the event of equipment failure. 1G) Precipitation data collection should include a provision for snowfall. Snowfall in the Auburn area is relatively low; a long-term gauging station in nearby Kent, Wash., has recorded on average 3.7 inches of snowfall per year. Because snowfall events do occur occasionally, some provision should be made to estimate snowfall depths and equivalent water content. Automatic recording of snowfall is difficult. Typical rain gauge mechanisms, such as a tipping bucket, would require heating to record precipitation that occurs as snowfall. Weighing gauges are better for snow, but are more costly and require more maintenance than a typical tipping bucket gauge. An alternative to an automatic recording gauge would be to manually record snowfall depths and make estimates of water content. Objective 2: Collect and record flow data at selected locations within the drainage system. Flow data will be used to characterize both hydrologic and hydraulic conditions within a drainage basin. Accurate measurement of flow not only provides peak discharge estimates for sizing conveyance capacity within the drainage network, but also provides runoff volumes for use in evaluating storm drainage facilities and improvement projects. The following sub-objectives provide specifics for Objective 2. 2A) Flow data should be collected in storm drainage basins with known flooding problems. The updated Drainage Plan (Auburn, 2009) has identified five areas with existing flooding problem areas, referred to as the high-priority basins: B, C, D, H/I, and P. The Drainage Plan makes recommendations for capital improvement projects to address these problems, which will become part of the 6-year capital improvement program (CIP) for the storm drainage utility. The recommendations made in the Drainage Plan are based on hydrologic and hydraulic modeling analyses using the best available data for sizing conveyance facilities and verifying adequate storage in detention and infiltration facilities. However, these recommendations will be re-evaluated during the design of each CIP project to refine the design. At which time, it will be important to have additional flow data available for design and alternatives analyses. 2: Goals and Objectives Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 2-4 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc 2B) Flow data should be collected for a period of 1 to 2 years. Flow data that are collected for the purpose of calibrating hydrologic and hydraulic models should cover most of a wet season and should contain at least one storm event of substantial magnitude, i.e., an event generating sustained runoff for several hours if not days; typically a 2-year event satisfies this criterion. An additional storm event is necessary for model validation. An event such as a 2-year storm may be captured in the first year of monitoring; however, it is equally likely that a 2-year event does not occur within that first wet season. The chance of capturing at least a 2-year event increases to 75 percent after 2 seasons of data collection. Flow data are also collected for the purposes of characterizing hydrologic and hydraulic conditions, as well as observing the frequency and severity of flooding problems. Although the amount of data necessary to achieve such purposes is difficult to define, it is plausible that 2 years of data collection has a considerable likelihood of not capturing a storm event of sufficient magnitude to produce flooding problems or readily observable rainfall-runoff phenomena. It is recommended that flow data be collected one wet season at a time and evaluated on an annual basis. After evaluating the flow data obtained over the previous wet season a decisions can be made regarding the need to collect additional data. 2C) Flow data should be collected at a frequency (time interval) that is less than the estimated time of concentration for the contributing drainage area. The frequency of flow recordings depends on the time scale of the rainfall-runoff processes being studied. Flow response to rainfall in stormwater drainage systems is typically rapid in small urban catchments: on the order of just minutes. One way to assess the relative response of a drainage area is by estimating the time of concentration. The time of concentration is the time it takes for runoff to travel from the most distal point in a drainage basin to the outlet (point of discharge). 2D) Flow measurements should have an accuracy of ±10 percent of the 2-year peak discharge. Flow data collected within the storm drainage system will be used to calibrate models that will in turn be used to size stormwater conveyance structures. Accurate measurement of peak discharges and runoff volumes is vital to model calibration. Shelley and Rantz (1962), as presented in Debo and Reese (2003), describes flow measurement requirements with respect to municipal stormwater monitoring as follows: “±10 percent is necessary, ±5 percent is highly desirable, and repeatability of ±2 percent is desired in all instances.” The accuracy of flow monitoring equipment typically varies over a range of flows; accuracy, as a percentage of flow, will diminish as flows become small. Therefore, a flow rate should be specified for assessing the accuracy of the flow measurement method. Because it is likely that a storm event as small as 2-year recurrence would be used for calibration purposes, the 2-year peak discharge should be used to assess the accuracy of the flow measurement method. Thus, selected flow measurement methods should attain a minimum accuracy of ±10 percent of the 2-year peak discharge estimated for the contributing drainage area. Objective 3: Collect and record level data in areas known to have flooding or backwater problems. Much of the area drained by the storm drainage utility is flat with low-gradient pipes. In some cases, particularly with Mill Creek, the receiving waters themselves have a low hydraulic gradient. These conditions lead to considerable backwater effects through the storm drainage system, which makes flow measurement difficult due to a lack of consistent hydraulic control at a given site. Therefore, level monitoring is an important aspect of the Monitoring Plan as an alternative to obtaining flow data in some areas. In addition, several storm drainage facilities (e.g., infiltration basins) are to be evaluated through water level monitoring. The following sub-objectives provide specifics for Objective 3. 2: Goals and Objectives Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 2-5 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc 3A) Water level data should be collected for receiving waters near storm drainage outfalls. Although most outfalls have gates on them to prevent backflow from receiving waters into the storm sewer, high water levels on the receiving waters create a head differential that causes backups in the drainage network. These limitations need to be assessed and quantified for hydraulic modeling. 3B) Water level data should be collected for selected stormwater facilities. Stormwater facilities to be monitored generally consist of detention ponds and/or infiltration ponds. Water level monitoring at these types of facilities will serve any one of several functions, including: · Verifying adequate pond storage capacity during large storm events · Identifying ponds with underused storage · Evaluating risk of overtopping (relevant for ponds that store greater than 10 acre-feet) · Calibrating the hydraulic models for the drainage basins containing the ponds · Monitoring stormwater facilities for changes to identify and prioritize maintenance activities · Providing information for use in adaptive management of stormwater facilities. Monitoring water level is sufficient to accomplish each of the above listed functions. Therefore, the additional expense needed to also monitor flow (e.g., inflow and outflow) is not justified. Furthermore, flow rates can be inferred from rate changes in stored water. 3C) Water level data should be collected in areas with known flooding problems where hydraulic conditions make flow measurement difficult. Several of the basins with known flooding problems are low-gradient drainage networks with pipes that are frequently surcharged. Measuring levels in such conditions is more feasible than measuring flow. Although level data is not as valuable as flow data for the purposes of model calibration, it can be used in the absence of flow data. In addition, level data can be used to characterize the frequency and depth of flooding in the area being monitored. 3D) Water level data should be collected at a minimum frequency (time interval) of 15 minutes. Water levels in detention ponds, infiltration ponds, and manholes change at a rate that is slower than the rate change in flow in conveyance sections (i.e., pipes). Therefore, the recording frequency for water level does not need to be as frequent as that for collecting flow data. However, small changes in stage in a storage pond can indicate a fairly substantial change in volume. Accordingly, an intermediate time interval for recording such as 15 minutes seems most appropriate. 3E) Water level data should be collected at an accuracy of ±0.05 feet. Water level measuring devices often have an inherent accuracy of approximately ±0.01 feet. However, several other factors can contribute additional uncertainty in water level estimates such as variation in measuring point location, wave action, climatic effects (e.g., barometric pressure changes), and calibration errors. A more realistic accuracy goal in a stormwater setting would be ±0.05 feet. Objective 4: Monitoring methodologies must consider the potential for long-term operation. A thoroughly developed monitoring methodology should contain provisions for maintaining consistent data quality over the entire duration of the monitoring effort, which often continues for several years and in some cases indefinitely. The monitoring methodologies developed for this plan make such provisions through periodic inspection, maintenance, cleaning, recalibration, and data review. In addition, selected monitoring methods should provide flexibility to allow for future modification. The following sub-objectives provide specifics for Objective 4. 2: Goals and Objectives Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 2-6 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc 4A) Monitoring activities should include periodic inspection for all sites and equipment. Monitoring sites must be inspected on a regular basis to check that all equipment is operating properly. Problems that could occur over time include equipment malfunction, loss of power, insufficient data storage, debris accumulation, corrosion, vandalism, or damage from rodents. The more frequently a site is inspected, the lower the risk of losing data. 4B) Monitoring activities should include maintenance and cleaning for all sites and equipment. Proper maintenance of monitoring equipment can prevent equipment malfunction and decrease the risk of measurement error and data losses. Cleaning equipment and keeping parts free of debris can also decrease the risk of measurement error and data losses. 4C) Monitoring activities should include continual data processing and review to ensure consistency. Data should be processed and reviewed at regular intervals similar to the intervals at which data is retrieved. Continually reviewing data as it is collected provides quality assurance and could help to identify problems or inconsistencies. The more frequently data are reviewed; the sooner problems can be resolved. 4D) Monitoring equipment should be recalibrated at regular intervals. In addition to regular reviews of data, measurements should be checked to verify accuracy, and equipment should be recalibrated when needed to maintain optimal accuracy. 4E) Monitoring methods should allow for future improvements such as telemetry. As monitoring methods and equipment are selected, some consideration should be given to flexible designs that could allow for future expansion or improvement. For example, current monitoring objectives do not indicate a need for telemetry; however, the City has indicated that telemetry may be added in the future. 4F) Monitoring methods should address potential data gaps. There is always potential for measurement errors, equipment failure or lost data. Provisions should be made for addressing data gaps. If a continuous record is essential, redundancy should be built into the system. Objective 5: Monitoring methodologies must account for constraints and limitations. As with any program, some constraints must be considered throughout the development of the plan. The Monitoring Plan is primarily subject to budget constraints and limitations on staff resources. The following sub-objectives provide specifics for Objective 5. 5A) Selection of monitoring methods and equipment should consider potential budget constraints. Although a specific budget has not been defined for monitoring, budget constraints will likely be a concern during implementation. Therefore, relative costs should be considered and weighed against potential benefits when selecting monitoring methods and equipment. 5B) Selection of monitoring methods and equipment should consider staffing limitations. The City’s Stormwater Monitoring and Inspection Program is implemented by staff from the Public Work Department. Currently, two staff members are primarily responsible for stormwater monitoring, with some support from utilities engineering. In addition to limited availability, the Public Works staff has limited resources available for completing technical work. These City staff will be conducting most of the monitoring work; however, there is some potential to utilize consultants on a limited basis for highly specialized tasks, such as equipment installation, training, or setting up complex flow monitoring conditions. 3-1 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc MONITORING PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN 3. CURRENT MONITORING ACTIVITIES 3.1 Overview of Storm Drainage System Auburn is located approximately 20 miles south of the City of Seattle in the Duwamish-Green River Valley. The entire city covers approximately 30 square miles. The central portion of the city lies along the bottom of the valley, while the outer edges of the city extend into the surrounding hills. Auburn’s storm drainage utility drains an area slightly larger than the area within the city limits, covering approximately 34 square miles. The existing storm drainage system consists of 135 miles of pipe, 24 miles of ditches, more than 6,500 catch basins and manholes, 113 regional storage facilities, and 6 stormwater pump stations designed to convey rainwater from various collection points for eventual discharge to nearby receiving waters (see Figure 3-1). Stormwater runoff from the city generally flows to one of three receiving waters: · The Green River, which flows through the northeast portion of the city along the east valley wall · The White River, which flows north and then west through the southern portions of the city before it curves southward toward the Puyallup River · Mill Creek, which flows out of the hills on the west side of the valley and then turns northward along the western portion of the city. The stormwater utility drainage area has been divided into 61 basins (see Figure 3-1). Basins B, C, D, H/I, and P have been identified as high-priority basins due to recurring flooding problems in those areas. The updated Drainage Plan will recommend several capital improvement projects to address those problems. Specific problem locations will be described further in Chapter 5. 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-2 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-3 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Figure 3-1. Overview of the Stormwater Drainage System for the City 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-4 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-5 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc 3.2 Current Monitoring Activities at the City of Auburn The City currently monitors for precipitation and water level. In the past, the City has also monitored for flow. The following sections describe these monitoring activities. 3.2.1 Precipitation The City has been collecting precipitation data at city hall since 1995. The original setup was a Weathertronics tipping bucket rain gauge with a Nova Lynx 7-day chart event recorder. This gauge has since been replaced with an Onset Model RG3 HOBO Data Logging Rain Gauge (see Attachment 1). This new rain gauge also uses a tipping bucket mechanism to measure rainfall, but records data using an internal data logger. The entire system is battery powered, with a manufacturer-claimed battery life of approximately 1 year. The tipping bucket device has a precision of 0.01 inches and can measure up to 5 inches of rainfall per hour. Calibrated accuracy is approximately ±1.0 percent up to a rainfall rate of 1 inch per hour. 3.2.2 Flow The City has previously conducted short-term flow monitoring at a number of sites including the 21st Street SE infiltration facility. These flow monitoring installations used two Hach Sigma 950 flow meters. One of the problems encountered with the Hach Sigma 950 flow meters was the need for frequent battery changes (approximately every 2 to 3 weeks). These units would need servicing or replacement before they could be used again. More recently, the City purchased two Hach Sigma 920 AV area-velocity flow meters, which were used at locations near the intersection of 2nd Street and D Street NE and the intersection of Main Street and H Street SE. These meters are expected to have a battery life closer to 90 days. Neither unit is currently deployed. These meters failed due to submergence. One is not functioning, and the other needs to be serviced. 3.2.3 Water Level The City currently monitors water levels in the 37th Street SE infiltration pond and the 21st Street SE infiltration pond. Both locations are monitored using Onset HOBO U20 water level loggers (see Attachment 3), which consist of a pressure transducer sensor and an internal data logger. Each unit is mounted inside a hollow metal post, with a staff gauge attached. Data is downloaded from each HOBO unit at intervals of approximately 10 weeks. Downloaded data is stored in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Onset HOBO U20 water level loggers are not vented; therefore, downloaded water level data must be corrected for barometric pressure. A barometer is maintained at city hall for this purpose. Data downloads are accomplished using a HOBO Waterproof Shuttle that connects to the HOBO U20 water level loggers using an optical interface. City staff members working with this equipment are pleased with the simplicity and reliability of the Onset HOBO units. The City also currently has seven piezometers installed at the Auburn Environmental Park near the intersection of State Route 167 and West Main Street. These sites were installed between May 9, 2006, and August 14, 2006 (Landau Associates, 2006). The purpose of these piezometers is to measure the elevation of groundwater and surface water over time to characterize the hydroperiod of the surrounding wetlands. The piezometer sites do not include in situ equipment for measuring or recording water levels. Instead, manual water surface measurements must be made on a periodic basis. In a report to the City, Landau Associates recommended a measurement interval of at least once a month (Landau Associates, 2006). 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-6 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc 3.3 Monitoring Activities by Outside Agencies Several local, state, and federal agencies collect stormwater-related monitoring data in the Auburn area, and in most cases these data are available to the public. The City can use such data to help achieve the objectives of the Monitoring Plan. The following are known monitoring activities in the Auburn area: · The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) collects climatic data including precipitation. · The USGS collects streamflow data for major water courses such as the Green River, White River, and Big Soos Creek. · The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) collects streamflow and water level data at numerous locations along major state transportation routes. · King County collects precipitation, streamflow, and water level data at numerous locations throughout the county. Figure 3-2 provides an overview of relevant existing monitoring stations in the Auburn area. The following sections describe these stations and outside monitoring activities that could be of use to the City in its monitoring efforts. 3.3.1 Precipitation NOAA collects and manages precipitation data through a surface weather and climate observing network, which consists of more than a thousand weather stations located at airports (known as the Automated Surface Observing System) and thousands of additional weather stations throughout the country that are part of the Cooperative Observer Program. NOAA data are available through the Office of the Washington State Climatologist, the Western Regional Climate Center, or the National Climatic Data Center. Figure 3-2 shows the location of the gauges in the NOAA network in vicinity of Auburn that collected precipitation at an interval of 1 hour or smaller. Only one gauge in the NOAA network is located within the Auburn City limits, or even within a distance of about 7 miles. According to the geographic coordinates, NOAA Co-op Station No. 454169 had been located in the north central part of the City along C Street NW, although it is no longer active. Hourly precipitation data were collected at this location for 24 years, from 1953 through 1976. The elevation of the gauge was approximately 80 feet above mean sea level. 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-7 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Figure 3-2. Existing Monitoring Locations 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-8 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-9 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc The closest active NOAA station with hourly precipitation data is at Seattle-Tacoma Airport (NOAA Co-op Station No. 457473), which is approximately 7 miles northwest of the City. This station has a long-term record spanning from November 1944 to the present. The elevation of this gauge is approximately 370 feet above mean sea level. Additional NOAA co-op stations with hourly precipitation are listed in Table 3-1. Table 3-1. NOAA Co-op Precipitation Gauges in the Region Surrounding City of Auburn NOAA co-op station number location Distance/direction from City 457473 Seattle-Tacoma Airport 7 miles north 457473 Tacoma, Wash. 9 miles west 455224 McMillan Reservoir 8 miles south 455704 Mud Mountain Dam 13 miles southeast 456295 Palmer, Wash. 14 miles east 454486 Landsburg, Wash. 9 miles northeast Active NOAA precipitation gauges provide a gauge density of roughly one gauge per 70 square miles in the region surrounding the City. The gauge at Seattle-Tacoma Airport is the closest and given it’s elevation, it is the most applicable gauge of those listed in Table 3-1. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks has installed and maintained several precipitation gauges in the vicinity of Auburn (see Figure 3-2). Some of these gauges are no longer in operation; however, several are still recording data, which is typically available in intervals of 15 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day, and 1 month. Table 3-2 lists the King County precipitation gauges and the duration over which data have been collected. Table 3-2. King County Precipitation Gauges in the Vicinity of the City of Auburn King County gauge ID Gauge description Date installed Date removed Approximate elevation (feet above mean sea level) 24v East Fork Hylebos Rain Gauge1 10/17/1996 - 210 32u Lower Green River Rain Gauge1 11/1/1988 - 430 33x Woodmont Rain Gauge2 11/1/2000 - 270 41u Star Lake Rain Gauge1 11/1/1988 - 360 41v Lake Dolloff Rain Gauge: precipitation gauge (recording)1 11/1/1988 - 420 41w Mill Creek at 29th Ave. NW Rain Gauge2 10/1/1988 08/01/1992 50 LHPS Lakeland Hills-Oravetz Pump Station I&I Rain Gauge1 10/1/2000 - 100 SEQU Sequoia JR High School I&I Rain Gauge1 10/1/2000 - 410 1. Active gauge as of February 2009. 2. Inactive gauge as of February 2009. The active King County precipitation gauges in the vicinity of Auburn and the city hall gauge could be used to augment the long-term precipitation records from surrounding NOAA Co-op gauges to increase gauge density to roughly one gauge per 12 square miles. 3.3.2 Stage and Streamflow The USGS maintains active stream gauges on the Green River, White River, and Big Soos Creek (see Figure 3-2). USGS Gauge No. 12113000, located near the point where the Green River crosses into the City limits, has been recording stage and flow data since 1937. USGS Gauge No. 12100496, located just past the point where the White River crosses out of the City limits, has been recording stage and flow data since 1987. 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-10 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc USGS Gauge No. 13112600 is on Big Soos Creek, which is just outside of the city limits. Each of the USGS gauges records daily mean stage and discharge, as well as instantaneous annual peak discharge. Data records are available from the USGS websites http://wa.water.usgs.gov/realtime/htmls/green.html and http://wa.water.usgs.gov/realtime/htmls/puyallup.html . As with precipitation gauges, the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks installed and maintained several stage and flow gauges in the vicinity of the City (see Figure 3-2). A list of these gauges is provided in Table 3-3. Table 3-3. King County Stage and Flow Gauges in the Vicinity of the City of Auburn King County gauge ID Gauge description Date installed Date removed Data type 32c Lower Green River Tributary 0069 at Green River RD1 09/01/1988 08/01/1990 Stage and flow 41a Mill Creek at SR 1812 09/27/1988 02/28/1997 Stage and flow 41b Mill Creek at 29th Ave. NW: stream gauge (recording) 1 10/01/1988 08/01/1992 Stage and flow 41c Mill Creek at Peasley Canyon RD1 10/01/1988 11/24/2008 Stage and flow 41f Mill Creek Tributary 0049A at S. 272nd Way 09/01/1988 08/01/1990 Stage only 54a Soos Creek at Mouth3 08/01/1994 - Stage and flow AN1 Green River above Auburn Narrows1 12/13/2002 09/30/2004 Piezometer ANW1 Auburn Narrows Monitoring Piezometer P26A1 04/25/2003 09/30/2004 Piezometer ANW2 Auburn Narrows Monitoring Piezometer P2A1 04/25/2003 09/30/2004 Piezometer ANW3 Auburn Narrows Monitoring Piezometer P6A1 04/25/2003 09/30/2004 Piezometer ANW4 Auburn Narrows Monitoring Piezometer P10A1 04/25/2003 09/30/2004 Piezometer ANW5 Auburn Narrows Monitoring Piezometer P11A1 04/25/2003 09/30/2004 Piezometer mf1 Mill Creek near Peasley Canyon: stream gauge (recording) 1 02/24/1997 01/05/2006 Stage and flow mf2 Mill Creek, Wetland #5K—Stage only: stream gauge (recording) 1 02/20/1997 07/13/2000 Stage only mf4 Mill Creek Project #4—Stage only: stream gauge (recording) 1 04/10/1997 07/13/2000 Stage only mf5 Mill Creek Project # 5 Crest Gauge: crest/staff gauge1 02/25/1997 07/13/2000 Stage only mf6 Mill Creek Project #6—Stage only: stream gauge (recording) 1 04/11/1997 07/13/2000 Stage only mf7 Mill Creek Project #7—Stage only: stream gauge (recording) 1 04/17/1997 07/13/2000 Stage only mf8 Mill Creek Project #8—See 41a, same location: crest/staff gauge2,3 02/28/1997 - Stage only 1. Inactive gauge as of February 2009. 2. Station 41a was replaced with mf8 in February 1997 and became a stage-only gauge recording crest elevations. 3. Active gauge as of February 2009. Data records for the above-listed stage/flow gauges are available from the King County website: http://green.kingcounty.gov/wlr/waterres/hydrology/DataDownload.aspx. The time intervals for the available data records vary. In general, data records for each of the stage/flow gauges contain some periods of hourly flow data ranging from a few consecutive months to several consecutive years. Daily mean flows are generally available for greater periods than hourly flows. Recorded stage data associated with each of the recorded flows are not readily available for download, but could perhaps be obtained by special request from King County. Field observations of stage are available on the King County website for selected dates. Similarly, data records for stage-only gauges are not available on the King County website, except for field observations on selected dates. However, several of the stage-only gauges imply that stage was recorded continuously because the descriptions state “recording.” Therefore, it is likely that King County has data 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-11 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc records for these sites. The crest/staff gauges are less likely to have continuously recorded data available, and are more likely to have data that are only associated with intermittent large events. No data are available for the Auburn Narrows piezometers on the King County website. These sites measure ground water surface elevations; therefore, no flow data would be associated with these gauges, only water level. Groundwater elevations change much more slowly than those of surface water. As such, piezometer readings are usually only recorded at daily, weekly, or monthly intervals. 3: Current Monitoring Activities Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 3-12 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] 4-1 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc MONITORING PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN 4. MONITORING METHODOLOGY Monitoring methodologies should be designed to achieve accurate and representative data that describe conditions within the stormwater drainage system and associated water bodies. First, decisions must be made regarding monitoring goals, and the objectives and acceptable levels of uncertainty must be clearly defined. Then decisions must be made that answer the following questions: 1. Where and what kind of data are to be collected? 2. How frequently and for what duration are data to be collected? 3. What equipment will be used for measurement, recording, and storing data? 4. How are data to be processed and reviewed for quality assurance? Items 1 and 2 were described in general terms with the goals and objectives presented in Chapter 2. This chapter will address items 3 and 4, again in general terms. Chapter 5 will focus on specific monitoring locations and will provide options with respect to the equipment and data collection methods discussed in this chapter. 4.1 Equipment and Measurement Recommendations Three general types of stormwater monitoring are recommended for the City of Auburn Public Works Department: precipitation monitoring, flow monitoring, and water level (stage) monitoring. The following three sections describe the recommended methodologies for measuring precipitation, flow, and water level. 4.1.1 Precipitation Measurement Accurate and representative measurement of precipitation is difficult to obtain because precipitation is distributed unevenly throughout the drainage system and rainfall intensity changes rapidly over time during a storm event (USGS, 1999). Variable spatial and temporal rainfall patterns lead to highly variable runoff flows within and between storm events. According to the USGS (1999), collection of accurate and representative precipitation data requires: · Proper siting (placement, density, and surroundings) · Measurement methods that will meet objectives · Appropriate measurement intervals · Collection of a sufficient amount of data (period of record). Siting: Objective 1C states that the number and distribution of precipitation gauges should cover the entire storm drainage utility with a minimum gauge density of one gauge per 50 square miles. This is a highly subjective criterion based on the topography of the areas, knowledge of historical conditions, and engineering judgment. Reviewing the existing NOAA precipitation gauging network, there are not enough gauges to meet this criterion, in addition to the fact that the closest NOAA Co-op Station is 7 miles away. Therefore, additional precipitation gauges are needed beyond the NOAA network. 4: Monitoring Methodology Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 4-2 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc King County has seven precipitation gauges in operation surrounding the City. These gauges increase the gauge density in this area to an average of approximately one gauge per 12 square miles, which is a vast improvement over the NOAA network and exceeds the criterion of Objective 1C. Most of the King County precipitation gauges are located in peripheral areas around the City. Many of these gauges are located at relatively high elevations (greater than 200 feet). Conversely, the city hall gauge is located in the middle of the City at a relatively low elevation. Therefore, the city hall gauge is likely to provide the best estimate of precipitation occurring in the central portion of the City. It is recommended that a gauge continue to be operated at this location for the entire duration of precipitation monitoring. No new precipitation monitoring locations are needed. Data from the city hall gauge can be used in combination with King County gauge data to sufficiently cover the storm drainage utility area. Gauge selection for analyses such as hydrologic modeling depends on the location and extent of the drainage area to be analyzed. Stormwater drainage basins are typically small and therefore only require precipitation data from one gauge. In such cases the nearest gauge is usually most appropriate; however, the rain gauge should be at roughly the same elevation as the drainage area. If the selected gauge does not have a long period of record, the record for that gauge can be extended using data from a neighboring gauge that has a long-term record. For the City of Auburn a likely choice for a long-term precipitation record is the gauge at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport. To extend the record at the ‘short-term’ gauge, a statistical correlation must be developed based on overlapping years of data. If a well-correlated relationship is established between the two gauges this relationship can be used to modify the data from the long-term gauge for the years that are not available at the short-term gauge. These modified data can then be appended onto the short-term gauge’s data record to extend the record to a longer period. Measurement Method: The existing precipitation gauge at the city hall location is an Onset Model RG3 HOBO tipping bucket gauge (see Attachment 1 and Figure 4-1) with a precision of ±0.01 inches, which meets Objective 1E. The tipping bucket gauge is a reliable measurement device and can be calibrated to achieve an accuracy of approximately ±1.0 percent. In addition, the Onset Model RG3 has an internal data logger and a battery life of nearly 1 year. Therefore, it is recommended that the existing gauging equipment continue to be used to monitor precipitation at city hall. When the City’s data telemetry system is implemented consideration should be given upgrading to a rain gauge compatible with the telemetry system. It is recommended that a manual rain gauge be kept as a backup and to validate recorded data (Objective 1F). A standard rain gauge consists of a collector funnel, measurement tube, and outer overflow can. The collector gathers rain and funnels it into the measurement tube, typically at a 10-to-1 ratio. The measuring tube usually has a capacity of approximately 2 inches of rainfall depth and should be used to measure cumulative rainfall on a daily basis, or during large events. If power can be provided to the City Hall rain gauge, we recommend installing a heating kit to the existing gauge. This kit can be purchased for about $300 and automatically activates during cold weather to melt snow entering the gauge, which is then measured as inches of rainfall (Objective 1G). An alternative would be to establish procedures for manual measurement of snowfall depths and estimation of equivalent water content. Guidance for measurement of snow is provided by the National Weather Service (NOAA, 2006). Figure 4-1. Onset Model RG3 HOBO (Onset, 2009) 4: Monitoring Methodology Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 4-3 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Recording Intervals: The Onset Model RG3 HOBO rain gauge records each tip of the bucket mechanism, which accounts for 0.01 inches of rain, along with the date and time of the tip. These records can then be processed to create incremental time series data for analyses such as rainfall-runoff modeling. Precipitation data are typically stored in 15-minute, hourly, or daily time increments. Because continuous precipitation data covers long periods of time it, is often not practical to store data in time increments less than 15 minutes due to large amounts of data. Objective 1D states that precipitation measurement frequency (minimum time interval) should be less than the estimated time of concentration of drainage areas to be monitored for flow. Preliminary hydraulic modeling of the drainage basins suggests that the time of concentration in some of the smaller basins could be as low as 15 minutes. Therefore, 15-minute measurement intervals are recommended. Period of Record: Precipitation data collected at city hall will be used for multiple analyses including stormwater modeling, water quality monitoring, and studies of rainfall frequency. Therefore, data should be collected continuously (Objective 1A), and should be collected for a minimum of 20 complete seasons (Objective 1B), if not indefinitely. 4.1.2 Flow Measurement Stormwater flow monitoring requires flow measurement in both open channels and closed conduits. The objectives of this Monitoring Plan focus on flow measurement inside the pipe networks. Both open-channel (free surface) and pressurized (full pipe) flow conditions can occur within the pipe network. Monitoring in such environments is varied and complex due to the following difficulties: · Stormwater flow rates can range by several orders of magnitude in a short period of time. · Flow regimes (steady, unsteady, supercritical, or subcritical) can change over a range of flow rates. · Flow within closed conduits can switch from partially full, open-channel type conditions to surcharged, pressure flow conditions. · Introduction of flow measurement equipment in small conduits can disturb flow conditions. · Flows are intermittent with extended dry periods, which can sometimes lead to erratic measurements. Flow measurement in open channels or partially full closed conduits is typically accomplished by indirect means: measurements of stage (water level) are converted flow rates using a stage-discharge relationship that is established based on the flow conditions at the site. The physical element that governs the stage-discharge relationship is called control point (e.g., grade break, weir, drop, or constriction), which controls the flow depth upstream. Typically, control changes throughout a range of flows. For example, it may begin with a single slope break point at lower flows, but transition to a constriction at higher flows. Three attributes of satisfactory control (Debo and Reese, 2003) are listed below: 1. Stability: characterized by the extent to which a one-to-one stage discharge relationship remains valid throughout a range of flows (backwater conditions disrupt stability). 2. Permanence: characterized by the extent to which hydraulic control remains constant over time (channel instabilities could disrupt permanence). 3. Sensitivity: characterized by how sensitive a change in stage is to a change in discharge (highly sensitive conditions such as v-shaped channels are good, flat areas with very small changes in stage are bad). Challenges: Stability is perhaps the most challenging aspect of flow monitoring in closed conduits: flow regimes can jump between subcritical and supercritical, severe angles can disrupt uniform flow, downstream constrictions can cause backwater, and surcharging causes pressurized flow. In open-channel conditions stability can often be created by installing a control structure such as a weir or a flume. These types of 4: Monitoring Methodology Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 4-4 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc structures can also be installed in closed conduits, but this is often more difficult due to space constraints. In either case, control structures do not work if backwater conditions cause the structures to become submerged by backwater. Backwater surcharging of storm drains is a major concern in the high-priority basins B, C, D, H/I, and P. The pipe networks in these areas have shallow slopes and the hydraulic gradient is often limited by high water levels at outfalls to receiving waters such as the Green River and Mill Creek. Flow monitoring in these areas is difficult because backwater affects the control point and flow conditions switch from partially full to full pressurized flow, which negates the ability to measure flow using a stage-discharge relationship. Alternatively, flow must be measured using an area-velocity relationship. Previous monitoring efforts in these basins were only moderately successful even though area-velocity measuring equipment was used. Conversations with City staff suggest that the Hach Sigma 920 and 950 flow meters were not reliable and failed when submerged for extended periods. These meters also have limited accuracy over a range of partially full and full-pipe flow conditions because they use only a single point measurement to estimate velocity. Recommended Equipment: More accurate area- velocity measurement can be obtained from a multi-point velocity measurement systems such as the ADS FlowShark or the Teledyne-Isco ADFM or AccQmin. The FlowShark and ADFM/AccQmin flow meters measure flows in pipes under surcharged and reverse-flow conditions. Recorder equipment can be submerged for short periods of time, but it is best to avoid submergence if possible. The ADS FlowShark (see Attachment 2 and Figure 4-2) calculates average velocity by integrating several discrete-point velocity measurements using a “gated” ultrasonic velocity sensor that scans multiple layers (scan windows) within the upstream flow cross-section. The ADS FlowShark has a submerged ultrasonic sensor for measuring water depth and pressure depth, which overrides the ultrasonic sensor under surcharged conditions. The improved accuracy provided by the ADS FlowShark equipment should increase flow measurement accuracy to better than ±10 percent over a range of flow rates (Objective 2D). The Teledyne-Isco ADFM flow meter (see Attachment 2) uses four narrow acoustic beams and range-gated ultrasonic pulses to measure velocities within specific depth cells using Doppler shift measurements. This configuration covers more of the cross-sectional area and has less potential for range-bias for a more representative calculation of the average velocity. The low-profile Teledyne-Isco AccQmin is designed for use in flow depths as low as 3-inches (up to 48-inches), whereas the ADFM is best for depths of 12-inches or greater. An alternative flow measurement technology that works well in collection systems with surcharged conditions is incorporated in the DataGator by Renaissance Instruments (see Attachment 2). The DataGator uses a modified venturi tube and three pressure transducers to compute flow under hydraulic flow conditions ranging from open channel, through full pipe, surcharge and reverse flow conditions. This might be an appropriate flow measurement device in specific locations, particularly those where the flow depths are generally shallow except during storm events. Figure 4-2. ADS FlowShark Ultrasonic Flow Meter (ADS, 2009) 4: Monitoring Methodology Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 4-5 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc If the existing City-owned Hach Sigma 920 and 950 meters are serviced to ensure that they are functioning correctly, they could be used to monitor flows in locations where surcharging is not likely. Note that conventional Doppler area-velocity meters sometimes have problems if the water is too “clean.” That is, at times stormwater has to-few particles for the Doppler signals to reflect back to the sensor. The more advanced surcharge-capable meters described above are recommended for flow monitoring in basins B, C, D, H/I, and P, where the data are to be used for hydraulic model calibration and verification of capital improvements (Objective 2A). Objective 5B refers to the limited staffing available at the City for setting up and maintaining complex monitoring sites. Another consideration is that the recommended equipment is relatively expensive; ranging between $8,500 and $20,000 purchase cost per meter. Given these constraints, the City should consider retaining the services of a flow monitoring consultant such as ADS Environmental Services or SFE Global to conduct the flow monitoring effort. ADS Environmental Services provided a rough guideline for estimating the cost of small monitoring projects as ranging between $55 and $100 per meter per day (ADS, 2009c). Monitoring Duration: It is recommended that flow data be collected for at least 1 full season. A full season of flow data will allow for calibration of hydrologic and hydraulic models. It is not sufficient to collect flow data for just one large event. It is better to collect data for several events over the course of an entire season so that the hydrologic and hydraulic simulations can more appropriately account for initial conditions. Flow monitoring activities will likely be conducted for 2 or more seasons to allow meters to be used in multiple locations, and in case adequate data is not obtained in the first year (Objective 2B). Flow meters should be installed in the basins with the highest-priority capital improvement projects in the first season so that data are available for modeling and design of those improvements. If sufficient data are collected in a basin in the first season, then that meter can be moved to one of the other basins in the second season. If no significant events are recorded in those first 2 years then monitoring may need to be extended to a third season. Data Recording Interval: The time interval for flow recording should be less than the estimated time of concentration for the contributing drainage area. The time of concentration is the time it takes for runoff to travel from the most distal point in a drainage area to the point of concern (flow meter location). Preliminary modeling indicates that a time interval of 15 minutes should be adequate for most basins (Objective 2C). High-frequency monitoring provides substantially more detail and insight, and often does not require an equally substantial increase in cost and labor as long as the system has adequate memory (USGS, 1999). 4.1.3 Water Level Measurement To meet water level monitoring objectives, measurement equipment will need to be installed at a variety of locations including manholes, ponds, and on receiving waters near outfalls. In general, water level measurements will be recorded at these locations to achieve the following objectives: · Characterize stage frequency in receiving waters to obtain a better understanding of the hydraulic limitations with respect to discharge through outfalls (Objective 3A) · Evaluate the capacity and performance of existing detention/infiltration ponds (Objective 3B) · Monitor water levels in large ponds to assess the risk associated with impounding large volumes of water (Objective 3B) · Characterize the frequency and severity of flooding in known flooding areas (Objective 3C). 4: Monitoring Methodology Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 4-6 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Numerous methods are available for measuring water level in these types of conditions. Use of pressure transducers is one of the simplest and most common methods. In fact, the City currently uses Onset HOBO U20 pressure transducers for measuring water level at its 37th Street SE and 21st Street SE infiltration ponds. Approach: The approach is to select a level sensor with external output capabilities that can be combined with a datalogging system that has the capability for remote telemetry, whether the telemetry is implemented immediately or in the future. The equipment selected should have off the shelf MS Windows compatible software supplied by the equipment manufacturer. The software must have the ability to export data to MS Excel or MS Access. Purchase of new level monitoring instrumentation with telemetry capabilities, or with the option to include telemetry in the future will be necessary. One option is to install instrumentation such as manufactured by Campbell Scientific (CSI) that includes a vented level sensor and a relatively inexpensive datalogger with radio telemetry, installed in an environmental enclosure with a small solar panel. The radio/datalogger can be used as part of a wide area network, or a stand-alone system. As a stand-alone system the radio can be used for wireless monitoring and data collection from a distance (such as from a vehicle), eliminating the need to physically connect to the datalogger in adverse conditions. As part of a network the site can be connected directly or through a series of wireless nodes to a computer and the City’s intranet for automatic data collection and display. Recommended Equipment: Use instrumentation similar to that manufactured by Campbell Scientific, such as the model CS450 pressure sensor with a vented cable and the CR206 datalogger with spread spectrum radio. The datalogger can be powered by a solar charged battery for long term continuous operation, or battery alone where solar charging is not practical. The vented cable automatically compensates for barometric pressure changes, and the radio would allow remote wireless monitoring and data collection. Direct field level measurement verification will be possible since real time measurements can be compared directly to manual readings. Seasonal maintenance would typically consist of inspecting the battery and vented tube desiccant, replacing as necessary. Alternatives to Campbell Scientific equipment include the Global WL-16 and the Level Troll Series by In-Situ Inc. (see Attachment 3). The non-telemetry capable Onset HOBO U20 level logger (currently used) costs approximately $500 per unit and a system using the CSI CR206 would cost about $1,900 per site, not including additional hardware and software needed to setup an integrated network. A combination of self-contained units for temporary sites and networked sites for long term operation might be an option. Installation and setup costs would be additional. Data Recording Interval: The time interval for water level recording depends on the location and purpose of the data collection. Hourly time intervals will be adequate for most locations including large ponds and on receiving waters such as rivers and streams. If a water level recorder is installed in a location where rapid flooding and draining are expected, then a time interval of 15 minutes could be used (Objective 3D). Figure 4-3. Campbell Scientfic CR206 radio datalogger with solar panel and level sensor 4: Monitoring Methodology Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 4-7 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Monitoring Duration: Proposed durations for water level monitoring vary depending on the purpose. Approximate durations for water level monitoring are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1. Approximate Water Level Monitoring Durations Purpose of water level monitoring Duration Characterize hydraulic grade along receiving waters (Green River) 10 years Characterize hydraulic grade along receiving waters (Mill Creek) 10 years Evaluate detention/infiltration pond capacity and performance Indefinitely Monitor water levels in large ponds to assess risk Indefinitely Characterize the frequency and severity of flooding, support CIP 6 years Installation: The transducer can be installed on the side of a channel or basin inside a sloping conduit that terminates at a low point that is typically submerged. The sensor vertical placement should be configured with a positive stopping point for the sensor such that it can be returned to the same point after each removal. Install to prevent sediment accumulation that might build up under the sensor. A staff gauge is installed to provide an indicator for observed water level measurement. The data logger needs to be mounted above the highest likely water surface elevation. The zero point should be clearly marked and surveyed to establish the base elevation in NAVD88. 4.2 Data Management and Quality Control A thoroughly developed monitoring methodology should contain provisions for maintaining consistent data quality over the entire duration of the monitoring effort through periodic inspection, maintenance, cleaning, recalibration, and data review. This methodology should include a clear quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process to ensure that information is well-documented and reported accurately. The following sections make recommendations for data management and QA/QC procedures. Documentation of Field Work: A considerable proportion of data management and QA/QC must be completed in the field where conditions are not always ideal. Careful planning and preparation can help to avoid errors and inefficiencies. Recommended field work practices include: · Use standardized field sheets for recording information such as inspection reports, problems encountered, weather conditions, data download times, manual readings, and field observations. Standard field forms provide a clear and easily organized method for recording information and can be archived with project records. Example field sheets are provided in Attachment 4. · Photograph site conditions and observable phenomena. Digital photographs can be easily archived as electronic files, but it is important to identify the date, time, and location of each photograph before archiving. · Document equipment installation. This is an essential field work practice. Documentation should not only be kept for equipment specifications, site design sketches, design and record drawings, installation notes, and photographs, but there should also be detailed documentation of site reconnaissance including rationale for site selection. Calibration: The initial calibration of measurement equipment is essential to the accuracy of the data recordings, and frequent recalibration is equally important when data is collected over extended periods of time (Objective 4D). Recalibration frequency depends on equipment setup and ambient conditions. Although regularly scheduled recalibration periods are recommended, the best way to determine when recalibration is needed is to continually review data and verify their accuracy. The following are recommendations for equipment used to measure precipitation, flow, and water level: 4: Monitoring Methodology Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 4-8 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc · Calibration worksheets should be developed that are specific to the selected equipment and site design. · Rain gauges should be re-calibrated annually. The Onset RG3 can be field-calibrated or returned to the factory for recalibration. · Water level loggers should be calibrated annually or more frequently if field verification suggests data drift. · Flow meters should be recalibrated annually or at any time data appear questionable. Inspection and Maintenance: Equipment and instrumentation must be maintained to ensure the integrity of the data. Frequent and routine site visits by trained and experienced field personnel are extremely important (Objective 4B). The following are recommendations for equipment used to measure precipitation, flow, and water level: · The RG3 rain gauge uses a 3-volt CR-2032 lithium battery. Battery life varies depending on temperature and logging interval. The manufacturer indicates a new battery typically lasts 1 year with typical use. Batteries should be checked every 6 months. · The RG3 rain gauge should be inspected and cleaned every 3 months. The filter screen, funnel, and tipping bucket mechanism should be cleaned with a mild soap, water, and a cotton swab. · The needle bearings on the RG3 rain gauge need to be oiled with light oil on an annual basis. In harsh conditions, the needle bearings should be lubricated more frequently. · Batteries for water level loggers should be checked at least as frequently recommended by the manufacturer. Battery life often depends on the sampling frequency. To avoid lost data, battery power should be checked whenever possible (e.g., during every data download). · Water level loggers should be inspected for fouling during each data download. The sensor should be cleaned every 6 months using clean water and a toothbrush to remove any algae, mud, or sludge. Biological growth on the face of the pressure sensor will affect accuracy. · Flow meters units should be periodically checked for debris accumulation. During the wet season each unit should be inspected monthly. · Flow meters units do not need to be deployed during dry months and should be removed, inspected, and cleaned annually. Data Downloads and Processing: Data should be downloaded on a regular basis to minimize the risk of data loss and to allow for frequent data review. Post-processing of raw data should be completed as soon as possible after data downloads. A common tendency is to download the data and leave the post-processing to be done at a later time in batch. However, if the data is processed immediately, then there is immediate and frequent feedback regarding the operation of the measurement device (see QA/QC procedures in the following section). Post-processing procedures should include the following: · Conversion of raw data into the data of interest with appropriate units and all necessary corrections. For example, if water level data is reported as depth, it may need to be converted to elevation tied to a vertical datum and corrected for barometric pressure. · Integration of data into a comprehensive database structure. Time series data need to be merged with previous data into a single series; overlapping data should be reconciled and gaps should be identified. · Basic plots and summaries of the data should be created to aid data review. · Data download and processing checklists should be developed to ensure consistent methods are used. Example field sheets are provided in Attachment 4. A variety of software programs can be used for data processing. The City currently stores water level data from the Onset HOBO U20 water level loggers in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Microsoft Excel is a 4: Monitoring Methodology Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 4-9 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc commonly used method for storing and analyzing data. Microsoft Excel is flexible and easy to use; however, a major limitation with Excel is that it is not good for extremely long data series. Nor does Excel have any intrinsic functions for data review and manipulation. A similar option is Microsoft Access, which does not have the data limitations that Excel does, and can be customized using Visual Basic scripts. The Global Water WL-16 water level logger comes with its own software, though it is not likely to have many data processing tools. The ADS FlowShark Pulse meters produce data in ASCII (text) format, which is a universal format that can be read by most software programs. Several software products designed for environmental monitoring (e.g., FlowLink and Aquarius) are commercially available. These programs are designed for processing monitoring data and contain many intrinsic functions for reviewing and analyzing data. The downside is that these programs must be purchased and cannot be used by third parties that do not have a software license. QA/QC procedures: Water level QA/QC procedures need to be established at the beginning of a project to ensure that precipitation flow measurements are accurate and representative of the system being investigated. These procedures should cover all phases of stormwater flow investigations, and decisions made during the design phase should be continually reviewed throughout the duration of the study. The following are key components to an effective QA/QC program: · Technical training should be provided to all staff who will be installing and maintaining equipment, downloading data, and processing and analyzing data. These staff should be given sufficient knowledge of monitoring objectives to allow them to continually improve monitoring procedures. · Frequent and routine site visits need to be conducted by trained and experienced field personnel (Objective 4A). The frequency of visits will vary with season and parameter. For example, flow monitoring instrumentation should be inspected prior to storm events and during or immediately following events to check for problems and download data. · Redundant methods for measuring precipitation, flow, and water level should be incorporated into monitoring efforts at every site. Redundant systems provide for comparison of primary and backup data for detection of errors and backup data collection in the event of failure of the primary system. · Data need to be assessed and reviewed at several points in the data collection process (Objective 4C). This should include frequent cursory reviews of data to ensure that the system is operational. Detailed data reviews should be conducted to check the completeness and accuracy of the data. · Periodic internal audits provide technical feedback from experts and people who will likely use the data. Potential problems can be identified and remedied. · Periodic external audits should examine project plans, project data, project records, and QA/QC documentation to ensure that study objectives are being met, and to ensure that study objectives will meet the goals of the monitoring project. · Equipment maintenance forms and data download check sheets should include QA/QA steps where applicable. 4: Monitoring Methodology Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 4-10 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] 5-1 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc MONITORING PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN 5. PROPOSED MONITORING LOCATIONS Given the goals and objectives defined in Chapter 2, a total of 23 monitoring locations are proposed for future monitoring activities. One site is proposed for precipitation monitoring, 7 sites are proposed for temporary flow monitoring, and 15 sites are proposed for water level monitoring. Each site is prioritized into one of four tiers based on the timing of data needs. The proposed monitoring sites are listed in Table 5-1 and an overview of these locations is provided in Figure 5-1. A series of summary sheets (one page for each proposed monitoring location) are included in this Chapter following Figure 5-1. Table 5-1. Proposed Monitoring Sites and Data Collection Recommendations Site number Location Data to be collected Priority (Start Year) Duration Equipment Type RG-01 City Hall (Main and Division Street)1 Rainfall Tier 1 (current) Indefinite2 Tipping bucket rain gauge Q-Pipe-B4 Parking lot near Henry Road Depth, flow Tier 2 (2010) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-C346 G Street SE and 2nd Street SE Depth, flow Tier 2 (2010) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-B86 B Street SE and 12th Street SE Depth, flow Tier 1 (2009) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-C26 M Street SE and Auburn Way S Depth, flow optional (2009) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-C59 Dogwood Street near Auburn Way S Depth, flow Tier 3 (2011) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-P2 Near West Main and SR 167 Depth, flow Tier 2 (2010) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter Q-Pipe-I10 30th Street NE near airport Depth, flow Tier 1 (2009) 2 years3 Multipoint velocity meter WL-Mill-01 Mill Creek at 37th Street NW Water level Tier 3 (2011) 10 years4 Water level logger WL-Mill-02 Mill Creek at 29th Street NW Water level Tier 3 (2011) 10 years4 Water level logger WL-Mill-03 Mill Creek at 15th Street NW Water level Tier 3 (2011) 10 years4 Water level logger WL-Mill-04 Mill Creek at West Main St Water level Tier 3 (2011) 10 years4 Water level logger WL-Pond-01 West Airport Pond at 30th Street NW Water level Tier 1 (2009) 2 years3 Water level logger WL-Pond-02 A Street SE and 17th Street SE Water level Tier 1 (2009) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-03 D Street SE and 21St Street SE1 Water level Tier 1 (2009) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-04 South 296th Street near 55th Avenue S Water level Tier 3 (2011) 6 years3 Water level logger WL-Pond-05 South 296th Street near 57th Place S Water level Tier 4 (2012) 6 years3 Water level logger WL-Pond-06 U Street SE and 29th Street SE Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-07 M Street SE and 37th Street SE1 Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-08 Lakeland South Pond No. 16 Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-09 Lakeland South Pond No. 26 Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-10 Lakeland East Pond6 Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger WL-Pond-11 Mill Pond (Oravetz Road SE) 6 Water level Tier 4 (2012) Indefinite5 Water level logger 1. Existing monitoring site; continue monitoring but consider equipment upgrades. 2. To be continually re-evaluated; however, data should be collected continuously for future monitoring needs. 3. Data to support CIP needs at least one wet season of good data; if this is accomplished in year one, then year two may not be necessary. 4. Based on need to examine backwater effects on system, if new capital improvements are identified for Mill Creek, additional years may be needed. 5. To be continually re-evaluated; if data indicate stormwater pond is performing adequately or has low risk of failure then monitoring could cease. 6. Water level monitoring for dam safety purposes. 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-2 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-3 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Figure 5-1. Overview of Proposed Monitoring Locations 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-4 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-5 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc RG-01: Rain Gauge at City Hall (Main and Division Streets) Purpose: Collect precipitation data for various uses (e.g., rainfall-runoff modeling) Data to Collect: 15-minute recorded rainfall, daily manual rainfall readings, and daily snow depth Priority: Tier 1, continuous record need for long-term data analyses Time Frame: Continue existing data collection efforts indefinitely into the future (20+ years) Site Constraints: Buildings and trees could cause measurement error if too close to gauge. Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Onset Model RG3 HOBO tipping bucket rain gauge, standard rain gauge (manual) Figure 5-2. Continue Existing Rain Gauge at City Hall 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-6 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Q-Pipe-B4: Flow Meter at Parking Lot near Henry Road Purpose: Provide data for hydrologic and hydraulic model calibration (Basin B) Data to Collect: 15-minute recorded depth and flow Priority: Tier 2, data to support future modeling of a Basin B flooding problems and CIP Time Frame: Begin August 2010, minimum 3 months with significant event, maximum 2 years Site Constraints: Low gradient pipe network, backwater from Green River Alternate Location(s): Manholes B5 and B6 have some traffic, but are less likely to have parked cars. Equipment Options: Multi-point velocity probe (ADS FlowShark, Teledyne-Isco ADFM or AccQmin); modified venturi (DataGator) Figure 5-3. Proposed Flow Monitoring at Henry Road in Basin B 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-7 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Q-Pipe-C346: Flow Meter at G Street and 2nd Street SE Purpose: Quantify flows to support modeling and design for CIP #12 in Drainage Plan Data to Collect: 15-minute recorded depth and flow Priority: Tier 2, support capital improvements planned for 2012 Time Frame: Begin August 2010, minimum 3 months with significant event, maximum 2 years Site Constraints: Low gradient pipe network, backwater from downstream flooding Alternate Location(s): Manhole C108 could work also, but is less accessible due to high traffic. Equipment Options: Multi-point velocity probe (ADS FlowShark, Teledyne-Isco ADFM or AccQmin); modified venturi (DataGator) Figure 5-4. Proposed Flow Monitoring at 2nd Street and G Street SE in Basin B 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-8 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Q-Pipe-B86: Flow Meter at B Street and 12th Street SE Purpose: Quantify flows to support modeling and design for CIP #11 in Drainage Plan Data to Collect: 15-minute recorded depth and flow Priority: Tier 1, support capital improvements planned for 2010 Time Frame: Begin August 2009, minimum 3 months with significant event, maximum 2 years Site Constraints: Low gradient pipe network, backwater from downstream flooding Alternate Location(s): Manhole B86A could work also. Equipment Options: Multi-point velocity probe (ADS FlowShark, Teledyne-Isco ADFM or AccQmin); modified venturi (DataGator) Figure 5-5. Proposed Flow Monitoring at 12th Street and B Street SE in Basin B 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-9 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Q-Pipe-C26: Flow Meter at M Street and Auburn Way South Purpose: Quantify flows to support modeling and design for CIP #11 in Drainage Plan Data to Collect: 15-minute recorded depth and flow Priority: Optional , support capital improvements planned for 2010 Time Frame: Begin August 2009, minimum 3 months with significant event, maximum 2 years Site Constraints: Difficult access due to high traffic area Alternate Location(s): Manhole C25 could work also if more conducive to traffic control. Equipment Options: Multi-point velocity probe (ADS FlowShark, Teledyne-Isco ADFM or AccQmin); modified venturi (DataGator) Figure 5-6. Proposed Flow Monitoring at M Street SE and Auburn Way South in Basin C 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-10 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Q-Pipe-C59: Flow Meter at Dogwood St. near Auburn Way S Purpose: Data to calibrate model for analysis of potential capital improvement project Data to Collect: 15-minute recorded depth and flow Priority: Tier 3, data to be used to analyze problem area and potentially support future CIP Time Frame: Begin August 2011, minimum 3 months with significant event, maximum 2 years Site Constraints: Difficult access due to high traffic area Alternate Location(s): Manhole C61 could work as a backup if more conducive to traffic control. Equipment Options: Multi-point velocity probe (ADS FlowShark, Teledyne-Isco ADFM or AccQmin); modified venturi (DataGator) Figure 5-7. Proposed Flow Monitoring at Dogwood Street SE near Auburn Way South in Basin C 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-11 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Q-Pipe-P2: Flow Meter at West Main near State Route 167 Purpose: Quantify flows to support modeling and design for CIP #14 in Drainage Plan Data to Collect: 15-minute recorded depth and flow Priority: Tier 2, support capital improvements planned for 2012 Time Frame: Begin August 2010, minimum 3 months with significant event, maximum 2 years Site Constraints: Low gradient pipe network, backwater from downstream flooding Alternate Location(s): Manhole P3 could work also. Equipment Options: Multi-point velocity probe (ADS FlowShark, Teledyne-Isco ADFM or AccQmin); modified venturi (DataGator) Figure 5-8. Proposed Flow Monitoring south of West Main near State Route 167 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-12 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc Q-Pipe-I10: Flow Meter at 30th Street NW near Airport Purpose: Quantify flows to support modeling and design for CIP #13 in Drainage Plan Data to Collect: 15-minute recorded depth and flow Priority: Tier 1, support capital improvements planned for 2010 Time Frame: Begin August 2009, minimum 3 months with significant event, maximum 2 years Site Constraints: Low gradient pipe network, backwater from downstream flooding Alternate Location(s): Manhole I101 could work also. Equipment Options: Multi-point velocity probe (ADS FlowShark, Teledyne-Isco ADFM or AccQmin); modified venturi (DataGator) Figure 5-9. Proposed Flow Monitoring at 30th Street NW near Airport 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-13 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Mill-01: Mill Creek at 37th Street NW Purpose: Evaluate stages in Mill Creek and assess backwater effects on drainage system Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 3, support long-term monitoring of Mill Creek for future investigations Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2011, minimum 10 years Site Constraints: Low gradient stream, wide channel, backwater flooding, vegetation, beavers Alternate Location(s): Downstream of side road culvert Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-10. Proposed Flow Monitoring on Mill Creek at 37th Street NW 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-14 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Mill-02: Mill Creek at 29th Street NW Purpose: Evaluate stages in Mill Creek and assess backwater effects on drainage system Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 3, support long-term monitoring of Mill Creek for future investigations Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2011, minimum 10 years Site Constraints: Low gradient stream, wide channel, backwater flooding, vegetation, beavers Alternate Location(s): Upstream of 29th Street NW culvert Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-11. Proposed Flow Monitoring on Mill Creek at 29th Street NW 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-15 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Mill-03: Mill Creek at 15th Street NW Purpose: Evaluate stages in Mill Creek and assess backwater effects on drainage system Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 3, support long-term monitoring of Mill Creek for future investigations Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2011, minimum 10 years Site Constraints: Low gradient stream, wide channel, backwater flooding, vegetation, beavers Alternate Location(s): Downstream of 15th Street NW culvert Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-12. Proposed Flow Monitoring on Mill Creek at 15th Street NW 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-16 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Mill-04: Mill Creek at West Main Street Purpose: Evaluate stages in Mill Creek and assess backwater effects on drainage system Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 3, support long-term monitoring of Mill Creek for future investigations Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2011, minimum 10 years Site Constraints: Low gradient stream, wide channel, backwater flooding, vegetation, beavers Alternate Location(s): Downstream of West Main Street culvert or near H Basin outfall Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-13. Proposed Flow Monitoring on Mill Creek at West Main Street 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-17 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-01: Level at West Airport Pond at 30th Street NW Purpose: Evaluate pond capacity to support design analyses for CIP #13 in Drainage Plan Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 1, support capital improvements planned for 2010 Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2009, minimum 6 years Site Constraints: Access could be difficult on airport property. Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-14. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in 30th Street NW Pond 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-18 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-02: Level at A Street SE and 17th Street SE Purpose: Evaluate pond capacity to support design analyses for CIP #11 in Drainage Plan Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 1, support capital improvements planned for 2010 Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2009, indefinite duration Site Constraints: Minimal Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-15. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in 17th Street SE Pond 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-19 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-03: Level at D Street SE and 21St Street SE Purpose: Evaluate pond capacity to support design analyses for CIP #11 in Drainage Plan Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 1, support capital improvements planned for 2010 Time Frame: Currently monitored Site Constraints: Minimal Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-16. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in D Street and 21st Street SE Pond 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-20 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-04: Level at South 296th Street Pond near 55th Ave. S Purpose: Evaluate pond capacity to support design analyses for CIP #15 in Drainage Plan Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 3, support capital improvements planned for 2013 Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2011, minimum 6 years Site Constraints: Minimal Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-17. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in South 296th Street Pond near 55th Avenue S 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-21 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-05: Level at South 296th Street Pond near 57th Pl. S Purpose: Evaluate pond capacity to support design analyses for CIP #16 in Drainage Plan Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 4, support capital improvements planned for 2014 Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2012, minimum 6 years Site Constraints: Minimal Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-18. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in South 296th Street Pond near 57th Place S 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-22 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-06: Level at U Street SE and 29th Street SE Purpose: Evaluate pond capacity and infiltration rates to assess need for improvements Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 4, monitor pond performance and collect data for future analyses Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2012, indefinite duration Site Constraints: Minimal Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-19. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in U Street SE and 29th Street SE Pond 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-23 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-07: Level at M Street SE and 37th Street SE Purpose: Evaluate pond capacity and infiltration rates to assess need for improvements Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 4, monitor pond performance and collect data for future analyses Time Frame: Currently monitored Site Constraints: Minimal Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-20. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in M Street SE and 37th Street SE Pond 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-24 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-08: Level at Lakeland South Pond No. 1 Purpose: Monitor water level to evaluate hazard risk Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 4, monitor pond water surface elevations and collect data for future analyses Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2012, indefinite duration Site Constraints: Minimal Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-21. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in Lakeland South Pond No. 1 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-25 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-09: Level at Lakeland South Pond No. 2 Purpose: Monitor water level to evaluate hazard risk Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 4, monitor pond water surface elevations and collect data for future analyses Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2012, indefinite duration Site Constraints: Minimal Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-22. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in Lakeland South Pond No. 2 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-26 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-10: Level at Lakeland East Pond Purpose: Monitor water level to evaluate hazard risk Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 4, monitor pond water surface elevations and collect data for future analyses Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2012, indefinite duration Site Constraints: Minimal Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-23. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in Lakeland East Pond 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-27 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc WL-Pond-11: Level at Mill Pond Purpose: Monitor water level to evaluate hazard risk Data to Collect: Hourly recorded water level Priority: Tier 4, monitor pond water surface elevations and collect data for future analyses Time Frame: Begin monitoring in late summer of 2012, indefinite duration Site Constraints: Minimal Alternate Location(s): None Equipment Options: Submerged Pressure Sensor: Approach 1 – Self-contained sensor and logger (Onset HOBO) Approach 2 – Vented cable with telemetry capability (Global Water WL-16, CSI solar-powered RF logger) Figure 5-24. Proposed Water Level Monitoring in Mill Pond 5: Proposed Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 5-28 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] 6-1 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc MONITORING PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN 6. REFERENCES ADS Environmental Services. 2009a. ADS FlowShark information available at URL: http://www.adsenv.com/default.aspx?id=129. ADS Environmental Services. 2009b. Personal communication with ADS representative Gillian Woodward on February 26, 2009. ADS Environmental Services. 2009c. Email communication from Gillian Woodward of ADS to Nathan Foged of Brown and Caldwell dated February 26, 2009. Auburn, City of. March 2009. Draft Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Prepared by Brown and Caldwell for the Auburn Public Works Department. Alley, W.M., 1977, Guide for collection, analysis, and use of urban stormwater data: A Conference Report, Easton, Md., November 28– December 3, 1976: American Society of Civil Engineers. Auburn, City of. February 2009. Preliminary Draft of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan. Prepared by Brown and Caldwell. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98101. Church, P.E., G.E. Granto, D.W. Owens. 1999. Basic Requirements for Collecting, Documenting, and Reporting Precipitation and Stormwater- Flow Measurements. Open-file Report 99-255. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Northborough, Massachusetts. Davie, Tim. 2003. Fundamentals of Hydrology. London: Routledge. xii. 169 pp. Debo, Thomas Neil and Andrew J. Reese. 2003. Municipal Stormwater Management, Edition: 2, illustrated, revised. Published by CRC Press. Global Water Instrumentation, Inc. Products: WL16 Water Level Logger. Obtained via URL: http://www.globalw.com/products/wl16.html. Landau Associates. December 14, 2006. Memorandum to Aaron Nix of the City of Auburn regarding Piezometer Installation: Auburn Environmental Park. From Jennifer Olson of Landau Associates. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). October 2006. Snow Measurement Guidelines. Document #10-23-96. National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program. Onset Computer Corporation. 2009. HOBO® Data Logging Rain Gauge (English) Data Logger information available at URL: http://www.onsetcomp.com/products/data-loggers/rg3. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). February 2009. Washington Climate Summaries for Kent, Washington (Station No. 454169). Average annual snowfall depth is based on a period of record from 11/01/1948 to 12/31/2005. Whitfield, P.H. 1988. Goals and data collection designs for water quality monitoring: Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 24. No. 4, pp. 775–780. Raghunath, H.M. 2006. Hydrology: Principles, Analysis, and Design. Edition: revised. Published by New Age International. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Basic Requirements for Collecting, Documenting, and Reporting Precipitation and Stormwater-Flow Measurements. Open-File Report 99-255 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 6: References Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 6-2 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] 7-1 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc MONITORING PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN 7. LIMITATIONS Limitations This document was prepared solely for the City of Auburn in accordance with professional standards at the time the services were performed and in accordance with the contract between City of Auburn and Brown and Caldwell dated July 12, 2007. This document is governed by the specific scope of work authorized by City of Auburn; it is not intended to be relied on by any other party except for regulatory authorities contemplated by the scope of work. We have relied on information or instructions provided by City of Auburn and other parties and, unless otherwise expressly indicated, have made no independent investigation as to the validity, completeness, or accuracy of such information. 7: Limitations Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan 7-2 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc ATTACHMENT 1 Equipment and Vendor Information for Precipitation Monitoring Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc ATTACHMENT 2 Equipment and Vendor Information for Flow Monitoring Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc ATTACHMENT 3 Equipment and Vendor Information for Water Level Monitoring Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc ATTACHMENT 4 Example Forms for Field Work Flow Monitoring Plan for the Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Plan Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the end of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix E - Auburn Drainage Plan - Monitoring Plan (Aug09)2.doc [This page intentionally left blank] 1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Technical Memorandum 701 Pike Street, Suite 1200 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel: (206) 624-0100 Fax: (206) 749-2200 Project Title: City of Auburn Drainage Phase II Project No: 135347 Subject: Stormwater Collection Systems Economic Life Model Date: February 2, 2009 To: Tim Carlaw, City of Auburn Prepared by: Ian McKelvey TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................4 2. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE..............................................................................................................................4 2.1 Probability of Failure........................................................................................................................................4 2.2 Cost of Failure.................................................................................................................................................4 2.3 Risk Cost.........................................................................................................................................................4 2.4 Intervention Modes..........................................................................................................................................5 2.5 Minimum Annual Cost of Ownership................................................................................................................5 3. ECONOMIC LIFE MODEL DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................6 3.1 Probability of Failure Calculation.....................................................................................................................6 3.2 Probability of Failure Modifiers.........................................................................................................................9 3.2.1 Condition Score...................................................................................................................................9 3.2.2 Maintenance Frequency......................................................................................................................9 3.2.3 Slope..................................................................................................................................................10 3.2.4 Segment Length................................................................................................................................10 3.3 Cost of Failure Calculation.............................................................................................................................10 3.4 Cost of Failure Modifiers................................................................................................................................12 3.4.1 Proximity to a Railroad.......................................................................................................................12 3.4.2 Located in an Easement....................................................................................................................13 3.4.3 Underwater........................................................................................................................................13 3.4.4 Located in a Critical Slope.................................................................................................................13 3.4.5 Zoning................................................................................................................................................13 Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc 3.4.6 Road Type.........................................................................................................................................14 3.4.7 Serves Essential Facilities.................................................................................................................14 3.5 Optimal Intervention Timing Calculation........................................................................................................15 3.5.1 Open-Cut Pipe Replacement.............................................................................................................16 3.5.2 Lining.................................................................................................................................................17 4. MODEL OUTPUTS..................................................................................................................................................23 4.1 Graphical Outputs..........................................................................................................................................23 4.2 Segments Identified for Intervention..............................................................................................................23 4.3 Segments Identified for Conditional Assessment..........................................................................................24 5. NEXT STEPS...........................................................................................................................................................26 5.1 Areas for Improvements................................................................................................................................26 5.1.1 Cost Assumptions..............................................................................................................................26 5.1.2 Failure Trending.................................................................................................................................26 5.1.3 Missing Information............................................................................................................................26 5.2 Utilizing the Model.........................................................................................................................................27 5.2.1 R&R Project Identification..................................................................................................................27 5.2.2 Economic Validation..........................................................................................................................27 5.2.3 Budget Forecasting............................................................................................................................27 5.2.4 Maintenance Optimization and Prioritization......................................................................................27 5.3 Updating the Model........................................................................................................................................27 5.3.1 Instructions........................................................................................................................................28 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................................28 APPENDIX A: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF COST ASSUMPTIONS.......................................................................29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Pipe Segment Service Life by Material Type...................................................................................................8 Table 2. Condition Score Modification...........................................................................................................................9 Table 3. Maintenance Frequency Modification............................................................................................................10 Table 4. Spot Repair Costs..............................................................................................................................................11 Table 5. Bypass Pumping Costs.....................................................................................................................................12 Table 6. Zoning Impact on Cost of Failure..................................................................................................................14 Table 7. Road Type Impact on Cost of Failure...........................................................................................................14 Table 8. Essential Facilities Impact on Cost of Failure..............................................................................................15 Table 9. Open-Cut Pipe Replacement Construction Costs per Linear Foot..........................................................17 Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Table 10. Inversion Lining Construction Costs per Linear Foot..............................................................................18 Table 11. Stormwater Segments Recommended for 2008 Intervention..................................................................24 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Example of Weibull distributions with varying shape (k) and scale () parameters to represen t different failure conditions................................................................................................................................................5 Figure 2. Example of pipe lining Figure 3. Example of open-cut pipe installation at the City of Melrose...................................................................5 Figure 4. Sketch of the annual cost of ownership as a sum of annual risk cost and annualized capital cost.....6 Figure 5. Failure rate with varying shape parameters (service life is constant at 30 years)....................................7 Figure 6. Failure Rate with varying service life (shape parameter is constant at 3).................................................8 Figure 7. Example of projecting future risk costs beyond the current age (20 in this example)........................15 Figure 8. Example of annualized capital cost for a $3,000 intervention.................................................................19 Figure 9. Example of annualized risk cost...................................................................................................................20 Figure 10. Example of annualized cost of ownership with minimum highlighted in red (age 23).....................20 Figure 11. Example of intervention timing for an existing asset replaced in-kind based on the minimum cost of ownership of an intervention.....................................................................................................................................22 Figure 12. Storm water collections system R&R spending projection....................................................................23 Figure 13. City of Auburn storm water collections systems with color coding to indicate relative criticality..25 Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 4 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc 1. INTRODUCTION This memorandum has been prepared to document the assumptions and parameters used by Brown and Caldwell to perform an economic life analysis on the City of Auburn’s storm water collection system. The model allows the City to determine and evaluate the risk cost associated with each of its approximately 3,500 storm water pipe segments. The model predicts a probability and cost of failure for each segment, modified by specific parameters associated with likelihood and consequence of failure parameters that were identified in conjunction with the City. The risk cost that an asset is carrying is determined by multiplying the probability of the asset failing by the cost of the asset failing. By comparing the risk cost each segment carries to the minimum annualized cost of ownership of an intervention, the optimal economic timing for either lining or replacing each segment is determined. With this economic life information, repair and replacement (R&R) projects can be identified for consideration, R&R budget and long-term rate forecasting can be predicted, and a business case evaluation can be made for each segment intervention. In addition, maintenance activities can be prioritized to focus on the assets for which the City is carrying the majority of its risk. 2. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The goal of the Drainage Phase II project is to assist the City in developing a Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, Brown and Caldwell was tasked with supporting capital improvement program (CIP) development and meeting level of service (LOS) goals by sustainably meeting required customer service levels, effectively managing risks, and minimizing the City’s costs of ownership. In addition, operations and maintenance program recommendations will be included to assist the City in continuing its transition to a proactive maintenance environment. Developing an economic life model that determines the optimal timing for asset intervention and prioritizes assets for maintenance attention helps the City meet these goals. Key concepts of an asset economic life model are briefly defined below. 2.1 Probability of Failure The economic life model builds upon the concept that asset failure is defined by both the likelihood and the consequence of a failure. In the model developed by Brown and Caldwell, the likelihood of failure is generated using the industry-accepted Weibull distribution to develop a probability of failure in any future year based on an asset’s age. Figure 1 provides an example of different Weibull distributions. In addition, each asset’s probability of failure can be modified based on conditions specific to that asset. This specific failure curve modification is captured based on the unique conditions of a specific segment identified by City staff. 2.2 Cost of Failure The consequence of an asset failing is determined by considering the financial, social, and environmental costs associated with an asset failing to meet its design service levels. Consequence parameters, developed in conjunction with the City, were assigned estimated costs to capture the impact of an asset failure. These costs and the cost of responding to an asset failing constitute the total cost of a failure. 2.3 Risk Cost The product of the probability of an asset failing in a particular year and the total cost of the asset failing represent the annual risk cost carried by that asset. The risk cost represents actual costs carried by the City and the community. With accurate failure probabilities and costs that capture the financial, social, and Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 5 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc environmental impacts of a failure, the total risk cost carried by all of the segments in the City’s collection systems can be defined. Figure 1. Example of Weibull distributions with varying shape (k) and scale () parameters to represe nt different failure conditions 2.4 Intervention Modes An organization can reactively or proactively address an asset failure in a number of ways. For Auburn’s economic life model, the intervention modes considered included open-cut replacement of a segment and, for segments for which it was deemed appropriate, lining of the segment. Examples of these intervention modes are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2. Example of pipe lining Figure 3. Example of open-cut pipe installation at the City of Melrose 2.5 Minimum Annual Cost of Ownership The optimal time for an intervention is when the risk cost of an existing asset is equivalent to the minimum annual cost of ownership of an intervention. The annual cost of ownership of an intervention is typically estimated by distributing the total cost of owning an intervention, including capital and risk costs, over the Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 6 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc number of years the asset is owned. When the existing asset’s risk cost is greater than or equal to the minimum annual cost of ownership of an intervention, the optimal time for intervention has been reached. This concept is illustrated in Figure 4. Figure 4. Sketch of the annual cost of ownership as a sum of annual risk cost and annualized capital cost Using the concepts described above, each segment in the City’s collection systems can be evaluated for the current risk cost it is carrying and maintenance activities can be optimized to reflect the relative criticality of each segment. In addition, future risk costs carried by the segment can also be predicted. These future risk costs can be compared to the minimum annual cost of ownership for both a pipe replacement and an inversion lining (when appropriate) to determine when the pipe should be considered for the appropriate intervention. A basis for prioritizing R&R projects in terms of benefit-cost is also provided for years in which multiple projects are projected. By collecting the intervention costs for each year in the future, a budget for future R&R needs and projections for long-term rate adjustments can be developed. The specifics of the fundamentals and development of the economic life model are explained in further detail below. 3. ECONOMIC LIFE MODEL DEVELOPMENT The following section describes the development of the economic life model, including detailed descriptions of the building components of economic life and the assumptions incorporated into the model. 3.1 Probability of Failure Calculation For Auburn’s economic life model, the probability of failure for the City’s segments was assumed to follow a Weibull distribution. As mentioned earlier, the Weibull distribution is an industry-accepted means of predicting a probability of failure for an asset based on its age and expected service life. The annual probability of failure for an asset (h)—generated by a Weibull distribution as a function of age (x), a shape parameter (k), and the asset’s service life ()—is r epresented by the following equation: () 1 ,, - = kxkkxh ll l Modifying the service life or shape parameter will increase or decrease the probability of failure to better represent the failure rates observed by the City. The service life sets the age at which it is expected that Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 7 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc roughly half of the assets in a class of assets will have failed. Figure 5 demonstrates this graphically by depicting the distribution of failures of a group of assets with varying service life. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 020406080100 Asset Age # o f F a i l u r e s ( % ) 25 Years 40 Years 60 Years Figure 5. Failure distribution with varying service life (shape parameter is constant at 4) The shape parameter sets the type of failure distribution that can be expected for a class of assets. A shape parameter of 1 or less would result in an “infant mortality” failure distribution in which the number of assets failing each year decreases with time. Shape parameters above 2 will result in a bell-shaped failure distribution with progressively larger shape parameters resulting in a higher proportion of failures occurring in the vicinity of the asset’s service life. Figure 6 shows the failure distribution for a group of assets with different shape parameters. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 8 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 01020304050607080 Asset Age # o f F a i l u r e s ( % ) Shape = 0.75 Shape = 4 Shape = 6 Figure 6. Failure distribution with varying shape parameter (service life is constant at 40 years) For segments with unknown installation dates, the average age of the collections system as a whole (16 years) was used as a placeholder in the model. As more information becomes available, the correct installation date can be included in the model for assets with missing information. The service life applied in Auburn’s economic life model is based on the pipe type and was developed based on industry standards and Brown and Caldwell’s experience. Table 1 documents the service life used for each pipe type. For segments with unknown material types, a blanket assumption of an 80-year service life was used until actual material information can be added. Table 1. Pipe Segment Service Life by Material Type Pipe material Code Service life Advanced drainage systems ADS 100 Corrugated metal pipe CMP 50 Concrete Conc 80 Polyethylene pipe CPEP 100 Ductile iron pipe DI 100 Ductile iron pipe DIP 100 Steel Ductile steel 100 High-density polyethylene HDPE 100 High-density polyethylene HDPP 100 Ductile iron pipe Iron 100 Polyvinylchloride PVC 100 Reinforced concrete pipe RCP 100 Reinforced PVC RPVC 100 Thin-walled PVC SDR35 80 Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 9 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc A shape factor of 4.0 was assumed based on the existing annual failure rate of the City’s pipes (estimated by Auburn staff) and Brown and Caldwell’s experience with similar agencies. The shape parameter can be modified to better reflect actual conditions as the City collects additional failure data. With the service life defined and a shape parameter of 4.0 assumed, the annual probability of failure for each segment can be determined based on the material type and the age of the pipe. Because other parameters can impact the rate of failure for a pipe, additional parameters were identified to modify this base failure probability. These additional parameters are addressed in the following section. 3.2 Probability of Failure Modifiers Pipe failure is more than just a function of age and material. Additional conditions, such as soil type, slope, and corrosion, can influence the timing of a pipe failure. To capture these additional conditions, likelihood parameters developed in conjunction with the City were used to modify the service life and shape parameter developed for each segment. Those parameters and their modifications are described below. 3.2.1 Condition Score A segment’s condition score from recently observed data is the ideal means to identify potential failures. For segments with an available condition score, the service life used to predict the probability of failure can be reduced depending on the severity of the condition. At present, no condition information has been included in the model, but a placeholder has been included to incorporate these data when condition information becomes available in the future. Table 2 details how the service life can potentially be reduced based on condition. Table 2. Condition Score Modification Defect score Service life reduction Excellent or no score 0% Good 13% Fair 25% Poor 38% Very Poor 67% In this way, a pipe with a very poor condition score would appear “older” in the economic life model than it actually is. For example, we assume that a typical PVC pipe lasts 100 years, but if recent CCTV data identified a pipe condition score of fair, we would expect that pipe to have only a 75-year service life. 3.2.2 Maintenance Frequency Occasional repairs are expected during the life of a pipe. However, frequent repairs and service visits for one particular pipe may indicate that local conditions for that pipe increase the probability of failure. At present, no maintenance frequency information is available for input into the model. As frequency information becomes available, the service life for segments could be reduced, depending on the frequency of attention required (e.g., root cleaning or clearing blockages) as shown in Table 3. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 10 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Table 3. Maintenance Frequency Modification Frequency of maintenance activity Service life reduction Annual or less frequent 0% Semiannual 5% Quarterly 10% Monthly 15% Weekly 20% 3.2.3 Slope The backfill surrounding pipes in critical slopes is potentially less stable than backfill surrounding pipes in shallow slopes. Shifting backfill puts much more stress on pipe connections and this additional stress can lead to a higher likelihood of joint separation. The slope associated with each of the City’s segments was calculated using GIS information on topography contours. A slope value was calculated for the entire modeled area and any segment that crossed a slope value exceeding 15 percent was marked as a steep slope segment. Steep slope segments were given a shape parameter 25 percent greater than that for segments located in shallow slopes. The increased shape parameter has the effect of aging a pipe more quickly without changing the service life (as seen in Figure 5). 3.2.4 Segment Length The length of a segment has a direct correlation to the probability of a failure. A 2,000-foot segment inherently has much more opportunity for a point failure than a 10-foot segment. The Weibull failure distribution presumes a number of failures per length of a pipe and Brown and Caldwell’s experience shows that the distribution accurately predicts the number of failures for a 250-foot length of pipe. Because the City’s storm water collection systems have an average segment length of 150 feet, scaling the probability of failure based on a baseline length of 250 feet was assumed to be appropriate. Once the probability of failure for each segment was calculated and adjusted based on the parameters described above, the calculated probability of failure was then multiplied by the ratio of the segment’s length to a 250-foot baseline. Thus, if the Weibull distribution (after being modified by the parameters described above) calculated a 10 percent probability of failure, for both a 500- and 125-foot segment, the final probability used in the model would be 20 percent for the 500-foot segment and 5 percent for the 125-foot segment. With the modifications to the service life and shape parameter described above and the final adjustment based on pipe length, a probability of failure was generated for each segment. Because the Weibull distribution can be used for any age of pipe, the probability of future failure for each segment can also be determined to predict future risk costs in conjunction with the cost of failure information described in the following section. 3.3 Cost of Failure Calculation In the economic life model, the total consequence of a failure is captured with actual dollar values by considering the triple bottom line: financial, social, and environmental costs. Circumstances unique to a pipe’s location and service type (addressed in the following section) will impact the cost should a failure occur. The following paragraphs describe the structure used to develop a baseline cost when a pipe fails, which can then be modified based on a pipe’s particular circumstances. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 11 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc In the baseline analysis, the cost of a pipe’s failure was limited to the cost of spot repair. Because most pipe failures do not result in a loss of service, additional costs (claims, regulatory fines, cleanup costs, etc.) were included only as modifiers, as described in Section 3.4 of this report. The spot repair costs were developed based on evaluation of the following five cost categories: · Labor · Equipment · Shoring · Dewatering · Bypass pumping. All costs were scaled based on either the pipe’s depth of bury or the pipe diameter. Each segment’s depth of bury was estimated using the invert elevations of the corresponding manhole inverts. The average of the two invert elevations was then subtracted from the elevation at grade at the midpoint of the segment. This provided an approximate estimate of depth of bury, but had the disadvantage that if any of the three elevations were unknown, the depth of bury could not be calculated. For segments with unknown depth of bury information, the average depth of bury for the collection system as a whole (8 feet) was used instead. Table 4 summarizes the costs required for a spot repair based on the depth of bury only. These costs include costs for labor, equipment, shoring, and dewatering. Table 4. Spot Repair Costs Depth of bury Repair costs Less than 4 feet $2,000 4–8 feet $3,000 8–12 feet $4,000 12–16 feet $7,500 16–22 feet $10,000 22–30 feet $12,500 30–50 feet $25,000 More than 50 feet $50,000 For some spot repairs, bypass pumping may be required during the repair. The costs identified in Table 5 were used to approximate the additional costs for bypass pumping as a function of the diameter of the pipe. For segments with unknown diameter information, the average diameter of the collection system as a whole (18 inches) was used as a placeholder. Based on previous experience, Brown and Caldwell estimates that only 50 percent of storm water spot repairs require bypass pumping. Therefore, only 50 percent of the full costs identified in Table 5 were added to each storm water repair. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 12 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Table 5. Bypass Pumping Costs Pipe diameter Bypass pumping cost Less than 12 inches $500 12–24 inches $1,250 24–36 inches $2,500 36–48 inches $4,000 48–60 inches $6,000 More than 60 inches $7,500 The final spot repair cost is therefore the sum of the costs identified in Tables 4 and 5. For example, this process results in a spot repair cost of $4,625 for a 15-inch pipe with a 10-foot depth of bury. 3.4 Cost of Failure Modifiers Repair does not constitute the entire cost of a pipe failure. Other financial, social, and environmental costs must be included as well. In the economic model, the consequence parameters developed with the City were monetized to reflect actual failure costs. These parameters include: · Proximity to a railroad · Located in an easement · Located underwater · Located in a critical slope · Zoning · Road type · Serves essential facilities For the first four parameters (proximity to a railroad, located in an easement, located underwater, and located in a critical slope), the cost of a failure was assumed to have no significant social or environmental impacts. Instead, these four parameters represent conditions that would only make spot repairs more costly. For the remaining three parameters (zoning, road type, and serves essential facilities), the cost of a failure is assumed to include social and environmental consequence costs as well as financial costs. Brown and Caldwell also assumed a 40 percent markup to the total cost of a repair to account for the inherent inefficiencies involved in emergency repair work. Because not every pipe failure requires an emergency spot repair, this 40 percent markup was added at a rate that represents the percentage of pipe structural failures resulting in a loss of service. Based on Brown and Caldwell’s experience, this rate was assumed to be 5 percent. All seven parameters are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. 3.4.1 Proximity to a Railroad Segments that run under or parallel to a railroad can be significantly more difficult to access and repair than other pipes. Pipes that are located within 50 feet of a railroad were identified using GIS information provided by the City. Those segments were assumed to have their repair costs doubled; the repair costs for all other segments remained unchanged. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 13 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc 3.4.2 Located in an Easement Access difficulties and resolution of right-of-way issues make repairs of pipe segments located in an easement more costly. The locations of easements have not been provided at present, but a placeholder for that information has been inserted for future entry. For segments located in an easement, repair costs could be assumed to be increased by as much as 50 percent. 3.4.3 Underwater Pipe segments located underwater are considerably more difficult to repair due to access difficulties and limitations. No segments in the City’s collections system are currently identified as located underwater. Should underwater segments be identified in the future, repair costs can be assumed to be three times the typical cost of a repair. 3.4.4 Located in a Critical Slope Segments located in critical slopes can be difficult to access and have limited repair options during a failure. Segments were identified as being located in a steep slope in the same manner as was described in the Probability of Failure Modifiers described above. Repair costs were assumed to be increased by 50 percent for segments located within a slope that is greater than 15 percent; the repair costs for all other segments remained unchanged. The cost of a failure for the remaining three parameters (zoning, road type, and serves essential facilities), includes social and environmental considerations organized based on five categories: · Access inconvenience · Traffic delays · Surface spills and/or backups · Negative news article and/or public perception · Regulatory pressure The costs associated with each of these five categories were scaled based on a 10-inch storm water pipe. Because the cost of failure is assumed to increase as the volume spilled increases, a multiplier was added to these costs based on the square of the diameter of the pipe (which corresponds to the volume of water in the pipe). Using a 10-inch pipe as the baseline cost means that the diameter adjustment was calculated as the pipe diameter squared divided by 100. For example, a 16-inch pipe would have the consequence cost multiplied by a factor of 2.56 (162 ¸ 102 = 2.56). Segments with unknown diameters were given the average diameter of the collection system as a whole (18 inches). Not all pipe failures result in a loss of service or a spill; therefore, a probability of occurrence (under the “%” column in each table) was added to more accurately capture the actual costs carried. The details and assumptions used to prepare these costs were generated based on Brown and Caldwell’s experience and are provided in Appendix A. The three parameters incorporating social and environment consequence costs are described in more detail below. 3.4.5 Zoning The type of customer a pipe serves impacts the social and environmental costs of a pipe failure. The number of customers impacted and the cost of the impact will vary between residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 14 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Zoning information was gathered in GIS from information collected by the City. Segments crossing more than one zone were assigned to the zone that was most consequential (commercial first, industrial second, and residential third). Segments that did not cross any zones were listed as “other” and had no zoning consequence cost associated with them. Table 6 summarizes the costs associated with a failure based on the zoning assigned to each segment. Table 6. Zoning Impact on Cost of Failure Access inconvenience Surface spills/backups Negative news article Regulatory pressure Customer type $ % $ % $ % $ % Total cost Residential $200 100% $7,856 5% $16,240 2.4% $28,220 1.2% $1,321 Commercial $6,400 100% $13,856 5% $16,240 2.4% $28,220 1.2% $7,821 Industrial $1,400 100% $6,928 5% $16,240 2.4% $28,220 1.2% $2,475 3.4.6 Road Type The type of road a pipe runs along determines the varying impact a pipe failure has on traffic delays, spill costs, public perception, and regulatory pressure. Segments were assigned a road type if they were located within 50 feet of a road, based on mapping information supplied by the City. Segments that were close to more than one road type were assigned the more consequential road type (highway first, arterial second, and collector third). Segments that were not located within 50 feet of any road were assigned as “none” and were not given a consequence cost for this parameter. Table 7 summarizes the costs associated with a failure based on road type. Table 7. Road Type Impact on Cost of Failure Traffic delays Surface spills/backups Negative news article Regulatory pressure Road type $ % $ % $ % $ % Total cost Collector $1,600 100% $1,928 2.5% $16,240 2.4% $28,220 1.2% $2,377 Arterial $6,400 100% $1,928 2.5% $16,240 2.4% $28,220 1.2% $7,177 Highway $28,800 100% $1,928 2.5% $16,240 2.4% $28,220 1.2% $29,577 3.4.7 Serves Essential Facilities Segments that serve essential facilities such as hospitals, police stations, airports, and fire stations have a greater social impact during a failure. GIS was used to identify the segments within areas of critical importance identified by the City. Table 8 summarizes the costs of a pipe failure located near one of these essential facilities. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 15 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Table 8. Essential Facilities Impact on Cost of Failure Access inconvenience Negative news article Regulatory pressure Total cost Facility type $ % $ % $ % Airport $6,800 100% $16,240 5% $28,220 1.2% $7,951 City Hall $4,200 100% $16,240 5% $28,220 1.2% $5,351 Justice Center $4,200 100% $16,240 5% $28,220 1.2% $5,351 Fire Dept. $2,560 100% $16,240 2.5% $28,220 1.2% $3,305 Medical Center $8,640 100% $16,240 5% $28,220 2.5% $10,158 Once all of the modifiers have been summed, the total cost of a failure for each segment can be determined. This cost multiplied by the probability of failure establishes the risk cost carried by a segment and can help determine an optimal time to intervene. 3.5 Optimal Intervention Timing Calculation After determining a probability of failure and a cost of failure for each segment, the annual risk cost carried by each segment was determined by multiplying the cost by the probability. If the assumptions built into determining the probability and cost are accurate, the risk cost should represent an actual dollar value carried (some by the utility, some by the community). Additionally, because the conditions used to determine the cost of failure are assumed to remain unchanged from year to year and the probability of failure is determined based on age, a risk cost can be determined for any number of years into the future. Next year’s risk cost is simply determined by multiplying the cost of a failure by the probability of failure using next year’s age. In this way, risk costs can be projected into the future, as shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. Example of projecting future risk costs beyond the current age (20 in this example) Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 16 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Even with an annual accounting of risk carried by an asset, the economically optimal time to replace the asset is still not immediately apparent. The asset’s risk curve does not present an obvious age that justifies an intervention. To determine the appropriate age, the risk cost carried by an existing asset must be compared to the cost of an intervention. This cost can be determined by calculating an annualized capital cost for the intervention and the annualized risk cost carried after the intervention has been implemented. For the economic life model, two intervention modes were considered: pipe replacement and pipe lining. The capital costs for both modes are presented below. 3.5.1 Open-Cut Pipe Replacement Table 9 summarizes the construction cost per linear foot for a replacement pipe based on pipe diameter, including a category for pipes within a 16-foot depth of bury and a second category for deeper pipes. The table does not include the 1.35 multiplier that was added into the model for engineering, contingency, and permitting costs. Additionally, a minimum pipe length of 50 feet was assumed to set a minimum replacement cost and prevent replacement of very short segments from being priced too low. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 17 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Table 9. Open-Cut Pipe Replacement Construction Costs per Linear Foot Pipe diameter (in.) Construction cost (depth of bury <16 ft) Construction cost (depth of bury >16 ft) 6 $193 $318 8 $198 $325 10 $204 $335 12 $226 $371 14 $246 $397 15 $256 $410 16 $264 $420 18 $278 $441 20 $297 $468 21 $307 $481 24 $338 $524 26 $355 $548 27 $363 $560 28 $378 $580 30 $407 $619 32 $429 $649 36 $474 $708 38 $493 $734 40 $511 $759 42 $530 $785 43 $548 $807 44 $567 $829 48 $636 $916 54 $764 $1,080 60 $886 $1,220 66 $1,001 $1,355 72 $1,100 $1,490 3.5.2 Lining Replacing an entire pipe is not always the most cost-effective intervention mode. Lining a pipe can extend a pipe’s life much more cost-effectively than an open-cut pipe replacement. For the model developed here, the effect of lining a pipe was assumed to extend the pipe’s life by 50 years. Additionally, consideration for lining was given only to pipes that are not already plastic (excluding HDPE, PVC, HDPP, etc.) and are 60 inches in diameter or less. In the future, existing capacity should be considered to eliminate lining as an option for pipes that are already at peak capacity. Table 10 details the construction costs for lining a pipe (lateral connections are limited only to cutting an opening). Again, engineering, contingency, and permitting costs are not included in the table, but were added to the model as a 1.35 multiplier. A minimum pipe length of 50 feet was assumed to ensure accurate costs for very short segments. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 18 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Table 10. Inversion Lining Construction Costs per Linear Foot Pipe diameter (in.) Construction cost 6 $43 8 $43 10 $55 12 $67 14 $82 15 $91 16 $95 18 $100 20 $104 21 $106 24 $122 26 $143 27 $153 28 $164 30 $185 32 $199 36 $215 38 $470 40 $497 42 $524 43 $537 44 $549 48 $598 54 $674 60 $751 With the cost of an intervention determined, the annualized capital cost can be calculated. The annualized capital cost is simply the capital cost of the intervention divided by the number of years since the intervention. For example, a $100,000 pipe replacement has an annualized capital cost of $100,000 per year in Year 1, $50,000 per year in Year 2, $33,000 per year in Year 3, etc. Figure 8 graphically demonstrates this principle. Full pipe replacement and lining capital costs were considered (when appropriate) for each segment, and an interest rate of 5 percent was included with the capital costs in the model to account for the net cost of capital financing. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 19 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Figure 8. Example of annualized capital cost for a $3,000 intervention The next step was to calculate the annualized risk cost of an intervention. The risk cost carried by the intervention is calculated using the same principles as those for an existing asset. The probability of failure is modified to represent the intervention (e.g., a 50-year or younger pipe for lining, a new pipe for a replacement) and the cost of failure is the same as that for the existing asset. To calculate an annualized risk cost, the risk cost carried by the intervention was annualized by accumulating all of the risk costs paid by the number of years since the intervention. For example, if the risk costs for the first 3 years of a relined pipe are $100, $400, and $1,000, then the annualized risk cost for the intervention is $100/1 year = $100/year in Year 1, ($100+$400)/2 years = $250/year in Year 2, and ($100+$400+$1,000)/3 years = $500/year in Year 3. An example of this concept is shown in Figure 9. The risk cost used to calculate the annualized risk curve is identical to the costs presented in Figure 7. By annualizing the costs presented in Figure 7, the risk curve shown in Figure 9 maintains a similar shape, but because the cost is distributed over several years, the curve is shallower. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 20 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Figure 9. Example of annualized risk cost With both the annualized capital costs and the annualized risk costs of an intervention calculated, the annualized cost of ownership is simply the sum of the two. The annualized cost of ownership represents the total cost of owning the intervention on a cost-per-year basis. Figure 10 demonstrates this graphically. During the first few years, the annualized cost of ownership is high due to the initial capital cost of purchasing the asset. As the asset ages, however, the capital cost is spread over more years, reducing the annualized cost of ownership. This reduction is tempered by the increasing cost of the risk carried and, at some point, the annualized cost of ownership begins to increase as the asset becomes more and more likely to fail. Figure 10. Example of annualized cost of ownership with minimum highlighted in red (age 23) Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 21 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc When the asset reaches its minimum annualized cost of ownership, the lowest annual cost of owning the asset has been reached and the economically optimal time to intervene has arrived. Intervening any earlier or waiting any longer would cost more per year than intervening at the minimum annualized cost of ownership. For an existing asset, however, the capital cost and the previous risk costs are sunk costs that have already been paid. Therefore, annualizing these costs to determine the intervention timing is not appropriate. To identify the optimal time to intervene for an existing asset, the risk cost carried each year by the existing asset must be compared to the minimum annualized cost of ownership for an intervention. When the risk cost being carried by an existing asset for a given year is equal to the minimum annualized cost of ownership of an intervention, the optimal time to intervene has been reached. Figure 11 provides a graphical example of this concept and incorporates the values presented in Figures 7 and 10. The risk cost carried by the existing asset is shown on the right of Figure 11 and the annualized costs for an intervention are shown on the left. In this example, the intervention is a replacement in-kind. When the risk cost being carried each year by the existing asset surpasses the minimum of the cost of ownership curve (about $200 per year), the asset should be replaced. For this example, the existing asset is carrying $198 in risk at age 23 and $216 in risk at age 24. Therefore, the optimal time to replace the asset is at age 24. It could be assumed that because lining a pipe often costs less than replacing it, the economic life model would rarely suggest replacement over lining. This is not the case, however, as the model assumes that pipe lining only reduces a pipe’s age by 50 years. The lining option is therefore chosen by comparing the cost of lining to the cost savings of turning back the pipe’s age 50 years. For very old pipes, the benefit of reducing a pipe’s age by only 50 years may not be very worthwhile, especially compared to the cost of lining. In that case, resetting the pipe age to zero by completely replacing the pipe may be the preferred option over lining. On the other hand, for a very young pipe (less than 50 years old), lining the pipe would not take full advantage of a 50-year rejuvenation and may not be worth the cost of the lining either. Thus, there is a window in age for which the economic life model prefers lining a pipe over full replacement. For assets that have not yet reached their optimal intervention age, the economic life model can project the year at which the risk cost will justify an intervention. Combined with the intervention cost data presented above, projected spending for R&R activities can be calculated to provide the utility with a framework for future CIP timing and potential funding strategies. Te c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m Co l l e c t i o n S y s t e m s E c o n o m i c L i f e M o d e l 22 P: \ 1 3 5 3 4 7 A u b u r n D r a i n a g e P h a s e I I \ 0 0 9 S t o r m D r a i n a ge C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n \ F i n a l \ A p p e n d i c e s \ W o r d \ A p p e n d i x F - A u b u r n D r a i n a g e P l a n - E c o n o m i c L i f e ( N o v 0 9 ) . do c Fi g u r e 1 1 . E x a m p l e o f i n t e r v e n t i o n t i m i n g f o r a n e xi s t i n g a s s e t r e p l a c e d i n - k i n d b a s e d o n t h e m i n i m u m c o s t o f o w n e r s h i p o f a n i n t e r v e n t i o n Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 23 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc 4. MODEL OUTPUTS With the inputs presented above, the economic life model calculates a risk cost for each pipe segment as well as the economically optimal time for an intervention, be it lining or replacement. By sorting the pipe segments based on the existing carried risk cost, it is also possible to prioritize which pipes receive the finite maintenance resources available to the City. The results from the model, presented below, provide a graphical representation of projected R&R costs and identify specific segments recommended for intervention within the next 6 years. A map created with GIS is also presented to help identify areas with prioritized maintenance needs by indicating the criticality of each pipe segment with a color code indicating high, medium, and low relative criticality. 4.1 Graphical Outputs Using the ability of the model to project future intervention timing, a graph of projected spending for future years can be generated. Figure 12 presents a long-term (next 200 years) spending program for the storm water collection system. As shown, lining is generally the preferred intervention option because of the relatively young system age, but full replacement may become more viable if updates on missing material type or capacity issues preclude lining as an option. As the graph indicates, R&R spending needs are projected to increase substantially beginning around 2050 and peaking near 2075. $0.0 million $0.4 million $0.8 million $1.2 million $1.6 million $2.0 million 20102060211021602210 Year Co s t Replacement Cost Lining Cost Figure 12. Storm water collections system R&R spending projection 4.2 Segments Identified for Intervention Because of the relatively young age of the storm water collection system, the model identified very few segments for proactive intervention in the next decade. Two segments were identified for intervention immediately: segment B146–B144A and segment T133–T132. These two segments were identified for intervention largely because the installation data available indicated they were over 90 years old but further investigation from City staff identified that this information was incorrect and these two segments do not currently need replacement or lining. Further investigation of all of the segments in the model (checking Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 24 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc installation date, determining pipe material, and evaluating actual pipe condition) would help confirm intervention timing for the entire system. To prioritize R&R projects as they become more frequent in the future, a benefit-cost ratio was also developed to identify interventions that would result in the greatest savings for the lowest price. Benefit-cost was calculated as the ratio of the risk cost carried by the existing asset divided by the minimum annualized cost of ownership of the intervention. Therefore, segments with a benefit-cost ratio greater than or equal to 1 are appropriate for intervention. In addition, a high benefit-cost ratio indicates a greater proportion of savings per year for the cost of intervening. As multiple segments become due for intervention in the future, the benefit-cost ratio can be used as a means to support prioritizing where finite R&R funds are spent. The benefit-cost ratio tends to prefer segments that are the most likely to fail (e.g., old segments with poor condition scores) and relatively inexpensive to intervene (e.g., short, small-diameter segments). Thus, high- consequence, larger pipes that are expensive to replace could potentially show up too low on an R&R priority list using benefit-cost. Because of the adjustment to the probability of failure based on pipe length and the increase in consequence cost based on diameter, the long, large-diameter segments will still be identified for intervention at an appropriate age. However, sorting by the consequence costs for segments identified for intervention would provide an alternative project priority list that prefers replacing large pipes first. 4.3 Segments Identified for Conditional Assessment The economic life analysis also allows the City to prioritize maintenance activities and conditional assessments. By sorting the City’s collections system inventory based on asset risks, maintenance activities can be focused where the City is spending the most money in terms of risk. Using the geographic display capabilities of GIS, Figure 13 shows the relative risk that each of the City’s storm water assets are carrying. Red segments are the top 20 percent of the City’s length of pipe in terms of risk, the yellow segments are the next 30 percent of the City’s length of pipes, and the green segments are the bottom 50 percent. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 25 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Figure 13. City of Auburn storm water collections systems with color coding to indicate relative criticality Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 26 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc 5. NEXT STEPS With the results from the model presented above, the next steps for the model to be successful include improving the accuracy of the inputs, utilizing the results, and keeping the model updated as information changes and more data become available. 5.1 Areas for Improvements The results from the economic life model are only as accurate as the inputs. Therefore, improving the accuracy of the information on which the model is built is the main area for improvement. The data input improvements can be organized into three groups of information: cost assumptions, failure trending, and missing information. Each of these groups is discussed in the following paragraphs. 5.1.1 Cost Assumptions Verifying the cost information for the consequence parameters, spot repair costs, and intervention costs will ensure that the model is calculating accurate intervention timings and that cost projections represent an accurate spending program. The costs presented here were generated based on Brown and Caldwell’s experience with cities similar to Auburn. Therefore, continually verifying and customizing these costs to reflect Auburn’s storm water collection system are important to generate accurate results. 5.1.2 Failure Trending The probability of failure used in the economic life model presumes that the City’s segments will fail in a manner described by a Weibull distribution. The Weibull distribution is customizable to meet a variety of conditions that influence failure (by modifying service life and shape factor); however, verifying the parameters used in the model will require trending of actual failure rates. With this information, the probability function can be customized specifically to Auburn and will better predict optimal intervention timing. 5.1.3 Missing Information A number of parameters were not included in the model because information was not readily available. The addition of this information will help improve the granularity of the model and better capture the risk costs carried by pipe segments. Areas where additional information is needed include: · Segments with missing pipe material type and installation dates - Approximately 3,000 segments missing pipe types - Approximately 500 segments missing installation dates · Condition assessments and frequency of maintenance activities: condition assessments may only be available at a future date once inspections have been carried out · Segments with missing diameter and depth of bury information - Approximately 300 segments with missing diameter information - Approximately 2,000 segments with missing depth of bury information · Segments located within an easement or underwater · Segments that are not available for lining because they are already at peak capacity: capacity information can be included once hydrology and hydraulic modeling has been completed. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 27 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Additionally, although zoning information has been included in the model, more granularity can be added in the future if more detailed zoning is needed. For example, although all commercial zones are given the same consequence cost in this model, failures in a particular business core that would cost more than other commercial zones can be included for added granularity. 5.2 Utilizing the Model The economic life model can provide three areas of immediate benefit to the City’s R&R needs: R&R project identification, economic validation for projects, and future budget forecasting. In addition, the ranking of assets based on risk can be used to optimize and prioritize maintenance activities. 5.2.1 R&R Project Identification The main utilization for the model is to identify segments that are at or beyond the economically optimal time to replace or line. Segments can be identified individually to validate that an intervention is appropriate, and intervention projects can be identified by year to help group segment projects together. 5.2.2 Economic Validation The economic life model is intended to be a decision support tool. The tool should not be followed blindly; rather, the segments that the model proposes for an intervention should be examined more closely and a business case can be made to move forward with the project. The model also provides a repeatable, clearly detailed process by which projects can be justified. 5.2.3 Budget Forecasting Because the risk costs carried by segments can be projected into future years, the model also provides a forecast of future R&R budget needs. Using a 5- or 10-year moving average, the R&R costs can be used as a tool to support future financial planning and evaluating rate implications. 5.2.4 Maintenance Optimization and Prioritization The risk currently carried by each of Auburn’s storm water segments also provides a justification for focusing maintenance activities on segments that are costing the City the most amount of money. Using the information presented in Figure 13, the City can focus CCTV inspections and other predictive maintenance activities on the assets carrying the highest risk. As condition information becomes available and the assumptions built into the model have been either confirmed or revised, a reevaluation of which assets are inspected can be performed to better prevent future failures of critical infrastructure. For assets for which Auburn is not carrying as much risk (yellow and green segments in Figure 13), the City’s CCTV and cleaning schedule can be modified to better fit the criticality of each individual segment. For some segments this may mean reducing the number of inspections, but for others it could mean increasing the frequency of maintenance activities. Using the risk-based approach allows the cost of maintaining and inspecting assets to be compared to the cost the City carries for potential failures. 5.3 Updating the Model The City’s storm water economic life model is designed to be a “living document,” with yearly updates of the internal data. As more information becomes available and the existing information can be verified, the model can more accurately predict results. The following paragraphs explain how to update the model annually. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 28 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc 5.3.1 Instructions This section provides general guidelines on how to update the model. It should be noted that manual verification that data are being processed properly (i.e., spot check) will be required. 1. Open the latest version of the model. Save the model as a new name to prevent unwanted changes to the previous year’s model. 2. Change the current year in the Cost Streams tab. 3. Add any new pipe segments as necessary. Include the MUID number, installation date, pipe type, and length. NOTE: If additional lines of data are added to the model, equations must be copied to those cells. 4. Input the likelihood data into the model in the appropriate columns. Condition data, maintenance history, and slope scores are inputted in the Computation tab. This is based on the scoring discussed above. NOTE: When replacing and/or deleting data, do not delete equations within the spreadsheet. Cells with equations in them are marked with a grey background. 5. Input the consequence data into the model in the appropriate columns. Scores should be based on the scoring discussed above. NOTE: A helpful equation when trying to match up different sources of data is the VLOOKUP function. This function searches for a value in the first column of a table array and returns a value in the same row from another column in the table array. The equation is explained in the following manner: VLOOKUP(lookup_value, table_array, col_index_num, range_lookup) If you are unfamiliar with this function, the Microsoft Excel Help function should be used. 6. Press the Calculate All button, and a macro will update the new intervention timings. The results can be viewed graphically in the Spending Program tab. A year-by-year spending summary is given in the Program Summary tab. Inspecting individual segments is best done in the Computation tab. 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The economic life model developed by Brown and Caldwell allows the City to determine and evaluate the risk cost associated with each of its roughly 3,500 storm water pipe segments. By comparing the risk cost each segment carries to the minimum annualized cost of ownership of an intervention, the City can determine optimal economic timing for either lining or replacing each segment. With this economic life information, R&R projects can be identified for consideration, budget and long-term rate forecasting can be predicted, and a business case validation can be made for each segment. In addition, maintenance activities can be prioritized to focus on the assets for which the City is carrying the majority of its risk. Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 29 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc APPENDIX A: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF COST ASSUMPTION S Note: All assumptions presented below are assumed to be for a 10-inch storm water segment. Access Inconvenience This is the cost to the customers based on their inconvenience because of repair work being done. In all cases, it was assumed that this inconvenience would be incurred for every failure (100 percent probability of occurrence) and that customers would be delayed 15 minutes in reaching their destination. Residential: 10 residents impacted for 15 minutes twice a day for 2 days at $20 per hour Commercial: 80 customers each hour impacted for 15 minutes over 16 hours at $20 per hour Industrial: 60 employees per day impacted for 15 minutes for 2 days at $20 per hour and 32 deliveries per day impacted for 15 minutes for 2 days at $50 per hour Airport: Eight flights per hour, two people per flight, impacted for 15 minutes over 16 hours at $75 per hour and 25 general public impacted for 15 minutes over 16 hours at $20 per hour Fire Dept: Four firefighters per hour impacted for 30 minutes over 16 hours at $80 per hour Medical 12 hospital staff per hour impacted for 15 minutes over 16 hours at $80 per hour and Center: 60 patients per hour impacted for 15 minutes over 16 hours at $20 per hour City Hall: 50 City officials impacted for 15 minutes twice a day at $120 per hour and 15 general public per hour for 16 hours impacted for 15 minutes at $20 per hour Justice Dept: 50 City officials impacted for 15 minutes twice a day at $120 per hour and 15 general public per hour for 16 hours impacted for 15 minutes at $20 per hour Surface Spills and/or Backups This is the cost incurred for claims resulting from a storm water spill or backup. Claims costs were estimated based on claims information provided by the City of Tacoma. A 5 percent probability of occurrence was used for spills based on zoning; spills on roadways were assumed to be half as likely. Residential: Two homes impacted, 6 hours of cleanup per home for two crew members at $71 per hour, 6 hours of equipment per home (vactor truck and sweeper) at $500 per hour, average claim of $2,000 per customer with 8 hours of legal at $79 per hour and 16 hours of management at $81 per hour Commercial: Two businesses impacted, 6 hours of cleanup per business for two crew members at $71 per hour, 6 hours of equipment per business (vactor truck and sweeper) at $500 per hour, average claim of $5,000 per business with 8 hours of legal at $79 per hour and 16 hours of management at $81 per hour Technical Memorandum Collection Systems Economic Life Model 30 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix F - Auburn Drainage Plan - Economic Life (Nov09).doc Industrial: One industry impacted, 6 hours of cleanup per industry for two crew members at $71 per hour, 6 hours of equipment per industry (vactor truck and sweeper) at $500 per hour, average claim of $5,000 per industry with 8 hours of legal at $79 per hour and 16 hours of management at $81 per hour Roads: 6 hours of cleanup for two crew members at $71 per hour, 6 hours of equipment at $500 per hour, 8 hours of legal at $79 per hour and $16 hours of management at $81 per hour Traffic Delays Traffic delays represent the lost time for drivers because of repair crew work. As every failure requires a repair whether there is a loss of service or not, a probability of occurrence of 100 percent was used. Collector: 16 hours of repair work, two lanes disrupted, 30 vehicles per lane per hour delayed for 5 minutes at $20 per hour Arterial: 16 hours of repair work, two lanes disrupted, 60 vehicles per lane per hour delayed for 10 minutes at $20 per hour Highway: 16 hours of repair work, two lanes disrupted, 180 vehicles per lane per hour delayed for 15 minutes at $20 per hour Negative News Article The potential for a negative news article and the associated public perception can impact a utility’s relationship with its customers. For this evaluation, the costs of a news article were confined to management meetings, answering customer questions, and a general loss of productivity. The probability of occurrence was based on an assumption that, for the most part, one half of failures resulting in a loss of service (i.e., 2.5 percent of failures) would induce a negative news article. For critical facilities, it was assumed that all failures resulting in a loss of service (i.e., 5 percent of failures) would result in negative news. Negative News: 40 hours of internal management meetings at $81 per hour, 80 hours of Council meetings at $107 per hour, 40 hours of answering customer questions at $71 per hour, and a 2 percent loss of productivity for 8 hours at $10,000 per hour Regulatory Pressure Pressure from regulatory bodies can result in significant changes for the utility and will require substantial management attention. Costs were assumed to include management meetings, legal review, and the generation of a special report. The probability of occurrence presumes one out of four failures resulting in a loss of service results in an instance of regulatory pressure per year. This rate was doubled for the Medical Center. Regulatory Pressure: 40 hours of internal management meetings at $81 per hour, 80 hours of Council meetings at $107 per hour, 100 hours of legal review at $79 per hour, and 120 hours for the preparation of a special report at $71 per hour 1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc Technical Memorandum To: Tim Carlaw, Storm Drainage Engineer, City of Auburn Dann Repp, Project Manager, City of Auburn Sam Castro, Sewer Supervisor, City of Auburn Prepared by: Doug Schneider, Mechanical/Hydraulic, Brown and Caldwell Gary Anderson, Electrical/Controls, Brown and Caldwell Date: January 4, 2008 Subject: Condition Assessment of City of Auburn, Stormwater Pumping Stations TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................2 2 Objective.........................................................................................................................................................2 3 Process............................................................................................................................................................3 4 Level of Service..............................................................................................................................................3 4.1 Capacity..........................................................................................................................................3 4.1.1 Planning Period............................................................................................................4 4.1.2 Water Quality Treatment............................................................................................4 4.1.3 Standby Power..............................................................................................................4 4.1.4 Good Neighbor Criteria..............................................................................................5 5 Health and Safety...........................................................................................................................................6 5.1 Health and Safety Issues Associated with Pumping Stations.................................................6 5.2 National Electrical Code and Safety..........................................................................................8 5.3 Health- and Safety-Based Recommendations..........................................................................8 6 Condition Assessment, Observations, and Recommendations..............................................................9 6.1 All Pumping Stations....................................................................................................................9 6.2 Station-by-Station Assessment....................................................................................................9 6.2.1 A Street Pumping Station.........................................................................................10 6.2.2 Auburn Way S Pumping Station..............................................................................10 6.2.3 Brannan Park Pumping Station................................................................................11 6.2.4 Emerald Park Pumping Station...............................................................................12 6.2.5 White River (Stuck River) Pumping Station..........................................................12 7 Summary Recommendations and Preliminary Costs.............................................................................14 EXHIBIT A: STATION CHECKLISTS EXHIBIT B: NFPA 820 STANDARD FIRE PROTECTION IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS -2008 Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc 1. Introduction This technical memorandum documents the results of Brown and Caldwell’s condition assessment of the City of Auburn’s stormwater pumping stations. The condition assessment is a key step in developing a Comprehensive Stormwater Plan, authorized by the City under the 2007 Agreement for Professional Services AG-C-302. Brown and Caldwell is also concurrently preparing a Comprehensive Wastewater Plan under City of Auburn 2007 Agreement for Professional Services AG-C-301. The condition assessment for existing wastewater facilities was addressed in a separate technical memorandum delivered in draft form on December 7, 2007. This technical memorandum documents condition assessment results for stormwater pumping stations in the City system. The City’s stormwater treatment system contains five permanent pumping stations. Table 1 lists these pumping stations and provides additional identifying data to confirm their locations. Table 1. City of Auburn Storm Drainage Pumping Station Inventory Pumping station Year constructed Cross streets Approximate address 1 A Street SE 1973 A Street @ underpass of SR 18 /BNSF Bridges 2 Auburn Way S 1994 Auburn Way S, south of 4th St. SE 3 Brannan Park 2001 East end of 30th St. NE, west of Green River 1019 28th St. NE 4 Emerald Park 1999 42nd St. NE, west of C St. NE 5 White River 1981 A St. and River Drive, north of White River 4248 A St. SE 2. Objective Comprehensive plans determine facility needs to meet the current and future level of service (LOS). Existing facilities are usually incorporated to the maximum extent possible to reduce costs. A condition assessment evaluates the apparent physical condition of existing stations and equipment. The purpose of this evaluation is to predict future serviceability and anticipated longevity. Pumping stations must meet the LOS adopted by regulatory agencies and do so in a safe and reliable manner. Upgraded stations must meet current code conditions that may differ from the time of the station’s original construction. Therefore, our condition assessment identifies: · Requirements necessary to meet the City’s LOS · Requirements necessary for the health and safety of staff and the public · Suggestions that might increase reliability or reduce cost of operations or maintenance. Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 4 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc 3. Process For this condition assessment, equipment checklists were prepared for mechanical/hydraulic and electrical/control systems (Exhibit A), site visits were made to all stations, as-built information and operations and maintenance (O&M) manuals were reviewed, and operators and maintenance personnel were asked about known issues at each location. Station operation was observed, but no detailed physical testing of equipment, wiring, controls, or structures was conducted. Evaluation of certain electrical equipment was excluded from Brown and Caldwell’s scope because it was already being evaluated by others. Casne Engineering, Inc., has two contracts with the City for engineering services associated with the wastewater and stormwater pumping stations. One contract is for evaluation and recommendations associated with possible upgrades to the pumping stations’ supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. This includes possible upgrades to each station’s local SCADA/programmable logic controller (PLC) hardware, firmware, software, and telemetry equipment and requirements. The second contract is to verify, evaluate, and recommend backup power system requirements for each pumping station. This includes sizing for permanent, portable, and possibly rented equipment. Casne’s evaluations are also expected to include transfer switch requirements and equipment selection. Therefore, Brown and Caldwell did not evaluate the details of the SCADA system and backup power systems for the pumping stations. Backup power is discussed in general below to address possible flow and storage capacity issues. Two general system-wide observations can be made. First, each of Auburn’s stormwater pumping stations is unique. Second, the City of Auburn has done an excellent job of maintaining all of its stations, some of which are now more than 40 years old. 4. Level of Service Note: At the time of this assessment, the City was in the process of refining its written LOS criteria. This technical memorandum has been written based on discussions with City staff and reasonable but assumed level of service criteria. 4.1 Capacity Obviously, the primary purpose of a pumping station is to pump. However, a basis has to be selected to determine needed capacity. For stormwater stations, inflow is precipitation-driven and sizing is generally tied to design storms. Design storms are derived from historical weather data and generally presented as storms of specific recurrence intervals (e.g., the 5-, 20-, or 100-year storm). A typical stormwater LOS usually includes both design storm pumping levels and an additional overriding public health and safety component. For example, design should allow no more than 6 inches of flooding of any street during the 25-year, 24-hour design storm, and additionally, no housing or structure damage or identifiable public safety risks under 100-year, 24-hour storm conditions. The given example criteria are assumed for this draft memorandum. System modeling is currently underway to help identify impacts and implementation costs from adopting various levels of service. Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 5 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc 4.1.1 Planning Period The comprehensive planning period assumed for this draft memorandum is 23 years. Current flows refer to the year 2007 and design year flows refer to projected flows in the year 2030. 4.1.2 Water Quality Treatment The Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (Phase II Permit) does not explicitly require retrofitting existing pumping stations or other stormwater drainage/flood control facilities to provide water quality treatment. The Phase I Permit, which applies to large municipalities, requires that permittees “consider” retrofitting existing stormwater drainage/flood control facilities for water quality treatment. A similar retrofitting requirement may be included in the next version of the Phase II Permit. The current Phase II Permit is scheduled to expire in February 2012. The current Phase II Permit does require that the permittee reduce the discharge of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable” (MEP). The Phase II Permit adopts the MEP definition contained in the federal Clean Water Act (paragraph 402[p][3][B][iii]), which reads: “Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” Given this broad definition of MEP, permittees must determine what is “practicable” and what is not for their specific situations. If the incremental cost of adding water quality treatment to an existing facility is high, and the retrofit is not required by other mandates (e.g., a total maximum daily load for the receiving water body), then a permittee may determine that retrofitting would go above and beyond the MEP standard. Conversely, if the incremental cost of adding water quality treatment to an existing facility is low, then it may be more difficult to defend a decision to forego the water quality feature. The Brannan Park pumping station discharges to the Green River, but not before significant water quality treatment through extended bioswales. The Emerald Park pumping station discharges to a retention pond, which provides water quality treatment. The White River (or Stuck River) pumping station discharges directly to the river without water quality treatment. The White River pumping station is also the oldest stormwater pumping station and the one in most need of significant structural repairs or replacement. 4.1.3 Standby Power We are unaware of a specific legal requirement that makes provision of standby power a mandatory requirement at stormwater pumping stations. However, it makes sense that most stations are provided with alternative power sources because they operate most frequently under stormy conditions, when there is more likelihood of losing the station’s utility service. Alternative means of standby power provision include: · Dual-utility power supply sources in which each power source can be proven to be truly independent (not sharing any common lines or substations) Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 6 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc · Onsite generation with automatic load transfer · Mobile power units located so that they can be brought quickly to the site utilizing an existing station manual transfer switch and plug-in receptacle(s) · Mobile or secondary pumping equipment that is engine-powered · A combination of the above. Acceptable transition times to the new power source are influenced by the amount of storage volume that exists at the station under worst conditions. Station standby power systems at all of Auburn’s pumping stations are being evaluated under a concurrent study by Casne. When standby power is provided by onsite diesel-powered generators, it becomes critical that units be exercised periodically under load or else the cylinders and valves will “carbon up” and the sets fail to operate. For pumping stations in Auburn’s size range, future permanent generator installations should have a load bank installed in-line with the radiator fan. Though this should not be considered mandatory, it would allow ease of generator testing should live load testing not be desired. Another issue that needs to be considered is fuel spill containment during filling operations. Although dispensing fuel into various pad-mounted generator fuel tanks is not expected to be completed by City staff, the City should ensure that the providing vendor follows International Fire Code 3403.4 and 2704.2. During fuel dispensing operations near storm drains, the Code requires that the drains be sealed and absorbent containment bags creating a dike be installed to prevent the fuel from migrating away from the engine. There are other engineered spill control systems that may take the form of a specialized vessel that surrounds the fuel tank’s filling tube, preventing fuel from reaching grade. 4.1.4 Good Neighbor Criteria Some municipalities have noise or odor ordinances that set acceptable limits. Auburn currently has no noise or odor ordinances applicable to pumping stations. The City’s stormwater department has never had odor complaints, and only one station, the Brannan Park pumping station, has received neighbor complaints (light and noise). Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 7 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc 5 Health and Safety The following sections examine health and safety issues related to pumping stations, including recommendations for improved health and safety. 5.1 Health and Safety Issues Associated with Pumping Stations All of the five permanent Auburn stormwater pumping stations visited were aboveground installations. This type of station uses a wet well or manhole-like structure for the wet well. Though these stations are far safer than below–grade, pre-fabricated pumping stations, electrical safety concerns still apply to all of the sites, including the following: · There are potential arc flash hazards at the stations when making control system changes on control panels that cannot be de-energized. The problem is inherent to “packaged” control enclosures that also contain the station’s power distribution equipment while the system is still energized. · There are potential arc flash hazards at the stations when working on or troubleshooting within electrical power panels that cannot be de-energized. A discussion session on this topic was held with City staff on December 18, 2007. Auburn’s Public Works staff has policies in place to maximize safety and minimize the potential for accidents. However, it is uncertain if the City is aware of or has looked into arc flash hazards. Though the term “arc flash” is not new to the electrical industry, the industry as a whole is behind the curve in taking action at understanding the mitigation requirements and the reduction of arc flash hazards and risks. Brown and Caldwell understands that the City employs a contractor whenever control system repairs, modifications, or testing is required. The following paragraphs describe the potential risk of arc flash. An arc flash hazard will occur at any location likely to require evaluation, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while the equipment is energized. The danger is in the amount of incident energy that is released when energized and exposed electrical conductors and equipment come into contact with another phase or ground. The sound and thermal energy are enough to cause serious injury to a technician working on the equipment. In addition to this energy is the shrapnel from the blast. The 2005 National Electrical Code (NEC) (National Fire Protection Associaton [NFPA] 70), the 2004 Edition of the Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace NFPA 70E, and the 2002 revision to ANSI-IEEE Standard 1584, the IEEE Guide for Performing Arc Flash Hazard Calculations, have only recently addressed the dangers of arc flash at the work place. The danger of working in an electrical power panel or on power equipment while the equipment is energized is rather straightforward. The potential danger of working in an electrical control cabinet, where the system voltage is 120 volts, is not so straightforward. This is in part because the 480-volt feeder breaker may reside in the panel. Therefore, the breaker’s line-side terminals are still energized and typically exposed. The dangers over potential arc flash hazards can be mitigated by either of the two following methods (Brown and Caldwell recommends Method 1): Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 8 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc 1. Evaluate, adjust, service, or conduct maintenance on the packaged control panels and electrical power panels and cabinets only when the panels and equipment are completely de-energized. This can be accomplished by one of the following means when used concurrently with the City’s electrical lockout/tagout procedures: a. Open the breaker upstream of the panel in question. This may be the utility breaker upstream of the station’s utility meter or a breaker in the upstream power cabinet or panel. If the utility breaker is not accessible, follow options b or c below. b. For stations that are set up for a portable generator but a generator is not connected, manually place the upstream transfer switch to its generator position. c. For stations with permanent backup generators, open up the generator breaker and manually place the upstream transfer switch to its generator position. Note that opening the main breaker located in the packaged control panel is not listed here. This is because the breaker’s line-side lugs and exposed cables are accessible when the control panel door is opened. If the line-side cables come into contact with any tool or the lugs or connections fail for any reason, this main breaker will not prevent the fault energy from releasing into the panel and the immediate vicinity. It is not known if a suitable barrier could be fashioned to surround the line- side lugs within the panel or the design details required to remove the panel’s main breaker and place the breaker in a separate enclosure potentially alongside the packaged control panel. This would then isolate the upstream electrical hazards from the packaged control panel. As noted above, Brown and Caldwell recommends that an upstream breaker ahead of the subject panel be opened and locked and tagged out before working on the packaged control panels or power panel. The NEC simply states that the panels shall be labeled to indicate a danger from arc flash. These simple labels tied to written procedures and training would meet the standards for labeling. 2. Wear the required personal protective equipment for the available incident energy. The second means of mitigation requires that each site undergo an arc flash analysis. This analysis would require review of the current short-circuit study or a new study for each site. The short- circuit information would then be used by a software program to identify the incident energy and the required personal protective equipment required when working on the packaged control panels energized. Each panel would then be labeled for the type of personal protective equipment required to work in the panel when energized. The nature of arc flash hazards is such that even to define a worst-case yet sensible condition requires calculations. As can readily be seen at the packaged control panels, for example, a number of different breakers and sizes are employed. Each one changes the amount of incident energy available. The degree of change is a function of the upstream transformer and the available fault energy from the utility, which is different at each site. In consideration of Brown and Caldwell’s understanding that the City does not work on electrical equipment, we recommend that the above NEC label requirement be followed. The labels would Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 9 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc indicate a danger from arc flash. Any contractor hired by the City would be notified of the arc flash hazards and that contractors are responsible for the safety of their own personnel. This notification could be part of a contract or part of a project kickoff meeting. These simple equipment and panel labels tied to written procedures and training would meet the NEC standards for labeling. 5.2 National Electrical Code and Safety The NEC (NFPA 70) is the fundamental standard for ensuring that electrical equipment installations meet minimum safety standards to ultimately prevent the loss of life and property. The following item was noted during the site inspections: At those stations that do not have a motor control center starter arrangement, the motor starters are part of a packaged control system similar to the below-grade wastewater pumping stations. This type of starter arrangement does not have a separate disconnecting means for each motor with the ability to be locked out in accordance with NEC Article 430 and applicable OSHA standards for lockout/tagout procedures. The packaged control panels have an upstream breaker that could isolate power to the control panel and thus both motors. These breakers have the ability to be locked out. Therefore, in order to meet safety requirements, the entire control panel would have to be de-energized to work on one pump motor while operating the second one. Such changes could include removing the subject motor’s cables from its associated starter. Once the cables have been removed and safely tied off, the control panel could be energized again and the second pump motor operated. However, experience has shown that cable end fatigue will occur if this “lockout” method is used often on a problematic motor. Fatigue causes strand breakage and diminishes the ampacity of the cables, which would cause overheating at the starter terminals. 5.3 Health- and Safety-Based Recommendations Based on both their excellent functional history and the inherent safety issues with the City’s stormwater pumping stations, it is recommended that Auburn: · Ensure through the City’s electrical work practice documentation and training that any work on electrical equipment be completed only when the panels are completely de-energized. The panels need to be de-energized by a device mounted out of the packaged control panel or subject electrical power panel. NEC’s minimum requirements of arc flash warning labels need to be affixed to the electrical panels and cabinets. · In the event that City staff needs to work on energized station equipment, the City needs to perform an arc flash study on all of these stations to determine the incident energy and the required personal protective equipment necessary to work on or near the energized equipment. Subsequent to the study’s completion, the City needs to provide the required personal protective equipment and training in its use. (The City may wish to expand arc flash awareness across all City-conducted electrical maintenance and operation procedures.) · For those stations with packaged control panel motor starters that cannot tolerate a complete loss of pumping capacity, provide each motor circuit with a UL Listed lockout means. This can be accomplished with various aftermarket UL Listed devices that, when applied to the circuit breakers in their off position and then locked, would prevent the breaker from being operated. A device for each motor must be kept at the station. Each Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 10 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc station should be equipped with a minimum of three devices in the event of a device failure or loss. The service vehicles also should be equipped with a couple of selected lockout devices. (It should be noted that one lockout device’s style could cover a possible range of breakers from 15 to 200 amps if the breakers are the same fundamental type.) 6 Condition Assessment, Observations, and Recommendations The following sections summarize the findings from the conditions assessments at stormwater pumping stations. 6.1 All Pumping Stations Several observations and recommendations resulting from our condition assessment can be applied to multiple or all pumping stations and we specifically address those in this section. These general observations and recommendations are followed by a section detailing comments for each individual pumping station. · We understand that the City relies on outside firms for many routine activities, including electrical/instrumentation and control troubleshooting and maintenance and sewer cleaning/vactoring. While City stormwater and wastewater services might not require a full- time electrician or instrument technician, we believe that the City would benefit overall by having this expertise available in-house. · Install portable fire extinguishers in each dry well. · For reasons explained above, the provision of in-line load banks on all-new standby power units would increase standby power reliability. By being able to exercise under load (60 to 70 percent) for a minimum of 4 hours each month, carbon buildup in engines would be prevented and the units would be in a better state of readiness. Brown and Caldwell recommends that the City load test its engine installations once a month, running the engines for approximately 4 hours. The City should also conduct an annual test in which the engine runs for over 6 hours. 6.2 Station-by-Station Assessment Our condition assessment included a field visit to each of the City’s five pumping stations in the stormwater treatment system. The previous sections of this memorandum listed recommendations applicable to multiple stations. This section covers items found to apply only at individual stations. Following are our observations and recommendations resulting from these site visits, with each station listed in alphabetical order. Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 11 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc Figure 1. A Street pumping station Figure 2. Auburn Way S pumping station 6.2.1 A Street Pumping Station Electrical Recommend having arc flash labels installed on the electrical panels in accordance with the NEC. Also see recommendations common to all stations. 6.2.2 Auburn Way S Pumping Station Electrical · Recommend having arc flash labels installed on the electrical panels in accordance with the NEC. · This station has the ability to lock out the pump motor control panel, but not the individual motor starters. Recommend providing a lockout means for the breakers inside the control panel that feed the packaged panel’s motor starters. Mechanical · Auburn Way S pumping station has only a few local catch basins and a large sump. It and the A Street pumping station, which is only one block away, both pump into a common 30-inch storm sewer. The manholes on the 30-inch storm line near Auburn Way S have often been seen surcharging up into the street and then recycling back into the Auburn Way S wet well. Modeling for the stormwater comprehensive plan will address downstream capacity bottlenecks. See recommendations common to all stations. Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 12 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc Figure 3. Brannan Park pumping station 6.2.3 Brannan Park Pumping Station Electrical During the site visit it was noted that the City’s electrical as-built one-line drawings did not match the existing facility. For example, the pumps were shown on the one-line to have 500-amp frame breakers with a 100-amp trip; however, the breakers are 100-amp frame breakers with a 70-amp trip. This may present future problems or confusion for City engineers, operators, and electrical consultants. · Recommend installation of arc flash labels on the electrical panels in accordance with the NEC. · This station has exterior light fixtures that are turned off at night due to light trespass. However, the City has experienced vandalism, in part because the fixtures are off. Recommend that full cutoff fixtures be installed. This direct down-lighting would only wash the walls and the doorways and not allow direct light to enter neighboring resident windows. · Recommend that the City’s one-line drawings for the station, at a minimum, be corrected based on actual site conditions. Mechanical · Control circuits currently start the engine-generator when the area’s power has been lost but before pumping is required. Revise circuitry to start the engine-generator only when needed and to transfer back after an outage event. · The engine has a once-through City water cooling system rather than an air-cooled radiator. The water flow rate (2-inch line) is excessive and results in dumping large quantities of City water. Investigate actual cooling need and throttle back cooling water appropriately. · The HVAC equipment within this station has never been serviced although it is more than 10 years old. This is because maintenance responsibility for the stormwater stations has only recently being assigned to the same maintenance staff that maintains other City water utilities, coupled with poor access to ceiling or mezzanine-mounted equipment. There are no HVAC schematics or maintenance manuals in the station documentation. Arrange for filter changes, lubrication, and inspection. Add equipment to maintenance database. Install mezzanine ladder. As-build the HVAC system. · O&M could not locate keys to one room. Ensure that any equipment in that space is also maintained. · Vandalism is an ongoing problem at this station. It is “tagged” by painters almost monthly. The station could be fenced. See recommendations common to all stations. Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 13 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc Figure 4. Emerald Park pumping station Figure 5. White River pumping station 6.2.4 Emerald Park Pumping Station Electrical · Recommend having arc flash labels installed on the electrical panels in accordance with the NEC. · This station has the ability to lock out the pump motor control panel but not the individual motor starters. Recommend providing a lock out means for the breakers inside the control panel that feed the packaged panel’s motor starters. · It appears that the main 480-volt power panel’s main feeder is either routed through the meter can or is tapped off the service at the meter can upstream of the transfer switch. Neither is a recommended practice. The 480-volt panel should be fed downstream of the manual transfer switch. Drawings were not available either at the site or in the O&M manuals. Mechanical · Clean out animal droppings from cabinets and screen openings. · Replace the inadequate discharge check valve support with a cast in place saddle support. See recommendations common to all stations. 6.2.5 White River (Stuck River) Pumping Station Electrical · Recommend having arc flash labels installed on the electrical panels in accordance with the NEC. · The building is in very poor condition. The electrical equipment is in better condition so it would have salvage value when a new structure is constructed. · The new pumping station would have fluorescent lighting fixtures replacing the incandescent fixtures currently installed. Technical Memorandum Auburn Stormwater Pumping Station Condition Assessment 14 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix G - Auburn Drainage Plan - Pump Station (Aug09).doc Mechanical and Structural · Every wall of the station has severe structural cracking and is unsound. Surface patching has been attempted. The station should be demolished and replaced. Damage appears to have been caused by both seismic events and settlement. · Metal fragments and scorched surfaces remain from a battery explosion that almost took an operator’s life. · Ventilation is substandard. · Lighting is substandard. · The station has no utility water system. A well was dug but water quality was extremely poor (high mineral content). There is no nearby water service within the appropriate water district. The station is just across the road from another water district that technically could easily supply water. Water was originally used for seal water, clean up, and irrigation; systems are now all abandoned. · Wet well reportedly accumulates paper, plastics, rags, and other debris that, during a storm event, is pumped to the White River in the first flush of station operation. No water quality improvements are incorporated into this older station’s design. · Just as the station is located beyond the end of the water distribution system, it is also at the farthest end of Puget Sound Energy’s power distribution system and power quality is poor and unreliable. Station operation has been lost both because of power failure, and because of voltage dips that drop out controls. · All three installed pumps have barely been able to keep up with pumping demand during large storm events. However, the pumps themselves have been extremely reliable and have never required more than routine servicing. · On the day of the station visit, bubbler levels looked like they had drifted and were showing erroneous readings. It is recommended that a replacement station incorporate water quality mitigation to remove floatables and unsightly debris and negotiated improvements to electric and water utility service. See recommendations common to all stations. EXHIBIT A STATION CHECKLISTS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. A-1 Pumping Station Electrical Evaluation Checklist Location: 1. Service equipment status… (age/condition/maintainability) Note ratings and manufacturer: 2. Distribution equipment… (age/condition/ maintainability) Note ratings and manufacturer: 3. Service grounding (ground rods, ground electrode conductor[s], etc. ): 4. Equipment grounding: A-2 5. NEMA ratings on site equipment (indoor/outdoor): 6. Variable frequency drives (age/condition/maintainability): 7. General motor starters… individual/packaged/ motor control center (age/condition/maintainability): 8. Unsafe lighting at stairs/ladders (age/condition of lighting): 9. Light trespass issues with outdoor fixtures: 10. Electrical working clearance issues (National Electrical Code 110.26): 11. Condition of electrical aspects of HVAC: 12 Other: A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 EXHIBIT B NFPA 820 STANDARD FIRE PROTECTION IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS -2008 EXCERPT FROM TABLE4.2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. B-1 B-2 CITY OF AUBURN PHASE II NPDES STORMWATER PERMIT COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN Prepared for City of Auburn, WA March 31, 2008 Table of Contents City of Auburn Compliance Work Plan ii P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Overview and Background............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 The Stormwater Problem..............................................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Compliance Timeline....................................................................................................................................1-3 1.4 Policy Issues.................................................................................................................................................1-5 1.5 Business Process and Information Management Improvements..................................................................1-6 1.6 Department Responsibilities and Resource Implications..............................................................................1-6 1.7 Document Organization................................................................................................................................1-7 2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION........................................................................2-1 2.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 Future Compliance Policy Issues..................................................................................................................2-1 2.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance...............................................................................2-2 3. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH...............................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Future Compliance Policy Issues..................................................................................................................3-2 3.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance...............................................................................3-2 4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT........................................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Future Compliance Policy Issues..................................................................................................................4-1 4.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance...............................................................................4-1 5. ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION........................................................................................5-1 5.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Future Compliance Policy Issues..................................................................................................................5-2 5.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance...............................................................................5-2 6. CONTROLLING RUNOFF FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SITES..6-1 6.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................6-1 6.3 Compliance Policy Issues.............................................................................................................................6-2 6.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance...............................................................................6-2 7. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS............7-1 7.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................7-1 Table of Contents City of Auburn Compliance Work Plan iii P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc 7.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................7-1 7.3 Future Compliance Policy Issues..................................................................................................................7-2 7.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance...............................................................................7-2 8. WATER QUALITY MONITORING..........................................................................................................................8-1 8.1 Permit Requirements....................................................................................................................................8-1 8.2 Current Compliance Activities.......................................................................................................................8-2 8.3 Compliance Policy Issues.............................................................................................................................8-2 8.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance...............................................................................8-2 APPENDIX A.................................................................................................................................................................1 Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit...................................................................................1 APPENDIX B.................................................................................................................................................................1 Annual Report Form.................................................................................................................................................1 APPENDIX C.................................................................................................................................................................1 Acronyms and Definitions.........................................................................................................................................1 APPENDIX D.................................................................................................................................................................1 Legal Requirement Review......................................................................................................................................1 iv P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Stormwater Management Administration.............................................................................................2-2 Table 3-1. Public Education and Outreach............................................................................................................3-2 Table 3-1. Public Involvement...............................................................................................................................4-2 Table 4-1. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination...........................................................................................5-2 Table 6-1. Controlling Runoff from Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites.................................6-3 Table 7-1. Pollution Prevention and Operations and Maintenance.......................................................................7-2 Table 8-1. Water Quality Monitoring......................................................................................................................8-2 ES-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc CITY OF AUBURN COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) issued the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (the Permit) in January 2007. The Permit is required by the federal Clean Water Act and is intended to protect, preserve, and restore our nations “fishable, swimmable” waters at the same time as it protects reasonably administered stormwater management programs from potential litigation. The City of Auburn applied for coverage under the Permit, which implements federal Clean Water Act regulations for control of pollutants in runoff discharged form municipal separate storm sewer systems, as well as State of Washington waste discharge requirements. The Permit went into effect on February 16, 2007 and expires February 15, 2012. Various requirements take effect over the five-year Permit term, allowing municipalities to gradually build their stormwater management programs. Consequently, although the City appears to be in compliance with initial Permit requirements (i.e.,those in effect during the first year of the Permit), new activities will become necessary over the Permit term to maintain compliance. Maintaining compliance is important for the City because: Ecology has the power to levy fines or impose criminal penalties. Grant funds may be imperiled by non-compliance. Non-compliance with the Permit and the Clean Water Act can expose the City to third party litigation. At the same time, the requirements are comprehensive and will affect the operations of every City department. Some of the initial Permit requirements (to be completed by March 31, 2008) include: Developing the 2008 Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) documentation outlining the steps the City will take to meet pending requirements during 2008. Preparing the first Annual Compliance Report documenting compliance activities. Providing public involvement and decision-making opportunities including reviews by the Planning & Community Development Committee, the Pubic Works Committee, and the City Council. The SWMP documentation and the first Annual Compliance Report must be submitted to Ecology by March 31, 2008. The Permit requirements increase in scope and complexity over the course of the five-year permit term (i.e., 2008-2012). The new requirements include: Tracking and reporting of all Permit-related costs and training. Updates to City codes related to control of illicit (non-stormwater) discharges to storm drains, stormwater control for new and redevelopment construction, and stormwater facility maintenance. Refinement of the City’s existing Stormwater Public Education and Outreach activities. Ongoing opportunities for public involvement in updating the City’s Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). Refinement of existing City procedures for spill response and enforcement, development and implementation of new illicit discharge program components to ensure regular inspection of stormwater outfalls and upstream areas that may be potential sources of stormwater pollutants. Modifications to existing City standard operating procedures (SOP) to minimize the potential for illicit Executive Summary City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan ES-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc discharges. Tracking of all reported illicit discharges and enforcement actions through resolution. Training for City field staff on illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE). Adoption and implementation of additional runoff controls (Ecology’s 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington or equivalent). Increased levels of information tracking for construction site inspection and enforcement and inspection and maintenance of stormwater management facilities. Development and implementation of SOPs for preventing stormwater pollution related to municipal operations. Training for municipal operations staff on the new processes and procedures. Development of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). In addition to the actions listed above, the Permit also requires the City to begin planning for monitoring activities that Ecology expects to take effect during the next Permit cycle (i.e., 2012 – 2017). . The remainder of this Compliance Work Plan memorandum describes required City actions and their impacts in greater detail. 1-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc CITY OF AUBURN COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview and Background The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program is a requirement of the federal Clean Water Act, which is intended to protect and restore waters for “fishable, swimmable” uses. The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated permit authority to state environmental agencies and these agencies can set permit conditions in accordance with and in addition to the minimum federal requirements. In Washington, the NPDES-delegated permit authority is the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The City of Auburn is required to comply with Ecology’s Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (the Permit). The Phase II permit applies to operators of small (population less than 100,000 as of 1990 census) municipal separate storm sewer systems. Approximately 100 municipalities in Washington are covered by the Phase II Permit. Municipalities with populations over 100,000 (as of the 1990 census) have been designated as Phase I communities and must comply with Ecology’s Phase I Permit. The Phase I permit is more comprehensive than the Phase II Permit. The Permit allows municipalities to discharge stormwater runoff from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) into the State’s water bodies (i.e., streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc.), provided that the municipalities implement programs to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable” (MEP) through application of Permit-specified “best management practices” (BMPs). The BMPs specified in the Permit are collectively referred to as the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) and grouped under the following components: Public Education and Outreach Public Involvement Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Runoff Controls Pollution Prevention and Municipal Operations and Maintenance The current Permit does not require water quality monitoring, unless monitoring is required to comply with an EPA-approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or is needed to implement the IDDE program component of the SWMP. However, permittees must develop plans for stormwater monitoring and “targeted SWMP effectiveness” monitoring, for implementation during the next Permit term. Implementation of various Permit conditions is staggered throughout the five-year Permit term from February 16, 2007 through February 15, 2012. The Permit will be revised and reissued at the end of this period. In addition to meeting requirements of federal law, compliance with Permit conditions should provide the Permittee with an increased level of legal protection from third party lawsuits related to municipal stormwater discharges. The City meets many of the first year Permit requirements in part due to the following existing activities and programs: Programs, standards, and codes that meet many of the Permit requirements. 1: Introduction City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 1-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Extensive environmental education and outreach activities. Public involvement opportunities planned for development of this SWMP. Effective IDDE program. Much of the City’s separate storm sewer system is mapped in GIS. Hotline for public reporting of spills. Municipal code helps to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Municipal code prohibits illicit discharges and provides for enforcement actions to be taken. This document presents the City of Auburn’s Compliance Work Plan to assure continued Clean Water Act compliance over the five-year Permit term. An abbreviated version of the Compliance Work Plan will be presented in the City’s Interim 2008 SWMP documentation (the SWMP document) for submittal to Ecology by March 31, 2008. A number of parties, including the City of Auburn, have appealed this Permit; some argue that certain conditions are too stringent, while others argue that conditions are not strict enough. In addition to appeals actions, some parties have sought court intervention on Permit matters and other stakeholders may become involved in litigation as well. While requirements of this Permit are being contested, no authorities have chosen to stay or delay Permit implementation; thus, the current Permit language remains in effect. Therefore, this Compliance Work Plan is based on the current Permit language. 1.2 The Stormwater Problem This section provides background information about problems resulting from stormwater. Much of the information in this section is excerpted from the NPDES General Permit Fact Sheet for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewers in Western Washington (Ecology 2006). Stormwater is a major contributor to water quality pollution in our urban waterways. Pollutants in or resulting from stormwater can cause a wide range of impacts. Untreated stormwater is not safe for people to drink and is not recommended for swimming because it often contains pollutants such as toxic metals, organic compounds and pathogenic bacteria. Urban runoff often contains metals and organic compounds that are toxic to aquatic organisms if concentrations are high enough. Sediments cause tissue abrasion and gill clogging in fish, smother fish spawning habitat, and transport other pollutants. Nutrients can cause nuisance algal blooms, reduced clarity, and unpleasant odors in receiving water bodies. Temperature sensitive fish and other organisms necessary to an enjoyable aquatic ecosystem cannot survive in overly warm water bodies. The large impervious surfaces in urban areas increase the quantity and peak flows of stormwater runoff, which can cause stream channel incision, bank erosion, sedimentation, and loss of habitat, as well as damage to culverts, pipes, and other infrastructure. Furthermore, the increased volume of runoff carries higher loads of pollutants,. There are a number of pollution sources that contaminate stormwater, including land use activities, operation and maintenance activities, illicit discharges and spills, atmospheric deposition, and operation of motor vehicles. Many of these sources are not under the direct control of the permittees that own or operate the storm drains. Municipal stormwater systems often are significantly affected by “non-point source” pollution or “diffuse” pollution that occurs as runoff picks up contaminants from human activities and land uses. If uncontrolled, pollutants in urban stormwater runoff can negatively affect beneficial uses of our surface waters, impacting recreation, fisheries, and in some cases even drinking water. Without proper stormwater 1: Introduction City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 1-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc management techniques to eliminate or reduce many of the pollutant sources, communities cannot enjoy the quality of life and the beneficial uses of our waters that the public desires. Impacts from stormwater are site-specific and vary geographically due to differences in local land use conditions, hydrologic conditions, physical land features and the type of receiving waters. In western Washington, urban stormwater impairs streams that provide recreation uses as well as salmon habitat. Paved surfaces cause higher winter stormwater flows that erode stream channels, causing property damage and destroying spawning beds. Also, impervious surfaces reduce infiltration and groundwater recharge, resulting in less groundwater discharge and therefore less base flow in streams during the summer. 1.3 Compliance Timeline Ecology began work on the Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit for Western Washington in the fall of 2004 and posted a preliminary draft for public comment on May 16, 2005. Ecology released a formal draft of the Permit in February 2006 and issued the final Permit on January 17, 2007. The Permit expiration date is February 15, 2012. As noted above, the new Permit requirements take effect over the five-year Permit term. Figure 1-1 shows the key Permit requirements and their due dates. As shown on Figure 1-1, by March 31 of each year, the City must submit an annual report documenting Permit compliance activities from the previous calendar year. The City must also submit its SWMP document and post the document on the web by March 31, 2008. Both the SWMP document and the Annual Compliance Report must be certified by the Mayor (or his designee). Beginning in February 2009, Ecology will require stormwater cost tracking, initial public education program efforts, and establishment of a hotline for public reporting of spills. The City currently has an extensive public education program and already manages spill reporting and response procedures that will require only some modifications to comply with Permit conditions. In August 2009, Ecology will require the City to implement revised programs, codes, processes, and procedures for construction and development, illicit discharge detection and elimination, and inspection of private drainage systems. The City’s programs, codes, processes, and procedures already meet several of the major Permit requirements. The City will need to make several changes to comply with Permit requirements that take effect during the next four years such as adoption of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual (or an equivalent Phase I manual), modifications to existing processes and procedures, documentation and record keeping, and providing training. Revisions to programs, codes, processes, and procedures for municipal operations and public drainage system operations and maintenance (O&M) are required to be implemented by February 2010. At that time, the City must also develop Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) for certain City facilities, train staff to identify and report illicit discharges, and begin prioritizing and monitoring City drainage outfalls. In February 2011 the City must complete storm system mapping and assessment of outfalls for three high priority receiving waters, and define monitoring requirements for the next five-year Permit term. The City has already mapped the municipal storm sewer system, but has not verified the locations of all outfalls. Illicit discharge detection and elimination program elements of the Program must be fully implemented by August 2011. The City must also concurrently distribute illicit discharge information to the public. The City then needs to reapply for the next five-year Permit on February 16, 2012. 1: I n t r o d u c t i o n Ci t y o f A u b u r n C o m p l i a n c e S t r a t e g y a n d W o r k P l a n 1- 4 P: \ 1 3 5 3 4 7 A u b u r n D r a i n a g e P h a s e I I \ 0 0 9 S t o r m D r a i n a ge C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n \ F i n a l \ A p p e n d i c e s \ W o r d \ A p p e n d i x H - A u b u r n D r a i n a g e P l a n - C o m p l i a n c e W o r k P l a n ( No v 0 9 ) . d o c Pe r m i t E f f e c t i v e 1 6 - F e b - 2 0 0 8 1 6 - F e b - 2 0 0 9 1 6 - F e b - 2 0 1 0 16 - F e b - 2 0 0 7 Reapply for next 5-yr. Permit 16 - F e b - 2 0 1 1 1 6 - F e b - 2 0 1 2 M a k e a p p l i c a t i o n s a v a i l a b l e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n a n d I n d u s t r i a l N P D E S p e r m i t s K e e p r e c o r d s f o r - I n s p e c t i o n s - M a i n t e n a n c e - E n f o r c e m e n t C o n t i n u e e x i s t i n g p r o g r a m s S u b m i t f o l l o w i n g t o E c o l o g y - S t o r m w a t e r M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m ( S W M P ) - A n n u a l C o m p l i a n c e R e p o r t ( A C R ) c e r t i f i e d b y M a y o r P o s t S W M P o n w e b Be g i n t r a c k i n g p e r m i t c o s t s ( J a n u a r y 2 0 0 9 ) B e g i n P u b l i c E d . P r o g r a m E s t . c i t y - w i d e h o t l i n e f o r r e p o r t i n g & t r a c k i n g i l l i c i t d i s c h a r g e s R e v i s e p r o g r a m s , c o d e s , s t a n d a r d s , p r o c e s s e s a n d d o c u m e n t a t i o n f o r : - C o n s t r u c t i o n & D e v e l o p m e n t - I l l i c i t ( n o n - s t o r m w a t e r ) D i s c h a r g e D e t e c t & E l i m i n a t i o n - P r i v a t e D r a i n a g e S y s t e m I n s p e c t i o n - I D D E a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n & d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t i e s t r a i n i n g R e v i s e p r o g r a m s , c o d e s , s t a n d a r d s , p r o c e s s e s a n d d o c u m e n t a t i o n f o r : - M u n i c i p a l O p e r a t i o n s ; a n d - P u b l i c D r a i n a g e S y s t e m O p e r a t i o n s a n d M a i n t e n a n c e D e v e l o p P o l l u t i o n P e v e n t i o n P l a n s f o r C i t y f a c i l i t i e s P r o v i d e t r a i n i n g t o I D i l l i c i t d i s - c h a r g e s & a p p l y b e s t m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s t o m u n i c i p a l o p e r a t i o n s P r i o r i t i z e & b e g i n i l l i c i t d i s c h a r g e m o n i t o r i n g o f C i t y d r a i n a g e o u t f a l l s C o m p l e t e s t o r m s y s t e m m a p C o m p l e t e a s s e s s m e n t o f o u t f a l l s i n 3 r e c e i v i n g w a t e r s I m p l e m e n t m o n i t o r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r n e x t p e r m i t t e r m F U L L Y I M P L E M E N T S W M P C o n ' t m o n i t o r i n g o u t f a l l s D i s t r i b u t e i l l i c i t d i s c h a r g e p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n Aug. 2009 End of 1st Permit Aug. 2011 Ma r . 3 1 s t d e a d l i n e f o r s u b m i t t i n g S t o r m w a t e r Ma n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m & A n n u a l C o m p l i a n c e R e p o r t Fi g u r e 1 - 1 . F i v e - Y e a r C o m p l i a n c e T i m e l i n e 1: Introduction City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 1-5 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc 1.4 Policy Issues Over the five-year Permit term, Auburn will need to address several significant policy issues affecting multiple departments. The Permit requires extensive business process coordination, information management, and reporting across multiple City departments. For example, every year, all departments will be required to report on their activities and the City will need to prepare and certify an annual compliance report for submittal to Ecology. An early policy issue to address will be to establish an appropriate organizational structure to manage ongoing Permit compliance. The City has not yet defined and implemented an organizational structure and roles and responsibilities for managing ongoing compliance. Needed organizational components include an overall NPDES compliance lead, department-specific teams and leads, and cross-departmental teams. Potential organizational strategies to address this need range from formalization of a decentralized structure similar to the City’s Incident Command model to more significant structural re-organization to centralize authority. In the near term, the simplest approach would be to formalize roles and responsibilities in a manner similar to an Incident Command structure. Then, if annual compliance evaluation indicates a need for a different organizational model, the City could subsequently consider more significant structural changes later in the Permit term. Another key policy decision relates to adoption of a new manual for management of stormwater from construction and new development and redevelopment sites. The Permit requires each City to adopt the State’s 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (State Stormwater Manual) or an equivalent manual approved by Ecology under the Phase I Permit (the stormwater permit for municipalities greater than 100,000 people as of 1990). To date, Ecology has not approved any other manuals as equivalent, although the City of Seattle and King County are pursuing approval of manuals that Auburn could potentially adopt. However, Auburn also has unique local conditions that may necessitate exceptions or overlays regardless of the manual the City selects. Potential options for complying with the “equivalent” manual requirement include: Adopt the State Stormwater Manual as is, recognizing that it contains some onerous requirements involving significant stormwater management costs while raising significant legal questions as to who bears these costs. Adopt a Phase I manual deemed equivalent by Ecology such as the King County manual, if Ecology approves it in time for Auburn to meet the Permit deadlines. Pursue development of “basin plans” that would establish sound technical bases for Ecology to approve modification to the State Stormwater Manual. Other policy questions that must be addressed early in 2008 include: · The Permit requires the City to track the costs of the cost of development and implementation of each component of the Stormwater Management Program. The City must decide how to allocate costs since many of the Permit requirements do not divide cleanly between departments. This issue is complicated by the fact that numerous City activities serve multiple functions. For example, street cleaning benefits stormwater, but also meets an aesthetic and public health and safety need. Construction site inspections may address building codes as well as stormwater concerns. In addition, the City will need to determine the appropriate level of detail and specificity for tracking and reporting stormwater management costs. 2. Stormwater Management Program Administration City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 1-6 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc The Permit will require additional activities that will grow over the five year permit term. The City must decide how to staff and fund the required new activities. Resolution of the Permit appeal could affect these policy questions. However, the timeframe for resolution of the appeal is uncertain, and the Permit conditions are likely to remain in effect until the appeal has been resolved. Therefore, the City should track the status of the appeal, but still proceed with Stormwater Management Program development and implementation as prescribed in the Permit. 1.5 Business Process and Information Management Improvements The City may wish to consider changing some of its business processes and information management activities and systems in order to facilitate Permit compliance and reduce costs. Potential changes include: Development and sharing of standard business processes and procedures. City activities affecting stormwater management have grown over the years from a variety of programmatic sources. Goals and objectives are not always shared among overlapping efforts. Compliance with the Permit affords an opportunity to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. Many City departments will need to create or modify SOPs. Currently, many written procedures are kept in binders within each department. The City should consider posting all standard processes and procedures on the intranet for easy access and developing consistency across departments. Information Management Activities and Systems. The Permit requires tracking of numerous activities that cross City departments, including: o Stormwater-related training o Costs of implementing the Permit components o Inspection and enforcement actions Illicit discharges Construction sites Permanent stormwater control facilities o Illicit discharge hotline phone calls and issue resolution o Public education feedback, efforts, and effectiveness o Monitoring The City already tracks many of these activities to some extent; however, significant upgrades to information management systems or approaches will be necessary to maintain full Permit compliance. Representatives from each affected department should work together to review and determine the appropriate approach and system for tracking and compliance reporting. This will ensure a smoother and more efficient system upgrades and/or updates to information management. 1.6 Department Responsibilities and Resource Implications The Permit requirements affect nearly all of the departments in the City. Table 1-1 at the end of this Section presents the major responsibilities of each department. These responsibilities are discussed in Sections 2 through 8 of this memorandum, which lay out specific work plan tasks for maintaining compliance with each section of the Permit. The Permit will primarily affect the following departments: Public Works (Maintenance and Operations [M&O], Utility Engineering, and Development Engineering), Planning Building and Community 2. Stormwater Management Program Administration City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 1-7 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Development, Parks, Finance, Communications and Community Relations, City Attorney’s Office, Human Resources (HR), and Information Services (IS), which includes Geographic Information Services (GIS). Some Permit conditions (e.g., training, cost tracking) affect more than one City department. To address these efficiently, the City may wish to form new work units or teams composed of staff from the affected departments. As discussed in the Legal Requirements Analysis, Permit compliance will require the City to devote additional resources to stormwater management activities. For each new Permit requirement, the City will need to decide whether new resources (money, employees, systems, etc) are necessary or whether existing resources can be reallocated to achieve permit compliance. Near term resource impacts may need to be absorbed, but beginning with the 2009-2010 biennium, Permit compliance will likely affect departmental work plans and/or budgets. 1.7 Document Organization The remainder of this Compliance Work Plan is organized similarly to the Permit: Section 2.0 addresses compliance with the Permit requirements for administration of the City’s Stormwater Management Program. Section 3.0 presents a compliance work plan for Public Education and Outreach. Section 4.0 presents a compliance work plan for Public Involvement and Participation. Section 5.0 presents a compliance work plan for Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination. Section 6.0 presents a compliance work plan for Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment and Construction Sites. Section 7.0 presents a compliance work plan for Pollution Prevention and Operation and Maintenance for Municipal Operations. Section 8.0 presents a compliance work plan for the Water Quality Monitoring section of the Permit. Each section includes an introduction, a description of current compliance activities, discussion of policy and compliance strategy issues, recommended actions to maintain future compliance (the Work Plan), and resource implications. 1: Introduction City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 2-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc CITY OF AUBURN COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN 2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION This Section describes Permit requirements related to overall Stormwater Management Program administration, associated current compliance activities, potential issues, and recommended actions to maintain compliance in the future. 2.1 Permit Requirements Section S5.A of the Permit requires the City to: Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Program and prepare written documentation (SWMP document) for submittal to Ecology on March 31, 2008; and update the SWMP document annually thereafter. The purpose of the SWMP is to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the municipal stormwater system to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), thereby protecting receiving water quality. The SWMP must include the actions and activities described in Sections 3 through 8 of this Compliance Work Plan. Each group of actions and activities represents a SWMP component. Submit annual compliance reports to Ecology on March 31st of each year summarizing the status of implementation and any information from assessment and evaluation procedures collected during the preceding calendar year. The first annual report is due to Ecology by March 31, 2008. 2.2 Current Compliance Activities The City currently has activities and programs that meet many of the Permit requirements. The current compliance activities associated with the Section S5.A requirements include: The City is on track to comply with Ecology’s requirements for submittal of the Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) documentation by March 31, 2008. The Utility Engineering Division is currently leading development of the Compliance Work Plan as an interim step to develop the SWMP document with the support of an outside consultant (Brown and Caldwell). The project team (Chris Thorn, Tim Carlaw, Dan Repp, and Brown and Caldwell consultants,) interviewed representatives from nearly all City departments to identify areas where the City is already compliant with Permit requirements. The Compliance Work Plan will be reviewed by the Department Directors. The draft Program document will then be presented to the Planning and Community Development Committee (PCDC) and the Public Works Committee (PWC) prior to the development of a final Program document for public review and City Council approval. The City is on track to comply with Ecology’s requirements for submittal of the first Annual Compliance Report by March 31, 2008. 2.3 Future Compliance Policy Issues Regarding overall Stormwater Management Program administration, compliance with the Permit requires the City to address the following issues: Stormwater Management Program Organization. The Permit requirements affect numerous City departments and employees. Compliance management and tracking will require a significant level of 2. Stormwater Management Program Administration City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 2-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc administrative effort. The City needs to consider how best to organize staff responsible for overall SWMP administration. Development, management, and communication of SOPs. The recommendations contained in subsequent sections of this Work Plan include development of many SOPs to address Permit requirements. These SOPs will often cross multiple departments. The City could reduce costs to develop these SOPs by sharing the workload among departments as appropriate and managing the information in a central repository. Where possible, the City should use or modify existing processes to control costs and minimize organizational impacts. Code update process. The Permit will require updates to several sections of City Code. The code updates could be done incrementally (e.g., section by section), or combined into larger packages. Tracking of Stormwater Management Program Training. There are several different types of training required by the Permit. Currently some training is tracked by HR and other training is tracked within the individual departments. It is recommended that HR be in charge of all training tracking Tracking of Stormwater Management Program Costs. The City currently does not track all stormwater- related costs as required by the Permit. Before the City can begin this task, it must decide how to appropriately define and estimate stormwater compliance costs. Many departments have different tracking systems. The City will need to coordinate these tracking efforts to ensure they meet the Permit requirements and to facilitate development of the annual reports. 2.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance Auburn is currently compliant with the initial conditions of the Permit. Additional requirements will take effect during the next four years. Table 2-1 lists the activities and timeframes for the City to comply with the Permit conditions related to SWMP administration. Table 2-1. Stormwater Management Administration Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe SWMP-1 Create an NPDES implementation management group and organizational structure. Utilities Engineering PW Director, Mayor SWMP-2 Define NPDES cost accounting strategy for time spent on each component of Permit. Finance Utilities Engineering SWMP-2.1 Determine what elements need to be tracked. Utilities Engineering All SWMP-2.2 Train City staff to use cost tracking system. Finance SWMP-2.3 Create annual Stormwater Management Program cost report by components and activities. Finance New cost tracking processes/procedures must be in place by 1/01/2009. SWMP-3 Develop NPDES training management structure and tracking system. HR SWMP-3.1 Define training modules and staff attendance requirements. Utilities Engineering SWMP-3.2 Identify and implement training tracking system. HR SWMP-3.3 Create annual SWMP training report by Permit component and activities. HR First training to be completed by 8/19/2009. Tracking systems should be in place prior to training. First annual report to address training due 3/31/2010. 2. Stormwater Management Program Administration City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 2-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Table 2-1. Stormwater Management Administration Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe SWMP-4 Define and implement strategy for managing SOPs. Utilities Engineering IS SOPs and responsibilities should be established prior to 3/31/09 Permit submittals. SWMP-5 Develop overall strategy for code updates. Utilities Engineering City Attorney Code updates defined and adopted by 8/16/2009. SWMP-6 Summarize annual activities for "Stormwater Management Program" component of Annual Report; identify any updates to Program document. Utilities Engineering All The first SWMP and Annual Compliance Report submittal is due on or before 3/31/2008 and by March 31 of each successive year. 3-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc CITY OF AUBURN COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN 3. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH This Section describes the Permit requirements related to Public Education and Outreach and provides descriptions of the associated current activities to achieve compliance connected to those requirements. The next Sections provide a narrative of the Compliance Work Plan to maintain compliance in the future. 3.1 Permit Requirements Section S5.C.1 of the Permit requires the City to: Prioritize and target education and outreach activities to specified audiences, including general public, businesses, residents/homeowners, landscapers, property managers, engineers, contractors, developers, review staff and land use planners and other City employees to reduce or eliminate behaviors and practices that cause or contribute to adverse stormwater impacts. Implement an outreach program designed to achieve measurable improvements in the target audience’s understanding of the problem and what they can do to solve it. Track and maintain records of public education and outreach activities. 3.2 Current Compliance Activities The City currently has activities and programs that meet many of the Permit requirements. The current compliance activities associated with the above Permit requirements include: The City currently conducts numerous education and outreach activities that address stormwater management for the general public, residents/homeowners, and some industries. These programs include: · Natural yard care · Kids day · Waterfest · Powerful Choices for the Environment · Green Schools program (district-wide) · Car wash kits · Hazardous waste mobile · Spring Clean-up (curbside appliance pickup ) · Storm drain stenciling · Used motor oil and household hazardous waste program · News letter (quarterly or biannually) for business The City conducts an annual phone survey that could be used to develop a stormwater quality “awareness baseline” from which to measure future improvements. The City is participating in a regional effort to develop effective ways to track and measure the effectiveness of its education and outreach efforts. 3: Public Education and Outreach City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 3-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc The City tracks its education and outreach efforts. 3.3 Future Compliance Policy Issues Although the City has a stormwater public education and outreach program, some additional elements will be required to fully comply with the Permit. The Permit requires prioritization of specific target audiences and subject areas. The target audiences include general public, businesses (including home-based and mobile businesses), residents/homeowners, landscapers, property managers, engineers, contractors, developers, review staff and land use planners, and other City employees. The City currently does not have programs that are specifically targeted for home-based and mobile businesses, landscapers, property mangers, engineers, developers, review staff and other City employees. The Permit offers subject areas that would help the City comply to meet each of the target audiences. The City currently does not directly address certain best management practices, such as carpet cleaning and auto repair maintenance, and outreach areas, including low impact development, and vehicle maintenance specified in the Permit. In order to comply with the Permit, the City could either create new programs to address the target audiences and subject areas, or modify existing programs to comply with Permit requirements. The City is currently tracking education and outreach activities but the results are not stored in a central easily accessible location. The City has not attempted to measure improvements in understanding and adoption of targeted behaviors. Measuring changes in understanding or behavior is very difficult and Ecology has not provided much guidance on how to meet this Permit requirement. Measuring behavior change at reasonable cost is a formidable challenge and many other Puget Sound municipalities are struggling to develop appropriate methods. City representatives are participating in a cooperative effort with several other NPDES municipalities to explore efficient and effective methods to meet the Permit requirements for its public education and outreach program evaluation. 3.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance Auburn has a broad public education and outreach program but will need to update the program to maintain compliance as the Permit requirements take effect. Table 3-1 below is the detailed work plan for continued Permit compliance relative to public education and outreach. Table 3-1. Public Education and Outreach Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe EDUC-1 Create implementation team. Communications and Multimedia Utilities Engineering EDUC-2 Consider collaboration with other NPDES municipalities to identify evaluation techniques. Utilities Engineering EDUC-3 Develop NPDES education and outreach plan to supplement existing education activities. Communications and Multimedia Solid Waste, Planning, Parks EDUC-4 Implement new or modify existing education and outreach activities. Communications and Multimedia Solid Waste, Planning, Parks Refinements to existing public education and outreach activities to be in place by 02/16/2009. 3: Public Education and Outreach City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 3-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Table 3-1. Public Education and Outreach Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe EDUC-5 Develop strategy and process to evaluate understanding and adoption of target behaviors. Communications and Multimedia EDUC-6 Summarize annual activities for "Public Education and Outreach" component of Annual Report; identify any updates to SWMP document. Communications and Multimedia 4-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc CITY OF AUBURN COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN 4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This Section describes the Permit requirements related to Public Involvement and provides descriptions of the associated current activities to achieve compliance connected to those requirements. The next Sections provide a narrative of the Compliance Work Plan to maintain compliance in the future. 4.1 Permit Requirements Section S5.C.2 of the Permit requires the City to: Provide ongoing opportunities for public involvement through advisory boards and commissions, watershed committees, public participation in developing rate structures and budgets, stewardship programs, environmental activities or other similar activities. The public must be able to participate in the decision-making processes involving the development, implementation and update of the SWMP. Make the Stormwater Management Program document and Annual Compliance Report available to the public, including posting on the City’s website. Make any other documents required to be submitted to Ecology in response to Permit conditions available to the public. 4.2 Current Compliance Activities The City currently has activities and programs relevant to the public involvement requirement. These activities are summarized below. The City has already defined a series of public involvement activities intended to meet the Permit requirements for public involvement in development of the first Stormwater Management Program. This process involves presentation of the proposed SWMP elements to the Planning and Community Development (PCDC) and Public Works (PWC) Committees and a public hearing and presentation to the City Council. These steps address the need for public involvement prior to the City’s first annual submittal on March 31, 2008. The City plans to make the Stormwater Management Program document and Annual Compliance Report available to the public on the City website. 4.3 Future Compliance Policy Issues The City will need to establish a standard public involvement process and procedure for annual SWMP updates. The process developed should enable the City to consider and incorporate public input and ensure a flexible approach to future programmatic improvements. 4.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance Auburn has a history of including the public in the decision making process. Table 4-1 below is the detailed work plan for continued Permit compliance relative to public involvement in the SWMP. 4: Public Involvement City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 4-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Table 4-1. Public Involvement Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe PI-1 Create implementation team. Communications and Multimedia Utilities Engineering PI-2 Define public involvement opportunities for annual SWMP update and reporting process. Utilities Engineering PI-3 Make SWMP document and Annual Compliance Report available to public by posting on the City website. Utilities Engineering IS PI-4 Summarize annual activities for "Public Involvement and Participation" component of Annual Report; identify any updates to SWMP document. Utilities Engineering Process has already been defined for pending 3/31/2008 submittal. Ongoing process to be defined prior to 3/31/2009 5-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc CITY OF AUBURN COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN 5. ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION This Section describes the Permit requirements related to Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) and provides descriptions of the associated current activities to achieve compliance connected to those requirements. The next Sections provide a narrative of the Compliance Work Plan to maintain compliance in the future. 5.1 Permit Requirements The Permit (Section S5.C.3) requires the City to: Implement an ongoing program to detect and remove illicit discharges, connections and improper disposal, including any spills into the municipal separate storm sewers owned or operated by the City. An illicit discharge means “any discharge to a municipal storm system that is not composed entirely of stormwater…” and illicit connection means “any man-made conveyance that is connected to a municipal storm system without a permit (excluding roof drains and other similar type connections) such as sanitary sewer connections, floor drains, etc.” Develop a storm sewer system map, have ordinances that prohibit illicit discharges, and create a program to detect and address illicit discharges. Publicly list and publicize a hotline or other local telephone number for public reporting of spills and other illicit discharges. Track illicit discharge reports and actions taken in response through close-out, including enforcement actions. Train City staff on proper IDDE response procedures and processes and municipal field staff to recognize and report illicit discharges. Summarize all illicit discharges and connections reported to the City and response actions taken, including enforcement actions, in the Annual Compliance Report; identify any updates to the SWMP document. 5.2 Current Compliance Activities The City currently has activities and programs that meet many of the IDDE requirements. The current compliance activities associated with the above Permit requirements include: The City has already completed most of the mapping required for the Permit. The City also has a standard operating procedure (SOP) for keeping the municipal separate storm sewer system map and inventory up- to-date. City codes and standards already have sections that address some of the required illicit discharges and civil infractions. Citizens can report illicit discharges or illicit dumping using any of the phone numbers published by the City. The calls are routed to Operations and Maintenance where they are recorded by CarteGraph and distributed to the appropriate response authority. CarteGraph requires resolution close-out. The City tracks some spills, illicit discharges, and inspections. 5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 5-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc 5.3 Future Compliance Policy Issues Compliance with the Permit’s IDDE requirements will require the City to address the following issues: Although the City has a relatively up-to-date storm sewer map in electronic format and an SOP for updating the map and inventory, there are still some data gaps, such as missing or questionable data, tributary mapping, and annexation areas, which will need to be addressed before February 2011. The City Code language will need to be updated to address the Permit’s IDDE requirements. Updates will include addition of clear definitions of illicit discharges/connections and enforcement responsibilities. The City will need to clarify enforcement procedures to ensure City-wide consistency and to increase authority for enforcement actions. Interviews suggest that some City personnel feel that their existing enforcement authority is limited. This should be clarified by developing standard, consistent, City-wide SOPs. The City’s IDDE program will need to be expanded to include proactive activities for identifying and responding to potential illicit discharges. The City plans to adopt relevant portions of the IDDE Manual developed by the Center for Watershed Protection. The City does not have an illicit discharge response procedure. The City should create a matrix specifying who responds and what the response should be once the city is contacted (both emergency spills and smaller spills). The regional fire authority and regional HAZMAT response group will need to be included for spill response authority. Municipal field staff responsible for implementing the IDDE program must be trained. In addition, all field staff that may come into contact with an illicit discharge or connection must participate in a basic annual training program. The City should develop at least two levels of courses to meet the needs of staff having specific IDDE responsibilities as well as other field staff. All training must be tracked for Permit compliance. Since the training requirements span multiple City departments, it would be appropriate to use a centralized system (like HR) for tracking training. 5.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance Auburn has an IDDE program but will need to update current efforts in order to maintain compliance as the Permit requirements take effect. Table 5-1 below is the detailed work plan for continued Permit compliance relative to IDDE. Table 5-1. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe IDDE-1 Create implementation team. Utilities Engineering M&O, City Attorney IDDE-2 Define City-wide IDDE Program and develop supplemental IDDE activities as needed. Utilities Engineering M&O Program development to be completed by 8/19/2011. IDDE-3 Continue updating storm system map to address data gaps and Permit requirements. Utilities Engineering IS, GIS IDDE-3.1 Clarify and/or correct missing or questionable data, tributary mapping, and annexation areas. Utilities Engineering IS, GIS IDDE-3.2 Integrate Flexidata with CarteGraph to include data from videotapes. Utilities Engineering IS Maps to be completed by 02/16/2011. 5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 5-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Table 5-1. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe IDDE-3.3 Finish integration of CarteGraph with GIS. Utilities Engineering IS IDDE-4 Update codes as needed to address IDDE Permit requirements. Utilities Engineering Code Enforcement, City Attorney IDDE- 4.1 Ensure that prohibited categories of non-stormwater discharges are included in ordinances. Utilities Engineering Code Enforcement, City Attorney Ordinance and code updates to be complete and adopted by 8/16/2009. IDDE-5 Revise current IDDE response process into a standard, City-wide IDDE response and enforcement SOP. Utilities Engineering Code Enforcement, City Attorney IDDE-5-1 Create pollutant spill response matrix for responders and response procedures. Utilities Engineering IDDE-5-2 Create management system to track all illicit discharges and feedback from public education efforts. Communications and Multimedia Utilities Engineering IDDE-5-3 Create enforcement SOP. Code Enforcement City Attorney Ordinance & code updates have to be adopted by 8/16/2009. Enforcement strategy and implementation SOPs in place by 8/16/2009. IDDE-6 Update stormwater outfall illicit discharge screening program. Utilities Engineering M&O IDDE-6-1 Prioritize three receiving waters for screening stormwater outfalls for illicit discharges. Utilities Engineering M&O Create SOPs for: Conducting field assessments Characterizing and containing observed illicit discharges Tracing the source of illicit discharges Removing the source of illicit discharges Reporting spills or illicit discharges IDDE-6-2 Documenting spill/illicit discharge information Utilities Engineering M&O IDDE-6-3 Implement outfall screening program. Utilities Engineering M&O Outfall screening program and water body prioritization in place by 2/16/2010. IDDE-7 Update upstream illicit discharge source control program to respond to all illicit discharges found and/or reported. Utilities Engineering, M&O IDDE-7-1 Develop SOP for characterizing and responding to all illicit discharges found by or reported to the City. Utilities Engineering, M&O IDDE-7-2 Adapt processes and procedures from IDDE 6-2 for upstream source control program. Utilities Engineering, M&O Develop upstream source program by 8/19/2011. 5: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 5-4 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Table 5-1. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe IDDE-7-3 Implement upstream source control program. Utilities Engineering, M&O IDDE-8 Maintain up-to-date SOPs on City intranet. Utilities Engineering IS IDDE-9 Select issue tracking/resolution system and tie into current system for public reporting of spills and other illicit discharges. Utilities Engineering M&O, Parks, IS IDDE-9-1 Research alternatives. Utilities Engineering M&O, Parks, IS IDDE-9-2 Configure and deploy system to record calls received and follow-up actions. Utilities Engineering M&O, Parks, IS IDDE-9-3 Set up queries for Annual Compliance Report. Utilities Engineering M&O, Parks, IS Implement tracking system by 2/16/2009. IDDE-10 Create IDDE training program. Utilities Engineering M&O, HR IDDE-10.1 Develop curricula and define staff training requirements. Utilities Engineering M&O IDDE-10.2 Train municipal field staff responsible for implementing IDDE program. HR M&O IDDE-10.3 Conduct ongoing training for all field staff that might come into contact with an illicit discharge or connection. HR Utilities Engineering, M&O IDDE-10.4 Document ongoing training for all municipal staff. HR Training program, including training tracking, must be developed by 8/16/2009. IDDE-11 Incorporate awareness of illicit discharges into public outreach and education program. Communications and Multimedia Utilities Engineering Refinements to existing public education and outreach activities to be in place by 02/16/2009. IDDE-12 Summarize annual activities for "Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination" component of Annual Report; identify any updates to Program document. Utilities Engineering All Program refinements to be fully implemented by 8/19/2011. 6-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc CITY OF AUBURN COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN 6. CONTROLLING RUNOFF FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SITES This Section describes the Permit requirements related to Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment and Construction Sites and provides descriptions of the associated current activities to achieve compliance connected to those requirements. The next Sections provide a narrative of the Compliance Work Plan to maintain compliance in the future. 6.1 Permit Requirements The Permit (Section S5.C.4) requires the City to: Develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff (i.e., illicit discharges) to the municipal separate storm sewer system from new development, redevelopment and construction site activities. The program must apply to both private and public projects, including roads, and address all construction/development-associated pollutant sources. Adopt regulations (codes and standards) and implement plan review, inspection, and escalating enforcement processes and procedures necessary to implement the program in accordance with Permit conditions, including the minimum technical requirements in Appendix 1 of the Permit (i.e., 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, equivalent Phase I Manual or one of the Manual options with a Auburn-specific basin-planning overlay). Provide provisions and (plan review, inspection and enforcement) processes and procedures to allow non- structural preventive actions and source reduction approaches such as Low Impact Development techniques (LID), measures to minimize the creation of impervious surfaces and measures to minimize the disturbance of native soils and vegetation. Adopt regulations (codes and standards) and provide provisions to verify adequate long-term operations and maintenance of new post-construction permanent stormwater facilities and best management practices (i.e., private drainage system inspections) in accordance with Permit conditions, including an annual inspection frequency and/or approved alternative inspection frequency and maintenance standards for private drainage systems as protective as those in Chapter IV of the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Provide training to staff on the new codes, standards, processes and procedures and create public outreach and education materials. Develop and define a process to record and maintain all inspections and enforcement actions by staff for inclusion in the Annual Compliance Report. Summarize annual activities for the “Controlling Runoff” component of the Annual Compliance Report; identify any update to SWMP document. 6.2 Current Compliance Activities The City currently has activities and programs that meet many of the Permit requirements summarized above. The current compliance activities associated with the above Permit requirements include: 6: Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment and Construction Sites City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 6-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc The City has existing programs, codes, and standards that address many of the Permit requirements for management of stormwater runoff from development, redevelopment, and construction sites. The City already reviews all stormwater site plans for proposed development. The City currently implements the Puget Sound Manual standards for construction, development and redevelopment requirements. The City has a site planning process for best management practices (BMP) selection and design criteria. The City inspects all permitted development sites during construction and after construction. The City clearly identifies the party responsible for operations and maintenance (O&M) and requires long- term O&M of permitted facilities and BMPs. The City records most inspections and enforcement actions by staff. The City provides copies of Notices of Intent (NOI) for construction and industrial activities in the pre- application meeting with developers. Construction inspectors and most building inspectors have the required erosion control training. The City will summarize all associated activities in its first Annual Compliance Report on March 31st 2008. All subsequent Annual Compliance Reports will also include SWMP updates. 6.3 Compliance Policy Issues Compliance with Permit Condition S5.C.4 will require the City to address the following key issues: The City will need to adopt Ecology’s Stormwater Manual or an “equivalent” manual from another jurisdiction. Auburn may choose to adopt the Ecology manual but with some criteria tailored to Auburn- specific conditions. However, sufficient time should be allowed if any of these exceptions are deemed necessary. To date, Ecology has not approved any other Phase I manuals as equivalent. The City of Seattle and King County are pursuing Ecology approval of their manuals. If Ecology approves either of these manuals in the near future, Auburn could potentially adopt it. Codes must be revised and implemented (e.g.., changes to construction and stormwater permit requirements and technical standards, plan review, inspection, and enforcement SOPs) by August 2009. Existing City policies and standards (e.g., road widths, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters) could limit the use of low impact development (LID). The City needs to revisit these standards and policies to determine how best to remove impediments to LID. Educating City staff and the public on LID benefits may be helpful in this regard. City inspectors will need to devote more time to ensuring stormwater compliance at development sites. The Permit requires additional inspections beyond those currently performed by the City. Inspectors must also document all inspections and enforcement activities. The City will need to begin inspecting sites prior to construction. The City will also need to create an SOP for frequency and scope of inspection during the construction period. All inspections will need to be recorded and tracked to ensure the required 95% completion rate. The additional inspections may require additional personnel. The City should consider how best to use CarteGraph (or other database systems) to meet recording requirements and should also consider using an electronic document management system to store related documents. 6.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance Auburn has a well developed program to help reduce stormwater runoff from new development, redevelopment, and construction sites but significant updates will be necessary to maintain compliance as Ecology phases in Permit requirements. Table 6-1 below is the detailed work plan for continued Permit compliance relative to control of runoff from new development, redevelopment and construction sites. 6: Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment and Construction Sites City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 6-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Table 6-1. Controlling Runoff from Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe CTRL-1 Create implementation team. Utilities Engineering Development Engineering Construction CTRL-2 Select new Stormwater Manual and identify steps necessary to adopt it. Utilities Engineering City Attorney Adopt new manual by 8/16/2009. CTRL-2.1 Define any exceptions and overlays to Stormwater Manual. Utilities Engineering City Attorney CTRL-2.2 Update standards. Utilities Engineering Development Engineering CTRL-2.3 Update code. Utilities Engineering Development Engineering CTRL-2.4 Implement new Stormwater Manual, codes, and standards. Utilities Engineering Development Engineering Stormwater Manual adopted by 8/16/2009 including updates to codes and standards. CTRL-3 Update plan review, inspection, and enforcement SOPs. Utilities Engineering Development Engineering Construction Inspection, Stormwater Inspection CTRL-3.1 Select appropriate record-keeping system for all departments. Utilities Engineering Development Engineering Construction Inspection, Stormwater Inspection, Planning CTRL-3.2 Create inspection schedule and scope. Utilities Engineering Development Engineering Construction Inspection, Stormwater Inspection Update by 8/16/2009. CTRL-4 Develop public education and outreach on implementing new Stormwater Manual and Permit procedures. Communications and Multimedia Develop by 8/16/2009. CTRL-5 Adopt maintenance standards in 2005 Stormwater Manual. Utilities Engineering Adopt standards and ensure program in place by 6: Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment and Construction Sites City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 6-4 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Table 6-1. Controlling Runoff from Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe CTRL-5.1 Develop Inspection program to ensure annual inspections of maintenance standards. Utilities Engineering Development Engineering Construction Inspection, Stormwater Inspection 8/16/2009. CTRL-6 Create Controlling Runoff training program. Utilities Engineering, Development Engineering Construction Inspection, Stormwater Inspection, Permit Center CTRL-6.1 Develop curricula (including permitting, plan review, construction site inspections, and enforcement). Utilities Engineering, Development Engineering Construction Inspection, Stormwater Inspection, Permit Center CTRL-6.2 Train staff. HR CTRL-6.3 Document training. HR Training completed by 8/16/2009. CTRL-7 Track and report construction, new development, and redevelopment permits, inspections, and enforcement actions. Planning / Permit Center Construction Inspection, Utilities Engineering Tracking of inspections and enforcement actions by 8/16/2009. CTRL-8 Summarize annual activities for "Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites" component of Annual Report; identify any updates to SWMP document. Utilities Engineering Submittal no later than March 31 each year beginning in 2008. 7-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc CITY OF AUBURN COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN 7. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS This Section describes the Permit requirements related to Pollution Prevention and Operation and Maintenance for Municipal Operations and provides descriptions of the associated current activities to achieve compliance connected to those requirements. The next Sections provide a narrative of the Compliance Work Plan to maintain compliance in the future. 7.1 Permit Requirements Section S5.C.5 of the Permit requires the City to: Develop and implement an operations and maintenance (O&M) program with the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal separate stormwater system and municipal operations and maintenance activities. Establish maintenance standards for the municipal separate stormwater system that are at least as protective as those specified in the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Perform required inspection frequency of stormwater flow control and treatment facilities and catch basins, unless previous inspection data show that a reduced frequency is justified. Have processes and procedures in place to reduce stormwater impacts associated with runoff from municipal operation and maintenance activities including but not limited to streets, parking lots, roads or highways owned or maintained by the City, and to reduce pollutants in discharges from all lands owned or maintained by the City. Train staff to implement the modified processes and procedures and document that training. Prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for all heavy equipment maintenance or storage yards identified for year-round facilities or yards, and material storage facilities owned or operated by the City. Summarize annual activities for the “Pollution Prevention and Operations and Maintenance for Municipal Operations” component of the Annual Compliance Report; identify any update to SWMP document. 7.2 Current Compliance Activities The City currently has activities and programs that meet many of the requirements for Section S5.C.5 of the Permit. Current activities and programs include: The City operates an O&M program intended to minimize pollutant runoff from municipal operations. The City conducts and records the necessary maintenance operations identified based on inspections of many stormwater control facilities. The City performs spot checks of potentially damaged permanent treatment and flow control facilities. M&O staff involved with pesticides, pest management, and erosion and sediment control, receive training in these areas. The City is working on a list of City-owned facilities that will need Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans. The City will summarize all associated activities in its first Annual Compliance Report on March 31st 2008. All subsequent Annual Compliance Reports will include SWMP updates. 7. Pollution Prevention and O&M for Municipal Operations City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 7-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc 7.3 Future Compliance Policy Issues Permit compliance will require the City to address the following key issues: The City should consider collaboration mechanisms for streamlining development and maintenance of cross-departmental SOPs. SOPs often apply across multiple departments, but information sharing is hindered by the absence of formal operating procedures ownership and maintenance mechanisms. The City will need to adopt the maintenance standards and required inspection frequencies from the 2005 Stormwater Manual. SOPs to complete these inspections properly will need to be created. Many of the control structures are inspected on the required schedule, although other system components may not be inspected as often as necessary. Some inspection records are only kept on hard copies, which may be difficult and/or time-consuming to track for annual reporting. Upgrading CarteGraph to be able to record all of the inspections should be prioritized for the Permit deadline. While the City inspects all catchbasins where flooding problems have occurred in the past the City will need to ensure that all catchbasins are inspected at least once during the Permit term. The City should begin official inspections logs for catchbasins and inlets. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for City-owned facilities might identify needed capital improvements, such as covers for vehicle fueling islands or vehicle/equipment wash racks. In some cases, it may be more cost-effective to contract with appropriate commercial facilities and have these activities performed off-site. 7.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance Auburn has a well-developed municipal stormwater system operations and maintenance program and employs and provides training on numerous processes and procedures to minimize water quality impacts from municipal operations. However, significant updates will be necessary to maintain compliance as with the Permit requirements. Table 7-1 below is the detailed work plan for continued Permit compliance relative to pollution prevention and operations and maintenance activities. Table 7-1. Pollution Prevention and Operations and Maintenance Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe PPOM-1 Create implementation team. Utilities Engineering M&O PPOM-2 Update inspection, O&M SOPs for City-owned or operated stormwater catch basins and flow control and treatment facilities. M&O PPOM-2.1 Update municipal stormwater facilities O&M data management and reporting strategy (CarteGraph). M&O IS PPOM-2.2 Adopt 2005 Stormwater Manual maintenance standards. Utilities Engineering, M&O PPOM-2.3 Create maintenance inspection schedule. M&O PPOM-2.4 Review and update vendor contracts (e.g., Stormfilter maintenance) to incorporate NPDES Permit requirements. M&O Implemented by 2/16/2010. 7. Pollution Prevention and O&M for Municipal Operations City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 7-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Table 7-1. Pollution Prevention and Operations and Maintenance Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe PPOM-3 Develop SOPs for O&M activities to reduce stormwater impacts associated with runoff from municipally owned or maintained streets, parking lots, and roads. Ensure that SOPs comply with any other state or federal requirements. M&O Construction Engineering Develop by 2/16/2010. PPOM-4 Develop SOPs and establish policies to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges from lands owned or maintained by the City. Parks, Utilities Engineering, Building Maintenance M&O Develop by 2/16/2010. PPOM-5 Develop pollution prevention training program. M&O Parks Develop program by 2/16/2010. PPOM-5.1 Develop curricula and define staff training requirements. M&O Parks PPOM-5.2 Conduct and participate in municipal staff training. M&O Parks PPOM-5.3 Document ongoing training for municipal staff. HR Training program, including training tracking, must be developed by 2/16/2010. PPOM-6 Create and implement Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans for City facilities. Make any required facility upgrades. M&O, Parks Utilities Engineering Create and implement plans by 2/16/2010. PPOM-7 Summarize annual activities for "Pollution Prevention and Operation and Maintenance" component of Annual Report, identify any updates to Program document. Utilities Engineering Submittal no later than March 31 each year beginning in 2008. 8-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc CITY OF AUBURN COMPLIANCE WORK PLAN 8. WATER QUALITY MONITORING This Section describes the Permit requirements related to water quality monitoring and provides descriptions of the associated current activities to achieve compliance. The next Sections provide a narrative of the Compliance Work Plan to maintain compliance in the future. 8.1 Permit Requirements The Permit (Section S8) does not require municipalities to conduct water quality sampling or other testing during this permit term, with the following exceptions: Sampling or testing required for characterizing illicit discharges pursuant to the Permit’s Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) conditions. Water quality monitoring required for compliance with TMDL conditions [total maximum daily pollutant loads, a.k.a., water quality clean up plans]. Currently, Auburn is not required to conduct TMDL monitoring under the Permit because Ecology has not yet developed TMDLs for receiving water bodies in or downstream of Auburn. Preparing for comprehensive, long-term stormwater quality monitoring and targeted SWMP effectiveness monitoring. However, the actual monitoring would not be required until the next Permit (i.e., the 2012- 2017 Permit). By the 4th Annual Compliance Report (March 31, 2011), Auburn is required to have identified two outfalls or conveyances where permanent stormwater sampling stations can be installed and operated for future monitoring and developed plans for stormwater, sediment or receiving water monitoring of physical, chemical and/or biological characteristics. One of the two outfalls must represent commercial land use and the second must represent high-density residential land use. For SWMP effectiveness monitoring, the City will need to identify two suitable SWMP monitoring “questions” and sites where targeted SWMP effectiveness monitoring can be conducted and develop a monitoring plan for these questions and sites. The proposed effectiveness monitoring is required to answer the following types of questions: · How effective is a specific targeted action or a narrow suite of actions? · Is the SWMP achieving a targeted environmental outcome? In addition, the City is required to provide the following monitoring and/or assessment data in each annual report: · A description of any stormwater monitoring or studies conducted by the City during the reporting period. If stormwater monitoring was conducted on behalf of the City, or if studies or investigations conducted by other entities were reported to the City, a brief description of the type of information gathered or received shall be included in the annual report. · An assessment of the appropriateness of the best management practices (BMPs) identified by the City for each component of the Stormwater Management Program; and any changes made, or anticipated to be made, to the BMPs that were previously selected to implement the SWMP and why. 8: Water Quality Monitoring City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 8-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc 8.2 Current Compliance Activities The City has a map of the municipal stormwater outfalls, but has not developed a comprehensive water quality monitoring plan to implement current and future Permit water quality monitoring requirements. 8.3 Compliance Policy Issues Permit compliance will require the City to address the following key issues: The City will need to decide how much monitoring should be conducted during this Permit term. As noted above, the current Permit does not require monitoring, but it does require reporting of descriptions of monitoring activities relevant to stormwater discharges. The next Permit will likely require monitoring so the City should develop a short and long-term monitoring compliance strategy. 8.4 Recommended Actions to Maintain Future Compliance Auburn currently conducts limited water quality monitoring through the Planning Department. Table 8-1 below is the detailed work plan for continued Permit compliance relative to monitoring in the SWMP. Table 8-1. Water Quality Monitoring Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe MNTR-1 Create implementation team. Utilities Engineering MNTR -2 Develop a monitoring compliance strategy for the Permit’s current and future, long-term water quality monitoring program. Utilities Engineering MNTR -3 Implement the Permit required monitoring including: Utilities Engineering MNTR-3-1 IDDE Program outfall monitoring. Utilities Engineering MNTR -3-2 Pollutant spill response (a.k.a., illicit discharge response) monitoring. Utilities Engineering MNTR -3-3 Identify three outfalls and develop plans for future, long term water quality sampling. Utilities Engineering MNTR -3-4 Identify two suitable Program questions and sites where targeted Program effectiveness monitoring can be conducted and develop a monitoring plan for these questions and sites. Utilities Engineering MNTR -3-5 Develop City guidelines for non-required monitoring during this Permit term. Utilities Engineering In place by December 31, 2010. MNTR -4 Participate in regional and state monitoring forums and future legislative actions in order to influence development of feasible and effective alternative future monitoring requirements. Utilities Engineering 8: Water Quality Monitoring City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan 8-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Table 8-1. Water Quality Monitoring Task ID Task Description Lead Support Compliance Timeframe MNTR -5 Summarize annual monitoring activities for the Annual Report; identify any updates to the Program document. Utilities Engineering Submittal no later than March 31 each year beginning in 2008. City of Auburn Compliance Strategy and Work Plan A-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc APPENDIX A Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit B-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc APPENDIX B Annual Report Form C-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc APPENDIX C Acronyms and Definitions C-2 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc The following definitions and acronyms are taken directly from the Phase II Permit and are reproduced here for the reader’s convenience. AKART means all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment. All known, available and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment refers to the State Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48.010 and 90.48.520 RCW. Basin Plan is a surface water management process consisting of three parts: a scientific study of the basin’s drainage features and their quality; developing actions and recommendations for resolving any deficiencies discovered during the study; and implementing the recommendations, followed by monitoring. Best Management Practices ("BMPs") are the schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices approved by the Department that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State. BMP means Best Management Practice. Component or SWMP Component means an element of the Stormwater Management Program listed in S5 Stormwater Management Program for Cities, Towns, and Counties or S6 Stormwater Management Program for Secondary Permittees of this permit. CWA means Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) Pub.L. 92-500, as amended Pub. L. 95-217, Pub. L. 95- 576, Pub. L. (6-483 and Pub. L. 97-117, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et.seq. Discharge for the purpose of this permit means, unless indicated otherwise, any discharge from a MS4 owned or operated by the permittee. Ecology’s Western Washington Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit regulates discharges from municipal separate storm sewers owned or operated by Clark, King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties, and the cities of Seattle and Tacoma. Ecology’s Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit covers certain "small" municipal separate stormwater sewer systems. Entity means another governmental body, or public or private organization, such as another permittee, a conservation district, or volunteer organization. Equivalent document means a technical stormwater management manual developed by a state agency, local government or other entity that includes the Minimum Technical Requirements in Appendix 1 of this Permit. The Department may conditionally approve manuals that do not include the Minimum Technical Requirements in Appendix 1; in general, the Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in those documents may be applied at new development and redevelopment sites, but the Minimum Technical Requirements in Appendix 1 must still be met. Heavy equipment maintenance or storage yard means an uncovered area where any heavy equipment, such as mowing equipment, excavators, dump trucks, backhoes, or bulldozers are washed or maintained, or where at least five pieces of heavy equipment are stored. Illicit connection means any man-made conveyance that is connected to a municipal separate storm sewer without a permit, excluding roof drains and other similar type connections. Examples include sanitary sewer connections, floor drains, channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets that are connected directly to the municipal separate storm sewer system. C-3 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Illicit discharge means any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities. IDDE- Illicit discharge detection and elimination Low Impact Development (LID) means a stormwater management and land development strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision scale that emphasizes conservation and use of on-site natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls to more closely mimic pre-development hydrologic functions. Major Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Outfall means a municipal separate storm sewer outfall from a single pipe with an inside diameter of 36 inches or more, or its equivalent (discharge from a single conveyance other than circular pipe which is associated with a drainage area of more than 50 acres); or for municipal separate storm sewers that receive stormwater from lands zoned for industrial activity (based on comprehensive zoning plans or the equivalent), an outfall that discharges from a single pipe with an inside diameter of 12 inches or more or from its equivalent (discharge from other than a circular pipe associated with a drainage area of 12 acres or more). Material Storage Facilities means an uncovered area where bulk materials (liquid, solid, granular, etc.) are stored in piles, barrels, tanks, bins, crates, or other means. Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act which reads as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system, design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants. MEP means Maximum Extent Practicable. MTRs means Minimum Technical Requirements. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) means a conveyance, or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains): (i) owned or operated by a state, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State Law) having jurisdiction over disposal of wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States. (ii) designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater. (iii) which is not a combined sewer; and (iv) which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking, and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the Federal Clean Water Act, for the discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the state from point sources. These permits are referred to as NPDES permits and, in Washington State, are administered by the Washington Department of Ecology. C-4 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Notice of Intent (NOI) means the application for, or a request for coverage under this General Permit pursuant to WAC 173-226-200. Outfall means point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a municipal separate storm sewer discharges to waters of the State and does not include open conveyances connecting two municipal separate storm sewer systems, or pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other waters of the State and are used to convey waters of the State. O&M- Operations and Maintenance Permittee unless otherwise noted, the term “Permittee” includes Permittee, Co-Permittee, and Secondary Permittee, as defined below: (i) A “Permittee” is a city, town, or county owning or operating a regulated small MS4 applying and receiving a permit as a single entity. (ii) A “Co-Permittee” is any operator of a regulated small MS4 that is applying jointly with another applicant for coverage under this Permit. Co-Permittees own or operate a regulated small MS4 located within or adjacent to another regulated small MS4. (iii) A “Secondary Permittee” is an operator of regulated small MS4 that is not a city, town or county. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or Small MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels and/or storm drains which is: a. Owned or operated by a city, town, county, district, association or other public body created pursuant to State law having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other wastes, including special districts under State law such as a sewer districts, flood control districts or drainage districts, or similar entity. b. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater. c. Not a combined sewer system, d. Not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122.2. e. Not defined as “large” or “medium” pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(4) & (7) or designated under 40 CFR 122.26 (a)(1)(v). Small MS4s include systems similar to separate storm sewer systems in municipalities such as: universities, large publicly owned hospitals, prison complexes, highways and other thoroughfares. Storm sewer systems in very discrete areas such as individual buildings do not require coverage under this Permit. Small MS4s do not include storm drain systems operated by non-governmental entities such as: individual buildings, private schools, private colleges, private universities, and industrial and commercial entities. Stormwater means runoff during and following precipitation and snowmelt events, including surface runoff and drainage. Stormwater Associated with Industrial and Construction Activity means the discharge from any conveyance which is used for collecting and conveying stormwater, which is directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant, or associated with clearing grading and/or excavation, and is required to have an NPDES permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.26. C-5 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington means the 5-volume technical manual (Publication Nos. 99-11 through 15 for the 2001 version and Publication Nos. 05-10-029-033 for the 2005 version (The 2005 version replaces the 2001 version) prepared by Ecology for use by local governments that contains BMPs to prevent, control, or treat pollution in storm water. Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) means a set of actions and activities designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the regulated small MS4 to the maximum extent practicable and to protect water quality, and comprising the components listed in S5 or S6 of this Permit and any additional actions necessary to meet the requirements of applicable Vehicle Maintenance or Storage Facility means an uncovered area where any vehicles are regularly washed or maintained, or where at least 10 vehicles are stored. D-1 P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix H - Auburn Drainage Plan - Compliance Work Plan (Nov09).doc APPENDIX D Legal Requirement Review Technical Memorandum 701 Pike Street, Suite 1200 Seattle, Washington, 98101 Tel: 206-624-0100 Fax: 206-749-2200 Prepared for: City of Auburn Project Title: Comprehensive Drainage Plan Update Project No: 132-802 Technical Memorandum Subject: System Operation and Maintenance Date: April 25, 2008 To: Tim Carlaw, Storm Drainage Engineer From: Steve Anderson, P.E., Project Manager Copy to: Name and Title Prepared by: _________________________________ Roy Brandon, Maintenance and Reliability Engineer Reviewed by: _________________________________ Name and Title Technical Memorandum System Operations and Maintenance 2 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix I - Auburn Drainage Plan - O&M Review (Aug09).doc THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Technical Memorandum System Operations and Maintenance 3 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix I - Auburn Drainage Plan - O&M Review (Aug09).doc 1. INTRODUCTION As part of the City of Auburn Comprehensive Drainage Plan, this technical memorandum serves as an update describing our understanding of the current system operation and maintenance approach, and an outline of our recommendations. The information reported and recommendations are driven by our current understanding of the criticality (Risk X Consequences) of sustaining effective operation and maintenance of drainage system. 1.1 Summary of the Current Situation Current maintenance practices are limited by the availability of resources and could be improved through a maintenance plan that outlines activities prioritized according to the desired level of service. Unlike the sewer collection system, drainage system ditches, lines, and catch basins are not yet fully documented. 1.1.1 Drainage Ditch Maintenance Open ditches comprise 40 percent of the drainage system. Maintaining these ditches is a daunting task, which must be accomplished using limited resources. Aggradation occurs within the open ditches that have insufficient slope to convey sediment. Managing aggraded ditches requires substantial resources to maintain the sufficient slopes and drainage capacities. In recent years prioritization of ditch maintenance activities has been largely based on visual observations and staff experience. 1.1.2 Drainage Line Maintenance Approximately 60 percent of the drainage infrastructure is buried lines or pipe. Data identifying the location, type of pipe, and other attributes is not fully collected. Not unlike the drainage ditch maintenance, only the highest of priorities are attended to. It is important to note that in spite of resource constraints, every effort is made to perform routine maintenance on a scheduled basis. Catch basins are cleaned on a 5-year rotation, exemplifying the commitment of the maintenance team. 1.1.3 Sewer System Maintenance The sewer system maintenance has a more comprehensive maintenance program, attributed to aggressive funding and regulatory compliance. It was reported that more than 90 percent of the sewer lines are currently entered in the geographical information system (GIS) and nearly 90 percent of the data north of State Route (SR) 18 is entered. Infrastructure south of SR 18 is about 70 percent entered, but due to substantial new construction, not all data is currently available. Many of the sewer maintenance practices are actively performed, such as CCTV investigation of lines up to 48 and scheduling maintenance activities daily. Sc heduling is currently performed using Microsoft Outlook; the CartêGraph scheduling functionality has not yet been implemented. 1.1.4 CartêGraph Computerized Maintenance Management Software CartêGraph software is generally used as a GIS tool, but it has developed complementary maintenance functions. The City has purchased five modules to maximize the use of the tool. Two functions are currently Technical Memorandum System Operations and Maintenance 4 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix I - Auburn Drainage Plan - O&M Review (Aug09).doc Consequences of Failure Economic Based Strategy Condition Monitoring Based Strategy Operate to Failure Strategy I n c r e a sin g R is k Time Based Strategy Li k e l i h o o d o f F a i l u r e Consequences of Failure Economic Based Strategy Condition Monitoring Based Strategy Operate to Failure Strategy I n c r e a sin g R is k Time Based Strategy Li k e l i h o o d o f F a i l u r e implemented: customer service requests and work order generation. Additional system functionality is not completely understood at this time; additional research needs to be conducted. 2. BUILDING A CRITICALITY-BASED MAINTENANCE PROGRAM The objective of this section of the master plan is to provide an approach for sustaining a desired level of service and focus on critical maintenance activities to reduce the potential of system failures. The recommended approach optimizes maintenance resources based on the criticality of the asset. Resource usage is optimized by assigning varied levels of maintenance care based on the avoidance of consequences. 2.1 Determining Asset Criticality Criticality is determined based on the consequences of failure and the likelihood of the failure occurring. Factors that impact criticality include the age of the asset, the repair history of the asset, and the consequences, in terms of dollars, should a failure occur. The consequences of a system failure impacting a hospital or school are considered more serious then impacts to a residence or unoccupied property. The maintenance plan may be somewhat more comprehensive or frequent when dealing with the more critical areas. Each asset is evaluated based on several factors and a numerical weighting assigned. The combination of these factors results in the assignment of a criticality value. As Figure 1 illustrates, there are three maintenance strategies assigned based on asset criticality. First, assets identified as having the highest criticality would receive condition-based maintenance care. This maintenance includes, but is not limited to, preventive maintenance (PM), predictive maintenance (PdM), routine maintenance (RM), and corrective maintenance as defects are revealed. PM generally includes inspection, calibration, and adjustments. PdM are technologies and practices designed to look at assets in operation. PdM technologies include vibration monitoring, infrared detection, oil analysis, and other condition- evaluative tools. RM are activities including oil changes, lubrication, filter changes, and other tasks recommended by the manufacturer or other best practices. The frequency of the maintenance intervention is driven by the condition of the asset and as it declines additional effort may be recommended. Based on the asset-type maintenance care for assets with a medium value may receive only preventive and routine maintenance based on an economic frequency to optimize the life-cycle costs of the asset. The lowest criticality assets would generally receive only routine maintenance care. It may be expected to run the asset to failure as the consequences of failure are low. 2.1.1 Advantages of Criticality-Based Maintenance Criticality-based maintenance provides several advantages: Directs available resources toward highest risk assets Figure 1. Maintenance strategies based on asset criticality Technical Memorandum System Operations and Maintenance 5 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix I - Auburn Drainage Plan - O&M Review (Aug09).doc Reduces a one-size-fits-all approach and prescribes specific types of maintenance Increases the value of performing routine and preventive maintenance Matches failure modes with PdM technologies. When criticality is applied, the way maintenance is deployed can be quite different. Figure 2 below depicts a large collection system with each dot representing a pump station. Each station was assigned a criticality value and the frequency of station visits varied based on criticality. In this case, the stations falling in the most critical zone were visited every day, those in the medium criticality zone were visited every week, and the lowest criticality were stations were visited monthly. This may not be appropriate for all collection systems, but it was very effective in this case. Figure 2. Sanitary sewer pump station criticality 3. OUTLINING THE PATH FORWARD Transition for the City will involve several major activities. Each of the activities is described below in a narrative providing a descriptive explanation of the recommended path forward. 3.1 Collect Asset Data The drainage system is a complex network of ditches, pipes, gates, valves, catch basins, and other attributes that provide an interdependent service to manage surface water within the city of Auburn. It was reported that not all system attributes are currently included in the database. Each of these attributes should be identified including location, condition, and type before it is entered into the asset database. A data standard for each attribute type should be developed to ensure completeness of data collected. Data collection templates for each asset type should be developed to ensure the thoroughness and accuracy of the collection process. Technical Memorandum System Operations and Maintenance 6 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix I - Auburn Drainage Plan - O&M Review (Aug09).doc 3.1.1 Building a System Hierarchy As described earlier, the drainage system is an interdependent arrangement of ditches and pipes with a common purpose. When a single element fails the impacts may cause overloading and flooding may result. To better understand the system complexity, we recommend a hierarchical presentation of the assets. This hierarchy may look like: Zone 1: Name of zone or area System: Open ditch or pipe Component: Catch basin Part: Screen Hierarchy is an excellent method for organizing the attributes and interdependencies of a complex drainage system. 3.2 Establish Asset Criticality Risk and the perception of risk permeate asset decision-making. Most decisions on preventive maintenance, refurbishment, and replacement are typically made to avoid the risk of unexpected asset failure. Even decisions regarding expansions, improvements, and new facilities are usually made to reduce risk—risk of not meeting growth in demand, risk of failing to comply with regulatory guidelines, or risk of experiencing incidents with consequences for public health or employee safety (Ken Harlow, Brown and Caldwell). Not everything is critical and the level of effort to sustain system function varies for location to location. The maintenance resources are reported to be limited and we recommend that the frequencies of system maintenance be based upon the criticality of the system or asset being maintained. This will provide the means to ensure that resource usage is focused on the right thing and the best time. This process can be initiated with information available and updated as more data become available. 3.3 Assign Maintenance Strategies Maintenance strategies for maintaining system performance should be assigned based on the criticality of a system. The table on the following page illustrates the type of maintenance applied to an asset based on the asset criticality. Specific maintenance activities depend on the asset type. Routine maintenance may be brush cutting to maintain open ditches and lubrication on mechanical assets. The importance of this approach is to recognize that it addresses critical assets first based on the criticality of an asset and that it is intended to optimize maintenance life-cycle costs. Technical Memorandum System Operations and Maintenance 7 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix I - Auburn Drainage Plan - O&M Review (Aug09).doc Criticality-Based Maintenance Optimization Premise: There are three primary functions of maintenance: 1. Asset condition assessment and monitoring (PM and PdM) 2. Asset servicing to sustain asset condition (RM) 3. Asset replacement or reconditioning Each of these functions requires resources, directly impacting the cost of maintenance. Applying these maintenance functions based on asset criticality ensures the lowest cost of ownership. By evaluating asset likelihood and consequences of failure, a criticality value can be determined. When the criticality replaces subjective application of maintenance resources, the cost of maintenance will diminish. Criticality-based maintenance ensures that maintenance resources are directed to assets posing the greatest risk and therefore the greatest return. Asset criticality Asset interval servicing RM Asset condition assessment and monitoring Maintenance renewal standards Risk optimization High criticality Routine maintenance is applied to sustain asset condition (RM) Failure modes are identified and PdM/PM technology is applied to detect signs of a potential failure. Asset is renewed Lowest risk of failure Medium criticality Routine maintenance is applied to sustain asset condition (RM) PM/PdM technology is applied to confirm potential failure Asset is rebuilt Potential risk of failure Low criticality Routine maintenance is applied to sustain asset condition (RM) None Asset is repaired or replaced Run to failure PM = Preventive maintenance the physical inspection of assets. RM = Routine maintenance including calibration, adjustment, lubrication and replacement of wear parts. PdM = Predictive maintenance, methods used for detecting early signs of potential failure. Renewal = Asset is replace or reconditioned to precision factory standards. Rebuilt = Asset is inspected and all worn parts are replaced. Repair = Asset is inspected and all failed parts are replaced. 3.4 Integrate Work Management Practices Knowing what to do and when to do it makes maintenance effective and maximizing the efforts of labor resources improves efficiency. Maintenance is most efficient when a systematic approach is taken. Work backlogs, effective planning, and scheduling are key to an efficient maintenance process. 3.4.1 Processes Make Perfect Maintenance processes should be defined and the best means to accomplish a task should be identified. Today with the loss of senior staff we can no longer depend upon the knowledge of a few. This knowledge must be documented and used when planning repetitive projects. Each step from defining the problem, planning the work activity, and assigning the right resources can and should be implemented in the computerized maintenance program. It will save time for the experienced and reduce errors with the inexperienced. Figure 3. Criticality-based maintenance optimization Technical Memorandum System Operations and Maintenance 8 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix I - Auburn Drainage Plan - O&M Review (Aug09).doc 3.5 Performance Benchmarking Benchmarking acknowledges the strengths of a maintenance organization and pinpoints opportunities for improvement. Benchmarking not only identifies current methods, but it can be used to look for better practices within similar drainage districts. 3.5.1 Identifying the Performance Measures Performance measures should be specific to results desired. The cost maintenance per foot of a ditch, for example, may provide the rationale to move to buried infrastructure. Performance measures are most effective when they look at the performance of the organization and not that of the individual. Data collected from key performance measures can verify the cost of street cleaning and support increases where appropriate. Selecting key performance measures is critical to an effective maintenance organization. 3.5.2 Establishing Performance Standards Modern maintenance practices have captured performance standards in an effort to evaluate performance. Performance standards support organizational growth, development, and recognition for difficult work completed well. Table 1 illustrates a small sample of typical performance standards used by maintenance organizations. Table 1 – Maintenance Performance Standards Metric Measure Best in class Realistically achievable Your results Percent of emergency work orders Percent of work orders initiated as emergency work <10% 10% Estimated backlog in craft hours Craft backlog in hours ÷ craft resource hours 30 days of identified work 30 days of identified work Daily schedule attainment Percent of work completed as scheduled >90% 95% Percent of available hours planned Planned work hours ÷ total work hours >90% 80% Percent of available hours scheduled Scheduled work hours ÷ total hours worked >80% 90% 3.5.3 Developing a Maintenance Scorecard Maintenance scorecards provide proof of achievement in attaining a continuous improvement of maintenance performance. As Table 2 illustrates, stages of development relative to proven performance set in play a visual transition from reactive to “lean,” or best-in–class, performance. Table 2 – Planning and Scheduling Metrics Stage 1: reactive Stage 2: transitional Stage 3: proactive Stage 4: lean Technical Memorandum System Operations and Maintenance 9 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix I - Auburn Drainage Plan - O&M Review (Aug09).doc Unreported labor hours 21–30% 6–20% 1–5% <1% Schedule compliance 50–69% 70–79% 80–90% >90% Work backlog 8–10 weeks 6–8 weeks 4–6 weeks 2–4 weeks Overtime 16–20% 11–15% 5–10% < 5% 3.5.4 Continuous Monitoring Data Dashboard Continuous improvement requires continuous monitoring. The data dashboard sample shown below (Figure 4) provides a quick performance review of all key indicators at the same time. The dashboard provides a picture of the state of maintenance operations on a continuous basis. When people see that the work they are performing repositions the indicators, they are more responsive to completing tasks on time and drive each of the indicators in a positive direction. Figure 4. Continuous monitoring data dashboard APPENDIX J CITY OF AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN Storm Drainage Pipe Cost Estimate City of Auburn - Comprehensive Drainage Plan Trench Sawcut Pipe Size, In Diam Width, ft Depth, ft Width, ft 183.7585.75 244.586.5 305.2587.25 36688 426.7588.75 487.589.5 548.25810.25 18243036424854 Item Unit Cost Unit 18-In Diam 24-In Diam 30-In Diam 36-In Diam 42-In Diam 48-In Diam 54-In Diam Sawcut A/C Pavement4.00$ LF 8.00$ 8.00$ 8.00$ 8.00$ 8.00$ 8.00$ 8.00$ A/C Pavement Removal22.00$ SY 14.06$ 15.89$ 17.72$ 19.56$ 21.39$ 23.22$ 25.06$ Shoring/Trench Safetly1.20$ SF 9.60$ 9.60$ 9.60$ 9.60$ 9.60$ 9.60$ 9.60$ Pipe 18" PVC, D3034 SDR 3550.00$ LF 50.00$ 24" PVC, D3034 SDR 3565.00$ LF 65.00$ 30" PVC, D3034 SDR 3585.00$ LF 85.00$ 36" PVC, D3034 SDR 35100.00$ LF 100.00$ 115.00$ 130.00$ 145.00$ Pipe Bedding, Cl B 18" Storm Sewer18.00$ LF 18.00$ 24" Storm Sewer22.00$ LF 22.00$ 30" Storm Sewer26.00$ LF 26.00$ 36" Storm Sewer30.00$ LF 30.00$ 34.00$ 38.00$ 42.00$ Television Inspection4.00$ LF 4.00$ 4.00$ 4.00$ 4.00$ 4.00$ 4.00$ 4.00$ Pavement, HMA Cl 1/2 120.00$ TN 13.10$ 14.81$ 16.51$ 18.22$ 19.93$ 21.64$ 23.35$ ESTIMATED MATERIALS COST PER LF OF PIPE INSTALLED 116.75$ 139.29$ 166.84$ 189.38$ 211.92$ 234.46$ 257.00$ Include? Mobilization 7%No -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Sub-Total 116.75$ 139.29$ 166.84$ 189.38$ 211.92$ 234.46$ 257.00$ Contractor Overhead and Profit 18%Yes 21.02$ 25.07$ 30.03$ 34.09$ 38.15$ 42.20$ 46.26$ Sub-Total: 137.77$ 164.37$ 196.87$ 223.47$ 250.06$ 276.66$ 303.26$ Bonds 1.50%No -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Permits 0.75%No -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Liability Insurance 1.50%No -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Sub-Total: 137.77$ 164.37$ 196.87$ 223.47$ 250.06$ 276.66$ 303.26$ WA State Sales Tax 9%Yes 12.40$ 14.79$ 17.72$ 20.11$ 22.51$ 24.90$ 27.29$ Sub-Total: 150.17$ 179.16$ 214.58$ 243.58$ 272.57$ 301.56$ 330.56$ Construction Contingency 10%No -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Sub-Total: 150.17$ 179.16$ 214.58$ 243.58$ 272.57$ 301.56$ 330.56$ Estimators Contingency 30%Yes45.05$ 53.75$ 64.38$ 73.07$ 81.77$ 90.47$ 99.17$ Sub-Total: 195.22$ 232.91$ 278.96$ 316.65$ 354.34$ 392.03$ 429.72$ Environmental Permitting 20%No-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Engineering and Administration2 35%Yes68.33$ 81.52$ 97.64$ 110.83$ 124.02$ 137.21$ 150.40$ Engineering Design 10%Yes19.52$ 23.29$ 27.90$ 31.67$ 35.43$ 39.20$ 42.97$ ESTIMATED PROJECT COST PER LF OF PIPE INSTALLED 283.07$ 337.72$ 404.49$ 459.14$ 513.80$ 568.45$ 623.10$ 18243036424854 Assumptions: Unit Cost data source: Seattle Public Utilities, 2007 Unit Bid Analysis. Trench Width Pay Limits = 1.5 x Pipe ID + 18". Sawcut width is 24" greater then the neat line trench width. Pipe bedding is 3/8" washed gravel. Trench excavation, backfill, compaction, material handling, dewatering and pipe testing costs are included in the pipe unit price. Pavement costs consist of replacing the removed A/C pavement with 3" HMA pavement. Existing material depths may vary. HMA Pavement conversion, 2.05 T/CY Cost does not include the following items: Concrete sidewalk removal and replacement Concrete or asphalt curbs removal and replacement Pavement markings replacement Relocation and repairs of existing utilities Erosion control Removal and replacement of unsuitable materials Traffic control materials or labor Cost Per LF of Pipe Pipe Size Base Price P:\135347 Auburn Drainage Phase II\009 Storm Drainage Comprehensive Plan\Final\Appendices\Word\Appendix J - Auburn Drainage Plan - Cost Assumptions (Jun09).xls Page 1 of 1